Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got our DD ears pierced at 4 months because her father gets keloids and the risk of keloids increases with age. If she were to "opt" for earrings at 9 or older it would increase her chance of getting keloids. Coupled with the fact that culturally it is the norm for babies to have earrings I saw it as a no brainer. Those who would look down on me for that choice would probably look down on me regardless so I'm not going to not do what I see fit because of them.

OP, as soon as I opened this thread I knew where the posters were going to go. It is a bit sad but no unexpected.

One person was rude and maybe racist. No one else was. I think baby ears with earrings look a little trashy. I also think white girls who tan too much look trashy. Neither opinion is racist.

Um - do you not understand that by calling people trashy, you are one of the posters that the PP is talking about. You may not be racist, but you are definitely a classist who think you're better than other people. That's almost the same thing.

yes, it was the "Klassy" and "trashy" comments that I was refrencing along with the fear of being outed as a "hispanic" comment that I was referencing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got our DD ears pierced at 4 months because her father gets keloids and the risk of keloids increases with age. If she were to "opt" for earrings at 9 or older it would increase her chance of getting keloids. Coupled with the fact that culturally it is the norm for babies to have earrings I saw it as a no brainer. Those who would look down on me for that choice would probably look down on me regardless so I'm not going to not do what I see fit because of them.

OP, as soon as I opened this thread I knew where the posters were going to go. It is a bit sad but no unexpected.

WOW, I cannot believe you would pierce your child's ears when keloids run in the family.

The risk is decreased when the ears are pierced when the child is young. Keloids run in HIS family and not mine. My child is very fair and the risk is therby decreased as well. The risk to her is very low given her skin tone and given that NO ONE in my family has keloids but as a precautionary measure we got them down early because studies shows that the risk increases with age and markedly so after the age of 9.

I'm AA and my mom give me sh*t everytime she sees DD (who is 5 now) without her ears pierced. Why why why dont I get them pierced? For me, the only reason to pierce her ears as a baby/now would be because I want to look at them pierced and I dont care. When DD asks to have it done I'll take her to get it done. Until then, I wish my MIL and my mom would stop asking already.

Anonymous wrote:We got our DD ears pierced at 4 months because her father gets keloids and the risk of keloids increases with age. If she were to "opt" for earrings at 9 or older it would increase her chance of getting keloids. Coupled with the fact that culturally it is the norm for babies to have earrings I saw it as a no brainer. Those who would look down on me for that choice would probably look down on me regardless so I'm not going to not do what I see fit because of them.

OP, as soon as I opened this thread I knew where the posters were going to go. It is a bit sad but no unexpected.

WOW, I cannot believe you would pierce your child's ears when keloids run in the family.

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Wow, did not mean for this to get so... heated... and racist. We're South Asian, and yes it is quite common for very young babies to have it done. I was on the fence about it for my own DD but thought it would be nice for when she gets a bit older to make it a fun thing to do together if she wants it. The more rational/ non racist/ normal folks on here, would 8 be a good age to take her to have them done?

I was 8 when I got mine pierced. My parents said I had to wait 'til 16, but I really wanted to and made what I thought was a very persuasive case. Ultimately they made me a deal that I wouldn't get anything ELSE pierced, or get a tattoo, or even talk about either, until I was 21. Which was smart, I think -- I might have gotten a tattoo at 18 or 19 otherwise, and now I'm glad I didn't. I think it depends on age, though -- my sister didn't want to get hers done until she was 10 or so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents had a rule for my sisters and I that we had to wait until 13 to get our ears pierced.

Of the three of us, only one got her ears pierced, my older sister and I both don't have pierced ears. I've loved not having pierced ears. I never had to worry about having earrings pulled at during sports or activities, etc.

Why not give your daughters the option to decide for themselves if they want to have their ears pierced.

What a weird reason to "love" not having your ears pierced. You know you can just remove the earrings before playing, right?

How many kids remove them every day for recess?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents had a rule for my sisters and I that we had to wait until 13 to get our ears pierced.

Of the three of us, only one got her ears pierced, my older sister and I both don't have pierced ears. I've loved not having pierced ears. I never had to worry about having earrings pulled at during sports or activities, etc.

Why not give your daughters the option to decide for themselves if they want to have their ears pierced.

What a weird reason to "love" not having your ears pierced. You know you can just remove the earrings before playing, right?

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, 13:29, I'll take that as you have no answer. This about this: we are all worse off when things that aren't racist get labeled that way. Real racism happens. Let's save our condemnation for that and allow for otherwise geniune cultural tastes and disagreements.

