This debate question could be located in both women and men issues. I chose women issues simply because I think breast implants are more frequent than penis augmentation.

Simply stated, I am against both breast and penis augmentation and think both cosmetic surgeries are harmful from a societal perspective for four primary reasons.

First, it reinforces the image that “real” men should have larger penises and “real” women should have big breasts – it renders people as sex objects. That is, female worth is located by breast size and male worth is located by penis size. All people are more than sexual objects and should be treated as more. Second, and as a consequence to the first, it makes men with smaller-penises and women with smaller breasts feel “less than” and contributes to a winner and loser rat race society. It also causes very real self-esteem harm. The focus on having a larger penis or breasts is destructive psychologically to men and women who do not sport larger breasts or penises (larger mean above average). Third, it creates more breast and penis competition in which men measure up against each other and women stack-up against each other. It becomes a power game among and across genders, where sexual competition overrules human kindness. Fourth, I think plastic surgeons (and enhancement products) are used to exploit men and women and make money off of their vulnerabilities.

In addition, I would add there is an additional medical reason that makes me oppose both breast and penis augmentation. There are no long-term studies (e.g., 30 years later) on negative health effects.

Do you think that breast and penis augmentations are destructive from a societal perspective?

Do you think that breast and penis augmentations are destructive from a societal perspective?
I hate to lump both of them together but I guess its required. The answer is: mostly yes, but there are viable exceptions. In the case of breast augmentation, there are readily available a number of exceptions that I feel do not somehow contribute to the destruction of society as we know it. Breast cancer survivors are one such example. A woman's appearance, especially after a life threatening illness, can directly affect their wellbeing and self-esteem, which studies have shown can have a direct influence on their overall health following the treatment/surgery. I do not find such a procedure to be destructive in this case.

There are certainly examples where augmentation is in fact destructive, but I don't find the practice as a whole to merit such a general condemnation.

As for penis enlargement, I see no reason for this procedure to exist. Other than to contribute the volume of spam in my inbox.

Doctlotus:

I agree with almost everything you have stated. However, I do seperate the difference between reconstructive surgery and cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery retores health and functioning. Hence, I am a supporter of breast re-construction due to cancer treatment (e.g., removal of the breast). I am a supporter of re-constructive surgery in general.

However, cosmetic oriented breast and penis implants, in my mind, are only focused on vanity or self-esteem developed through vanity and I find them destructive for society for the reasons I listed above.

Okay, I will reply. When I first logged on: I thought "oh, dear, avoid that topic." However, the question is reasonable and logic somewhat sound. Yet, I cannot help but feel that it is no one's business but their own should a person desire artificial enhancement. After all, some women hold true to the tenant "what was forgotten should be stuffed." If those same women wish to make a permanent statement: I say go for it. It should be the right of any man or woman to choose if they feel they need that kind of thing done to their body. While personally I feel it just plain unnecessary: I won't stop or try to talk someone out of doing it who has their heart or mind set on doing it anyway.

Do you think that breast and penis augmentations are destructive from a societal perspective?

Insecurity is a part of human nature and it is because of insecurity that individuals are drawn to implants. Since implants allow a person to live a more fruitful and less-self concious life I see nothing wrong with their presence in society. Also, breast implants have helped many MANY women that have been victims of breast cancer move on with their lives post masctectomy.

Politica:

As I stated in another post, there is a big difference between reconstructive surgery and cosmetic. Please read above. In regard to your other statement that all people have insecurities, my question for you is where do insecurities come from? My answer is that they come from societal norms in which people compare themselves to. For example, Dr. Virgina Blum’s research in cosmetic surgery clearly highlights that the American Society of Plastic Surgeons use covert marketing to have women feel insecure about their bodies (see her book “Flesh wounds: The culture of cosmetic surgery). The logical extension is to then go see a plastic surgeon for breast implants. If you go back to my original argument against breast/penis augmentation, one of the reasons I’m against them is that plastic surgeons are exploiting sensitive issues and make a good amount money in the process.

Vdemostherse:

I can agree with you somewhat. Part of living in a democratic society is to allow people to have freedom. The question is, how much. For example, we do not allow crack cocaine to be used in society due to its strongly addicted and harmful consequences. Clearly, breast and penis augmentation is not as bad as crack cocaine – but where do we draw the line? The FDA has clearly been purchased by pharmaceutical and commercial/profit oriented lobbies (see Dr. David Healy’s book titled “Let them eat Prozac”). Furthermore, there have been no long-term studies on the side effects – what happens, for example, 30 or 40 years after a breast implant?

I am against the “individual knows best” claim because (1) people do not know best (see, for example, the social Darwin era of America during industrial development – widespread freedom caused child labor and all sort of harm because people became self absorbed), and (2) people’s individual actions do cause consequences to others. Part of the web of viewing women as having worth only because they have larger breasts are the women who actually get breasts implants (and the same with men on the large penis equals real men rhetoric) because they are living examples. Again, this is only one factor among many – but it is a real one, and I think a more powerful factor because it is real, not a made up airbrushed image on the cover of a popular magazine. The forgotten aspect of breast and penis augmentation is how it can cause harm to others, both from an individual and societal perspective. The societal norm that I am of more worth than you because my penis is bigger than yours, may create a flimsy increase of self-esteem in me, but what does it do to men with smaller penises (or on the female side, the women with the smaller breasts)? It causes a lowering of worth of self-esteem. Hence, I do agree somewhat with you, but I think the consequences are more serious than you think. Hence, I’m still against breast and penis augmentation based on appearance credibility.

