Talk:Body modification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] not up to standards

IMO

This article does not meet Wikipedia standards for many reasons. Most importantly, it lacks even the most fundamental level of references or citation for its content. The Body Modification article lacks a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. The Body Modification article's lack of NPOV is all the more evident because of its lack of citation and references. In addition, the article includes medical procedures in its list of "mody modifications" that do not meet the criterion and definition stated in the article's very first sentence.

"Body modification is the permanent or semi-permanent altering of the human body for non-medica reasons, most often religious or aesthetic."

It seems that the definition stated above includes the criterion "non-medical" as a provision. That criterion would exclude numerouos items from the list. On that basis I believe those items should be removed from the list.

Among the items that do not meet the "non-medical" criteria include but are not limited to:

circumcision (male) sex-reassignment surgery hormone replacement therapy

circumcision : Within the U.S. most circumcisions on non-Jewish males during the last hundred years were performed with the supposition that it helped boy improve hygiene.

sex-reassignment surgery: Is performed for medical reasons. Furthermore those who receive it are required to meet strict medical criteria, and medical Standards of Care, established by such organizations as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) and malpractice insurance companies that insurance the surgeons in the U.S.

hormone replacement therapy: is a medical therapy for post menopausal female human beings, for post hysterectomy female human beings, post orchiectomy male human beings, and for use as part of sex reassignment therapy before and after genital reconstructioin surgery.

Based on the foregoing criteria, the items above should be removed from the list of body modifications.

In general, the Body Modification entry lacks the requisite reference material and citations for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Those with citable information and reliable, published reference informatioin on this topic should work to improve this article. Mere opinion and conjecture do not qualify material for inclusion as portions of a wikipedia entry.

From the first sentence of this article, reference information should be provided for the definition of the term "Body Modification" with sources and authorities for the criteria it establishs. What follows from the introductory material should be consistent, or it should be removed. Otherwise, any and all general surgery would be "body modification", which is not what was likely intended. Furthermore, "plastic surgery", in general, does not meet the criteria for inclusion under body modification, once again, because of the "non-medical" criterion. Procedures such as breast augmentation or breast reduction can be argued to have medical etiologies, just as cleft palate repair surgery have medical origins. The same could be said of orthodontia, and other dental procedures. The body modification article needs to be either much more narros, or it must provide a clearer broader definition, and it must provide some published authoritative sources to support a basis for inclusion of modifications beyond tatoos, piercings and the like.

Janniejdoe(talk) 11:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Other Comments

"Body modification is the permanent or semi-permanent altering of the human body for non-medica reasons, most often religious or aesthetic."

I think sexual reassignment surgery can be body modification, by this definition. Is gender dysphoria a medical reason? Well... yes and no? Martin 14:53 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Martin, I think any man or woman who has undegone SRS will tell you it is absolutely done for medical reasons. (Personally, I'd say doctors should turn down any patient who sees SRS simply as a body mod, and under the SOC they would.) Maybe you could make the argument that HRT for cissexual transvestites and cross-dressers is body modification, though I think they'd disagree. It has little to do with GID (unless you agree with the DSM IV), but rather the desire to have an active sex life. Non-ops are just as gender dysphoric as those who want SRS, so the SRS is optional of course, but it's desired for both psychological (emotional) and medical reasons. Most people want to have a sex life. Pre-op TSs can't usually do that. Insurance companies often cover perscriptions of Viagra for impotent cismen for the very same psychological and medical reasons. I'd think that makes SRS medical by the same logic, right? What makes you suggest otherwise? (And either way, I think it sort of clouds the issue of body modifications for the purposes of an encyclopedia like this one, right?) Hugs, Paige 16:13 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sexual reassignment surgery is body modification, it is a modification of the body. Whether or not it is medically/morally acceptable does not change the fact that it falls into the category of body modification. Regardless, there are people who deliberately undergo SRS because they want to look like the opposite sex, not because they feel they are of the opposite sex. Pizza Puzzle

In that case, every surgery is a modification of the body. Is a pacemaker implant body modification too? Paige 15:01 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Regardless, there are people who deliberately undergo SRS because they want to look like the opposite sex, not because they feel they are of the opposite sex. " either way its an internal feeling, no one dies or becomes handicapped from "incorrect" gender, unless they commit suicide, which is sad, but its not a medical issue

I dispute the inclusion of Anorexia nervosa in the list of body modification types. Anerexia is an eating disorder. The result of the disorder is a modified body, but the sickness in itself is not body modification. If we include this illness, wouldn't we also have to include illnesses such as cancer, elephantiasis and leprosy which also result in modified bodies? —Frecklefoot 14:14 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Its contested, many people do not feel that anorexia is a disorder. They are proud of their anorexia and argue that they are becoming beautiful by avoiding food. Anorexia is not the same as cancer/elephantiasis/leprosy. Pizza Puzzle
You are both half right. Anorexia can be regarded as willed and deliberate; it can also be regarded as involuntary. It can most certainly kill you. Perhaps this is something for the free will and mental illness articles? -- The Anome
I hold that it is a disorder (the article on Anorexia even states this). How about changing it to starvation? (I'm kidding). I know, how about changing it to dieting? A willful anorexic's goal is body modification (he/she wants to be thinner). This is also the goal of a dieter. In the case of a willfull anerexic, his/her actions can be viewed as extreme dieting. What do ye say to this? —Frecklefoot 16:49 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I also dispute the inclusion. Falcon 04:29, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] circumcision

