One of my co-workers referred to the "courageousness" of people allowing military doctors to "practice" on them. If it were an experimental, or life-saving, procedure, I might agree. This makes me a little uneasy at best though.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...that's what they do at UofM. Their doctors in training give poor people free surgeries or dental work for free as part of their training.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but it's a far cry from a free boob job.
Now, if the Army docs were pulling rotations in hospital ERs for learning how to better treat gun shot wounds, stabbings, car accidents, things like that...I can see it easily being justified.
But unless the Army is planning a base in Beverly Hills, I really don't see what skills they're going to be practicing with for lipo and boobs.
Except the basic ones which, if they're doctors, they should already be proficient in.
posted
Not true....Dr's have to do plastic surgery for all types of accidents, and breast implants are needed for those sometimes.
We aren't Surgeons, and we don't really know what should and shouldn't be necessary for their education. Some people go into the military to learn skills that will provide them with a career outside of the military when they are done. If they choose plastic/reconstructive surgery as a specialty, they need to know how to do ALL the procedures, not just the ones that happen in war.
Burn victims, car crashes, skin cancer; they all can require plastic surgery, and none of them are frivolous. Without doing these procedures, the doctors might lack the skill needed to do many sorts of jobs that I can't even conceive of.
Now, that doesn't mean that the patients should receive medals....
posted
A friend of mine who was in the army noted the following:
Doctors who couldn't make it in the high paying, yet high demanding world of civilian medicine became Army Doctors. If your record is so bad you can't get Malpractice insurance, you practice where its not required--the Army
Doctors that couldn't make it in the low paying, less demanding world of Army Doctors became VA Doctors. If you don't want to make mistakes on people who play with guns for a living, you make them on people who are to old to play with guns for a living.
While I don't believe this is true of all military medical practioners, I am fearful it is of too many of them.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
TMedina: There are plenty of times "boob jobs" are part of reconstructive surgery.
What should we do, deliberately crash people into wall so we have patients to practice on?
Those techniques are very similar to parts of reconstructive surgery....in some instances.
Also, we train the Doc's to the same standards as civilian doc's...if you need to know how to do it in the civilian world, that Army has to teach them it...otherwise, why would they go there for training that is only good in wartime?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I know of quite a few doctors who went into the military because it paid for their medical school and they didn't end up massively in debt at the end.
posted
They can be - or they can be needless implants. Since they were mentioned with liposuction, I'm inclined to believe it's for vanity as opposed to reconstructive.
However, as the article does not go into detail on the nature of the operations, I am willing to concede they might have been perfectly valid efforts for reconstruction.
As for running people into walls - no. Civilians do that all the time on their own. So why not rotate the docs through civilian care centers so they can fine-tune the skills most applicable to necessary skills?
I was thinking in terms of battlefield needs, but sure - why not rotate them through similar free care services for general purpose training.
quote: As for running people into walls - no. Civilians do that all the time on their own. So why not rotate the docs through civilian care centers so they can fine-tune the skills most applicable to necessary skills?
My guess is that insurance issues would prevent this. You would have to insure them to work in the civilian population...which would cost quite a bit of money.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soon we won't even need guns. The rows and rows of women sporting size double FF breasts will cause all who oppose us to become drooling idiots. Are they designing a new uniform too? I'm picturing something with tassels.
posted
They could coat them with kevlar so they would be bulletproof, then they would be sufficently useful.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so you know, these procedures are not totally free for the recipients. The labor is free, but the soldier has to pay for the materials. So really, it's a bit misleading for CNN to say that soldiers are getting breast implants "on the government dime."
Posts: 224 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The rows and rows of women sporting size double FF breasts will cause all who oppose us to become drooling idiots
I would assume that the military has some sort of restriction on exactly how much breast augmentation is acceptable. Having known several women who have had breast reduction surgery, I can say that big boobs aren't exactly desirable. All "top-heavy" jokes aside, the back pain alone is a reason the military wouldn't allow the kind of boob jobs you see in Hollywood.
On the other hand, if you have a woman who has been teased her whole life because she has small breasts, I'm all for surgical enhancement if it has a positive effect on that woman's self-esteem. Just because the woman happens to be in the military doesn't mean she isn't allowed to feel better about herself.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megan made similar observations about "self-esteem issues" and the disturbing boom in plastic surgery.
As to the practicality of DD breasts - it's a "grass is greener" argument. When all is said and done, I've had an opportunity to sample both and find that I prefer smaller over larger.
Women who opt for the massive upgrades are buying into the stereotype and unfortunately, the stereotype carries a lot of weight (no pun intended) with the general public.
However, some women who grew up well-endowed are going the other way for, as mentioned previously, the back pains and other health considerations.
-Trevor
Edit: And c'mon, I realize the military has plenty of regs - but I sincerely doubt anyone's put guidelines on what kind of cleavage is acceptable.
