The "beauty industry" probably has less to do with a desire to have nice feet than one's station in life and day to day activities, spare time, etc. For centuries, shoes have been a focal point of fashion and how one's feet looked could be considered a status symbol. Monarchs who didn't have to work or move at all could wear the silkiest, most delicate shoes. What beauty industry was profiting then? The one silk-shoe maker in town?
Your piercing example falls into the same category and also, when examined closely, disproves the theory that ancient civilizations didn't have their own version of beauty salons. C'mon -- people have been piercing, painting, tatooing, scarring and otherwise manipulating their bodies from the very beginning. Sure standards change over time. But they don't always relate to industry-generated taste. In fact, industry co-opts taste from people who create their own new styles. But it seems like you're trying to argue that before modern industry, there was some kind of natural state in which there were no beauty standards at all, which hardly seems supportable.
Anyway, an old dude at my bodega last night had literally the most bizarre toes I've ever seen: they were very thin, with no toe-meat, and long-boned, with sharp, pointy toenails. And a little dry. But on him, they looked pretty cool, like talons. Like something the next Lord of the Rings movie would want to copy. It was an aesthetic that I could really appreciate, and it seemed like an extension of his character. But I wouldn't want to emulate.
From: "Miles Jackson" <cqmv at pdx.edu>
> This provides another good example of the point I'm making. Why are people
so concerned with having toes that look good in sandals? Again, it's not
just because people naturally desire pedicures: it's because there is a
beauty industry that generates and enforces this standard of how toes should
look and obviously profits from the reinforcement of this standard. People
lived on this planet for tens of thousands of years without pedicures and
beauty salons! It's just lack of imagination to say "X is simply ugly",
because the standards are not static and inevitable; they vary across time
and place. (One example: piercings that a few generations ago would be
considered "disgusting" in our society are sexy and beautiful now. --And so
with all appearance standards.)
>
> Miles
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>