I removed "of Jewish male babies" in the introduction, because:

JFW | T@lk 22:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sadly some people still call male genital mutilation by the name "circumcision"... // Liftarn

See my response at Talk:Female circumcision. JFW | T@lk 09:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] the direction of this article is not good

This article is (or should be?) about voluntary, non-medically-required, non-religiously-mandated modifications (those should probably get their own article), in the sense used by the body modification industry, that is, something that normally involves breaking the skin you do because you like it. That narrow definition does not really include things like plastic surgery.

Remember that the title "body modification" does not mean "anything done that changes the body", but rather it's the name of a genre, just as the "fantasy" genre in literature means a very specific type of fiction, even though other genres (such as sci-fi) are also works of the author's fantasy.

I am reorganizing the list of mods to reflect the separation between the narrow definition and the very broadest.

Also, something to keep in mind: the people who voluntarily engage in circumcision, penectomy, castration, etc. are usually not body modification enthusiasts in the common sense -- it's a very separate subculture (though of course some individuals will overlap). (Subincision, curiously, is fairly accepted in the body modification community.) The same goes for the amputation enthusiasts. Corsetry and foot binding are again a totally separate subculture with little overlap. Anorexia and bodybuilding are body modification only in the broadest sense, clearly not having any association with the body modification subculture.

I would REALLY like to separate the self-harm topic from this one -- body modification is NOT an unhealthy thing, and it's bad for it to be so associated with it. --tooki 16:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Self-harm is related, with plenty of citations available that link the sense of excitement prior to each acts, and the subsequent release of endorphin/adrenaline into the bloodstream, and following feelings of calm and euphoria that can prove highly addictive both to the modder/self-harmer.

Although that is true, if we are going to mention self harm in that context, we also need to contextualise that statment by also comparing it to the endorphin addiction characteristics of physical exercise, eating spicy foods or other habitual behaviors that provide the same rush. Body modification is not directly analagous to self harm. Self harm is not usually an attempt to permanently alter the body of the harmer, it's an all to common symptom of a variety of mental illnesses. Glowimperial 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm grateful the issue of "self-harm" came up. In order to respectfully represent and describe the body-mod community, the topic of modification SHOULD definitely be separated from the whole self-harm thing. Even mentioning it is disgraceful and only invokes the sort of pity and disgust for the body-mod community that people feel when they see a fifteen year old girl with her arms cut up. I'm sick of seeing every mainstream article about modification include a quote by some pompous psychologist relating it to self-harm. Suspension, piercing, ect have predated psychology for several hundred years and deserve to be separated from this modern trend of analyzing it as a mental disorder. I don't see "self-harm" linked to any smoking articles, so why this one? -Tina

The key issue is that self-harm does not modify the body permanently, it is a behavior that is a symptom of mental illness. Body modifications that resemble self-harm (scarification, branding, etc...) exist in a seperate context from the clinical definition of self-harm. That being said, there are mental disorders (anorexia, bulimia, body dysmorphic disorder, etc...) which can manifest themselves as various body modification practices. These practices are usually much more harmful to the individual than the kind of cutting behavior most commonly associated with self-harm. Glowimperial 05:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the article

The order of the article (placing the "Controversy" section immediately after the intro) misleads the direction of the article. It suggests that the main subject of the article is the controversy over body modification, not the actual practice of body modification, to the point of the article claiming that body modification is bad, making the article non-NPOV. Davidt2718 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed the topic order of this article to suit.
JJD(talk) 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Modifying feet for shoes?

Um, do we have this? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E0DF133DF934A35751C1A9659C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=2 Junglizt1210 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV section

I added a POV tag - the division between mainstream and extreme is absurd. Branding is mainstream, male circumcision is extreme? By what standard? Phil Sandifer 01:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the sub-categories were not properly organized. They were in fact arbitrary and probably culturally biased. Since they were probably unecessary anyway I removed them. voila!
JJD(talk) 01:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A-E-P:i added a POV Tag-I agree with what everyone says about plastic sergury and i think that in many cases getting it done is ok. I come from a family in which almost all of the woman have had plastic surgery and that is a personal choice but i do beleave that getting any type of surgery done for non medical reasons is a little rediculous. If your body is healthy then why do you want to mess that up or put your self at risk of messing that up?. There are many cases where everything has been ok, but also many that it has completly messed up peoples lives. If your not ok with how you look take other approches like small things. Chnageing your hair color or the way you dress, dont make it so dramatical.

How about a division between body modifications that do and do not involve the genitalia, does anybody else feel the list would be a little more user friendly this way? ```` Deredwop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.248.125 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)