When and where to get childs ears pierced?

Zazen999

blackcoffee wrote: »

i dont think you can compare female circumcision to having your ears pierced! Can you ???

Yes I can, but the point is that just because one culture says it is a good thing, doesn't make it right [dang, I'm repeating myself...and it wasn't even that many posts ago...]..

Come here my little one, and let me stab you - twice - in your ears. Don't worry, mummy knows best.

Sheesh.

provista_2

while out with my OH last week a van stopped by the side of us with a very young child (under 1) sat in the middle with not only large hoop earrings in but with 2 piercings in the bit between her lips on chin :eek: :eek: :eek:
My DDs got them done when they where 12, the summer after starting high school So the end of year 7 .

Zazen999

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

I think that, if you are going to start looking down on other people, and use what can be seen as racist analogies, perhaps you should use the correct term, which is infibulation.

And some of the arguments for infibulation is that the child is deemed incapable of knowing what they are doing and that it is the men's responsibility to decide what happens to the child's bodies.

Google is your friend...

Again, missing the point - which is that just because someone else/another culture does something - doesn't make it right. The infibulation is an 'example' of this, one of many but probably one of the worst.

Does arguing the point for infibulation help you argue the point for mutilating your child? Interesting angle.

erichamster

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

I think that, if you are going to start looking down on other people, and use what can be seen as racist analogies, perhaps you should use the correct term, which is infibulation.

And some of the arguments for infibulation is that the child is deemed incapable of knowing what they are doing and that it is the men's responsibility to decide what happens to the child's bodies.

This is unbelievable! There are no valid arguments for genital mutilation, cultural or otherwise, hiding behind the term infibulation won't change that, you disgust me.

mumps

blackcoffee wrote: »

My daughter at 6 isnt the most hygienic of children, (too much information, but she forgets to wash and wipe regularly, the state of her hands after school is vile !!! ) she is desperate for contact lenses too !!!lol!!!

My son had contacts at ten, prescribed by his consultant at eye hospital. I saw babies having contacts but obviously this was for a child with serious problems. My son wore them for about a year and decided they weren't worth the bother and glasses weren't as big a problem as he had thought. He had a great relationship with his consultant, he had a few ops and at four he made a pact with the consultant that they would make the decisions about his treatment and the consultant would always discuss it with him as well as me as it was his sight that was at risk. Happy days, years of trips to hospital, painful ops but by the time he was a teenager his eyes were fine so all worth it.

LondonDiva

A few things I need help with:

1. Where do people get ears pierced here? 2 weeks old
2. How much does it cost? I would only let her wear plain gold stud earings if that helps? - very, very small, simple hoops or plain studs - only gold or silver until secondary school and even then, only plain small hoops and studs in school.
3. At what age do parents feel it's appropriate to pierce ears? 2 weeks - no fuss, no drama
4. and lastly how sore is it really? I would imagine techonogies have advanced and maybe a painfree method exists? :rolleyes: Don't remember, but apparently the lack of fuss & ability to prevent it going manky was the best benefit

Good luck:)

foreign_correspondent

...even the best cared-for piercings carry a risk - infections, keloid scarring (google image search - ear piercing keloid - for pictures!) etc as well as rips and tears... my OH had his nose pierced years ago and developed some sort of infection - he removed the ring, and was left with reddened scaly skin, which he still suffers from despite trips to a consultant dermatologist, who thinks it was due to some sort of infection - as he was an adult when this happened, he had only himself to blame though.

I would say wait untl the child is old enough to give informed consent, and has an understanding of the risks.

2cakes

I had my daughters ears pierced 2 weeks ago in a local hairdressers that also did beauty treatments.

She is 8 years old and had a choice of gold, silver or gold stud with diamonte in them. The cost was £14.00 and my daughter flinched and said it didn't really hurt it was more of a shock when they press the gun thing. The girl cleaned them thoroughly before piercing and we have had no problems at all. We clean them twice a day with salt water and turn the earring.

I hope this helps.

dontone

I remember about 10 years ago that I decided to get mine pierced at the ripe old age of 22 :rolleyes:. Anyway I walked into the accessories shop and hung around about 5 mins just to steel my nerves. A child of around 6 walked into the shop just after me and decided that she wanted her ears pierced and asked her Mum if she could and if it hurt. The reply was "yes" and "no it doesn't hurt, just stings". Now the mother had lots of earrings and she had a friend who also had several including a nose stud. The girl sat in the chair looking a bit nervous and the lady came up with the gun and did one ear. Cue the worlds LOUDEST cry in pain followed by loud sobs when the other one was done. :eek:
Needless to say it put me off but I did go back a few weeks later thinking that was a one off but the same thing happened again with an older lady having the top of her ear pierced and proclaiming loudly "it really hurts"
BTW the place was closed not long after due to questions over hygiene due to many complaints over the gun not being clean and people getting infections. I'm not saying that happens in every establishment but it in the end as well as that little girl it was enough to put me off ear piercing for life.

Either that or I'm a wimp :rotfl:

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

erichamster wrote: »

This is unbelievable! There are no valid arguments for genital mutilation, cultural or otherwise, hiding behind the term infibulation won't change that, you disgust me.

If you had the sense to read the post properly, you would realise that I was not arguing for mutilation. I find that circumcision is the phrase that people hide behind, as it appears on the surface to be less traumatic. I find the suggestion that allowing the piercing of the ear lobes is consistent with a patriarchal brutalisation of women as disgusting as your poorly informed opinion of me.

If you had read my earlier post (and perhaps even understood it), I stated that my daughters had the right to decide what they did with their own bodies and, as they had chosen to have their ears pierced (which contrary to your suggestion, does not result in sexual dysfunction, maternal/child mortality, incontinence, and rejection by husband and family in the same way as the barbaric practice of FGM) - it was their right to do so.

Now do press the ignore button and bother someone else.