...and liposuction, and facelifts, and so forth.  Apparently the military surgeons think it is great because it gives them practical experience that comes in handy when they are attempting to do reconstructive surgery on an injured soldier.  Is this an appropriate use of tax dollars?  Our soldiers risk their lives for all of us every day, should we consider this a fair benefit? What do you think about this and about breast augmentation in general?  Read on to hear more about this story and also (of course) more about what I think on the subject...

The Story...

From The New Yorker "All That You Can Be":

...Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview the other day, "We're perfectly capable of increasing the incentives and the inducements to attract people into the armed services." For years, the military has offered its recruits free tuition, specialized training, and a host of other benefits to compensate for the tremendous sacrifices they are called upon to make. Lately, many of them have been taking advantage of another perk: free cosmetic surgery.

"Anyone wearing a uniform is eligible," Dr. Bob Lyons, the chief of plastic surgery at Brooke Army Medical Center, said recently, in his office in San Antonio. It is true: personnel in all four branches of the military and members of their immediate families can get face-lifts, nose jobs, breast enlargements, liposuction, or any other kind of elective cosmetic alteration, at taxpayer expense. (For breast enlargements, patients must supply their own implants.) ... For most procedures, there's at least a ten-day recovery period, and while soldiers are recuperating they're on paid medical leave rather than vacation.

A Defense Department spokeswoman confirmed the existence of the plastic-surgery benefit. According to the Army, between 2000 and 2003 its doctors performed four hundred and ninety-six breast enlargements and a thousand three hundred and sixty-one liposuction surgeries on soldiers and their dependents. In the first three months of 2004, it performed sixty breast enhancements and two hundred and thirty-one liposuctions.

...Janis Garcia, a former lieutenant commander and jag attorney in the Navy, who is married to a retired Navy fighter pilot, says she grew up hating the way she looked. "I wouldn't even smile in my own wedding pictures." She checked in to the Naval Medical Center in San Diego for a nose job, a chin realignment, and a jaw reconstruction, free of charge. She also had her teeth straightened. "It changed my appearance drastically, and I became a more confident person," she said. "It literally changed the direction of my life." The doctors told her the work she had done would have cost her nearly a hundred thousand dollars...

...The Army's rationale is that, as a spokeswoman said, "the surgeons have to have someone to practice on." "The benefit of offering elective cosmetic surgery to soldiers is more for the surgeon than for the patient," Lyons said. "If there's a happy soldier or sailor at the end of that operation, that's an added benefit...

...Some plastic surgeons question this logic...

...There has been talk lately among soldiers that this benefit is indeed being used as a recruiting tool, but there is no mention of it in any of the recruiting literature...

Indebted as I am to those who defend my nation and ensure the safety of myself and my loved ones, I'm inclined to give them anything they want, within reason.  Is this within reason? 

The money is of little concern to me.  If the military feels it can afford to do these sorts of surgeries, I doubt I have any financial expertise to say otherwise.

I read the story of Janis Garcia above, who served our nation, and in return got the face she always wanted, and I feel happy for her.  But there is a threefold tinge of concern as well...

I'm saddened that Ms. Garcia couldn't be happy with herself as she was, I'm concerned that some may see military service as a ticket to bigger boobies or a well defined chin, and overall I am concerned about the safety of these procedures.

On the first matter, we all have imperfections of varying degrees, physical, behavioral, emotional... part of learning to love oneself is accepting those imperfections.  That can be one of the hardest things for a person to do, and I think the best way to do it is to keep firmly in mind that the people who love you do so willingly despite any defects you perceive in yourself.  Some might read that and say "Easy for YOU to say... you don't have teeny breasts or a malformed nose."  That's true. But I do have rotten teeth and nasty red skin patches smack dab in the middle of my face for all to see.  But those who love me, love me anyway.  If they can do it, surely I can?

Post from a Philadelphia Daily News discussion forum on this topic:

Hey, I think we should think about joining the military!

Posted by: Julie on July 23, 2004 10:19 AM

The second matter has me more concerned.  Superficial issues of appearance are accorded extremely overinflated importance in modern American culture.  I worry that an impressionable 19-year-old person may make a decision to join the military simply to get bigger breasts, or a nicer nose, or to lipo away a bit of flab on thighs or buttocks only to find themselves shipped overseas to a place where their new nose, or chest, or thighs are likely to get shot or blown off.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, are these procedures safe?  There's a lot of safety questions circulating about breast implants in particular, and I have trouble finding material that doesn't seem biased in some way.  There's no question that many women want bigger chests, and there's a subset of those who are willing to go under the surgeon's knife to get them.

