There's a signaling aspect to it, but I think the desire to get piercings is subjectively really simple -- "I think it looks cool and edgy and I want [like-minded] people to think I'm cool and edgy." The people who think piercings are attractive are usually the same people who think dark/grotesque heavy metal album covers look good. Which is to say, they enjoy feelings of shock and attraction to ruthlessness.
All these associated feelings are extreme and high intensity, and usually point to some thrill-shaped hole in their heart.
My view is that there are often two ways to think about people’s motivation. There is the conscious reason—the one the person is aware of and that they tell other people—and often there is another reason, driven by unconscious processes. This makes things complicated because it can be hard to distinguish between them and it can simultaneously be true that—subjectively, as you say—the “reason” is to do with being cool and at the same time the “reason” is a kind of signaling that the person is not aware of. So I don’t disagree with you; I just leave open the possibility of layers of reasons, if you see what I mean.
I have 2 tattoos. One is a 'Zipper Pull' under a very large scar (look at a zipper if you are not sure) and the Second is 'Alpha Mike Foxtrot'. For those unsure, it was a radio sign off used in Viet Nam, meaning Adios MotherFucker.
My last cardiologist saw service and we had an agreement. Should I die on his table he would place his left hand on my tat and say 'Adios MotherFucker' then leave the operating theater with a smile.
Heh. Nice. Yes, there are other reasons people might add tattoos and such to their bodies that I didn't address here, including covering up injury and, well, a bit of whimsy... Thanks for the comment!
Even religious symbols work the same way - stuff like bindis hijabs crosses etc. showing publicly that religion is important to you and if your potential mate doesn’t appreciate that they better back off.
I agree. With John Christner, I wrote a little bit about religious beliefs as commitment devices. Religious symbols can play the same role. Here is a link to the piece I have in mind: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-07931-018. Here is the citation: Kurzban, R., & Christner, J. (2011). Are supernatural beliefs commitment devices for intergroup conflict? In J. P. Forgas, A. W. Kruglanski, & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The psychology of social conflict and aggression (pp. 285–299). Psychology Press.
I've always thought that there's a certain kind of status that people are trying to go for in fashion or other body modifications under the heading of "style." There are certain fashion trends for women that cycle through where the point is not, "this makes me look taller/larger chested/smaller waist" but in fact the message is, "I am so attractive that I can afford to wear [trend] and still look good to others, and I have such high status that people will follow in my footsteps even if they are not as attractive as I am." My canonical example is harem pants, but you could also consider, say, the Olsen twins' "bag lady" outfits, which did nothing directly towards conventional attractiveness goals but I'm guessing had a different goal, which is more or less, "I'm powerful enough not to have to try to be appealing."
What a fascinating musing. We were behind a group of people whilst walking around an exhibit at the zoo who were either transitioning or had finished transitioning who were thoroughly pierced, tattooed, and pink-haired. None of them had a look of happiness or contentment on their faces. They did not laugh or smile at the animals. Their shallow discussions were focused on themselves. It was evident they hated anyone who was unaccepting of their chosen lifestyle. I must admit, it was uncomfortable being behind them with my kids hearing what they were saying. I kept thinking that they are not adding anything positive to the human race. I know that is not a "Christian" thing to think as everyone inherently has value. But, they were clearly attracting those who had no intention of marrying (in the traditional definition) nor those who would be contributing to the replacement of our society. Bitterness and misery attract the same. Appearances matter whether we like it or not.
*Because* that signal carries a cost. That signal says this: "my allegiance to the group is for life, regardless of the disabilities that come with open allegiance to that group. Moreover, my getting this facial tattoo or whatever, I have burned my bridges. I cannot go back to the normie world, even if I wanted to,"
>In many contexts, one can offload this position onto culture:
For some reason not known to me, women tend to be more vulnerable to social pressure than men, and often have an "Is it okay for me to have these preferences?" way of thinking that is hard to parse as a man. In my ex marriage every time I expressed a wish, my wife treated it as an expectation, something she MUST fulfill if she wants to feel like an Official Good Wife. It was very exhausting, having to first guess what she wants and then tiptoe around it. She could just simply not say no on her own, only if she felt saying no is the Officially Socially Expected Thing.
