Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely aside from whatever cultural thing is going on, I honestly think that piercing a young baby's ears is practically easier than when we got my DD's ears pierced for her 7th birthday at her request. If she had been 2 months, she wouldn't have been rolling, wouldn't have had hair to get tangled in anything, and would have been fine with me cleaning them. When she was 7, all that stuff was an issue. I strongly considered piercing our second DD's ears for that reason, but DH was against it.

Your examples are exactly why we chose earlier. She had no clue they were even there at 3mo. Cleaning was a breeze. She never touched them once.

So...what about the girls who grow up and DON'T want that? My SIL was literally stuffed and forced into dresses. She hates the outward trappings/signs of femininity, and never got her ears pierced. Why is whether or not your baby daughter would actually WANT pierced ears when she's old enough to know the difference not even a factor in these decisions?!

If your SIL still holds such resentment towards her parents for putting her in dresses, she should seek psychiatric evaluation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely aside from whatever cultural thing is going on, I honestly think that piercing a young baby's ears is practically easier than when we got my DD's ears pierced for her 7th birthday at her request. If she had been 2 months, she wouldn't have been rolling, wouldn't have had hair to get tangled in anything, and would have been fine with me cleaning them. When she was 7, all that stuff was an issue. I strongly considered piercing our second DD's ears for that reason, but DH was against it.

Your examples are exactly why we chose earlier. She had no clue they were even there at 3mo. Cleaning was a breeze. She never touched them once.

So...what about the girls who grow up and DON'T want that? My SIL was literally stuffed and forced into dresses. She hates the outward trappings/signs of femininity, and never got her ears pierced. Why is whether or not your baby daughter would actually WANT pierced ears when she's old enough to know the difference not even a factor in these decisions?!

Oh well. She can take them out.

Will she also be mad I let her eat meat, take Tylenol, use tampons. I don’t know what to tell you.

If she has true lasting issues with these things, the problem is bigger than earrings and vegetarianism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely aside from whatever cultural thing is going on, I honestly think that piercing a young baby's ears is practically easier than when we got my DD's ears pierced for her 7th birthday at her request. If she had been 2 months, she wouldn't have been rolling, wouldn't have had hair to get tangled in anything, and would have been fine with me cleaning them. When she was 7, all that stuff was an issue. I strongly considered piercing our second DD's ears for that reason, but DH was against it.

Your examples are exactly why we chose earlier. She had no clue they were even there at 3mo. Cleaning was a breeze. She never touched them once.

So...what about the girls who grow up and DON'T want that? My SIL was literally stuffed and forced into dresses. She hates the outward trappings/signs of femininity, and never got her ears pierced. Why is whether or not your baby daughter would actually WANT pierced ears when she's old enough to know the difference not even a factor in these decisions?!

OP, this should answer some of your questions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_piercing#Ear_piercing

My Jewish Hungarian grandmother had her ears pierced as a small child in the late 19th century before immigrating. It seemed to be a traditional thing. My parents wouldn't even let me get mine pierced until I was a teen.

Anonymous wrote:It’s very common in many cultures. African, middle eastern, south Asian, and some Asian.

It’s just not very common among whole people.

So when someone says it’s trashy, I just think they don’t like what brown people do.

Agreed. Indian married to a Jewish guy. We compromised and got our girls ears pierced at 8 and 5. The 5 year old was supposed to wait but literally leaned into the chair at Claire’s. My mother had been dying to see them wear earrings, but she died before I could get their ears done. It’s a sign of beauty and in our culture you feel undressed with unadorned ears and in some cases if you don’t have a nose ring (my grandma had one and she was born in 1914, as traditional as they come). It may even be seen as inappropriate not to have earrings. But people should do what they please. Personally, I’m not a fan of painted nails on grown women. I won’t use the t word, but it does look strange to me, and juvenile (I don’t mind it on kids).

Anonymous wrote:Body mutilation should be done with consent of the person getting it. A baby cannot give consent.

Agreed. Same goes for circumcision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well maybe it’s not trashy. But it’s jarring and not cute.

