Source
r/SRSDiscussion•
RodManmeat

Old SRSD post, not sure how to react

I came upon this SRSD post from a few months ago (I'm not sure how exactly, I was following links) http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSDiscussion/comments/plxn3/body_modification_and_privelege/ and I got a little bit rankled at the OP and the use of privilege. But then I saw a mod posting positively about it, and I assume that the SRS mods know more about these types of conversations than I do. How do other people feel about it?

EDIT: A better attempt to explain why I posted this. From what I remember at the time, we had had an increased amount of people from other parts of reddit misunderstanding SRSD and using the lessened rules to get away with dumb posts. I wasn't sure if this post had been a thing other SRSers believed or if it was just part of that invasion.

Posted Apr 26, 2012, 6:35 PM UTC · edited

848
3DimensionalGirl•

I wasn't actually a big fan of that post, and having spoken to others, I'm not alone in disagreeing. I don't consider being unmodded a privilege at all. While I understand that people with body mods are often judged and treated differently, it isn't the same thing as institutionalized oppression against minorities, imo. I also, personally, take issue with it because for the most part, body mods are something they have chosen to do to themselves as a form of expression; it was not something they were born with and unable to change.

33
materialdesigner•

it was not something they were born with and unable to change.

I don't necessarily think this is a pre-requisite for something to be labelled as unprivileged. In fact, I'm trying to rail against the common talking points that sexuality is inborn and unmalleable and only thus acceptable for being a protected status or acknowledged as being discriminated against/oppressed.

17
3DimensionalGirl•

This is a good point. But I still disagree that being unmodded is a privilege based on the fact that I don't think there is some sort of institutionalized oppression against modded people the way there is with other minorities. Maybe I'm wrong or blinded by my own experiences, but I just can't agree.

Again, I'm not saying that they aren't treated unfairly at times or judged harshly, etc. And I agree that this shouldn't be so. I'm just saying I don't think it's a privilege that I don't have tattoo sleeves or stretched out the holes in my ears.

13
[deleted]•

[deleted]

12
3DimensionalGirl•

Well, then I guess I'm "privileged" because I'm self-employed and I can work in my pajamas.

And I actually always wanted to get more piercings and never did b/c my parents would have flipped out, and now that I"m an adult, I've decided it's not worth doing b/c it would make it that much more difficult for me to become an actress with body mods. Have I made a choice to be privileged? I just can't really see myself agreeing with this line of reasoning because I think it's diluting the meaning of "privilege" and turning into something almost meaningless.

11
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
materialdesigner•

...then argue that, because as it stands ASAP, your thought seems hole-filled.

1
throwingExceptions•

this is important, though it still need not elevate "being unmodded" to a privilege generally

1
mayabuttreeks•

My initial reaction is to agree with this, and add that it feels to me as though, if anything, body mods on the average white, middle-class guy or gal in North America are an extension of their privilege. Granted, my observations are 100% anecdotal, but the ability to choose to mod and have the consequences (in terms of perception by employers, landlords, etc) be relatively small seems to imply significant privilege, especially in comparison to modded PoCs.

16
[deleted]•

Moral of the story: Intersectionality is always relevant.

19
materialdesigner•

I think this is a great comment and also sheds light on another discussion had in the fempire on this article about die cis scum, racism, and intersectionality w.r.t. body mod

For you to advocate on behalf of a class of people whom you largely oppress and thus do not and cannot speak for troubles me; there is a reason you, as a white American citizen, are only person to publicly boast such a tattoo, and I suspect it’s related to the fact that you live in enough relative freedom and safety to be able to access having and displaying such a tattoo without already experiencing swift and violent repercussions. [emphasis mine]

10
VoxNihilii•

I find the idea of "unmodified privilege" to be a very white, middle class concept. Body modifications are not something you are born with, they are not represent a way your brain is wired, they are altogether optional. What's next- nonsmoker privilege? I feel like the overly inclusive nature of how we define privilege here is going to ultimately water-down and further marginalize the real victims of discrimination, such as disabled individuals, those of minority races and religions, transgender people, and others.