The line is not the governments to draw. The FDA should have no say as to what a person does to the exterior of their body be it "healthy" or not. The FDA makes sure I don't put rat poison in my body, not if I choose to enhance my assets by a foot or more, thank you very much.

Long-term studies are pointless since it does not affect that wide a market. Say for some reason beyond my current comprehension, I decide to have this procedure. And assume that in forty years I get penile cancer. That was my decision and no one should be expected to make it for me. My mistakes are mine to make and if the government dared interfere with my right to pursue happiness I'd be pretty upset.

I agree that the individual does not always know best (just look at cigarette smoking), but I'm not sure how your example of Social Darwinism plays in. The government didn't put a ban on the idea of Social Darwinism. People rallied behind child labor laws and eventually won them. The idea eventually became old and people realized it didn't hold any water.

But just because something is bad for someone doesn't mean the government is going to stop it. There is no part in the constitution which says that the government will stop you from doing dumb things, only that it allows you to "pursue happiness" (in ways that are legal of course). I have a feeling that if breast/penis enlargement were suddenly considered illegal without any sound and conclusive medical evidence that people would say it infringes on some of their rights.



This is only if you assume the person on the other end (with the smaller breasts/penis) actually care. Ideally people would be happy with their bodies, but that's never going to happen. I just don't see how the government could regulate something like this when the only thing that seems to be hurt here are people's feelings.



Can I get a source on this?



I can see how this works for women, since breasts are more out in the open; but how does this work for penises? Would think people would start groping each other instead of shaking hands? To determine positions of rank would all the women in a room should out cup sizes and all the men pull down their pants? Do people regularly have conversations with others about their penis/breast size? This might just be anecdotal, but I've never been at a bar talking to some girl when a guy comes up and says "Hey, I'm twice what this guy is. Talk to me." Something tells me this isn't going to get a woman.

Do you think that breast and penis augmentations are destructive from a societal perspective?

No, not particularly. As long as there are safe I see no reason to stop the sale of either form of enhancement. I think overall you're placing too much importance on this.

I think what's more of a problem is the perception of beauty in general. Everyday on Cosmo, Esquire, People, Time, etc, etc. there are beautiful people who aren't showing their breasts/penis, but are just beautiful. This makes people want to get face lifts, lipo, botox, etc. There were even the two shows promoting life changing cosmetic surgery: The Swan and the one on MTV I Want a Famous Face (?) The point being that breast/penis augmentation isn't the problem, but maybe cosmetic surgery in general. But I still don't feel the government can, or should, be in the business of telling people how to run their lives if it doesn't cause significant harm to their body (like drugs).

First off, sorry I have not been as active in this post. I have a busy schedule.

Vdemosthenes:

I would encourage you to visit the FDA home site. It has an entire branch dedicated to cosmetic applications and it also regulates public healthy concerns. There obviously needs to be some type of government regulator that uses scientific evaluation procedures to judge whether they are safe to the public. At the lowest common denominator, you need to be properly informed before you make medical and health decisions. There are numerous cases of drugs and medical procedures being banned due to complications. Perhaps the worst case was the Thalidomide error of the 1960s, which resulted in thousands of babies born with physical disabilities from a drug to help pregnant women deal with morning sickness! Further, if it was not for government regulation, our entire society would be in chaos – there would be no police, hospitals, firefighters, etc, etc – the government is not as bad as you are suggesting and the FDA should be a player in evaluating whether medical procedures such as breast and penis augmentation are safe. Further, they also play a part in revoking medical licenses when doctors try to manipulate patients into interventions, in which doctors make money. For example, Dr. Blum’s research clearly highlights how many (but not all) plastic surgeons explote patients and make quite a bit of money in the process (see her book called “Flesh wounds: The culture of plastic surgery”).

Devils Advocate:

In regard to Social Darwinism – my point was that historically this era of time underscores how society became when government regulation was invisible or scant. I agree that people rallied, however, the rallying developed into laws and then government conducted evaluation and regulation. For example, Julia Lapthrop became the first director of the Children’s Bureau, which regulated child labor laws. This would not have occurred had not the government interfered. Further, I agree the government should not stop people in many things, but the government should regulate the safety of medical and health procedures (and some other things). Further, it is impossible to know the long-term side effects of both breast and penis augmentation via an independent branch of research so that it can verify whether it is safe. There is no research into the long term side effects of either procedures. That is pretty scary. The primary purpose for government regulation is to make sure the public is safe. That is one reason for my argument against breast/penis augmentation.

