Do you feel that circ. is equal to ear piercing in infants? - Page 2

[lyttlewon]

I think it is improper body modification without consent. That is the way they are the same. I do find it interesting too that ear piercing is a cultural thing and most people I ask cannot tell me the cultural significance which is similar to circing. This is what I hear people say about piercing: "their mom's are pierced", "their family will be upset if they don't", "it is just what people do", "the pain isn't that bad", "they won't remember the pain", "do it when they are young and it is easier to clean". These sound familar to what we hear about circing. I don't believe in tradition for traditions sake especially when it is painful to the child. Plus I am horribly allergic to metal so I am glad my ears were pierced when I was older. My reaction to piercing was very painful.

[KnitLady]

Yes and no. I don't agree with either, but I think circumcision is far worse because it removes a part of the body and effects sexual function for life.

[hakunangovi]

The only similarity is that piercing ears or whacking off foreskins on infants are both cosmetic modifications done without the owner's consent.

Piercing ears leaves a tiny hole which in no way alters the function of the ear. Not only that , but if left alone the hole generaly closes up. No harm done.

Circumcision permanently removes the most sensitive part of the penis, destroys much of the sexual mechanics of the organ and compromises the owner's sexual satisfaction for life.

So, the ethics might be similar, but the end result is only devastating for the penis.

[PuppyFluffer]

Originally Posted by meowee

It's my understanding that this comparison is not allowed to be made on MDC.

This is an appropriate discussion as long as it remains respectful. What we will not host is arguing and bashing.

For some cultures, the piercing of ears is a cultural event with associated meanings and celebrations. It is fine for us to discuss these meanings in an effort to understand them. If discussion gets too involved in the culturea aspects it will likely be moved to Parenting Issues. Please remember it is not ok to malign another's culture.

Please keep this in mind as you post.

Taking the moderator hat off now...

My opinion is that a comparison can be made between infant circ and infant ear piercing in that both are cosmetic alterations done to a child without the child's consent. I would never do either to a child.

From a physical standpoint, there are vast differences in the long term effects of each act.

[robertandenith]

Originally Posted by asunlitrose

To me, it is equal in that the infant cannot consent to the procedure, yes.

But it is also not as bad as circ-ing because at least the child can take the earrings out when they get older. Circ'd boys can't reattach their foreskins, and ear piercings don't interfere with any bodily function (sexual function).

I agree to this. My godmother's youngest daughter insisted to get their earrings done and she paid to get them done when my oldest was asking for it and the little one got them too (she was very young to figure it out or to ask for it). They didn't cry at all and the little one kinda enjoyed seeing herself with earrings in the mirror. Then they got infected (my youngest) and my oldest lost hers. I didn't want to do it again until the little one would ask me. My mothering instinct were kicking big time. Just recently they got them done again, this time around they both asked me

But I don't think is the 'same' as circ. I have done my own second piercing in my ears and they do not hurt. I did them with the earring itself call me crazy! Just the fact that they should ask you for them, it makes it somewhat similar.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

I think it is comparable because of the bodily intergrity and the owner of the body to decide what to do to it and how it should look.

[ThreeBeans]

I think the comparisons is sensible, but I also think circumcision is much worse

[littlemizflava]

HELL NO!!!!!
a hole in a ear is nothing like chopping of a peice of a childs body that has a function.

[woobysma]

I don't like the comparison, personally. I can see some similarities, but frankly, I think comparing the two does more harm than good. It either diminishes the damage done by circ'ing or it blows the harm of ear piercing out of proportion, imo.

I also don't like it when circ'ing is referred to as "unnecessary cosmetic surgery."

To me, "unnecessary cosmetic surgery" is stuff like ear piercing or mole/birthmark removal or that thing where they sew back big ears...... stuff like that.

Circ'ing destroys a functioning body part! It's comparable to removing the entire outer ear, not just punching a hole in the ear lobe.

And for parents of only girls....... I think a good comparison would be removing your daughter's pinkie toes, you know... so she can fit into pointy-toed shoes better. Have you seen how small those baby toes are?! You could just snip them right off, probably wouldn't even need to numb it up first. Just think how much she'll thank you down the road when she can walk around proudly in her fashionable pumps ((BARF))

[Arduinna]

No, it's not equal to circ.

