Q. How can I remove a nipple piercing from my 13 year old daughter?
She got her nipple pierced, lord knows where, and I need to remove it. I really don't care where she got it, I just need to get it out of her. I've tried and when I failed I made her father try to remove it and her brother and even her uncle and a male friend of mine. How can I remove the nipple piercing safely?
She got her nipple pierced, lord knows where, and I need to remove it. I really don't care where she got it, I just need to get it out of her. I've tried and when I failed I made her father try to remove it and her brother and even her uncle and a male friend of mine. How can I remove the nipple piercing safely?
A. Take her to a doctor to remove it.
He should take a v shaped "clamp", spread the ring to get the ball out and then it should come right out.
Otherwise, sterilized needle nose pliers will do the trick. Those tension rings can be a ***** to remove.
On a side note: You need to talk to your daughter. What is a thirteen year old doing with what is considered a sexual piercing? Who did this? Did she get it at a piercing party?
You need to open the lines of communication with your child and know where she is and what she is doing, before she comes home with a FTW tattoo on her hand or something.
Edited to add: Those telling this woman to take her daughter to a piercing shop - that's a no go. One of the reasons it is illegal to piece in this area under the age of 18 ANYWHERE is because this is considered a sexual piercing. A piercer and a shop can be sued if they touch her daughter's breast or even see it for child sexual abuse (seriously). No place that does piercings will touch her because they are all aware of this, and the horror stories where people can be sued for this very thing. She needs to take her daughter to the family doctor.
He should take a v shaped "clamp", spread the ring to get the ball out and then it should come right out.
Otherwise, sterilized needle nose pliers will do the trick. Those tension rings can be a ***** to remove.
On a side note: You need to talk to your daughter. What is a thirteen year old doing with what is considered a sexual piercing? Who did this? Did she get it at a piercing party?
You need to open the lines of communication with your child and know where she is and what she is doing, before she comes home with a FTW tattoo on her hand or something.
Edited to add: Those telling this woman to take her daughter to a piercing shop - that's a no go. One of the reasons it is illegal to piece in this area under the age of 18 ANYWHERE is because this is considered a sexual piercing. A piercer and a shop can be sued if they touch her daughter's breast or even see it for child sexual abuse (seriously). No place that does piercings will touch her because they are all aware of this, and the horror stories where people can be sued for this very thing. She needs to take her daughter to the family doctor.
Do we have a right to invade other cultures and try to change them if we find them immoral?
Q. Suppose we found another culture that was practicing female genital mutilation. Or one that had established a theocracy and punished people who did not conform to the state religion. Or had a piercing ritual for people of a certain eye color that was enforced by law. Or routinely afforded people of certain races less respect.
Should we try to change their culture? What methods are acceptable - missionaries? Economic pressure and sanctions? Military invasion?
Flip the situation around - suppose a culture powerful enough to influence our own, finds some of our own customs to be immoral. Should they be able to tell us to stop the practice of women piercing their ears for jewelry? That male circumcision is barbaric? That tattoos are immoral? That the use of a death penalty is a crime against humanity? What methods should they be able to use to 'correct' our culture?
What gives one culture the right to invade and override the practices of another?
Uh-oh. I seem to have opened a can of worms.
Just for clarification, I'm not endorsing any point of view on this highly contentious, ongoing philosophical question - certainly not the point of view that a culture can never be wrong. What I'm asking is if we can think of a consistent way to draw that line - and, to keep us honest, I'm asking if our arguments still work if WE'RE the 'atrocious' culture that's being 'corrected' by outside influences.
The particular examples I raise are ones where the line might not be so clear: people are being 'harmed,' but perhaps not physically or not seriously or mostly voluntarily. Genocide, of course, usually demands intervention. Speaking the 'wrong' language doesn't. But how about those issues that are neither obvious atrocities nor completely innocuous?
Should we try to change their culture? What methods are acceptable - missionaries? Economic pressure and sanctions? Military invasion?
Flip the situation around - suppose a culture powerful enough to influence our own, finds some of our own customs to be immoral. Should they be able to tell us to stop the practice of women piercing their ears for jewelry? That male circumcision is barbaric? That tattoos are immoral? That the use of a death penalty is a crime against humanity? What methods should they be able to use to 'correct' our culture?
What gives one culture the right to invade and override the practices of another?
Uh-oh. I seem to have opened a can of worms.
Just for clarification, I'm not endorsing any point of view on this highly contentious, ongoing philosophical question - certainly not the point of view that a culture can never be wrong. What I'm asking is if we can think of a consistent way to draw that line - and, to keep us honest, I'm asking if our arguments still work if WE'RE the 'atrocious' culture that's being 'corrected' by outside influences.
The particular examples I raise are ones where the line might not be so clear: people are being 'harmed,' but perhaps not physically or not seriously or mostly voluntarily. Genocide, of course, usually demands intervention. Speaking the 'wrong' language doesn't. But how about those issues that are neither obvious atrocities nor completely innocuous?
A. No - the concept of national sovereignty forbids intervention in the affairs of another nation, under the rules of the same UN that gave us 'violence against women', an issue meant to address breast-chopping and such in darkened lands, but extended as a convenient tool for conquest of the West by pseudo-feminism.......
Unless there is a declaration of war, or a UN agreed declaration (see Desert Storm), no nation has any right to unilaterally intervene in the internal affairs of another. You can extend that to missionaries and so forth (ratchets eyebrows.. I know who you mean).. in many Muslim countries intervention by the West is seen as Crusaderism and thus cause for just war against the West...
One reason the excesses of the Sad Sam regime in Irak were let run for so long was that they were 'internal matters' and thus not open to international sanction except by vote of the UN Security Council or unless Sad Sam foolishly declared war on the wrong party and thus invited a response.... same-same Iran at this time.. where hundreds are sent to the wall every week on some trumped-up 'offence against Islam'...
Same-same Libya, a land which Hilarious alone in council wanted to invade, over the advice of generals and international affairs specialists..... guess that made her a 'strong' woman...(glurg) yeah... her guts.. our blood!
So no - we do NOT have the right to invade etc as you say.... not without reservations.
Unless there is a declaration of war, or a UN agreed declaration (see Desert Storm), no nation has any right to unilaterally intervene in the internal affairs of another. You can extend that to missionaries and so forth (ratchets eyebrows.. I know who you mean).. in many Muslim countries intervention by the West is seen as Crusaderism and thus cause for just war against the West...
One reason the excesses of the Sad Sam regime in Irak were let run for so long was that they were 'internal matters' and thus not open to international sanction except by vote of the UN Security Council or unless Sad Sam foolishly declared war on the wrong party and thus invited a response.... same-same Iran at this time.. where hundreds are sent to the wall every week on some trumped-up 'offence against Islam'...
Same-same Libya, a land which Hilarious alone in council wanted to invade, over the advice of generals and international affairs specialists..... guess that made her a 'strong' woman...(glurg) yeah... her guts.. our blood!
So no - we do NOT have the right to invade etc as you say.... not without reservations.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar