I will be open to the idea once A) my daughter is interested in it and B) when she's old enough to care for her ear piercing herself, especially in the early days after the piercing is done.

The hygiene thing is because it is not unusual for pierced ears to become infected. I see this frequently among the 5 to 7 year old girls that have their ears pierced in the elementary school where I work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sixteen. Not a second before their sixteenth birthday if they want to have it done (one DD didn't want to while the other did).

My feeling is that it is their body and their choice. I would never force a piercing on my baby any more than I would a tattoo.

You do realize the hypocrisy of your statements here, right?

NP here and I feel exactly the same way and am waiting until my DD is responsible enough to make the best decision. There is no hypocrisy in telling a child that they have to wait until they are responsible. At five, DD wanted a tattoo. Should I have said yes because it is her body and her decision?


So OP - 16 and not one second sooner.

I got mine done when I was a few months old and would do the same for any daughter. I'm in my 30s now and the piercing is not gaping in any way. I'm a bit baffled by all the hygiene comments, keeping my ear piercings clean has never been an issue and I wouldn't do anything differently even if I didn't have any piercings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daughters ears pierced straight after birth.

+1 and our family is about as far from white trash as you can get

What does this even mean?

Had mine done at 6, after years of aggressive lobbying, begging, and cajoling. My mom never had hers done because her generation was taught that it was for "loose" girls, so it was an uphill battle.

DD is almost 6, and I've told her she can have her ears pierced when/if she wants, but she says she isn't interested. I guess my answer is if/whenever she's ready and agrees to take care of the piercings. If she never wants to do it, that's OK too.

Anonymous wrote:I used to say 12 or 13.

It's looking more like 9 now.

My child is not stepping foot in a tattoo parlor to get it done, however! God.

It's not a parlor anymore, Mildred.

Anonymous wrote:Sixteen. Not a second before their sixteenth birthday if they want to have it done (one DD didn't want to while the other did).

My feeling is that it is their body and their choice. I would never force a piercing on my baby any more than I would a tattoo.

You do realize the hypocrisy of your statements here, right?

I used to say 12 or 13.

It's looking more like 9 now.

My child is not stepping foot in a tattoo parlor to get it done, however! God.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daughters ears pierced straight after birth.

+1 and our family is about as far from white trash as you can get

Not trashy then, just elitist and judgmental. Nice.

How did you get that from my post? Seriously explain this to me.

Calling someone white trash is the definition of elitist and judgmental, classist, what have you. Nothing new on dcum, but disgusting and trashy anyway.

Yes and I didn't call anyone white trash. The thread this one is based on called anyone who got their infant's ears pierced "white trash". You certainly jumped to a very biased conclusion though didn't you? How judgement of you. Nice.

I got mine done at 6 and told my oldest she could then. She wasn't interested- rather, the idea scared her. She just decided she was ready this past summer at 9 years old.
My youngest is already asking and I've told her 6 (she's 4).

I always said we would do it if/when it became important to her. It became important when she was 9.

Oh, and we went to Claire's. Quelle horreur!!