h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If anyone has had their ears pierced, then they have experienced some element of "vanity and the knife." Perhaps it is telling that this is so accepted in Western society that some mothers have their baby girls' ears pierced long before the babes are old enough to consent. Meanwhile, we continue to frown on nose jobs and the like. Could it merely be that ear piercing has been around longer, and our disapproval is linked to society's fear of anything new?

Tattoos, similarly, are common in our society. We may have questions about the types of tattoos people are wearing, and the use of tattoos by street gangs in the US certainly doesn't give them a good reputation. But we don't generally condemn tattood people of extreme vanity or low self-confidence. Where, exactly, does the difference lie?

Some would say the difference lies in extremes. Plastic surgury costs in the thousands of dollars, and a very few cases result in death or other surgical complications. And while ear piercing does not give you the ability to transform your appearance to the point where old friends will not recognize you, plastic surgery does (at least in theory).

Indeed, plastic surgery on a massive scale could create a homogeneity in appearances that society could, perhaps, do without. As it is now, only the wealthy can afford plastic surgury for purely cosmetic purposes. And this has its own set of problems. Rich people not only have more free time and more nice things compared to you -- they look better than you as well. Should the power of money really extend to the bedroom? Or doesn't it already?

I'm more than happy to condemn the heavily operated upon models with fake breasts, lips, and hair -- and the fashion magazines and media agencies that employ them. I too could go on about unhealthy ideals, and the absurdity of an body image for women that is so skinny that young ladies could neither menstruate nor procreate if they upheld the standard. But really, this is a side-issue to "vanity and the knife."

The knife has always been there. It is there in some form in nearly every society you can imagine. And it will always be with us. It is the ideal image which must change, not a technology which is no more "good" or "evil" than any other.

Sorry - but the idea of peirced ears - and seeing any peircing in the skin - makes me very squeemish. I don't like it at all!

I can guaruntee I am 100% knifeless - I don't cut my hair or nails, and don't mind being scruffy and ugly. At the end of the day, I am me. If I am a mess, I am me. If I am not a mess, I am me. Most of the time I can't be bothered to look that tidy - and I almost never look in a mirror.

I'm clean - but scruffy. And happy that way.

I had never thought of my piercings or tattoos as being a similar thing to plastic surgery. But in a way, I guess they are. I had them done because I liked the way that they looked and felt, and they mean something to me.

Plastic surgery can be a good thing. For instance, my friend had her boob size reduced (on the NHS) as they were too big for her small frame and gave her lots of problems. Should we tell someone else that she cannot have the opposite done to give her more confidence?
Plastic Surgery only becomes a problem when the patient feels that by altering his or her body, they can alter their life. That only comes from within.

Supermodels are too thin. So are many actresses. There is nothing we can do about that. However, we can try and give our children a positive image about their body, no matter what size it is.

I read somewhere that at the end of every seven years of your life, your body will have replaced the majority of your cells with new versions of the old. Why shouldn't we change our bodies if Nature is already doing it for us? It's also become a new way of seeing my own body art; kind of a barcode reminder of who I was and who I am becoming.

Ah.. Do you really think that the body you are in actually belongs to you? I personally consider the body I'm in to be "on loan" to me, and as such I have to look after it and take care of it, but I don't really have the right to change it as afterall it isn't mine. If you borrowed a book from someone, you wouldn't rip pages out, put new pages in etc. before you gave it back, would you?

I was created looking the way I do - do I have the right to change what my Creator made me look like?

My body isn't me. It's a vessel to carry my mind and spirit.
I'll agree with you in that way. But it is mine.

But if you have a house, don't you decorate it?
If you drive a car, don't you put your stuff in it?

The house isn't mine... it's my landlord's. And I don't have a car.

Hi!I agree with your opinion, and appreciate your life style. yes, we should be clean, but not be too serious on our appearance.

Ah religion, so how exactly are you going to "give" your body back? Surely it’s your sole that "god" is interested in?

