Parents 'accessorizing' their babies

Since we're on the subject, another thought came to me.

Some people defend piercing babies' ears even though it is painful to the children and it's all done with the ONLY reason being the PARENT wants it, not the kid.

Alright...maybe a parent has that right, but where is the line drawn? Ears, okay, what if a parent wanted to have their baby girl pierced with a naval ring because they found that 'pretty'? Is that okay too? Or if they wanted to tattoo their kid. What if they wanted the baby tattooed behind the ear, like teenagers have done with the marijuana leaf? Is that 'pretty' too or would people be calling that abuse? I mean where is the line drawn in the name of causing your baby pain for your own vanity and they're too young to even know what's going on or to even say whether they want it or not?

Yeah, parents have rights, and they have rights to raise their kids as they see fit but I don't recall seeing in any of that, the right to treat their living, breathing baby like it's just property and little more than a Customize Me doll.

Are you serious? You seriously think that's what accessorizing your child is? Treating them like property?


You know what. I'm not even going to give my 'opinion' on this topic. Don't want you to think I'm 'attacking' you for it.

It comes down to what is socially acceptable and legal. In our culture, body piercing for a child under 16 is against the law, and tattoos until 18.

There are cultures who pierce children prior to age 18 and that is all having to do with cultural significance and their traditions.

I was gonna say that. No one under the age of 18 can get a tattoo....and while I didn't know that you had to be 16 to get a body piercing, I would imagine that most piercing places would resist piercing a baby's navel.

Marc wrote:I was gonna say that. No one under the age of 18 can get a tattoo....and while I didn't know that you had to be 16 to get a body piercing, I would imagine that most piercing places would resist piercing a baby's navel.

At 16, in my state, you have to have a parent with you to do anything (lobes may be an exception). My step daughter wanted her tragus pierced, and had to wait until 18, since her mom was against it.

It's all technically "abuse", it's just different degrees. Ear piercing is a socially acceptable tradition in our society so the law doesn't care and most people look the other way because "it's cute". But yes it is technically a type of abuse since it is done without consent, hurts them and not done for any beneficial reason. Its the same as those people who shove bamboo sticks through their kids lips in south america, or women that have their daughters circumcised in parts of Africa. Totally legal things in those countries, but clearly types of abuse (although much more extreme examples than simple ear piercing).

wesley wrote:It's all technically "abuse", it's just different degrees. Ear piercing is a socially acceptable tradition in our society so the law doesn't care and most people look the other way because "it's cute". But yes it is technically a type of abuse since it is done without consent, hurts them and not done for any beneficial reason. Its the same as those people who shove bamboo sticks through their kids lips in south america, or women that have their daughters circumcised in parts of Africa. Totally legal things in those countries, but clearly types of abuse (although much more extreme examples than simple ear piercing).

Thank you! Finally somebody who gets it.