To not pay for DD's swimming lessons?

[GoingToTheZoo123]

DD is 18, she is still at college, but has a part-time job. She has about £3,500 in the bank, so she isn't short of money.

She can't swim - I had her in swimming lessons, before anyone has a go at me! from about 4-7 but she just never got it, was always scared of the water, etc.

She is now very eager to give it a go again - our local leisure centre has adult classes, so that's nice. However, she asked if we could go half and half. I said no and that she is old enough to pay for herself! She's an adult now, who has money.

AIBU?

Sorry, I should have said knowing how to swim - a swimming lesson wouldn't have been that helpful at the point at which I fell in:)

op can you afford to help her? if you can comfortably afford to help her then I dont see why not...

regardless of whats gone past....I agree with posters saying its great she suddenly wants to do this and that to me is the precious thing here....because not only is it a life skill but also a great sport to keep fit - esp in pregnancy, if she has any injury.....surely more imp than quibbling over this IF you can afford to help?

At 18 if she's still in full time education, aren't you still receiving child benefit for her? I think you should pay.

I think the importance of being able to swim is less about safety/ survival (although that is an aspect, which has more or less importance depending on where you live) and more about the opportunities that are closed to you if you cannot. Sailing, surfing, kayaking, snorkelling, diving, spear fishing, paddle boarding, body boarding .... the list is endless. I think it is a vital skill. I'm not sure why it's "so mumsnet" to think that.

I'd want to encourage her, but I don't think there's a reasonable/ unreasonable boundary on this one.

I only had swimming lessons through school, and 4 years of intermittent half hours in the pool resulted in nothing more than a desperate and exhausting doggy paddle across the width of the pool.

I found that because I couldn't tick the "can swim 50m" box on forms, that my options for activities on things like school residentials were restricted.

As I reached 16, with the DoE award as an incentive, I decided that it was time to learn to swim. I went to an adult class at the council pool, mainly used by people at least 40 years older than me, and witg the help of an instructor in the water, I got the hang of it quite quickly. A year later, I could swim a mile.

Learning to swim was life enhancing. It's an accessible sport I can do (and was the only way I could be active when I had SPD). Family holidays are much better with being able to use pools confidently. Other water sports are accessible. DH is a weak swimmer, and although he will go into a pool, it is inhibiting.

(I bought my own bike with my earnings at 19... bouyed by the experience of learning to swim at 16, I thought that it was about time for me to master 2 wheels!)

If she pays herself she's more likely to be committed to making it a success.
So... to my surprise, YANBU.

Shes a grown ass woman. She can pay for herself.

If you can afford to contribute, I think you should. She's not asking you to chip in for a new pair of shoes or some kind of shiny toy, she's asked for your financial help in gaining a basic skill that could one day save her life.

If she refused to learn when she was younger, I'm not blaming you for that, but now that she's come around to the idea later in life, I do think you should help (assuming you still have the means).

I'd offer to contribute, to motivate her, as I learned to swim as an adult and it takes some courage to go in and admit fear (I had a bad phobia after nearly drowning when v young). It's better she does it now than in her 30s.

EIGHTEEN?! Christ on a bike, you are definitely NOT being unreasonable!
You paid for lessons when she was younger, she didn't 'get' it.
Now she's a young adult, with her own money, she can learn to swim herself!

As parents we have a responsibility to teach our children important stuff. They need to be able to swim, drive, ride adequately and hold their end of he table. But if they don't learn when we offer it they have to do it once they are older and then they pay. So don't pay.

YANBU but I personally would pay because I think swimming is an important life skill. But then having said that I'd ensure my kids learned by 3-4 at the latest i.e. Before they were old enough to get scared about it

It depends entirely on how much disposable income you have and whether she often asks for money or not IMO.

If paying half would mean you'd have to make noticeable sacrifices yourself and/or if she often asks you to pay for stuff, I wouldn't do it. OTOH if you are well off enough that you wouldn't miss the money much and she very rarely asks you for money, I think it would be nice to contribute.