"You may not join the Army if your breasts are larger than..."
posted
Wow, I find it really icky for people to profess any sort of preference in other people's bodies. It sounds like picking out a good horse or something... "excellent hindquarters on this one." <laughs> It seems like one's own body is the only proper sphere (though hopefully not literally a sphere) for expressing one's physical preferences, whether it be through exercise, decoration, surgery, or whatever. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry ak - I'm siding with Bob in this one.
I'm not requiring, nor do I expect you to alter your body, lifestyle or anything about you to conform to my tastes or standards.
However, there is nothing wrong in saying "I prefer blondes" or "I like guys with tattoos" - you're stating a personal taste in, rather than passing judgement on people.
posted
Nothing wrong with it, except that it's just really vulgar, is all. Doesn't it strike you that way?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not at all. I don't understand why I like brunettes, I just do. That is not to say I haven't found my girlfriends to be the most attractive people I'd ever seen, loving all their physical quirks because they were attached to them.
The thing is, if you ask me what my type is it's going to depend on whether you're showing me a bunch of pictures or if I get to talk to each woman for a few hours. In the first case my answer is going to be primarily physical characteristics that draw me to someone. There's usually some initial hook that pulls at you from across the dance floor. In the second case I'll tell you a lot more mental/emotional/whatever things. These are things that dictate whether I linger for longer than the first dance.
Do you work differently? You see no difference between any men until you’ve gotten to know them? I'm curious.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flowers aren't people and don't know they're being judged by superficial ephemeral qualities.
And yes, I have a favorite flower: the Little Prince's rose. She was vain and silly sometimes, but she was his, she had tamed him, and she blessed his life.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yeah, if you are curious about me in particular, actually I do pretty much like or dislike a person's looks according to how I feel about them as a person.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak, the point is that attraction is nearly always based on the physical. How often do you hear a person talk for hours before you see their face? (Unless it's at Hatrack.) And if you don't get to see someone's face until you marry them, then how do you judge their voice? Deep, soft, rolling? These are things that are part of a person too, and difficult to change. Is it unfair to judge someone based on THESE qualities too? Seriousness or humor in the voice? What car they drive? Do you think that the best matchmaking scenario would have people type out a paragraph about themselves, and let someone pick the paragraph that they like most? Do you then judge based on their spelling skills or syntax?
(Posted before I saw your post before this. I'm just wondering how you judge a person.)
posted
I do to, ak. But I'm talking about before you get to know them. Or is there an "I don't know them yet" level? Sorry if that part of the question wasn't clear.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not judging their qualities as a person, whether they are good or bad. I'm evaluating my responses to them on a physical, mental or emotional level.
I don't like you - why? Because you're a blonde. That's shallow and amazingly narrow-minded of me.
I don't like you - because you're a nasty, spiteful person with no sense of humor and a cruel streak. That's more understandable.
I do like you - why? Because you're blonde? If that's my sole criterion, then yes - it is still narrow-minded and short-sighted. But if I find blondes aesthetically pleasing, it's icing on the cake if I like everything else about the person - personality, personal habits, sense of humor, etc.
I'm rambling, but I think I made the point in the first two paragraphs - it's not a "you're blonde, therefore you're a bad person and I don't like you." It's "you're blonde and I find that physically appealing...now let's find out if you have a sense of humor and meet any of my other criteria."
And before I get accused of being shallow, why did you reject the last person who asked you out? (General question, not specifically focused to anyone in particular)
-Trevor
Edit: I try not to judge a person, but rather whether or not I'm willing to associate with them.
Just because I do (or don't) like someone does not automatically make them "bad" or "good".
posted
Maybe it's because there is this sublime mystery of a person taken as a whole, and of love. When you say "I prefer slim ankles" or "blue eyes are dreamy", it's as though you are flipping through a catalog shopping for a nice accessory. But these are people we are talking about.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry ak - I really don't know how to better phrase it and I think you're just going to be offended at the idea regardless.
And to be fair, if I was judging someone solely by physical appearance, I agree it would be offensive.
But I'm trying to illustrate that having a taste in or a like for a specific aspect of someone isn't a judgement of that person but rather an indication of your tastes.
And really, that standard could be applied to anything: be it religious preferences, a compatible sense of humor or personal habits.
posted
It's a nice ideal to think that appearances don't matter a whit, but it's arbitrary. Countless people have preferences and requirements in a mate. Some of these items are appearance, but many are things like, "Christian," or "my nationality," or "Intelligent." How are these any more honorable? I argue that they're not. They're simply different facets of a human being. It's just as "shallow" and nit-picky to require your mate to be intelligent.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The things that make up the most important early impressions of people seem mostly to be internal or intrinsic qualities as well. Confidence as expressed by body language, or a friendly open smile, say. Loving kindness shining from the eyes. Not how many hands at the withers, or whether the hocks are sound, you know?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if I'm 800+ pounds, haven't moved from my apartment in three years and have this annoying laugh? Would you still be interested in exploring my personality for a possible long-term romantic relationship?
It's an extreme example, but still a true one.
I might have a wonderful personality and be an extremely charming guy, but the fact I weigh 800+ pounds and add the assorted social/health issues with it will probably turn off most romantic interest.
