In other words,
Locutus' suspicion that your statement was based on anecdotal evidence or just outright assumption is correct.
It's based on a long life of experience with Human nature, both collectively and individually, and a philosophy based on objective observation thereof. In other words, yes.
Calling it "mutilation" is more than a little over-the-top. Do you consider it "mutilation" to get your ears pierced? We're talking about poking holes here, not slicing things off.
Yes, it is
mutiliation to get your ears pierced. Mutilation is mutilation. The degree of mutilation is another matter.
In any case, bringing genital piercing into this is a red herring, since we're talking about fashion statements. Unless you live in a nudist colony, your genital piercings aren't going to be noticed by the public at large.
Well, I don't know whether the size of the intended audience matters so much-- or whether direct viewing versus second-hand knowledge matters so much-- in deciding whether something is fashion, but that's not an invalid point.
I can understand not liking piercings--finding them a turn-off, not being attracted to people who have them, and not wanting them for yourself--but to assume someone is mentally disturbed or deficient for having them is simply the height of arrogance.
Not at all. I said "mental health issues." I'm not necessarily talking about suicidal ideation, although that's not an unreasonable assumption-- simple low self esteem is a mental health issue.
I think using a term like "mutilation" in an attempt to put it in a similar category as female genital mutilation minimizes that issue greatly while blowing voluntary genital piercing completely out of proportion. Unless you can find me some data supporting significant to total loss of function in a large number of properly performed genital piercings the word mutilation is completely inappropriate and disingenuous hyperbole.
I'm very familiar with female genital mutilation from my years in Women's Health and I would never minimize that issue. However, I do think the difference is quantitative, rather than qualitative; many of the same motivations, both in terms of ego and culture, apply. And I don't think any evidence of loss of function is required to define piercing (see link above). I would be more inclined to suspect that loss of function preceded the piercing as mutilation (speaking mostly in terms of the genital variety here); self-inflicted pain is usually a symptom of an attempt to supersede physical or emotional numbness.
Mutilation implies significant damage, loss of feeling, or total destruction, which could potentially happen in the case of a piercing if there was gross negligence on the part of the person putting it in or lack of proper care or getting treatment for the person who was pierced, but it's hardly an issue in the vast majority of cases.
Again, I was not implying that, at least not in all cases; but in extreme cases, yes.
If that's a sign of mental illness than how are other ones like nose and ear piercings not (albeit more minor) signs of mental illness as well? I had no idea my mom, sisters, most women and some men I know were so maladjusted, or does it become okay and "conformist" and less of a mental illness the more popular it is?
Again, saying "mental illness" instead of "mental health issues" is overstating my opinion. Is not conformity itself a sign of lack of individuality or low self esteem, even if only to a mild degree? I believe I stated above that piercings in their most common form are at their most benign a sign of conformity-- if not, I intended to.
In terms of how something is defined in terms of popularity, guys, consider this: If you knew somebody who was cutting themselves on the stomach or genitals with a sharp metal object, how would you define that? Differently than somebody with naval or genital piercings, I'm guessing. If so, why?
