Infant Ear Piercing

[Aught3]

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.

This is about freedom - the freedom to decide for yourself.

 

[JustBusiness17]

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.

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...

 

[borrofburi]

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.

This is about freedom - the freedom to decide for yourself.

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.

Now before you come back with "omg, it's not murder!" (as people often do): you've entirely missed the analogy I was making, which is that murder is wrong for the exact same reasons (namely lack of informed consent) that this is wrong, even if murder causes far more harm than this does.

 

[5810Singer]

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.

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?

 

[Case]

This is about the violation of the right to life and physical integrity. Not about whether the wound heals. I could make an appalling analogy as well to prove my point, but I'll wait for now.

 

[acheron]

I just don't see a harm in ear piercing that would justify outside interference in this matter. That's the beginning and end of the whole thing as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, as a parent, I do have real concerns about how often people want to interfere with how other people raise their kids on issues where there isn't a clear harm.

 

[Case]

Wait until the next person makes an insensitive comment that is. Ah, someone has. Great.
So by the same logic it's okay to rape a baby, too since, hey, if it's raped gently, there won't be any permanent damage inflicted, right?
Maybe just oral sex kinda molestation. The baby probably won't even know what's going on, much less remember. (warning, MGK - sarcasm! )

 

[Andiferous]

Wow. First to say, I didn't intend to be contentious.

It's not as much about parent rights and such for myself - though I could try to make an argument for it.

Rituals, symbols and traditions are are like societal glue. They are historically an important part of culture and help foster a sense of growth, of initiation, a strong sense of cohesion and belonging, among other things. 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.

I respectfully submit that this issue requires some balance between principles that put ear piercing on a scale of bodily mutilation, and maintaining innocuous cultural traditions that can bring profound meaning to people. There are a lot of disgusting rituals that I would in no way support, but this doesn't seem anywhere near to the same scale.

I like to grant some leeway in cultural traditions, especially ones I may not fully understand, because I think judging them on principle does risk a certain kind of ethnocentrism.

 

[borrofburi]

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.

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).

Though of course if I hear of friends or those who I have any influence over, thinking about piercing the ears of an infant, I will vocalize it... But yes, it's not a topic I generally care much about, there are more important things to discuss.

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?

So we can cut off children's earlobes? I guess that's a bit pedantic of me...

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.

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.

 

[Andiferous]

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.

Baptising infants in the Catholic church is an initiation ritual, and often done because the parents love their children deeply. Regarless of how you feel about the church...

Social traditions should be scrutinized and viewed critically, but doing so requires weighing them and studying them to analyse both the psychological, physical and social benefits against detractions. It would be folly to judge something not fully understood.

Social traditions are an important part of being human and serve a function to human beings. They are not all mistakes.

 

[Case]

I'm also against baptisms, but that's a different issue.

There's no flesh-piercing involved in baptisms, as far as I know.

 

[Andiferous]

I'm also against baptisms, but that's a different issue.

There's no flesh-piercing involved in baptisms, as far as I know.

No, but the water bits are from the same tradition.

 

[Gavin_Farewell]

Well, from where I'm coming from: I used to be very into the body mod community, and of course gender studies hold a strong point of interest to me, so my position I feel is natural:

Body modification is a serious and often permanent process. Even a simple lobe piercing can turn into the permanent loss of an ear via infection - the infection can even spread to the ear drum, damaging it, and down the Eustachian tube into the throat where it has access to lungs. Of course, this is a "one in a million" occurrence, but it does happen. And incidents of blood poisoning (septicemia) are not as uncommon as one would think for those who do not take care of their piercings.

I've had both ears pierced in every spot, I've had my lobes stretched, my bridge pierced, both nostrils, and I have my septum pierced. I had a pierced eyebrow, pierced lips, and a few surface piercings. As a member of the body mod community who took it seriously and gave it the respect due, I don't think anyone should get the more serious piercings until they are 18 years of age, but I think ear lobes are okay at 14 - 16.

Also as a member of the body mod community, and a person who holds strong opinions about gender issues, I'm also against infant circumcision because it is 1) a permanent body modification 2) involuntary 3) unnecessary 4) actually increases risk to health and well being - and for what? For the myth that it's "sanitary and healthful"? Or who about the gynocrentric "women like it better" - really? What would society do if men said "we liked our women without clitori" and campaigned to have a form of female circumcision introduced? Just imagine.

In conclusion, while I don't feel piercing your infant's ears provides any benefit, and may in fact increase health risks, I don't feel very strongly about it - I would just rather people didn't do it. The piercings migrate as the child grows and their earlobes get bigger, and when they do want to have them pierced properly, it's sometimes impossible because of the fistula and scar tissue. I'd consider it a favor to your child to wait until their ears stopped growing, for cosmetic reasons.

But I also feel there are stronger issues concerning infants to deal with, such as circumcision.

EDIT: While I didn't feel strongly at the time I wrote this post, the more I think about it, I feel a little stronger. In fact, I would not complain if a bill was passed to make ear piercing illegal before the age of 14 -16. While most people do turn out okay (as in, no infection), most of the people I know who got their ears pierced as an infant have crooked piercings. Much better to do it when they're older. But at the same time, if no law was passed, I would not vocalize loudly, either.

 

[Squagnut]

Would I do it to my children? No.

Whilst I broadly agree that piercing an infant's ears is not a particularly smart thing to do, and any professional ear-piercer should refuse to do the job, it is not comparable to rape or murder, and it isn't the worst thing parents could do to a child to satisfy the parents' vanity - things like infant beauty pageants are far worse, as these sexualise infants and put them under abnormal pressure; a simple gold stud earring is nothing compared to that.

