It is odd that this sort of thing is a crime – you cannot consent to GBH effectively but piercings, tattoos and other bodily modifications are not. Its very hard to see a moral difference or where the legal line is drawn. Some things done like tongue splitting and scarification do irreversible damage
sclera dyeing<br />Holy hell. Don’t Google that if you are queezy about needles and eyes.<br /><br />
The obvious difference is basically tattoos and piercings are pretty much non-destructive, and to an extent reversible. Piercings heal over fairly quickly if left alone, tattoos do fade significantly, and technology allows them to be removed, albeit at a cost. Sclera dying is contentious among at least some tattooists, because it’s dangerous and can cause serious if not permanent damage. Tongue splitting is also a bit of an issue among tattoo and body-mod practitioners, I’ve had conversations with my tattooist about them, and one of her colleagues, and neither approved.<br />I’ve had very disapproving conversations with some people about mine, “oh, how can you ruin yourself, how can you do such-and-such…”, which actually turn out to have a strong religious aspect to them, tattoos being a biblical no-no. I honestly don’t give a shit what others think about my ink, it harms neither myself or anyone else, and that’s important, it’s not really damaging to myself.
Regarding the original topic, I find myself oddly divided on the subject; I think it’s deeply disturbing and frankly grotesque behaviour, but I don’t think I’m able to condemn what consenting adults do to themselves and others who are also consenting, in the same way that I refuse to accept criticism of my ink.
how is cage fighting, or even boxing legal? I mean, some of it is pretty grim and has left people dead or with permanent disabilities on more than one occasion, but because ‘we, society’ like to see blokes physically assaulting each other for money, it’s okay?<br /><br />
Much like the “sports” where animals are made to race, fighting involves a lot of money exchanging hands. Once money is involved morals become surprisingly elastic.
If the only difference between boxing and this extreme body modification scene is the presence of professional referees and medics, then I can see a(mother) lucrative side hustle for some doctors in the future. You’ve identified a practical and legal difference, but not a moral one.
I think you have skipped over the fact that many rules and the refs enforcement thereof are specifically to prevent serious injury.
Compare this to your suggestion which is that doctors cause serious injury by amputating an otherwise healthy foot.
Although I'd say it's sometimes a fine line between that and cosmetic surgery!
boxing and cage fighting - the aim is to inflict serious brain injury by knocking folk out.
tjagain
Full Member
boxing and cage fighting – the aim is to inflict serious brain injury by knocking folk out.
Okay but this is just a discussion over the meaning of the word serious. Reread my post and swap the word serious for "catastrophic" or "permanent and life changing". The point is, a line IS drawn between acceptable levels and unacceptable injury levels. For example 'rabbit punches' are not allowed due to the risk.
Perhaps you can argue that the line is in the wrong place given modern research on TBIs, but that's a different point to what is being discussed.
It's simpler than that.
It's a 'sport' established long before modern views on what is accepted in society. If it was a new game starting now in 2024 it would probably be prevented, rather than celebrated and feted on TV.
BUT as it is established, and as ther is lots of £££ involved (inc lots of tax money into the treasury) the Gov (of any colour) choose to allow it to continue. Same as tobacco, same as alcohol - both known to be highly addictive and damaging to health.
FFS the Gov / society still chooses not to prevent foxes being chased to exhaustion then ripped apart piece by piece still in 2024. And they certainly don't consent to any of it.
Okay but this is just a discussion over the meaning of the word serious. Reread my post and swap the word serious for “catastrophic” or “permanent and life changing”.
Knocking someone out is a serious injury. Often catastrophic or life changing. the whole aim of boxing is to injure your opponent to the point they cannot continue
tjagain
Knocking someone out is a serious injury. Often catastrophic or life changing. the whole aim of boxing is to injure your opponent to the point they cannot continue
Sure, but see my earlier post:
Perhaps you can argue that the line is in the wrong place given modern research on TBIs, but that’s a different point to what is being discussed.
To reiterate, boxing and MMA is *not* a free for all, there are rules of engagement and a professional to enforce those rules. You can argue the rules are unsafe, but there are rules.
This is completely different to the discussion point v8ninety raised, which was effectively "should body mods be a free for all, so long as they're performed by a professional?"
Multi - it does not alter the fact that the aim is to inflict traumatic brain injuries ie deliberately injure your opponent. It matters not what the ru8les are - the aim is to injure