This is very hard to understand as a man, because regardless of our actual political positions, every man at heart is a libertarian. There is a long tradition going back to the Enlightenment that you do your own thing. The "Is it okay for me to have these preferences?" question just does not really register for men. But yes, it is so, fat women literally feel threatened by thin women on the covers of magazines in a way fat or non-muscular men don't. If Hugh Jackman is muscular, that does not imply that I should be. But for many women the fact that Taylor Swift is thin, implies a kind of a social norm that women should be thin.
Anyhow they are not offloading it on culture, they really do feel like preferences require social approval somehow.
I hope this is temporary and women will eventually overcome this, as I don't think women can get truly liberated without becoming truly agentic.
GM, reading your post I had an interesting idea: if beauty signals fertility, what if tatoos and piercing signal bad health? Although data is the plural of anecdote, i never met a tatooed/pierced sane person, expecially a mentally sane person. What if negative body modification is a signal of (mental) bad health to scare off healty partner, like a yellow skin and the like?
Maybe they're simply *scared* of partners. I'm reminded of that long Atlantic piece - I think it was called "The Sex Recession" - and it'd be interesting to see how much tattoos & piercings correlate with not having had sex.
It is not a volutary action: as one does not "decide" to have a pink, clean skin instead of a yellow one (al least, directly: stop destroying the liver may help) one too does not decide to be insane and to show it through body modification.
Exceptional extrapolation of what is already known.
Adding another microscopic piece of affirmation is kinda counterintuitive.
Although I appreciate your diligence on the matter. This doesn't accomplish much in the way of progressing forward through socioeconomics or any other man made system of delusional superiority. Humanity needs a pathway forward. Beyond science and natural evolution.
Take into consideration that the majority of people can't understand their perspectives beyond what is told.
People are afraid of what they don't understand.
For example: nature. That puzzle is only interesting to people like you but not to the majority, for some odd reason. It's odd because we're of nature. Everyone should be interested in this. Yet most people are more interested in fabrications of reality. Why. Is it because people don't understand how nature works
Possibly.
I understand that is your mission and people should really appreciate folks like yourself. I practically grew up reading the national geographic magazines.
Not everyone did though and that's disappointing to me too.
But if we All were educated on natural phenomenon in our youth, I believe things would be exponentially different and also more positive in general.
Consequently, we're all being victimized at the present with climate change, not to mention the catastrophic, man-made pollutants. Political rhetoric, the monetary illusionists, Biological weaponry, etc.
A global panic attack is fostering a massive reactionary response mechanism. Why on earth would anybody ever trigger that.
If people knew how nature worked they wouldn't be surprised regarding climate change because it's natural and there's nothing us mortals can do about that. Can't stop it, can't reverse it either. Natural migration is a normal phenomenon. Why would people say it is political by forcing people to migrate or not.
For example you and I know that the planet is a living organism. Fractionalized down to a single cell or atom. Beyond that is relatively unknown: Spirituality.
But you can't control nature just because you can invent or create a wheel or a rutter or telescope and microscope. That's innovative. That's human intuition of survival and curiosity. Animals naturally migrate. So do humans. That's because the earth is in charge here not anything else.
People must understand that or we're all doomed anyway.
Everyone can feel something isn't quite right these days and feelings of omnipotence is most likely why humanity will fail again and again. No matter how innovative. Until we all understand natural laws beyond that assumption of survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fittest is only a fraction of what humanity is. Not the whole. Whereas animals survive on pure instinct. I personally do not believe humans are completely animal. Because people can be attracted to what they can't see too. A beautiful mind can be more attractive than physical traits. That just depends on what the motive is, of course. But generally speaking it's very true.
Someone with something you want in general can be attractive too.
Someone who smells good to you but not others can be attractive. It's arbitrary. It's situational and so forth.
Without taking anymore of your valuable time, I will leave it at that.
