Do you feel that circ. is equal to ear piercing in infants? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
1  2
The Case Against Circumcision > Do you feel that circ. is equal to ear piercing in infants?
robertandenith's Avatar robertandenith 11:26 PM 05-23-2008
Originally Posted by woobysma View Post
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's Avatar kblackstone444 11:48 PM 05-23-2008
Originally Posted by littlemizflava View Post
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's Avatar AutumnMama 11:50 PM 05-23-2008
Definitely not. There are a few similarities, but circ is much, MUCH worse.
GooeyRN's Avatar GooeyRN 11:58 PM 05-23-2008
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's Avatar christifav 01:34 AM 05-24-2008
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's Avatar christifav 01:36 AM 05-24-2008
Originally Posted by GooeyRN View Post
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's Avatar MomInSanJose 05:43 AM 05-24-2008
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's Avatar AXEius 09:01 AM 05-24-2008
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's Avatar patronia 09:32 AM 05-24-2008
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's Avatar wednesday 09:36 AM 05-24-2008
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.
newmama8824's Avatar newmama8824 02:01 AM 05-25-2008
Originally Posted by bri276 View Post
no, I can't equate puncturing the ear to cutting off an extremely sensitive, necessary part of genitalia. not at all.

I still think it's wrong to alter someone's body without their approval and consent, though. I haven't pierced DD's ears and won't until she asks for it.
MommytoNakoa's Avatar MommytoNakoa 09:54 PM 05-25-2008
Ditto to the above.

What amazes me are people who are pro-circ, yet against piercing ears. That....I just do not understand.
Belle's Avatar Belle 05:23 AM 05-26-2008
I agree that both are wrong and should not be done without the consent of the individual.

However, one needs to take into account the age of the person. My parents had my ears pierced when I was 6. I consented but I was way too young to do so. My ears became horribly infected. The holes were allowed to close, but they never heal properly.

My 3 year old has expressed interest in getting her ears pierced. I'm thinking like 10 or 12. My dh thinks she could do it younger but I think the older the better.
graceomalley's Avatar graceomalley 05:34 AM 05-26-2008
This would be a good poll.

My answer is no. Absolutely not, for a myriad of reasons.
DocsNemesis's Avatar DocsNemesis 03:20 PM 05-26-2008
I'd wait till she's older anyway...this might seem odd but every 6 year old I've known had horrible pain (including me). I mean, Ive got 7 holes now but I still remember the pain of the first time, it hurt sooooo bad. The other times barely hurt at all. It was odd...maybe their ears are more sensitive at that age? I dunno. My sister was 8 and she didnt cry at all. However, I obviously dont regret having my ears pierced...since I did it 5 more times! (and my nose and bellybutton, hehe)

There is definately a difference between children's sensitivity levels anyway though-as I said, my son didnt cry AT ALL, my 2nd screamed for an hour, and my dh says my other daughter cried for about a minute (which fits, since she never cries during shots or blood draws either). My 2nd is very emotional and sensitive to begin with though.

I have yet to see an infant not react, very strongly, to getting circumcised. (and again, I agree that both are still wrong-I wish I hadnt gotten my kids ears pierced now and I'll appologize if they ask why later)
gabysmom617's Avatar gabysmom617 03:38 PM 05-26-2008
If ear peircing involved removing the whole entire earlobe or external ear with the same method of painblock used for a circ, only then would I be willing to draw a comparison.

If I had a little girl, I'd let her decide to get her ears peirced when she was at an age old enough to understand the procedure. I was six when I got my ears peirced. I was not old enough to take care of them myself, my sister took care of my ears religiously until they healed up. I don't regret for a minute decided to have my ears peirced when I was six. I knew it would hurt, and I didn't cry. And they were my ears.

If my kid wants to get circ'ed before he's an adult "just because", I'd say no. (Unless there are extreme medical issues...) He needs to be old enough to understand what a life time without a foreskin will mean, what nerves would be removed/damaged, and he needs to be able to fully understand how this will effect his sex life as an adult and be ok with it. I think he'll only be able to grasp that as an adult or close to or over 18. If he's, say, 11 or 12 and he wants it done, I don't think he could really grasp the whole scope of such a decision to amputate an important sexual functioning part of his body, so I'd say no.

It's totally different from ear peircing, I'd say.
ColoradoMama's Avatar ColoradoMama 01:26 AM 05-27-2008
Yes, there can certainly be comparisons made, but the consequences are not even remotely the same.
essnce629's Avatar essnce629 08:58 AM 05-27-2008
Not reading all the responses, but I just had a circumcision debate on a mainstream board of mine and someone equated circumcision to ear piercing and I said that I really didn't see the connection. Piercing an ear doesn't affect how the ear functions and it doesn't remove part of the ear. Circumcision does affect how the penis functions and it is by definition the surgical removal of the foreskin. Now if you want to compare piercing ears and piercing foreskins then that's comparable. I don't think I'd pierce my child's ears unless they wanted it done, just like I wouldn't have my child's foreskin pierced. Now if an adult wants to pierce their ears, their foreskin, put a bar through their penis, or get a clitoral piercing then so be it. It's their body, their choice.
carriebft's Avatar carriebft 10:35 AM 05-27-2008
There is a type of female circumcision that is a prick of the clitoris to draw a drop of blood. Ear Piercing seems a lot like that...

But there are also likenesses in motivation and modification without consent. Male genital cutting: restraining a child and altering his body without their consent for non medically therapeutic reasons. Infant Ear Piercing: restaining a child and altering his or her body without his or her consent for non medically therapeutic reasons.
DocsNemesis's Avatar DocsNemesis 02:52 PM 05-27-2008
Actually, my babies werent restrained at all for their ears, the first two were in my lap, niether paid much attention to what was going on as they were 2 or 3 months old and they didnt move when it was done. I wouldnt be surprised if they did have to hold my last ones arms down though since she was older and probably grabbing at stuff.
1  2