Piercing a baby's ears

porn_star · 22-01-2007 08:41PM

event wrote:

im wondering, cos i dont know, how many kids have lost ears, or contarcted some mad disease, or gone deaf, due to ear piercing?

I know a girl who nearly lost her ear and was in hospital for weeks after getting her ear pierced with a gun. She was about 17 at the time, it was only about 2 years ago now. It happens and it happens more cos people don't take the time out to do a bit of research into just how dangerous piercing anything with a gun is, rather then going to a professional. I kinda find it ironic how parents are so protective about their kids and then they go and put them in danger unknowingly.

Terry · 22-01-2007 09:28PM

Hub wrote:

...I...I really cant believe what your saying...

...You would consider have your son circumcised due to a few problem pages on the net....?

Im sorry but your an idiot

You're lucky that Ruu got in there first, because I would have banned you.
personal abuse is not tolerated here. attact the post, not the poster.

on topic, piercing the ears of a child is barbaric, unneccessary, cruel and disgusting.
people have spoken about having babies circumcised. apparently some of the ladies here see it as ok for it to be done to a boy, but not to a girl.
mutilation is mutilation, regardless of gender.
I had my ear pierced when i was 14 because i was a rebel without a clue. turns out i have contact dermatitis which means i cannot wear jewellery (not that it matters to me now as i wouldn't be bothered wearing any at this stage). I got an infection in my ear and it was quite nasty. some people seem to think it is ok to circumcise a boy to prevent infection and to have a girls ears pierced. what if the girl also has contact dermatitis? google some images. seriously, some of the infections are gruesome and i count myself lucky not to have had one as bad.

anyway, what the fúck is wrong with some people?
how could anyone deliberately put a child through pain. there are some sick cúnts out there.

JC 2K3 · 22-01-2007 10:19PM

xzanti wrote:

Circumcision is beneficial to the child, it reduces risk of infections etc, while I'm sure painful... But ear piercing is purely cosmetic.. No need for it whatsoever IMO..

Seriously, read more into the subject. Male circumcision is a mutilation of the male genitals. No it's not going to destroy a guy's life, but it results in reduced senstivity and makes masturbation more difficult(the reason it was invented and practiced). Doctors that would advocate it are in a minority outside the US. The only reason given for it is a really weak case for preventing infections, which washing under the foreskin for 30 seconds in the shower would prevent.

Unpossible · 23-01-2007 02:53AM

. Doctors that would advocate it are in a minority outside the US.

I used to have a lot of infections until I had it done. I was less than 4 or 5 (yes I can remember the pre-op and recovery period), it was recomended by my doctor and I have never had any problems since.

makes masturbation more difficult

I have never had any problem getting off (wether on my own or having a woman do it)

but it results in reduced senstivity

I see this thrown out a lot its not like it causes you to become so numb that you only slightly feel something (unless maybe Im the exception), again I have no problems getting off.

Seriously, read more into the subject

:rolleyes:

JC 2K3 · 23-01-2007 08:21PM

Unpossible wrote:

I used to have a lot of infections until I had it done. I was less than 4 or 5 (yes I can remember the pre-op and recovery period), it was recomended by my doctor and I have never had any problems since.

Were you ever told how to wash your penis correctly when you were a child?
I wasn't, parents don't seem to be educated on this. Fortunately, I wasn't prone to infections. Better doctor's advice would be, "teach him how to wash underneath his foreskin" rather than, "Let's just slice it off".

Unpossible wrote:

I have never had any problem getting off (wether on my own or having a woman do it)

I see this thrown out a lot its not like it causes you to become so numb that you only slightly feel something (unless maybe Im the exception), again I have no problems getting off.

I don't want to get too graphic. But I personally can't see a circumcised person getting off without lube. I never said it had drastic consequences, just unnecessary minor ones. It doesn't cause the head of your penis to become numb, but it does reduce sensitivity, and you've lost a very sexually responsive bit of skin.

It's not something you'd suffer trauma for your whole life as a result of, nor is it something that's going to impair your sex life badly. But it's not desirable and totally unnecessary.

