As Angelina takes Zahara, six, and Shiloh, five, to get their ears pierced - how young is too young?
By Tamara Abraham
Last updated at 1:02 AM on 29th September 2011
Most mothers with young daughters will be familiar with the demand for pierced ears.
And no doubt Angelina Jolie is too, after it was reported last week that she took daughters Zahara, six, and Shiloh, five, to a London salon to get the treatment done.
Zahara, who went first, is said to have screamed with pain, prompting Shiloh to opt out at the last minute.
But the star's decision has sparked a debate about the right age to allow a girl to get their ears pierced.
Too young? Angelina Jolie has sparked a debate among mothers after allowing daughters Zahara, six, and Shiloh, five, to get their ears pierced
Several mothers have taken to social networking sites to cast their own verdict on the issue, stating that Zahara and Shiloh are too young.
They say the actress, 36, should have waited until the girls were at least ten. Others believe a child should be in her teens before she is allowed to wear earrings.
But given that many others, for cultural, practical, and aesthetic reasons, choose to pierce daughters' ears soon after birth, their comments have not been well-received.
It seems responsibility for keeping newly-pierced ears free of infection is behind many mothers' objections to Angelina's actions.
Mother Gina Bolton Sherman wrote on the TodayMoms Facebook page: 'I had to wait until 7th grade when I could take care of them myself. That is the bar I set for my daughters.'
Karen Ludwick, from Long Beach, California added: 'I had my daughters wait until their 13th birthday. As a teenager they can decide if they want pierced ears or not and they are old enough to take care of their own hygiene.'
Grown-up look: Zahara's new studs were clear to see when the family were pictured leaving Gwen Stefani's London home earlier this week
But others believe that children are spared the pain if they have earrings put in as infants.
Jennifer Crunkleton, from Lawton, Oklahoma, said: 'The older they get, the longer they linger on the pain issue and draw it out unnecessarily. I got mine pierced at 5 and it hurt like Hades. I had my daughter's pierced at a month old, and she didn't even wake up when they did it - she SLEPT through it.'
But Ms Crunkleton's opinion is the one that most angers advocates of letting girls wait till they are older.
'There are few things I find trashier than little babies with pierced ears. They're people, not dolls'
Roni Kaye wrote: 'ANYONE who pierces an infant's ears should be put in jail for abuse. I think people who do the piercings should refuse to do that to a baby. No baby should have pierced ears- it is not cute, it is horrifying.'
Anna Collins added: 'There are few things I find trashier than little babies with pierced ears. They're people, not little dolls... Piercing a child's ears because YOU think it's cute is irresponsible and cruel if you ask me.'
A Today.com poll of over 2,000 mothers revealed just how evenly opinions are split.
It found that 31 per cent believe girls should be between the ages of 11 and 15 when they get their ears pierced, but only slightly fewer, 29 per cent, think ears should be pierced as babies.
The same number believed that mothers should wait until a girl is between five and ten, while nine per cent said girls should be sixteen or over.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2042893/As-Angelina-takes-Zahara-Shiloh-ears-pierced--young-young.html#ixzz1ZMJRNZZH