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."
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}