We’re Piercing My Baby’s Tongue. Here’s Why.

girl woods teen

When my daughter is born next month, my husband and I have a very specific plan for how things are going to go down. Call the doula, fill up the birthing tub, allow her to rest on my chest before cutting the cord, and immediately pierce her tongue. For some reason, this last part of our plan has some of our acquaintances a bit rankled. Even though plenty of women (and some men) get their tongues pierced as adults, somehow it’s barbaric when a baby is involved. But I can assure you — my husband and I are doing this for the right reasons. Here’s why:

 

Cultural reasons.

My husband and I are devout Juggalos, and we want to raise our daughter to whoop-whoop with the rest of the family. It’s important that our little dirtbag grows up with a solid understanding of our ideals, which include hanging out at Hot Topic but not buying anything, and suggestively licking at strangers across a crowded Applebee’s. A pierced tongue is about more than just cracked teeth and cranial abscesses—it’s about who you are and where you came from. And for us, our daughter came from my pussy, which is also pierced.

 

 

It’s tradition.

I have my tongue pierced, my mother had her tongue pierced, even my Uncle Flub had his tongue pierced. My husband’s family is the same way. Both of our families have the same values (bragging about how good we are at oral, Rob Zombie films, taking Halloween a little too seriously) and we feel it’s important to give our daughter a tangible connection to those values. We thought about letting her decide for herself when she gets older, but ultimately we think it’s better to do it before she’s old enough to remember the pain. I wish my mother had done that for me!

 

I want her to look like me.

It might not make sense, but that’s biology for you. It’s only natural to want your offspring to resemble you, both in facial structure and optional body modifications you get at the mall. I have a blue swirl ball on the end of my tongue piercing, and my husband has a yellow swirl ball, so we’re planning on giving her a green swirl ball. Maybe it’s a primal, animal-like thing for me to want to know she’s mine just by looking at her — my OB told me lots of mothers feel this way. She also advised against the piercing and has threatened to report my husband and I to child protection services. Uh, yeah right, doc! Try and get between a momma bear and her cub, and you’ll get the claws!

 

 

Aesthetics (aka they look good).

Plain and simple, tongue rings look tight as fuck. I love my daughter and want her to look dope 24/7.

 

So sure, maybe piercing the tongue of an infant isn’t necessarily what you consider to be a “good idea” or a “legal idea.” But unless you’re that lady from the government, what we do with our daughter is none of your business.

COMMENTS

view all comments hide comments

56 responses to “We’re Piercing My Baby’s Tongue. Here’s Why.”

  1. Dorcas Szabo says:

    Except the infections females get is NO where near as bad as what happens to males. My hubby almost lost his manhood when he was a child due to an infection that happened and he had to get circumsized around 5yrs old to fix it. Obviously medication was tried first .

  2. Megan Geneau says:

    nose piercing are? since when ?

  3. Megan Geneau says:

    dude im in canada .. and if u read studies hey found its keeps infection down in males to cut thier skins off

  4. Megan Geneau says:

    ur in the usa right? cause im pretty sure it is illegal my dear =)

  5. Amy Nicole says:

    Yeah, good luck with that, because having something hard pushing against your daughter’s gum line and baby teeth as they grow in won’t fuck anything up at all….SMH

    • M Lyndon says:

      She’s not going to have a baby’s tongue pierced. This whole thing is an analogy for infant male circumcision.

  6. Isadora Cascante says:

    I realize this is a commentary on circumcision. But it’s not analogous. Piercing the tounge of a newborn would invariably cause serious problems with feeding. This distracts from the point because the analogy falls apart.

  7. Elbieone says:

    It’s not all about your dick! You’ve obviously never heard of FGM. Go look it up.

  8. Mezzra Tey says:

    Most research done proves circumcision has many benefits.

  9. Mezzra Tey says:

    Most research done on circumcision shows that there are many benefits. These people that replied you who are against circumcision are like a cult group.

  10. Mezzra Tey says:

    Very true, and those people comparing female where the whole clitoris is cut off? There are no researches done on female circumcision that prove it is beneficial. But plenty show male circumcisions is beneficial.

    • M Lyndon says:

      This is what some national medical organizations say about male circumcision:

      Canadian Paediatric Society
      “OTTAWA— In an updated statement released today, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) continues to recommend against the routine circumcision of newborn males.”

      Royal Australasian College of Physicians
      “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
      (almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)

      British Medical Association
      “to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”
      “The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks.”

      The Royal Dutch Medical Association
      “The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.”

