Cultural meaning of baby/child ear piercing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^It is not trolling to state a simple fact: you can remove earrings, but not the holes/scars left behind by piercing.

Ok, so whatever, you may be able to see them. The kid will also likely have various scars, etc. If they are that hung up on holes left from piercings as opposed to anything else, they have bigger issues.

Are you one of the posters who won't cut her kid's hair or fingernails or vaccinate them because that "violates their bodily integrity" and they can't consent?

No, I'm not. But keep reassuring yourself that only extreme/crazy people think it's unwise to pierce someone's ears--a totally unnecessary and purely decorative/sex-specific thing to do--before they are old enough to to want that for themselves.

PP is an example of mental illness at its finest. Get help, PP.

NP. If the PP is crazy for thinking it is wise to wait until a child is old enough to know whether she wants pierced ears to pierce her ears, then I have a mental illness and need help, too.

No, I agree with you on that. But if someone has a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of two earring holes from mommy and daddy? That’s mental illness.

Who said anything about a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of holes?

About being forced to wear dresses and perform/behave "like a girl" when that's really not who you are--yeah, that's different. Two small holes is not what the PP with her SIL example was talking about. At all. She was talking about forced and unrelenting gender performance. Do you get that?

Sure. So if the baby gets her ears pierced and later decides at 5,7,9,12,14,16,18... that’s shes actually a he, he can remove the earrings. Or even leave in one, or both (guys wear earrings too.) Do you get that?

If he has depression or resentment towards his parents over these two pinholes, he has greater issues.

[Anonymous]

^Oh, and to add, if the parents know their child identifies differently and still forces them to act/dress differently, thats a parent issue, not an earring or dress issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^It is not trolling to state a simple fact: you can remove earrings, but not the holes/scars left behind by piercing.

Ok, so whatever, you may be able to see them. The kid will also likely have various scars, etc. If they are that hung up on holes left from piercings as opposed to anything else, they have bigger issues.

Are you one of the posters who won't cut her kid's hair or fingernails or vaccinate them because that "violates their bodily integrity" and they can't consent?

No, I'm not. But keep reassuring yourself that only extreme/crazy people think it's unwise to pierce someone's ears--a totally unnecessary and purely decorative/sex-specific thing to do--before they are old enough to to want that for themselves.

PP is an example of mental illness at its finest. Get help, PP.

NP. If the PP is crazy for thinking it is wise to wait until a child is old enough to know whether she wants pierced ears to pierce her ears, then I have a mental illness and need help, too.

No, I agree with you on that. But if someone has a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of two earring holes from mommy and daddy? That’s mental illness.

Who said anything about a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of holes?

About being forced to wear dresses and perform/behave "like a girl" when that's really not who you are--yeah, that's different. Two small holes is not what the PP with her SIL example was talking about. At all. She was talking about forced and unrelenting gender performance. Do you get that?

Sure. So if the baby gets her ears pierced and later decides at 5,7,9,12,14,16,18... that’s shes actually a he, he can remove the earrings. Or even leave in one, or both (guys wear earrings too.) Do you get that?

If he has depression or resentment towards his parents over these two pinholes, he has greater issues.

Nobody was saying it was. You're not getting it, so you need to move on. Really. The PP's example was about parents literally forcing a child to wear dresses--that is about physically making someone conform to gender performance.

Do you also get that not liking pierced ears, as a girl, does not immediately equal "because he wants to be a he"? Serious question--what is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^Oh, and to add, if the parents know their child identifies differently and still forces them to act/dress differently, thats a parent issue, not an earring or dress issue.

Thanks so much for your enlightening comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^It is not trolling to state a simple fact: you can remove earrings, but not the holes/scars left behind by piercing.

Ok, so whatever, you may be able to see them. The kid will also likely have various scars, etc. If they are that hung up on holes left from piercings as opposed to anything else, they have bigger issues.

Are you one of the posters who won't cut her kid's hair or fingernails or vaccinate them because that "violates their bodily integrity" and they can't consent?

No, I'm not. But keep reassuring yourself that only extreme/crazy people think it's unwise to pierce someone's ears--a totally unnecessary and purely decorative/sex-specific thing to do--before they are old enough to to want that for themselves.

