Abuse or Adornment?

I was walking through the local mall the other day and heard a baby crying. Screaming, actually, a tone which any parent would recognize as a kid in pain. Naturally I looked around to see what was happening and I saw this young mother with her young, perhaps 6 months, child in an earring kiosk, having the kids ear pierced.

It occurred to me that, if she had swatted a misbehaving toddler on the butt, half the people in the place would have reported her for abusing the child, but because she's having it's ear pierced, nobody looked twice. It seems like the only one who was unhappy with the whole process was the child.

Now, I'm not a big fan of body piercing or tattoos or even ostentatious displays of jewelry. So I want to know if there are others out there who consider this kind of thing to be abusive. Do parents have the right to "mutilate" their children for decorative purposes? When does it move beyond decorative and become disfiguring?

My kids once expressed an interest in getting tattoos when they were around twelve or thirteen. I told them when they were old enough to live on their own and could afford to have it done they could do it then. I wouldn't pay for it, nor tolerate it. They're old enough now, and living on their own, and neither of them seem at all interested in getting tattoos now. What happens in 15 or 20 years when this little girl grows up and decides she really doesn't like having her ear pierced, or wearing earrings? Can she force her parents to pay for the surgery required to eliminate any scarring?

Thorne - you found one of my pet peeves! I think it's just silly. Although I doubt the girl will ever not want pierced ears (even I have one hole in each ear, and I'm not a piercing fan), it still seems to me to be ridiculous to have babies and little girls walking around wearing earrings. In my opinion it's just another example of the sexualization of young girls, long before it's appropriate.

As far as it being abuse...circumcision would be in the same category, and very few parents choose to pass on that. I personally think it's barbaric, but that's just me. I did not have either one of my sons circumcised. And would have never had my daughters ears pierced either, until they were at least teenagers and wanted it themselves.

As far as tattoos - I have none. But, my eldest son had wanted one for years, and knew what he wanted...so for his high-school graduation gift I allowed him to get one and paid for it. He had it done at one of the top places in the US (had to wait several months for the actual appointment, after meeting with the artist to work out the details). It's been almost a year, and he's very happy with it. He got the Cherokee seal in the middle of his upper back, between the shoulder blades. He's part Cherokee, so at least it's somewhat apropos.

WOW- its just like putting a dog in a sweater!

I personally believe that a child's body belongs to themself, and we shouldn't be doing anything to alter it without their knowledge and consent (with the exception of medically necessary procedures).

Any future sons of ours will absolutely not be circumsized as infants (jeanne, I was completely thinking this too when I saw the OP). Fortunately it is not so mainstream anymore.... where we live in Canada, only 30% of baby boys are circ'd.

As for our baby girl, I suspect we will be getting her ears pierced at some point, but only when she wants it done. I was 8 when I got mine, and for me it was a pretty good age. I had been pestering my mom for about a month so it was definitely my decision, and I was old enough to understand that it was going to hurt. I was also old enough to understand how to take care of them, and although my mom supervised to make sure I was doing it right, it was my responsibility to clean and turn them everyday until they healed.

I don't agree with people piercing their baby girls' ears, but if she ever decides not to wear earings at least she can take them out. Doesn't quite work that way with a foreskin.

As for tattoos.... I don't have a huge problem with them once people are old enough to make an intelligent decision. I don't think I would pay for it either. My advice to them would be to settle on a design, and live with it for a while. Like a good year. And if you still love it after a year, then think about getting a tattoo. I had a bunch of friends in high school who went out the day they turned 18 and got whatever they could afford on the wall in the lobby of the tattoo shop. I can only imagine how they feel about them now.

i am not a big fan at all of tattoos, earings ect are a bit diffeent, but i personaly think a parent should wait til the child is a bit older, maybe alaw that prohbits parents from piercing ant childs ears before they are say 1, but that is just my thought, in the area i live in it is heavly hispanic, no i am not predudice towards them in any way shape or form, but i always notice evey hispanic child i have everseems around her, seems to have pieirced ears (female not male infants) almost at birth, it is so cmmon that when i see a 6 ,month of female bayb with no ears pieircing it am suprised, but i gues each to his or her own

When I was a kid, I was a major tomboy. My parents were constantly having to correct people who made comments on my gender or tried to pull me out of the girls bathroom. In reaction, they had my ears peirced when I was 7 years old and insisted I wear earrings daily.