17
[deleted]•

[deleted]

7
VoxNihilii•

Religion has long-standing cultural roots often related to ethnicity and nation of origin. It is also often imbued in early childhood, and is therefore less of a real choice than whether or not you get a particular piercing. Body modification privilege strikes me as a bunch of 20 y/o middle class kids saying "Hey, look at us, aren't we real outsiders in society, too?" No, no you are not.

Cases of body modification that have to do with traditional cultural heritage would probably warrant real concern.

11
[deleted]•

[deleted]

6
VoxNihilii•

Religions come with thousands of years of historical context. Genocides, wars, entire peoples discriminated against and destroyed. Being part of a religion introduces all these factors into your psyche. Being truly religious is a deeply philosophical matter, it touches the very mind, heart, and soul, and opens up each of those things to the historical prejudices and conflicts. You are comparing this to a teenager putting a piece of metal in their face, the only cultural context being petty, and frankly, privileged middle class rebelliousness in the past 30 or so years.

A similar comparison might be made looking at racial discrimination in this country against black people to that against whites. Yes, both types exist, and at face value they may even seem similar, but the overwhelming forces of history and culture (not to mention the socio-economic reality) mean that discrimination and hate against blacks carries much, much deeper meaning, and deserves a much higher level of protection.

8
[deleted]•

I think that's pretty harsh, not what I've come to expect from SRS to be honest.

To be fair, VoxNihilii doesn't speak for all of "SRS."

4
RodManmeatOP•

That's sort of my idea. I'm a woman and I'd totally wear latex catsuits to work if I could, 'cause I love wearing them. But I don't, because I'd get weird looks. I'm not privileged because of it, though.

2
VoxNihilii•

Hey, who wouldn't wear latex catsuits if they could?

2
RodManmeatOP•

Hey, don't let me mislead you: I wear them a lot. Just not to work.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
VoxNihilii•

I think we have different definitions of privilege. I know that the discrimination itself is real, they just do not qualify, from my point of view, as a group that needs special considerations/protections. I mean, there is also discrimination toward naked people. I am trying to draw the line such as to keep the standards of "privilege" meaningful.

3
throwingExceptions•

This distinction between "oppression proper" and "merely discrimination" might be useful. Thank you.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

The discrimination is why choosing to get body modifications is a privilege. See nyunyunyu's comment on how students of color in the college program she was in were specifically warned not to get any kind of body modification for fear of jeopardizing their job prospects. You are necessarily in a position of privilege if you are able to ignore those concerns, and I believe this is evident if you look at the demographics of who most commonly chooses to get body modifications in the West.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
[deleted]•

But consider: motherhood is largely a choice.

I don't see how motherhood is nearly equivalent to getting a tattoo. Not only is parenthood a natural consequence of sexual activity, to put it bluntly, it's also largely an expectation placed on adults in our culture. More importantly, the unfair expectations and lack of support for mothers in particular are a direct result of patriarchal norms. The issue of motherhood is a red herring; mothers are discriminated against because of their gender, not because of their choices.

Most people do not have children when they don't believe they can afford a child (that some people BECOME poor after having children due to abovementioned oppression and discrimination is a different matter).

This is blatantly untrue. Fertility rates worldwide are much higher for women who are already living in poverty. The lack of access to birth control means being able to choose whether or not to have a child is a privilege in itself.

Choice is really the crux of the issue here. Nobody chooses to belong to an oppressed class of people, that's what makes criticism of this post completely different from victim blaming at large. People with body modifications are entirely responsible for having body modifications— saying they face even "a little" oppression is misunderstanding what societal oppression actually means for the people who experience it. It's worse than a misunderstanding, though, because it co-opts the language of the oppressed for the self-interest of the privileged and delegitimizes the struggle of oppressed people everywhere. That's why so many of us found that post and the support it received in SRSD offensive.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

15
[deleted]•

I don't know that I'd have put it this way, but I certainly couldn't have said it better.

5
flashstorm•

With all due respect, why try and start the oppression olympics? I don't understand why acknowledging that having a modified body can result in unjust social consequences in any way cheapens or delegitimizes your experiences.

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
[deleted]•

I'm not even going to be nice about it— I hated that post. dysomniak said it before, and I'll say it again: this shit demeans the concept of privilege.

Here are some good comments from that thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSDiscussion/comments/plxn3/body_modification_and_privelege/c3qja2v

[deleted] 10 points 2 months ago* (13|4)

So, if we choose to not modify our bodies because we all have varying aesthetic opinions that does not afford us privilege by being more conforming, it means that those that have again chosen to make choices that will be seen as outside the norm will be seen as outsiders in it's purest analogy.

I agree, as a person with tattoos, it's not nice to get looks, but it quite disingenuous to use the language of a marginalized group who have faced historical, institutionalized oppression for things beyond their control is very insulting. As a rape survivor, I hate seeing "victim blaming" tossed around in the same context, as a woman, it's nothing like "slut shaming", as a person living with a epilepsy is not the same sort or ignorance and discrimination I've faced, and again as a woman (with tattoos) isn't anything like the male privilege I have to run up against. To adopt that language because you've decided to get a facial tattoo is honestly infuriating.

http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSDiscussion/comments/plxn3/body_modification_and_privelege/c3qii88

nyunyunyu [+91] 20 points 2 months ago (22|3)

Yes, this! I have to say being comfortable enough to get body modifications is a sign of privilege itself, since it shows how little concern you have about your future job prospects. When I participated in a college career program for people of color it was seriously drilled into us how absolutely unacceptable for us to look out of the norm--we had to have no body modifications showing, very modest jewelry, modest make-up, black or dark grey suits only. It was a symptom of how easily we could be discriminated against because of the color of our skin, not because of some mysterious "professional-looking" privilege.

http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSDiscussion/comments/plxn3/body_modification_and_privelege/c3qhr7l

yeliwofthecorn [-1] 32 points 2 months ago (38|7)

This is victim blaming pure and simple.

No, it's not. Everyone who chooses to bod-mod knows full-well the societal judgements regarding it, whether they are justified or not. You are choosing to put yourself in a situation where you're going to be disadvantaged, whether you think that's just or not. You have a choice.

The difference between your metaphor and the situation is that the person dressing "like a slut" is only perceived that way because she is female and because of societal bias regarding female sexuality. If a SWCM bod-mods then walks up to a black woman and says "hey, I totally know what it's like to be underprivileged" then she has every right to call him on his B.S.

You are intentionally under-privileging yourself in that situation, and that is nothing like being born into a situation where you are underprivileged.

14
miss_appropriate•

Everyone who chooses to bod-mod knows full-well the societal judgements regarding it, whether they are justified or not. You are choosing to put yourself in a situation where you're going to be disadvantaged, whether you think that's just or not. You have a choice.

That is 100% irrelevant to whether something is discriminatory or not. Expressing your religion or sexuality or gender in public is a choice with consequences too.

Bodymods are different from religion or sexuality or gender, but not because they have known consequences. Using "you know the consequnces" as part of an argument is horrible and can be used to defend a huge range of problematic policies.

6
throwingExceptions•

This is good, thank you.

1
throwingExceptions•

Do you agree that forms of oppression necessarily must be caused by traits or behaviour that a victim is forced to have or perform? Note that this is, basically, a trick question.

1
[deleted]•

No, because society doesn't oppress people for the choices they make. What's the trick?

1
nacbrie•

Well, society regulating how people express themselves and making assumptions about them based on how they look is bad, but I wouldn't say it was oppression.

13
[deleted]•

[deleted]

10
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
nacbrie•

No. It's prejudiced (making assumptions about someone) and discriminatory (and depending on context, with a big chunk o' classism on the side) but it's not the same sort of institutionalized oppression which minorities have to face, rooted in historical disenfranchisement and erasure of expression.

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

6
nacbrie•

The difference is that modding is a form of expression, not identity.

Modding, as a form of self-expression, is a way of transmitting views that you hold to the people around you in a visual fashion. It's not acceptable for people to be shamed for the way they express themselves (if it doesn't affect others, e.g. co-opting of ethnic iconography, Nazi imagery, etc).

However, an employer can legitimately limit the personal expression of their employees when representing the company. I don't see the difference between asking an employee to abide by a dress code or not wear a political slogan, and not publicly displaying mods which are strongly associated with counterculture. I can choose if, how and when to express myself using tats and piercings, and opt-out at a later date; I didn't choose to be female or bi, and I can't be either of those without being at risk of oppression.

