I am cross-posting this here as well as in the ear piercing thread in case some people don't read both and since my post stradles between being relevant to each. However, it is not an exact duplicate of the post in the ear piercing thread. I have made some additions to this post that relate more specifically to this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by little_tippler
I think that, the "abuse" word aside, that kids shouldn't have their ears pierced or be circumcised or any other physical aspect changed that is not necessary, by decision of the parents, especially if when the child is older they can probably say for themselves they want x or y "done". [...] I don't see any advantage for a kid to have circumcision or ears pierced or any of that [...] Your child is not a toy to "dress up".
All this said, I don't look down on people who have their kids' ears pierced, it's relatively harmless. I would not do so to my kids unless they requested it - it's not my body to put holes in! As for circumcision, I'm not in favour of it because it's an unnecessary and very sensitive medical procedure, but I can't condemn people who have it done to their little boys if they are in a society that in most cases chooses to do it.
|
I pretty much agree with this. One sentence in there is something which I think bears repeating: "Your child is not a toy to 'dress up.'" Now, clothing is one thing, but altering your child's body because you think it would look better is simply unnacceptable to me.
Is it "abuse?" No, not really. Is it bad parenting? Sorry, but yes. A previous poster brought up an interesting point: at what point does body modification of your child, without the child's input or consent, become too much? Parents can pierce ears because it's aesthetically pleasing to them...can they also stretch the earlobes? What about piercing clitoral hoods or labia on baby girls, as someone brought up in the circumcision thread? Or how about a frenum piercing on baby boys (if you don't know what this is,
click here)? Surely, if cutting off a part of the penis which has a specific purpose and contains the most sensitive and numerous nerves in the penis simply because it looks better and makes the parent's job of teaching their son how to clean himself a little easier is acceptable, a little frenum piercing should be as well. This is setting aside, of course, those who suffer from
preputial stenosis and have a medical need for circumcision. Even then,
infantile circumcision is, at the very least, not the best idea.
little_tippler is right though: we, as Americans (because god knows there aren't any other societies which love circumcision for non-religious reasons as much as we do*), live in a society in which circumcision is normal. It is far less normal even in American society than it used to be, but it is still normal. Likewise, piercing a baby's ears may not be statistically normal, but it is not looked down upon. Individual parents who make these decisions are not abusive - intent is an important factor. It is not the parents as individuals who should be condemned with regards to these practices, it is the societal practice as a whole.
I'll say this: at least earlobes, whatever purpose they may serve if any, do not lose their purpose or function by being pierced. The penis DOES lose a function by being circumcized. We can argue about whether it is a necessary function all day, but the point is it is a function, and that fact alone sets circumcision far apart from "normal" ear piercing.
*Note: I don't know for a fact that there is not a single other society which circumcizes at the same rate of America for non-religious reasons, but I do know that if there are others, it is a relative few.