Unpossible · 23-01-2007 08:48PM

JC 2K3 wrote:

Were you ever told how to wash your penis correctly when you were a child?

Honestly I was so young when all this happened I can't remember, there was supposed to be a lot of doctor visits so I assume that he would have mentioned that to my parents at some point.

JC 2K3 wrote:

I never said it had drastic consequences, just unnecessary minor ones. It doesn't cause the head of your penis to become numb, but it does reduce sensitivity,

To me the "minor ones" are better than the inconviences of having one (maybe Im just a lazy person who doesn't like worring about infections or "tightness").

JC 2K3 wrote:

Fortunately, I wasn't prone to infections.

I was, my maternal grandfather was (and Im not sure about other maternal relatives), I'm saved a lot of hassle this way.

JC 2K3 wrote:

nor is it something that's going to impair your sex life badly

I reckon being more sensitive than I am now would cause problems

especially with my small asian fiancée

:eek: .

JC 2K3 wrote:

It's not something you'd suffer trauma for your whole life as a result of,

What is more bothering is having people trying to make out that because of circumcision I am somehow a "mutalated" man with little or no feeling in my penis, I feel like its the opposite and I'm happy with how I am down there, nothing I have read or documentaries about this that I've seen could persuade me to try and "re-grow" a foreskin.

JC 2K3 · 23-01-2007 09:38PM

Unpossible wrote:

To me the "minor ones" are better than the inconviences of having one (maybe Im just a lazy person who doesn't like worring about infections or "tightness").

I presume you are a skinhead too, since washing your hair would be such an inconvenience....
You roll back your foreskin, wash your penis and roll it back over your penis - infections avoided. No inconvenience IMO.

Unpossible wrote:

What is more bothering is having people trying to make out that because of circumcision I am somehow a "mutalated" man with little or no feeling in my penis, I feel like its the opposite and I'm happy with how I am down there, nothing I have read or documentaries about this that I've seen could persuade me to try and "re-grow" a foreskin.

There's nothing wrong with you, I'm sure you're penis functions perfectly fine. However, there's no good reason to be circumcised.

InFront · 23-01-2007 11:50PM

JC 2K3 wrote:

there's no good reason to be circumcised.

No?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/hiv/mg18725113.700-circumcision-protects-men-against-hiv.html
There is just one.
I am in favour of circumcision, which is already widely carried out in Ireland for cultural reasons, and intend on my children (er, sons) being circumcised. There is now very significant evidence to add to the hygienic benefits, of circumcision.

I wouldn't agree with piercing a baby's ears on the other hand.

JC 2K3 · 24-01-2007 12:15AM

InFront wrote:

No?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/hiv/mg18725113.700-circumcision-protects-men-against-hiv.html
There is just one.
I am in favour of circumcision, which is already widely carried out in Ireland for cultural reasons, and intend on my children (er, sons) being circumcised. There is now very significant evidence to add to the hygienic benefits, of circumcision.

That's a study done in a country with a HIV epidemic, and besides, if they all used condoms there'd be very few infected.

I found this article, I felt it was very balanced and I totally agreed with its conclusion:

Very few absolute medical reasons exist for circumcision, and no reasons exist to justify routine circumcision of infants outside areas with a high rate of HIV infection. Far too many circumcisions are performed without good reason in Europe and the USA. The best advice is 'if it isn't absolutely necessary, don't circumcise'.

InFront · 24-01-2007 12:33AM

JC 2K3 wrote:

That's a study done in a country with a HIV epidemic, and besides, if they all used condoms there'd be very few infected.

Right, but your claim was that there is no good reason to be circumcised. This is incorrect.

I found this article, I felt it was very balanced and I totally agreed with its conclusion:

But that article is from 2005. the information that came to light last Autumn is very significant, and was published worldwide. Perhaps you hadn't heard about it, but was a pretty big deal when it was published, and is something that people ought to be aware of.

JC 2K3 · 24-01-2007 12:44AM

InFront wrote:

But that article is from 2005. the information that came to light last Autumn is very significant, and was published worldwide. Perhaps you hadn't heard about it, but was a pretty big deal when it was published, and is something that people ought to be aware of.

