Piercings...

[The Cleric]

But as long as the holes heal cleanly, they don't cause any damage. You run the risk of infection, but that's when something goes wrong.

[haas mark]

I suppose electronically tagging a dog is mutilation, then?

Not to nitpick, but when you microchip a dog, it heals over with no apparent permanent damage. Many piercings are more like the "body modifications" used for centuries in Africa, which tend to create permanent damage and never really heal over.

Anyway, piercing does fit the dictionary definition of "mutilation". You are objecting to it because of its emotional connotations.

I'm going to stay on IB's side of the fence. I think that piercings, when used emotionally, are considered mutilation. However, I also find that when it's NOT used as an emotional release (a variation on self-inflicted violence), but is used for very.. strange.. purposes (i.e., suspensions), then it can be considered mutilation. If you really want to go there, Mike, cutting your finger while chopping veggies, whether you do it on purpose or not, is considered mutilation. -shrugs-

Also, can this be split and moved to SLAM?

~ver

[haas mark]

You may willingly submit to it, but unless your pain receptors are not functioning right, it hurts, and when you body hurts, it's telling you it does not like what is happening. Pain receptors exist for a reason, and there is a reason any behavior or actions that stimulates them is normally avoided and should be avoided.

According to this logic, I shouldn't be having sex, eating chilli, or applie antiseptic to my wounds.
I suppose electronically tagging a dog is mutilation, then?

Speaking of chile (with an e, not an li), it's actually an addiction to it. The capsaicin (sp?) in it causes the body to release endorphins, and we all know where that goes (I hope, cos I don't know the exact process, nor do I feel like looking it up). -shrugs-

~ver

[haas mark]

Apparently the PC term now is body modification. Body Mods include (as far as I know): Piercings, Scaring (I don't mean the people who scar themselves, but you can have it done professionaly). flesh tubes, plastic surgery and erm....I think theres one more called suspession or something.

Piercings - self-explanatory
Scarring - People give you scars by cutting
Flesh tubes - I've not heard of this one
Plastic surgery - again, self-explanatory
Branding - self-explanatory
Tattoos - self-explanatory

~ver

[InnerBrat]

Not to nitpick, but when you microchip a dog, it heals over with no apparent permanent damage. Many piercings are more like the "body modifications" used for centuries in Africa, which tend to create permanent damage and never really heal over.

Every single one of my piercings has healed completely leaving a tunnel of skin.

Anyway, piercing does fit the dictionary definition of "mutilation". You are objecting to it because of its emotional connotations.

Given, but Walper is using the word solely because of its' emotional connotations. He is objecting to the act because of the emotional connotations of the word.

(ver: my spelling is correct for Bringlish [yes, i made up that word]. Your spelling is the country only...)

[haas mark]

Not to nitpick, but when you microchip a dog, it heals over with no apparent permanent damage. Many piercings are more like the "body modifications" used for centuries in Africa, which tend to create permanent damage and never really heal over.

Every single one of my piercings has healed completely leaving a tunnel of skin.

As have mine.

(ver: my spelling is correct for Bringlish [yes, i made up that word]. Your spelling is the country only...)

(It's a Spanish word, though. )

~ver

[InnerBrat]

(ver: my spelling is correct for Bringlish [yes, i made up that word]. Your spelling is the country only...)

(It's a Spanish word, though. )

(I wasn't speaking Spanish. It was an English word in an English sentence. The English spelling is appropriate )

[haas mark]

(ver: my spelling is correct for Bringlish [yes, i made up that word]. Your spelling is the country only...)

(It's a Spanish word, though. )

(I wasn't speaking Spanish. It was an English word in an English sentence. The English spelling is appropriate )

(Then again, you could be talking about chilli and I could be talking about chile [two different foods]?)

~ver

[The Cleric]

(Or you could just be wrong )

[Dahak]

I never knew you could eat Chile, only travel there

[haas mark]

I never knew you could eat Chile, only travel there

Chiles, otherwise known as "hot peppers" or the like.

~ver

[Dahak]

I never knew you could eat Chile, only travel there

Chiles, otherwise known as "hot peppers" or the like.

~ver

I only know those as "chili"...

[haas mark]

I never knew you could eat Chile, only travel there

Chiles, otherwise known as "hot peppers" or the like.

~ver

I only know those as "chili"...

That's cos everyone spells it wrong. "Chili" is usually the bean/beef mixture that people sometimes like to pass off for food.

~ver

[Dalton]

English lessons elsewhere. On with the clit-rings.

[Dorsk 81]

Flesh tubes - I've not heard of this one

~ver

It basicly where you get a piercing say in your ear and every so often you exchange the ring/bar/whatever for one thats slightly bigger until you can have a hole going through the bar, I'll google a pic...

and they go through your lip, ear, nose and I think they work on your tongue as well.

Not to nitpick, but when you microchip a dog, it heals over with no apparent permanent damage. Many piercings are more like the "body modifications" used for centuries in Africa, which tend to create permanent damage and never really heal over.

As can piercings, if you take them out straight after the piercing proccess, thats why you're told to keep them in for atleast 2 weeks depending on the piercing.
If the needle that the dog were injected with were left in place and cleaned, left alone, not aggrivated, etc, that would just be a mini flesh tunnel, with no visible exit point.

[haas mark]

Flesh tubes - I've not heard of this one

~ver

It basicly where you get a piercing say in your ear and every so often you exchange the ring/bar/whatever for one thats slightly bigger until you can have a hole going through the bar, I'll google a pic...
<snip image>
and they go through your lip, ear, nose and I think they work on your tongue as well.

Oh, gaugings, you mean.

~ver

[Gil Hamilton]

Myself getting anything pierced? No thank you. The only way there are going to be more holes in me than the amount I had coming out of the package is by a catastrophic accident.

I don't find piercings attractive on other people, but it's their body and if it doesn't bother them, I'm not going to let it bother me. That said, I promise to upchuck my gut if I actually saw some of the more extreme types of piercings in person, like a Prince Albert.

[Flash]

I don't care for piercings. If someone else wants to, that's fine. I just don't want to ram bits of metal through my body.

Especially not through my penis. That's just cruel. I mean the little fellow already has to endure regular beatings.

[Robert Walper]

Not to nitpick, but when you microchip a dog, it heals over with no apparent permanent damage. Many piercings are more like the "body modifications" used for centuries in Africa, which tend to create permanent damage and never really heal over.

Every single one of my piercings has healed completely leaving a tunnel of skin.

Most non-life threatening wounds in and on the human body heal fairly well. This is no way refutes the fact the human body is damaged to begin with. Punching holes in the human body is damaging it. You disagree?

Anyway, piercing does fit the dictionary definition of "mutilation". You are objecting to it because of its emotional connotations.

Given, but Walper is using the word solely because of its' emotional connotations.

No, Mike is actually right in the manner which I was using the term multilation. You're attempting to take my factual explanation and interpretation of what piercing entails and does, and twist the meaning in hopes of making me out to be wrong. Thankfully, at least one person hasn't been fooled by your obvious misdirection.

He is objecting to the act because of the emotional connotations of the word.

No, I object to the concept because it's physically damaging the human body. I suppose if I keyed your car, you wouldn't consider it damage so long as said car is just as functional as before? Naturally, keying a car door till there's no paint left does not make said door less functional. Thus by your reasoning, said door has not been damaged.