I agree with you that big breast/penis competition assumes that other people care about this issue. Although I do not care about it personally, I do think from a sociological perspective this is a very real issue and that many people –especially women – feel “less than” because their breasts (or penises) do not stack up against others. Body image problems create huge psychological problems. In regard to your question on a source, I would encourage you to read the feminist counseling psychology literature. For example, Dr. Bem’s research and gender schema theory clearly underscores how children learn societal views of gender, internalize them, and then if they do not match up they blame themselves instead of being critical of the societal norms (which eventually leads to depression and lower self-esteem). However, most people in society will not see the societal elements, they will simply blame the person for their lower self esteem (if you do an academic search on Dr. Sandra Bem’s you will see a solid research background in solid academic journal, such as Psychological Review. Another solid academic is Dr. Carol Gilligan – see her book In a different voice).

I agree with you that the breast issue is much more concerning than the penis issue due to the public display element. However, I’ve noticed that there seems to me a “turning the table” on men movement where there seems to be a female gaze directed at penis size, which communicates that a “real” man should have a larger penis. For example, there are now mainstream TV shows and movies (e.g., Ally McBeal, Desperate Housewives) in which women explicitly communicate their desire for men who are well endowed. Although unscientific, I’ve noticed that there seems to more and more movies made in which women are making comments that they prefer men with larger penises (I was at one the other night and a women sitting below me sure found this to be funny!). Likewise about two months ago on one of the later night comedies the actress Tea Leonia (sp?) clearly stated she preferred one actor’s penis to another because the former was broader (I can’t remember the names of the actors). As a result, I think there is a growing movement of penis size competition among women – which will result in more pressure on men to measure up against other – which create a make for penis augmentation. Do you agree with my observations?

Were these psychological problems less pronounced when girls were stuffing their bras and Marilyn Monroe was popular? This phenomenon is older than the wheel. Exhibit A Venus of Willendorf, with no face and large breasts. Barbie has created more body image problems than plastic surgery. From what I've seen, coming from Vegas, the plastic surgery capital of the world, is that large breasts are less in vogue today than they were in Marilyn's time. With good reason. Anyone could buy them, so they aren't that big of a deal anymore. Does anyone really want to look like Dolly Parton or Pam Anderson? Few do, I'd imagine it's impractical.



No, I don't agree. First of all, isn't Ally McBeal a flat-chested anorexic? She is popular and considered attractive. How does that fit into your breast stereotype? Second, have those actors in question even had penis enlargement surgery? I doubt it's that prevalent. If a man is so concerned about his size because he is small, that it effects his life, I think it is wonderful he can have this surgery. Why not? I've imagine no one would go under the knife unless it was extremely important to them. And I've never even seen a penis with surgery, for what it's worth.

Dear, oh, dear. Where to begin? First off, the FDA is there to help us prevent from digesting rat poison. Now, when a drug that say, nine million people are using winds up to be tainted and the FDA finds it harmful: good for them for catching it before my mother possibly takes it! But when the FDA steps in and denies a person their Constitutional right to pursue happiness by changing their phenotype: that's a breach of their mandate and unfair to say that I cannot enhance my body which will only have consequences for one person: me. Bottom Line:

The FDA has no place in my bedroom, so leave them out of it.

Do you think that breast and penis augmentations are destructive from
a societal perspective?

I think any form of plastic surgery is somewhat destructive both physically
and mentally:

Phyiscally, there will be long-term negative side effects that will emerge
as time rolls on. Already, women are dealing with unexpected side effects
like leakage and infection. There is also the percentage of malpractice
cases involved with plastic surgery.

Mentally, plastic surgery is a tool to increase one's acceptance of self,
as if what one had before wasn't good enough. That's absurd, but it
goes to show how strongly we are affected by media's perception and
distortion of beauty.

I live in southern California. Plastic surgery is a booming industry out
here. And it's scary the amount of women who are having all kinds of
procedures done. The worst part is that they do not end up looking more
attractive in many cases. Especially the facial procedures where women
are having their skin pulled back. They end up with the Joan Rivers
look.

You have to be a strong individual with high self-esteem to accept yourself
as you are, in today's world.

Doomed Planet:

I agree with you completely. Very strong people will try to fix what they can (e.g., exercise regularly, not obsessively) and simply accept themselves. Such people have strong egos!

Mrs. Pigpen:

I agree with you somewhat that breast size for women has been a problem for hundreds of years. However, during the Victorian era women with larger breasts were problematic because desiring bigger breasts (or penises) was a sign of being more animalistic. See Dr. Maryyn Yalom’s historical research in her book “The history of the breast.”

Where I might disagree with you is in relation to whether there is more psychological problems and pressure on women to have the right size breasts and bodies. I think there is. Do you disagree? Due to mass marketing by numerous so-called “health” organizations (e.g., American American Society of Plastic surgeons, health clubs) and other organizations, I think there is more pressure on women to change their bodies – and growing pressure on men. Further, now that there is actual technology to change the size of breasts and penises, I believe there is even more pressure for women and men to have the right body. And as such, there is more pressure on each gender, which then relates to great health problems. Ten to twenty years ago I think most people brushed the images away due to air-brushing and marketing techniques rather than actual real body changes – but today you can actually see women with larger fake breasts and hear stories about men with larger penises due to surgery. In fact there are actual shirts being sold on varies website that explicitly state “There are real” or “They are fake.” Again, do you disagree that today ythere is greater pressure on men and women?

