Being "Fake"

[Mysteryagain2]

I was watching a Brazilian Documentary concerning plastic surgery and cosmetic procedures in general in Brazil. According to it, Brazil is the second country in the world, after the US, in the number of total plastic surgeries performed (well, according to that study, anyway, aired on Hoje em Dia, Record Internacional, May 2007), breast implants and lipos being top on the list, but having each year more and more procedures added, for both men and women.
The facts were followed by interviews to regular people in the street, where they were asked to make comment on theses facts.
A few people brought up the same comment: most people in the media are "fake". Which in turn prompted a debate among people in the studio (show anchors and a few guests), that got things heated.
What's "fake"?

How much "fake stuff" does a person have to do or have to "get" to become "fake"?
There seemed to be two sides.
On one side those who thought that plastic surgery, even multiple plastic surgeries didn't make a person fake, not any more than makeup, having used braces, wearing colored contacts, dyeing hair, etc. makes a person "fake".
On the other side, those who considered that there was a significative difference between using dyes or makeup, using braces or "artifical tricks" to enhance people's appearance and undergoing actual surgery/ies to achieve a "look" that nature and normal activities would normally not have allowed them to have or achieve, ever.
Then again, some thought that makeup and implants, say, were not basically different, that both things were fake. Therefore, that it was not fair to claim that people surgically "enhanced" were fake, not any more than people who'd alter at least in some way their appearance on an everyday's or regular basis.
And then the debate got even more heated as people started talking of "lines" and boundaries. Of degrees of change that were normal and natural or acceptable, and others that were not. Of course others thought that this distinction made no sense.
And finally the issue of "God/Nature made me this way, why change what God/Nature/Genetics wanted me to be" came up.
Well, then hell broke loose, because not even people within one same religious group had the same concept of what was being like God wanted us to be or to accept what God "has given us".
Most people, though, seemed to draw the line between healthy and unhealthy use of surgery at having many procedures done.
Of course other people debated over whether or not injectable fillers, botox and the like, even hair dyes should be counted...
It was an endless debate, but very interesting.
I admit I tend to label as "fake" people who I realize had more than one plastic surgery performed on them (I guess I intuitively assume that people can have ONE feature that might torture them or interefere with their life, but I have a hard time imagining that a person might have more than one thing making him or her look "wrong", I tend to associate that perception with a problem of self-esteem and self-image)... but this whole debate made me realize that I never actually thought of whether or not covering grey hair or using makeup made us fake or somewhat fake in some people's eyes.
I do not know neither where I'd draw the line when it comes to procedures that are not major surgery and yet go beyond tints and dyes... like using injectable fillers or botox.
My question is... where would YOU draw the line? For you or for anyone else?
What do you consider a valid, healthy option for some people and what you consider is "over the top" and, indeed, fake?
Do you think the same standard applies to both men and women? (from what the media shows, it seems like "fakeness" or tricks are more easily accepted in women than in men, for good or bad.
What is your take?
What "thing" you'd learn about a person you were attracted to and have just met would turn you off and make you consider this person fake or weird?
As for me, I'd be ok with a man dyeing his hair, but colored contacts would already turn me off. Same with men with implants in their chest or calves to look muscular, etc. I do not have a definite position regarding hair transplant, for example.
And I certainly can not back up what I say with a clear reasoning.
As for both men and women, I would always find fake, unnecessary and unhealthy to obtain a given appearance through surgery when that same "look" or result could and would (and should, in my eyes) be obtained with a healthy lifestyle, a healthy nutrition and sport.
Personally, I consider fake and unnatural to do anything that implies serious health risks and/or that alters a person's appearance to the point of making of this person someone "different" or who makes the person look totally UNlike a healthy, youthful looking person of THAT age range but, instead, creates a pseudo-teenager-but-old-weirdo look.
What's the line FOR YOU between "helping nature" and "faking nature"? What's, in your eyes, the line between "getting an aid" and being lazy and/or too insecure?
Is the world we live in filled with "fake" people?
What does this whole need to get plastic surgery for aesthetic reasons say about our world and its values?
What thoughts on this would you choose to instill in your children or in anyone young or very easily influenced by media and peers?

