Should men have their ears pierced?

[john_doran]

fix:

Do you think SSA or cannibalism was intended from the start?

i don’t know. do you? perhaps god burdens some people with desires to engage in illicit behaviour in order to have them pass through the crucible of suffering. or something. i mean, were people intended to have cancer from the start?

fix:

Certainly desires, or tastes, of that nature are pathologic.

you’re repeating yourself, so i’ll repeat my question: what does it mean for a desire to be “pathological” independently of the actions toward which it inclines those with the desire?

fix:

The taste for peanut butter is not morally illcit.

nor is the taste for cannibalism or homosexuality.

engaging in cannibalistic or homosexual behaviour is morally illicit.

 

[john_doran]

fix:

I do not only mean genetically, but by exposing oneself to ceratin things and through repetitive actions. Tastes can develop. One can aquire a taste.

yes. one can acquire a taste for something by doing something; if those actions are wrong, then you’re doing something wrong. if not, not.

but even if the actions commission of which leads one to develop a taste are themselves illicit, having the taste doesn’t add any immorality.

 

[fix]

john doran:

i don’t know. do you? perhaps god burdens some people with desires to engage in illicit behaviour in order to have them pass through the crucible of suffering. or something. i mean, were people intended to have cancer from the start?

Perhaps His permissive will.

you’re repeating yourself, so i’ll repeat my question: what does it mean for a desire to be “pathological” independently of the actions toward which it inclines those with the desire?

It would mean those desires are against health. I am not saying they are immoral, but they certainly can be pathologic. The existence of a desire to kill yourself may land you in the ED with a psych evaluation.

nor is the taste for cannibalism or homosexuality.

I agree, they are not morally illicit, that does not mean they are neutral or healthy. They may be a pathologic. I should not have used the term illcit in that post, but used pathologic.

 

[fix]

john doran:

yes. one can acquire a taste for something by doing something; if those actions are wrong, then you’re doing something wrong. if not, not.

but even if the actions commission of which leads one to develop a taste are themselves illicit, having the taste doesn’t add any immorality.

I agree the existence of a taste is not immoral. We can both agree. Where we part is the notion that the existence of any* taste* is neutral. My position is that some of these thoughts, desires, tastes, whatever can be pathologic. This is intended to mean they are not geared toward health. They oppose health.

 

[fix]

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

Now if the inclination is morally disordered, then how do you reconcile this with your position that tastes or inclinations are morally neutral?

 

[john_doran]

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

Now if the inclination is morally disordered, then how do you reconcile this with your position that tastes or inclinations are morally neutral?

the inclination is toward actions the commission of which is immoral, and thus disordered.

if that’s all you mean by “disordered” or “pathological”, then we agree, and you concede my point that those terms are only meaningful in the context of the (immoral) behaviour that is preferred.

without reference to (im)morality, declarations of the “disorder” of preferences are without bite; let’s assume, arguendo, that a man’s wanting to wear earrings is “disordered” in that sense. so what? the claim doesn’t seem to amount to much more than saying something like “he has excema”, or “he has halitosis”.

who cares?

 

[fix]

john doran:

the inclination is toward actions the commission of which is immoral, and thus disordered.

So, now you are saying an inclination may be disordered? Even not acting on such an inclination is considered disordered.

if that’s all you mean by “disordered” or “pathological”, then we agree, and you concede my point that those terms are only meaningful in the context of the (immoral) behaviour that is preferred.

I want to separate medical pathology from moral disorder. The CCC is speaking of a moral disorder. In some of the examples we have been discussing I was speaking strictly of a medical pathology.

without reference to (im)morality, declarations of the “disorder” of preferences are without bite; let’s assume, arguendo, that a man’s wanting to wear earrings is “disordered” in that sense. so what? the claim doesn’t seem to amount to much more than saying something like “he has excema”, or “he has halitosis”.

Are you saying you agree with me that some tastes are disordered? Disorders can be minor or major. There is excema and there is squamous cell carcinoma.

who cares?

My original assertion was that not all desires are good. In most cases men wearing an earring is of no consequence. I see it as deleterious trend.

You wanted to dissect it to the subatomic level.