Then there are those who are against breast implants whether they are safe or not.  In Hollywood on August 18 a group supporting "natural breasts" staged a protest over the military's policy of making breast augmentation surgery freely available to female soldiers.

From Reuters, via Yahoo "Porn Star Tells Military 'Bullets, Not Boobs'":

...The group, led by porn star and former California gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey, said the military should spend its money on "bullets, not boobs."

"I think girls should have natural boobs and natural beauty," Carey said after unveiling her own breasts in the protest at an Army recruiting office on Sunset Boulevard.

"Women should be happy with their bodies and what they're blessed with," the 24-year-old star of 37 porn films said...

The protest was organized by porn impresario Mark Kulkis, president of Kick Ass Pictures, the company for whom Carey stars... Kulkis said he opposed military breast implants because they are an unwise expenditure of tax money and because he does not like fake breasts...

...A military spokesman for the recruiting office where the protest took place said he had no comment.

Ok, that was pretty silly, but it serves to lighten the mood.

On Breast Augmentation in General...

For most of my life I have been dead set against breast implants out of safety concerns.  What if they leak?  What if they delay the diagnosis of breast cancer?  According to the FDA there are many risks involved (note that link includes some pictures and is therefore not-safe-for-work).  If one could demonstrate scientifically sound evidence that the risks of such surgeries were extremely low then I might feel otherwise.  After all, if it were really safe, and it meant the difference between self-loathing and self-esteem for someone, then I would not have any objections.  Self-loathing is also unhealthy and leads to a host of other problems.

I make no claims at being an authority on the matter, but when it comes to breasts, I'm of the opinion that one can usually tell by looking at them whether they are artificially augmented or not, and generally such breasts are less attractive (at least to me).

Also I'm not foolish enough to believe that I can speak for all men, but personally, I have no preference when it comes to breast size.  A woman can be beautiful with small breasts (for example, Kate Bosworth or Gigi Edgely), medium sized breasts (for example, Helen Hunt), or very large breasts (for example, Laura San Giacomo).  According to a (dubious) survey reported at Tickle.com, about two thirds of men surveyed preferred larger breasts.  Yes that's a majority, but that still leaves millions upon millions of people who find smaller breasts attractive.  So from the perspective of attractiveness alone, it would appear that large breasts, and particularly artificially enhanced breasts are not necessarily desirable.

Ultimately what's really important is how one feels about oneself.  I'm sure at least some women who seek breast implants aren't doing it to be more attractive to men.  Our society has a rather warped view on what it is to appear "womanly" and having (unrealistic) ideals communicated to you throughout your life may one in a position of self-loathing when one discovers (surprise surprise) that one doesn't match the ideal. I find that sad.

Some argue (such as 007 Breasts -- not-safe-for-work) that it is American culture that has sexualized breasts and resulted in so many self-esteem issues among women concerning their size, shape, or appearance. 

Vicious cycle

The less women breastfeed, the less people get to see the real purpose of breasts. At the same time media everywhere touts the view of female breasts as sexual. That in turn makes it harder for women to breastfeed, since many of the reasons for not breastfeeding are linked to the idea that woman's breasts are sexual organs.

So the less women breastfeed, the harder it becomes for women to breastfeed. We have a cycle that self-promotes the view that the main purpose of female breasts is for something else than feeding babies!

The cure?

Women, breastfeed your babies!
Men, support women in that!
Everybody, remember they are 'baby-feeders'!

They do have a point, I think.  Breasts definitely are baby-feeders and oversexualizing breasts makes it difficult for women to breastfeed--a perfectly natural nuturing function which shouldn't have to be hidden away behind closed doors.  However I don't know if it is possible to completely desexualize breasts either.  Yes they are for nuturing babies, but they are also sexual organs.  During arousal they increase in size and become very sensitive.  It is hard to deny that they are an erogenous zone for females and males alike.

But I do think our society's obsession with big breasts is unhealthy and a source of many problems.  So much visual disinformation is available that many women who would otherwise be thought to have medium sized breasts are considered small or flat.  In an interview for Prevue Magazine, Kim Oja, described her character on 'Son of the Beach' as "the flat-chested one with the measurable IQ."  Kim Oja is not flat.

What a wonderful world it would be if we could all just be happy with ourselves as we appear, if desires to reach an unreachable ideal did not lead to eating disorders and other unhealthy conditions.

I believe there's beauty in everyone... humans are beautiful creatures in many ways.  Is that a healthy outlook?  Maybe.  I think so.