[blissfullyunaware]

Well, it is obvious that there are lots of great looking women in Hollywood for example but how much of that beauty have these women paid for? I think that when we look at images of very attractive men and women, we should look at them critically and not just except them at face value. I personally think its ok to have plastic surgery if it enhances someones looks/life. I have never had any and most likely never will, but I am happy with the way I look. As for the issue of it being fake...of course it is. People that have had PS have looks that are fake, meaning that they did not/ would never have looked the way they do without some help. I personally find it ridiculous when people deny they had some work done, whats the point? I also find the colored contacts and hair extentions fake as well and have never used either. But those changes are only temporary and some people find it fun to constantly change their look. I really have no problems with enhancing ones look. As for makeup, I think that it can really showcase a persons features and it is sort of like clothing in that you can experiment with different styles. I really do not find it to be "fake" because in the average person it really does not do much to alter ones looks.

[crumpet]

And finally the issue of "God/Nature made me this way, why change what God/Nature/Genetics wanted me to be" came up.
Well, then hell broke loose, because not even people within one same religious group had the same concept of what was being like God wanted us to be or to accept what God "has given us".

Ha!That's always my favorite argument. Everyone says God doesn't make mistakes, we should accept ourselves as we are, embrace what God has given us..........until their kid is born with a hole in his heart or a cleft palate or clubbed feet.....I guess God only gives people fat thighs or small boobs. If we all really left ourselves as we are, deformities and diseases and all, a lot of us wouldn't be here. I just don't think people should get all righteous and pick and choose which of God's creations they want to accept and which ones they don't.

If it's okay to improve one aspect of yourself that is 'natural' it should all be okay. The same people who disapprove of brow lifts and nose jobs because of vanity wouldn't blink an eye at someone with a big port wine birthmark covering half their face being lasered off.

[blissfullyunaware]

^^You make some really great points^^

[veronabrit]

Ha!That's always my favorite argument. Everyone says God doesn't make mistakes, we should accept ourselves as we are, embrace what God has given us..........until their kid is born with a hole in his heart or a cleft palate or clubbed feet.....I guess God only gives people fat thighs or small boobs. If we all really left ourselves as we are, deformities and diseases and all, a lot of us wouldn't be here. I just don't think people should get all righteous and pick and choose which of God's creations they want to accept and which ones they don't.

If it's okay to improve one aspect of yourself that is 'natural' it should all be okay. The same people who disapprove of brow lifts and nose jobs because of vanity wouldn't blink an eye at someone with a big port wine birthmark covering half their face being lasered off.

amen.

[ManxMouse]

And finally the issue of "God/Nature made me this way, why change what God/Nature/Genetics wanted me to be" came up.
Well, then hell broke loose, because not even people within one same religious group had the same concept of what was being like God wanted us to be or to accept what God "has given us".

Ha!That's always my favorite argument. Everyone says God doesn't make mistakes, we should accept ourselves as we are, embrace what God has given us..........until their kid is born with a hole in his heart or a cleft palate or clubbed feet.....I guess God only gives people fat thighs or small boobs. If we all really left ourselves as we are, deformities and diseases and all, a lot of us wouldn't be here. I just don't think people should get all righteous and pick and choose which of God's creations they want to accept and which ones they don't.

If it's okay to improve one aspect of yourself that is 'natural' it should all be okay. The same people who disapprove of brow lifts and nose jobs because of vanity wouldn't blink an eye at someone with a big port wine birthmark covering half their face being lasered off.

How can you not see that there's a difference between correcting a deformity or health problem, and getting carved up when there's nothing abnormal about you, in order to conform to an artificial standard of beauty?

[Grimmlok]

What if it's a personal standard of beauty?

Secondly, how is any standard of beauty NOT artificial?

Standardization implies artificiality or conformity.

[pacific breeze]

How can you not see that there's a difference between correcting a deformity or health problem, and getting carved up when there's nothing abnormal about you, in order to conform to an artificial standard of beauty?

Agreed. The vast majority of people seeking elective cosmetic surgery do NOT have a hare lip or even qualify as "extreme makeover" material. I could care less if they want to fill themselves with silicone, poison or have their skin pulled and twisted and blasted and lasered, but to compare it with life-threatening deformities is a bit much.

