[quote=name:Doodan]And as far as society going "downhill", I must point out the fact that society has never been moral. The name of the game is survival. Looking out for number 1. Laws exist so that the people in power can keep the people that slave away underneath them from killing each other. That way, the people in power have their interests preserved, and in some cases, the lower and middle classes can keep theirs preserved too. It has never been good. Just look at colonization, the holocaust, slavery, etc. Somehow the easier access to bigger boobs pales in comparison, methinks.[/quote] No amount of debate will solve the core of that issue. Human nature, that is. You can add layers with societies to try and control that element, but it's an uphill battle. Whether we succeed or not, we'll not be free of our instincts. Though it's good practice to use our intelligence to overcome them, humans themselves will have to change before a true solution can be found. Short of genetic manipulation or cybernetics or something, I think that won't happen. The best we can really hope for is an extremely robust layer of compromises. Intelligence and nature just don't go together well. [quote=name:isolatedpurity]But what of the method of obtaining them? The morality questions were more geared to using the website to get implants, not necessarily implants themselves. ;o[/quote] As for the issue of morality, I think it is moral to offer this. It's up to women to use whatever shred of dignity and intelligence they have to simply not use the site. If no one used the site, then it'd likely go away. Otherwise its existence is justified. But that might be too much to ask for, realistically.

Quote from Doodan

And as far as society going "downhill", I must point out the fact that society has never been moral. The name of the game is survival. Looking out for number 1. Laws exist so that the people in power can keep the people that slave away underneath them from killing each other. That way, the people in power have their interests preserved, and in some cases, the lower and middle classes can keep theirs preserved too. It has never been good. Just look at colonization, the holocaust, slavery, etc. Somehow the easier access to bigger boobs pales in comparison, methinks.

No amount of debate will solve the core of that issue. Human nature, that is. You can add layers with societies to try and control that element, but it's an uphill battle. Whether we succeed or not, we'll not be free of our instincts. Though it's good practice to use our intelligence to overcome them, humans themselves will have to change before a true solution can be found. Short of genetic manipulation or cybernetics or something, I think that won't happen. The best we can really hope for is an extremely robust layer of compromises.

Intelligence and nature just don't go together well.

Quote from isolatedpurity

But what of the method of obtaining them? The morality questions were more geared to using the website to get implants, not necessarily implants themselves.
;o

As for the issue of morality, I think it is moral to offer this. It's up to women to use whatever shred of dignity and intelligence they have to simply not use the site. If no one used the site, then it'd likely go away. Otherwise its existence is justified.

But that might be too much to ask for, realistically.

You got to be kidding me with the 18+ label. :rolleyes:

You got to be kidding me with the 18+ label.

As long as everything is consensual, I see no moral issue.

As long as everything is consensual, I see no moral issue.

[quote=name:AntiSleep]As long as everything is consensual, I see no moral issue.[/quote] A moral issue implies we have to worry about protecting or else defending against stupid people with something like this (simply being 'consensual' doesn't eliminate the 'stupid people' factor, mind you). Sadly I think we [i]do[/i] have to worry them, for various reasons. Therefore it probably is an issue (but maybe not a huge one in and of itself; more like part of several bigger ones, really). Ideally I'd just wish we could ignore the stupid people and let them die off or something, but until natural selection or advanced science provides that option (or its equivalent), there's no avoiding moral issues like these.

Quote from AntiSleep

As long as everything is consensual, I see no moral issue.

A moral issue implies we have to worry about protecting or else defending against stupid people with something like this (simply being 'consensual' doesn't eliminate the 'stupid people' factor, mind you). Sadly I think we do have to worry them, for various reasons. Therefore it probably is an issue (but maybe not a huge one in and of itself; more like part of several bigger ones, really).

Ideally I'd just wish we could ignore the stupid people and let them die off or something, but until natural selection or advanced science provides that option (or its equivalent), there's no avoiding moral issues like these.

