BME: Body Modification Ezine

A black-and-white photo of a person mid-air in a Superman-style body suspension pose, supported by multiple hooks in their back and legs, smiling joyfully toward the camera. They are suspended horizontally in a large indoor space with high ceilings and visible rigging. A group of onlookers—some seated, some standing—watch with expressions of admiration, amusement, and support. The atmosphere is lively and communal, capturing a moment of shared experience and transformation.

Tattoo, Piercing, and Body Modification News, Events, and Culture

  • The Beginnings of the Modern Body Piercing Movement [Running The Gauntlet – By Jim Ward]

    Written by

    BME


    3: The Beginnings of the
    Modern Body Piercing Movement

    Just for the record, I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed that I single-handedly started the modern body piercing movement. I was fortunate to be in the right place at the right time to focus and channel forces that were already at work in the world. Would the movement have happened without me? Possibly, but if it had, it probably wouldn’t look quite like it does today.

    Body piercing has been around for countless millennia. However, in the early 1970’s it was practiced, in the Western world at least, largely by a handful of widely dispersed and closeted hardcore fetishists. At that point in my life I never really thought that there might be a lot of other people in the world who found piercing as erotic as I did.

    In 1973, my first year in Los Angeles, I was pretty much immersed in Primal Therapy. I rented a small apartment in West Hollywood a short walk from the Primal Institute and kept pretty much to the neighborhood.

    Towards the end of the year, a fellow patient named Diane told me about a small two-bedroom house that was for rent about a block away. I had seen it often enough on walks around the neighborhood. It dated from the teens when West Hollywood — then called Sherman — had been a whistle stop on the railroad between Los Angeles and Santa Monica. Aside from its ramshackle condition and the Christmas tree dying in a pot by the front steps, its most memorable feature was a concrete shrine in the front yard where a votive candle burned day and night to the Virgin Mary.

    For decades an elderly Italian woman had occupied the house. I don’t recall if she died or had been put into a home, but the property had been sold. An eccentric old couple, Velma and Carl Henning were managing it. Mrs. Henning looked like Ma Kettle and was so stingy she would scrounge through the supermarket dumpster for food. Her husband was an old Nazi with a handlebar moustache who had migrated to the States after the war. While he may have left the vaterland behind, his racist viewpoints were still as fresh as ever, and he was only too happy to share them whether one was interested or not.

    Once they took over, the Hennings made some changes to the property. They cleaned up the house and demolished the shrine in the front yard, leaving a pile of concrete rubble. A sheet of plywood was laid over the rotting boards on the front porch to keep people from falling through. Always looking for ways to make a little extra money, Mrs. Henning rented yard space next to the house to a hippie couple to park their old school bus home. Arrangements had been made for them to use the toilet, which was just inside the back door.



    The old West Hollywood house shortly before it’s demolition.

    Rent on the house was little more than I was paying for my tiny apartment, so I signed a lease on it and moved in. There was a certain squalid charm about the place, but there was much about it that made living there a challenge. Chief among its shortcomings was a total lack of insulation or heat. One always thinks of Southern California as a land of eternal warmth and sunshine, but my first winter in the old house shattered that illusion.

    West Hollywood at the time was still unincorporated, but the community was already beginning to exhibit the signs of change that, in a few short years, would turn it into the cold, impersonal city it has become today. Many small charming homes that dotted the township were being torn down and replaced by ugly apartment buildings.

    Diane and I took great pleasure in rummaging through the abandoned old homes before they were torn down. Frequently we’d return home with odds and ends and, occasionally, useful junk. Rifling through the trash piles at construction sites I scrounged enough insulation to keep some of the cold out of my house.

    I had a large back yard with a rundown shed — once possibly a garage for a Model A — and a huge avocado tree that bore wonderful fruit in summer assuming the squirrels didn’t ruin it first. There was lots of space for a garden, and Diane and I attempted, with limited success, to grow a variety of vegetables and flowers. Not only was the soil poor and the snails and slugs abundant, but the yard was something of a cross between a dump and an archeological dig. One could scarcely turn a shovel of earth that didn’t contain some bit of junk, mostly old bottles and broken crockery.

    Amongst the debris was an old enameled cast iron toilet tank. Possessed by some perverse ingenuity I turned it into a small wood burning stove, attaching a stove pipe which I ran outside through one of the living room windows. Fueled with wood scraps from construction sites, it provided a source of free heat. By some miracle I didn’t asphyxiate myself. The first time I built a fire in the stove I had to run for cover. As the cast iron heated up and expanded, bits of enamel began to fly like shrapnel.

    The necessity to earn an income encouraged me to seek employment. My experience in picture framing lead to a job with a snooty frame shop in West Hollywood. Among their clientele were a number of well-known museums and celebrity artists. While the occasional treasure passed through our hands, most of what we handled was high priced crap masquerading as art. I realized that this was not a profession I wished to pursue as a lifetime career. But what did I want to do? I remember thinking at the time I’d like to have a profession where I could use my hands and what I worked with would be small and fit into them. I also thought it would be wonderful if it had a sexual dimension as well. Little did I realize what was soon to materialize in my life.

    Diane came up with the idea that we should enroll in court reporting school. After all, it was a well paying profession with great job security. There likely would be a demand for court reporters well into the future.

    So we signed up and started learning the fundamentals of stenotype. It didn’t take Diane long to lose interest and drop out. I stuck with it for almost a year, reaching a level where I could take about 120 words a minute and type up a transcript at about 100 words a minute. The beginning months had been filled transcribing innocuous clerical material along the lines of, “Dear Mr. Smith: Please send me ten cases of tea.” What kept me intrigued as long as it did was the very weirdness of stenotype itself — I remember seeing a license plate bearing the letters TPUBGU; in stenotype that spells, “fuck you.” But that could hold my interest just so long. When the teacher began dictating actual court material I realized just how deadly boring the life of a court reporter could be. I doubt many of them get to take down juicy Perry Mason cases.