8
[deleted]•

[deleted]

5
materialdesigner•

I guess I just think that the prejudice against body mods comes from the exact same place as other, "big" forms of prejudice and that's why it's OK to use similar terminology in this area, as long as it's clear that it's not an attempt to minimise the impact of institutionalised -isms.

I don't think that makes it OK. It does minimize the impact of institutionalized -isms by using the same words, ideas, and speech as them.

I think we might all agree that there are some unjust and unfair pieces of discrimination against modded people. But to then co-opt the term "privilege" and elevate it to the status of institutionalized discrimination and oppression takes it way too fucking far.

5
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
zegota•

As materialdesigner says above (and is brought up in the old topic somewhat), saying something should only be immune from oppression if it's innate isn't necessarily a great line of argument. After all, someone could easily say "Well, if you're bi, you can just choose to date only men!" And that's not cool.

I just don't quite understand that vitriol against the word "privilege" in this case, and that may very well be because I'm not really a member of any underprivileged class (well, I guess I'm overweight, but the rest outweighs that [pun not intended]). A lot of people seem to be implying the word 'privilege' means that being modded is just as rough as being black, gay, etc, but 'privilege' does not mean that. Both "women" and "trans people" as classes are underprivileged, but that doesn't imply that a trans person faces the exact same level of hardship as a cis woman.

I understand that being modded is a different class of disadvantage than being gay or whathaveyou. But the level of anger SRSD seems to have toward that poster seems uncalled for given the relatively innocuous post.

5
materialdesigner•

Here's another of my points

3
zegota•

Sure, and it's valid. I didn't mean to imply that my link meant you agreed with everything I was about to say, so I apologize if it came off that way :-)

3
Impswitch•

There's an advantage in society to not being modded which has to do with cultural appropriation and "european (read:white) culture" being non-modded traditionally, I wouldn't say it's a privilege but it's definitely an advantage to not be modded wrt institutions like courts and education and job hiring. It's too lacking historical and explicit active discrimination on a systemic level, but it is a distinct advantage that could easily cross into privilege territory, and actually does when taking into account intersectionality issues like PoC cultural modifications and xenophobia issues.

The topic of body modification is incredibly complex discussion with huge intersectionality, appropriation and identity components that I think SRSD is ill-equipped to handle because of concern trolls, regular trolls, and ignorant people. Another challenge is the inexactness of the term "body modification". For example, if I have tattoos that aren't visible, or a nose ring, or a belly button or other rings that aren't visible, then it's not really going to affect my life.

The body mod discussion is similar to a discussion on whether or not BDSM falls under the umbrella of privilege. In my opinion, it's not a privilege, but there is shame and disadvantages associated with it and it varies depending upon how much and what you're into, because there will be certain things that are generally accepted and certain things that are like "O.O SHAME ALL THE PEOPLE!!". It's a lifestyle, and an identity, but still lacking in the historical and institutional oppression that is necessary to define privilege. There are societal benefits to not being modded, no one can argue otherwise, but to call non-modded people privileged dilutes the word beyond what the word is supposed to represent.

6
[deleted]•

[deleted]

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

3
RodManmeatOP•

Updated the OP to express what I meant a little better.

3
zegota•

I agree, I'm not sure where OP is going with this. Nothing in that post seemed even mildly controversial, especially by SRSD standards (where we can pick some very uncomfortable topics at times!) I mean, I guess the use of "privilege" in this instance is a little bit different than normal, as modifying is something you actively choose, as opposed to being gay, black, etc. But I still don't know how anyone can argue that modified people are subject to disadvantages and prejudicies.

ETA: Actually, the fact that the top comment has 75 upvotes is pretty strange to me.

2
[deleted]•

Disadvantages, yes. Prejduces, possibly. Systematic oppression, no.

It's an over-over-extension of the definition of privilege to a group of people who tend to have those things which we would normally call privileges in spades.

I actually thought the previous thread was the shitlordiest thing I'd seen actually espoused by SRS people, so it's nice to see it being revised.

3
devteslaMOD•

Since it's been a few months since we hit this topic I'm leaving this up even though we've been over this point before, but yea, is there anything that you want to go over that isn't in that post?

3
RodManmeatOP•

Updated the OP to express what I was curious about a little better.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
SashimiX•

Anti-mod sentiment is classist.

1