Setting: Sigh. Again, alternate-universe 19th century Paris. This particular character seems to hail from about the 1830s, but chronologically, we're rather... disarrayed
( Read more... )
it's often kids who can't get their parents permission to get it done by an actual piercer... if you're under 18 (or maybe 16 in some places) you need to get a form filled out by your parents to get it done at a registered piercer.
Male gypsies of the period are often depicted as wearing earrings, so I imagine that's another group where men regularly had pierced ears - and another reason for the underworld/negative connotations. In answer to your question though, I think your assumptions are a bit 21st century. I don't think there would have been any other way to 'acquire' pierced ears apart from you or one of your mates simply shoving a needle or a nail through your ear, heated in a flame if someone was being careful - infection would have been common. I doubt anyone would have given a thought to the materials of the ring that was then worn - that approach to piercing in terms of 'materials' and 'procedure' seems very much more recent. I donn't think, for instance, that a 19thc Parisian male prostitute would have a concept of having 'a piercing', just of wearing rings in his ears.
Early-to-mid 19th century is rather early for anyone to have heated the needle/nail/jewellery before piercing the ear; germ theories of sepsis weren't established until the 1860s, so the idea that infection might be caused the something on the needle simply wouldn't have occurred to people before that.
I remember from Little Women that Meg's posh friends comment on the fact that she hasn't had her ears pierced (and that's very firmly dated to 1860s America)
And all the earrings I have seen from prior to the invention of clip-on earrings were for pierced ears. A quick look at portraits shows how universal it was for women of the wealthier classes to wear earrings.
Actually, Wikipedia claims that the whole Prince Albert had a Prince Albert thing is most probably an urban myth and there's no real historical evidence of it anyway.
True, but many men of fashion had the piercing, just so that they would be able to wear the fashions of the day, and Prince Albert was a) a man of fashion (his snappy dress sense is known to be one of the things that attracted the young queen), and b) set many of the fashions. We'll never know, but he did get his wife pregnant eight times, and Prince Alberts are really enjoyable for the ladies when used right. The public image of Victoria and Albert is so stuffy, I'd like to think they were privately a little bit kinky.
Hmmm, yeah, seconding what everyone has said -- he'd do it himself. Probably to emulate a sailor or something.
That being said, he'd probably use a nail or something to pierce it with, or the tip of a knife, or something that's not a needle, because IIRC needles were something of a commodity, and a good needle (or any needle at all) would be hard to come by.
Actually I read somewhere that young male prostitutes were rather well treated by their "benefactors", a number of whom were rather wealthy. So if he got his ear(s) pierced while he was still a prostitute, it would probably have been done by someone else, probably someone more learned, who could have used a needle, even perhaps a heated one. Because even in the 19th century people recognized that heated metal == cauterized wound.
Alcohol was also used as an antiseptic back then (not that they knew it to be an antiseptic, per se), but if he was lacking in education and was doing it all himself, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't recognize that fact. Actually, this source claims that
( ... )
The replies I've been getting for this question keep reminding me why I love this community so much. You guys rock.
I think I'll likely be going for the sharp pointy object + a lot of concentration method, but your second possibility is intriguing. (For sake of tradition, I'd involve a potato in all this-- I thought for years you used a lemon, I'm so glad I was never called upon to pierce anyone's ears at short notice-- but I kind of doubt whether that would work out for his particular setting.)
Comments 21
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
That being said, he'd probably use a nail or something to pierce it with, or the tip of a knife, or something that's not a needle, because IIRC needles were something of a commodity, and a good needle (or any needle at all) would be hard to come by.
Actually I read somewhere that young male prostitutes were rather well treated by their "benefactors", a number of whom were rather wealthy. So if he got his ear(s) pierced while he was still a prostitute, it would probably have been done by someone else, probably someone more learned, who could have used a needle, even perhaps a heated one. Because even in the 19th century people recognized that heated metal == cauterized wound.
Alcohol was also used as an antiseptic back then (not that they knew it to be an antiseptic, per se), but if he was lacking in education and was doing it all himself, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't recognize that fact. Actually, this source claims that ( ... )
Reply
I think I'll likely be going for the sharp pointy object + a lot of concentration method, but your second possibility is intriguing. (For sake of tradition, I'd involve a potato in all this-- I thought for years you used a lemon, I'm so glad I was never called upon to pierce anyone's ears at short notice-- but I kind of doubt whether that would work out for his particular setting.)
Reply
Leave a comment