Why strive at all for a perfect moral equilibrium? There is no such thing. In order to live, you must place your own survival above that of others. If you stop doing that, the only certainty is death. (And destroying all life would guarantee peace, no?) I read a quote somewhere that suggested the key to morals is the ability to see the problems of others as your own. Empathy. When you see a guy about to get hit by a bus, you think "I would sure hate to be in that position," and if you are able to help him, you do. But you are really only rescuing a projection of your own self interest. That's why you would do it. One could argue that the ability to empathize with another's suffering is one of the major elements that separates humans from the rest of the animals. (which are unapologetic about pursuing their own interests) Is empathy a positive force in the universe after all is said and done? Who knows? What I do know is that it has helped humans as a species. But even if we somehow manage to be nice to each other almost all the time, we are still wiping out plant and animal species left and right. Just take a moment to think about all of the industries necessary to power your ability to sit at your computer and muse on morals, and the impact those industries have on the environment. Why even try to argue for morals? The only ones that do are the ones that stand to gain something by doing so. Either you (or a loved one - which by extensions of empathy would be you, again) were treated unfairly, and you hope that someday the right people will empathize with you and make your life easier, or you're trying to look good to better your odds of a good career and possible mates. My point is that there is no true right or wrong. There is just survival. I, for one, have no qualms about admitting that I plan to try and get as much money, sex, and property as I possibly can in my lifetime. And if someone's feelings get hurt or a few animal species I'll never hear about go extinct while I'm on my path, then I can live with that. Make the most of your short, pointless lives.

Why strive at all for a perfect moral equilibrium? There is no such thing. In order to live, you must place your own survival above that of others. If you stop doing that, the only certainty is death. (And destroying all life would guarantee peace, no?)

I read a quote somewhere that suggested the key to morals is the ability to see the problems of others as your own. Empathy. When you see a guy about to get hit by a bus, you think "I would sure hate to be in that position," and if you are able to help him, you do. But you are really only rescuing a projection of your own self interest. That's why you would do it. One could argue that the ability to empathize with another's suffering is one of the major elements that separates humans from the rest of the animals. (which are unapologetic about pursuing their own interests) Is empathy a positive force in the universe after all is said and done? Who knows? What I do know is that it has helped humans as a species.

But even if we somehow manage to be nice to each other almost all the time, we are still wiping out plant and animal species left and right. Just take a moment to think about all of the industries necessary to power your ability to sit at your computer and muse on morals, and the impact those industries have on the environment.

Why even try to argue for morals? The only ones that do are the ones that stand to gain something by doing so. Either you (or a loved one - which by extensions of empathy would be you, again) were treated unfairly, and you hope that someday the right people will empathize with you and make your life easier, or you're trying to look good to better your odds of a good career and possible mates. My point is that there is no true right or wrong. There is just survival. I, for one, have no qualms about admitting that I plan to try and get as much money, sex, and property as I possibly can in my lifetime. And if someone's feelings get hurt or a few animal species I'll never hear about go extinct while I'm on my path, then I can live with that. Make the most of your short, pointless lives.

Is it me, or is your post an allusion to "Survival of the fittest"?

Is it me, or is your post an allusion to "Survival of the fittest"?

[quote=name:JordanN]Is it me, or is your post an allusion to "Survival of the fittest"?[/quote] As it should be. Survival of the fittest is a simple fact of life.

Quote from JordanN

Is it me, or is your post an allusion to "Survival of the fittest"?

As it should be. Survival of the fittest is a simple fact of life.

[quote=Doodan]One could argue that the ability to empathize with another's suffering is one of the major elements that separates humans from the rest of the animals. (which are unapologetic about pursuing their own interests)[/quote] I disagree completely with this statement, as many animals take this idea to extremes that humans have yet to even comprehend. Many sacrifice themselves for the good of a greater gathering. The only thing that humans can do that other animals can't is understand what other humans are trying to say. We can't say anything about what animals perceive.[/sidenote] Although I agree that this entire topic could be simplified down to a survival of the fittest simile, I don't think that it is as simple or straight forward as the survival most think of. Mainly because breast implants are not simply enhancements in all forms of "fit" capital. Where the attractiveness of a woman usually goes up with an implant, other factors, such as the views by others may go down. Such is the case where some have mentioned how when people know that a woman has had breast implants, she suddenly becomes taboo, and unattractive. This would be a more moral capital, although it is clear that this idea is not shared by all. There are many other forms of capital that change due to breast implants, such as relationships; where a girl who is relatively plain may make long lasting friendships, the girls who have implants (and generally who preen themselves more then the norm) make short friendships and generally are hit on by sleazier guys. (aka not me.) The arguments that I see against breast implants are not moral ones, but rather the difference in treatment in our society. People tend to idolize women with big breasts, which by giving women the capability to be idolized, we reduce the relationships between men and women. (A similar phenomena would be when you buy a piece of junk car, that nobody would in a million years want to have. You fix it up until it is really nice looking, and other people actually look into it. Then someone else steals the nice car.) I don't know what I'm getting at, or what I'm really saying. I need to sleep.