There's a signaling aspect to it, but I think the desire to get piercings is subjectively really simple -- "I think it looks cool and edgy and I want [like-minded] people to think I'm cool and edgy." The people who think piercings are attractive are usually the same people who think dark/grotesque heavy metal album covers look good. Which is to say, they enjoy feelings of shock and attraction to ruthlessness.
All these associated feelings are extreme and high intensity, and usually point to some thrill-shaped hole in their heart.
My view is that there are often two ways to think about people’s motivation. There is the conscious reason—the one the person is aware of and that they tell other people—and often there is another reason, driven by unconscious processes. This makes things complicated because it can be hard to distinguish between them and it can simultaneously be true that—subjectively, as you say—the “reason” is to do with being cool and at the same time the “reason” is a kind of signaling that the person is not aware of. So I don’t disagree with you; I just leave open the possibility of layers of reasons, if you see what I mean.
I have 2 tattoos. One is a 'Zipper Pull' under a very large scar (look at a zipper if you are not sure) and the Second is 'Alpha Mike Foxtrot'. For those unsure, it was a radio sign off used in Viet Nam, meaning Adios MotherFucker.
My last cardiologist saw service and we had an agreement. Should I die on his table he would place his left hand on my tat and say 'Adios MotherFucker' then leave the operating theater with a smile.
Heh. Nice. Yes, there are other reasons people might add tattoos and such to their bodies that I didn't address here, including covering up injury and, well, a bit of whimsy... Thanks for the comment!
“9 I have no idea if I’m getting these terms right.”
Rest completely assured that it doesn’t matter.
Even religious symbols work the same way - stuff like bindis hijabs crosses etc. showing publicly that religion is important to you and if your potential mate doesn’t appreciate that they better back off.
I agree. With John Christner, I wrote a little bit about religious beliefs as commitment devices. Religious symbols can play the same role. Here is a link to the piece I have in mind: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-07931-018. Here is the citation: Kurzban, R., & Christner, J. (2011). Are supernatural beliefs commitment devices for intergroup conflict? In J. P. Forgas, A. W. Kruglanski, & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The psychology of social conflict and aggression (pp. 285–299). Psychology Press.
I've always thought that there's a certain kind of status that people are trying to go for in fashion or other body modifications under the heading of "style." There are certain fashion trends for women that cycle through where the point is not, "this makes me look taller/larger chested/smaller waist" but in fact the message is, "I am so attractive that I can afford to wear [trend] and still look good to others, and I have such high status that people will follow in my footsteps even if they are not as attractive as I am." My canonical example is harem pants, but you could also consider, say, the Olsen twins' "bag lady" outfits, which did nothing directly towards conventional attractiveness goals but I'm guessing had a different goal, which is more or less, "I'm powerful enough not to have to try to be appealing."
What a fascinating musing. We were behind a group of people whilst walking around an exhibit at the zoo who were either transitioning or had finished transitioning who were thoroughly pierced, tattooed, and pink-haired. None of them had a look of happiness or contentment on their faces. They did not laugh or smile at the animals. Their shallow discussions were focused on themselves. It was evident they hated anyone who was unaccepting of their chosen lifestyle. I must admit, it was uncomfortable being behind them with my kids hearing what they were saying. I kept thinking that they are not adding anything positive to the human race. I know that is not a "Christian" thing to think as everyone inherently has value. But, they were clearly attracting those who had no intention of marrying (in the traditional definition) nor those who would be contributing to the replacement of our society. Bitterness and misery attract the same. Appearances matter whether we like it or not.
We're all made in the image of God. Some choose to deface that image.
"But why choose a signal that carries a cost?"
*Because* that signal carries a cost. That signal says this: "my allegiance to the group is for life, regardless of the disabilities that come with open allegiance to that group. Moreover, my getting this facial tattoo or whatever, I have burned my bridges. I cannot go back to the normie world, even if I wanted to,"
>In many contexts, one can offload this position onto culture:
For some reason not known to me, women tend to be more vulnerable to social pressure than men, and often have an "Is it okay for me to have these preferences?" way of thinking that is hard to parse as a man. In my ex marriage every time I expressed a wish, my wife treated it as an expectation, something she MUST fulfill if she wants to feel like an Official Good Wife. It was very exhausting, having to first guess what she wants and then tiptoe around it. She could just simply not say no on her own, only if she felt saying no is the Officially Socially Expected Thing.