I still carry a bit of resentment for their reasoning and, once I got on my own, I let the holes close. I'm not against people piercing or tattooing their bodies. It is just that chosing body art should be the decision of the person whose body has to wear it.

Most professional piercers here in the UK wont pierce a child's ears until they are 12 years old.
My daughter is 11 and has had her ears done for a few months now ( her father got them done last summer) and then we had them re-pierced a few weeks back. That age group is just about right for a child to have thier ears done personally speaking. My daughter had been badgering us to get her ears done for the last 3 years lol.

As for tatoos... im a fine one to talk... I have 6. My 1st one was done when I was 24. Each tat represents something of me and not just some stupid disney character.

cg

Ok so don't flame me too badly but I asked my daughter (14) to post on this topic as I am one of the dreaded parents who pierced her daughter's ears without her consent and no, I don't let her read the whole board, just thought as this relates directly to her, she might have a thought to express.

We openly debate on many topics that people may think I shouldn't but hope I'm helping her in making her more independent and ready for the reality of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tayler

I had my ears pierced at 3 months old.

So okay....well, I'm going to add in my 2 cents....or dollar.

When you're that young, sure, you have no consent, but you also don't care. You have a three second attention span, so yeah, you're going to cry, but a minute later you'll probably be asleep, or hungry, and you'll forget all about what happened. There is no 'trauma' there is no 'Oh no, that poor child'. When they're older, they won't stand in front of the mirror resenting their parents for doing that to them when they were little. Because once they turn four, it'll already be apart of them.

I have even more piercings now, and plan to have more in the future. I never once thought about how I hate my first ones. It was just sort of like "Oh, I have my ears pierced...huh." It wasn't a problem for me. It won't be a problem for that child. If she/he doesn't want them when they are older, they'll just take them out and wait a while till they grow back. Sure, it might take a while, but it'll grow over. There is no scarring, so I don't know what's up with that. And who cares if you have a hole in your ear for a while? Nobody is going to loathe you for it. In this day and age, it's like a freckle. It's not a big deal.

It is NOT abuse, in my opinion only. There is no lasting emotional damage. There is no neglect on the parents part. And unless the parent comes at the child with a piercing gun and staples their body to pieces, I don't see it as physical abuse, either. The fact that almost everything has been turned into abuse now is sickening and pathetic. Yes, I understand that if a mother or father smacks his/her child over the head and screams at him, that is something to call real abuse. To say that she or he is abusing his or her child with an ear piercing....I don't get that personally.

Either way, the kid will live through it. They won't start a school shooting because of it. They'll grow up with it. Hell, I'm sorry if this sounds so unreasonable but, -GASP- WOW! They might actually even like it. There.

My dollar input. Oh, and by the way, I don't see why people are posting about tattoos. The thread isn't about that. It was only used an example.

Ciao.

---

Lots of good opinions and incites, here. I especially enjoyed hearing from Tayler. And for the most part, I agree with her outlook. They probably won't be upset about it when they grow older. Unless, of course, the whole piercing thing is way out of fashion, which is highly likely. And as for scarring, it's true that most people won't have a problem. But there are some who WILL scar. My mother's family cannot have their ears pierced because their ears become disfigured from scarring.

I'm not a big fan of piercing or tattooing, but I do understand that people can do what they want with their own bodies. It's only the forcing of little children, who are unable to express any opinion, to undergo the procedure for the sole purpose of making the PARENT feel cool!

As for circumcision, I'm not sure about it. I was circumcised at birth, as were my two boys. At the time, the pediatricians recommended it for medical reasons. Was it right? I don't know, but I didn't choose to have them circumcised just so I could show people their little circumcised cocks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Lots of good opinions and incites, here. I especially enjoyed hearing from Tayler. And for the most part, I agree with her outlook. They probably won't be upset about it when they grow older. Unless, of course, the whole piercing thing is way out of fashion, which is highly likely. And as for scarring, it's true that most people won't have a problem. But there are some who WILL scar. My mother's family cannot have their ears pierced because their ears become disfigured from scarring.

I'm not a big fan of piercing or tattooing, but I do understand that people can do what they want with their own bodies. It's only the forcing of little children, who are unable to express any opinion, to undergo the procedure for the sole purpose of making the PARENT feel cool!

