Talk:Body modification/Archive 1

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)

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)

circumcision

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

• It is religiously mandated in numerous other religions, most prominently Islam.
• Sadly, some people still call female genital mutilation by the name circumcision, however ridiculous the comparison. (And sadly, FGM redirects to female circumcision, despite all the protest.)
  

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)

erect penis

I don't think an erect penis is the appropriate image to show about circumsision. It seems porn. It is better to show a picture of a soft uncircumsised penis sided with a soft circumsised penis. --Joaopaulo1511 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

controversy section

please check out the difference between body dismorphic disorder and body integrity identity disorder -- I think you mean the latter in your mention of it in relation to extreme body modification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenetoile (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Also what is REALLY needed is a forum for people who are against certain forms of "body modification", who would like politely to express themselves, without being attacked for their views.

Agreed. Furthermore, if you have to add an entire sentence about how the terms "disfigurement," and "mutilation" are subjective terms, then that must mean that they're not near as subjective as you think they are. As a modified individual in the United States who has studied (extensively, I might add) other modification procedures around the world, I can confidently say that there are few modified people who aren't offended by either one of those terms. It is often a powerful belief in culture, tradition, aesthetics, or religion that leads a person to modify themselves--a modification that they feel incomplete without. Have you ever looked at it from the vantage point that maybe all humans aren't born perfect and that a person is in a state of disfigurement until they modify their natural form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.207.215 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Anal stretching

Anal stretching redirects to butt plugs in a way that might suggest this is the purpose of butt plugs or that butt plugs will necessarily cause anal stretching. This seems misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.229.128 (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

culturally sanctioned self-mutilation

This definition is from Favazza/Rosenthal (see: self-harm#History) The older definitions by Menninger and Walsh/Rosen give a better scale of lesser to greater modifications. Admittedly, they were developed in 1935 and 1988 but the 1935 Menninger table is very insightful and holds up better cross culturally (my opinion). Maybe these classifications can help structure this article (or bring arguments...). Walsh and Rosen (1988) created four categories numbered by Roman Numerals I-IV, defining Self-mutilation as rows II, III and IV. If it can be sourced, this table (without passing judgment on mental states) gives some classification of the various self-mods in the article.

Classification	Examples of Behavior	Social Acceptability
I	Ear piercing, nail biting, small tattoos, cosmetic surgery	Mostly accepted
II	Piercings, saber scars, ritualistic clan scarring, sailor and gang tattoos	Subculture acceptance
III	Wrist or body cutting, self-inflicted cigarette burns and tattoos, wound excoriation	Accepted by a few peers
IV	Autocastration, self-enucleation, amputation	Unacceptable

Would culturally sanctioned self-mutilation point to body modification? Should it have it's own article? The current 'body modification' article is very contemporary with little historical view. It's basically a list. Maybe an article list of body modifications for the extensive list of types and focus on a varied cultural view and the history of self-mods in the body modification article? Alatari (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Body Modification?

Is there one? if not I think there should be, I would start one except I don't know how. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I figured it out, if anyone wants to join go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Body_Modification ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Potential Futures" cites no references, reads like editorial.

The section labeled "Potential future methods of body modification" reads like someone's blog entry, and not like an encyclopedia article. It cites no references, is purely speculative, and should be removed. 67.142.174.24 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. An encyclopedia is for documenting things that have happened, not for speculating about what may happen in the future. Now, if you want to document what someone has said about future possibilities, then go for it. At any rate, I'm removing it. Fyrael (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

nonmedical means..

trepanation the drilling of holes in the skull is for medical purposes...also spelled trephination it was done to relieve cranial pressure after head injuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.35.134 (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

True, even (rare) self-trephination is medical, so I am removing it. Art4med (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

References

As far as I can tell, enough references are given.--Pierce686 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Permanence?

Is all body modification permanent? See bodybuilding which in non permanent (when stopping bodybuilding the body resumes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.236.41 (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article fundamentally needs to be rewritten from scratch.   — C M B J   12:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is a disaster. If I were teaching about body mod in a high school classroom, the current images would make this page unusable for me. I don't think that this images are necessary to write a solid article. The conflation of medically-encouraged with completely voluntary procedures should be done away with. I'm about to make some changes to that effect but not sure how far I'll get today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tassie Gniady (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I came here expecting some historical context about body modification, instead I got 50 trillion different links to specific kinds of body modification, a bunch of pictures, and that's it. How is this allowed to exist for years now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.197.208.65 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

THIS PAGE IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMAGES OF EXPOSED HUMAN GENITALIA IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!! I AM CALLING THE POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!184.155.138.213 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Not illegal in any of the countries where wikiedias servers are located. I do agree that there was an overemphasis of penises i the gallery so I removed some of them and added some of the more commonly occuring forms of body modification.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Body modification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160128093431/http://www.essortment.com/all/whatisbodymod_pdv.htm to http://www.essortment.com/all/whatisbodymod_pdv.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927015152/http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=1CA812CA-2BF4-55D0-F1F09D9BE9B80EB9 to http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=1CA812CA-2BF4-55D0-F1F09D9BE9B80EB9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Body modification for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Body modification is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Body modification until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hormones as body modification / bodybuilding as body modification

I'd like to suggest adding to this page, under the "other section" the use of hormones as bodily modification. specific examples that come to mind:

Testosterone replacement therapy for bodybuilders. Steroids for bodybuilders. While these might be considered performance enhancing for things like sports players, it's also pursued as an aesthetic choice. I think this is an important distinction. Both men and women may choose to take testosterone or steroids in order to build the body they want

I'd also suggest, though this might be more controversial, the use of feminizing hormones to build a feminine body. While it's a much smaller movement that is often conflated with the transgender community, some men go on feminizing hormones as bodily modification.

these sections could also be reformatted to focus on bodybuilding as bodily modification, including other means of achieving these ideals such as exercise, permanent hair removal, Gynecomastia removal surgery. I think this format would be worse, as most of this section talks about specific procedures instead of the goals of those procedures.

2605:6001:E347:600:F05F:8A63:4144:D538 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References