I admit it, I judged (big time) AIBU?

[luciadilammermoor]

Walking through a shopping centre at lunchtime (endless search for shoes to fit DD1), we heard a loud and paniced screaming coming from somewhere. It crescendo'ed as we passed the hairdressers where 4 adults were pinning a little girl of c.2years old against a woman (her mother?) to enable one of them to pierce her ears.

I admit it, I stopped short, held by the sheer panic and fear that this child was shouting out for us all to hear. I judged, I hoisted big judgy knickers up to about my forehead (in my head): just how the hell could someone do that to their child and why the hell didn't the person do it ask whether this really was a good idea/would they like to rethink?

As I say, I judged. I feel guilty now because everything in my body was telling me to go and say 'really? this is so important? why exactly?' and yet I knew I should not get involved. Not my child etc.

But wtf?

When I had a follow up appointment for another test at the hospital, I declined as I could not bear to go through that with dd. The first investigation revealed nothing wrong so I was happy with that.

I have contacted MNHQ about including this in the lgbg campaign, Anyone know anything about starting a petition against things like this?

That sounds awful. :(

Here they do both ears at once -two people.

That is neither here nor there ,I know.

It wasn't Claires though was it, OP?
You said it was a hairdressers.

All were done with a piercing gun, and there was absolutely no pain at all

Funnily enough, I did my OWN ears as a teen - with a bottle of surgical spirit and an earring (!!) and it didn't hurt as much as the gun did when I had them done the first time.

Oh, and the Doctor will do it too!

I thought there was already a law in place that children needed parental consent to get their ears pierced before the age of 16, is that still the case? Not that it makes any difference here because the parent was the one wanting it done, clearly - just thought it might be an appropriate jumping off point.

If the child wants to have it done, when can they reasonably be said to be in charge of their own body/opinion? "Age of reason" is suggested to be 7; that might be too early for some. "Age of criminal responsibility" - that's 10, isn't it? Suggesting that at that age, they know their actions would have consequences - perhaps 10 would be reasonable?

Good piercers won't use guns anymore.

IMO, the minimum age should be 11 (roughly secondary school), and the under 16 rule should be better regulated. The place where I get my tattoos won't pierce anyone under the age of 16, with the exception of (at the piercers discretion) piercing the ears or navel from 14 upwards.

Hi all and thanks to PRO for getting in touch - just to let you know we've seen this but it's best until we're all back in the office to look at this properly.
thanks MN Towers

Zukiecat
I feel you are over-reacting slightly, the relevant part of your post is ''at their request''
I did type ''of say 12?'' as a suggestion, perhaps 10 would also be acceptable.

And at no point did I say that children's future academic acheivements would be hindered.

My mum was once so shocked when her colleague told her she'd had her daughter's ears pierced at 4 months that she exclaimed "you might as well have had the word 'common' branded on her forehead!" She's not normally so outspoken but was so shocked she said out loud what she normally would have only thought in her head!

I had my ears pierced when I was 6 months old and (shock horror) no psychological damage done.

I don?t agree with having to hold a child down though, how a parent could see their own child that upset is worrying, if both ears aren?t done at the same time then it shouldn?t be done, IMO.

I was always the envy of my school friends growing up as most had to wait until they were 16 to get theirs done. I actually felt sorry for them! (how was I to know some of MN would be feeling sorry for me all these years later having had my ears done so young. Thankfully I?m not from the UK so no one would ever call my mother a chav for having done this to me?)

YANBU, that sounds horrible!

Tidy I heard that guns were a bit old school now - what's the thinking behind it,do you know?

anyone who has the time can read this article called "Babies Don't Feel Pain" - it details the history of 20th C medicine's belief in this bollocks and what crap babies went through because of it - don't read it if you're of a sensitive nature/state

I think it's mainly an aesthetic thing, harder to line the holes up evenly. My own ear piercings were fucked up this way, so I'm glad they don't do this anymore. Well, I'm sure some establishments do, but the good ones don't.

Guns force a relatively blunt earring through the ear lobe which basically tears a hole through. Needles are much, much sharper and cut a hole through the lobe.

It hurts less and heals quicker.

Rebel
you were told wrong
babies flinch away from pain from three months BEFORE birth

I don't give a stuff about custom - cutting holes in your children against their will is assault. Full Stop.
If they want pierced ears, they can walk to the shop of their own free will later in life.

Zukie - the important fact is that you left getting your dds' ears pierced until they were old enough to make an informed choice, of their own free will. The point of an age limit is to make sure that all children who have their ears pierced have made an informed choice for themselves, which the child in the OP clearly hadn't had.

So, there's a discussion to be had about what the age limit should be, but I'm sure you'd agree that it ought to rule out babies and little children.

Oh right, that makes sense, thanks tidy.

That was certainly the case with me blather.