or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › I peirced my DDs ears yesterday....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I peirced my DDs ears yesterday.... - Page 13

post #241 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama
Okay now you lost me *LOL*

I don't understand what you meant about people not hurting or piercing themselves. I wasn't thinking they did either.

I meant the shirt (the baby's shirt), doesn't represent something invasive. I mean unless you are going to let them freeze in the winter (or in an air conditioned Kroger!), or burn in the sun~it's not exactly life saving medicine...but, I don't know that it's completely a matter of arbitrary parental preference. There is an aspect of the baby's overall comfort when it comes to the necessity of a shirt, right?

I think the problem is that you need a more inflammatory analogy to point out the faulty logic of analogies.

Like, say, using *carseats* to make your point about restraint...


Oh, you said that chnging the dirty shirt would work as an anology because the shirt would eventually have to be changed (kid would grow out of it at some point) and teh ear wouldn't eventually have to be pierced. So I chose a way to show that spanking wasn't the same as peircing since adults don't spank themselves but adults do peirce themselves.

cosue that line of thinking is now rendered moot by dragonfly

Carseats wouldn't work because they are medically necessary. Pinning your child's arms down in order to change a dirty shirt for cosmetic purposes alone (choc syrup stain on the child's shirt is not making the child uncomfortable) is and is not "necessary." In our culture a child "needs" to wear a clean shirt to daycare, just as in another culture, a baby girl needs to wear earings to grandmas. And from what I remember of ear piercing - it is about as painful as having you arms pinned and a shirt pulled over you non-consenting torso.

Course anaologies are all bunk

Now, I am not for ear piercing babes (nor for making them wear a different shirt than they want to daycare). But I am for discussing this issue without hypebole that will change no one's mind.
post #242 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamawanabe
I was showing how the anaology breaks down - how piercing and spanking (circing) do not just differ in serverity but in type.
I have to admit, I still don't get it. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to the analogy of circumcision and ear piercing being hyperbole. It doesn't seem an exaggeration to me, at all, to relate the two. They come from the same place in a person, IMO (one that enables them to treat their child's body as property, to be modified to suit their own preferences), and while one is certainly more severe and usually has greater long-term consequences than the other, they are still the same type of act (again, IMO).

I understand that those who would pierce their infant's ears but are opposed to circumcision would be uncomfortable with the analogy. But that doesn't make it hyperbole.
post #243 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
I understand that those who would pierce their infant's ears but are opposed to circumcision would be uncomfortable with the analogy. But that doesn't make it hyperbole.
Well, I don't agree with either (circ or piercing babes) and I certainly think equating the two is like (another anology here ) like equating apples and oranges. Both are fruit (and thus similar), but both are still so different that if you want to discuss one it is not helpful to bring the other into it.

Down with anologies (oh, but they are fun - huh - even if too "easy").
post #244 of 433
Hey all. To further my point about false logic, I would like to state that analogies are good, and I for one will not stop using them. I was upset, as stated many pages ago, by the OP. However, grabbing a newborn's penis, thrusting the foreskin up and slicing off a large piece of flesh, thereby exposing his most sensitive part, rendering him less sensitive sexually for the rest of his life is nothing like earpiercing. It is similar in three ways - the child gives no consent, it hurts, and they must be restrained. But these three things are present during the application of disinfectant on a wound. If a response to THAT analogy is that the disinfectant is for the good of the child, then I disagree, because I don't put disinfectant on my child, I think they are mostly harmful and unnatural and only warranted in extreme circumstances.

Another however, the fact that I know that some people have pierced OTHER parts of their children - noses, eyebrows, is directly related to ear piercing. I think even the OP would be shocked at seeing a baby with a nose ring, and most if not all would be shocked to learn this happens. Yet to me, it is the same thing. It is just that our culture doesn't look as favorably upon the other types of piercing, so we may see it as different, or less acceptable. I just think there were better analogies to be drawn, is all, there are plenty to choose from.

Boy, this thread is a die hard, hey? Draaaaaaaaws me back in....augh....help....I gotta find a new thread to stalk.
post #245 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm
Hey all. To further my point about false logic, I would like to state that analogies are good, and I for one will not stop using them. I was upset, as stated many pages ago, by the OP. However, grabbing a newborn's penis, thrusting the foreskin up and slicing off a large piece of flesh, thereby exposing his most sensitive part, rendering him less sensitive sexually for the rest of his life is nothing like earpiercing. It is similar in three ways - the child gives no consent, it hurts, and they must be restrained. But these three things are present during the application of disinfectant on a wound. If a response to THAT analogy is that the disinfectant is for the good of the child, then I disagree, because I don't put disinfectant on my child, I think they are mostly harmful and unnatural and only warranted in extreme circumstances.

