Anonymous
Post 04/07/2013 08:13     Subject: Re:When to have baby's ears pierced?
Anonymous wrote: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.

OP, baby mutilator here. Thanks- this was exactly the information I was looking for.

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
Post 04/07/2013 06:38     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
OP has this thread convinced you NOT to pierce your baby's ears or that you should not have posted about it on DCUM? LOL.
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 23:19     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:NP, ear piercing is the furthest thing from mutation, it's tacky as are bows, but not mutation.

This is Jenny McCarthy meets Alicia Silverstone logic, period.


Well you have a point there


Speaking of "Clueless"...
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 23:09     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
Anonymous wrote:NP, ear piercing is the furthest thing from mutation, it's tacky as are bows, but not mutation.

This is Jenny McCarthy meets Alicia Silverstone logic, period.


Well you have a point there
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 23:07     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
Anonymous wrote:NP, ear piercing is the furthest thing from mutation, it's tacky as are bows, but not mutation.

This is Jenny McCarthy meets Alicia Silverstone logic, period.


Mutation! Thanks for a great contribution to this dialogue!
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 23:06     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
Bows aren't painful. Seriously?
Or permanent. And I know some will say ear piercing isn't either, but effects can be. My nephew had a bad reaction, infected piercing and permenant scar.
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 23:02     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
NP, ear piercing is the furthest thing from mutation, it's tacky as are bows, but not mutation.

This is Jenny McCarthy meets Alicia Silverstone logic, period.
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 22:49     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Uh oh, the crazy poster has returned.


21:59? Yep, she sure did.

Unless you're talking about me and I'm a new poster. Hence the point that there are several people making similar and very logical arguments who understand a dictionary definition.


Another poster here who understands the dictionary definition. It is embarrassing how thick this person seems to be. Her English professor parent would be horrified to see the lack of basic comprehension here.


Or perhaps the two of you should be ashamed of your lack of understanding. PP accused her of being non-englisgh speaking since she didn't agree with her. Thus the reason for stating the english professor parent. Honestly, the fact that the two of you can't understand that two pin holes is not destruction is beyond me. Now branding is mutilation.


No, it was because she didn't understand that ear piercing is by definition mutilation -- even based on the exact definition she posted. Not because she didn't agree. There is nothing subjective about it.
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 22:45     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
Anonymous wrote: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


For real? These people sound incredibly stupid...no offense.
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 22:38     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Uh oh, the crazy poster has returned.


21:59? Yep, she sure did.

Unless you're talking about me and I'm a new poster. Hence the point that there are several people making similar and very logical arguments who understand a dictionary definition.


Another poster here who understands the dictionary definition. It is embarrassing how thick this person seems to be. Her English professor parent would be horrified to see the lack of basic comprehension here.


Or perhaps the two of you should be ashamed of your lack of understanding. PP accused her of being non-englisgh speaking since she didn't agree with her. Thus the reason for stating the english professor parent. Honestly, the fact that the two of you can't understand that two pin holes is not destruction is beyond me. Now branding is mutilation.
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 22:27     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Uh oh, the crazy poster has returned.


21:59? Yep, she sure did.

Unless you're talking about me and I'm a new poster. Hence the point that there are several people making similar and very logical arguments who understand a dictionary definition.


Another poster here who understands the dictionary definition. It is embarrassing how thick this person seems to be. Her English professor parent would be horrified to see the lack of basic comprehension here.
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 22:13     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
To the posters who think it's mutilation do you have your ears pierced? Mutilation is to destroy or cause serious injury. It means to to inflict serious damage. Yes, if you look up the word you will find those descriptions as well. So if you think a tiny pin hole meets those standards then to you, yes, it's mutilation. But I thnk for the rest of us who most likely have pierced ears, we don't find our ears to be destroyed or to have serious damage. So although I would not pierce a child's ears, I certainly wouldn't be so undone as to call it mutilation. I have a couple of friends who have DD's with pierced ears and to be honest it just never bothers me. Honestly has nothing to do with me.
Anonymous
Post 04/06/2013 22:05     Subject: When to have baby's ears pierced?
Anonymous wrote:Uh oh, the crazy poster has returned.


21:59? Yep, she sure did.

Unless you're talking about me and I'm a new poster. Hence the point that there are several people making similar and very logical arguments who understand a dictionary definition.