"whaddya got?"

[arethinn]

devafall stated in this post: when you're a teenager in the '80s in Greenville, South Carolina, having pierced ears was dangerous, and it was one of the few rebellions I really allowed myself.

This sparked a thought on the nature of rebellion. I think that for something to be truly rebellious (as opposed to merely strange), engaging in it must involve an element of danger to oneself. But then, what levels of danger qualify? Is social ostracism enough? How about just getting a few people mad at you? Or must it involve a level of physical danger?

Comments

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

It's all too easy for social ostracism to lead to physical violence. Kids who get beat up at school, people who chose another religion than their parents' or community's, people who were victims of hate crimes, all these usually report that the beaters made rude mouth-noises before they got to the actual whomping.

[arethinn]

Okay, but I'm talking about acts done specifically for their rebellion value, as opposed to a serious choice that others don't happen to agree with (e.g. religion) or for being born the way one was (e.g. racial hate crime).

[twopiearr.livejournal.com]

As a teenager, social ostracism *does* involve physical danger. Safety in numbers and all that.

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

I think, and remember, that social ostracism can be enough when the group that you're getting ostracized from opposes the group you want to belong to.

After that, pretty much everything seems to involve various levels of potential to get your ass busted into a million tiny pieces.