Earrings

[Mike Long]

I'm more concerned about putting together a quality program and instilling the scout oath and law.

 

Eman, please wear a helmet. We don't want to lose you.

Live to Scout, Scout to Live.

[sctmom]

Earrings can be removed before a job interview. Females are taught which earrings are approriate for a job interview and when it is approriate to wear NO earrings, especially dangling ones.

 

Back in the 70's the girls were wearing earrings with big feathers on them. I remember the cheerleaders at our school were not allowed to wear them when in uniform. It wasn't for safety, just was distracting. But that was also the days a girl would get kicked off the squad if caught smoking or if seen in public acting inapproriately with a boy (seen kissing at the Dairy Queen).

 

Also, earring holes do heal over eventually. They may leave a small scar, but who is looking that close at your ears?

 

I work in a professional office and see more and more men wearing a small stud to work. Many only wear them outside of work.

 

The remark earlier about girls get to where them because girls are different--- please, our society says girls get to wear them, not because of some physical or mental difference.

 

I know at least one very good male scouter in our Council who has long hair (ponytail). He may have an earring or two, I never noticed. He's one of the most dedicated scouters around. Works all the Cub Scout camporees at the council owned camp. Friendly, helpful, etc. ...really is a good example.

 

Now, I do have a problem with the face piercing...for one thing it looks painful to have a stud going through your lip into your gums. Apparently the nose ring wearers do not have allergies like I do. And I'm afraid of the hoop rings on the eyebrows, that looks like you could easily rip someone's face off if it got caught on something.

 

Bottom line, the earrings, hair cut, and tatoos no more make the person a hoodlum than just wearing the scout uniform makes a person a Scout.

 

[Rooster7]

I agree. I'm NOT claiming that a tattoo stains your character for life (although my previous posts may have inferred that). However, I would submit to my Scouts and others: Why do you feel a need to have a tattoo (or earring, or purple hair, etc.)? If we preach/believe that the individual should be judged by what's inside, why do these Scouts (and other children) feel so compelled to be so different on the outside? Please don't say "individual expression". That can be accomplished on paper or canvas or through a hundred other avenues. It seems clear to me that they are seeking attention. If my presumption is right (and I'm convinced it is), then one must ask why is there a need for attention?

 

Yes, I do believe that character should be the yardstick. In fact, I tell my Scouts that if they want attention (the good kind), they should work on their character as opposed to how they physically appear (fitness aside). As one can see, this argument works both ways. We say that character is important. We want to de-emphasize externals (such as earrings, tattoos, long or short hair, etc.). So, if these things are truly extraneous, then we should question why a boy seeks to have those things. Especially when we know that a large portion of society will be repelled by their appearance. Perhaps it's unfair, but it is a reality. It's not my job to change the conceptions or misconceptions of millions of Americans. It is my job to help develop the character of boys in my troop. If a boy rightly realizes the importance of character vice appearance, these kinds of external things should have no appeal.

 

Furthermore, very often the way one presents himself is a reflection of what's inside. If I have a "skull and cross bones" tattooed on my arm, I should not be surprised when others are intimidated as I approach them. If I go out of my way to look tough, to look like a stereotypical biker (just an example), should I expect others not to have a preconceived notion as to how I might behave? Perhaps, in a perfect world, we should expect this. However, in a perfect world, no one would feel the need to be cautious about approaching strangers. Shouldn't we challenge our boys to ask themselves how others might perceive them? What is more Scout-like? To assume others have "a problem" and therefore discount their concerns? Or, consider the concerns of others, and to take actions to avoid the problem?

 

Eman, despite the fact that we may be on opposite sides of this argument, I don't want to lose you either. I believe there is room for disagreement on this forum, which permits discussion without hard feelings. At least, I always hope there is Understand, I'm not suggesting that any of these things makes you or anyone else a "bad" person. I am proposing that they are extraneous, and as such, should be viewed upon with disapproval amongst Scouts. By the way, go with the knee socks.

 

[Eman]

I am not upset or bothered by a discussion or disagreement. I look and act the way I do because I choose to. I am over 18 and responsible for myself. When I lived at home I had to follow the rules of the house. Which included no tattoos or earrings and long hair. When I left home and paid my own way I could then live my life my way.

My house is now run the way my wife and I see fit. My daughter doesn't have pierced ears yet and she will be 12.

By the way, wearing a helmet is a law not a freedom! I wear one when the law dictates, but like the Obedient part of the Scout Law I try to have the law changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them.

[Mike Long]

Eman just so you know what I ment, in Florida helmets are not required anymore as long as you have more insurance.

 

I've personally seen the worst happen three times since the law was repealed. I make sure to ask anyone who rides to wear a helmet.

[eagle90]

What is our goal here? Are we trying to keep boys out of Scouting or attract them? We have to live and change with the times, and if the fad of the day is an earring, a tattoo, or a strange hairstyle or color, so be it. Let's not deprive a boy of a great Scouting program because of our prejudices. And just maybe that boy with the earring and the blue hair may need Scouting and what we can provide more than the conservative altar boy.

 

 

[dan]

Eman

I hate to say it but I beleive you are 5 for 5.

1-tatoo, 2-earring, 3-long hair, 4-motorcycle, 5-its a harley!

Now if you would have said its a Honda, we could have taken a couple strikes off.

