Woman praised for banning in-laws from seeing her baby daughter after they pierced her ears without her consent

vt-author-image

By Nasima Khatun

Article saved!Article saved!

A woman has been praised online after she banned her in-laws from seeing her baby after they went against her wishes and pierced her daughter's ears.

Taking to Reddit's infamous 'Am I The A**hole?' thread, an anonymous 32-year-old woman opened up about feeling betrayed after her mother-in-law decided to get her six-month-old baby's ears pierced while she was looking after her.

"My husband is from a culture where it's not uncommon to pierce baby girls' ears," she wrote. "His mother started pestering me about getting my daughter's ears pierced from a few days after she was born."

However, after making it clear that she'd wait until her daughter was "old enough to ask for it herself", she shut down the conversation, but she didn't expect her mother-in-law to go against her wishes.

Baby
A woman took to Reddit to vent about how her mother-in-law went against her wishes and pierced her daughter's ears. Credit: Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/Getty

"My mother-in-law was looking after her at the weekend and decided to pierce them without my knowledge or consent," she continued. "When I saw this, I about threw a fit. She was crying in pain, and I actually took her to the doctor to get their advice on whether or not to take them out (our family doctor removed them as they were clearly bothering her).

"I decided at that moment that my mother-in-law and everyone else on that side of the family (except for my sister-in-law, who's on my side about this) is going to have no alone contact with my daughter ever again (or at least until she's a teenager)," she stated, before adding that she worries that her mother-in-law will do something like this again.

"...And to be frank, she's lost my trust entirely," she said. "I also told her that if she had a problem with that, I'd report what she did to the police. My husband is on my side, but he doesn't think it's as big of a deal as I'm making it out to be."

She then asked social media users whether she was being unreasonable about the situation or not.

Ear piercing
Credit: GoodLifeStudio/Getty

"NTA [not the a**hole]," one user wrote before explaining: "Your MIL [mother-in-law] demonstrated that she wanted to put her wishes ahead of you and your husband and until your daughter is old enough to advocate for herself (which will be before teenage years), it's reasonable that MIL and FIL [father-in-law] don't get that one on one time.

"All of that being said, if you've historically had a good relationship with MIL and FIL, then I would work on some plan for resolution and for trust to be rebuilt. But that needs to be communicated by your husband as its his family and he needs to manage them," they added.

"NTA," another added. "Putting aside the cultural norm to pierce baby ears... they're not her parents. They don't get to make decisions like that. They knew you didn't want it done. And they chose to sneak around and do it behind your back."

A third also stated: "Who knows what the next 'cultural norm' will be that MIL wants done to the baby."

Another added: "They mutilated your baby. In a modern world, body modification needs consent from the person who is going to have to live with the changes. Just because infant female ear piercings have been normalised in some cultures doesn't mean it's okay. NTA. They'd be lucky if I ever spoke to them again."

What do you think?

Featured Image Credit: PhotoAlto/Ale Ventura/Getty

Woman praised for banning in-laws from seeing her baby daughter after they pierced her ears without her consent

vt-author-image

By Nasima Khatun

Article saved!Article saved!

A woman has been praised online after she banned her in-laws from seeing her baby after they went against her wishes and pierced her daughter's ears.

Taking to Reddit's infamous 'Am I The A**hole?' thread, an anonymous 32-year-old woman opened up about feeling betrayed after her mother-in-law decided to get her six-month-old baby's ears pierced while she was looking after her.

"My husband is from a culture where it's not uncommon to pierce baby girls' ears," she wrote. "His mother started pestering me about getting my daughter's ears pierced from a few days after she was born."

However, after making it clear that she'd wait until her daughter was "old enough to ask for it herself", she shut down the conversation, but she didn't expect her mother-in-law to go against her wishes.

Baby
A woman took to Reddit to vent about how her mother-in-law went against her wishes and pierced her daughter's ears. Credit: Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/Getty

"My mother-in-law was looking after her at the weekend and decided to pierce them without my knowledge or consent," she continued. "When I saw this, I about threw a fit. She was crying in pain, and I actually took her to the doctor to get their advice on whether or not to take them out (our family doctor removed them as they were clearly bothering her).

"I decided at that moment that my mother-in-law and everyone else on that side of the family (except for my sister-in-law, who's on my side about this) is going to have no alone contact with my daughter ever again (or at least until she's a teenager)," she stated, before adding that she worries that her mother-in-law will do something like this again.

"...And to be frank, she's lost my trust entirely," she said. "I also told her that if she had a problem with that, I'd report what she did to the police. My husband is on my side, but he doesn't think it's as big of a deal as I'm making it out to be."

She then asked social media users whether she was being unreasonable about the situation or not.

Ear piercing
Credit: GoodLifeStudio/Getty

"NTA [not the a**hole]," one user wrote before explaining: "Your MIL [mother-in-law] demonstrated that she wanted to put her wishes ahead of you and your husband and until your daughter is old enough to advocate for herself (which will be before teenage years), it's reasonable that MIL and FIL [father-in-law] don't get that one on one time.

"All of that being said, if you've historically had a good relationship with MIL and FIL, then I would work on some plan for resolution and for trust to be rebuilt. But that needs to be communicated by your husband as its his family and he needs to manage them," they added.

"NTA," another added. "Putting aside the cultural norm to pierce baby ears... they're not her parents. They don't get to make decisions like that. They knew you didn't want it done. And they chose to sneak around and do it behind your back."

A third also stated: "Who knows what the next 'cultural norm' will be that MIL wants done to the baby."

Another added: "They mutilated your baby. In a modern world, body modification needs consent from the person who is going to have to live with the changes. Just because infant female ear piercings have been normalised in some cultures doesn't mean it's okay. NTA. They'd be lucky if I ever spoke to them again."

What do you think?

Featured Image Credit: PhotoAlto/Ale Ventura/Getty