Another however, the fact that I know that some people have pierced OTHER parts of their children - noses, eyebrows, is directly related to ear piercing. I think even the OP would be shocked at seeing a baby with a nose ring, and most if not all would be shocked to learn this happens. Yet to me, it is the same thing. It is just that our culture doesn't look as favorably upon the other types of piercing, so we may see it as different, or less acceptable. I just think there were better analogies to be drawn, is all, there are plenty to choose from.

Boy, this thread is a die hard, hey? Draaaaaaaaws me back in....augh....help....I gotta find a new thread to stalk.
You're smart.
post #246 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastiansmommy
Personally I hate the way babies look with pierced ears, and I would never pierce a babe's ears even if I did like the way they look. (unless they were old enough to ask for it) Unlike circumcision I'm 100% positive ear piercing hurts (although i'm 99.9% sure circ ddoes) So why would I want to put my babe through pain because I think it will look good.
Not to take this thread too far off topic....(not that that's stopped anyone else! ) but I think there's really no meaningful debate that circ is painful. As if it seriously needed to be studied to determine that slicing off part of the penis is painful there have been a number of studies to prove the point. link

Both circumcision and ear piercing cause pain. On the spectrum of unnecessary cosmetic procedures I'd say circumcision is at the extreme end, but I still believe ear piercing of infants is on that spectrum and is wrong for many of the same reasons that circ is wrong (i.e. it is an unnecessary cosmetic procedure performed on a person who cannot consent to the procedure).
post #247 of 433
This thread is dying hard isn't it mama Calm! It's like a car crash--cannot...avert...my...eyes...

I forget who, but a mama called me cruel, and it's true. The analogy I made r/e pinching & piercing did bring up some painful emotions for some. It's being cruel to be kind, trying to be an advocate for these children who don't have a say yet, but I won't stop doing that anytime soon, and I won't apologize for it.

Of course everything you analyze & compare is within degrees. If there weren't some differences, it would be the same & you would not be comparing them.

There are things that belong in a group together, though, and the analogies made within the group of "harming your child for your own whim" (or some call it culture) are: piercing your child's ears, circumcizing & genital mutilation, pinching smacking, punching your child, nailing a hole through their foot, etc. Of course there are matters of degrees separating them. Perhaps it's not as 'bad' to pinch your child as it is to nail their foot to the floor. BUT WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU, AS A CARING PARENT WANT TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS?

My intention in bringing up a less socially acceptable form of pain infliction (pinching) was for some to recognize that it is within a group of actions that are undesirable as caring parents.

As for changing your kids shirt, that is an analogy that is outside of "harming your child for your own whim". Obviously if you leave a food-covered shirt on your child, it will begin to grow bacteria that will cause sickness & discomfort. In this way, you are AVOIDING pain.
post #248 of 433
I think altering a child's body without their permission is wrong on many levels, and honestly I do not care if the reason for doing so is purely cosmetic or religious or cultural.

I do not like the look of earrings on little girls at all, I think of babies/toddlers with make up or in a pageant or something...not something I would ever want for my daughter (who is pretty and perfect on her own, the way she was born).

My parents let me have my ears pierced at almost 13, once I got my forst period. Later I had one ear triple pierced and although I never wear earrings there the holes are very visible and look stupid IMO.

I am NOT attacking you, but you asked for opinions and that is mine.
post #249 of 433
Okay..........................

Changing a child's shirt does not hurt.

Changing a child's diaper does not hurt.

Wiping a kid's nose doesn't hurt, nor does washing his hair or cleaning his ears.

A child needs an i.v. for surgery. It hurts but is necessary, because the surgery is necessary. I would cry for my little one but know that I have no other choice.

If my child was very ill and needed blood drawn, I would have to restrain him. It would hurt. But it would be necessary. And I would still be very saddened by it.

Piercing a child's ears hurts......... AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY.

I don't understand what people don't understand about this.

It is just as clear as day.

I wouldn't force my child to accept unnecessary pain.

There is accidental pain.... "Oh, my, I didn't realize your nose was sore when I wiped it. SORRY FOR CAUSING ACCIDENTAL PAIN, i DIDN'T MEAN TO."

There is purposeful pain... that is unnecessary... and that is piercing a child's ears who cannot consent to it.

Where does all the confusion come in? Honestly, IT IS AS CLEAR AS DAY, AND IT SHOULD BE TO ANYONE WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO THINK.





Just as there is no reason for piercing a child's ears, there is no reason for pinching a child. In our culture, one is classified as abuse and the other isn't. But at the simplest level, when you break it all down....... it's the same thing. Pain caused on purpose for no reason.