 

[Eman]

Hey dan,

I've got more than one Harley if your keeping score.

[jmcquillan]

While I do, indded, understand persoanl taste, and the abhorance one may have for tattoos and piercings, I pose tyhe following question for your consideration. This is a real-life situation, and I'd just like to see where you folks would stand if you ran across it in your troop.

 

You've been with your troop for, well, going on 20 years, and some time ago, a boy graduated out of your troop as an Eagle. Probably the best Eagle you've ever seen. His qualities were the kind that you wish every boy could have, but know that only a few will have. This young man went on to college, and graduated with high honors. He went to a military college. During his college career, a war broke out in the Middle East (Gulf War), and he was called out of school to duty. Upon his return, he graduated, came back to the area, got a job, and came to a Scout meeting seeking to get back into the troop. He's welcomed with open arms, and becomes one of the best ASM's you've had. He's great with the kids, they follow his lead, he's a natural for the next SM. Then the troop goes to summer camp. At the swim check, first day, you notice that somewhere along the line, he got a tattoo.

 

What do you do? How do you feel? Does this fellow who once upon a time you held in such high regard suddenly become flawed in your mind? Do you hold him in less regard now? Is he still SM caliber? I know how I felt when he came back, but this whole discussion makes me wonder how some of the members here might have percieved him.

 

[Dedicated Dad]

What do you do? Absolutely nothing, he is an adult and has the absolute right to make such decisions. How do you feel? I wouldnt let him know my feelings because part of being courteous is being polite and respectful. My personal feelings have no bearing on whether he has the moral fortitude to severe, he does. The only problem I have is with a parent who gives consent for their unemancipated child to get tattoos or piercings. You and Eman can misconstrue my position as some sort of comment on the personal decisions you have made as adults, but it isnt. With idealism, one can quote MLK all they want but, right or wrong, in the real world he will be judged.

 

Does this fellow who once upon a time you held in such high regard suddenly become flawed in your mind? In my mind I think he has defaced his body and thats something Id not do to mine. Further its considered in many circles as uncouth and in poor taste, and in those same circles may be your next perspective employer who isnt quite as enlightened as the next person, again its not something I would chance. Bottom line, I would be pretty neutral on the whole judgement thing, its just not for me. I do wonder how BP would feel, do you think piercings and tattoos meet the standard of clean?

 

[jmcquillan]

While I'm not a fan of those who pierce things other than their ears, or the tattooing faces and necks, to each his own. And as long as they took care of themselves, I think that would mee the standard of clean, yes. The pierced ear, the tattooed arm or back are fine with me, and that's how I approach the subject. And cleanliness fits right in there for me.

 

I do think, however, that it would be a real hoot if suddenly we found out that BP had "BRITANNIA" across his chest.

[Rooster7]

Once again, I echo Dedicated Dad's sentiments. If you read some of my previous posts, you'll notice I said, "I realize there are some great men (and boys) out there (in the world) that wear earrings and have tattoos." I never claimed that a tattoo made you a "bad" person. Does it enhance your greatness or make you a "good" person? I don't see how. As DD indicated, I'm not going to pursue and insult an adult for having a tattoo. On the other hand, if I heard him encouraging the boys in the troop to get one, then I might have a beef (even if he was the great guy that you described). Past deeds do not entitle you to future infringements. I'd have respect for him, but I wouldn't condone or stand aside if I thought he was promoting something that he ought not to. Again, I wouldn't say a word (or even think much about it) unless he was trying to influence the boys to get one.

[OldGreyEagle]

 

I remember a group of Idealists, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, etc. They studied the Greek Ideal of the dignity of man and, right or wrong, they went against the pervailing notions of the day, that of loyalty to the crown in all circumstances. Were they right or wrong? But, times changed

 

Susan B Anthony was an idealist, She thought a person's sex shouldnt matter when it came to voting rights. I am sure in the real world she was judged harshly by those who disagreed, but was she right or wrong?

 

Now, I am not saying wearing an earring or getting a tattoo measures up to risks and ideals these people took, but I shudder at the dull, dark, repetitive totally realistic world we would have were it not for the flashes and rainbows of idealism

 

[Dedicated Dad]

But, times changed This is far from a moral issue and I dont quite think its fair to use your moral relativists analogy for a topic in social ethics. If there were 3 men and 1 woman stranded on a desert island where they held a vote to see if rape would be an OK thing to do and the vote went 3-1 in favor, then I guess times changed just the same. Now, I am not saying wearing an earring or getting a tattoo measures up to risks and ideals these people took...Then why always use the same "times change" relativiism, either it is or it isn't?

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

" With idealism, one can quote MLK all they want but, right or wrong, in the real world he will be judged. "

 

This was the comment I was responding to Dad, nothing more, nothing less. I was defending the concept of idealism and applauding its results

 

I am not sure how you made the leap to having democracy legitimize rape from what I said.

 

From the people living in London, what our founding fathers did was treason to the crown. That was the truth to English Citizens. I am not sure how English citizens regard George Washington, et al today, but I hardly think traitors and treason would be words used to desribe him. Times change

 

But please point out where I ever said that times always change what is right and wrong. Rape was wrong when Geroge Washington was alive and its wrong today. Murder was wrong then and its wrong now. Stealing was wrong then and its wrong now. Perceptions of propriety change, But right and wrong does not.