ear piercing

[Anonymous]

circumcision leads to less chance of your son getting AIDS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm

[Anonymous]

I really don't think is a socio-economic status issue. The decision to pierce an infant's ears is often cultural and/or based on the experience of the mother. Perhaps, in this area, it is also a matter of having international exposure. The latter two was the basis for our decision to have our pediatrician pierce my 5 month. I am white, from a wealthy and educated family, top 10 university educated for both undergrad and grad, and have traveled extensively. I, unapologetically, chose to have a pediatrician pierce my daughters ears in part because my ears were pierced at 3 months and I never experienced infections or closures in my entire life. I wished my daughter to have the same easy experience with a piercing that we would have done eventually anyway. My ears were pierced at 3 months because my parents were foreign service children who grew up surrounded by cultures where infant ear piercing was the norm regardless of socio-economic status.

It's still a visceral question, though. Let's own that. Like hair bows or ruffled panties for babies, except piercing is a form of mild mutilation. "Cultural" in this specific instance is another way of saying in X culture, the people want to make their girl babies pretty, and they believe that earrings are pretty. It's not medicinal or spiritual or elevating, which is what I suspect the "it's cultural" explanations here seem to tacitly suggest.

In your worldwide travels, for instance, did your family also adopt practices like Karo face and body painting? The Karo tribal women scarify their chests, rubbing ash into the wound, because they believe that to be beautiful. If you were assigned to Australia, did your parents decide to begin painting your brothers faces in the Aboriginal manner? Would your parents think Ghanian face scarring was a good procedure for their daughters, although you are not Ghanian? In some Inuit societies, women tattoo black lines under the chin of very young girls, yet oddly, this has not caught on in the lower 48.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I really don't think is a socio-economic status issue. The decision to pierce an infant's ears is often cultural and/or based on the experience of the mother. Perhaps, in this area, it is also a matter of having international exposure. The latter two was the basis for our decision to have our pediatrician pierce my 5 month. I am white, from a wealthy and educated family, top 10 university educated for both undergrad and grad, and have traveled extensively. I, unapologetically, chose to have a pediatrician pierce my daughters ears in part because my ears were pierced at 3 months and I never experienced infections or closures in my entire life. I wished my daughter to have the same easy experience with a piercing that we would have done eventually anyway. My ears were pierced at 3 months because my parents were foreign service children who grew up surrounded by cultures where infant ear piercing was the norm regardless of socio-economic status.

It's still a visceral question, though. Let's own that. Like hair bows or ruffled panties for babies, except piercing is a form of mild mutilation. "Cultural" in this specific instance is another way of saying in X culture, the people want to make their girl babies pretty, and they believe that earrings are pretty. It's not medicinal or spiritual or elevating, which is what I suspect the "it's cultural" explanations here seem to tacitly suggest.

In your worldwide travels, for instance, did your family also adopt practices like Karo face and body painting? The Karo tribal women scarify their chests, rubbing ash into the wound, because they believe that to be beautiful. If you were assigned to Australia, did your parents decide to begin painting your brothers faces in the Aboriginal manner? Would your parents think Ghanian face scarring was a good procedure for their daughters, although you are not Ghanian? In some Inuit societies, women tattoo black lines under the chin of very young girls, yet oddly, this has not caught on in the lower 48.

in my stateside living i have found many women who think that cutting open their chests and inserting silicone packets is a sign of beauty!

[Anonymous]

so does teaching him not to sleep around, 13:54....!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:circumcision leads to less chance of your son getting AIDS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm

. . . . possibly, if you live in Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:circumcision leads to less chance of your son getting AIDS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm

. . . . possibly, if you live in Africa.

....... and don't use protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:circumcision leads to less chance of your son getting AIDS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm

. . . . possibly, if you live in Africa.

....... and don't use protection.

Good point. But, you know, it's just a lot easier to whack off that nasty foreskin. Really, who wants to be bothered by teaching hygiene and sexual restraint and all that stuff?

Sorry, OP, we are hijacking your thread. I just LMAO at these people who are citing the African studies as reasons to circumcise their American babies. I guess they are completely unaware that in this county most AIDS cases have occurred among men who have sex with men and who, in my experience, were more likely to be circumcised than not (according to self-report, not something I actually saw, mind you).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I really don't think is a socio-economic status issue. The decision to pierce an infant's ears is often cultural and/or based on the experience of the mother. Perhaps, in this area, it is also a matter of having international exposure. The latter two was the basis for our decision to have our pediatrician pierce my 5 month. I am white, from a wealthy and educated family, top 10 university educated for both undergrad and grad, and have traveled extensively. I, unapologetically, chose to have a pediatrician pierce my daughters ears in part because my ears were pierced at 3 months and I never experienced infections or closures in my entire life. I wished my daughter to have the same easy experience with a piercing that we would have done eventually anyway. My ears were pierced at 3 months because my parents were foreign service children who grew up surrounded by cultures where infant ear piercing was the norm regardless of socio-economic status.

