When is tradition child abuse

Carrigart Exile

This is more of a debate issue rather than a parenting problem, although there is an issue for a parent. A friend of mine now lives in Teneriffe with his Spanish wife and has become the proud dad to a daughter. It seems traditionally on Teneriffe, baby girls have an ear pierced at a very young age (first few months of life) and his wife wants to have this done. He, however, is completely against this and considers it abuse. We have been discussing it via e-mail and of course that raised the issue of baby boys being circumcised (which in my opinion is butchery and abuse).

Just wondered what others thought?

seanybiker

dont see any problem with the piercing. Circumcision is just nasty

esmeralda

I live and work in Spain. Every single woman I know had her ears pierced soon after birth. Every single one of them that I know in any depth are happy balanced individuals.

Personally, I had my ears pierced by a professional when I was eighteen, can't remember it hurting at all.

The chance of infection is negligible because parents look after their newborns' wellbeing far better than teenagers (or adults for that matter) look after their own.

If the child decides when they are older that they do not want pierced ears, they simply don't wear earrings for a period of time and the holes disappear.

Barbaric traditions exist. This is not one of them. In my humble opinion such a strong opposition this particular one must hide other issues.

noby

I wouldn't want it for my children, but to equate it with child abuse is a bit much.

Quackles

noby wrote: »

I wouldn't want it for my children, but to equate it with child abuse is a bit much.

Indeed... you could legally do it here too, if you wanted to. Not child abuse, but definitely not something I would want for my child.

username123

esmeralda wrote: »

If the child decides when they are older that they do not want pierced ears, they simply don't wear earrings for a period of time and the holes disappear.

This is not true actually, I had mine pierced at age 7 and from 12 or so onwards did not want to wear earrings, I am 34 now and the holes are still there and visible, and very occasionally become slightly inflamed/infected (probably a piece of dirt getting in). Perhaps it depends on the individual but I do know other people with visible ear piercing holes that did not close up.

I personally think piercing or any other type of body modification should not be done to a child - let them make their own decision when they are of age to do so.

stovelid

It would be nice if every single questionable act (smacking, ear piercing, whatever) relating to children was not referred to as child abuse here.

I don't agree with either but equating them with abuse is hysterical and unhelpful.

shrapnel222

this is no more abuse than taking your child to the GP for his jabs. Children actually scream a lot less when they have their ears pierced, compared to when they get a half inch needle stuck in the meat of their leg.

i wouldn't have it done either though, not a big fan of earrings on babies

lostinnappies

my little niece had her ears pierced at that age. I dont know how or why anyone would want to put holes in their new born babies (or chop bits off). I didnt agree with it but my niece wasnt bothered about having them done.. after the initial shock. There are a lot of good and bad traditions out there. Its really up to your friend, wither or not he is prepared to do that to his baby, or if his wife is prepared to accept his tradition of NOT piercing ears until they are about 7.

Scoobydoobydoo

I can understand the father not wanting this done. It may be a tradition but that doesn't mean anything, doesn't mean it's fine. I just feel that it's wrong to put holes in any part of a child's body, unless there's a valid medical reason. As a parent, that would be my gut feeling. Aside from that, I hate seeing earrings on small children, and I think it looks tacky somehow. I would rather offer her the choice to get her ears pierced, when she's 13 or so.

deisemum

I'm 44 and had my ears pierced when I was 14/15 but I didn't bother wearing earrings since I was around 18 but the marks are still clearly visable.

I don't agree with young children, especially babies having their ears pierced and it just looks so common. I think parents should wait until the child is at least 7 or 8 and can have some say in deciding if they want the piercing or not. I've noticed around first communion time seems to be a time that a lot of girls get their ears pierced.

Another thing I'd be worried about is the chance of another toddler accidently ripping a child's ear. I've seen the scar on a toddler that wore gold studs. Another toddler had fallen on top of the toddler wearing the earrings and landed on the poor child's ear ripping it in the process.

Honey-ec

shrapnel222 wrote: »

this is no more abuse than taking your child to the GP for his jabs.

Are you really comparing vaccination for valid medical reasons to piercing a baby's ears for purely cosmetic ones???

