What age did you let your daughter get her ears pierced

Janepig

balletshoes wrote: »

its no different, as a mother, holding their hand/sitting with them while they get it done at 5 or 10, or 2. You let your child have her ears pierced at age 5 - so what age would you consider it being suitable to be illegal to?

As I said in my original post, DD nagged, I explained that it was bloody painful, she kept on, I kept on, and when I was happy that she still wanted to do it even though she knew it was going to hurt, then she was allowed to have it done. If she'd have been five and imo not able to understand how painful it was then she wouldn't have had it done.

Jx

balletshoes

BigJockKnew wrote: »

Nothing is definite......

It's an observation.....normally when I see a young child with her ears pierced her mother is usually a jobless single mother and the children have different fathers. I'm sure there are exceptions though...

thats hilarious :rotfl::rotfl: - so you know, by looking at a young child and the female adult she's with as you pass them by in the street, that because the young child has her ears pierced, that the female adult she's with is her parent, and she's jobless and single, and she has other kids, and those kids don't have the same fathers?

meer53

Janepig wrote: »

Whilst I don't agree with the sentiments in the post you quoted (one of those posts that I wouldn't bother replying to as some things are just posted to see what sort of reaction they can get), I see no reason, cultural or otherwise, why you would pierce the ears of an eight week old baby. Having seen babies and toddlers getting their ears pierced on occasion when I've happened to be in Claires with DD, it's too traumatic to watch for me, heaven help what it must be like for the baby. I couldn't watch DD having her ears pierced aged five with her consent (DH held her hand), how any mother can stand there and watch her baby go through that I do not know. It should be made illegal imo.

Jx

It's really not that painful and soon forgotten. A bit like an immunisation injection.

When my daughter was born, i watched as surgeons inserted a life saving tube into her to give her drugs and also drips to feed her. I also learned how to insert a feeding tube. Blood tests every day too. She doesn't remember any of it.

SavingPennies_2

Janepig wrote: »

Whilst I don't agree with the sentiments in the post you quoted (one of those posts that I wouldn't bother replying to as some things are just posted to see what sort of reaction they can get), I see no reason, cultural or otherwise, why you would pierce the ears of an eight week old baby. Having seen babies and toddlers getting their ears pierced on occasion when I've happened to be in Claires with DD, it's too traumatic to watch for me, heaven help what it must be like for the baby. I couldn't watch DD having her ears pierced aged five with her consent (DH held her hand), how any mother can stand there and watch her baby go through that I do not know. It should be made illegal imo.

Jx

I don't have children so perhaps I cant comment...but I can honestly say when I had my ears pierced at 5 it wasn't traumatic in the slightest, and it didn't hurt, I can remember thinking how fab they looked and couldn't stop admiring them.

meer53

BigJockKnew wrote: »

Nothing is definite......

It's an observation.....normally when I see a young child with her ears pierced her mother is usually a jobless single mother and the children have different fathers. I'm sure there are exceptions though...

I'd say you need new glasses.

Janepig

meer53 wrote: »

It's really not that painful and soon forgotten. A bit like an immunisation injection.

When my daughter was born, i watched as surgeons inserted a life saving tube into her to give her drugs and also drips to feed her. I also learned how to insert a feeding tube. Blood tests every day too. She doesn't remember any of it.

You seriously can't compare an immunisation injection or life-saving treatment to having a baby's ears pierced. One is, well, life-saving, and the other is needless pain inflicted against the child's will for show.

Jx

Janepig

SavingPennies wrote: »

I don't have children so perhaps I cant comment...but I can honestly say when I had my ears pierced at 5 it wasn't traumatic in the slightest, and it didn't hurt, I can remember thinking how fab they looked and couldn't stop admiring them.

DD's never complained either.

Jx

meer53

Janepig wrote: »

You seriously can't compare an immunisation injection or life-saving treatment to having a baby's ears pierced. One is, well, life-saving, and the other is needless pain inflicted against the child's will for show.

Jx

I'm not comparing the reasons for them, i'm comparing the pain and how soon it's forgotten. Whether an injection or ear piercing, the pain is not something that affects children for life !

My daughter asked for her ears to be pierced so it was hardly against her will !

onlyroz

balletshoes wrote: »

and thats up to you - but as others have said, in some cultures it is the norm for girls to have their ears pierced as babies.

There are also cultures where circumcision (of boys and girls) is the norm. Doesn't make it right though.

As I have a phobia of jewellery there's no way I'd let my kids to it until they were old enough to look after them entirely by themselves (so probably mid-late teens). In general though probably secondary school is a good limit.

I do think it's barbaric to pierce the ears of a child not old enough to ask to have it done.

meer53

Most little girls understand that they need to look after pierced ears until they heal. My daughter, at 6, cleaned hers every day just as the girl at Claires showed her, we never had an issue. Any who are too young to understand usually have Mummies who are happy to do it for them.

I really don't think it's a huge issue, just a personal choice, there's no "right" age is there ?