It's still a visceral question, though. Let's own that. Like hair bows or ruffled panties for babies, except piercing is a form of mild mutilation. "Cultural" in this specific instance is another way of saying in X culture, the people want to make their girl babies pretty, and they believe that earrings are pretty. It's not medicinal or spiritual or elevating, which is what I suspect the "it's cultural" explanations here seem to tacitly suggest.

In your worldwide travels, for instance, did your family also adopt practices like Karo face and body painting? The Karo tribal women scarify their chests, rubbing ash into the wound, because they believe that to be beautiful. If you were assigned to Australia, did your parents decide to begin painting your brothers faces in the Aboriginal manner? Would your parents think Ghanian face scarring was a good procedure for their daughters, although you are not Ghanian? In some Inuit societies, women tattoo black lines under the chin of very young girls, yet oddly, this has not caught on in the lower 48.

Apparently, you have a viseral reaction. You can own that.

For some cultures, ear piercing is spiritual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't think is a socio-economic status issue. The decision to pierce an infant's ears is often cultural and/or based on the experience of the mother. Perhaps, in this area, it is also a matter of having international exposure. The latter two was the basis for our decision to have our pediatrician pierce my 5 month. I am white, from a wealthy and educated family, top 10 university educated for both undergrad and grad, and have traveled extensively. I, unapologetically, chose to have a pediatrician pierce my daughters ears in part because my ears were pierced at 3 months and I never experienced infections or closures in my entire life. I wished my daughter to have the same easy experience with a piercing that we would have done eventually anyway. My ears were pierced at 3 months because my parents were foreign service children who grew up surrounded by cultures where infant ear piercing was the norm regardless of socio-economic status.

Which cultures are those, PP? Not Western European?

So? Not all of us are from Western Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:circumcision leads to less chance of your son getting AIDS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm

. . . . possibly, if you live in Africa.

....... and don't use protection.

Good point. But, you know, it's just a lot easier to whack off that nasty foreskin. Really, who wants to be bothered by teaching hygiene and sexual restraint and all that stuff?
Sorry, OP, we are hijacking your thread. I just LMAO at these people who are citing the African studies as reasons to circumcise their American babies. I guess they are completely unaware that in this county most AIDS cases have occurred among men who have sex with men and who, in my experience, were more likely to be circumcised than not (according to self-report, not something I actually saw, mind you).

Yes, because they are mutually exclusive. You either "whack" off foreskin and let your son fend or himself or you have frank and important conversations. What a load of sanctimonious horsesh*t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:circumcision leads to less chance of your son getting AIDS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm

. . . . possibly, if you live in Africa.

....... and don't use protection.

Good point. But, you know, it's just a lot easier to whack off that nasty foreskin. Really, who wants to be bothered by teaching hygiene and sexual restraint and all that stuff?
Sorry, OP, we are hijacking your thread. I just LMAO at these people who are citing the African studies as reasons to circumcise their American babies. I guess they are completely unaware that in this county most AIDS cases have occurred among men who have sex with men and who, in my experience, were more likely to be circumcised than not (according to self-report, not something I actually saw, mind you).

Yes, because they are mutually exclusive. You either "whack" off foreskin and let your son fend or himself or you have frank and important conversations. What a load of sanctimonious horsesh*t.

I was deliberately oversimplifying the circumcision debate; of course the two aren't mutually exclusive. I personally don't care much about circumcision either way. I just find it puzzling that Americans are putting such stock in African studies while overlooking the fact that circumcision hasn't helped American men avoid HIV infection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't think is a socio-economic status issue. The decision to pierce an infant's ears is often cultural and/or based on the experience of the mother. Perhaps, in this area, it is also a matter of having international exposure. The latter two was the basis for our decision to have our pediatrician pierce my 5 month. I am white, from a wealthy and educated family, top 10 university educated for both undergrad and grad, and have traveled extensively. I, unapologetically, chose to have a pediatrician pierce my daughters ears in part because my ears were pierced at 3 months and I never experienced infections or closures in my entire life. I wished my daughter to have the same easy experience with a piercing that we would have done eventually anyway. My ears were pierced at 3 months because my parents were foreign service children who grew up surrounded by cultures where infant ear piercing was the norm regardless of socio-economic status.

Which cultures are those, PP? Not Western European?

So? Not all of us are from Western Europe.

Of course not. I was just noting that most of the cultures that practice infant ear piercing are not Western European cultures, and was asking which cultures her parents were surrounded by growing up, since she said that in those cultures infant ear piercing was the the norm. Even "Italians from Jersey" is a culture, and my assertion is that this is mostly a culturally based practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give me a BREAK! I never knew this was such a hotly debated item.