That's a ridiculous analogy.

esmeralda

had mine pierced at age 7 and from 12 or so onwards did not want to wear earrings, I am 34 now and the holes are still there and visible, and very occasionally become slightly inflamed/infected (probably a piece of dirt getting in).

Couldn't agree more that 7 is the WORST age to get this done. Too old for parents to keep an eye on it until there is no longer danger of infection, just at the age when you are into all kinds of germ-ridden situations, and not old enough to look after them properly and avoid infection. No wonder you got infections, never wanted to wear earrings again and were marked for life!

I have had mine pierced for 30 years now and when I'm not wearing earrings you cannot tell they are pierced.

It would be nice if every single questionable act (smacking, ear piercing, whatever) relating to children was not referred to as child abuse here.

I don't agree with either but equating them with abuse is hysterical and unhelpful.
Today 08:28

+1
At the end of the day it is a personal decision, but I would not oppose it on grounds of child abuse!

jim o doom

With ear rings I don't think it's so bad, it is merely a small piece of flesh (Although the only piercing I ever had was a lip), but I CERTAINLY regard circumcision as a horrendous practice and child abuse to boot. Imagine circumcising an ADULT without his permission? you would go to jail for it. I see it as no less disgusting than the "cutting of the rose" or female circumcision, both practices are a horrendous thing to force on a person unable to make their own choice in the matter. I mean the thought of circumcision literally gives me the heebie jeebies.. the thought of your. ugh. head. never being protected from cloth again until it was rough and had no more sensitive feeling? *shudder*

Nevyn

I understand that the tradition is so that people can tell the difference between boys and girls and that the first earing are usually pearls a sign that the family treasure the daughter
it was a mark of class and rank that a family who had money for such earings would have the money to seek retubution if any harm came to the child.

Also when she became a young woman the gold earings were a sign of wealth and they were her own independant wealth which she brought to her marriage and could use in needs be to get back to her own family if ill treated.

Yes these are not our traditions or our cutlure but he married into that culture and is living over there and needs to learn the reasons why and how his daughter not having her ear pearced will cause comment, confusion and may lead to her being bullied.

I don't agree with earings on infants or children, I didn't get my ears done until I was
became a 'woman' and will give my daughter that option also, but I don't live over there.

While I have reared my own children outside of the 'norm' in this country and have had some conflict with both sides of the family I was supported by thier Dad, so I would say that your brother needs to do some more research ask some more questions and pick his battles.

shrapnel222

Honey-ec wrote: »

Are you really comparing vaccination for valid medical reasons to piercing a baby's ears for purely cosmetic ones???

That's a ridiculous analogy.

i'm saying that neither is abuse. Do you think the child differentiates the pain of a needle in the leg from the needle in the ear?

what you are saying on the other hand could be construed as "abusing a child for a valid medical reason is okay, but abusing for esthetic purposes is not?":rolleyes:

shoelaceface

In fairness to consider it 'child abuse' is a bit extreme.

I personally do not like it, but its not the worst thing that could happen to a child.

A tradition is a tradition. The child is living in the country where it is a tradition and it may cause problems between him and his wife. If the tables were reversed and he had a tradition that he wanted to follow, would his wife be willing to follow!

im just saying it could be a much worse tradition! and i do believe that child abuse is an incorrect term to use

Quackles

jim o doom wrote: »

With ear rings I don't think it's so bad, it is merely a small piece of flesh (Although the only piercing I ever had was a lip), but I CERTAINLY regard circumcision as a horrendous practice and child abuse to boot. Imagine circumcising an ADULT without his permission? you would go to jail for it. I see it as no less disgusting than the "cutting of the rose" or female circumcision, both practices are a horrendous thing to force on a person unable to make their own choice in the matter. I mean the thought of circumcision literally gives me the heebie jeebies.. the thought of your. ugh. head. never being protected from cloth again until it was rough and had no more sensitive feeling? *shudder*

Again, I still don't consider it abuse. I wouldn't do it, but what about when it's medically necessary? I knew a 3 year old who had to be circumcised, recurring infections due to tightness, and I don't seem to recall anyone asking his permission. Hardly abusive.