      Swedish Paediatric Society
      “Circumcision of young boys for religious and non-medical reasons ought to be banned in Sweden, urged the Swedish Paediatric Society (Svenska barnläkarföreningen, BLF).”

      Mexican Secretariat of the Interior
      ” Evitar como práctica rutinaria la circuncisión, toda vez que no existe evidencia científica que compruebe un beneficio directo a la persona recién nacida.”
      Sec 5.7.13 “Avoid circumcision as a routine practice, since there is no scientific evidence to prove a direct benefit to the newborn person.”

      “[30 September 2013] – At a meeting today in Oslo, the children’s ombudspersons from the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland), and the children’s spokesperson from Greenland, in addition to representatives of associations of Nordic paediatricians and pediatric surgeons, have agreed to work with their respective national governments to achieve a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys.”

      German Pediatric Association
      (very long, but very much against circumcision, and includes the following)
      “Therefore it is not understandable that circumcision of boys should be allowed but that of girls prohibited worldwide. Male circumcision is basically comparable with FGM types Ia and Ib that the Schafi Islamic school of law supports”

      “The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.”
      (Written in direct response to the AAP’s position statement on male circumcision, and signed by 38 senior physicians, about half of them presidents or chairs of national pediatric or urological organisations).

      • Mezzra Tey says:

        Funny how you hand selected European associations. And many of the things they said is untrue. Reserch shBy the way, I have seen you SPAMMING this in many places and it is against the rules of Disqus.

        “WHO notes that studies have shown that circumcision can help prevent urinary tract infections, inflation of the glans and foreskin, penile cancer, some sexually transmitted diseases such as chancroid and syphilis, HIV, and from passing on HPV which causes cervical cancer to female partners.”

        This was my point. Research has shown benefits.

  11. Mezzra Tey says:

    Many of these people who are anti-circumcision spread a lot of misinformation. They still continue to say the same things even though recent research has disproven their points but they are still very stubborn and have a cult following mentality. Them saying male circumcision is worse is a huge red flag showing they usually are just biased and extreme men’s rights people.

    Science daily recently released an article where research was done to prove circumcised men are just as sensitive as men who have foreksin but again, they call every research they disagree with as “myth”.

  12. Mezzra Tey says:

    Find me the DIRECT research where they proved 20,000 nerve endings are found on the foreksin because that has already been disproved.

    Recent research: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414114249.htm

  13. Mezzra Tey says:

    Most actual research done on this topic shows the benefits of circumcision and the people who replied to you are all talking out of their ass with no proof what so ever.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414114249.htm

  14. lostintyme says:

    Wonderful answer..completely agree with you..people fail to do their research as parents. We never circumcised our son for these very reasons. People are ignorant and follow the herd.

  15. Mezzra Tey says:

    Don’t let these trolls get to you, they don’t know anything factual. And most men who were circumcised later on in life have said sex feels even better.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2515674/Its-official-Circumcision-DOESNT-affect-sexual-pleasure-according-biggest-study-issue.html

  16. Mezzra Tey says:

    Most of the circumcised men I have been with have soft heads. It feels smooth and glides just fine. In fact, I have had horrible sex with men who had foreksin.

  17. Mezzra Tey says:

    These people who are anti-circumcision on this site usually have a cult like mentality:/ they just spread lies to fit their narrow views lol.

  18. Mezzra Tey says:

    Agree

  19. Mezzra Tey says:

    Very true.

  20. Mezzra Tey says:

    Circumcised men are complete. Are you mentally ill? Since you are so heavily against circumcision, that could be a made up story. I have never met a circumcised man who was unhappy about being circumcised. Many of these men are perfectly happy and healthy.

    • Rory Thompson says:

      That doesn’t even make logical sense. The reason I am against circumcision is BECAUSE of stories like I mentioned. Opinions are formed based on experience.

      I also happen to think it’s a violation of basic human rights to preform an unnecessary, high-risk, cosmetic surgery on an infant who is incapable of consent.

      • Mezzra Tey says:

        But most cirmcumcisions are done without any problems. A lot of circumcised men don’t have stories that you mentioned so you can’t form your opinion on all of them. And it’s not high risk, the risks in sanitary settings is low.

        • Rory Thompson says:

          Complication rates are between 2-10% and well over a hundred baby boys die each year in the USA as a direct result of circumcisions.

          Also most men are unlikely to report adverse effects because they’re either embarrassed or don’t relate it to circumcision, rather another issue. For instance, most men with erectile disfunction are circumcised. Intact men tend not to have this issue, but because people are unaware of this, they don’t know that it’s potentially because they were cut.