This is very hard to understand as a man, because regardless of our actual political positions, every man at heart is a libertarian. There is a long tradition going back to the Enlightenment that you do your own thing. The "Is it okay for me to have these preferences?" question just does not really register for men. But yes, it is so, fat women literally feel threatened by thin women on the covers of magazines in a way fat or non-muscular men don't. If Hugh Jackman is muscular, that does not imply that I should be. But for many women the fact that Taylor Swift is thin, implies a kind of a social norm that women should be thin.
Anyhow they are not offloading it on culture, they really do feel like preferences require social approval somehow.
I hope this is temporary and women will eventually overcome this, as I don't think women can get truly liberated without becoming truly agentic.
GM, reading your post I had an interesting idea: if beauty signals fertility, what if tatoos and piercing signal bad health? Although data is the plural of anecdote, i never met a tatooed/pierced sane person, expecially a mentally sane person. What if negative body modification is a signal of (mental) bad health to scare off healty partner, like a yellow skin and the like?
I guess my question would be: why try to scare off partners? That doesn't seem to be to the individual's advantage.
Maybe they're simply *scared* of partners. I'm reminded of that long Atlantic piece - I think it was called "The Sex Recession" - and it'd be interesting to see how much tattoos & piercings correlate with not having had sex.
It is not a volutary action: as one does not "decide" to have a pink, clean skin instead of a yellow one (al least, directly: stop destroying the liver may help) one too does not decide to be insane and to show it through body modification.
Exceptional extrapolation of what is already known.
Adding another microscopic piece of affirmation is kinda counterintuitive.
Although I appreciate your diligence on the matter. This doesn't accomplish much in the way of progressing forward through socioeconomics or any other man made system of delusional superiority. Humanity needs a pathway forward. Beyond science and natural evolution.
Take into consideration that the majority of people can't understand their perspectives beyond what is told.
People are afraid of what they don't understand.
For example: nature. That puzzle is only interesting to people like you but not to the majority, for some odd reason. It's odd because we're of nature. Everyone should be interested in this. Yet most people are more interested in fabrications of reality. Why. Is it because people don't understand how nature works
Possibly.
I understand that is your mission and people should really appreciate folks like yourself. I practically grew up reading the national geographic magazines.
Not everyone did though and that's disappointing to me too.
But if we All were educated on natural phenomenon in our youth, I believe things would be exponentially different and also more positive in general.
Consequently, we're all being victimized at the present with climate change, not to mention the catastrophic, man-made pollutants. Political rhetoric, the monetary illusionists, Biological weaponry, etc.
A global panic attack is fostering a massive reactionary response mechanism. Why on earth would anybody ever trigger that.
If people knew how nature worked they wouldn't be surprised regarding climate change because it's natural and there's nothing us mortals can do about that. Can't stop it, can't reverse it either. Natural migration is a normal phenomenon. Why would people say it is political by forcing people to migrate or not.
For example you and I know that the planet is a living organism. Fractionalized down to a single cell or atom. Beyond that is relatively unknown: Spirituality.
But you can't control nature just because you can invent or create a wheel or a rutter or telescope and microscope. That's innovative. That's human intuition of survival and curiosity. Animals naturally migrate. So do humans. That's because the earth is in charge here not anything else.
People must understand that or we're all doomed anyway.
Everyone can feel something isn't quite right these days and feelings of omnipotence is most likely why humanity will fail again and again. No matter how innovative. Until we all understand natural laws beyond that assumption of survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fittest is only a fraction of what humanity is. Not the whole. Whereas animals survive on pure instinct. I personally do not believe humans are completely animal. Because people can be attracted to what they can't see too. A beautiful mind can be more attractive than physical traits. That just depends on what the motive is, of course. But generally speaking it's very true.
Someone with something you want in general can be attractive too.
Someone who smells good to you but not others can be attractive. It's arbitrary. It's situational and so forth.
Without taking anymore of your valuable time, I will leave it at that.