Quote from Doodan

One could argue that the ability to empathize with another's suffering is one of the major elements that separates humans from the rest of the animals. (which are unapologetic about pursuing their own interests)

I disagree completely with this statement, as many animals take this idea to extremes that humans have yet to even comprehend. Many sacrifice themselves for the good of a greater gathering.

The only thing that humans can do that other animals can't is understand what other humans are trying to say. We can't say anything about what animals perceive.[/sidenote]

Although I agree that this entire topic could be simplified down to a survival of the fittest simile, I don't think that it is as simple or straight forward as the survival most think of. Mainly because breast implants are not simply enhancements in all forms of "fit" capital. Where the attractiveness of a woman usually goes up with an implant, other factors, such as the views by others may go down. Such is the case where some have mentioned how when people know that a woman has had breast implants, she suddenly becomes taboo, and unattractive. This would be a more moral capital, although it is clear that this idea is not shared by all. There are many other forms of capital that change due to breast implants, such as relationships; where a girl who is relatively plain may make long lasting friendships, the girls who have implants (and generally who preen themselves more then the norm) make short friendships and generally are hit on by sleazier guys. (aka not me.)

The arguments that I see against breast implants are not moral ones, but rather the difference in treatment in our society.
People tend to idolize women with big breasts, which by giving women the capability to be idolized, we reduce the relationships between men and women. (A similar phenomena would be when you buy a piece of junk car, that nobody would in a million years want to have. You fix it up until it is really nice looking, and other people actually look into it. Then someone else steals the nice car.)

I don't know what I'm getting at, or what I'm really saying. I need to sleep.

As Rantent said to Doodan, beware of making assumptions about the animal kingdom. Many misconceptions abound, and we are only [i]beginning[/i] to understand its complexities. Take [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality]animal sexuality[/url], for instance. For decades, science regarded animals as automotons, who only had sex to reproduce. Yet now we're learning that animals can perform masterbation, oral, homosexuality, fetishes, even necrophilia. It's also rather interesting that monogomy, such as with swans, is actually only social monogomy, and that there are now three levels of monogomy defined. Those being social, sexual, and genetic monogomy. Then there are the latest studies on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_intelligence]animal cognition[/url], such as in National Geographic. Very fascinating stuff. To say all animals lack empathy is ignorant. Simply put, we lack the understanding of the animal kingdom to make such a statement. I always find the need to define humans as seperate from animals amusingly naïve. We all come from the same planet, are made of the same building blocks, and share a common history. We've got more in common with animals than the average person realizes. Dear Doodan: [quote="Wikipedia"]Critics of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak. However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy]naturalistic fallacy[/url] (or more specifically the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem]is-ought problem[/url]), as prescriptive, moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also simplistic to suggest that evolutionary "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, as social behaviour cooperating with others and treating them well improves evolutionary fitness.[/quote] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest]An excerpt from Wikipedia[/url]. [quote="Doodan"]My point is that there is no true right or wrong. There is just survival. I, for one, have no qualms about admitting that I plan to try and get as much money, sex, and property as I possibly can in my lifetime. And if someone's feelings get hurt or a few animal species I'll never hear about go extinct while I'm on my path, then I can live with that. Make the most of your short, pointless lives.[/quote] Your life strategy of obtaining as much money, sex, and property within your lifetime no matter the costs to others is a risky, dangerous one. Hurt feelings can create enemies, with varying degrees of severity, from annoyance, obstruction, to outright life-threatening. Not to mention you aren't dealing with just an individual, but all those connected to that person as well. Rampant sex risks exposure to STDs and unplanned pregnancy. And if the environment goes to shit due to your exploits? Well, you've just sacrificed your reproductive prerogative. You are right about our lives being short. If there is no afterlife, those experiences you collected will be as the dust on your corpse. And without children, you'll have no legacy, and all those possessions will be for nothing. If there is an afterlife, most religions prescribe some form of ethics that you may have violated during your indulgence, so you are screwed there, too.

