Should men have their ears pierced?

[Fashina86]

I guess that it is a personal decision. One of my uncles has one and a bunch of friends do and I don’t hold it against them… however my bother and Eamon aren’t allowed to because I said so… (mom would disown my brother and I don’t think I am too keen on the idea)… but honestly I would not hold it aginast someone to have a pierced ear. It is a bit strange and I thought was meant for girls… Whatever… I am more impartial than not in this case

 

[Catholic_Dude]

adstrinity:

WOW!!! SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many people here are SOOOOOOOOOO very much sheltered!!! I have already seen men in “feminine” dress, Eddie Izzard, Dennis Rodman, Alan Cumming… (hetero, bi (I think), and gay, btw). Don’t act like it hasn’t already happened…

Those guys are FREAKS of nature. I think people like these fueld darwin’s theory about man and apes. The problem with his theory though is that that stuff doesnt and never did happen in nature.

 

[Michael_T]

I voted that it’s not a big deal, but I don’t wear them.

It isn’t a sin or wrong, and in some cultures it may be more of a normal thing.

It looks bad on some men. I think you have to be pretty masculine to pull it off and not look like a complete dork. It still looks weird to me on men, and I have to admit that it’s not the done thing in my family or social circle, so I sometimes make assumptions about men with earrings. Not necessarily that they are gay, just that they are unconventional, perhaps rebellious, looking for attention, trying hard to be different or cool, etc. I never sit with that opinion though. I treat everyone with respect and have come to appreciate and respect some men who happen to wear earrings in the past, although, truth be told, none come to mind at the moment.

I saw a picture of Harrison Ford with an earring and I thought that looked kind of dumb. Old men with earrings looks like they’re trying way too hard to look young and hip. It looks a little desperate in my opinion.

These are just opinions though, and matters of taste.

It would only be sinful if the piercings were more like bodily mutilations.

I know some people will disagree with me, but they won’t have any official Church teaching to back them up.

 

[Michael_T]

feather:

Women want to do the things men do, wear what they do, act like they do. And women want men to do the things they have always done, like take care of the kids, do the housework, etc. Now men want to wear earrings like women, long hair like women. Half the time I don’t know a man from a woman from a man. Soon we will evolve into non gender beings. Probably will serve us right.

Some would say that what you have observed in your post is a sign of the end times.

 

[fix]

Michael T.:

I know some people will disagree with me, but they won’t have any official Church teaching to back them up.

I may be wrong, but I do not think anyone has said it was sinful for men to wear earrings. The argument is whether it is reasonable to do such things. Not all taste is reasonable. It may be subjective, but that is what this thread is all about.

The rest of your points are on target.

 

[john_doran]

fix:

Not all taste is reasonable.

strictly speaking, tastes are neither reasonable nor unreasonable: they are non-reasonable. that is, to judge preferences by the metric of reasonableness is a category mistake. only actions or choices are (un)reasonable (along with the practical reasoning which motivates them).

liking to wear earrings cannot be (un)reasonable, only wearing them can be.

 

[fix]

john doran:

strictly speaking, tastes are neither reasonable nor unreasonable: they are non-reasonable. that is, to judge preferences by the metric of reasonableness is a category mistake. only actions or choices are (un)reasonable (along with the practical reasoning which motivates them).

liking to wear earrings cannot be (un)reasonable, only wearing them can be.

OK, wearing them is unreasonable. Why be pedantic? It is almost a distinction without a difference.

 

[john_doran]

fix:

OK, wearing them is unreasonable. Why be pedantic? It is almost a distinction without a difference.

because there is a difference, and because not everyone understands the difference. witness all the people who believe that simply having homosexual inclinations is itself immoral…

 

[fix]

john doran:

because there is a difference, and because not everyone understands the difference. witness all the people who believe that simply having homosexual inclinations is itself immoral…

I do not see the analogy. What if one has a* taste* for cannibalism? Is that taste non reasonable? They may not act on it, but is having such a taste non reasonable?

While I can accept matters of taste are subjective, I cannot see how they are totally without any measure of reason.

The issue of same sex attraction would bring up the notion that those tendencies need psychological therapy. They may not be sinful, but that does not mean they are normal.

 

[Michael_T]

fix:

I may be wrong, but I do not think anyone has said it was sinful for men to wear earrings. The argument is whether it is reasonable to do such things. Not all taste is reasonable. It may be subjective, but that is what this thread is all about.

The rest of your points are on target.

fix,

I said that because one of the choices in the poll posited that “men wearing earrings is wrong”. I took wrong to imply sinful or as giving scandal. That’s why I said what I said.

I am also aware of Catholic whack jobs that think ear piercing is bodily mutilation.

That also influenced my choice of words.

Thanks for saying I seemed to be on target in other respects.

 

[john_doran]

fix:

I do not see the analogy. What if one has a* taste* for cannibalism? Is that taste non reasonable? They may not act on it, but is having such a taste non reasonable?

that’s right.

preferences aren’t subject to rational evaluation simply because they do not come from the faculty of reason, any more than hunger, or fatigue, or love, or anger, or aesthetic appreciation, or sexual attraction, or…

 

[MidnightSun02]

I am not much into guys wearing earrings period. I don’t know…honestly I find it unattractive. I guess it’s just the image I get of most men with earrings…all ‘pimped’ out, know what I mean? Not like I think all men with earrings are ‘pimped’ out but that is what I think! I can’t help it!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here are the “results” so far with 139 people voting:

A) 44%-No big deal, go right ahead. (But I dont wear them.)