PP is an example of mental illness at its finest. Get help, PP.

NP. If the PP is crazy for thinking it is wise to wait until a child is old enough to know whether she wants pierced ears to pierce her ears, then I have a mental illness and need help, too.

No, I agree with you on that. But if someone has a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of two earring holes from mommy and daddy? That’s mental illness.

Who said anything about a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of holes?

About being forced to wear dresses and perform/behave "like a girl" when that's really not who you are--yeah, that's different. Two small holes is not what the PP with her SIL example was talking about. At all. She was talking about forced and unrelenting gender performance. Do you get that?

Sure. So if the baby gets her ears pierced and later decides at 5,7,9,12,14,16,18... that’s shes actually a he, he can remove the earrings. Or even leave in one, or both (guys wear earrings too.) Do you get that?

If he has depression or resentment towards his parents over these two pinholes, he has greater issues.

Nobody was saying it was. You're not getting it, so you need to move on. Really. The PP's example was about parents literally forcing a child to wear dresses--that is about physically making someone conform to gender performance.

Do you also get that not liking pierced ears, as a girl, does not immediately equal "because he wants to be a he"? Serious question--what is wrong with you?

But you’re still trying to tell me nobody should pierce a baby because this mom forced her daughter to wear dresses as a child. You sound nuts. If this isn’t the point you’re trusting to get across, what is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^It is not trolling to state a simple fact: you can remove earrings, but not the holes/scars left behind by piercing.

Ok, so whatever, you may be able to see them. The kid will also likely have various scars, etc. If they are that hung up on holes left from piercings as opposed to anything else, they have bigger issues.

Are you one of the posters who won't cut her kid's hair or fingernails or vaccinate them because that "violates their bodily integrity" and they can't consent?

No, I'm not. But keep reassuring yourself that only extreme/crazy people think it's unwise to pierce someone's ears--a totally unnecessary and purely decorative/sex-specific thing to do--before they are old enough to to want that for themselves.

PP is an example of mental illness at its finest. Get help, PP.

NP. If the PP is crazy for thinking it is wise to wait until a child is old enough to know whether she wants pierced ears to pierce her ears, then I have a mental illness and need help, too.

No, I agree with you on that. But if someone has a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of two earring holes from mommy and daddy? That’s mental illness.

Who said anything about a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of holes?

About being forced to wear dresses and perform/behave "like a girl" when that's really not who you are--yeah, that's different. Two small holes is not what the PP with her SIL example was talking about. At all. She was talking about forced and unrelenting gender performance. Do you get that?

Sure. So if the baby gets her ears pierced and later decides at 5,7,9,12,14,16,18... that’s shes actually a he, he can remove the earrings. Or even leave in one, or both (guys wear earrings too.) Do you get that?

If he has depression or resentment towards his parents over these two pinholes, he has greater issues.

Nobody was saying it was. You're not getting it, so you need to move on. Really. The PP's example was about parents literally forcing a child to wear dresses--that is about physically making someone conform to gender performance.

Do you also get that not liking pierced ears, as a girl, does not immediately equal "because he wants to be a he"? Serious question--what is wrong with you?

Why can’t the girl say, “I don’t like wearing earrings? Can I not wear them?” What part about that do you not understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious, too OP.
I had mine pierced at 13, and my three girls are all desperate to have theirs pierced earlier.
I’ll be the one to say: it’s trashy to pierce babies’ ears.

I never get this. You guys keep saying it, but no one ever has a good answer as to why its trashy. SO I think it's trashy to attach that thought to someone's baby.

They aren't your ears to pierce. Modifications to your daughter's body should be made at her discretion when she is old enough to make such a decision. I'm not sure how you can do something like this and then turn around and tell her that her body belongs to her. You've already shown very clearly that it belongs to you and to society.

Do you feel this way about haircuts as well? Honest

Of course not. Haircuts are not permanent. Surely you can see this difference?