In regard to you comments about Ally McBeal, I think you might have missed my point (unless I am missing your point). I was arguing that there seems to be greater societal pressure on men to have a larger penis. Ally McBeal’s breasts size is irrelevant to her preference to want a man with a bigger penis. Although not visual like breasts size, in my experience of viewing popular culture (not my experience with actual women and size – I’ll keep that private – lol ) there seems to be more and more pressure for men to have a larger penis via comments, including movies/TV that push Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medications – such as Ally McBeal explicitly stating she wants a well-endowed man or other comments of women telling men they have no problem waiting for them to go take a pill (which means they want to play with a bigger penis). Hence, I was not stating that women who have large breasts desire men with large penises – I was just using Ally McBeal’s comments as an example of the societal pressure being but on men. And same as women, I do not think a man should be viewed as a sexual objects because he has a larger one. What are your thoughts?

One last thing. What I found most interesting in you last post how you defended men going under the knife but mentioned nothing about women!!! Interesting thought …. LOL … I guess I will not make anything out of it!

What I think is that such "psychological problems and pressure" for adhering to a perfect stereotype of whatever the beauty standard are no more pronounced today than when women were chopping off toes to fit into tiny shoes, eating tapeworms and removing ribs to make their waists smaller, or padding their bras.

I don’t believe that the world before plastic surgery which you seem to believe must have existed once upon a time ever has. There isn’t any time I’m aware of when it was better, but there was a time when people married at 15 and died at the age of 30, and day to day life was so hard they likely didn't think about their looks nearly as much. Or when everyone stayed married for life and didn't have to start over at the age of 45...

Blame the sexual revolution, and the entertainment industry that peddles sex. When women only bed their husbands, never having even heard of intercourse until their wedding nights at the age of 13 to 19, they didn’t have much basis for a comparison. Yes, things have changed but it doesn't have much if anything to do with penis surgery.


A woman generally wears her chest around with her. The chest size doesn’t have much whatsoever to do with sex or satisfaction. It’s a source of nourishment. A man, on the other hand, might be very small, but his size remains unknown until the proverbial moment of truth. At which point, he might take out a vibrating orb purchased from a ‘relax the back’ store from his pocket, with a "never fear! This will still be good!" but either way he is potentially faced with an uncomfortable moment. I think his problem, if he is extremely small, is a bit larger than hers.

Either way, if any female or male actually feels psychologically marred because of their appearance, and they can change it, they should. Why on earth spend every day obsessing so much that it greatly impacts your life, about something one can change?

Here is an example: I have a friend who breastfed four kids. After that, her breasts were rather awful, though she was a marathon runner and in tremendous shape otherwise, they sagged to her waist, a problem she was able to fix and now feels much better about herself. WHy on earth should she not? Now, I have other friends who obtained implants to be larger, and I think they look awful. Even their husbands have confided that it's like touching a rubber ball. I just don't think SO many people want to look and feel like that. Jessica rabbit body styles went out with the eighties. Women who look like that today date themselves like unicorn and rainbow tattoos, or ‘bad boy club’ window stickers for the car.

So, I'm not saying that things are perfect, yes, certainly, plastic surgery creates higher expectations, especially since the celebrities who use it the most pretend they don’t ("oh, yes! I somehow magically look 30 even though I'm 55!"). But, does it create higher expectations than the fashion industry, which uses stick figure models? The diet industry which peddles unhealthy regimens like Atkins? The cosmetic industry? The cosmetic dental industry? The list goes on....

What would you say to someone who has Apotemnophilia? These individuals do not believe they will be satisfied in life until an otherwise healthy limb is removed. For such people, limbs have sometimes been removed in order to deal with this psychiatric disorder. Do these individuals have a right to have their limbs removed in order to allow them to pursue their happiness? If so, where is the line for self-mutilation which requires intervention? If not, how is this different from altering one's appearance through adding features?

I choose to answer your post in small bits.





I say more power to them.




Again, and I am getting tired of stressing this: they have and will always have the right to do unto their body the most unholy, most vile, trashiest, foul, disgusting, degrading, lowly, creepy, sacrilegious or demoralizing thing to their body they desire. Under the right to self-happiness I can have my left arm removed because I so choose. My body. My rules. My government does not and will never own my body. Ergo, they cannot tell me not to get that portion of my anatomy enhanced or removed.




Yes.




In the private life of the individual. Not the public life with the government.




It's not.

Mrs. Pigpen:

Before I respond to some of your thoughts, I want to clarify something that I think is implicit in your last post and important to this dicussion/debate. I am an advocate for reconstructive surgery, but fundamentally against cosmetic surgery – and in this debate specifically arguing against breast and penis cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery has two purposes (1) to restore health functioning (e.g., a woman who had cancer and needed a mastectomy), and (2) fixing abnormalities (e.g., a man with a 1 inch erect penis). On the other hand, cosmetic surgery is oriented toward augmenting already health functioning – and in the context of this discussion/debate it would be something like a woman who wants to move up from a A cup to a C cup, or a man with an average size penis (which the Wikipedia encyclopedia states is just under 6 inches long and just under 5 inches wide) who wants a bigger one. Hence, if a man was “extremely” small or a woman “completely” flat, to me that is reconstructive surgery and I am not against it. It is cosmetic surgery and cosmetic oriented breast and penis augmentation that I am arguing against.