As for circumcision, I'm not sure about it. I was circumcised at birth, as were my two boys. At the time, the pediatricians recommended it for medical reasons. Was it right? I don't know, but I didn't choose to have them circumcised just so I could show people their little circumcised cocks!

---

Tayler and I both thank you Thorne and you do raise a point - My reason for doing it was entirely aside from me and I explained it to her why early so she could choose to keep them or not.

I got my ears pierced after long amounts of begging to my step monster - I was given it at Christmas at 13 - the gift was the permission, I had to pay for it and take care of them.

Turns out I'm allergic and had a great swollen red ear - nice for a 13yr old starting Gr. 9 lol. I thought if I did Tayler's early, she would build a natural immunity to it and could choose later to keep them or not.

As it turns out, she has no reaction to them and as she said, has another set and another one single on one ear and is ecstatic that she can wear any cosmetic jewellery that Arden's or Claire's has to offer.

For the record - she's a tomboy but loves buying and trying earrings - that goes to ponder....by my action, have I created a fetish? hehe - I truly don't think so as when I got my navel pierced, the gurl ripped me a new one about safety, dangers and did I really think it all through lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

As for circumcision, I'm not sure about it. I was circumcised at birth, as were my two boys. At the time, the pediatricians recommended it for medical reasons. Was it right? I don't know, but I didn't choose to have them circumcised just so I could show people their little circumcised cocks!

---

so.... to speak to Tayler's post.......do you think you should have been given the choice?

or is it just a matter of your parents did what they hoped is a good decision for you, as did you of yours?

if given the choice, for yourself only; to turn it all back to the day....... would you choose differently?

I think we all grow up under our parents influence (good or bad), so maybe I've made her Too liberal but all I know at the end of the day is that gurl is All her own (with some of me in her good conscience, I hope).

She asked me today...."I wonder why I'm not interested in guys and relationships yet?" (and we have talked through the lesbian/bi aspect) - I told her it's likely cause she doesn't feel the intrigue or mystery of sex largely because I've wrecked it for her with knowledge lol and she knows about it so it's no longer an unknown desireable (unspeakable to a lot of parents, talking openly about sex), as it is for many teenagers - she's far too self aware now (good or bad, I'll not know for awhile but feels right)

I do understand, Thrasher, what you mean by "to do it for the cool factor" and that's sad for them, yes. My gurl, and my supporting her in all she desires is paramount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mastersgem

Tayler and I both thank you Thorne and you do raise a point - My reason for doing it was entirely aside from me and I explained it to her why early so she could choose to keep them or not.

I got my ears pierced after long amounts of begging to my step monster - I was given it at Christmas at 13 - the gift was the permission, I had to pay for it and take care of them.

Turns out I'm allergic and had a great swollen red ear - nice for a 13yr old starting Gr. 9 lol. I thought if I did Tayler's early, she would build a natural immunity to it and could choose later to keep them or not.

As it turns out, she has no reaction to them and as she said, has another set and another one single on one ear and is ecstatic that she can wear any cosmetic jewellery that Arden's or Claire's has to offer.

For the record - she's a tomboy but loves buying and trying earrings - that goes to ponder....by my action, have I created a fetish? hehe - I truly don't think so as when I got my navel pierced, the gurl ripped me a new one about safety, dangers and did I really think it all through lol

---

I'm glad that she's happy with her piercings, and that she's smart enough to worry about Mom!

I'm curious about your reaction, though. What are you allergic to, the piercing tool or the metal of the earring posts? The brief description you gave ("a great swollen red ear") sounds more like an infection to me, especially since you have obviously gotten more piercings.

But it does show that things can go wrong, and a small child, especially, might not be physically capable of handling a massive infection or allergic reaction. At least the mother I saw didn't try to do it herself, but took the kid to a "professional" (a 20-something clerk manning a kiosk in the mall).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mastersgem

so.... to speak to Tayler's post.......do you think you should have been given the choice?
or is it just a matter of your parents did what they hoped is a good decision for you, as did you of yours?
if given the choice, for yourself only; to turn it all back to the day....... would you choose differently?

---

I honestly don't know the answer to this. As I said, my wife and I were following the advice of the pediatrician, a man we both trusted. My parents were doing the same. I haven't had any need (or desire) to keep up since then so I don't know the current thinking, but if the choice came up now I would probably have to say no. After all, as Tayler said, a baby has a 3-second attention span: he gets over it quickly. As a grown man, I doubt that I would want to place my "manhood" under the knife unless absolutely necessary, medically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I'm glad that she's happy with her piercings, and that she's smart enough to worry about Mom!

