On your survey, I responded that everything -- except for dying the hair and adding false fingernails -- is mutilation. I also responded that NONE of your examples on the survey should be illegal.
I do not have a negative opinion of anyone CHOOSING (or needing) to change or modify his or her body's natural state. Of course, INFORMED consent is of utmost importance any time anyone makes a decision about his or her body. And it is also important to make certain that anyone choosing to undergo major mutilation (i.e., any type of optional surgery) is of sound mind -- otherwise, s/he cannot really give informed consent).
I take a simple biological approach to determining whether anything done to the body is "mutilation." My definition has zero moral or social meaning attached; so, the term "mutilation," used in this sense, does not carry a strong sense of negativity for me because I just do not see much difference between using the term mutilation versus body modification. It is all semantics. People just respond strongly to the use of the word "mutilation." (But there are various levels and degrees of mutilation.)
Body "modification" is purely a social term to denote a culturally-acceptable form of mutilation that is considered attractive or useful (or even necessary) to that particular culture or individual. In some cultures, even female genital mutilation could be considered a "body modification" (much to our horror -- but this topic is worthy of its own discussion and is not included on your list of examples).
In determining whether or not something is a "mutilation" to the body, I ask whether or not the body's natural state is affected (living cells, that is -- not dead cells, such as hair or fingernails). In other words, will any cells of the body have to recover and heal from the procedure? This is where the "range" and differing "levels" (or degrees) of mutilation that I discussed earlier weigh in: even if the body can completely heal the assault upon it (a cut, a bruise, etc.), it still suffered from a mutilation, albeit a minor one. An amputated leg permanently alters the body (though the incision itself heals) and is thus a much more severe mutilation.
Also, I do not categorize something as a mutilation based solely upon permanence. I think it is more useful to classify mutilations as minor or major (or quite mild versus severe), based upon a continuum and upon how much the mutilation impacts the body's well-being and function. But even that can get a bit sticky. Would you say that an amputated leg decreased a body's well-being and function if it was removed to save the person's life (i.e., in a life-threatening case of Peripheral Artery Disease -- this actually happened to a close family member and he chose to die rather than to amputate a gangrenous leg, even though an amputated leg would have INCREASED his body's ability to function and allowed him to live, thus increasing his overall body's well-being)?
Overall, I would define a simple piercing as a "mutilation," just as I would consider plastic surgery (which I have no problem admitting that I have had) a mutilation. Even a life-saving surgery is a mutilation. It is an assault upon the body (albeit a life-saving one) from which the body must recover. The body also has to recover and heal from piercings and tattoos. Heck, even the marks left upon my back from a good back-scratching are something from which my body must recover and could technically be considered "mutilations."
The bottom line: I believe that one has the right to make decisions about one's own body, so long as it does not impact or harm any other person without that person's consent (example: one conjoined twin's wishes should not be honored without considering the wishes of the other, just as an extreme example). And . . . it is simply impossible for anyone to live one's life and avoid any form of mutilation. But mutilation is not necessarily an evil -- it can be a vehicle for delivering many positive things (such as surgery, just as one example -- or even something as simple and basic as self-expression).
I do not have a negative opinion of anyone CHOOSING (or needing) to change or modify his or her body's natural state. Of course, INFORMED consent is of utmost importance any time anyone makes a decision about his or her body. And it is also important to make certain that anyone choosing to undergo major mutilation (i.e., any type of optional surgery) is of sound mind -- otherwise, s/he cannot really give informed consent).
I take a simple biological approach to determining whether anything done to the body is "mutilation." My definition has zero moral or social meaning attached; so, the term "mutilation," used in this sense, does not carry a strong sense of negativity for me because I just do not see much difference between using the term mutilation versus body modification. It is all semantics. People just respond strongly to the use of the word "mutilation." (But there are various levels and degrees of mutilation.)
Body "modification" is purely a social term to denote a culturally-acceptable form of mutilation that is considered attractive or useful (or even necessary) to that particular culture or individual. In some cultures, even female genital mutilation could be considered a "body modification" (much to our horror -- but this topic is worthy of its own discussion and is not included on your list of examples).
In determining whether or not something is a "mutilation" to the body, I ask whether or not the body's natural state is affected (living cells, that is -- not dead cells, such as hair or fingernails). In other words, will any cells of the body have to recover and heal from the procedure? This is where the "range" and differing "levels" (or degrees) of mutilation that I discussed earlier weigh in: even if the body can completely heal the assault upon it (a cut, a bruise, etc.), it still suffered from a mutilation, albeit a minor one. An amputated leg permanently alters the body (though the incision itself heals) and is thus a much more severe mutilation.
Also, I do not categorize something as a mutilation based solely upon permanence. I think it is more useful to classify mutilations as minor or major (or quite mild versus severe), based upon a continuum and upon how much the mutilation impacts the body's well-being and function. But even that can get a bit sticky. Would you say that an amputated leg decreased a body's well-being and function if it was removed to save the person's life (i.e., in a life-threatening case of Peripheral Artery Disease -- this actually happened to a close family member and he chose to die rather than to amputate a gangrenous leg, even though an amputated leg would have INCREASED his body's ability to function and allowed him to live, thus increasing his overall body's well-being)?
Overall, I would define a simple piercing as a "mutilation," just as I would consider plastic surgery (which I have no problem admitting that I have had) a mutilation. Even a life-saving surgery is a mutilation. It is an assault upon the body (albeit a life-saving one) from which the body must recover. The body also has to recover and heal from piercings and tattoos. Heck, even the marks left upon my back from a good back-scratching are something from which my body must recover and could technically be considered "mutilations."
The bottom line: I believe that one has the right to make decisions about one's own body, so long as it does not impact or harm any other person without that person's consent (example: one conjoined twin's wishes should not be honored without considering the wishes of the other, just as an extreme example). And . . . it is simply impossible for anyone to live one's life and avoid any form of mutilation. But mutilation is not necessarily an evil -- it can be a vehicle for delivering many positive things (such as surgery, just as one example -- or even something as simple and basic as self-expression).