 

[john_doran]

fix:

So, now you are saying an inclination may be disordered? Even not acting on such an inclination is considered disordered.

no - i am saying that inclinations are only disordered to the extent that the actions to which they are inclinations are disordered; that is, it’s not the inclinations, but the actions to which they incline one that are rightly called disordered. when the church says “that preference is disordered” they are (probably) saying something synonymous with “that is a preference for the commission of disordered actions”.

fix:

I want to separate medical pathology from moral disorder. The CCC is speaking of a moral disorder. In some of the examples we have been discussing I was speaking strictly of a medical pathology.

right. but then you have to give an account of how desires you consider “pathological” are, in fact, medically so. what does it mean for a man’s desire to wear earrings to be medically pathological?

as i have said, you may be right. but, on the face of it, i have no reason to think that there aren’t a great number of what we would think of as “normal” desires that aren’t also pathological in that way.

but, in the end, what difference does it make? if a guy liking earrings is like a guy with downs syndrome or sickle cell anemia or lung cancer, you’re presumably going to have to stop calling the earring guys “absurd” and “silly”. that, or start calling the cancer victims those things…

fix:

My original assertion was that not all desires are good. In most cases men wearing an earring is of no consequence. I see it as deleterious trend.

i know you do. what i am trying to determine is if there is any meaning to “deleterious” other than “not liked by fix”. in which case, why should anyone care?

see what i’m saying? unless you can show that the consequences of earring-wearing are objectively deleterious, then there’s no reason for anyone else to care. at all. and not only that, but you’d have to show that the objective deleteriousness of male-earring-wearing was sufficiently deleterious to warrant a change in the behaviour of male earring-wearers; for example, driving automobiles is objectively deleterious in that there are thousands and thousands of deaths caused by cars each year. but most people wouldn’t go from that to the conclusion that no one should drive cars…

see what i mean?

 

[fix]

john doran:

no - i am saying that inclinations are only disordered to the extent that the actions to which they are inclinations are disordered; that is, it’s not the inclinations, but the actions to which they incline one that are rightly called disordered. when the church says “that preference is disordered” they are (probably) saying something synonymous with “that is a preference for the commission of disordered actions”.

I can’t see any distinction. The quote says the inclination is disordered. That means the desire to do those acts is not right. I can’t see how you parse that to come up with what you have?

right. but then you have to give an account of how desires you consider “pathological” are, in fact, medically so. what does it mean for a man’s desire to wear earrings to be medically pathological?

I think we are confusing things now. Did I say that men wearing earrings was pathological? I do not think I did, but if I implied that I did not intend to. I was speaking of other conditions.

if a guy liking earrings is like a guy with downs syndrome or sickle cell anemia or lung cancer, you’re presumably going to have to stop calling the earring guys “absurd” and “silly”. that, or start calling the cancer victims those things…

I can’t see the analogy here.

i know you do. what i am trying to determine is if there is any meaning to “deleterious” other than “not liked by fix”. in which case, why should anyone care?

I am referring to the idea that men are starting to aquire female characteristics such as wearing female apparel.

see what i’m saying? unless you can show that the consequences of earring-wearing are objectively deleterious, then there’s no reason for anyone else to care. at all. and not only that, but you’d have to show that the objective deleteriousness of male-earring-wearing was sufficiently deleterious to warrant a change in the behaviour of male earring-wearers; for example, driving automobiles is objectively deleterious in that there are thousands and thousands of deaths caused by cars each year. but most people wouldn’t go from that to the conclusion that no one should drive cars…

We are speaking about culture and the state of the human condition. Do we need studies to prove the obvious?

see what i mean?

No, I do not. So far, we have seen that desires may be disordered. Not every taste should be indulged.

Your premise is that all tatses are neutral and only acting on certain ones may be illicit. I have given examples of suicide, SSA and cannibalism as desires that are not normal whether they are acted on or not.

Perhaps you can start a thread with a poll asking folks if they think people who have a taste for suicide or cutting off a limb are reasonable desires to hold even without acting upon them?

 

[john_doran]

fix:

I think we are confusing things now. Did I say that men wearing earrings was pathological? I do not think I did, but if I implied that I did not intend to. I was speaking of other conditions.

fair enough. so liking to wear earrings isn’t immoral or pathological. we agree.

is it “disordered”? and if so, what does that mean, exactly?

fix:

We are speaking about culture and the state of the human condition. Do we need studies to prove the obvious?

you seem to have completely missed my point: even if men wearing earrings is deleterious, why does that entail that men should stop wearing them? driving cars is also deleterious, and yet we don’t stop driving…

fix:

No, I do not. So far, we have seen that desires may be disordered. Not every taste should be indulged.

Your premise is that all tatses are neutral and only acting on certain ones may be illicit. I have given examples of suicide, SSA and cannibalism as desires that are not normal whether they are acted on or not.

whatever…

so where does a man’s desire to wear earrings fit in?