I don't see why it's acceptable for people of a different culture to do such things to their children but it's wrong in my culture. Child sexual abuse, for example, is wrong no matter which culture it happens in - why is body modification different? We don't give very young children much choice in their diet (which is of profound importance), or where they live or what clothes they wear, or which school they go to - what we put into their brains is exponentially more important than any of this. As I say, it isn't the worst thing parents could do - it's a small hole in an ear, it's not like you're chopping their little hands off - but it isn't to be encouraged and I think it makes the parents look a bit daft.

 

[Andiferous]

I agree, it's silly, Mr. Legume.

I'm going to break down and be honest. I don't normally argue this way, but when it comes to fuzzy boundaries, this seems to be the best way to illustrate ones' points. I'm not bringing this up to be an emotional argument, but merely to introduce something that might otherwise be ignored.

My mother has, from the time I was quite young, been extremely involved in a Catholic organisation that served to aid new refugees to the country, give them a place to stay and help them find a home, a means to education and all those things necessary to adjusting to a new society.

In my childhood, the vast majority of refugees were from Vietnam, and from early on, I remember many dislocated peoples living in my house, and I distinctly remember celebrating some of the best Christmas experiences I've ever had with visitors in my home. I also remember taking a cold shower and being scrubbed with lye because the visitors in my house had skin diseases by virtue of the concentration camps, but that's another story. Most could barely speak English, and my mom had a habit of sneaking articles of my clothing and various of my toys into the donation boxes at our church.

Since then I've had many other experiences. My point is really, that it's actually quite shocking to encounter another culture, until you take the time to try to understand it. Those people who I remember best came from horrible concentration camp environments, on parasite and disease ridden ships, and all that they had left was their dignity, and their culture.

My point really is that we shouldn't offhand dismiss culture quite so easily.

 

[Womble]

Personally i think it's wrong to see very little kids with their ears pierced, and to me this age goes up to and includes the age of 5 i'd say. But even 5 is a bit pushing it imo. I had my ears done when i was 7, if i'd not wanted them done they wouldn't have been, and i vaguely remember being told that once they were done i'd need to make sure that my ears were kept clean and safe while the holes were healing/sealing. For context i'd had some cheap naff plastic lip on earings i'd been using for dressing up for a few years before hand.

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.

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.

Keep in mind, too, piercings do heal up and aren't necessarily permanent changes.

(haven't worn earrings in years, still have the holes)

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.

I'd let all the piercings i had done in uni heal up/close over. My belly button one is completely healed so i'd need that done but the extra ear ones weren't totally closed over. I was doing the 1st year of my teacher training and i decided i wanted ear rings in them again, so i bought some nice studs and then when a bit tipsey shoved them in, it did the trick.

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.

Here's something to bear in mind before you get arsey about people commenting on how other people raise their kids. Who actually owns those kids? No one, the kids are their own people, fine they have lots of time and the like needed to raise them but the parents are there to teach them right from wrong and all that. But the parents don't own them, the kids are on loan to them until they're ready to get out and about in the adult world. It might sound silly to some but it's something i've heard mentioned at home given that my brothers got his first child and is doing all the daddy stuff and my parents were commenting on how quickly kids grow up.

 

[CosmicSpork]

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



EDIT:

I have clarification on my dads shop policy. 16 or over without parental consent and accompaniment. 7 - 16 with parental consent and accompaniment.

 

[Giliell]

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.

What nonsense.
I care about the way other people raise their kids when they violate the rights of the children by doing so. And there I have a zero tolerance position: With all non-medically indicated permanent alterations of the body, it's the decission of the person whose body it is. That goes for (ear) piercing, tatoos, circumcission.
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

 

[Andiferous]

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

Lol. don't worry too much. Worms are great when many people find them equally interesting. 'Specially with ketchup.

 

[borrofburi]

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.

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".

Moreover, to make yet another analogy to circumcision, a 7 year old giving their consent to be circumcised (whether male or female) is not informed consent: a 7 year old has no concept of what circumcision is doing (other than hurting, and often times, especially in africa, they are never told even this), and a 7 year old is easily pressured by societal, cultural, and familial cues even if there is no direct "threat". That kind of social and familial disapproval can be very powerful in influencing a child's decision such that I am not sure such a decision meets the "informed" part of informed consent. Furthermore, I support any sort of law requiring that a piercer actively inform any and all "piercees" of the various issues; primarily because it's not uncommon for various issues (I doubt for ear piercing, but absolutely for circumcision, especially female circumcision on teens in africa) for parents to hide information for children in order to get their "consent".

I fully admit there are plenty of 7 year olds in situations where (1) they're mature enough to think it through, (2) they're family is mature enough to honestly and fully support either decision (or even be a bit pro-not-doing-it-yet), and (3) they're mature enough to be ok with being different from the general societal standards and expectations. However I also think there are a number of 7 year olds in situations where they're not really mature enough to comprehend what they're doing, their family pressures them into it, and society exerts strong pressures on them to do it. Though the question becomes what is a good age? And damned if I know, I mean it's not *that* harmful, so in a certain sense a "mistake" is not that big a deal; on the other hand the best part about mistakes are being old enough to learn from them... I think that 10 or 12ish might be ideal, but as I've said before there are for important issues to me, and in all reality I simply don't care enough to do more than type this stuff out in a thread, and to tell any friends I have with children who are considering piercing their ears.

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

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.