Actually not really. I have a 15 year old (DD) and a 5 year old (DS) and both have never had hair cuts because I don't find them necessary. (Both have very long hair.) And IME, ear piercings will close if left alone. The argument that you use that hair cutting is different, I just don't agree with. Both decisions come from the parent deciding how they want their child to be presented to the world. Would balding the child be okay? I mean what you consider an acceptable hair cut maybe unacceptable to me (i.e white people that adopt or have African girl children and cut their hair really short because they don't know how to deal with coarse/curly/kinky hair--I personally think that is abuse for a black female child--but I digress). We can agree to disagree. No one still has explained why it is considered "trashy". I mean if you don't like it, fine, don't do it for your kids, but to consider it trashy, to tie that thought to a baby is just as "trashy", so own that as well.

And don't say "Well, I'm not calling the baby trashy" is a lie that you are telling yourself so that you don't feel bad about calling a baby trashy.

Nope, wrong. The holes may close, but there will always be a mark there.

Get a weird haircut, then let it grow out and a year later no one would ever know it happened. Completely different - again, surely you can see this difference?

And I'm not the one who said "trashy", but it's pretty obvious that you'd be calling the parents trashy; not the baby. It obviously was not the baby's choice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^It is not trolling to state a simple fact: you can remove earrings, but not the holes/scars left behind by piercing.

Ok, so whatever, you may be able to see them. The kid will also likely have various scars, etc. If they are that hung up on holes left from piercings as opposed to anything else, they have bigger issues.

Are you one of the posters who won't cut her kid's hair or fingernails or vaccinate them because that "violates their bodily integrity" and they can't consent?

No, I'm not. But keep reassuring yourself that only extreme/crazy people think it's unwise to pierce someone's ears--a totally unnecessary and purely decorative/sex-specific thing to do--before they are old enough to to want that for themselves.

PP is an example of mental illness at its finest. Get help, PP.

NP. If the PP is crazy for thinking it is wise to wait until a child is old enough to know whether she wants pierced ears to pierce her ears, then I have a mental illness and need help, too.

No, I agree with you on that. But if someone has a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of two earring holes from mommy and daddy? That’s mental illness.

Who said anything about a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of holes?

About being forced to wear dresses and perform/behave "like a girl" when that's really not who you are--yeah, that's different. Two small holes is not what the PP with her SIL example was talking about. At all. She was talking about forced and unrelenting gender performance. Do you get that?

Sure. So if the baby gets her ears pierced and later decides at 5,7,9,12,14,16,18... that’s shes actually a he, he can remove the earrings. Or even leave in one, or both (guys wear earrings too.) Do you get that?

If he has depression or resentment towards his parents over these two pinholes, he has greater issues.

Nobody was saying it was. You're not getting it, so you need to move on. Really. The PP's example was about parents literally forcing a child to wear dresses--that is about physically making someone conform to gender performance.

Do you also get that not liking pierced ears, as a girl, does not immediately equal "because he wants to be a he"? Serious question--what is wrong with you?

But you’re still trying to tell me nobody should pierce a baby because this mom forced her daughter to wear dresses as a child. You sound nuts. If this isn’t the point you’re trusting to get across, what is your point?

The point is, there is one person whose opinion matters when it comes to how they want to dress, accessorize, and be: that is the individual. Now, is it reasonable to get their hair cut in a certain style until they are old enough to express preference? Yes, because that is about grooming/helath. Is it reasonable to dress them in any type of clean, comfortable clothing until they are old enough to express a preference? Yes, that's down to basic comfort, health and care.

But is it completely unnecessary and potentially harmful (pain, infections, lasting marks) to pierce their ears--which has no health, grooming, comfort or care benefits whatsoever--yeah, it is. And that's different. I would argue that anyone who doesn't at least CONSIDER that the child will not want pierced ears when they're old enough to know the difference is the one who is "nuts."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^It is not trolling to state a simple fact: you can remove earrings, but not the holes/scars left behind by piercing.

Ok, so whatever, you may be able to see them. The kid will also likely have various scars, etc. If they are that hung up on holes left from piercings as opposed to anything else, they have bigger issues.

Are you one of the posters who won't cut her kid's hair or fingernails or vaccinate them because that "violates their bodily integrity" and they can't consent?

