I know a lot of adult blondes. I come from a family of blondes, in the Land of the Blondes. So not all blondes are bleached. My sister dyes her hair darker, to avoid the unflattering almost white in summer. My mother has turned gray now, but used to be pretty blonde too. 
But I am aware that this isn't always the case in the rest of the world, or even in my town!

Your guy friend reminds me of Jonathon Swift's protagonist Strephon.

(I think you could strike the word modern from your title, and still be completely accurate.)

It's not clear to me whether or not the book also focuses on the ways in which masculinities are also enhanced and attained via "artificial" means. If it doesn't -- as this blog post doesn't -- this would seem to be a serious omission. The obvious message here would seem to be: "look at the lengths people go to in order to fit into a particular image of beauty!" But there is also another, underlying message here, one that reinforces the cultural trope that femininity is artificial (and thus, false) while masculinity is unembellished, natural, and thus more "real."

People all over the world enhance what they have to fit the norm of their cultural beauty. I get my nails done, I do my hair regularly, I try and choose flattering clothes. Is that wrong?

It's not wrong to want to be more attractive and to take steps to be attractive.  What is wrong is when the standards for attractiveness are not attainable without spending a significant amount of money, experiencing negative health consequences, and/or enduring a significant amount pain.  This is especially true when those standards apply disproportionately to one gender.

Related: "Wearing makeup...increases people’s perceptions of a woman’s likability, her competence and (provided she does not overdo it) her trustworthiness." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/fashion/makeup-makes-women-appear-more-competent-study.html?_r=2&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=ST-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-UTC-101311-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click  

I think the NYT article is very quick to jump to a "nature" perspective, wherein makeup is beneficial because it taps into viewers' supposedly natural preferences for high contrast, smoothness, symmetry, etc. Isn't there also a strong possibility that we judge made-up women more favorably since we detect that they're putting in time and other resources to adhere to the feminine norm? In that case, we're responding to their resources, on the one hand, and on their willingness to fit in on the other. 

Returning to the images above, do you think the enhancements affect viewers on the level of nature (innate appreciation of longer lashes, bigger breasts, paler and longer hair), or on the level of nurture (cultural appreciation of traits the media have primed us to value, plus a belief that someone who puts a "tasteful" visual package together is someone of value)? Or somewhere in between? 

Blondes were popular in Ancient Rome. There was quite a market for wigs made from the hair of German women.

The link for "cosmetic surgery and being normal" doesn't go anywhere.

These are very enlightening on their own, but to use your friend as a stepping stone, I think that these particular items are too uncommon to really denaturalize the norm for beauty. Most people would agree to hair extensions and implants being unnatural, however most people also take for granted the time consuming rituals involving foundation, shaving and uncomfortable clothes tjat aren't just the ideal. These things are actually expected by women, for some as a "bare minimum" of effort. How come none of that is ever questioned? Perhaps it is because it's easier to point at the unnatural in something that you don't do yourself, and in that case it's no wonder that we can't go beyond the breast implants.

Very interesting, and I wish you'd gone more in depth!  It's something I notice a lot among men.  They will speak to their "plain" looking female friends (often totally unaware of how insulting they're being) or their girlfriends who wear visible makeup, about various women who obviously have "natural beauty."  Usually, they are celebrities who've had plastic surgery, wear hair extensions/weaves, diet or have personal trainers, and have teams full of wardrobe and makeup people working to make them look as flawless as possible, BEFORE they're digitally altered in magazines or photoshoots.  Men seem to think these women wake up, shake out their hair, swipe on some deodorant, and go out and eat 3 double bacon cheeseburgers a day.  They say "why do you diet, Nicole Ritchie eats Taco Bell" or "why do you bother with that makeup, look at Zooey Deschanel, she's not wearing any and looks beautiful" without realizing that presented personas of celebrities, models, and even random attractive women walking down the street are very carefully calculated. 

I can actually speak from the other side of this: an ex and I were walking and some random man complimented that I looked good, and he "liked girls who didn't wear makeup."  My ex agreed.  Neither were aware that I was wearing quite a bit of makeup.  Not caked on or bright colors, but definitely "enhancing my natural beauty" or whatever.  It was very strange (as well as inappropriate on both of their parts), and it made me realize, men say they don't like makeup, and what they mean?  "I want you to wear makeup, but I don't want to scrape it off with a paint peeler." 

The body is the soul's house. It should be a reflection of what is on the inside, but not dictate it. Beauty is important. God made beauty, however, altering one's appearance to the point of completely remodeling is a bit of an insult to the one who built the house.
Take care of yourself and look good, but don't be more concerned on the outside than on what resides within.

damn, i am sick of this constant attitude that i keep seeing behind projects like this, (usually from dudes w no concept of Beauty Pressure)... "why do women DO THESE THINGS TO THEMSELVES?? what drives them to attempt to please us with such ARTIFICIALITY?? look at how gross implants look by themselves ewww. SO FAKE"
(like, aside from the part where people could have any of millions of motivations for wearing lashes or getting implants or hair extensions besides Getting Male Attention)
it baffles me how people are consistently SHOCKED that someone would go through an unpleasant, expensive beauty routine to meet unrealistic standards
like, um yes, if you live in a culture that measures your worth by how Hollywood Beautiful you are, if you get turned down from jobs for not wearing makeup, then yes, youre likely to 'beautify' yourself every day even though its a total chore
my least favorite is when people will foist it back on women..... i mean how many times have we all heard "i wish women wouldn't wear so much FAKEUP", "*i* prefer girls without makeup, so why do they wear it??", "personally i think implants are gross and people shouldn't get them", "shaving your legs is self mutilation", etc, ad nauseum

So what this article is saying is, that women who use artificial means to alter their image are bad, while natural women are good. That's just as fucked up as saying that women alter their image to please others. How women alter their image should be their choice. They shouldn't have to without to worry that "feminists" will criticize them for dyeing their hair blonde.

Think blonde only looks good if natural. To look more interesting I have dyed hair dark for years and even looks natural. Naturally a mousey blonde/brown and on few occasions I have even gone blonde for a change but hated it. I have medium golden skin and dark blue eyes and it looks fake. Implants and eyelashes are going too far. Only thing i'll ever do to look nice is dye hair and maybe on occasion fingernails. Fake is definitely not beautiful

My kids and my sisters kids are all shades of blonde from baby blonde 2 of hers to my kids who are a honey blonde. Common in kids but think majority of adults dye theirs.