As Rantent said to Doodan, beware of making assumptions about the animal kingdom. Many misconceptions abound, and we are only beginning to understand its complexities. Take animal sexuality, for instance. For decades, science regarded animals as automotons, who only had sex to reproduce. Yet now we're learning that animals can perform masterbation, oral, homosexuality, fetishes, even necrophilia. It's also rather interesting that monogomy, such as with swans, is actually only social monogomy, and that there are now three levels of monogomy defined. Those being social, sexual, and genetic monogomy.

Then there are the latest studies on animal cognition, such as in National Geographic. Very fascinating stuff.

To say all animals lack empathy is ignorant. Simply put, we lack the understanding of the animal kingdom to make such a statement. I always find the need to define humans as seperate from animals amusingly naïve. We all come from the same planet, are made of the same building blocks, and share a common history. We've got more in common with animals than the average person realizes.


Dear Doodan:

Quote from "Wikipedia"

Critics of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak. However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive, moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also simplistic to suggest that evolutionary "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, as social behaviour cooperating with others and treating them well improves evolutionary fitness.

An excerpt from Wikipedia.

Quote from "Doodan"

My point is that there is no true right or wrong. There is just survival. I, for one, have no qualms about admitting that I plan to try and get as much money, sex, and property as I possibly can in my lifetime. And if someone's feelings get hurt or a few animal species I'll never hear about go extinct while I'm on my path, then I can live with that. Make the most of your short, pointless lives.

Your life strategy of obtaining as much money, sex, and property within your lifetime no matter the costs to others is a risky, dangerous one. Hurt feelings can create enemies, with varying degrees of severity, from annoyance, obstruction, to outright life-threatening. Not to mention you aren't dealing with just an individual, but all those connected to that person as well. Rampant sex risks exposure to STDs and unplanned pregnancy. And if the environment goes to shit due to your exploits? Well, you've just sacrificed your reproductive prerogative. You are right about our lives being short. If there is no afterlife, those experiences you collected will be as the dust on your corpse. And without children, you'll have no legacy, and all those possessions will be for nothing. If there is an afterlife, most religions prescribe some form of ethics that you may have violated during your indulgence, so you are screwed there, too.

....and this has what to do with boob jobs now? :lol: But seriously. I think we're going a wee bit further than the initial parameters of the topic. :P Gotta marvel at SEN's ability to turn a topic on discount breast implants into an existential philosophy debate.

....and this has what to do with boob jobs now?



But seriously. I think we're going a wee bit further than the initial parameters of the topic.

Gotta marvel at SEN's ability to turn a topic on discount breast implants into an existential philosophy debate.

Dear Tuxedo-Templar: Read two random pages from J.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and using only the knowledge you gained from reading those pages, describe all the motivations and rationalizations of the characters. Pray you don't end up on one of Tolkien's scenery descriptions. You cannot discuss boob jobs and their relation to the possible degeneration of society by limiting the scope of your debate. There are many interconnected forces and factors at work. Besides, topics would lack dynamics if we couldn't respond to what others say in a Wikipedian fashion. That is, the eventual migration of topic. =oP You'd end up with something akin to a "Post your hardware specs" thread, where everyone would just post once or so with little interaction.

Dear Tuxedo-Templar:
Read two random pages from J.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and using only the knowledge you gained from reading those pages, describe all the motivations and rationalizations of the characters. Pray you don't end up on one of Tolkien's scenery descriptions.

You cannot discuss boob jobs and their relation to the possible degeneration of society by limiting the scope of your debate. There are many interconnected forces and factors at work.

Besides, topics would lack dynamics if we couldn't respond to what others say in a Wikipedian fashion. That is, the eventual migration of topic. =oP You'd end up with something akin to a "Post your hardware specs" thread, where everyone would just post once or so with little interaction.

[quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar] Gotta marvel at SEN's ability to turn a topic on discount breast implants into an existential philosophy debate.[/quote] Everything becomes one and everything should become one.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Gotta marvel at SEN's ability to turn a topic on discount breast implants into an existential philosophy debate.

Everything becomes one and everything should become one.

[quote=name:Hercanic]Dear Tuxedo-Templar: Read two random pages from J.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and using only the knowledge you gained from reading those pages, describe all the motivations and rationalizations of the characters. Pray you don't end up on one of Tolkien's scenery descriptions. You cannot discuss boob jobs and their relation to the possible degeneration of society by limiting the scope of your debate. There are many interconnected forces and factors at work. Besides, topics would lack dynamics if we couldn't respond to what others say in a Wikipedian fashion. That is, the eventual migration of topic. =oP You'd end up with something akin to a "Post your hardware specs" thread, where everyone would just post once or so with little interaction.[/quote] I guess. But existential discussions almost invariably lead to dead end debates. I personally prefer keeping away from the ultimate questions these topics lead to and simply addressing the ones we [i]can[/i] debate upon. [size=6]So we can find new dead ends instead![/size] Oh well. Carry on. :P

Quote from Hercanic

Dear Tuxedo-Templar:
Read two random pages from J.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and using only the knowledge you gained from reading those pages, describe all the motivations and rationalizations of the characters. Pray you don't end up on one of Tolkien's scenery descriptions.

You cannot discuss boob jobs and their relation to the possible degeneration of society by limiting the scope of your debate. There are many interconnected forces and factors at work.

Besides, topics would lack dynamics if we couldn't respond to what others say in a Wikipedian fashion. That is, the eventual migration of topic. =oP You'd end up with something akin to a "Post your hardware specs" thread, where everyone would just post once or so with little interaction.

I guess. But existential discussions almost invariably lead to dead end debates. I personally prefer keeping away from the ultimate questions these topics lead to and simply addressing the ones we can debate upon.
So we can find new dead ends instead!

Oh well. Carry on.

[quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar][quote=name:AntiSleep]As long as everything is consensual, I see no moral issue.[/quote] A moral issue implies we have to worry about protecting or else defending against stupid people with something like this (simply being 'consensual' doesn't eliminate the 'stupid people' factor, mind you). Sadly I think we [i]do[/i] have to worry them, for various reasons. Therefore it probably is an issue (but maybe not a huge one in and of itself; more like part of several bigger ones, really). Ideally I'd just wish we could ignore the stupid people and let them die off or something, but until natural selection or advanced science provides that option (or its equivalent), there's no avoiding moral issues like these.[/quote]By stupid, you mean willfully ignorant? I have no qualms about helping the benighted, but the willfully ignorant deserve no assistance, and I don't see how breast implants or web sites could be a threat to anyone but the willfully ignorant.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from AntiSleep

As long as everything is consensual, I see no moral issue.

A moral issue implies we have to worry about protecting or else defending against stupid people with something like this (simply being 'consensual' doesn't eliminate the 'stupid people' factor, mind you). Sadly I think we do have to worry them, for various reasons. Therefore it probably is an issue (but maybe not a huge one in and of itself; more like part of several bigger ones, really).

Ideally I'd just wish we could ignore the stupid people and let them die off or something, but until natural selection or advanced science provides that option (or its equivalent), there's no avoiding moral issues like these.

By stupid, you mean willfully ignorant? I have no qualms about helping the benighted, but the willfully ignorant deserve no assistance, and I don't see how breast implants or web sites could be a threat to anyone but the willfully ignorant.

The "benighted" may not always be at fault for the way they are, but it'd help if I could simply brush them off as saying they were (that is, if they were in that state simply because of their choices). Not sure if that's a judgment call I could make, but in any case, the first step to solving problems like these would be to address the issue of stupid people in general; either simply the "benighted" ones, or the willfully ignorant tards.

The "benighted" may not always be at fault for the way they are, but it'd help if I could simply brush them off as saying they were (that is, if they were in that state simply because of their choices). Not sure if that's a judgment call I could make, but in any case, the first step to solving problems like these would be to address the issue of stupid people in general; either simply the "benighted" ones, or the willfully ignorant tards.

