Comparing ear piercing to RIC

[emma1325]

My MIL once expressed to me how horrible she thinks it is when parents have their baby girls' ears pierced. She said it should be left up to the girl to get it done when she's older.

Now, that's all good and well to have that belief, but she had her own son (my husband) circumcised as an infant!

So I brought that fact up...well, actually, I agreed with her on the ear piercing thing, but added..."Also, I would never circumcise a boy if I had one."

My MIL was at once appalled...lol. She said, "But oh, it's just a tiny little snip and very quick."

Please someone explain this logic to me. I didn't have my girls' ears pierced, but when I see a baby girl with her ears pierced, it doesn't bother me NEARLY as much as when I hear that a baby boy gets circumcised. I just don't think the two can be compared. Piercings can close and are typically so much less traumatizing to the body than circumcision.

Thoughts?

[eepster]

Simply adressing "But oh, it's just a tiny little snip and very quick."

RIC...........................................Infant ear peircing

takes 5 to 2 minutes......................takes about a minute per ear
requires cutting all the way around the penis......No cutting at all, just a tiny hole
Removes several inches of skin and nerves.................removes nothing

[Greg B]

There is no logic in her position. It is feelings and beliefs brought about by the biased information and fear mongering she has been exposed to.

Cheers!

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Greg B

There is no logic in her position. It is feelings and beliefs brought about by the biased information and fear mongering she has been exposed to.

Cheers!

Yup...what he said

[orangewallflower]

It just goes to show how deeply cultural these things are, and that ending circumcision is a cultural shift. Not easy, but well underway!

[Raene]

I've always thought of circ and ear piercing as similar things. They're both painful, no matter how short of a process, they both are invasive, and they both can be done later when the child decides.

That said, I had my daughter's ears pierced when she was 2 months old. Partly b/c of family tradition and partly because I didn't like that everyone thought she was a boy.

Now with this baby I won't do it. It'll be the baby's decision when they're old enough to decide, and I'll deal with comments if people think that this one's a boy.

[QueenOfTheMeadow]

Please keep the CAC guidelines in mind when posting.

It is our wish that The Case Against Circumcision be an informative and welcoming space for those who are new to the subject of circumcision. This is not a space to bash others.

[Evergreen]

I've always equated the two somewhat. They both cause pain and alter a child's body without consent and in most cases for the vanity of the parent. However, it is obvious that RIC is a lot more invasive- ear piercing is certainly the lesser of the two evils.

[LavenderMae]

They are similar and I have not done either to my children. But then I do not like the comparison because it down plays circumcision imo. Ear piercing is a far cry from altering a child sexually. That said I do not like seeing babies with pierced ears and help me when I've happened to walk by when it's being done, it makes me sick to my stomach and my mama instincts go into over drive.

Many times when I have heard someone very against piercing babies' ears (girls) it's more of a thing against certain cultures than asserting that babies should have the right to decide. That's why it doesn't translate into being against MGM too.

[listipton]

Originally Posted by LavenderMae

They are similar and I have not done either to my children. But then I do not like the comparison because it down plays circumcision imo. Ear piercing is a far cry from altering a child sexually. That said I do not like seeing babies with pierced ears and help me when I've happened to walk by when it's being done, it makes me sick to my stomach and my mama instincts go into over drive.

Many times when I have heard someone very against piercing babies' ears (girls) it's more of a thing against certain cultures than asserting that babies should have the right to decide. That's why it doesn't translate into being against MGM too.

I agree with this. Many of the little girls in our family have had their infants ears pierced at the doctors office (so at least it's done properly and not with an ear gun). It still makes me sad though.

[zinemama]

I don't think of them as equivalent in the most important way.

Pierced ears hear just the same as unpierced. They work the same. No hearing function has been lost. Ear piercing actually is a cosmetic thing. The same cannot be said for circumcision.

Now, whether parents should pierce their children's ears or not is a whole different matter. But in terms of the effects - no, not equivalent.

[becca_howell]

I was going to post something similar. I have always wanted to get DD's ears pierced, but DH was very "Her body, her decision." Then I get a boy and I'm all, "His body, his decision." I was being very hypocritical.