I'm curious about your reaction, though. What are you allergic to, the piercing tool or the metal of the earring posts? The brief description you gave ("a great swollen red ear") sounds more like an infection to me, especially since you have obviously gotten more piercings.

---

Yes, it's a reaction to the material, even gold will make my ears flare. I had my navel pierced not even thinking about this sensitivity my ears experience. Turns out I can only wear titanium, or those kinds of metals or my body will react to it.

Even in my accident, when they internally banded my shattered heel with metal, my body rejected it and they had to do another operation to remove what was supposed to be a permanent placement.

My body may not like the intrusions but I love my piercings regardless hehe

i hate seeing young kids with piercings,ive actually been criticised for not allowing my children to have theirs pierced until they reach their teens.

so many people i know have their babys and toddlers pierced and i hate that...it causes them pain they have a much higher risk of infection and are also much more likely to end up having an accident and tearing the damn things out!
it amazes me that many piercers will do it in the first place.

what is the point in having very young childrens ears pierced anyway? do they think it makes their kids more attractive? or is it a fashion statement for themselves (putting aside those that do it for religion..though i think that just as wrong too)

one of my pet peeves too :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icey

... they ... have a much higher risk of infection and are also much more likely to end up having an accident and tearing the damn things out!

---

I hadn't even thought about the accident part. Though it does seem that today's kids are much less active than I remember being. They wouldn't have lasted an hour on my ears once I was allowed outside by myself.

Quote:

---

what is the point in having very young childrens ears pierced anyway? do they think it makes their kids more attractive? or is it a fashion statement for themselves (putting aside those that do it for religion..though i think that just as wrong too)

---

I think it is wrong, too, but at least a religious reason is understandable. Even cultural reasons, truly cultural, as in something that's been going on for as long as people can remember. But as near as I can tell, the vast majority of those who have their kids' ears pierced do it for the same reason that people dress their pets up in bizarre clothing, or they create these elaborate Halloween costumes for kids who can't even walk yet: they think it's cute!

I have heard of people piercing baby girls' ears when they are going through the typical bald-headed-baby stage and the parents are tired of strangers mistaking them for boys. I figure pink outfits work just as well.

Can't it be both? No pain, no gain!

ok i'm going to insert my opinion here. I personally waited until my daughters were old enough to ask, and i let them wait for several months after the discussion to make sure that is what they wanted. They were 7.
However, when i was in high school i had a job as an ear piercer at Claire's Boutique. I remember Christmas time there were line's out the door for parents getting their childs ears pierced. And i cannot tell you how many crying children and babies i pierced. I never quite looked at as abuse per say, but i was uncomfortable with the idea. That is why i waited on my children. My brother and his wife had their daughter's ears done when she was a few months old. I disapproved but i don't think it was abusive.

About what I expected on these responses. Most people seem to accept the idea of piercing an infant to some degree or another. And to be honest, I don't really consider it abusive as such, just unnecessary.

But my real question, I suppose, is: Why is it acceptable (at least to many) to inflict pain on a child for no reason than to satisfy the parent's need for attention, while it is considered unacceptable to inflict pain on a child for disciplinary reasons, as evidenced by the increasing numbers of parents being charged with abuse for spanking their children?

And don't try to tell me that corporal punishment doesn't work. Up to a certain age it's almost the only thing that DOES work, and sometimes it is the best way to convince a child that they were wrong. If you burn your hand on a hot stove you learn real quick not to place your hand on the stove, don't you? And if a child learns that certain actions will bring him pain he will avoid those actions, won't he?

So the next time you see a hassled young mother swat her child in the store, look at your own child's pierced ear and ask yourself, Who's the bad mother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

About what I expected on these responses. Most people seem to accept the idea of piercing an infant to some degree or another. And to be honest, I don't really consider it abusive as such, just unnecessary.

But my real question, I suppose, is: Why is it acceptable (at least to many) to inflict pain on a child for no reason than to satisfy the parent's need for attention, while it is considered unacceptable to inflict pain on a child for disciplinary reasons, as evidenced by the increasing numbers of parents being charged with abuse for spanking their children?