Addressing the original topic: JaFF said it all. There is no degradation, just our perception of what is going on makes it seem that there is a degradation. Addressing one tangent: I don't appreciate people who do get jobs done, but I respect their decision, and if that's what they feel they need to do in order to fit in, by all means, go ahead. Addressing topic about stupid people: Define stupid. If you mean academically stupid, then many millionares are high school or college drop outs. Those "stupid" people are creatively intelligent, but did not have a chance to show it in school. The ignorant are not necessarily stupid, but may not have the access to such knowledge.

Addressing the original topic:
JaFF said it all. There is no degradation, just our perception of what is going on makes it seem that there is a degradation.

Addressing one tangent:
I don't appreciate people who do get jobs done, but I respect their decision, and if that's what they feel they need to do in order to fit in, by all means, go ahead.

Addressing topic about stupid people:
Define stupid. If you mean academically stupid, then many millionares are high school or college drop outs. Those "stupid" people are creatively intelligent, but did not have a chance to show it in school. The ignorant are not necessarily stupid, but may not have the access to such knowledge.

[quote=name:Rantent][quote=Doodan]One could argue that the ability to empathize with another's suffering is one of the major elements that separates humans from the rest of the animals. (which are unapologetic about pursuing their own interests)[/quote] I disagree completely with this statement, as many animals take this idea to extremes that humans have yet to even comprehend. Many sacrifice themselves for the good of a greater gathering. The only thing that humans can do that other animals can't is understand what other humans are trying to say. We can't say anything about what animals perceive.[/sidenote] Although I agree that this entire topic could be simplified down to a survival of the fittest simile, I don't think that it is as simple or straight forward as the survival most think of. Mainly because breast implants are not simply enhancements in all forms of "fit" capital. Where the attractiveness of a woman usually goes up with an implant, other factors, such as the views by others may go down. Such is the case where some have mentioned how when people know that a woman has had breast implants, she suddenly becomes taboo, and unattractive. This would be a more moral capital, although it is clear that this idea is not shared by all. There are many other forms of capital that change due to breast implants, such as relationships; where a girl who is relatively plain may make long lasting friendships, the girls who have implants (and generally who preen themselves more then the norm) make short friendships and generally are hit on by sleazier guys. (aka not me.) The arguments that I see against breast implants are not moral ones, but rather the difference in treatment in our society. People tend to idolize women with big breasts, which by giving women the capability to be idolized, we reduce the relationships between men and women. (A similar phenomena would be when you buy a piece of junk car, that nobody would in a million years want to have. You fix it up until it is really nice looking, and other people actually look into it. Then someone else steals the nice car.) I don't know what I'm getting at, or what I'm really saying. I need to sleep.[/quote] [color=#b5b5ff]I think this post has some of the best opinions of the topic. I have long held that the tendency of society at large to "grade" women based on their sexual appeal is morally disgusting. Especially in a culture like that of America, where people seem unable to be frank about sex, everything must subtly be about sex, and the closer to it without breaking taboo, the "cooler" it is. To make an example, look what "dancing" has become in modern society. School dances are little more than a poor excuse to get as much body-to-body contact as possible without breaking the social standards. And in the mean time, it is presented as something else, as words like "cute" and "lovely" go to describe pairings for what is ultimately termed a "dance". Ever more common are simply political boy/girl pairings so as to not feel "un-cool", without any feeling, pretentious or not, on either side. Social hierarchy then becomes a lively business of rumor, fueling the societal stereotypes. Like Ratent said, breast implants (to most people) increase a woman's sexual appeal, which, as he said, tends to reduce the ability to have a long-lasting relationship. Part of this is due to what I said before, as guys desperate to get as close to sex with the sexy woman as possible approach her under the pretext of "love" or "a relationship" when the only thing motivating them in the slightest is a desire for sex. As soon as sex is achieved (or it seems unachievable) the guy loses interest and leaves, to be replaced by another "valiant suitor" (to use an archaic term). So, yes, I do find society's ultimate focus on sex to be a little disturbing; perhaps "morally degrading" is the right word, as the problem only seems to be getting worse.[/color]

Quote from Rantent

Quote from Doodan

One could argue that the ability to empathize with another's suffering is one of the major elements that separates humans from the rest of the animals. (which are unapologetic about pursuing their own interests)

I disagree completely with this statement, as many animals take this idea to extremes that humans have yet to even comprehend. Many sacrifice themselves for the good of a greater gathering.