It doesn't mean I'm a bad person, but let's face it - I don't "do anything" for you.
posted
But you have to avoid those people with serial killer eyes, right? (It's more of a dull gleam than a loving shine for the folks back home who are wondering)
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of questions. Trying to answer all of them thoughtfully.
Sveta, I think in the voice example you give, it would seem nice to say it specifically, for example "he has a wonderful voice". But to say "I like men with deep manly voices, I don't like for men to sound like boys" does strike me as being not very nice. What if someone who really cared about your approval heard you say that, and he felt his voice wasn't deep enough for you? What if your son heard you say "I like tall guys", for example, and he wasn't as tall as his brother?
When I hear guys say they like this or that superficial feature in women, I always feel put off by it, whether I have that feature or not. Either way it is icky. I don't want to be liked because of my <fill in the blank>.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand what you're saying, ak. I'll be the first to say that what makes me attracted to someone is their personality. If I think they are kind and caring, and especially respectful, then I will be able to look past how they look, or disregard it, at least I think so. But it remains that I have to get to that point in the first place, and I need something to help me determine where to start. I could just sit outside my house and let a line form, but I don't have time for that.
There have been guys that I liked alot as friends, and it was only after being with them a while that I found myself becoming attracted. So, for friendship, I would agree that it doesn't make any sense for physical to come into it. But for a romantic relationship, which is at least in part built upon chemistry, it would seem that there needs to be some physical attraction.
And as far as a warm, friendly smile, etc, I have to wonder why you're looking at that person in the first place that they are smiling at you.
quote: What if your son heard you say "I like tall guys", for example, and he wasn't as tall as his brother?
Truthfully, I try very hard not to let my kids hear me make comments about physical stuff. Mainly because I don't want them to feel too self-concious too early on. But I think that they will STILL form opinions about people's looks without me to say anything.
posted
I don't think people can really help what turns them on. I think physical attraction is largely at the un- or sub-conscious level, and if things like breast size or a big butt or a cleft chin or a winning smile cause that kind of reaction, what can you do about it? Having that reaction doesn't make you a bad person or shallow. And if it's normal and basically inevitable that you will have a response to these types of stimuli, then why is it wrong to acknowledge that it happens? I can see the argument that it's rather gauche to say it out loud, but to try to make it go away seems futile and possibly dishonest.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me try again, before I make ak think I'm a severe jerk.
I like tall dudes, but mainly because I'm very tall myself.
But, if a guy that wasn't tall asked me out, and seemed to be a nice guy, I'd probably go. I wouldn't be thinking "But you're not tall!" Instead I'd be thinking about what I was going to wear. It doesn't mean I won't like a guy if he's not tall, it just means that I probably wouldn't have noticed him on my own right away.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TMedina, on shallowness, you asked why I turned down the last person who asked me out. I'm trying to thoughtfully answer that one with this post. Luckily he's not a hatracker so I can.
He never actually asked me out, but it seemed as though he well might until I began to discourage it. I thought about it for a long while. He had some very nice qualities. But I realized that he saw life primarily in terms of survival and getting ahead, which don't count highly on my list of priorities, and he already had several times said things that were bossing me around, which is cute when you can thank someone and ignore their bossing, but much less cute on closer acquaintence. But most importantly he doesn't believe in true love as a concept. He's from a culture where you find someone suitable (or your family finds them) and then you just do right by them, and he feels that's the best approach. I admire that in many ways, yet I still believe in true love as an essential selection criterion for my own self. I want to be loved like that, and will love that way in return.
I realize this seems kind of crazy to get that deep into thinking about things before a first date but I've discovered that my heart is very serious and permanent, and so I don't date anyone that I don't already really like a lot. I try to be more careful with my heart now.
[ July 23, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I used to distinctly have a "type" of eye candy I tended to drool at.
My boyfriend, while not unattractive doesn't fit that "type" at all. Now over the years I've been with him I've acquired a secondary "type" of guy that I will take a second glance at that is built more like him.
However if it is for straight eye candy I will always choose the first type. It doesn't make me love my boyfriend any less. Those people don't have his mind and soul. But the people that I'm viewing as eye candy I'm never going to meet or have a chance to find out what their mind and souls are like anyway. So why does it matter that I'm objectifying them?
posted
ak, that doesn't seem weird. For all the talk about physical preferences and everything, I turned down every guy who asked me out until I met Jes. It was only because I knew none of them were serious enough and I didn't want a boyfriend, I wanted a husband. That's a lot of pressure for most guys!
quote: PSI, I think you said what the rest of us were trying to say.
Psssh, yeah. And it only took me forty thousand words to do it.
posted
So ak, why is intellect different from appearance? Tease it apart, and truly show me why it's okay to judge on one, but not the other.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Sveta, you wouldn't be thinking that about anyone specific. You'd be thinking about who they were as a person. Which is why it feels wrong to me to say, "I like guys with junk in the trunk" or anything of that sort. It's the same idea as saying you like or dislike different nationalities, or races, or religions. It just feels nicer to judge people individually for themselves, taken as a whole person, than for those qualities.
[ July 23, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
