Actually, I think he was making the observation that someone willing to poke holes in their flesh (self inflicted wounds) for social gains would have fewer qualms about repeating the ritual with other implements (a knife or razor ?) if the possibility of social gains was strong enough (which in this case it clearly is). I think it's an accurate observation as well as an honest assesment of human nature.
Just because the location of the piercings changed from ears to nose to lips to wherever and he doesn't approve of the new location, doesn't mean one is a piercing (or self-mutilation) and the other isn't.
The amount of nerves concentrated in the lips, the tongue and the nose (a very dangerous nerve cluster there, by the by) compared to the nerves in that floppy part of the ear ( I'm sure there's a real word for it :) make the decision to poke a hole in that area and stick a piece of metal through it a bit more significant. It is a greater sacrifice with a greater amount of pain and it requires a distinctly different type of personality. It's far from a seasonal migration of body holes.
If you were a fencer, Razz would be naked with a pile of shredded clothing in a circle around him.
You could certainly have interpreted that way, if you chose. But is it accurate? What, then, in his followup posts supports that interpretation? I believe that his comments such as " Yes, I do have a bias against piercing anywhere other than the female earlobe. So what?" and " It was her decision to change her appearance outside the norm, not mine." tend to support my understanding of his comment moreso than yours. His observation was a value judgement based on his own tastes.
BTW, check your freepmail