I don't know about the theological debate--if we get started on that we'll never stop. But I would say that piercing ears is different, because pierced ears can grow shut in a matter of months. Tattoos, I don't know... tattoos also fade over time, it just takes longer. But plastic surgery actually changes the person down to the bone, and then you can't go back to the way before. That's a TRUE change. Not saying that that's good or bad.
-Rivaine

Unless you go as far as Michael Jackson?

No kidding, Peta. What really creeps me out about Michael Jackson is the way he will get on camera and lie about it. He'll tell you he only ever had plastic surgery done once on his nose. Er, right.

Actually, I had my ears pierced when I was two years old. I went over a decade without wearing earings, from my early teens to my mid twenties, and the holes never closed up.

>>Surely it&#8217;s your sole that "god" is interested in?<<

So "god" is only interested in the bottoms of peoples' feet?

You see children, THIS is why learning to spell properly is important...

Yeah, and I've got socks that have been blessed (think about it)

Oh, if only "god" were only interested in our feet...

But seriously, kids, who really sees pierced ears (or anything else) or tattoos as seriously altering one's body? I've got more holes in my ears than you'd care to count, have had both my navel and tongue pierced (removed the navel piercing 'cause I can't see my navel anymore after 30, hehe, and we won't discuss why I had to have the tongue piercing removed...) and have tattoos mapped out for when I can afford them. I *have* had major plastic surgery, but to repair an injury and not to improve on what I had to start with, but I won't lie and say I wouldn't think about improving on nature. It'd make life easier and more pleasant. Hell, it's a proven fact that even in a job interview, apearance wins out over experience and qualifications nearly every time. Sad, but true.

To be honest, I personally don't see anything "wrong" with what I've got. But I don't have to sleep with me. The sad truth is that the majority of people are attracted by physical appearance, and the majority of us don't fit what society tells us is attractive.

Maybe instead of forcing people to become what popular culture deems "attractive", we need to reassess what really is attractive. I know that I, for one, go for substance over superficiality every time. But hey, that's just me.

while i grant that the comparison between piercing/tattooing and plastic surgery makes sense on some logical level, i dont think it reflects how the majority sees things. and really, when we are talking about beauty, physical ideals, etc, all we are really talking about is the social mood. in that respect, i dont think that piercings or tattoos are in the same category as palstic surgery (going purely on the fact that most people dont put them in the same category.)

Well, if your only criteria for what defines something is "how everyone defines it," I can't and won't argue with that. I don't think I need to.

ooh boy, that just cut me down to size didnt it? i didnt say that my << only criteria for what defines SOMETHING is "how everyone defines it,">>
i was discussing specifically notions of physical beauty. The Reneissance painters demonstrate that at that time the ideal of female beauty was a robust, rounded woman. today's popular artists (ad photographers, etc) highlight extremely thin women as the ideal. so what is beauty? beauty is what society and culture deem it to be, as is clearly shown by the fact that ideals of beauty change with every age. (i dont see many women squishing themselves into corsets to acheive that victorian ideal of a 6 inch waist anymore.) so what is society and culture? i would venture to say that they are the collective thoughts and opinions of a group of people.
HENCE, "how everyone (or the majority at any rate) defines beauty" is in fact the definition of beauty. :P

So individuals who disagree with the common definition are incorrectly assessing beauty?

I'm in favor of the old saying, 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.'

Mmm, well, for what they are worth, my ;

1) My tattoos (all acquired since my 37th birthday, so not a decsion I came too lightly), are my way of reclaiming my body. And it is *my* body, it's not a loaner. I don't turn it in when I die, it moulders in the grave.

2) My previous girlfriend had piercings. My present girlfriend has piercings. One in her lower lip, one in her nose and is going to get her eyebrow re-done as soon as she can. I'm good with that., because thats her choice. If it makes her unnatractive to you, well, that's *your* problem, not mine, and *certainly* not hers.