NP here - You don't think being afraid that someone might think you're *gasp* hispanic is racist? What's wrong with being hispanic? The rest was just classist, though there does tend to be some overlap, but I suspect intersectionality is not something you're interested in.

OP, we all know the only appropriate way to raise your daughter is the way middle class white women do it, so I suggest you start bleaching your daughter's skin and giving her an eating disorder asap.

"Intersectionality" - that is not something that registers here. Love you for bringing it up anyway

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got our DD ears pierced at 4 months because her father gets keloids and the risk of keloids increases with age. If she were to "opt" for earrings at 9 or older it would increase her chance of getting keloids. Coupled with the fact that culturally it is the norm for babies to have earrings I saw it as a no brainer. Those who would look down on me for that choice would probably look down on me regardless so I'm not going to not do what I see fit because of them.

OP, as soon as I opened this thread I knew where the posters were going to go. It is a bit sad but no unexpected.

One person was rude and maybe racist. No one else was. I think baby ears with earrings look a little trashy. I also think white girls who tan too much look trashy. Neither opinion is racist.

Um - do you not understand that by calling people trashy, you are one of the posters that the PP is talking about. You may not be racist, but you are definitely a classist who think you're better than other people. That's almost the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Wow, did not mean for this to get so... heated... and racist. We're South Asian, and yes it is quite common for very young babies to have it done. I was on the fence about it for my own DD but thought it would be nice for when she gets a bit older to make it a fun thing to do together if she wants it. The more rational/ non racist/ normal folks on here, would 8 be a good age to take her to have them done?

I would wait until 12 when she better understands the permanence of the decision. You don't have to decide now, of course. You can wait and see how mature she is at 8.

I just think this whole permanence thing is ridiculous. It's not like getting your ears pierced is this horrible thing that people will make fun of you for the rest of your life for and you will regret. It's actually pretty damn common. I mean, let's start a poll - how old were you when you got your ears pierced and do you think you are disfigured??

Anonymous wrote:My parents had a rule for my sisters and I that we had to wait until 13 to get our ears pierced.

Of the three of us, only one got her ears pierced, my older sister and I both don't have pierced ears. I've loved not having pierced ears. I never had to worry about having earrings pulled at during sports or activities, etc.

Why not give your daughters the option to decide for themselves if they want to have their ears pierced.

What a weird reason to "love" not having your ears pierced. You know you can just remove the earrings before playing, right?

No, no reason to do it early. No reason to do it at all other than the mom thinks it's cute and wants to do it. It comes down to parents making decisions to permanently make alterations to their children's bodies and it has nothing to do with race.

Anonymous wrote:OP, did you have your ears pierced as a baby? I did not, but all my in-laws are Indian and they say the advantage of piercing an infant girl's ears is that once they're older, their holes won't close up as they do if you pierce as a teenager and go without earrings for awhile (as mine did). I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it is a major disadvantage in my book.

I am not the OP, but I am Indian and my ears were pierced when I was baby. I actually was unaware until reading DCUM that this is something that people look down upon. I guess I'll just have to let my wealthy, highly educated parents know that they are actually trashy and poor and just never realized it.

Anyway, to answer your question PP, my original earring holes from when I was a baby have never closed up, despite going months at a time without wearing earrings. Meanwhile, the 2nd earring holes that I pierced back in the 80s closed up super quickly when I stopped wearing earrings in them. So there may be something to your in-laws theory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, 13:29, I'll take that as you have no answer. This about this: we are all worse off when things that aren't racist get labeled that way. Real racism happens. Let's save our condemnation for that and allow for otherwise geniune cultural tastes and disagreements.

NP here - You don't think being afraid that someone might think you're *gasp* hispanic is racist? What's wrong with being hispanic? The rest was just classist, though there does tend to be some overlap, but I suspect intersectionality is not something you're interested in.

OP, we all know the only appropriate way to raise your daughter is the way middle class white women do it, so I suggest you start bleaching your daughter's skin and giving her an eating disorder asap.

And this is what irks me to death about this board. All of the "I just love the diversity and international culture I am exposed to living in DC" is just a bunch of b.s. when you think about it. They're just as close minded as their small hometowns they look down on.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, 13:29, I'll take that as you have no answer. This about this: we are all worse off when things that aren't racist get labeled that way. Real racism happens. Let's save our condemnation for that and allow for otherwise geniune cultural tastes and disagreements.

NP here - You don't think being afraid that someone might think you're *gasp* hispanic is racist? What's wrong with being hispanic? The rest was just classist, though there does tend to be some overlap, but I suspect intersectionality is not something you're interested in.

OP, we all know the only appropriate way to raise your daughter is the way middle class white women do it, so I suggest you start bleaching your daughter's skin and giving her an eating disorder asap.