I'd love to know-and I am aware that it's impossible to say- how often people have been saved from drowning by their ability to swim a length of a flat calm, warm, clean pool while wearing a swimming costume. And, conversely, how often people have drowned because being able to do that has made them over confident in water.

Betrandrussell
My cousin drowned in a boating accident with the boys brigade. It was back in the 70s and he was 18 years old. He couldnt swim

Bertrandrussell: the short answer is probably very few in the situations you describe. But one could also ask how many people and kids have been saved in situations by someone who could swim? And, just as importantly imo, how many times in a lifetime does a non swimming adult miss out or stand on the sidelines?
That's the clincher for me. In the OPs shoes I might feel a bit narked that she asked me to help fund her but it is so important that I would be so invested in her gaining the skill I would absolutely contribute at the very least. Especially now she has asked because if the OP says no to her daughter, her daughter doesn't follow through with the lessons because she gets annoyed with her mother (typical 18 behaviour) then later in life this gets laid at the OPs door. I would play the long game and stump up so that my adult daughter could swim and so that my adult daughter doesn't develop a narrative that I was a barrier to her learning to swim/ was indifferent to her learning to swim. It's not fair on the OP, of course, but that's parenting, no?

One of my father's cousins drowned. He was only twelve years old. The lad was paddling in the sea, slipped and found himself out if his depth. There were a lot more drownings in the past.

The fact that the majority of children do learn to swim makes us blasé about the dangers of not being able to swim. Not teaching your child to swim is like not vaccinating them.

I think the op should support and encourage her daughter to learn to swim. Maybe she wasn't developmentally ready.

Its also not just potentially life saving, it opens up other sports
I know adults who were scared to put their face in the water in their 30s. One of whom ,according to our swim teacher was good enough to compete in her age level, and another who often swims 2 or 3 miles a week.

It's ridiculous not to agree that being able to swim well could potentially be a very useful skill to have. Those poor blokes who drowned off camber Sands couldn't swim. If they had been strong swimmers perhaps they may have been OK.

BUT I didn't do years of swimming lessons with my dcs for this reason. I did it because it's great for fitness, it's sociable and it's a sport you can do into your 90s if you so wish.

"Betrandrussell
My cousin drowned in a boating accident with the boys brigade. It was back in the 70s and he was 18 years old. He couldnt swim"

He didn't drown because he couldn't swim. He drowned because an organization that owed him a duty of care screwed up.

Oh, and the men who drowned at Camber Sands could swim. There were other factors involved in that incident.

OK Bertrand have it your way, swimming totally useless and a myth that being able to swim helps to protect against drowning. That's why a toddler who can swim has no advantage over a toddler who can't swim if they fell in a pool on holiday

He drowned because he couldnt swim, betrand. Whether he should have been in the boat is a different arguement, but that it is just the blame culture of today. He was old enough to make that decision for himself. He was an adult.

Bertrend has a point

Whilst being able to swim puts you at a slight advantage, when you actually get into difficulty, it's hard not to panic and remember what you know.

No matter how well you can swim, you can still drown.

"What factors influence drowning risk?
The main factors that affect drowning risk are lack of swimming ability, lack of barriers to prevent unsupervised water access, lack of close supervision while swimming, location, failure to wear life jackets, alcohol use, and seizure disorders.

Lack of Swimming Ability: Many adults and children report that they can’t swim.7,8 Research has shown that participation in formal swimming lessons can reduce the risk of drowning among children aged 1 to 4 years.9,10
Lack of Barriers: Barriers, such as pool fencing, prevent young children from gaining access to the pool area without caregivers’ awareness.11 A four-sided isolation fence (separating the pool area from the house and yard) reduces a child’s risk of drowning 83% compared to three-sided property-line fencing.12
Lack of Close Supervision: Drowning can happen quickly and quietly anywhere there is water (such as bathtubs, swimming pools, buckets), and even in the presence of lifeguards.13,14
Location: People of different ages drown in different locations. For example, most children ages 1-4 drown in home swimming pools.2 The percentage of drownings in natural water settings, including lakes, rivers and oceans, increases with age."
From the cdc