It is a cultural difference. For me it is so sweet to see little girls wearing gold earring and signifies that the parents will look after her needs and not scrimp on providing expensive things like gold jewellery to her. To me it was jarring, not cute and very sad to see neglected girls with unpierced ears. See how this works?

In this country, the upper class did not need to use a baby or daughter to signal their status. One's name was enough. Using your child to signal wealth or status would have been considered ostentatious.

This country, the U.S.A., where the purported ethos is it's not who you are but what you make of yourself that matters? I don't think "one's name is enough" even now to signal status. Obviously, you aren't talking about the Native American names. The few Boston Brahmin families or Dutch New Yorkers do not have a stranglehold over American wealth. Even the Astors, Du Pont, Rockefeller. Vanderbilt were later settlers from the gilded age.

PP you clearly aren't from an upper class family in the U.S.A. if you don't understand this. Names were enough is a reference to the blue book(s) that exist(ed) in most American cities, especially on the East Coast. Those families all knew/know each other and neither wealth nor social status is in question.

If you are talking about the Social Register, at present there are no more than 25,000 names on it - hardly a full representation of wealth or status. No one in Boston cares if your name is in the blue book or specific country club register in Pensacola.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well maybe it’s not trashy. But it’s jarring and not cute.

It is a cultural difference. For me it is so sweet to see little girls wearing gold earring and signifies that the parents will look after her needs and not scrimp on providing expensive things like gold jewellery to her. To me it was jarring, not cute and very sad to see neglected girls with unpierced ears. See how this works?

In this country, the upper class did not need to use a baby or daughter to signal their status. One's name was enough. Using your child to signal wealth or status would have been considered ostentatious.

This country, the U.S.A., where the purported ethos is it's not who you are but what you make of yourself that matters? I don't think "one's name is enough" even now to signal status. Obviously, you aren't talking about the Native American names. The few Boston Brahmin families or Dutch New Yorkers do not have a stranglehold over American wealth. Even the Astors, Du Pont, Rockefeller. Vanderbilt were later settlers from the gilded age.

PP you clearly aren't from an upper class family in the U.S.A. if you don't understand this. Names were enough is a reference to the blue book(s) that exist(ed) in most American cities, especially on the East Coast. Those families all knew/know each other and neither wealth nor social status is in question.

We’re south Asian and it’s very common to pierce baby girls’ ears but there’s no meaning behind it. I wish I had done it when my daughter was a baby. At five there was a lot of drama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well maybe it’s not trashy. But it’s jarring and not cute.

It is a cultural difference. For me it is so sweet to see little girls wearing gold earring and signifies that the parents will look after her needs and not scrimp on providing expensive things like gold jewellery to her. To me it was jarring, not cute and very sad to see neglected girls with unpierced ears. See how this works?

In this country, the upper class did not need to use a baby or daughter to signal their status. One's name was enough. Using your child to signal wealth or status would have been considered ostentatious.

This country, the U.S.A., where the purported ethos is it's not who you are but what you make of yourself that matters? I don't think "one's name is enough" even now to signal status. Obviously, you aren't talking about the Native American names. The few Boston Brahmin families or Dutch New Yorkers do not have a stranglehold over American wealth. Even the Astors, Du Pont, Rockefeller. Vanderbilt were later settlers from the gilded age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well maybe it’s not trashy. But it’s jarring and not cute.

It is a cultural difference. For me it is so sweet to see little girls wearing gold earring and signifies that the parents will look after her needs and not scrimp on providing expensive things like gold jewellery to her. To me it was jarring, not cute and very sad to see neglected girls with unpierced ears. See how this works?

In this country, the upper class did not need to use a baby or daughter to signal their status. One's name was enough. Using your child to signal wealth or status would have been considered ostentatious.

Anonymous wrote:It’s very common in many cultures. African, middle eastern, south Asian, and some Asian.

It’s just not very common among whole people.

So when someone says it’s trashy, I just think they don’t like what brown people do.

It is/was considered lower class in this country because WASPs and other upper class whites have never done it. As black and brown folks move into the upper class its no longer necessarily a designation of class.

Body mutilation should be done with consent of the person getting it. A baby cannot give consent.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it means anything specific just a tradition.

+1. From a country where this is common.