Here are the areas I disagree with and would like to challenge you on.

1. Although I agree that breast size and body image issues have occurred for women for a long time, I completely disagree with you that beauty standards and breast standards are constant today – I think there is greater pressure on women and breast size today. In support, I am referencing Dr. Marilyn Yalom’s historical research on breasts in her book “The history of the breast.” She argues that due to greater commercial exploitation (e.g., fashion magazines, sport and health enterprise) today than, say 100 years ago, there is greater pressure on women today to fit the image/size. Further, with greater stress comes greater psychological problems. Furthermore, Dr. Yalom also suggests that in more recent years women with larger breasts have changed in societal roles from being helpless/docile sex objects (to the male gaze) to today being signs of managerial/free market power. That is, the female corporate manager want or gets bigger breasts for power reasons (e.g., be hired over a smaller breasted women, using their breasts to have control of men – sleeping with them [which raises questions in my mind of who is controlling who], etc.). Now to be fair to smaller-breasted women, Dr. Yalom also states that even today smaller breasts symbolize upper class elegance, and that upper class men (and women) prefer smaller-breasted women because it still reflects Victorian era values that if a person desires larger breasts (and penises) they are a less developed person cognitively. So, I disagree with you, I think that the stress is more pronounced than in past years and breast competition has increased (power vs. elegance and class). What are your thoughts? Do you have reference to back up your claims?

2. To this end, I think the same thing is happening to men – although I admit I have no credible references, this is based more on my own observations. For example, my own observation of many erectile dysfunctional commercials implicitly highlights that women desire and men envy other men with bigger penises. It is not having an erection that counts, it having a BIG erection that counts! And I think erectile dysfunction commercials (commercial exploitation), along with more verbal talk in movies and the Internet, are socially conditioning women to want to compare penis size and desire bigger ones. Let me provide two examples of this – although I fundamentally realize these are not credible academic references – they do highlight my points of this in popular culture. First, go to http://www.mrpoll.com/results.mpl?id=1363265562. This is an Internet poll, which carries little scientific evidence – but it does provide a small glimpse of what 200 plus women have stated in relation to popular culture (however, there is no way to verify these statements were not fabricated or that a single women did not enter the same response ten or more times). This site does underscore that there are woman who want men with bigger penises (especially during one night stands) and my thinking is that as penis augmentation becomes safer, more women will demand bigger penises. Second, this comes from a penis enhancement website discussion regarding penis size, from a woman named Tammy: “Seeing this debate (on whether penis size matters) empowers me as a woman. The men here are so concerned about their size. I've enjoyed two men at a time and always enjoyed comparing their cocks... you have their egos in your hands and it's always interesting to see the smaller react when I say the other is bigger. It's very exciting and yes the larger seems like "more of a man" no pun intended...lol” Again, this is a single case – but to me the implicit message is that there are women -- and will be more and more women – who want men with bigger penises and will compare. And again, my thinking is that as penis augmentation becomes safer, more women will demand bigger penises and there will be greater pressure on men to (1) have a larger one, and (2) to be viewed more and more as nothing but a sexual object. (I would add that there is a part of me that thinks this is fair game because men have done this to women for years – picking a women with larger breasts over smaller ones, both in sex and in public interactions – but I still think two wrongs do not make a right and I think the smaller women and men get seriously harmed in the process). In many ways I think the old fashion view that you wait until you are married to have sex is a much better societal discourse. Marriage means more and less people -- both men and women – will compare size less. What are your thoughts?

3. I’m curious why you brought up the fact that having an extremely small penis during the “proverbial moment of truth” is more concerning to a man than a woman who has extremely small breasts? How is this relevant to the broader issues? Why did you bring this up? To this end, however, I do disagree. I would argue that it depends on the person. I actually know some men that will not date or have sex with a woman unless she has a certain breast size. Sad, but true.

4. I fundamentally disagree with you that if a person is “psychologically marred” about her breast size or his penis size, that there is nothing wrong with having cosmetic augmentation. First, please re-read my first post against breast and cosmetic surgery. In particular, going for such needless surgeries only reinforces the pathetic and sick societal perspective that a “real” woman has bigger breasts and a “real” man is a bigger penis. To me, the best and healthiest scenario is to fall in love with someone and then simply accept his or her sexual attributes. Do you disagree? Further, don’t you think it is rather pathetic that people would be controlled by the size of their breasts or penises? In regard to your marathon running friend who got breast implant, you raised the question “Why on earth should she not [get breast implants]? My primary answer is to re-read my original post. However, I would like to challenge you back by asking why would such a woman let her breast size have so much control over her? Why would she let societal discourse affect her in this way? And I would extend that question to any male who had penis augmentation (the only exception, again, are abnormalities. I look forward to hearing you answer on this question). Likewise, I would challenge any man who desired a certain size breast to how they would let society control them in this way.

5. Last thing – I do think that the more accessible breast and penis augmentation becomes, that people will have higher expectations in relating to breast and penis size. And again, I think a much better life course is to simply fall in love with another person’s personality, and then have sexual fun with whatever they have– whatever size (small or large). Doesn’t that sound like a better life course?

