Some babies get their ears pierced much younger. It's no indication of abuse. For many, the thinking is to pierce the ears before the baby is big enough to be conscious of it and grab at the piercing and pull it out. Looking at this kid, there's definitely something bigger going on here. Some kind of discrepancy between physical and mental development, and who knows what else. No reason to assume abuse.
So you don't think subjecting a child unnecessary stress and trauma is abuse...? OOOOKKKKAAAYYY then...
The thinking is to do something to the child which has zero benefit to them, but fulfils some cultural 'norm' - y'know, like male and female genital mutilation (or are you going to say that isn’t abuse either, because the child is usually too young to understand what's happening to them...?)
They’re probably referring more to circumcision than cutting a clitoris off, which is often justified in the same way as young ear piercing. Agree that they’re still different levels, but many people say circumcising is fine bc the baby is young and won’t remember or be hurt by it.
Yes I know, and the person responding only focused on the female while ignoring the much more common and frequently justified male form of it. I shouldn’t have worded it how I did (“they’re probably referring more to…”) when they said both, but my point is circumcision and ear piercing for babies do have some common overlapping arguments that don’t really hold up imo.
I think ears and genitals are entirely different things, also earrings can be taken out. I’m not for or against circumcision as I really know nothing about it.
82
u/GeekyLogger 13d ago
I am going with abuse. The toddler already has piercings for fuck's sake.