Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

Just saw a 4 month old baby get her ears pierced - why????

216 replies

TambaTheDragonSlayer · 18/01/2006 15:48

Why on earth would you get your babies ears pierced???

Woman walks into Claires Acessories with her 16 week old baby and asks how old they have to be to get her ears done. Answer 4 months but must have had her jabs. Ok mom replies, lets do it.

Poor screaming baby has pain inflicted on her uneccesarily so mum can show off her oh so fashoinable baby.

Why????

I was so [shocked]

I could never cause my baby undue pain and discomfort. What makes people do this??

OP posts:
misdee · 20/01/2006 09:44

my dd3 also had lots of blood tests when she was born. they kept coming to take blood even after she left SCBU, her feet and back of hands were a mess for weeks. i just couldnt hurt her to have her ears peirced. I actually had tpo leave the room for one of the tests as they had to find a main vein to get blood out and it was very distressing.

serenity · 20/01/2006 09:52

LOL kelly, yes, you are Chavvy McChav and you wear Burberry thongs (you seemed very nice to me!)

I don't know why I get involved tbh, DD's ears aren't even pierced - I just get taken aback by the assumptions, stereotypes and just plain meanness that emerges on threads like these!

Kelly1978 · 20/01/2006 09:56

yikes, burberry thongs, where are they?!

Pip · 20/01/2006 10:01

This thread is getting a bit ridiculous IMO, not to mention offensive. Chavs, mothers who smoke and wear mini skirts in winter with bare legs? WTF?

I don't like to see babies with their ears pierced, I don't understand the need for it at all and would never do it. However, my parents are Spanish and my ears were pierced when I was 6 months old. I can't say it ever affected me and I never gave it a second thought. BTW, my mother is not common and doesn't fit any of the other ridiculous stereotypes.

I'm living in Spain now and almost every baby girl has pierced ears, it's very odd. I wonder if part of it is so that people can differentiate between the sexes, they seem quite big on that here. Many baby girls are wearing those silly ribbons in their hair and girly clothes, more so than in the UK. (Almost as offensive as the earrings). It's not my scene at all but I'm not sure I would consider it abuse or mutilation.

It's funny isn't it how a tradition in one country is just a cultural thing and more acceptable, and the same thing in another country where it isn't the norm is seen as common.

Pip · 20/01/2006 10:02

"here here" serenity

Meanoldmummy · 20/01/2006 10:04

but the fact is you are exposing a small baby to pain and unnecessary risks, just because YOU think it looks nice... it's treating your children as your property at the expense of their welfare.

Pip · 20/01/2006 10:07

meanoldmummy - it's not just done because parents think it looks nice though is it? It's done (in some countries) because it's a tradition.

Meanoldmummy · 20/01/2006 10:14

so is female circumcision, and foot-binding. It doesn't make it defensible, or mean that I can't give reasons for not doing it!

DaddyCool · 20/01/2006 10:17

surely this isn't really a discussion on peircing through tradition etc etc... it's just a discussion on tacky chavs taking their babies in to get holes in their kids ears because they think it looks 'well good yeah'

how incredibly pointless and cheesy.

Meanoldmummy · 20/01/2006 10:19

Morning DC. Come to plant your big size nines in it again, eh??

DaddyCool · 20/01/2006 10:21

yup. getting it done on little babies is just plain cheesy and i'll have words with anyone who disagrees.

when they're older though (still small but able to express an interest), i don't think its such an issue. each to their own.

but when they're little babies FFS! WHY!?

Pip · 20/01/2006 10:21

Yes DC you're probably right.

Ear piercing is still not comparable with female circumcision or foot binding though.

DaddyCool · 20/01/2006 10:22

well, no. lol

footbinding!? I don't reckon they do that at Clair's in town. I'll have to check....

Meanoldmummy · 20/01/2006 10:25

I think it's comparable, although the injury is not as severe. It's an invasive assault on someone else's body for the purposes of imposing on them a stereotyped ideal of "traditional" beauty, without their consent, which causes them pain and exposes them to risk of infection and complications. Of course it's comparable.

Pip · 20/01/2006 10:27

Female circumcision and foot-binding have life-long implications. Ear piercing doesn't.

Meanoldmummy · 20/01/2006 10:31

It can do, if you have an allergic reaction, or a bad infection, or end up with gangrene or septicaemia. It isn't common, but it isn't that rare either. A friend of mine had to have a large septic swelling lanced, and has scar tissue on her ears, because of a bad reaction. Childhood carries enough inherent dangers - it's insane to expose a baby to more unnecessarily, and irresponsible.

DaddyCool · 20/01/2006 10:32

ooh c'mon meany! (are you american by any chance?).. you can't really compare the two realistically. i know you're comparing the ethics behind it but you still can't compare the two using common sense.

Meanoldmummy · 20/01/2006 10:33

No, I'm not american ( and I will PULVERISE you for that at a later date!!) but I do think it's a fair comparison. Ethically the practices occupy the same space. And it's easy to shrug off the dangers, until it's your baby being rushed to hospital because of something stupid and vain that you decided to do on her behalf.

tiredemma · 20/01/2006 10:35

i can vividly remember having my ears pierced at the age of 7, not only did it hurt while i actually had it done, it also hurt for days after, why do that to a baby?

again, i have to say that im amazed at Claires Accesories policy of ear piercing a baby of any age, let alone 4 months.

not only is ear piercing on babies pointless, it also looks crap.

sansouci · 20/01/2006 10:43

"No, I'm not american ( and I will PULVERISE you for that at a later date!!)"

Am I missing something here or is it the usual America-bashing going on?

Shame on you DC, btw.

Meanoldmummy · 20/01/2006 10:47

Not America-bashing as such - but I don't like racial assumptions to be made on the basis of opinions I express about child cruelty. Especially when they're wrong

Pip · 20/01/2006 10:53

meanoldmummy, I think you're blowing this out of proportion. Obviously ear piercings can become infected but would this cause lifelong trauma? Serious complications are, I imagine, rare. (I need QofQ here for the stats) Emotional trauma? I have never heard about anyone whose life was severly affected by ear piercing as a baby but I know there are thousands of women who have suffered terribly through female circumcision and foot-binding.

I'm not saying that ear piercing is acceptable as I don't believe it is. It's totally unnecessary. I just take issue with comparing it to such extreme and long-term painful practices as female circumcision and foot-binding.

Meanoldmummy · 20/01/2006 10:56

...whereas to me the relationship is obvious. I do accept that it is a milder form of mutilation/abuse than foot-binding or circumcision, but it is on the same spectrum. It represents the same attitude towards female children. And it should be banned. Not to mention that exposing a child to risk of infection and complications is downright irresponsible.

sansouci · 20/01/2006 10:57

Okay, fair enough. DC is Canadian & so am I. I admit that many Americans are better off in their own environment but can't stand generalisations based on nationality, etc. Except perhaps for "All Canadians are friendly"

I wouldn't pierce my dd's ears either. She can get it done herself when she's out of childhood.

DaddyCool · 20/01/2006 11:00

... and they're all fat