Eiuol: “If one’s face isn’t deformed due to disease or accident, I do not know what rational reason one would want to have a certain physical feature changed. It’s not really the plastic surgery I have issue with, because I don’t see any physical feature that ought to be considered necessarily ugly. But then again, isn’t changing hair color the same thing, just less risky?”
Yeah, when it comes to choosing to change your own genetically given physical traits, I look at choices people would make in what to be changed to as mostly just like a preference in colors - there’s not really some kind of universally “better” one among many various options, just some people may personally like some a bit more than others. It’s similar to somebody having gray eyes and choosing to get green colored contacts. If it is something you have the time and money for and it isn’t going to be very risky to your health, hey, what the heck? Why not? The only time I have a problem with it when it is about your own personal preference and not about what others think is when you really do not have the cash to spare for it or you are having so much done that it is getting to endanger your health.
Also, what reasons most people get it done for don’t really matter. All we ever have to assess is what any individual person’s motive was. One person getting it done for a good reason isn’t changed if a million others get it done for a bad reason.
“What I’m saying is that I don’t think physical features that are determined by genetics should be taken into account in an objective judgment about a person’s beauty. Physical features are not irrelevant though, since they can help determine what sorts of clothing to wear.”
This is a lot like how I look at it too. If somebody doesn’t have the resources or doesn’t think the gain is worth the hassle even if they do have the resources (they would rather spend that time/money/effort on other things or just don’t want to deal with whatever pain may come with it) to change something about some genetically given aspect of themselves which doesn’t hinder their ability to go about their life, or if they’re pretty much just ok with how they are already, then those things are just moot to my assessments of them. As long as somebody is happy enough with how they look and they are not in bad health, then that’s grand, I’m glad for them. If they got that way just from genetics, hey, nice they lucked out, but I give no pluses or minuses for such features. If they got how they are through choices, then I’m pleased they could and did take steps to do something to make their lives more enjoyable even if just for something as simple as removing an awkwardly placed mole. And I also agree too, it’s good to work with what you have, however you got what you have, as best as you can when deciding how to do simpler things like picking out clothing. Some cuts, shades, and patterns of clothing work better for different body shapes and skin tones.
ZSorenson: "But my feelings about plastic surgery are that people have an irrational attachment to ‘purity’ in terms of not wanting to change how they were born to look. . . . But I think a rational person might want to consider whether a commitment to ‘the nose I was born with’ is entirely rational . . .
This I agree with. There’s a lot of people who fall into naturalistic fallacies when it comes to the subject of cosmetic surgery. In fact, I’d argue you have too with this line: “Complete self-obliteration, in the name of compulsive seeking of cheap beauty, I disagree with.” How is getting a lot of cosmetic surgery obliterating yourself? If one gets it out of personal preference, I’d argue it is greater control over yourself, being more yourself sort of, turning the accidental into a purposeful expression of your own preferences. Also, what’s “cheap” about it? First off, surgery can be expensive and is done by seeking it, your genetics were free and an automatic thing. So it’s nether literally cheap nor is it as effortless as your genetic default. Second, you seem to speak favorably of valuing particular looks about aspects of a person’s appearance like their facial features and body shape, so what is wrong, what is a “cheap compulsion” about choosing to obtain those aspects of physical appearance which one would consider more visually appealing? Either it isn’t just a cheap compulsion, or that means you have to value something you also consider a cheap compulsion, or if you value those appearances in a partner, but don’t approve of somebody who looks that way due to surgery because it is how they like to look when they didn’t sacrifice anything or put their health and financial well being in danger, then you fall into naturalistic fallacy, that you value it, but it is something that only those who just won the genetic lottery should be able to have and you frown upon as lesser those who got it by choice.
Alfa: "Why not? Do you think a woman with a clubfoot, dwarfism and a hunchback could be as beautiful as, say, Megan Fox? "
If they had equal moral character and equal compatibility with me on personal views and values, they’d be equally desirable (or undesirable, if their equally low in compatibility) to me. Although, speaking of reality, she seems, from what I know vaguely of her, to habitually choose to play trampy roles, so I don’t find her appealing at all (and in case I need to state it if not everybody here remembers, I am open to females for romance, so just being a female alone wouldn’t automatically make her unattractive to me.)