[ManxMouse]

What if it's a personal standard of beauty?

Secondly, how is any standard of beauty NOT artificial?

Standardization implies artificiality or conformity.

I meant artificial standard of beauty as in, a standard that can usually only be achieved through surgical (hence, artificial) means --i.e., the stick-with-huge boobs look, the tiny pinched sculpted nose look, the pulled-so-tight-I-look-Asian-when-I'm-not look, etc.

[Grimmlok]

LOl but everything we do to our appearance is artificial..

styling of hair, clothing purchases, diet, makeup, hair removal or replacement..

[ManxMouse]

LOl but everything we do to our appearance is artificial..

styling of hair, clothing purchases, diet, makeup, hair removal or replacement..

Jeez if we're going to be all reductionist about it, can we at least agree there's a distinction between bodily invasive and non-invasive? Permanent alteration vs. temporary, surface alteration? Throw me a bone here, Grimm.

[Grimmlok]

I dunno, from what we've seen of the changing morphology of Wacko Jacko and Joan Rivers, even supposed 'permanent' invasive surgical procedures hardly ever are

[crumpet]

Agreed. The vast majority of people seeking elective cosmetic surgery do NOT have a hare lip or even qualify as "extreme makeover" material. I could care less if they want to fill themselves with silicone, poison or have their skin pulled and twisted and blasted and lasered, but to compare it with life-threatening deformities is a bit much. PB: I'm only highlighting your post, not to pick on you, but as an example of those who obviously didn't get the meaning of what I posted.

For Fucking Christ Sake people! Read what the fuck I wrote.
The only context in which I compared cosmetic deficits with life threatening deformities is when I said that people who say 'you should accept the way god made you' and 'god doesn't make mistakes' don't seem to feel the same way when a baby is born with a deformity of some sort. My point being (for those of you with more concrete thought patterns) that 'if god doesn't make mistakes' then the clubbed foot or cleft palate or hole in the heart also wouldn't be a 'mistake' by that logic, so why not accept those,too? Even if it means that someone doesn't live, couldn't that possibly be god's will? Nobody objects to interfering with 'god's creations' when it comes to saving lives, even by artificial means. Look, I don't have a problem with humans playing God, we do it all the time. What I was questioning is the faulty logic behind the assertion that everything is as God intended and should be left alone.

Furthermore, I also pointed out the hypocrisy of supporting breast reconstruction(which I do) or removing unsightly birthmarks yet condemning breast implants or cosmetic enhancements in general. Many people on here who oppose ps in general for the sake of vanity wouldn't think twice about supporting someone with a double mastectomy who wants a reconstruction or someone who has aport wine birthmark covering half their face getting it lasered off. Just for the sake of this argument, wanting to have breast reconstruction to feel more normal after the trauma of survivng breast cancer is still vanity. Breasts are not needed to live a healthy and fully functioning life, but we can all have compassion and understand why a woman like this would want to have that done. But why is her self esteem any more worthy of enhancing than any other woman with a flat chest? That's all I was saying. Nowhere in my post did I say that having a big nose was the same as having a life threatening deformity. Thanks to those of you who were able to read my post with a little more depth.

[PlasticGirl]

Crumpet - as always - amen to u
But as far as celebrities looks being attributed to ps - i say BULL - show me ONE woman/man that has wholly been created from NOTHING into a supermodel through ps! A tweak here and an uplift there maybe, but they were hot to begin with. PPL her exaggerate to make themselves feel better when someone is SUPER hot - like i do when a TOO hot chick with Gisele legs walks past -

"f**cken b*tch probably has stinky breath"

[leigh]

This is in response to the God/nature made me this way argument.
I'm a Christian who has had plastic surgery. I think it's okay to have ps as long as you aren't hurting anyone or yourself (spending your kids' college tuition on a facelift, getting new boobs so you can have an affair with someone's husband, etc). Those are extreme examples, but if someone wants ps to improve oneself and doesn't become addicted to it, why not? You're changing your outward appearance, not your soul.