de·face (dĭ-fās')

1. To mar or spoil the appearance or surface of; disfigure.

2. To impair the usefulness, value, or influence of.

3. Obsolete. To obliterate; destroy.

a·dorn (ə-dôrn')

1. To lend beauty to.

2. To enhance or decorate with or as if with ornaments.

Clear as day: deface is "bad" alteration, adorn is "good" alteration. The classification of "good" and "bad" is an individual value judgement. Neither word refers to the permanence of the alteration.

I completely recognize that some consider tattoos and shaved heads unpleasant. The author's use of "defacement" to describe them enforces these arbitrary social standards for what are acceptable ways to modify your body and what are not.

I agree that the choice between "deface" and "adorn" is probably in the mind of the recipient of the body modification. If Ms. Spears wants to say her modifications were defacement, so be it, but it's not the author's (or any of our) call to apply that word to her choices.

I posted simply to let it be known that not all of us share the author's prejudices.

In a celebrity-obsessed culture, Salon wants to provide WHAT?

I watched the video. Two items:

1) the fact that this can even merit mention brings into question what we consider to be serious gender issues.

2) Actually, it looks nothing more than a Siren-esque seduction bit, closer to the Oh brother Where Art Thou siren scene than some strip club antic.

So shaving your head is defacing your body? So what unless women have long flowing locks they are not proper women? now where have I heard things like this before hmm?

And to the person talking about piercings. Ear piercings cause more trouble than piercings in more "interesting" places. Ask any professional piercer.

I think that defacing your body depends not on what you do to it but how you feel about it when you do it. I've got a tattoo and a couple of extra piercings, and for a while I had a buzzcut. The tattoo and piercings were done in a good way--they're adornment. When I cut off all my hair, that was defacement, done because I was extremely unhappy.

Ritual scarification is not defacement if done to be aesthetically pleasing. Cutting is. Or on a more subtle note, it doesn't signify anything negative if I eat meat, because I am an omnivore, but when a vegetarian friend of mine started eating the worst meat-based junk food it was, frankly, self-abuse. Start worrying about my state of mind if I start smoking.

I am, unfortunately, aware that Britney shaved her head. Given what I (unfortunately) have heard about what was going on in her life at the time, I'm going with defacement, not adornment.

-- aureliana wrote:

...by no means could a shorn head or a tattoo be "defacement" but to the most close-minded of people. unless you're also opposed to boob jobs, hair coloring, ear piercing, body sculpting support hose, makeup

I believe that it is fair to classify all tattoos, and certain types of piercings and plastic surgery as body defacement. My criterion is fairly straightforward -- if the modification alters the body's appearance in a permanent way for merely cosmetic purposes, it is probably a form of defacement.

I say "certain" types of piercings to differentiate between common ear piercing, which is generally reversible without scarring, and some of the more exotic piercings, which are more likely to lead to infection and scarring. Likewise, I would draw a distinction between reconstructive plastic surgery and purely aesthetic plastic surgery.

As for hair coloring, body sculpting support hose, and makeup, this is a bit of a strawman argument, as no one would classify such obviously temporary measures as body defacement. In fact, the latter two items are external enhancement that are not even incorporated into the body during use (okay, some makeup is absorbed by the skin, but it all comes off with soap).

None of this is meant as a value judgment. I do not believe that body modification should be proscribed in any way -- if a woman wants to get breast implants to change her bra size from a 36A to a 40DD, it is no one's business but her own. I just think we should call things by their proper name. Perhaps the problem is that the word "defacement" carries a negative value judgment all by itself, and we should stick to the term "body modification."

As an aside, it is my non-scientific belief that most men would be opposed to their female partners obtaining breast implants. While men often find large-breasted women to be sexually arousing in a visual sense, most would be turned off by the tactile differences associated with implants.

Thanks for this critical feminist update on the Britney Spears issue, Tracy.

Keep us informed of any further developments in this key story, central to the feminist struggle.

...Clark-Flory is reporting the media and blog response to Britney's return to "business as usual".

If it's correct that the media heralded this performance as a comeback, then it's worth noting the public relief over the return of Britney, the symbol, from Britney the flesh and blood basket-case.

Since when is a column that points out the public self-regulation of symbols of women not appropriate for Broadsheet?

I am certainly glad that this important role model for young women has returned to fulfilling her obligation to society and feminism and I look forward to more important news articles like this which lead to the betterment of women everywhere and highlighting the leadership roles available to women in our wondrous land today as a result of the tireless efforts of those in the entertainment industry to enlighten and educate our noble peoples.

OR was it Carol Lloyd. I'd hate to be wrong on this one, but if it was Clark-Flory, why is anyone shocked that she's so obsessed with sexy sexy Britney and her hoochie mama ways?

It's funny how Broadsheet is strangely silent on the latest misandry from California NOW =>

http://www.canow.org/documents/baldwinpr.pdf