When to have baby's ears pierced?

[Anonymous]

blah blah blah we're all horrible people because our culture does things differently blah blah blah. You all realize how stupid this sounds right? Clearly this is the norm in multiple cultures. You think it's gross? Don't do it with your kids and leave us alone. She's not asking your opinion on whether to do it or not.

I got mine done at 2 months (would have been earlier if I weren't born in the US - where I'm from it's just done in the hospital). I'm grateful I did, never remember any pain, never had an infection, never had them close up even when I leave earrings out a couple of days. What if I didn't want earrings? Well I would take them out and eventually the holes close. Done. Oh my lord will they get ripped out?? I was a tomboy and played hard - no, they never got ripped out, just wear the right kinds (studs or tight hoops).

My DD got hers done at 3 months, at my pediatrician, only because she won't do it before (waiting for the immune system to mature). She did a great job and it was done in a super sterile environment. She cried more when they marked her ear with the marker - the piercing bothered her less than her shots. She cried less than when I pull a onesie over her head (ok, she still really hates that, so maybe not the best comparison, but still you get the idea, it wasn't the end of the world). Then because I was caring for it we had no problems. Because I probably do a better job of cleaning, etc than a 5-7 year old girl would, let's be honest.

My ped said (and I agree with her) that she will only do it between 3 and 6 months - but not after 6 months because they are then moving around too much. After that she waits until they are 5 or so. If your baby is super chill it might go ok, but mine would not have been a good subject for this after 5 months, she would move too much and make it too hard.

[Anonymous]

I'm laughing at this because back in the eighties I did the trendy thing of having three piercings in one ear. Of course after highschool was over I never wore those ever again. They closed up long ago (wore them for years) to the point I can't even find where they were. Not even a scar. So mutilation??

[Anonymous]

Comparing it to vaccines is ridiculous. Vaccines have a benefit. Earrings are aesthetics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When she asks for it and can care for her ears herself.

What age range is this, typically? I want to be prepared.

[Anonymous]

my 6-year old has asked and I've told her sure, as long as she's okay with the pain. that stops her.

[Anonymous]

I've always thought it's sort of trashy for babies/young girls to have pierced ears, and now I live in a country where it's 100% normal to get ears pierced at birth at the hospital. My 2 yr old daughter, who has long hair she wears in barrettes, can be dressed in a huge puffy tutu and people will still look confused and ask if she's a boy or girl (b/c her ears aren't pierced).

It doesn't really make me want to have them pierced but it does give another perpsective

[Anonymous]

PP here. Wasn't comparing it to vaccines. I was comparing her reaction/discomfort to the reaction/discomfort of vaccines, e.g., the piercing bothered her less. Obviously it's different, but everyone seems to think it's so traumatic. I don't remember getting mine done. She won't remember hers, and experienced less discomfort than many other things she's been through.

I have really been surprised that people here find ear piercing so outrageous.

[Anonymous]

well, PPs, for the sake of america, please don't apply for any jobs that require you to speak on behalf of this country. for example, steer clear of the state dept, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was totally waiting for the "mutilation" poster to get on this thread! Love the stupidity of the word mutilation in context of ear piercing (and I'm anti-piercing for young children). Here is the definition of the word mutilation:


mu·ti·late
[myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA

verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


A tiny, pin dot hole is not disfigurment or removal of an appendage (this also applies to circumcision).

You just disproved your own point by posting that definition. Are you really that dense? You actually do sound like someone who would pierce their kid's ears.

People's ears are not DISFIGURED when they get them pierced. You are not depriving someone of a limb. Oh and yeah you caught me. I'm actually taking my four year old DD out to get triple piercings tomorrow. Did you skip your meds or something? You are quite nuts about this. My DD won't be able to get her ears pierced until she's a teenager and that's my prerogative just as OP has the right to do what she wants. Why don't you just worry about your own kids.

I don't care if you pierce your kid's ears, eyebrows, nose, tongue, bellybutton ... whatever. I do care that you fail to understand the definition of mutilation, which it quite literally is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs, get off your western high horses, please. piercing ears is considered a custom in many cultures.

- mom of two girls who comes from such a culture, yet chose not to pierce my daughters' ears.

Just because some consider it a custom doesn't make it okay to put holes in your baby's flesh. Some cultures systematically abuse and neglect female children as well. Is that ok just because some backwards folks value boys more? "western high horses" - sheesh.

to equate piercing ears with abuse and neglect is a serious reach, lady. get out of your little western world. yes, i wrote that.

It is mutilation to the body of a child who is too young to consent - period.

I was totally waiting for the "mutilation" poster to get on this thread! Love the stupidity of the word mutilation in context of ear piercing (and I'm anti-piercing for young children). Here is the definition of the word mutilation:


mu·ti·late
[myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA

verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


A tiny, pin dot hole is not disfigurment or removal of an appendage (this also applies to circumcision).

Are you for real?!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs, get off your western high horses, please. piercing ears is considered a custom in many cultures.

- mom of two girls who comes from such a culture, yet chose not to pierce my daughters' ears.

Just because some consider it a custom doesn't make it okay to put holes in your baby's flesh. Some cultures systematically abuse and neglect female children as well. Is that ok just because some backwards folks value boys more? "western high horses" - sheesh.

OMG! Are you seriously comparing ear piercing to systmatic abuse of women?! Really???

Not at all. Just pointing out the flaw in PP's argument that because some backwards culture does something a certain way means it is acceptable.

You aren't exactly comparing apples to oranges. You're point is quite a stretch.

No it isn't. (Not PP). I'm not sure why you don't get it. She made her point quite eloquently. I guess you're not smart enough to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was totally waiting for the "mutilation" poster to get on this thread! Love the stupidity of the word mutilation in context of ear piercing (and I'm anti-piercing for young children). Here is the definition of the word mutilation:


mu·ti·late
[myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA

verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


A tiny, pin dot hole is not disfigurment or removal of an appendage (this also applies to circumcision).

You just disproved your own point by posting that definition. Are you really that dense? You actually do sound like someone who would pierce their kid's ears.

Yeah, and most probably cut off part of her son's penis too. Makes me sick to my stomach to hear that someone does that to an innocent infant child and doesn't understand or recognize mutilation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was totally waiting for the "mutilation" poster to get on this thread! Love the stupidity of the word mutilation in context of ear piercing (and I'm anti-piercing for young children). Here is the definition of the word mutilation:


mu·ti·late
[myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA

verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


A tiny, pin dot hole is not disfigurment or removal of an appendage (this also applies to circumcision).

You just disproved your own point by posting that definition. Are you really that dense? You actually do sound like someone who would pierce their kid's ears.

People's ears are not DISFIGURED when they get them pierced. You are not depriving someone of a limb. Oh and yeah you caught me. I'm actually taking my four year old DD out to get triple piercings tomorrow. Did you skip your meds or something? You are quite nuts about this. My DD won't be able to get her ears pierced until she's a teenager and that's my prerogative just as OP has the right to do what she wants. Why don't you just worry about your own kids.

I don't care if you pierce your kid's ears, eyebrows, nose, tongue, bellybutton ... whatever. I do care that you fail to understand the definition of mutilation, which it quite literally is.

No, it's not. No matter how much you want it to be mutilation, it's just not. Hell, if it were mutilation there would be a law against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the same crazy poster posting over and over again saying it's mutilation. It's the same over the top anger in each post.

I've counted at least three separate posters saying that. I guess two of them could be the same person but I'm definitely not the only one. However, there is only one person arguing against it. The nutty daughter of an English professor who doesn't understand a dictionary definition.

[Anonymous]

Uh oh, the crazy poster has returned.