AITA: Ex Pierced 9 Week Old's Ears

The choice to pierce a child's ears can be a contentious topic.

Fundamentally, beyond the 'bodily autonomy' argument that usually comes with this discussion, we think that it's safe to say that it should be a JOINT, mutual decision between caregivers (if both are involved). One mum took to the Reddit AITA (am I the asshole) board to ask if she's in the wrong for being upset at her ex partner, who went against her wishes and took their 9 week old baby to have her ears pierced! Read the post below.

baby-pierced-aita

Read the full post here - credit to Reddit.

What was the general consensus?

The vast majority of readers voted the poster NTA (not the asshole) for being angry at her ex, and for removing the earrings. Some comments did point out that in some countries, piercing ears at an early age can be considered a cultural norm, but did concede that it was wrong to go ahead and make such a drastic move without the permission of baby's mum. The top comment was...

"NTA. Body modifications shouldn't be done without informed consent on the part of the person getting the modification. For obvious reasons, a 9 week old can't consent."

Our verdict...

We would definitely agree that while it could potentially be a cultural norm for the baby's dad (not much information was given so it's hard to gauge this), it was still incredibly wrong for him to do this without consulting the baby's mum first and working towards a mutual decision.

Not only that, we think that it would be fair to say that the baby's mum should have had the overall choice, given the fact that he doesn't seem to make much effort with his child or see her often! We disagree with her parents and feel that they're way off the mark; whilst he is indeed her parent too, he has hardly demonstrated a great deal of effort when it comes to seeing his child, and he couldn't be considered to have even partial custody with how sparse his visits are so ultimately mum is the main caregiver.

Other articles to read...