And don't try to tell me that corporal punishment doesn't work. Up to a certain age it's almost the only thing that DOES work, and sometimes it is the best way to convince a child that they were wrong. If you burn your hand on a hot stove you learn real quick not to place your hand on the stove, don't you? And if a child learns that certain actions will bring him pain he will avoid those actions, won't he?

So the next time you see a hassled young mother swat her child in the store, look at your own child's pierced ear and ask yourself, Who's the bad mother?

---

Good Point Thorne, Good Point

Personally, my own mother insisted that I waited until I was old enough to decide that I wanted it, and also made me wait it out to make sure it wasnt a Phase. i was 8...then a few more years later she realized I liked it and then proceeded to let me have my 2nd and 3rd ear piercing plus my cartlidge(sp). She wouldn't watch, but paid for 2, made me pay for two, signed and left to other side of the store.(she didn't like the *crunch* after the 2nd. Either way, when I do have children, I don't think that piercing will be a good idea until the child is consciously able to care for the earring herself, as there are many infections and problems that can accompany this, accidents, etc...again, my two cents. (I do also believe though that a gentle, yet firm [if that makes sense] swat on the behind for misbehaving is appropriate in certain circumstances :-)

I would consider a piercing for a child every bit as serious in potential infection terms as a cosmetic surgery procedure and couldn't in conscience put them through until they are able to give informed consent for it to be done, in the knowledge of the potential scarring, cheloid tissues and infections that can result.

ok. I had my daughter's ears pierced when she was four months old. She cried for a minute then fell asleep. Never had a problem. No infections, no issues. She is now six and loves to change her earrings often. I did not do it for attention. I did it because she is a girl. And because I didnt want to wait til she was old enough to say STOP after the first one was in. Just wanted to get it over with. Abuse? hardly. She is my world and I love her more than anything else in my life. Would I do it again? yes I would. It actually never occurred to me that people would see it as abuse. Because I don't see it that way. I am not tryng to sound angry. I just believe that as a parent it is my right to decide what is and isn't right for my child.

I decided to wait until my daughter was old enough to ask, she was 5 when she started asking so I prepared her as best a mother could and off we went to get them done. within about a week I realized that 5 year olds are not clean children..it didn't seem to matter how often I cleaned and turned them they would not heal properly, after about 2 weeks the infection would not let up and I had no choice bet to remove them for her, she was heartbroken. It was several years later that she went back on her own and had them done again...a young adult now she has had several piercings and is always looking for new ideas.

Had I known then what I know now I would have had them done when she was still a baby, I'm sure it hurts less than circumcision on a baby boy ;)

As for tattoo's when she began asking I told her that when she decides what she wants and where she was to let me know..if she still wanted the same thing in the same spot a year later I would sign whatever was needed to get it...she was 18 and went on her own for her first one LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fyregrrrl

ok. I had my daughter's ears pierced when she was four months old. She cried for a minute then fell asleep. Never had a problem. No infections, no issues. She is now six and loves to change her earrings often. I did not do it for attention. I did it because she is a girl. And because I didnt want to wait til she was old enough to say STOP after the first one was in. Just wanted to get it over with. Abuse? hardly. She is my world and I love her more than anything else in my life. Would I do it again? yes I would. It actually never occurred to me that people would see it as abuse. Because I don't see it that way. I am not tryng to sound angry. I just believe that as a parent it is my right to decide what is and isn't right for my child.

---

I'm not claiming that it actually is abuse, just that it could be perceived as such. And though you may not have specifically been doing it for attention, I can't help but feel that some form of bid for attention has to play a part, at least subconsciously. After all, the baby doesn't really understand that her ear is pierced, she's not trying to blend in with her friends, she's only interested in eating, sleeping and pooping, not necessarily in that order. And doing it just because she's a girl doesn't make sense to me, either. Aside from being stereotypical, who's to say whether pierced ears will still be popular, or even acceptable, five or ten years down the road?

Of course, being masculine and not exactly a fashion leader, perhaps my perceptions of this ritual are flawed from the start. It's just that I can't help feeling that deep down inside, whether they want to admit it or not, mothers are doing this for their own reasons, which may or may not have anything to do with their child's ultimate welfare. I'm not saying they're wrong, but I'm not sure they're right, either.

well, I guess you are entitled to your opinions. I really didn't put deep philosophical thought into it when I did it. I just did it. And as for it being popular or in fashion.....I could care less about those things. They do not motivate what I do. I have thirteen tattoos. Never imagined I would be defending my decision to pierce her ears though. In my world it is a normal thing to do. I guess for me what matters is she likes it, she is happy and it has never ever caused any grief. Strange how something you see as normal can be so disagreeable to others. Kinda like BDSM in a way I guess. I do appreciate your input, Thorne. And I respectfully agree to disagree.