The phrase 'Napoleon complex' is a lot older than penis enlargement surgery. Imagine for a moment that I started a thread suggesting that vaginal surgery should be outlawed because it places abnormal standards on women. Then, I pointed to a report of men polled indicating that most preferred a tighter vagina, “especially for one-night stands!” and said with a flourish, “See? Those women with surgery are placing ridiculous standard on the rest of us. Now we all need vaginal surgery!” That is the equivalent of this debate (the penis portion anyway) to me. Vaginal surgery is available, and usually women don’t have it done unless they really need to. I suppose in theory women could have this surgery and place abnormal expectations on the rest of us, but it isn’t something I’m going to lose sleep over.

Let me guess…I’m having an epiphany. These fine fellows are bouncing off of buxom beauties, left and right. Can’t seem to get enough of them and the pickins are very high. No? Or, alternately, they are a mite insecure because they aren’t actually so popular with the ladies, which brings them to talk smack in the lockroom? I’m betting on number two.

I’ll answer the rest of your post in one lump. You’ve indicated repeatedly that people should just like themselves the way they are, surgery is pathetic, a much better life course is to simply fall in love with another person’s personality, ect. I agree with all of that. I also would like to see worldwide peace.

The real underlying issue isn’t breast size or penis size, it’s the fact that people are shallow individuals as a whole, and looks tend to matter to them. That’s just an unfortunate fact. The standards change…you’ll never find the porky body type as the epitome of beauty standard during times of plenty, for instance, but you will find it in times of famine. It’s true of foot size (I’m very lucky this is no longer important), breast size, waist size, pick your poison. There is fantasy and there's reality. Ever set up a man on a blind date, and when he asks about the woman he's going to meet with you said, "She's nice", and noticed that happy gleam in his eye? Everyone loves a great personality...

Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that cosmetic surgery be eliminated entirely with the exception of catastrophic cases. At which point I have to wonder where does that scenario stop? What sort of big brother enterprise decides this, and on what grounds? That it is bad for society? In that case, should anyone be able to have a nose job? Braces? Radial keratotomy? Should anyone be able to alter their appearance in any way? How about shaving? Piercing? Makeup? Frankly, I fear your “solution” infinitely more than I fear the “problem.”

Destructive is a pretty strong word. I think that someone who judges his or her own worth by the dimensions of their equipment, so to speak, is sort of a sad specimen of humanity. Others have pointed out that society's emphasis on sexuality has, in part, created this overcritical mindset, so that men worry about 'size mattering' and women think they need to have 'firm and perky double Ds' or they'll never find true love. That strikes me as ironic.

My mother was very busty, with narrow hips and no butt. In the forties and fifties when pencil-slim skirts were in, she looked great. Then she had five kids, nursing all of them. When she died at 78 in 2004, her boobs hung to her waist. Did my dad love her less because the rack headed south? I think not.

Likewise, the guy with the Rasputinesque endowment is one day going to be an old man who 'doesn't get around much anymore,' and can do little more than regard himself in the mirror with (I hope) fond memories. If he has a wife or partner who loves him whether he can get it up or not, that's what should count.

My best friend had augmentation a decade or so ago. We're both in our early 40s and she had breastfed two kids. If the re-engineered boobs make her happy, I guess I'm okay with it; but I did look differently at her husband ever after. How could he not try and talk her out of a risky surgical procedure? Being married to the kind of guy who'd critique my figure is an alien concept to me.

Those are just my thoughts.

Vibiana:

I agree with you on the husband part. I find it troubling that so many men do not try to talk women, that they purport to love, out of these surgeries. Although I believe that a woman should control her body, I also realize that many men think more about playful fun with larger breast than considering what falls behind the breasts – a woman’s heart. In my mind, a man who loves a woman will let her make her own decision, but will be active in persuading her otherwise. I also agree that falling in love with one’s personality is the most important, and then you enjoy the sexual attributes, whether small, medium, or large.

Mrs. Pigpen:

I agree about the Napolean complex, that people often do unhealthy things – like fill their breasts full of harmful chemicals – to deal with inferiority in other areas. Further, I found your response interesting in that you focused primarily on my second comment – a comment that I clearly stated was the weakest and was based less on scientific and academic merit and then basically skipped the other questions with a lump sum answer. For example, you never addressed (1) my re-direction to re-read the first post I stated, (2) the question about the proverbial moment of truth for men being more serious than the proverbial moment of truth for women, and (3) the issue of breast implants. You seem to be more focused on the shallowness of penis augmentation than breast augmentation.

To this end, do you consider your running friend who received breast augmentation shallow? In post 16 you defending her decision and challenged me by asking, “why on earth should she not get them.” Then in post 20 you stated that “it’s the fact that people are shallow individuals as a whole.” Are you suggesting that your friend and the majority of people are shallow self-maximizes? How are you putting these together? Please clarify.

The crux of your position seems to be that breast/penis augmentation is shallow, but that we should live with it because it’s an “unfortunate fact” (e.g., “you will never find the porky body type as the epitome of beauty standards’). I disagree with you on two accounts. First, beauty is socially constructed, has changed over time, and can continue to change in the future. Again, I will reference Dr. Marilyn Yalom’s book “The History of the Breast.” During the Victorian era small breasts and penises were desirable. Today, larger is the preference (which I’m not sure why – but I think it is a power control issue, having bigger sexual attributes to control others and having people desire them so that they then control the person trying to control – it’s a warped power struggle). Body image does change and people should be trying to support healthy body images, rather than jumping on the bandwagon via saying “its an unfortunate fact”. Second, although no one can control the masses and change Hollywood, all people can control small spheres, such as their homes, the people they love, certain parts of communities, or possible larger organizations (director of the YMCA/YWCA). I think the best action is for individuals to resist body images in the smaller spheres that they have some control over.