What information came to light last Autumn?

Is it not very simple? If a man washes under his foreskin every day and wears condoms when having sex how could there be any more risk of infection than a man without a foreskin?

InFront · 24-01-2007 01:02AM

The information I linked to with regard to HIV came to light last Autumn. It is very significant medical research, there is really no denying it.

As I am sure you already know, five people die of AIDS every minute worldwide.

If circumcision can save lives, and it can, there is a particular moral necessity to perform it in these countries where men are uneducated about sexual health, and have their health jeopradised by unwillingness to use the condom, complete ignorance of the condom, or being told that its use is morally reprehensible.

So again, your claim that "there's no good reason to be circumcised" is not correct.

riskky · 24-01-2007 01:46AM

JC 2K3 wrote:

I presume you are a skinhead too, since washing your hair would be such an inconvenience....
You roll back your foreskin, wash your penis and roll it back over your penis - infections avoided. No inconvenience IMO.

There's nothing wrong with you, I'm sure you're penis functions perfectly fine. However, there's no good reason to be circumcised.

And there is no good reason not to be.

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.

—Circumcision Policy Statement, American Academy of Pediatrics

Unpossible · 24-01-2007 02:09AM

JC 2K3 wrote:

I presume you are a skinhead too, since washing your hair would be such an inconvenience....

pretty short yeah, I don't want the hassle of longer curly hair*

I'm bowing out here, I've said my piece and told my story.

Back on topic, I've never had piercings (neither has my g/f) so I have to ask, do the holes not heal? I've heard a female friend complain that hers had closed up after years of not wearing earings.

*edit; just to make it clearer, I have thick curly hair which just goes wild added to this the fact that I do a lot of swimming makes looking after it (or more precisely making me not look like disco stu) very difficult.
plus it just makes me look damn hard :P
sorry Im rambling now

nesf · 24-01-2007 05:05AM

riskky wrote:

And there is no good reason not to be.

Um, the natural state is to be uncircumcised so you need to look at it in the sense of providing a good reason to do it. Now personally, and I think most people would agree with me, I believe that an adult is well within his rights to be circumcised for whatever reason he likes. Be it as a preventitive measure against alien abduction or whatever, it's no one's business but his imho. Similar to piercings, tattoos etc.

The issue is with your children. You are permenantly altering their body by choice. This is where I have issues, I can't decide if a parent has a right to do that. But I can't decide whether it really is within the parent's rights to decide.

That's where a lot of it comes from. The disease arguments etc aren't strong enough to justify it at birth tbh. If by cutting off my son's ear I could reduce his risk of brain cancer later in life should I do it? Weighing certain danger versus possible prevention is difficult to justify. My son may or may not develop brain cancer at some point but he'd definitely be short an ear. Think of the HiV argument as this: assuming it does reduce my risk of infection, my risk of infection is small to begin with and most of the 'risk factors' are things within my control (ie I can wear a condom, not use needles to inject drugs etc). The actual benifit to someone in this country is actually very very small, the initial risk of infection is small and the benifits follow. When we look at countries with Aids epidemics then yes it's worth looking at but when it comes to arguing about circumcision in a country like Ireland it's a non-issue in my mind.

The religious argument, essentially devout Muslims and Jews (afaik) would be expected to circumcise their sons is something I don't really want to get into because we end up in all kinds of trouble with issues of freedom to worship etc.

InFront · 24-01-2007 10:53AM

nesf wrote:

If by cutting off my son's ear I could reduce his risk of brain cancer later in life should I do it?

The thing is, the ear is actually a unique tissue. Histologically, there is nothing in the foreskin that is unique to the penis or to the body. It is very easy to see, this is not a complex tissue. We do not know of any damage that can be done by not having a foreskin, however we are aware of the immense positive aspects of circumcision. These have been mentioned and backed up here already.

Of course you will always have people who would like to lament that removing the foreskin is denying their son the essence of himself or the crux of his manhood. But if you want to look at it from a medical point of view, circumcision is not a problem.