PAIN CAUSED ON PURPOSE FOR NO REASON.

Can we say it all together now?
post #250 of 433
I had managed to talk myself out of opening this thread until today, and I've not read all of the posts, but-- having read the OP where you said that you pierced your childs ears, I would like to commend you on making choices that do not expose your child to the risk of hepatitis that is inherent to the use of shared piercing guns.

I do not believe that we, as parents, have the right to have our kids pierced or circed, but I'm glad that you're looking our for your daughter's health, regardless.

alsoSarah
post #251 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain

As for changing your kids shirt, that is an analogy that is outside of "harming your child for your own whim". Obviously if you leave a food-covered shirt on your child, it will begin to grow bacteria that will cause sickness & discomfort. In this way, you are AVOIDING pain.
You've got to be kidding. Growing up, I wore very dirty clothes (my parents were hippies who weren't hung-up on clean clothes, also we didn't have a washing machine). I never got sick. Choc syrup on a child's shirt isn't going to make them sick. You are restrianing them to change thier shirt for purely cosmentic reasons. Also social reasons (the disapproval you'd face at grandmas and the daycare). These are the very same reasons parents peirce babes. Kinda a silly anaology huh - about as silly as circing . . .

I say enough of peircing babes and enough of changing clothes for kids who don't want to change clouthes. Let go of your cultural baggage and let kids control thier own bodies.

(I'm serious - I'd never peirce my babe, and if my kid wants to wear a shirt smeared with jam to grandmas, he can).
post #252 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by candiland

Changing a child's shirt does not hurt.
Pin a resisting kid between your legs no matter how gently in order to change his syrup smeared shirt, and it will not only hurt, it will feel tio him like a violation of his physical atonomy.

The "reason" you do it is social/cultural (kids wearing dirty clouthes is not acceptabel in our culture). Same reason a mama pirces her babe. I remember having my ears peirced, and it hurt about as much as being pinned between someone three times my size's legs while a shirt I want to wear is pulled, against my will, over my head.

I'm not arguing for piercing, I'm for understanding that peircing is not on the same level as circing. It is on a level with much less (though still "wrong") invasive parenting that refuses the autonomy of a child's body for cultural/social reasons (like making kids wear clothes they don't want to wear because your culture finds them appropriate)
post #253 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamawanabe
(I'm serious - I'd never peirce my babe, and if my kid wants to wear a shirt smeared with jam to grandmas, he can).
Same here. (I draw the line at poop though. :LOL)
post #254 of 433


Is this thread STILL going. Wow.
post #255 of 433
I was wondering...I have not read the entire thread...has anyone caught on to the fact that the op spelled "Pierced" incorrectly?
post #256 of 433
:
post #257 of 433
I don't get it....fill me in (the spelling thing).

Anyway, I have found that the longer the thread, the more interesting and educating it becomes. I sometimes feel silly when I want to add to a really long thread that has been going around in circles like others are going to roll their eyes (like this post LOL) but then I drop my self-judgement and post anyway. Tra la!
post #258 of 433

Calm, in response to this....

"It is similar in three ways - the child gives no consent, it hurts, and they must be restrained."

There is another way it is similar. IT IS A PERMANENT ALTERATION OF ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY. This is the most aggregious aspect to me and the reason I think ear piercing of children is wrong and on the same spectrum as circ. Some argue that is is not permanent and the holes will close up if you want them to. This is not true for everyone. I had my ears pierced at age 4 and have not worn earrings for YEARS and there are still slits (not just holes) left in my ears that are very unnatractive. My folks did it because my uncle is an accomplished jeweler and they wanted me to be able to wear his earrings. I wish they had never done it and I will not let me kids "choose" this until at least age 16 and possibly make them wait until adulthood unless it is a huge desire on their part at 16. I think by that age maybe they can give informed consent. But right now my oldest dd is 10 and wants NOTHING to do with it.
post #259 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaJosie
I will not let me kids "choose" this until at least age 16 and possibly make them wait until adulthood unless it is a huge desire on their part at 16. I think by that age maybe they can give informed consent. But right now my oldest dd is 10 and wants NOTHING to do with it.
I am still resentful about being made to wait till I was 13. It was part of my parents' denial that my body was my own (ironically, exactly what I find most distasteful about putting earing holes on babies - not using "piercing" till someone explains the joke )
post #260 of 433
I don't know whether to think the person who says changing a shirt hurts as much as having your ears pierced has an incredibly high tolerance for pain in her ear lobes or an incredibly rough parent. It baffles my mind that there are people who would equate the pain caused by those two events.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › I peirced my DDs ears yesterday....