 

[JessicaCeleste]

IMO, Some men look very attractive with pierced ears.

Then again, I’m a sucker for tattoos, too!

As always, YMMV

~Jess

 

[JW10631]

Seems like Proctor & Gamble should have Mr. Clean redesigned to remove his earring. I’ll bet fix doesn’t have any of that stuff in his home.

As for Halloween, I still might go as Mr. Clean - but ther’s no way I would wear an earring for any other purpose than that.

 

[jennstall]

caroljm36:

Of course it’s their right, but I don’t like it. I’m female and don’t have piercings or tattoos myself. To me it shows vanity & self-absorption. But often it’s done to impress the women, so many of whom are eternally impressed by any sort of bad-boy move, probably to impress their stupid friends. How easy to fake them out! I saw my ex with one recently, probably done for his wife.

People also getting piercings and tattoos to mark specific milestones or occasions in their lives, or to make statements about the things that they believe in. Not everyone does everything for the exact same reason. I would have a tattoo of the crucifix on me if I weren’t a big baby when it comes to pain.

 

[fix]

JW10631:

Seems like Proctor & Gamble should have Mr. Clean redesigned to remove his earring. I’ll bet fix doesn’t have any of that stuff in his home.

As for Halloween, I still might go as Mr. Clean - but ther’s no way I would wear an earring for any other purpose than that.

A cartoon on a box to sell a household cleaner is one thing. Your next line about halloween really makes my point.

 

[fix]

john doran:

fair enough. so liking to wear earrings isn’t immoral or pathological. we agree.

is it “disordered”? and if so, what does that mean, exactly?

It is a bad trend.

you seem to have completely missed my point: even if men wearing earrings is deleterious, why does that entail that men should stop wearing them? driving cars is also deleterious, and yet we don’t stop driving…

How long can we continue this debate? Is anyone that interested in it? Perhaps it is a risk benefit issue? The risk of driving is not as big as the benefit.

Men wearing earrings is one more cultural issue that seems to be on the downward slope. I did not say it should be banned by the state, but I do think it says something that so many are doing it and so many are afraid to voice their disapproval for fear of being thought of as unenlightened.

whatever…

so where does a man’s desire to wear earrings fit in?

The earring issue is minor compared to the other issues. I was trying to prove my original intention that not all tastes are good and should be embraced.

My last point is that too many accept too much and then say it all does not matter. Where is the line drawn? Is it drawn as the secularists say that anything goes as long it does not physically hurt someone? Is fashion completely without boundaries?

 

[john_doran]

fix:

The earring issue is minor compared to the other issues. I was trying to prove my original intention that not all tastes are good and should be embraced.

well, i agree with the last thing you say: not all tastes ought to be embraced.

fix:

My last point is that too many accept too much and then say it all does not matter.

i can agree with you on this, too.

fix:

Where is the line drawn? Is it drawn as the secularists say that anything goes as long it does not physically hurt someone? Is fashion completely without boundaries?

the line is drawn where the actions are immoral.

 

[fix]

john doran:

the line is drawn where the actions are immoral.

Like when men start wearing female adornments? How many make it immoral? One, two, 57? How about a nose ring? What about a nose ring with a chain to the earring?

When does it become immoral?

It seems there is no sense of alarm, when should we become alarmed?

 

[edgefly81]

Catholic Dude:

The only thing worse than men wearing earrings is people wearing face rings, gross. What will they think of next?

I don’t see anything wrong with men having ear-rings. I happen to wear one but I also know that I have to take it out when I go to work, no big deal.

However someone raised the idea of it being cultural. I totally agree that since the Church does recognize various cultures (specifically stated at Vatican II). If the Church did not recognize other cultures, then we might as well destroy every organ in every parish since in the early days of Christianity it was considered a pagan instrument. This is another example on how the Church continues to grow as a divinely inspired institution with a human component.

 

[JimG]

edgefly81:

If the Church did not recognize other cultures, then we might as well destroy every organ in every parish since in the early days of Christianity it was considered a pagan instrument.

Pagans had organs? How early are you talking about? Constantine?

 

[tigerlilly]

(Have you noticed that this poll is just for men or for women who don’t agree with men’s earings? It’s absurd!)
I’m a woman and I think some men look good with earings. In the 17th century almost all men wore earings. It’s just fashion, nothing else. You can put a meaning to it, but then you can put a meaning to everything. An earing is an inocent object, it’s only a simbol if you make it into one.