In regard to your question of who decides, my answer is health professionals. We do it all the time in society. The speed limit of 20 miles an hour in school settings is based on science and the principles of acceleration and driver vision. Likewise, certain drugs (e.g., cocaine) are not allowed. I think the government needs to have a depthful social policy agenda that is based on solid research. For example, being that the average erect penis size is just under six inches long and just under five inches thick, there can be medical and health policy that anyone with an average penis (or breast) size should not get augmentation. This social policy will have to eventual grapple with when something is too small and then allow reconstructive surgery (which deals with abnormalities). Furthermore, I think the Federal government should consider health classes as serious as math and make a rigorous k-12 curriculum that address health and teaches students the dangers (medical and societal) of cosmetic surgery so that people get fair-minded education, rather than trusting plastic surgeons who make TONS of money to educate them. My answer is more government intervention (this does not mean communism) based on science, rather than lobbyist and companies with the great money influencing policy stakeholders.

I think that penis and breast augmentations are destructive to the people who have such surgeries done mentally because in some cases they will never be satisfied with the way they look. Also, though there are many people out there that do like large sizes when it comes to "sex objects", there are also people who like the smaller size and don't look at how much someone has but by the simple beauty of the thing. This may not mean much to some people but I would call myself an artist and think that there are many more ways of being a sex object without being exceedingly large. Size doesn't matter no matter how many people say it does. People who want to modify themselves don't need surgery, they need a therapist. If they have allowed themselves to be influenced by other people to the point were they feel they must physically alter their bodies then they need some help. I can understand someone has some sort of cancer of deformation that causes them to not be normal and they want to fix it so they are 'normal' but doing it just because you can is a waste of resources, money, and time. As for those with Apotemnophilia, let them have at it. It sounds kind of contradicting but I'm talking about people who are perfectly fine mentally, (as in they don't have any mental illnesses) and physically (as in they don't have any deformations or diseases that could of have caused the lose of such appendages)

For the actual question, people who think that size actually counts are the reason way there is such a demand for these surgeries. If everyone where happy with the way they were and stopped judging other people for the way they look instead of their personality and natural, true beauty than there wouldn't be so many people comparing themselves to others and there wouldn't be this social problem that people face everyday and it's not just breast and penis size, it's 'Is my nose pretty enough?', 'Is my mouth even?', 'Do I look like one of those models/actors who just ooze sexuality?' People want to be sex objects because it's human nature and adding in this ability to make things 'better' or how ever you want to put it just makes things worse.

Blooming Crimson:

Well said. For the most part, I agree with you.

Do you think that breast and penis augmentations are destructive from a societal perspective?

Surgical procedures also exist to make smaller those breasts or penises that their owners percieve to be too big. Are these socially destructive?

I can see that there might be a case to make that breast augmentation damages the perceptions of both men and women on what constitutes "normal", but I disagree that this necessarily leads us inevitably to a society where grossly huge breasts are the norm. If anything, most breat augmentations seem to go up only one or two cup sizzes - what IS abnormal is the adolescent pert firmness that comes with the silicone.

This is part of a wider social problem, I think, which is the infantilisation of sexuality across whole swathes of Western society. Sex is increasingly seen as some kind of on-demand right, with few concomitant responsibilities, in much the same way that children demand that their needs are satisfied right now no matter what and if they aren't, they their taking their toys home. One tell-tale aspect of this is the current trend away from, and indeed popular revulsion from, normal adult hirsutism.

These days, our role models are not only preternaturally good looking (and, for most female examples, preternaturally skinny too, of which more later), but they are shaven, plucked and waxed to within an inch of their lives. Body hair is, supposedly, dirty, smelly or uncouth. (Look at the fuss that was made when Julia Roberts chose not to shave her armpits. Was she really any less attractive?) So it's removed. Body hair on men supposedly hides the muscle definition of the 'ripped' bodies we're we're all supposed to have, so it's removed. The fascination with sex, high-cut bikini bottoms, panties and swinsuits and, particularly, pornogrpahy makes it fashionable to depilate aournd our genitals so the hairs there don't spoil the line or look of our clothes, make us look a little bigger, or don't get caught in our partners' teeth.

The end result is hairless bodies. Only one type of human being, routinely has almost totally hairless bodies, and it ain't post-pubescent people of both sexes.

We exercise ourselves into apoplexy at the merest idea that some people might prefer the naturally non-hairy and naturally androgynous bodies or pre-pubsecents, but that doesn't stop us dressing them up in bikinis or sequinned dresses for children's beauty pageants. They like it, of course - they're kids. But why do we indulge it quite so much?