          • Mezzra Tey says:

            I am sorry but the 100 babies dying each year has been challenged and there is not a reliable study or link that says that is true. There is also no direct link to circumcised men having higher erectile disjunction. Don’t look at counries since US is known for their obese people which is in fact linked to erectile dysfunction. You can’t speak for other men in terms to how they are feeling. The most recent study on this topic says they don’t have problems at all.

        • Rory Thompson says:

          And again, I’ve talked with a lot of people and, by and large, they don’t like the fact that they were cut without their permission, regardless of the physical problems.

          Why is it so hard to understand that the choice should belong to the individual whose body is being discussed, considering that it is an elective, cosmetic, unnecessary procedure that is not recommended by any health organizations?

          • Mezzra Tey says:

            Okay, you are not understanding me. You can say you have talked to those men and I know I have talked to men who are happy that they were circumcised. The thing is, I am not saying they should all be circumcised when babies.

            And it is recommended by health organization and WHO has even akowleged its’ benefits.

          • Rory Thompson says:

            I’m not saying there aren’t potential “benefits.” Yes, studies show that circs can reduce the risk of UTIs and penile cancer. The AIDS studies in Africa had all sorts of problems, mostly with subjects not returning for repeat tests.

            However, UTIs are easily tasted with antibiotics, penile cancer is very rare, and HIV is always best protected against by condoms and prophylactic medications.

            This, to me, says it all: “There is no compelling medical rationale for the procedure in healthy boys, although some boys have a medical condition requiring circumcision.”

            If there’s no medical reason to perform a surgery, said surgery is unethical. Some people get tonsillitis, but we don’t do a tonsillectomy to prevent it.

            The main reason I’ve seen parents give for having their sons circumcised is because dad is too, or “most boys” are. They don’t want their son to feel “different.” That’s a ridiculous reason.

            Unless medically indicated, there is no reason to perform what is essentially cosmetic surgery.

          • Mezzra Tey says:

            But antibiotics don’t work for everybody and condoms can break. Not to mention, some men are just stupid and they don’t use condoms at all. I don’t think these studies tell us that foreskins are bad! Just that there have been link found with circumcised men having less chances of getting infections and certain STDs that can be acquired which I think why a lot of parents might be doing it since the hospital performs and usually done for those medical reasons. I don’t understand doing it to match father. Again, I don’t think foreskins are bad and people will die with it.

  21. Mezzra Tey says:

    Most circumcised men I have met are happy about being circumcised. And many men who had circumcision later on in life are also perfectly satisfied.

  22. Mezzra Tey says:

    Circumcision is also increasing worldwide because there are more researches done that show it has benefits.

  23. Mezzra Tey says:

    Most circumcised men I have met are happy they were circumcised and most circumcisions done are through an anesthetic. The risks are low.

    And they are not lacking anything, these trolls will say anything. Circumcised men have also said their sex life has improved. These was a study done in Nigerian men where they surveyed these men.

  24. Mezzra Tey says:

    And there is no research done that proves the foreksin has that many nerve endings. They usually just throw around random numbers with no proof:/

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414114249.htm

    Actual research.

  25. boKs_N_cAts says:

    You are a nut bag and deserve to have your child removed by CPS!

    • M Lyndon says:

      She’s not going to have a baby’s tongue pierced. This whole thing is an analogy for infant male circumcision. Plenty of people (including me) think that’s equally crazy.

  26. Crazy Oma says:

    My only question regarding infant tongue piercing is, does it affect the infants ability to latch and feed properly? If not, than let it be the parents decision. No different than piercing her ears, which just about every young baby girl has. I circumzised my sons at 6-7 days old 38 years ago, now that’s an issue as well.. society is getting carried away with deciding what’s good or bad. Makes me sick.

  27. Greg Pearson says:

    I would suggest putting your account on private. Some people come and downvote your opinions and reply to people you already replied to.

  28. AugustGreen says:

    I thought I was reading something written by my son’s ex-girlfriend.

  29. Naomi says:

    It is more parent shaming for a complete stranger! Because clearly we live in a world where people who have a public forum from which to speak ate clearly perfect parents and feel it is necessary to judge others for the choices they make regarding their own children. Parent shaming needs to stop! Parents have a hard enough job without the judgement of complete strangers.

  30. alyssa says:

    this bitch.