No, I'm not. But keep reassuring yourself that only extreme/crazy people think it's unwise to pierce someone's ears--a totally unnecessary and purely decorative/sex-specific thing to do--before they are old enough to to want that for themselves.

PP is an example of mental illness at its finest. Get help, PP.

NP. If the PP is crazy for thinking it is wise to wait until a child is old enough to know whether she wants pierced ears to pierce her ears, then I have a mental illness and need help, too.

No, I agree with you on that. But if someone has a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of two earring holes from mommy and daddy? That’s mental illness.

Who said anything about a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of holes?

About being forced to wear dresses and perform/behave "like a girl" when that's really not who you are--yeah, that's different. Two small holes is not what the PP with her SIL example was talking about. At all. She was talking about forced and unrelenting gender performance. Do you get that?

Sure. So if the baby gets her ears pierced and later decides at 5,7,9,12,14,16,18... that’s shes actually a he, he can remove the earrings. Or even leave in one, or both (guys wear earrings too.) Do you get that?

If he has depression or resentment towards his parents over these two pinholes, he has greater issues.

Nobody was saying it was. You're not getting it, so you need to move on. Really. The PP's example was about parents literally forcing a child to wear dresses--that is about physically making someone conform to gender performance.

Do you also get that not liking pierced ears, as a girl, does not immediately equal "because he wants to be a he"? Serious question--what is wrong with you?

But you’re still trying to tell me nobody should pierce a baby because this mom forced her daughter to wear dresses as a child. You sound nuts. If this isn’t the point you’re trusting to get across, what is your point?

The point is, there is one person whose opinion matters when it comes to how they want to dress, accessorize, and be: that is the individual. Now, is it reasonable to get their hair cut in a certain style until they are old enough to express preference? Yes, because that is about grooming/helath. Is it reasonable to dress them in any type of clean, comfortable clothing until they are old enough to express a preference? Yes, that's down to basic comfort, health and care.

But is it completely unnecessary and potentially harmful (pain, infections, lasting marks) to pierce their ears--which has no health, grooming, comfort or care benefits whatsoever--yeah, it is. And that's different. I would argue that anyone who doesn't at least CONSIDER that the child will not want pierced ears when they're old enough to know the difference is the one who is "nuts."

NP here. I’m Persian and my parents got my ears pierced when I was a baby as many people do in my culture. It is typical for us to gift the baby girls gold jewelry including earrings for birthdays.. My mom put earrings on me duringmy the first few years of my life but . I remember by the time I was about 5 I didn’t like having earrings anymore (I was a huge tomboy and not interested in jewelry) so my mom removed my earrings and the hole quickly closed up with no scar. It’s not a big deal and I don’t feel scarred from the experience literally or figuratively!

You guys need to calm down and worry about things that really matter. Instead of getting up in arms about piercing a baby’s ears redirect that energy towards helping the young girls who are victims of genetic mutilation throughout the world. THAT is something to get upset about.

[Anonymous]

Sorry for the typos I’m on my iphone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry for the typos I’m on my iphone!

And my phone obviously autocorrected genital to genetic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^It is not trolling to state a simple fact: you can remove earrings, but not the holes/scars left behind by piercing.

Ok, so whatever, you may be able to see them. The kid will also likely have various scars, etc. If they are that hung up on holes left from piercings as opposed to anything else, they have bigger issues.

Are you one of the posters who won't cut her kid's hair or fingernails or vaccinate them because that "violates their bodily integrity" and they can't consent?

No, I'm not. But keep reassuring yourself that only extreme/crazy people think it's unwise to pierce someone's ears--a totally unnecessary and purely decorative/sex-specific thing to do--before they are old enough to to want that for themselves.

PP is an example of mental illness at its finest. Get help, PP.

NP. If the PP is crazy for thinking it is wise to wait until a child is old enough to know whether she wants pierced ears to pierce her ears, then I have a mental illness and need help, too.

No, I agree with you on that. But if someone has a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of two earring holes from mommy and daddy? That’s mental illness.

Who said anything about a lasting negative impact on their happiness and wellbeing because of holes?