[PuppyFluffer]

Funny, I had just the opposite discussion with someone recently. She is strongly against circumcision but said if she had a little girl, she'd love to have her ears pierced. For her, it was just a cute girlie thing and not part of her cultural heritage. She was fully aware of the hypocrisy in her thinking..which made talking about it easier because I didn't have to take her over that hurdle. She understood that it was hypocritical but she still wanted to do it should she have a girl. She has one boy currently. Her husband is against ear piercing so I doubt that she would do it. It was fun having the discussion with someone who was aware of her own hypocrisy and open to discussing it.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by zinemama

I don't think of them as equivalent in the most important way.

Pierced ears hear just the same as unpierced. They work the same. No hearing function has been lost. Ear piercing actually is a cosmetic thing. The same cannot be said for circumcision.

Now, whether parents should pierce their children's ears or not is a whole different matter. But in terms of the effects - no, not equivalent.

I agree.

However, tattooing doesn't take anything away from bodily function, yet it's unheard of (and illegal) to tattoo a baby. Why is ear-piercing different?

Invasive procedures for cosmetic reasons should be a personal choice, IMO, unless it's to correct an obvious defect.

[Nandi]

Even obvious defect correction may be questionable especially on intersexed babies.

[DocsNemesis]

Yeah, I don't see them as the same. I see the rights issue-it should be their choice, regardless-but beyond that....

I have 3 of my 4 kids ears pierced. My son because I was a silly teenager that thought it'd be cool. My daughter because well, I was mad because I didn't have mine pierced as a baby and didn't want to wait for my kids-and also because my son didn't cry at all. She did, and hard, and I felt so bad after that I said I wouldn't do it again. Then I got ganged up on when my 2nd daughter was about 6 months old by her dad and his mom. I finally caved. Luckily she didnt cry either but I still felt bad.

Anyway, I would never circ and I don't plan on piercing any of my future children's ears either, but for somewhat different reasons. With ear piercings, you can take the earrings out, let them pretty much heal over, if you really hate having them. But honestly, most girls like having them and because of the fact that you can take out the earrings and barely notice-if at all-that its been done, along with it not affecting any functionality of their ears, makes me feel like its not such a big deal.

Circing is extremely painful. You really cant compare the pain of one little hole in an ear to ripping/cutting of a foreskin. Its not truely reversible-although years of stretching can repair some of the damage. It affects the functionality of his penis. Although, they are technically both cosmetic, I just can't see the comparison.

Your MIL has most likely never seen a circ being performed. She doesn't know about the nerves and pain, how long it takes, etc. Imo, next time you see her, make her watch a circ video. Maybe then she'll see that its not just as bad, but worse, than ear piercing.

[peainthepod]

One affects sexual function, one is purely cosmetic. I don't see how they're even close to comparable except that both are performed on nonconsenting children in violation of their basic human rights and bodily integrity.

[SlackerDad]

Lots of good posts here. I particularly liked #s 9, 11, and 17.

[klg47]

I definitely see the two as similar, though your MIL has it backwards - circumcision is certainly the more severe. I see them as similar because they are both irreversible/permanent procedures performed on a non-consenting child.

I chose to have my ears pierced at age 10. I have constant problems with one piercing. It looks really gross. I would probably be a little annoyed if someone had done it without my consent. But yeah, it's definitely not as bad as circumcision.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by klg47

I definitely see the two as similar, though your MIL has it backwards - circumcision is certainly the more severe.

Yeah. I think she felt the need to convince herself that it's a quick, painless removal of dead tissue. (Heck, she may have been told this when she had it done.) She seems to think that:

1) doctors wouldn't do it if it were very painful
and
2) doctors wouldn't do it if it weren't necessary and healthy


We've told her already that should we have a boy, we wouldn't circumcise. In casually discussing the issue with her, she said that when she had my DH (1979) she wasn't told that she had a choice in the matter. She thought it was mandatory.

But this is one of "those people" who will continue to believe what she wants regardless of new evidence presented. She's not old, but behaves like a little old woman set in her ways. After we explained our reasons to her of why we would leave a son intact, she said told us that she once knew a boy who wasn't circumcised as a baby, and he had to be circumcised (of course) at 8 years old and it was very painful for him. Therefore, she said, (brace yourselves) "I think boys should just have their pencils sharpened as infants."

: