Cut your hair, ya damn hippie!

@msolga,

I'm not offended msolga. I know from here, other forums and real life that people love to criticize other people's parenting -- especially when the parent is seen as permissive.

And I guess I am fairly permissive in that I don't say "No." just to exert authority. I'm not trying to "be his friend" or "let him get away with things" but I'm trying to allow him to present a case and make a good decision. I don't really get mad when he makes a bad decision because I think he learns a lot from those.

I do think it's really interesting that out of the billions and billions of people with pierced ears and no problems that people pick out the rare examples of problems to post here to support their position. I think that's called confirmation bias. People wouldn't get all freaked out if I said I was putting Mo in the car to take him somewhere even though he has a much greater chance of being seriously hurt and scarred in a car crash than he would by getting his ear pierced.

I'm really pretty immune to it.

Thank you for that post.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It appears that he is very desirous
of making a STATEMENT about himself,
holding himself out to the world in some particular way.

Has he revealed what this IS ?

He's not really any better at articulating his position than Mr. B is. He has said "it's my body and I should be able to do this" to which I pointed out that parent's have a responsibility, not just a right, to make decisions for their child in regard to the child's body. I take him to the doctor and dentist, I make sure he wears the right safety gear, etc.

Here's what I think the real reason it:

Mo is very clean cut, he wears his hair very short because it's the most practical way to wear it when you play sports that require a helmet. He usually wears gym shorts or pants, sneakers, and a T-shirt. All of these things identify him at school as a "jock". Even though he loves sports I don't think he want's to be known as part of the jock group.

Most of his friends are from the "artsy" group (for lack of a better word) -- the non-athletes, the non-academics, the others, I guess. I think the earring might be a badge of some sort that might move him away from the jock image.

But I could be wrong.

1 Reply

@Roberta,

Quote:

If nobody else had a pierced ear, would he still want it? If so, then it clearly means something personal and specific to him. But wanting it because other people are doing it doesn't seem like much of a reason to me.

He's wanted it done for several years. I don't really know how many of the kids had it done that early so I really can't say.

I would not allow him to get a tattoo. Luckily they're falling out of fashion among the younger set here (by younger I mean the 20 somethings). It's considered an old person thing!

1 Reply

@boomerang,

Why wouldn't you let him get a tattoo? If he really, really wanted a tattoo and had been talking about if for years would you still say no? I think you may have just hit on something as to an insight into Mr B's "no". Is it possible that he sees the hole in the ear as a permanent change the same as if it was a tattoo?

1 Reply

@JPB,

I guess it's possible that he sees it as a permanent change. Anything's possible.

Earrings are easy to remove, tattoos are not. Tattoos are expensive, ear piercing is not. Tattoos are painful, ear piercing is not. Earrings on kids are socially acceptable, tattoos are not.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

DAVID wrote:

It appears that he is very desirous
of making a STATEMENT about himself,
holding himself out to the world in some particular way.

Has he revealed what this IS ?

boomerang wrote:

He's not really any better at articulating his position than Mr. B is.
He has said "it's my body and I should be able to do this" to which
I pointed out that parent's have a responsibility, not just a right,
to make decisions for their child in regard to the child's body.
I take him to the doctor and dentist, I make sure he wears the right safety gear, etc.

Here's what I think the real reason it:

Mo is very clean cut, he wears his hair very short because it's the most practical way to wear it when you play sports that require a helmet. He usually wears gym shorts or pants, sneakers, and a T-shirt. All of these things identify him at school as a "jock". Even though he loves sports I don't think he want's to be known as part of the jock group.

Most of his friends are from the "artsy" group (for lack of a better word) -- the non-athletes, the non-academics, the others, I guess. I think the earring might be a badge of some sort that might move him away from the jock image.

But I could be wrong.

I 'm no expert, but I thawt that jocks were proud of that status,
in that it is masculine, bearing strength & courage.

If u r interested in probing his reasoning
u might ask him how things will be BETTER
if he does what he wants. He might be vague ( "its cool" )
or with luck, he might be more specific.

There have been some pretty good counter-arguments in this thread (infections, etc.).

David

1 Reply

It's very interesting to me that there are a lot of boys Mo's age in Oregon with ear piercings. It's not common here in Tulsa at all. In fact, our school doesn't allow visible piercings (except single ear piercings on girls) through high school. A couple of girls have nose studs, and they're pushing the limits. Our private school is considered fairly liberal here. Obviously there's a big regional difference.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I think there is a perception that jocks are like that -- cool and macho and not too smart. I'm sure some of them are.

As to school, athletes are expected to keep a certain grade point average that the rest of the student body is immune to. They have to train, practice, travel, and compete in addition to their regular studies. They are often tested for drugs and alcohol -- something other students don't have to face. It really requires a lot more than cool and macho.

Many athletes are very smart. Patrick Witt is the perfect example.

I don't want to question Mo too closely as I fear that it would put ideas into his head. I'm trying to just stay out of the conversation at all! This cross-over affiliation is just something I have a hunch about.

0 Replies

@Eva,

The only other city that I spend any time in is Austin and it has a very similar vibe to Portland. Maybe it's more local than regional.

0 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

Earrings are easy to remove, tattoos are not. Tattoos are expensive, ear piercing is not. Tattoos are painful, ear piercing is not. Earrings on kids are socially acceptable, tattoos are not.

Quote:

I think that's called confirmation bias.

I think you're doing some that here yourself.

My personal experience re pain when being inked/pierced is the opposite of what you've noted. Secondarily, my experience is that the maintenance of new tats is easier than the maintenance of new piercings.

Your perception is that earrings on kids are socially acceptable (and they may well be in your community).

You believe that earring holes are easy to remove. That is not a universal experience - anyone with a tendency to keloids (not a rare occurrence) can tell you that.

