"Sometimes you're a bit too much of a minimalist." These words were spoken by my mother about an hour ago.  What does that even mean?  "Too much of a minimalist."  If I were a minimalist, which I am not, then you'd think that being too minimalist would just mean that I'm really good at being a minimalist.  So then maybe it's a compliment to be "too much of a minimalist."  But it's not.  Her tone of voice makes that perfectly clear. Terse, firm, judgmental.  To her, being a minimalist is bad because "minimalist" means simple and unkempt.  She is of course completely ignoring two important points.  First is that being a minimalist is not necessarily a bad thing in our hyper-consumer culture that is so very addicted to everything.  Second is that she is wrong. I would never describe myself as a minimalist.  As unkempt or simple.  I'm a low-maintenance person in that I tend to avoid things that are unnecessary, but I have my maximalist tendencies too.  I am a pack-rat, I have a closet full of clothes, only some of which I wear, and I like to curl my hair when I have the time.  I'd describe myself as aesthetically balanced or normal (if that exists), but certainly not minimalist.

Of course my assessment of my non-minimalistness makes more sense than my mother's assessment of my minimalisness.  After all, her label was embedded within a larger conversation about my lack of desire to get my ears pierced.  It is quite clear that titling me a minimalist based on my lack of desire to have pierced ears is a nonsensical conclusion.  

I have chosen not to pierce my ears because I don't really believe that it's necessary.  If I were meant to have gems in my ears and metal dangling from them, then I would have had holes in my ears when I was born. If humans were meant to have things stuck in their ears they wold have holes in them naturally.  To be clear, I don't really believe in changing anything about my body permanently.  I don't want a tattoo, or dyed hair, or plastic surgery.  If changing that thing about me doesn't serve a purpose then I won't be doing it.

In fact, the more I think about my decision to not pierce my ears the more it makes sense to me.  It's a societal construct to which I refuse to conform.  By this I mean that someone, somewhere in history, decided that piercing ears was a good thing to do and makes people more attractive.  WHY?!  What is it that makes having gems in your ears so attractive?  My mother claims that it adds balance to a person's face, but again, if we needed that balance for some evolutionary reason we would have it by nature (which we do because our faces are symmetrical to begin with).  Not to mention that argument implies that men do not require balance on their faces as ear piercing is [generally] a female-specific fashion statement.  Or maybe we assume having gems stuck in your ears is attractive because it indicates some sort of wealth, except that's not the case because most of the gems are cubic zirconia which is essentially cut glass. So essentially, we have decided collectively as a culture, for no reason whatsoever, that earrings make people more attractive.  That seems a bit haphazard to me.

So, no, I'm not a minimalist.  And, no, we have no logical reason for earrings being "attractive."  So no, I will not be getting my ears pierced.  Not that I owe you any explanation.

Keep on thinking,

Josie