And then, of course, there is our HUGELY distorted and unhealthy relationship with food. Consumer retaiuling has almost totally separated us from the production processes, which are now largely organised for the logistical and financial benefit of the retail chains rather than for such mundane concerns as flavour, freshness, nutritional value or health-giving properties. Fewer of us cook from fresh ingredients, which gives us more time (but at what cost, in terms of health, and in terms of the increased amounts of time that the workplace has appropriated?). More and more people in all Western societies are medically obese, and demographically all our populations are ageing to a greater or lesser degree, yet the pervasiveness of buffed, toned and tanned men and women in their teens, 20s and thirties (or ones that have been surgically altered to look as if they are) in our media and in the advertising that funds it has never been greater and has not yet peaked.

With all this, you want me to worry about the public health implications of a few hundred thousand insecure men with little winkies or a couple of million women with laughable plastic chests? They're spending their own money, and it's not as if they're being forced against their will, or that their choice to undergo major surgery is an unintended consequence of some other social change.

What I'm saying is, yes, as a society we do have some big issues with sexuality and the perceptions we have about our own, and other people's, bodies. But in the scheme of things big plastic boobs and fat-injected penises are not top of the list.

I don't think "penile enhancement" poses the same scale of problem (except in terms of the amount of junk email it generates) because, barring a dramatic chance in social norms that makes penile exposure (full or partial) commonplace and acceptable, most of the time nobody has the foggiest idea how large your (or my) penis is unless they see you naked.

And it's also worth mentioning that penile augmentation surgery that does make the penis longer while erect (the severing of the suspensory ligaments) achives at best a few centimetres' gain, and all the other current procedures are design to make the penis look bigger when flaccid.

So the idea of "it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it that counts" has very little bearing on this debate. For the most part, the people men are trying to impress with penile surgery are not women*, but the probably the (memory of) other men (& boys) in the (school) locker room.

*The unlucky men who suffer humiliation and low self esteem because a woman laughs at the size of their equipment in an intimate setting, or suggest augmentation surgery of some kind, are just the victims of outrageous bad manners. Just as are those women who are laughed at or told a boob job is in order by their intimate men friends. If you can't see it that way, it's your level of self esteem and not your penis/breast size that's the problem.

If you've got no good friends and have $5,000 to waste, go see a psychiatrist, not a plastic surgeon.

No.

Why?:


(Emphasis by me)

This is what human behavior was, is and will always be. This sounds like a desolate view, because it is. All animals (and a human is essentially an animal) are programmed to reproduce, and to do anything to be the one to reproduce the most. Which animals reproduce the most? The ones that are most appealing. Which animals have always been the ones who were the most appealing? The ones with larger genitals. Look at the fertility statues that have been unearthed all over the world. They accentuate the genitals. Sure, in the liberal world today, every person must have a core that is bursting with happiness and unicorns and rainbows, but this is certainly not so. In the animal world, this is especially not so. Human beings, although they are advanced, will always be overpowered by animal instinct, and animal instinct doesn't care what a person feels like or if they have a good personality or a good job. With homosexuals, I donno what happens there.



These people need to cope with it. It's not our problem that they are emotionally hurt by their animal inferiority, and it's even less our problem that they even HAVE an animal inferiority.



Apply the animal instinct argument here too. This competition is good! Not every man is entitled to a woman he may reproduce with. Not every woman is entitled to a man she may reproduce with. The people who win these competitions (in terms of convincing the "prize" {best word, I suppose}, that they are indeed the best to reproduce with) are usually instinctually/genetically advantaged over the others, because that man was more appealing than the others, and therefore will be more conducive to furthering the reproduction of humans, and these humans will grow to be more effective reproducers than ones that were concieved by a less appealing person, etc.



So? Capitalism is fantastic.

So, my arguments relate to one man's ideas: Darwin.

That sounds good in theory, but how do you explain the reality of women past
the age of reproduction, having surgery? I know someone who is in another
country right now, to have her face pulled back (for the second time) and have
new breast implants put in (for the third time). She doesn't seem to be aware
of the fact that she already looks like an alien from too much surgery. And
the thing is, you cannot talk to these people. They are so obsessed with some
idea of what beauty is. It's not about procreation for most. It's about fitting
into and being accepted by a society that has implants and faces without wrinkles
as its current standard of beauty. It takes a very secure individual to not fall
prey to the current trends.

Blingice:

First, your claim that “this is the way human nature is” – is bogus and underscores you do not have a solid grip of human history. For example, Dr. Marilyn Yolam’s historical research in her book “The history of the breast” underscores how during the Victoria area small breasts (and penises) were desired due to bigness being associated with animal desires. Further, Dr. Thomas Moore’s writing in “The soul of sex” underscore how different cultures celebrate different aspects of human sexuality (e.g., erotic hair).

Furthermore, the human nature argument is a good way to side step responsibility when living in a democratic society. Its instincts, then, that harm others and make women and men who have smaller physical attributes feel "less than" and not the choices of other people. Human harm is a result of people, whether intentional or unintentional. And as stated in my original post, breast implants (not reconstructive surgery) harm female worth because the very act reinforces the view that female worth is located by breast size – rather than more ubiquitous ideals (e.g., sense of humor, strong work ethic, honesty, kindness, etc.). Hence, the women with smaller breasts or men with smaller penises are "less than" because of a societal norm developed by other people.