However, to those who say that something is not abusive simply because it's a tradition, think of female circumcision. A tradition in some parts of the world, barbaric in others. I think the line I draw in my head would be whether or not people would choose to have it done as an adult. Adults do get their ears pierced, and some adults would choose to be circumcised (albeit mainly for medical reasons as outlined above). Uncross those legs, boys, I see you all cringing

Nevyn

There is a huge difference between ear pericing and female gential mutilation.
One is something which will heal and not impare the bodys function as the child grows,
the other is done delibratly to impare the bodys function and to removed any chance of sexual pleasure and a normal sex life of the child as she grows into a woman.

esmeralda

Yes these are not our traditions or our cutlure but he married into that culture and is living over there

+1

...and needs to learn the reasons why and how his daughter not having her ear pearced will cause comment, confusion and may lead to her being bullied.

Don't think she would get bullied, ear piercing is extremely widespread but I don't think its THAT strong a tradition (although maybe that's because I live in Madrid - it may be different in the provinces..., especially when they are an island about 2,500 km away form the main land mass). For me the problem is he has as good as told his wife that the Spanish (that would include her and her family) are into child abuse practices. If I thought the country where I was living was into the wholesale abuse of children, I wouldn't be living there, no matter how good the weather is!

And just for the record, nor is it into wholesale animal cruelty (just in case anybody uses that old chestnut as a counter argument). Very few are into bullfighting. It's kept going mainly by nobility, pseudo intellectuals and tourists (hence the difficulty in getting it outlawed) end of thread drift .

The Corinthian

Italian children are introduced to wine when they are still under ten. I myself had my first, heavily watered down, glass of wine at seven years of age. Some people - especially in cultures where binge drinking is the norm - would see this as child abuse.

It's not. No more than encouraging a boy to play a game like Rugby.

Carrigart Exile

Thanks for all of your responses, I agree abuse is too strong a word (it was early, the caffeine hadn't kicked in) but personally as a father of a 7 year old girl I would hate to see her with pierced ears

littlebitdull

Personally I like and have no objection to ear-rings on little girls, even on babies. I do however prefer small ear-rings and while both my daughters have their ears pierced I did not allow either of them to wear big ear-rings while they were young.

When my elder daughter was around five or six months I got her ears pierced with small blue diamantie studs. I loved them. Her Dad did not. One day while he was changing her nappy in a different room to me - both of her earrings fell out:rolleyes: strangly enough.

She got them redone but not till she was around 8 or 9. My younger daughter was about 6.

I honestly can not see why people get so het up about it. So long as the ear-rings are age aproprate I can't see the issue. And I would certainly never describe myself as common - nor do I feel that anyone else would ever do so ..

Sleepy

Thaedydal wrote: »

There is a huge difference between ear pericing and female gential mutilation.
One is something which will heal and not impare the bodys function as the child grows,
the other is done delibratly to impare the bodys function and to removed any chance of sexual pleasure and a normal sex life of the child as she grows into a woman.

Would you say the same of male genital mutilation? It can't be said that circumcision is anything other than mutilation. Sometimes it's a medical necessity - just as amputating a limb can be, that's no good reason for us to start chopping off babies arms until a medical reason exists to do so.

I have to admit, I wouldn't consider ear piercing to be mutilation of the human body as it's reversible, sure it may leave a small mark on the earlobes but that can't be compared to the permanent removal of part of the body.

My partner had her ears pierced at 3 months old or so as she was born in spain but while I was reading this thread she asked if I wanted to get our daughter's ears pierced as a baby and was relieved when I said I'd be against it. Hopefully that's a decision we won't have to make for ten or twelve years at least!

Nevyn

Traditional/cultural/religious cirumcision is done for religious reason or practical ones ( sand under the foreskin apprently is not a lot of fun esp for kids ) does not mar the functionality of the male genitals to the same extreme as female genital mutlation, nor is it about control of the boys sexuality.

If it is for practical traditional reasons or as part of the rites and rituals of the relgion the male child is born into or is need for medical reason, I would say fair enough but I disagree with the whole sale circumcision of male babies as par for the course as in most of america.