B) 42%- Men wearing earrings is wrong, I shouldnt have to explain

C) 9%- Other (for those who found a loop hole around the question)

D) 3%- Im male and I wear them. Its freedom of expression!

Now I know that that is a small sample of people, but the two most popular picks are a safe bet at what a larger sample of people would go with.

One important question so far is for those who picked “No Big Deal”, yet they themselves dont wear them.

From what has been posted by others so far, I would say the reason why group A is so big in the first place is because it has become so common to see that to the average joe it really is “no big deal”.

As for the “wearing them is wrong”, Im guessing that result has more to do with this being a more conservative forum, and if it were a mainstream forum the results would fall in group A.

Group D is clearly a subset of A, but it also says that a small percentage actually wear them. Does this say something about those who do wear them?

And for group C, it could easily be split 6% to group A and 3% to group B, just by the way the numbers are going right now.

What does this “data” say to you?

 

[cynic]

Most men who wear earings are obviously poofters, even if it’s kids doing it for fashion reasons, it’s unwittingly taking part in a culture of degenerate pooftiness. If only the kids knew where it all leads to.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

Hey, you’re asking ME?? a woman who considers piercing any part of your body to be mutiliation? a woman who considers 2-piece outfits that some call bathing suits to be simply underwear that’s culturally okay-ed to wear in public if it might be anywhere near water for its purpose?

Just don’t make me see the metal on your nose or the middle of your tongue if you want me to keep my mouth shut about your inflicting your sense of ‘style’ into my imagination for what it had to have been done to your nose or tongue to make it so you could claim the current fashion.

That’s right. I never had my ears pierced… and have not suffered at all from not wearing earrings, either.

Next question?

Your sister in Christ, with the body the Lord created that He saw fit not to include places to put decorations for the sake of the wearer’s vanity –
Veronica Anne

 

[fix]

john doran:

that’s right.

preferences aren’t subject to rational evaluation simply because they do not come from the faculty of reason, any more than hunger, or fatigue, or love, or anger, or aesthetic appreciation, or sexual attraction, or…

You are arguing all preferences are without reason and therefore are acceptable? Is it possible some preferences are pathologic?

So if one prefers SSA, or cannibalism, they are non pathologic and we should see it as a simple variation? Certainly our preferences are subject to our ability to reason?

 

[wcknight]

I don’t particularly think it’s wrong… it seems to me to be a gay thing although some straight folks do it also…

I think it looks awful and effeminate. There are enough natural holes in our body so I don’t think we need to add any more. Personally I don’t see the attraction in painfully piercing oneself, and to do so to try to be more attractive or to decorate oneself seems even more pointless.

Having stuff hanging from one’s body even if it is some expensive bauble does not have any appeal to me. I wear a wedding ring as a sign of commitment to my spouse and that’s it. Even if I were some billionaire, I could find much better use for my money than to waste it on some fancy bauble.
wc

 

[john_doran]

fix:

You are arguing all preferences are without reason and therefore are acceptable? Is it possible some preferences are pathologic?

i’m saying that evaluating preferences as “acceptable” is a category mistake. they just are. what’s acceptable or not is acting on them.

what would it mean for a preference to be pathological, considered independently of the actions to which it inclines one? if all you mean is that it may be possible one day to trace certain preferences (pedophilia, cannibalism, etc.) to, for example, copying errors in an individual’s DNA, or some other mutation of specific base pairs, then perhaps. but then, the fact that you like peanut butter might be the result of precisely the same kind of pathology…

fix:

So if one prefers SSA, or cannibalism, they are non pathologic and we should see it as a simple variation? Certainly our preferences are subject to our ability to reason?

our actions are subject to our reason, but not our preferences, as i say; you can’t just choose not to prefer something.

 

[fix]

john doran:

i’m saying that evaluating preferences as “acceptable” is a category mistake. they just are. what’s acceptable or not is acting on them.

what would it mean for a preference to be pathological, considered independently of the actions to which it inclines one? if all you mean is that it may be possible one day to trace certain preferences (pedophilia, cannibalism, etc.) to, for example, copying errors in an individual’s DNA, or some other mutation of specific base pairs, then perhaps. but then, the fact that you like peanut butter might be the result of precisely the same kind of pathology…

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.

You are arguing that in every single instance tastes are just there because they are there. I am saying at times these tastes are aquired and nourished by our behavior, what we are exposed to as well as our disposition. Now, I am not a philosopher but common sense and common experience can show us that often times these tastes are aquired by constant reinforcement from the culture and in other ways.

our actions are subject to our reason, but not our preferences, as i say; you can’t just choose not to prefer something.

Yes, I can agree with that, but what we like can ceratinly be influenced by extrinsic factors. How about peer pressure? Many times people do things they have no taste for simply to fit in or because they crave acceptance. They may even *feel *they have a taste for something when they do not.

 

[fix]

john doran:

what would it mean for a preference to be pathological, considered independently of the actions to which it inclines one? if all you mean is that it may be possible one day to trace certain preferences (pedophilia, cannibalism, etc.) to, for example, copying errors in an individual’s DNA, or some other mutation of specific base pairs, then perhaps. but then, the fact that you like peanut butter might be the result of precisely the same kind of pathology…

A mutation usually results in pathology. Do you think SSA or cannibalism was intended from the start? Certainly desires, or tastes, of that nature are pathologic. The taste for peanut butter is not morally illcit.