The only thing that humans can do that other animals can't is understand what other humans are trying to say. We can't say anything about what animals perceive.[/sidenote]

Although I agree that this entire topic could be simplified down to a survival of the fittest simile, I don't think that it is as simple or straight forward as the survival most think of. Mainly because breast implants are not simply enhancements in all forms of "fit" capital. Where the attractiveness of a woman usually goes up with an implant, other factors, such as the views by others may go down. Such is the case where some have mentioned how when people know that a woman has had breast implants, she suddenly becomes taboo, and unattractive. This would be a more moral capital, although it is clear that this idea is not shared by all. There are many other forms of capital that change due to breast implants, such as relationships; where a girl who is relatively plain may make long lasting friendships, the girls who have implants (and generally who preen themselves more then the norm) make short friendships and generally are hit on by sleazier guys. (aka not me.)

The arguments that I see against breast implants are not moral ones, but rather the difference in treatment in our society.
People tend to idolize women with big breasts, which by giving women the capability to be idolized, we reduce the relationships between men and women. (A similar phenomena would be when you buy a piece of junk car, that nobody would in a million years want to have. You fix it up until it is really nice looking, and other people actually look into it. Then someone else steals the nice car.)

I don't know what I'm getting at, or what I'm really saying. I need to sleep.

I think this post has some of the best opinions of the topic.

I have long held that the tendency of society at large to "grade" women based on their sexual appeal is morally disgusting. Especially in a culture like that of America, where people seem unable to be frank about sex, everything must subtly be about sex, and the closer to it without breaking taboo, the "cooler" it is. To make an example, look what "dancing" has become in modern society. School dances are little more than a poor excuse to get as much body-to-body contact as possible without breaking the social standards. And in the mean time, it is presented as something else, as words like "cute" and "lovely" go to describe pairings for what is ultimately termed a "dance". Ever more common are simply political boy/girl pairings so as to not feel "un-cool", without any feeling, pretentious or not, on either side. Social hierarchy then becomes a lively business of rumor, fueling the societal stereotypes.

Like Ratent said, breast implants (to most people) increase a woman's sexual appeal, which, as he said, tends to reduce the ability to have a long-lasting relationship. Part of this is due to what I said before, as guys desperate to get as close to sex with the sexy woman as possible approach her under the pretext of "love" or "a relationship" when the only thing motivating them in the slightest is a desire for sex. As soon as sex is achieved (or it seems unachievable) the guy loses interest and leaves, to be replaced by another "valiant suitor" (to use an archaic term).

So, yes, I do find society's ultimate focus on sex to be a little disturbing; perhaps "morally degrading" is the right word, as the problem only seems to be getting worse.