About being forced to wear dresses and perform/behave "like a girl" when that's really not who you are--yeah, that's different. Two small holes is not what the PP with her SIL example was talking about. At all. She was talking about forced and unrelenting gender performance. Do you get that?

Sure. So if the baby gets her ears pierced and later decides at 5,7,9,12,14,16,18... that’s shes actually a he, he can remove the earrings. Or even leave in one, or both (guys wear earrings too.) Do you get that?

If he has depression or resentment towards his parents over these two pinholes, he has greater issues.

Nobody was saying it was. You're not getting it, so you need to move on. Really. The PP's example was about parents literally forcing a child to wear dresses--that is about physically making someone conform to gender performance.

Do you also get that not liking pierced ears, as a girl, does not immediately equal "because he wants to be a he"? Serious question--what is wrong with you?

But you’re still trying to tell me nobody should pierce a baby because this mom forced her daughter to wear dresses as a child. You sound nuts. If this isn’t the point you’re trusting to get across, what is your point?

The point is, there is one person whose opinion matters when it comes to how they want to dress, accessorize, and be: that is the individual. Now, is it reasonable to get their hair cut in a certain style until they are old enough to express preference? Yes, because that is about grooming/helath. Is it reasonable to dress them in any type of clean, comfortable clothing until they are old enough to express a preference? Yes, that's down to basic comfort, health and care.

But is it completely unnecessary and potentially harmful (pain, infections, lasting marks) to pierce their ears--which has no health, grooming, comfort or care benefits whatsoever--yeah, it is. And that's different. I would argue that anyone who doesn't at least CONSIDER that the child will not want pierced ears when they're old enough to know the difference is the one who is "nuts."

NP here. I’m Persian and my parents got my ears pierced when I was a baby as many people do in my culture. It is typical for us to gift the baby girls gold jewelry including earrings for birthdays.. My mom put earrings on me duringmy the first few years of my life but . I remember by the time I was about 5 I didn’t like having earrings anymore (I was a huge tomboy and not interested in jewelry) so my mom removed my earrings and the hole quickly closed up with no scar. It’s not a big deal and I don’t feel scarred from the experience literally or figuratively!

You guys need to calm down and worry about things that really matter. Instead of getting up in arms about piercing a baby’s ears redirect that energy towards helping the young girls who are victims of genetic mutilation throughout the world. THAT is something to get upset about.

So agree with you! Sick of people trying to prove their superiority in totally inane, downright stupid arguments!

[Anonymous]

This thread is insane. I've never met an adult woman who didn't have pierced ears. My grandma is the only one who didn't have them. She's 95 and told me her mom wouldn't let her because it was for hookers when she was growing up. Grandma always wished hers were pierced as a girl and was too afraid as an adult to get them done. She still wore earrings daily though, but the clasp kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is insane. I've never met an adult woman who didn't have pierced ears. My grandma is the only one who didn't have them. She's 95 and told me her mom wouldn't let her because it was for hookers when she was growing up. Grandma always wished hers were pierced as a girl and was too afraid as an adult to get them done. She still wore earrings daily though, but the clasp kind.

Really? You've never met one? I'm one and so is my mother. Nothing against anyone who has them, but neither of us like them for ourselves. My DD doesn't have pierced ears now - I would no more think of piercing her ears than I would get her a tattoo - but if she wants them when she is older then that's fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is insane. I've never met an adult woman who didn't have pierced ears. My grandma is the only one who didn't have them. She's 95 and told me her mom wouldn't let her because it was for hookers when she was growing up. Grandma always wished hers were pierced as a girl and was too afraid as an adult to get them done. She still wore earrings daily though, but the clasp kind.

Really? You've never met one? I'm one and so is my mother. Nothing against anyone who has them, but neither of us like them for ourselves. My DD doesn't have pierced ears now - I would no more think of piercing her ears than I would get her a tattoo - but if she wants them when she is older then that's fine.

Two of my aunts, three of my same-age cousins, and a few of my friends don't have pierced ears. I really don't think its so uncommon.

Plus...you've met your grandma, right? So you...have...met an adult woman who doesn't have peirced ears.