We got our DD's ears pierced at 11m at a reputable jewelry store in Alexnadria. I had mine pierced at a very young age and never regretted it. Our 2.5yo still wears the very tiny pearl earrings that we got them pierced with. If she really REGRETS them, she can take them out and let the holes close up. I didn't do it because I wanted everyone to think my child was beautiful, I did because I wanted to and think she will like them. I also didn't do it because it was a cultural thing. They did them so fast that DD didn't even cry between each ear and afterwards only cried for about 30 secs.

I can see how it might be harder on a child when they are older and that's why we did it so young.

I think some posters are saying there are cultural and perhaps class associations with ear piercing for infant and toddler girls. Do you find early ear piercing is common among others who share your racial/ethnic and cultural background?

I am the pp here - I am also originally from South Florida (white, upper middle class, highly educated) but my DH did not object. All of the women in my family and his got their ears pierced at an early age. Most of my friends have boys, but the few that have girls do have their ears pierced (they are not from S FL). The earrings we got for my DD are so small that most people don't even notice. If I wanted to SHOW OFF my DD I would have chosed large gaudy earrings, but instead she has very tiny pearl earrings.

As for pp who said "Just the fact that someone inflicts unnecessary pain on her baby (she CRIED??!!!!) simply blows my mind. I am dreading the One Year wellness visit where my son will get a series of shots AND some blood taken for lead tests and that's for his own good! tell us again: What GOOD are earrings? oh, yeah, they are pretty!"

GET REAL! The pain is so minimal (2 quick pinches) and she won't remember it! Same goes with shots. I don't get in a tizzy when she has to get a shot. First, she WON"T REMEMBER it! Second, the shots are for her own good and she tends to get over the minimal pain in less than a minute. You probably make it worse because your baby can sense that you are tense and babies and little kids tend to feed off of your emotions. I don't get worked up, so DD doesn't think it's a big deal. Either nurse or give a bottle right away. Give a little motrin before the appt. Give stickers when they get older. You went through it, I went through it and at least I know I'm not scarred for life over shots or having my ears pierced. I don't like to see my DD in pain, but you are being a little overdramatic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am the pp here - I am also originally from South Florida (white, upper middle class, highly educated) but my DH did not object. All of the women in my family and his got their ears pierced at an early age. Most of my friends have boys, but the few that have girls do have their ears pierced (they are not from S FL). The earrings we got for my DD are so small that most people don't even notice. If I wanted to SHOW OFF my DD I would have chosed large gaudy earrings, but instead she has very tiny pearl earrings.

As for pp who said "Just the fact that someone inflicts unnecessary pain on her baby (she CRIED??!!!!) simply blows my mind. I am dreading the One Year wellness visit where my son will get a series of shots AND some blood taken for lead tests and that's for his own good! tell us again: What GOOD are earrings? oh, yeah, they are pretty!"

GET REAL! The pain is so minimal (2 quick pinches) and she won't remember it! Same goes with shots. I don't get in a tizzy when she has to get a shot. First, she WON"T REMEMBER it! Second, the shots are for her own good and she tends to get over the minimal pain in less than a minute. You probably make it worse because your baby can sense that you are tense and babies and little kids tend to feed off of your emotions. I don't get worked up, so DD doesn't think it's a big deal. Either nurse or give a bottle right away. Give a little motrin before the appt. Give stickers when they get older. You went through it, I went through it and at least I know I'm not scarred for life over shots or having my ears pierced. I don't like to see my DD in pain, but you are being a little overdramatic!

I am the other PP from South Florida and couldnt agree more. It is so not a big deal. My ears are pierced and so DD's ears will be pierced and if she decides she doesnt like them, she'll take them out and will go on with her life.

[Anonymous]

A lot of white upper (middle) class women on this site seem to be in denial so I'll just spell it out for you: Well-educated upper class whites (usually WASPs) do not pierce baby's ears ever. They considered it a custom of the poor or of immigrants (can be mutually exclusive) and look upon the practice with distaste (true WASPs). One could egneralize the beilief as "a smocked dress makes a baby girl pretty not the infliction of holes in her ears." I have never seen a WASP baby with pierced ears and those of a "certain generation" would not have even pierced their ears as grown-ups (for obvious reasons). When I was 16, and my mother 46, I talked her into piercing her own ears and mine. My grandmother was aghast and said, "if God had wanted holes in your ears, he would have put them there." This is the waspy truth, harsh though it may be. If you are a WASP and your baby has pierced ears, I guarantee that other WASP moms have noted it and comment on it behind your back. You probably don't care, and good for you, but don't kid yourself, they are talking.



P.S. - in reality, none of this matters all that much. Pierce a baby's ears if you think its pretty, don't if you dislike it. The only thing that I think people are really reacting strongly to here is a mother "HOLDING DOWN A SCREAMING THREE YEAR OLD TO PIRCE HER EARS" That seems cruel and unusual.