I heard from a acuaintance(however you spell that) of mine that does lots of piercings that the average age for a girl to get her first piercings (ears) is at 8 and for boys it is 12. That is here in Sweden though and I am pretty darn sure it differs around this blue ball we live on.

My opinion, for what it's worth ("Not much!" I hear you chorus) is that, whether it's abuse, or unkind, or just misguided, it shouldn't happen to a child until it knows what's going to happen and that it will (a) hurt for a while , (b) be (semi-) permanent and (c) be subject to the child's agreement.

I think I understand why it's done: a little girl can look very pretty with sparkling ear studs (but she would look as if she were trying to be an adult if she had large gypsy hoops through her ears - my opinion again.) But a baby in a pram? Or even a toddler? I just don't see the need. Why not give her a nipple ring, too, and maybe something on her labia?

Tayler's response was very thoughtful and eloquent, and I nearly agreed ...! I'm glad she's happy with her piercings, but when all's said and done, a piercing at 3 months is entirely unnecessary, and it could just as easily have happened at some other age when she was old enough to choose by herself, supposing she wanted to.

I don't have girls, but if I had, I know I wouldn't have done it to them - I'd have let them decide if and when for themselves (actually, I'd have waited until it happened, because the thought just wouldn't have entered my head). I do have boys. One of them put a ring in his eyebrow as soon as he left school (school wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing - and they were a bit fussy about girls' earrings too). I frowned disapproval, but let him go ahead (and I'm sure I paid for it somehow!). Almost as soon as he left home, he let it grow out. He has never chastised me for being a bad parent by not getting him pierced at an earlier age, however.

As a mother of two sons, i cannot comment on ear piercings. i DO however, have a comment on circumcision. As a nurse, i do know that circumcised males have less chance of infection. I also know that there is nothing worse than a teen, or an adult male having to be circumcised. At that age, it is very painful and harder to heal. As infants, the pain is minimal and chance of infection is lessened because of parental care. Both of my boys were circumcised within hours of being born and they have no lasting memories or trauma from it. I chose to do it strictly for health reasons and because in my opinion, it was best for them. I did not even consider it to be a form of abuse.

As for tattoos, i have three. I cannot in good conscience tell my sons "No! you absolutely cannot have one!!!" What i can do is to stress that they are permanent, that what they like today may not be what they like ten years from now, advise to place in an area that can be covered by clothing if necessary for job interviews and such, and tell them they have to wait until the legal age of 18. My oldest son just got his first one. He researched the designs for six months until he chose one, and the placement fits the requirements above.

My children are like me and express themselves as they want in their dress and their hair. My oldest is now 18 and if he wishes to get tatts or piercings, i will counsel him as best i can, but the decision is now his. My youngest is 15 and he knows that he has to wait for tattoos or piercings. I think all parents want what's best for their children, and except in those cases of abuse, do not purposefully go out to harm their children. Mothers who choose to have their daughters(or sons) ears pierced early probably look at it the way I looked at circumcision. They are young, it will be over quickly, and there will be no long lasting traumatic feelings.

i have a story that fits here...in the circumcision category..............

My father was never circumcized. No girl should know that about her daddy. Here's how i know:

i was the one who had to take Dad in to the doctor when his foreskin flared up......at the age of 58. All of the years of experience in taking care of himself (and he was a very clean individual) meant absolutely nothing when he got infected. It took maybe a day or two for the infection to cause plenty of symptoms, right down to making him weak and flu-ish. He had a fever and since he was diabetic, the whole mess was complicated.

And, (as my stepmonster loved to share this) i know that he never had sex after that. He died at 67, and would have been more able, but from what stepmonster said, it was too painful after being circumcized at his age.

Just something to think about.

I want to thank all those contributing to this discussion. It's been far more interesting and educational than I'd imagined when I asked the original question. It's been very thought provoking.

I believe understand why those mothers (I think they were all mothers) felt it was right to have their daughters' ears pierced at such a young age, and believe me, I am not criticizing. Whether I believe it's right or wrong is immaterial: they are your children, and your responsibility.