Basically, someone will always complain about anything. You just have to accept this and decide on whether you believe facts or not.

r3nu4l · 24-01-2007 11:05AM

^ InFront, you are obviously coming at this from a cultural (Islamic) point of view and using scientific evidence to back your point of view...which is always a good idea...however, as a scientist I can tell you that it is simple and easy to pull out scientific evidence for both sides of the argument.

One study, or a study here and there is never enough to come to a definitive conclusion on the issue of circumcision (or any scientific issue). A huge analysis of hundreds or even thousands of studies is needed before a full and proper conclusion can be drawn.

However, even that has it's faults because of vested interests. An analysis conducted by a centre funded or run by a pro-circumcision group will always come to a pro-circumcision conclusion (or neutral viewpoint - if the evidence is overwhelmingly against circumcision) and vice-versa. Funding is the God of science these days

I have my own opinion but I won't voice them here as I won't be drawn into this argument apart from saying that when I was very young I had an infection under my foreskin that became recurrent. A female doctor showed me and my mother how my foreskin should be properly washed and after that time I never had a problem with infection. Correct hygeine is always a good start to preventing infection.

InFront · 24-01-2007 11:38AM

Well I haven't advocated anything on religious grounds - that's a different issue completely - my point is simply that the argument 'there's no good reason to do it' is incorrect, there are good reasons.

The studies are being abcked up and researchers are coming to the same conclusions. Another one in Kenya for example: Link

"It is critical to emphasize that these clinical trials demonstrated that medical circumcision is safe and effective when the procedure is performed by medically trained professionals and when patients receive appropriate care during the healing period following surgery," notes Dr. Fauci.

Researchers have noted significant variations in HIV prevalence that seemed, at least in certain African and Asian countries, to be associated with levels of male circumcision in the community. In areas where circumcision is common, HIV prevalence tends to be lower; conversely, areas of higher HIV prevalence overlapped with regions where male circumcision is not commonly practiced.

What valid medical evidence do you have that outweighs the benefits of circumcision?

r3nu4l · 24-01-2007 12:01PM

InFront wrote:

Well I haven't advocated anything on religious grounds - that's a different issue completely - my point is simply that the argument 'there's no good reason to do it' is incorrect, there are good reasons.

Really? Thinly veilled cultural (read, religious) advocation below methinks

InFront wrote:

I am in favour of circumcision, which is already widely carried out in Ireland for cultural reasons, and intend on my children (er, sons) being circumcised.

InFront wrote:

What valid medical evidence do you have that outweighs the benefits of circumcision?

There are definitely good reasons for male circumcision in countries in the developing world with low use of condoms and high rates of HIV infection. However, there is little (not no) benefit in the Western world (imo).

I have made no claim of medical benefits of remaining uncircumcised. Have a look at this article for both points of view.

...male circumcision was also strongly associated with lower HIV prevalence among countries with primarily heterosexual HIV transmission, but not among countries with primarily homosexual or injection drug use HIV transmission.

For drug users or homosexuals - circumcision has no extra benefit in protecting against HIV.

Stephen · 24-01-2007 01:30PM

Circumcision that is not necessitated by a medical condition disgusts me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsYNBY2OTmI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8tqvsnCUo

InFront · 24-01-2007 01:46PM

r3nu4l wrote:

Really? Thinly veilled cultural (read, religious) advocation below methinks

No, that was a seperate point to the evidence I linked to, as is pretty obvious. I was merely giving my personal opinion for myself. If I started linking to the Qur'an or pictures of Pakistani man in a Shalwar Kameez and a speech bubble saying "Circumcise your sons" that would be a "thinly veiled religious/ cultural advocation". The scientific ecidence backing up circumcision stands alone

For drug users or homosexuals - circumcision has no extra benefit in protecting against HIV.

Firstly, it is incorrect to say that circumcision has no extra benefit for protecting against HIV in the case of the homosexual. This has simply not yet ben examined in the same detail as the other studies, because of obvious social barriers to the validity of that research.

Secondly, of course it has no benefit with relation to used needles in drug abuse. Neither does circumcision cure heart disease or influenza.

