This is about freedom - the freedom to decide for yourself.acheron said:Despite a lot of noise about personal freedoms on this forum, people sure are keen to nanny their way into how other people raise their children.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is about freedom - the freedom to decide for yourself.acheron said:Despite a lot of noise about personal freedoms on this forum, people sure are keen to nanny their way into how other people raise their children.
How bloody ignorant... You want us to prioritize our conversations? This topic happens to rest on a rather slippery slope, whether you recognize it or not...acheron said:Despite a lot of noise about personal freedoms on this forum, people sure are keen to nanny their way into how other people raise their children. :roll:
Surely there are far more pressing items to whinge about regarding other people's child-rearing before you get all hot under the collar about earrings? Ear piercing is a complete non-issue.
I would add that this very much is a personal freedoms issue, one of the personal freedom of the child to have informed consent over what cosmetic aesthetic (possibly permanent) body modifications are done to his/her own body. Doing whatever the fuck you want to your children is not a personal freedom's issue for the parents; it does not abridge the parent's "personal freedoms" to say "hey, this infant body modification to children for aesthetic reasons is unethical" any more than it abridges the parent's "personal freedoms" to say that they're not allowed to cut off their child's hands at birth, or any more than it abridges an individual's "personal freedoms" to say (s)he isn't allowed to murder people.Aught3 said:This is about freedom - the freedom to decide for yourself.acheron said:Despite a lot of noise about personal freedoms on this forum, people sure are keen to nanny their way into how other people raise their children.
I agree, which is why I am far less bothered (and have never vocalized, and rarely bother to type out, my disagreement with infant ear-piercing) by this than by far more important ethical issues like infant circumcision (both male and female); however, the topic is infant ear-piercing, and I will point out that I find it unethical, even if only to a very small degree (and then when others come along and say I'm being ridiculous I will point out that I am merely being consistent: the same ethical framework that I use to declare murder as wrong declares infant ear-piercing to be wrong as well, even if it has a much smaller degree of "wrongness"). Though I would mention that there is the possibility of some very minor complications (infection, primarily).5810Singer said:It's very easy to be absolutist about any contentious subject, but with many issues in life there is often a question of degree.
My wife and I chose to let our daughter decide for herself if she wanted pierced ears when she was old enough, but I wouldn't condemn someone who had their childs ears pierced, as I am unaware of any great harm that would be caused by the procedure.
The harm caused by infantile-ear-piercing is not comparable with circumcision in any form. The long term effects are hardly ever debilitating, and even those who suffer them probably wouldn't equate their discomfort with that suffered as an after-effect of circumcision.
So we can cut off children's earlobes? I guess that's a bit pedantic of me...5810Singer said:As to those who ask where the line should be drawn, my non-flippant pragmatic suggestion is: how about at the point where the earlobe meets the ear?
Andiferous: initiation rituals aren't for infants, they're usually for teens about-to-be adults. I am not certain about my opinion on them. Things like bullet ants seem to verge on abuse, but on the other hand do seem to have some odd positive benefits (though I think I'm soundly against bullet ants rituals in modern society).Andiferous said:If you look throughout history there have been some NASTY initiation rituals, and I by no means advocate that kind of thing, but as I said earlier, making a change to the body, no matter how small, has usually been an important and symbolic part of cultural initiation traditions.
borrofburi said:Andiferous: initiation rituals aren't for infants, they're usually for teens about-to-be adults. I am not certain about my opinion on them. Things like bullet ants seem to verge on abuse, but on the other hand do seem to have some odd positive benefits (though I think I'm soundly against bullet ants rituals in modern society).
I do however have very little patience for "it's a social tradition!" type arguments, mostly because no one ever seems to justify them beyond that point, and they end up in a place that's very reminiscent of "you can't mock religion, it's sacred and special and un-mockable! (btw, disagreeing with religion is synonymous with 'mocking')" type of arguments.
Case said:I'm also against baptisms, but that's a different issue.
There's no flesh-piercing involved in baptisms, as far as I know.
CosmicSpork said:I forgot to mention that my Dad used to own a jewellery shop (now owned by my brother) and it's their policy to flat our refuse to pierce ears of anyone under the age of 14.
Andiferous said:Keep in mind, too, piercings do heal up and aren't necessarily permanent changes.
Giliell said:(haven't worn earrings in years, still have the holes)
Andiferous said:I went a couple years between wearing earrings and, err... let's just say going back to them there was blood.
I don't know how long it would take to heal completely over. I suspect it has more to do with how long a person has worn earrings.
For the record, this is one of those things I wouldn't choose to do myself, but I think the topic needs a bit of perspective.
acheron said:Despite a lot of noise about personal freedoms on this forum, people sure are keen to nanny their way into how other people raise their children. :roll:
Surely there are far more pressing items to whinge about regarding other people's child-rearing before you get all hot under the collar about earrings? Ear piercing is a complete non-issue.
acheron said:Despite a lot of noise about personal freedoms on this forum, people sure are keen to nanny their way into how other people raise their children. :roll:
Surely there are far more pressing items to whinge about regarding other people's child-rearing before you get all hot under the collar about earrings? Ear piercing is a complete non-issue.
CosmicSpork said:
lol
Crikey I should have known this would get looked at more deeply than I intended. My main gripe about the whole thing was because the woman in question did it because 'it looks cute' which is not a reasonable excuse by any stretch of the imagination. Also, suggesting that because a child doesn't remember something doesn't mean they haven't been adversely affected by it in some way.
Anyway... Carry on but play nice
The problem with this is one of what does "informed" consent mean? We have statutory rape laws for a number of reasons, but the primary one is that even if a young person gives their consent, it is meaningless if it is not informed consent; obviously in a more ideal world we could base statutory rape laws off some sort of "maturity" level by which we could determine whether or not they were capable of informed consent, however in our not-so-ideal pragmatist manner we tied maturity roughly to age and basically thought "if they're this old, hopefully they're old enough to think through the issue first".Womble said:Whilst i can see the logic in a policy like this it precludes the fact that children younger than that can still make a choice on this. I was 7 when i had mine done, i was told i could if i saved some money from my holiday spends, which i did, so i got to have them done.
I do not condone or support the word "ruin", it implies judgment against body modification by informed adults to other informed consenting adults. Personally I generally don't find it attractive, but to say that means they've "ruined" their bodies seems a bit judgmental.Giliell said:It is the right of the child to have their body as intact as possible until they can make an informed decission to ruin it themselves