The_Darkness said:
I personally can't claim to fully understand why people choose to have tattoos, piercings or dye their hair. It is not something that I have ever felt a desire to do.
That said, MonsterCrit and L. Declis, you are both assuming that these things are done for the sake of attention - 'attention whores' - as opposed to simply being done because the individual wants it for themself. This feels like a fairly toxic assumption to me. Don't assume that everything that a person does is done for other people.
Why dopes that seem so shocking. Look, There are private marks and public marks. When you tattoo your wrist, you want people to see it. Tattoo or pierce your face.. you want people to see it.
The explanation that I have been offered from people who have had body piercings, etc, is that it's actually nothing to do with other people. It's about what makes them feel comfortable in their own body. Sometimes it's about laying a claim to their own body. And since it is their own body, I see no problem with them doing it. They have every right to do so.
This can be true but you have to realize, people who are self-conscious types that would do something like a piercing or tattoo to draw attention are rarely the kind that would actually admit to themselves, let alone others, that they're doing it for public attention. They will of course give the answer that makes themselves look and sound 'cooler', 'stronger' independent.
People with piercings typically wind up hanging around other people with piercings so it begs the 'chicken and egg' question. DId they get the piercings because they share an affinity with the rest of the group or did they get the piercing because they wanted to share something with the group they have an affinity for? SInce this is human psychology you can only assume because the human psyche is a gordian knot. We are easily as capable of lying and deceiving ourselves as much as we are of lying to others.
This is a guess, but I'd say that it overlaps with feminism because feminists feel that society places a lot of judgement on the female form - or indeed, on the human appearance in general, regardless of gender - when judging a person by who they are is far more valuable.
Unfortunately, you never ever know 'who' someone is, so you might as well make judgements based on appearance. Even sibligs wind up learning new things about each other. Generally speaking, people who put dyes and marks on their faces are generally people seeking attention, at least within the context of western-euro context.
I think there's as much to be said for the theory that they all have these similarities because they're trying to look like the other feminists they know, to make themselves more a part of the group, which is of course a daisy chain, they're imitating, someone, who themselves was imitating someone who ...well you get the picture.
Also honestly. In the case of Ms. A. She is doing it for attention. Sorry but everything about her, not just her appearance but her mannerisms, her woird choices, etc are all geared towards ruffling and riling someone up.. This is not a bad thing in of itself. I mean that's what a shock jock is supposed to do, and that's all she and manyothers really are, shock jocks that hav found a very easy audience to pander to. But in the end they have very little to actually say and once the shock value is gone you're just left with hot air.
She, Ms,, A and others are to feminism and Journalism what Andrew Dice Clay was to stand-up comedy.