For my part, I would have to join with those who feel that it's something which should wait until the child is old enough to make her (or his) own decision, after being told all the pro's and con's of the matter. I don't have any daughters, so I'm speculating, but I might even go so far as to require my daughter to pay for the procedure herself, with the idea that if she is not mature enough to save the money required, she's probably not mature enough to make the decision.

The same would apply, of course, to tattoos. I don't have any and I don't particularly care for them. Like tydnchaynz, I think they should wait until they are 18, or at least old enough to hold a part time job. My two boys are both over 21 and out on their own and, to the best of my knowledge, do not have any tattoos or piercings. I seem to recall (my memory is quite fickle at this age) that one of them once asked about getting a tattoo, and his mother and I both decided that he should wait until he was older. The subject never came up again.

When the subject of circumcision arose I was caught off guard. I never would have related the two subjects. But in this case, as I stated earlier, it's a medical procedure, done by a doctor in a hospital, for a valid medical reason. As parents we have the right to decline such a procedure if we wish. It's certainly not life-threatening if the child is not circumcised, though there can be medical complications down the road, as stripedangel noted. I don't believe you can equate this with a purely cosmetic procedure such as ear piercing, especially when performed by a non-medical person in a mall kiosk!

Thanks again, everyone, for your comments.

***quick note about the "mall kiosk"***

My child had her ears pierced by a Registered Nurse who owns his own piercing shop. He is the only person I will go to for piercings (I have had a few done over the years) because he is surgically sterile and provides excellent follow up care.

I would never let a sixteen year old with a piercing gun near my daughter! LOL

sorry to hear about your fathers passing,, mine who passed the other yr was also not circumsized ,,i know becuz i am a former nurse, i took care of him in the hospital and at home,, he luckiley never had any complications from his foreskin being intact,, as for cleanlyness issues,, its greatly and hotly debated in the medical comunity, just like infant ear piercing apparently lol, who is to judge such things other than the parents and the society they live in, i mean really, what about things like female circumsision?? wtf right? but the Masai in kenya used to practice it regularly despite many girls dieing from the process, its not my cup of tea thats for sure, it feels wrong to me, but i am not going to say they are full of crap or anything for doing it, infant ear piercing , if it was so terible, would have a law or too concerning its preformance by now ,,,wouldnt it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

sorry to hear about your fathers passing,, mine who passed the other yr was also not circumsized ,,i know becuz i am a former nurse, i took care of him in the hospital and at home,, he luckiley never had any complications from his foreskin being intact,, as for cleanlyness issues,, its greatly and hotly debated in the medical comunity, just like infant ear piercing apparently lol, who is to judge such things other than the parents and the society they live in, i mean really, what about things like female circumsision?? wtf right? but the Masai in kenya used to practice it regularly despite many girls dieing from the process, its not my cup of tea thats for sure, it feels wrong to me, but i am not going to say they are full of crap or anything for doing it, infant ear piercing , if it was so terible, would have a law or too concerning its preformance by now ,,,wouldnt it?

---

Sorry, I've got to jump in here at the comparison. There is a major difference between a debate about removing a bit of foreskin and what happens in genital mutilation. The young girl isn't 'circumcised,' she has her entire clitoris excised and, sometimes, even the labia minor is removed as well. Additionally, some of the surgeries include sewing shut the vagina, leaving only a narrow opening for menstrual blood to flow out. The procedure is usually not done in a sterile setting within a hospital but is performed in back alleys and back rooms leaving the young woman to suffer infection and, occasionally, death.

Further, it is not performed for hygienic reasons or for women to show that they are part of a covenant with God but to control women's ability to feel pleasure. It is justified by a cultural tradition that holds that women who are not mutilated like this are likely to lose their virginity outside of marriage and be promiscuous and, even worse, masturbate.

As far as laws against it, most African nations now do have them (Uganda being the big exception). Unfortunately, the illegality has pushed the procedure underground. The one bright spot is that education to end early and forced marriages is also resulting in a lowering of female genital mutilation rates.

Sorry if my response comes across as preachy but I am appalled when the two are held as the same thing. Instead of circumcision, it is more accurate to call it castration.

~getting off my soapbox now~

Hear, Hear, Euryleia! I couldn't agree more. Female circumcision is a primitive tradition and has no value other than to prove a girl's virginity (I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong). I like the comparison with castration, and I'll accept it as accurate.

