Mulling over beauty standards, Peter Suderman asks:
Concerns about the buying and selling of beauty derive in large part from our longstanding concern for anything that isn't “natural.” Just as we worry about despoiling nature, we fret over changes made to the human body, always with the idea that whatever is natural is “good.” But why should we be forced to live with what nature assigns us? Why be stuck with bodies that don't please us or others, and why shouldn't anyone with the means be able to purchase something new, more satisfying, more functional? When more vital parts of our bodies fail, we have no problem with replacing or fixing them—why should cosmetic improvements be any different?
There's a big difference between purchasing a body that is more functional and buying one that is more aesthetically pleasing. If the cartilage in your knee has worn out till it's mere bone scraping against bone, it's a real blessing that our society has developed the sort of reconstructive technologies that will restore your mobility and reduce your pain level. Excruciating pain when you walk is an objective bad, and worth resources to fix.
But crow's feet are not an objective bad. Nor is a healthy weight that doesn't translate into a washboard stomach. Individuals fight against those physical tendencies not because they render their bodies less functional, but because they are bombarded with cultural messages suggesting they're ugly. And so the question isn't whether people should be able to improve their bodies, but whether the constant message that they must fight the aging process, or conform to a difficult body ideal, is a good thing. In other words: Purchasing beauty isn't on trial, or shouldn't be. It's the forces that generate the aching desire to tone up and slim down and grow younger that should be questioned. Those desires, particularly in their contemporary guise, aren't necessarily natural, and I'm hard pressed to believe they're making many people happier.
