Body Modification

[Ysh]

the two are different forms of modification

the act of modifying ourselves is no different whichever form it takes

Is this not contradict?

Lol, no, I'm just clearly not very good at explaining my point ... sorry.

I think you are say we must view both subclass in same way because they both are member of same superclass. But this is not good policy. Examples:

''Soft'' body modification (e.g. haircut) is fine.
What about ''hard'' body modification (e.g. tattoo)?
It is also form of body modification, which is fine per first line above, so this is fine too.

Eating meat from cow is fine.
What about eating meat from man?
It is also form of eating meat, which is fine per first line above, so this is fine too.

Sex with adult human is fine.
What about sex with child human?
It is also form of sex with human, which is fine per first line above, so this is fine too.

I think this is not good logic. Even if both are ''body modification'' we can view them differently because it is different type or form of modification.

[Amanda44]

Well, ancients tribes weren't exactly "enlightened" like we are today.
What some illiterate caved dwellers did to their bodies is hardly relevant to what we do today.

But it is ... the motives for ppl remain the same and ppl do still alter their appearance, hence this thread ... and no, we may not all want to have permanent markings or cut holes in our face, we may also think it looks horrid but we do still share the same basic need to alter our appearance, even if it is just to feel part of our 'tribe'.

@Ysh ... that's the best I can do, lol, what I'm saying is we are no different, we just don't all go to such extremes.

[Kaios]

There would have likely been practical reasons for not taking it to such levels back in whatever year BC such as you're more likely to get shanked by someone who doesn't understand/like it and also I think wearing metal on any part of your head or face was just not practical in an era where being attacked by someone at any time was a real possibility and I guarantee someone is going to be ripping that off your face if they are trying to kill you/not be killed.

Those issues don't really exist as much now.

[Ysh]

There would have likely been practical reasons for not taking it to such levels back in whatever year BC such as you're more likely to get shanked by someone who doesn't understand/like it and also I think wearing metal on any part of your head or face was just not practical in an era where being attacked by someone at any time was a real possibility and I guarantee someone is going to be ripping that off your face if they are trying to kill you/not be killed.

Those issues don't really exist as much now.

Not to mention infection and such thing.

[dageir]

I don't understand the motives to disfigure yourself to the point where 99,99% of the population
avoids you on the street. That being said, the only modification I do myself is getting my hair cut ever 3-4 months
to avoid looking like a hobo. And I guess I do take a shower daily. I use shampoo and soap. I wear clothing.

[GenghisKhan44]

Well, ancients tribes weren't exactly "enlightened" like we are today.
What some illiterate caved dwellers did to their bodies is hardly relevant to what we do today.

There's a fallacy lurking in there. There's lots of things ancient peoples did that we do today. Eating, sleeping, having sex, marrying, divorcing, getting into fights, smoking pot... I can name a million other things. Is the fact that "Bronze Age people did that any good reason not to do those things?

Please, people. Just because something is done by primitive societies - or regressive societies - it does not make it bad ipso facto.

I think there can be many reasons people do and think unpopular things. Being Catholic isn't exactly winning me a lot of friends. But I hold the truths of it to be true be because the root of them - the authority of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church - is manifestly true.

Not trying to steer things onto the subject of religion or Christianity. But I am saying that people who get tattoos may be doing it out of convictions like that - it needs to be done, they feel. It will say something that just keeping it in your heart won't do. I agree, that's rather shallow and poorly thought-out, but that's what they see at the point they get the tattoo.

I have a friend who has a tattoo of the word "Hope" on her shoulder. It's generally inconspicuous, but she got it. It was worth the trouble of getting. I have no problem with that. Frankly, I wouldn't have cared if it were tattooed on her forehead; it would only mean that that word meant something to her. And I can sympathise with that.

[Ysh]

Well, ancients tribes weren't exactly "enlightened" like we are today.
What some illiterate caved dwellers did to their bodies is hardly relevant to what we do today.

There's a fallacy lurking in there. There's lots of things ancient peoples did that we do today. Eating, sleeping, having sex, marrying, divorcing, getting into fights, smoking pot... I can name a million other things. Is the fact that "Bronze Age people did that any good reason not to do those things?

I do not think dageir say ''do not do it because they do it,'' but he does say ''do not do it only because they do it.''

[MagicManICT]

Ysh, those two examples are exactly the same. One is considered a social norm, the other is a counter-culture movement. If you don't see that they are the same, then you need to consider what the purpose of cutting hair is, of wearing a particular form of attire is, or why people should wear make-up, or why we try to look younger.

[Ysh]

those two examples

Which?

[MagicManICT]

The haircut and the tattooed face you posted a page or two back earlier today.