I wonder if there is a female equivalent to male circumcision.

Nevertheless, no circumcision (male or female) is performed to make the subject prettier, like ear-piercing is. Sometimes it's done for health reasons. Sometimes for relegious reasons. Sometimes because of "binding" custom, but never as decoration.

In my opinion, body decoration must be restricted to people who are capable of wanting it, appreciating it, and able to make informed choices about it.

There is a procedure that removes the clitoral hood that is most equivalent to circumcision. However, this too has the danger of nerve damage instead of the increased stimulation that some women who have it done seek.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euryleia

There is a procedure that removes the clitoral hood that is most equivalent to circumcision. However, this too has the danger of nerve damage instead of the increased stimulation that some women who have it done seek.

---

This procedure is included in the "new mommy" package at some plastic surgeons...they lift the berasts, tuck the tummy, and circumcize the labia, and will include the clitoral hood as well....They also say that piercing the clit itself can cause nerve damage, resulting in less sensation.

i was thinking likewise about the African mutilization issue-they take the girls out and hold their legs and cut it off...not just the hood, either. the whole clitoris. They use whatever they can find, to include broken glass. There is no cleansing of the area. It's quite brutal and traumatic for the girls, who are usually around the age of 13. Without all of the rest of it (no pleasure, no masturbation, etc), this is an awful crime, all by itself...but add the rest, and what kind of life does that girl have? sickening.......

I came across this article (http://www.timesleader.com/news/Pier...All=Y#comments) today and it reminded me of this thread.

It's interesting to note some of the more bizarre suggestions by obvious animal lovers who would just love to have a few minutes alone with the woman involved. It's a sad state of affairs when people are more concerned about the supposed well-being of some kittens than they are about the well-being of another human being. It would be interesting to know how many of these animal lovers have also had their own child's ear pierced.

And for the record, I do not condone the idea of piercing an animal's ears for decorative purposes. But I don't see it as any different than having a kitten declawed, or a pet spayed or neutered. These things are done more for our benefit than for the animal's. But I don't think the woman deserves to be treated worse than the animals!

I am a licensed piercer, and mall piercing kiosks especially for young children are absolutely deplorable. The people who do it are rarely licensed (or certified) most training takes less than two weeks.
The actual conditions are terrible and few wear gloves. It's impossible to sterilize a piercing gun even in an autoclave. Plus they only rub it down with alcohol. No one is trained in dealing with blood borne pathogens or even infection control. It also causes trauma to the tissue in the ear.
I don't even want to get started on the cartilage piercings in the mall (which with a gun it can literally shatter all the cartilage).
I personally don't believe infants should have their ears pierced either (especially at a mall) because not only are they unable to communicate if something feels wrong or otherwise.
I know in some places it is a cultural thing, where they do it as soon as the child is born.

In my opinion, things like that should be left to the child - although all little girls I saw with earrings were very proud of them, and liked wearing them a lot.
But to have a baby pierced is ridiculous in my eyes, it´s just unwanted and unnecessary pain for it!

I myself got my earlobes pierced at age 4. It was funny, because my Mom had just taken me along because she and my older sister (9 years old then) wanted to get theirs pierced - I was just brought along.
As it was, I decided I wanted mine pierced as well, and I went first, because my sister and my Mom were scared *lmao*. I never regretted it, I did not find it overly painful either.

As for tattoos - I wanted one since I was 16. But I knew my Mom would never allow it, and I did not expect her to pay for it, in the first place!

I got my first tattoo when I was 18 (which is the legal age for it here) and was not living with my parents anymore, and I paid for that one and all following ones myself, which is what I would expect from my son as well. He is 12 y.o. now, and while he likes the idea, he does not like the idea of pain, so I doubt he will go for it *laughs*.

However, what I told him was that if he should ever get one, he should make sure he seeks out a professional to get it done, and he should wait 1 year at least if he likes a motive, just to make sure the motive idea is not just a passing fancy (which I had many of!).

I don´t think it good that so many underage people get tattoos nowadays. The personality and priorities change rapidly during early adulthood, and they might end up hating their pieces at a later time.

Of course one can remove it, but that leaves scars, and the idea of removal is not what should be on your mind if you get a tattoo.
The artist works very hard to give you something beautiful you can wear with pride for the rest of your life. People who don´t understand that should stick with Henna paintings, in my opinion.