  31. alyssa says:

    Seriously? What is the point of posting a comment that so clearly displays that you have done zero research on circumcision? Perhaps it’s the festering guilt you have for strapping your precious, perfect infants to a table and slicing their genitals while they scream in agony that makes you so quick to defend something you obviously have no clue about. Maybe educate yourself? About the delicate mucus layer between the foreskin and the penis that is antifungal and enables proper penile health? About the fact that the skin on a penis head is the same type of skin inside your vulva that must stay moist for comfort? About the fact that fricton while thrusting during intercourse is supposed to take place between the foreskin and the penis head, and not the skin inside a vagina that easily bleeds and tears? What about the natural fucking right that your children have to their own goddamn body parts? Who the fuck are you to decide that a part of their bodies just isn’t important? I don’t understand how one can be so completely void of basic logic.

  32. alyssa says:

    You know what else is useless ? A mother who’s only guideline for parenting is what so happens to be the cultural norm. You have a brain for a reason. Please use it.

  33. alyssa says:

    And yours will have a cut up penis, a scar, probably lack of sensitivity and erectile health at age 40, and apparently a mother who places enough value on her own ideas about attraction to literally cut her child’s genitals till they bleed and rip the skin from his penis.

  34. Jack Kaczmarczyk says:

    I don’t think it is an anology for circumcision. I do think it’s another excellent skewer.

  35. Tante Jay says:

    YOUR body YOUR choice.

    Your SONS body. HIS choice. Not yours to make.

  36. Tante Jay says:

    Nope. The study is debunked and circumcision instead of a condom is ridiculous anyways. But let’s get started.

    1. Well, that study was meant for rural areas and ADULTS getting cut. Never meant for infants in the first place.

    2. I don’t know why the US parents are insinsting to protect their newborn babies of STD- Europe is keeping the predators at bay.

    3. That study says that circumcision is reducing the protection of 60% (let’s pretend for a second that’s true). 60% per intercourse.

    1x unprotected sex with an infected partner: 60% reducing
    2x unprotected sex with an infected partner: 30% reducing
    4x unprotected sex with an infected partner: 15% reducing

    So it is anyways:

    Getting cut and use a condom

    or

    Stay the way you’re born and use a condom.

    And now to the study itself:

    The very first flaw was: The study started and the men got cut AFTER that. So the intact “control group” has a head start of 6 week.

    It was performed in Orange Farm, a town with the highest HIV prevalence worldwide.

    The cut men had way better access to medical health care than the intact group

    Nonetheless the study was cut short because both groups slowly neared in the infection rates each other. _Which normally is the death of a study, but not here.

    They made up a little game with numbers and threw Strawmen with absolute and relative reducing. What does this mean?

    1000 men. 500 in each group. After a while 10 cut get infected and 16 intact.

    THAT’S the way they added the 60% up.

    10:16 = 60%.

    If you count the whole group in and add it up properly, the reducing is down to 1.3%, in the statistically insignificant area.

    Yep, that was the way they added the numbers up.

    Nope, Sir. Circumcision is NOT reducing the change to catch HIV.

    If that would be the case, by the way, the USA were not the country with the highest HIV rate in the developed world.

    And Finland, who has under 1% cut men, wouldn’t be the one with the lowest.

  37. Tante Jay says:

    Well, I’m all for vaccinations. But circumcision is NOT working this way. Throughout the last 150 years, ever since circumcision was introduced to the US citizens as a good thing to punish girls and boys for the sin of masturbation (yep, it was totally legal to cut girls until 1997 in the USA) circumcision was said to heal a lot of diseases which ALL did NOT hold any drop of water:

    – paralysis
    – crooked spine
    – bad eye sight
    – masturbation

    Everytime one reason was debunked out of nowhere the next reason popped up. Today it is not paralysis or bad eye sight, today it is HIV and UTIs (which can easily be treated with antibiotics btw. and yep, cut men get UTIs as well).

    No, vaccinations and circumcision are NOT linked together.

  38. Tante Jay says:

    well, condoms are side-effect free.

    Do you really think there are no repercussions if you cut off the most sensitive part of an infant without any anesthesia?

    Some urologic offices in the US are making up to 50% of their annual money by repairing botched circumcisions.

    I don’t know how you think, but *I* would hate, if my son would have go through a lot of surgeries to repair what’s not even broken in the first place.

  39. Tante Jay says:

    So: Let’s pretend that is true: Why do you insist of doing that to infants?

    FREEDOM OF CHOICE. YOU want to use the “protection” of a circumcision: Fine.

    But your kid might have other ideas. And you are forcing YOUR decision upon HIM for a surgery which is not medicall necessary.

    Oh, as for the study. The one you quoted is slightly outdated and a tad bit crooked. There are other studies, who highly suggest that the Langerhans cells are the cells who are sacrificed from the body in order to stop any further infections.

    You know where Langerhans cells are found? Yep. Intact men and women.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17334373