Individual tattoos cost more than piercing, but long-term, earrings for the holes tend to cost more than the one-time investment in a tattoo.

~~~

I personally don't have a problem with a family deciding a child can have piercings. That's a family decision.

However, I don't see that your position pro is any stronger than Mr. B's anti position. They are both opinions.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

I had one of those aha or whatever the heck you call them this morning.

My daughter was in the kitchen and said something, then quickly put her hand over her mouth and said ooops daddy doesn't like when I say that.

So I asked what it was .... it was "tee hee hee" Ok so what is bad about that - nothing, but he just doesn't like it.

Maybe Mr. B just doesn't like it.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

the maintenance of new piercings.

Yaya got her ears pierced over the summer, and keeping everything clean and antiseptic was a pain. Plus, one came off in the night and she had to have it re-pierced.

I definitely recommend waiting until the kid can do the maintenance their self.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

How old is she?

Was she alarmed at having it re pierced?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, a kid 's body does not belong to his parents; his body is HIS.

But as long as parents are legal guardians and children are legal wards, parents have a duty to protect the body of their child---even against him- or herself if necessary. Whether Mo's body needs protection against a piercing is an open question for this thread. But that Boomerang and Mr. B have a legal and moral right to protect if they think so is clear. They just do.

Indeed, this is clear even by your own principles as a constitutional originalist. Since you raised my curiosity, I consulted Blackstone's 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England, whose concept of individual liberties the US Bill of Rights enshrined. Blackstone has a chapter on the relationship Of Guardian and Ward. There is also an 1803 American constitutional commentary by a jurist named Tucker. He describes in detail where America's new constitution leaves the laws of England as described by Blackstone. And as it turns out, the guardian--ward relationship is not affected fundamentally. It is only implemented in American rather than English legislation. Blackstone still applied to this topic after 1787 and 1791.

Blackstone's framework, for whatever it's worth today, has no problem with parents prohibiting piercings: "Infants have various privileges, and various disabilities: but their very disabilities are privileges; in order to secure them from hurting themselves by their own improvident acts." This protection falls under Boomerang's and Mr. B's duty as "guardians for nurture" to take care of Mo's "maintenance and education". Their role as guardians for nurture would end when Mo turns 14. In the case of body piercings, this strikes me as a reasonable age to draw the line at.

What I'm trying to say with all this is the following: Even by your natural-liberties principles as a constitutional originalist, this case is not a slam dunk against Mr. B and his concerns. You cannot dismiss his position simply by appealing to generalities of political philosophy. You do have to discuss the concrete merits of his view.

2 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

How old is she?

Was she alarmed at having it re pierced?

She was seven when they were pierced.

She's afraid of needles, so she had a lot of anxiety about the actual piercing process. But she chose to have it re-pierced rather than give up.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

We regularly imprison our 18-month old.... Wink

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

As well you should.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, a kid 's body does not belong to his parents; his body is HIS.

Thomas wrote:

But as long as parents are legal guardians and children are legal wards, parents have a duty to protect the body of their child---even against him- or herself if necessary. Whether Mo's body needs protection against a piercing is an open question for this thread. But that Boomerang and Mr. B have a legal and moral right to protect if they think so is clear. They just do.

Indeed, this is clear even by your own principles as a constitutional originalist. Since you raised my curiosity, I consulted Blackstone's 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England, whose concept of individual rights the US Bill of Rights enshrines. Blackstone has a chapter on the relationship Of Guardian and Ward. There is also an 1803 American constitutional commentary by a jurist named Tucker. He describes in detail where America's new constitution leaves the laws of England, as described by Blackstone. As it turns out, the guardian--ward relationship is not affected fundamentally. It is only implemented in American rather than English legislation. Blackstone still applied to this topic after 1787 and 1791.

Blackstone's framework, for whatever it's worth today, has no problem with parents prohibiting piercings: "Infants have various privileges, and various disabilities: but their very disabilities are privileges; in order to secure them from hurting themselves by their own improvident acts." This protection falls under Boomerang's and Mr. B's duty as "guardians for nurture" to take care of Mo's "maintenance and education". Their role as guardians for nurture would end when Mo turns 14, which in the case of body piercings strikes me as a reasonable age.

What I'm trying to say with all this is the following: Even by your natural-liberties principles as a constitutional originalist, this case is not a slam dunk against Mr. B and his concerns. You cannot dismiss his position simply by appealing to generalities of political philosophy. You do have to discuss the concrete merits of his view.

I did not intend to appear dismissive. I acknowledge your efforts
and I agree that the results of your research are in keeping
with the American and English zeitgeist of the 17OOs.
So was slavery. If a slaver had wanted to inflict piercing
or tatoos upon his property, this 'd have been in accordance
with the spirit of the times and reflected in its jurisprudence.

However, I must admit to some ambivalence, some inconsistecy
and some hypocrisy in this matter on my own behalf.
My thawts return to some incidents in the 1990s
of which I have posted, in which parents and their children
all importuned me to serve as their babysitter, while
the parents were at work. At 3 different times I erred
by my remaining silent, when I shoud have executed
a prohibition. There were no actual untoward results,
no blood nor broken bones, but in retrospect, I saw
that my inaction exposed the boys to danger.
Indeed, one of the boys (somewhere around 1O
or 12 years old) reprimanded me for my libertarian
attitude toward his safety; his exact words were:
"You 're the adult!"
I apologized to them (for whatever that is worth).

Accordingly, were I in such a similar situation again,
I 'd be less libertarian and be more safety-oriented.
Indeed, if I were the legal guardian, despite and
regardless of my hereinabove quoted dictum,
I 'd do what I coud to restrain him from becoming
mutilated. Call me a hypocrit.

David

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

You brute! Your chanced your 7 year old to permanent disfigurement and chronic infection? How could you?

Just kidding.

If you don't mind sharing, was it her idea to get them pierced, what were her reasons, why did you decide to allow it, and would you have let her do it if she were a boy?

Kudos to her for sticking with the plan despite her fears.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I did not intend to appear dismissive. I acknowledge your efforts
and I agree that the results of your research are in keeping
with the American and English zeitgeist of the 17OOs.
So was slavery.

Evidently you haven't read your Blackstone, who takes a firm stand against slavery: "I have formerly observed that pure and proper slavery does not, nay cannot, subsist in England; such I mean, whereby an absolute and unlimited power is given to the master over the life and fortune of the slave. And indeed it is repugnant to reason, and the principles of natural law, that such a state should subsist any where."

Child protection does not equal slavery---not in the founding era, and not today.

1 Reply

Cut your hair, ya damn hippie!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know