[quote=name:DT_Battlekruser]Especially in a culture like that of America, where people seem unable to be frank about sex, everything must subtly be about sex, and the closer to it without breaking taboo, the "cooler" it is.[/quote] This raises the interesting question of why people in America can't seem to be frank about sex. Personally, I attribute it to the way that religion--particularly Christianity--has permeated our society and seems to have convinced us that sex is ultimately something shameful. ...then again, I'm a teenager. Even I can't quite tell whether or not that's just the testosterone talking :P [quote=name:DT_Battlekruser]To make an example, look what "dancing" has become in modern society. School dances are little more than a poor excuse to get as much body-to-body contact as possible without breaking the social standards.[/quote] You hit the nail right on the head there. But then again, high-schoolers and college students will be, respectively, high-schoolers and college students. Hormones are nasty little suckers, and, in an age as [i]permitting[/i] as ours, I think this sort of thing is to be expected. I'm not saying it should be this way, and I'll freely admit that I'm not sure exactly how it should be, but it is as it is, for better or for worse. [quote=name:DT_Battlekruser]Ever more common are simply political boy/girl pairings so as to not feel "un-cool", without any feeling, pretentious or not, on either side. Social hierarchy then becomes a lively business of rumor, fueling the societal stereotypes.[/quote] As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. [quote=name:DT_Battlekruser]As soon as sex is achieved (or it seems unachievable) the guy loses interest and leaves, to be replaced by another "valiant suitor" (to use an archaic term).[/quote] One of my friends has told me the same thing, that relationships tend to deteriorate when the people involved have sex. Then again, perhaps that's the way we're built. Or perhaps it's the way society has shaped us, and, either way, there's not all that much we can do to change it. As for the main topic, well, if they're willing to go through that, well, why shouldn't they? It reminds me of the Klondike Bar commercials--you know, "What would YOU do for a Klondike Bar?" If they're willing to sacrifice their own dignity, why should we tell them they can't? "Let people live however they will as long as they aren't hurting anyone else" is the general principle behind my moral philosophy, and I fail to see how this would hurt anyone other than the women involved. And they presumably knew what they were getting into. As for how this reflects on society, DTBK's post says a lot of it. As a culture, America places a taboo on sex, and, as a result, everyone is obsessed with it. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever found a better way to make people want something than to refuse to give it to them: reverse psychology is the name of the game. Perhaps the best thing would be for Americans to learn to be open about our sexuality. I personally think that if we could be more relaxed about it, then there wouldn't be nearly as much fixation on it. I also find it profoundly ironic that, because of the issue of reverse psychology, the forces responsible for placing the taboo on sex are the ones inadvertently causing it. Then again, as I've said, perhaps I'm not qualified to speak on this topic until these damn hormones leave me alone. If you believe so, then just ignore this post :P

Quote from DT_Battlekruser

Especially in a culture like that of America, where people seem unable to be frank about sex, everything must subtly be about sex, and the closer to it without breaking taboo, the "cooler" it is.

This raises the interesting question of why people in America can't seem to be frank about sex. Personally, I attribute it to the way that religion--particularly Christianity--has permeated our society and seems to have convinced us that sex is ultimately something shameful.

...then again, I'm a teenager. Even I can't quite tell whether or not that's just the testosterone talking

Quote from DT_Battlekruser

To make an example, look what "dancing" has become in modern society. School dances are little more than a poor excuse to get as much body-to-body contact as possible without breaking the social standards.

You hit the nail right on the head there. But then again, high-schoolers and college students will be, respectively, high-schoolers and college students. Hormones are nasty little suckers, and, in an age as permitting as ours, I think this sort of thing is to be expected. I'm not saying it should be this way, and I'll freely admit that I'm not sure exactly how it should be, but it is as it is, for better or for worse.

Quote from DT_Battlekruser

Ever more common are simply political boy/girl pairings so as to not feel "un-cool", without any feeling, pretentious or not, on either side. Social hierarchy then becomes a lively business of rumor, fueling the societal stereotypes.

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.

Quote from DT_Battlekruser

As soon as sex is achieved (or it seems unachievable) the guy loses interest and leaves, to be replaced by another "valiant suitor" (to use an archaic term).

One of my friends has told me the same thing, that relationships tend to deteriorate when the people involved have sex. Then again, perhaps that's the way we're built. Or perhaps it's the way society has shaped us, and, either way, there's not all that much we can do to change it.

As for the main topic, well, if they're willing to go through that, well, why shouldn't they? It reminds me of the Klondike Bar commercials--you know, "What would YOU do for a Klondike Bar?" If they're willing to sacrifice their own dignity, why should we tell them they can't? "Let people live however they will as long as they aren't hurting anyone else" is the general principle behind my moral philosophy, and I fail to see how this would hurt anyone other than the women involved. And they presumably knew what they were getting into.

As for how this reflects on society, DTBK's post says a lot of it. As a culture, America places a taboo on sex, and, as a result, everyone is obsessed with it. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever found a better way to make people want something than to refuse to give it to them: reverse psychology is the name of the game. Perhaps the best thing would be for Americans to learn to be open about our sexuality. I personally think that if we could be more relaxed about it, then there wouldn't be nearly as much fixation on it. I also find it profoundly ironic that, because of the issue of reverse psychology, the forces responsible for placing the taboo on sex are the ones inadvertently causing it.

Then again, as I've said, perhaps I'm not qualified to speak on this topic until these damn hormones leave me alone. If you believe so, then just ignore this post