[robertandenith]

Originally Posted by woobysma

I don't like the comparison, personally. I can see some similarities, but frankly, I think comparing the two does more harm than good. It either diminishes the damage done by circ'ing or it blows the harm of ear piercing out of proportion, imo.

I also don't like it when circ'ing is referred to as "unnecessary cosmetic surgery."

To me, "unnecessary cosmetic surgery" is stuff like ear piercing or mole/birthmark removal or that thing where they sew back big ears...... stuff like that.

Circ'ing destroys a functioning body part! It's comparable to removing the entire outer ear, not just punching a hole in the ear lobe.

And for parents of only girls....... I think a good comparison would be removing your daughter's pinkie toes, you know... so she can fit into pointy-toed shoes better. Have you seen how small those baby toes are?! You could just snip them right off, probably wouldn't even need to numb it up first. Just think how much she'll thank you down the road when she can walk around proudly in her fashionable pumps ((BARF))

good point!

[kblackstone444]

Originally Posted by littlemizflava

HELL NO!!!!!
a hole in a ear is nothing like chopping of a peice of a childs body that has a function.

Yeah, that. Both bad, but one is much worse.

[AutumnMama]

Definitely not. There are a few similarities, but circ is much, MUCH worse.

[GooeyRN]

I feel they are similar, in that both are done with out the consent of the person getting the procedure done. Yes, the girl/boy can choose to not wear earrings later in life. The holes don't always close. Mine didn't. Now I HAVE to wear earrings for job interviews and stuff like that b/c I don't look put together if I have my ears showing with holes and no earrings. The pain was minimal and short lived, though.

I feel that circ is much more painful and has more consequences and risks, so it is worse. But in my eyes, both are wrong for the same reasons.

I will pay for my dd to get her ears pierced when she is older (teenaged or later) and will pay for ds to get circ'd if he wants to get circ'd when he turns 18. I won't pay for it before then. It is his body, his decision. I will not alter either child without their consent.

[christifav]

I haven't read the replies, but had to answer this one.

No. No way. I don't agree with piercing a baby's ears, but it is not sexual, mutilative surgery.

[christifav]

Originally Posted by GooeyRN

I will pay for my dd to get her ears pierced when she is older (teenaged or later) and will pay for ds to get circ'd if he wants to get circ'd when he turns 18. I won't pay for it before then. It is his body, his decision. I will not alter either child without their consent.

Just curious (and please know I do not mean this snarky in the least little bit...I'm honestly curious) would you pay for other types of cosmetic alteration when they are of age? Like boob jobs or tattoos?

[MomInSanJose]

Ear piercing (the regular kind) is a very slight body modification, which I will allow when dd is 12 years old. I don't agree with pierced ears on newborns, but I don't get upset about it.

Circumcision is an extreme body modification which is dangerous and very painful. It takes away the function of a very important part of the body. And affects not only the circumcised boy but all his future partners.

[AXEius]

i am really amazed be how many people here actually feel ear piercing is either ok or at least acceptable for other people to do. The arguments used sound almost exactly like the arguments people who are against female circumcision but are in favor of male circumcision. The say they are not comparable because male circumcision isnt done with malicious intent but female circumcision is done to destroy female sexuality (even though both horribly alter the sexuality of the victim). they say circumcision doesnt hurt males because they are babies, but it hurts young girls. The amount of damage done is less to boys...its just a snip but they remove almost every thing on a girl so they arent even comparable. All of this is irrelevent, ear piercing involves sticking a metal rod through SOMEONE ELSES flesh. If you were to poke the same metal rod through any part of a child's body other than the ear, such as the nipple or cheek, it would be hard to find anyone who find that was acceptable, this is where i find ear piercing and circumcision to be completly comparable. Dangling peices of metal from a baby's ear to make her look "prettier" is wrong, and cutting off a baby's foreskin to make him look "prettier" is wrong

[patronia]

For me, no. Having a part of your body removed is far different to having a hole put through your ear. I don't think an parent has a right to do either to a non-consenting child, but I don't think they're equal at all.

[wednesday]

I don't agree with infant ear-piercing, but I don't think it's even remotely equivalent to circumcision. Not even in the same galaxy.