Neither example detracts from the proven importance of circumcision in AIDS prevention. I am not saying that circumcision is "better" than condom use, of course it is less reliable. However, as we know there is a chronic unwillingness and unavailability of condoms in the 'third world', and circumcision is the next best medical intervention.

JC 2K3 · 24-01-2007 09:28PM

InFront wrote:

The information I linked to with regard to HIV came to light last Autumn. It is very significant medical research, there is really no denying it.

Then why is the article dated August 2005?

InFront wrote:

Neither example detracts from the proven importance of circumcision in AIDS prevention. I am not saying that circumcision is "better" than condom use, of course it is less reliable. However, as we know there is a chronic unwillingness and unavailability of condoms in the 'third world', and circumcision is the next best medical intervention.

This is IRELAND. Hardly the third world.

I've got the feeling you've taken this into a pedantic affair based on me saying, "there is no good reason for circumcision". Let me rephrase that as, "there is no good reason to circumcise a healthy infant in a first world country".

Let me quote, once again, the conclusion of the author of the artilce I linked to earlier:

Very few absolute medical reasons exist for circumcision, and no reasons exist to justify routine circumcision of infants outside areas with a high rate of HIV infection. Far too many circumcisions are performed without good reason in Europe and the USA. The best advice is 'if it isn't absolutely necessary, don't circumcise'.

InFront · 25-01-2007 12:13AM

JC 2K3 wrote:

I've got the feeling you've taken this into a pedantic affair based on me saying, "there is no good reason for circumcision". Let me rephrase that as, "there is no good reason to circumcise a healthy infant in a first world country".

If the article is dated 2005 I havent linked to the correct one which has appeared in the same magazine in recent months with the same conclusions. My apologies.
Hopefully you see the point now however, there is one particularly excellent reason for circumcision of boys. I am not arguing that this is the case in Ireland, merely that you are wrong in claiming there is no good reason for circumcision.

And yes, I am reasonably aware that this is Ireland. However when you say "Crime is bad" it is not the same thing as saying "Crime is bad in Ireland but not the third world".

pokerwidow · 25-01-2007 12:55PM

kizzyr wrote:

Its not practiced legally and its not a traditonal praqctice in the Western world. It happens a lot in Africa, espeically among nomadic tribes. Some small groups if immigrants to countries like Ireland, the UK, USA etc practice it illegally. Millions of young girls are victims of this hideous practice. In Somalia just before a girl hits puberty she is taken out into the dessert to meet with the "doctor" who is usually an old woman with a razor blade. The kid is then forced onto her back, legs prised apart, and everything, and I mean everthing is hacked away until all that is left is a hole. Even this is then sewen up with only the tiniest of openings left for her to urinate through. You know how you normally gor for a wee and it takes a few seconds, the hole this girl is left with is so small is can take 20 minutes for her to urinate. Then when she gets her period........what takes most of us girls 3 to 5 days, takes 12 to 15 and is absolute agony as all of the blood is backed up. She is kept all sewen up until she is married as proof of her virginity. Her husband, if he is nice, then cuts open the stitches and has sex with her. There isn't a hope in hell of her ever enjoying sex due to the butchering she has gone through earlier in her life and then when she is finished she is sewen up again. Sometimes the husband doesn't even cut the stitches he just forces himself in. Think of the joy if the woman then gets pregnant.........some of these women are forced to attempt to give birth while still stitched up, so coupled with the usual pain of childbirth the baby also has to be forced through these too, if they haven't torn apart already as she was dilating.Sometimes this doesn't happen and the baby dies.

Given the countries male circumcision originated in I can see how it began as a health practice and eventually became part of their culture but this is little more than another way for women to be subjegated, controlled and denied any pleasure in life. Both the UN and Amnesty International have a lot of shocking information available on this subject if you are interested in learning more.

That is one of the most horrific things I have ever read.

Giblet · 25-01-2007 02:10PM

As far as I'm aware, none of you are doctors and therefore none of you can make correct assumptions about any of these things beyond what you have read on the internet.

This topic has gone way off topic and I'm going to close it.

Piercing a baby's ears

Comments