    But my stint at court reporting school was not a total loss. We were required to take and pass a comprehensive class in English grammar and punctuation. The class was well taught and unlike the boring classes I’d suffered through in high school, actually made sense. Little did I realize that it wouldn’t be long before what I’d learned would come in handy when I started a magazine about piercing.

    For the first year of so, most of the friends I made were people from the Institute. The main exception was my friend Rod from Denver. He had been married for some years and had several grown children. Approaching middle age, he was no longer willing to deny the gay side of his nature. The year before I moved to LA, he packed a few essentials, said goodbye to wife and family, climbed on his Harley, and headed for California settling down in Los Angeles with a succession of male lovers. Soon after arriving he took a job as a bus driver.

    I’ve often marveled at that thing we call fate. Is there really such a thing, and if not, how do we explain those amazing coincidences that happen in our lives?

    Rod’s regular bus route was between Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles. One day an amiable long-haired gentleman boarded his bus, and taking a seat near the driver, struck up a conversation. The man’s name was Tom and he worked as a librarian at the downtown public library. Tom became a regular commuter on Rod’s bus, and one morning as they were chatting en route to downtown, a man with a pierced ear boarded the bus. The conversation turned to the subject of piercing and Rod said, “I have a friend with pierced nipples,” to which Tom replied, “I’d like to meet him.”

    I must confess that I secretly hoped that Tom would be a sexy hunk, but instead I met a rather plain, round-faced, slightly heavy set man in need of dental work. Whatever he lacked in looks was offset, to some extent, by a sunny disposition and a passion for piercing. He shared with me a collection of letters and photographs from a number of fellow enthusiasts who, at the time, were unknown to me. Among these was one “Rollie Loomis” who would soon become known as Fakir Musafar. The photographs of him that Tom showed me were truly awesome. I’d never seen anything like them. They made me aware that there were many more piercing possibilities than I had ever dreamed of.

    Another of Tom’s correspondents was a man named Doug Malloy. He was supposedly some well-traveled expert on the subject of piercing. Since he lived locally Tom arranged for us to get together one evening so I could meet him. We were to rendezvous at the public library where Tom worked and then go out for dinner.



    Doug Malloy (left) and Alan Oversby aka Mr. Sebastian (right).

    Doug arrived with a guest, a man named Alan Oversby. Over dinner I learned that Doug had recently written a short autobiographical account of his piercing exploits called The Adventures of a Piercing Freak. A somewhat sleazy fetish publisher had purchased it and to add visual interest had included a number of photographs bearing no relation to the text.



    Alan showing his art work.

    Alan, it turned out, was from England where he worked as a tattoo artist who also did some body piercing. His professional name was “Mr. Sebastian.” Doug had corresponded with him, and Alan had shown a great deal of interest in learning more about the art and technical aspects of piercing. Using the money from the sale of his book, Doug had paid for Alan to come to the States.

    It was a pleasant evening. We parted company, and I heard nothing further from either Doug or Alan.

    During my Primal Therapy experience I became a very good friend with another patient named Jim. After a couple of years at the Institute, he decided it was time to get on with his life and moved to San Francisco. Periodically I would fly up to spend a weekend with him. He would show me the sights. Sometimes we’d smoke a little grass and hit the gay nightspots.

    Eric. In a way he started it all.

    On one of these outings a guy named Eric came on to me. We spent some time together, and though the chemistry wasn’t exactly ideal, we started to see each other on a regular basis, sometimes in San Francisco, sometimes in LA. Eric was very turned on by my nipple piercings and called me to see if I would pierce his nipples the next time he came to LA. While I was certainly willing, I realized that my pushpin-and-wine-bottle-cork method left a lot of room for improvement. I also knew from my brief meeting with Doug that earrings were not the right jewelry for the job. Since a more knowledgeable source was close by, it made sense to see if I could get a little guidance.

    I called Tom and, after explaining the situation, asked if he would give me Doug’s phone number. This he did, and I gave Doug a call, asking if he would be willing to share some of his piercing techniques with me and tell me where I might be able to purchase appropriate jewelry. He couldn’t have been more accommodating. The techniques he’d developed over the years were at my disposal. All I needed to do was let him know when Eric would be in town and we’d set something up.

    As for jewelry there weren’t many choices. Doug knew of a jeweler in San Diego who would make gold rings, but the guy was asking $200 apiece for them. This was much more than I was willing to pay. Having taken several jewelry making classes in New York, including one for professionals, I had a pretty good idea what it would take to make a pair of nipple rings, and $400 was way out of line. As I got to thinking about it, I realized that for a fraction of that amount of money I could buy the raw materials and the necessary tools as well.



    The nipple retainer, my very first body piercing jewelry design.

    Doug and I had several discussions about the best kind of jewelry to use for new nipple piercings. There was some question whether they would heal better with a curved ring or something that was straight. In the end we decided that maybe something straight would be the better choice. With that in mind I set out to design something appropriate. Thus came into being my first pieces of body piercing jewelry. I called them “nipple retainers.”

    Consulting the Yellow Pages I discovered a lapidary shop in nearby Hollywood. They were able to supply enough gold wire for the project and the various tools I needed, all for under $50.

    Early tools of the trade. The ear piercer was eventually consigned to history, but Pennington forceps are now a piercing staple.

    Once the jewelry was made, Eric arranged to come down to LA for the piercing. We set up a time for Doug to come over and supervise. He brought his “kit” of implements. These included a pair of Pennington forceps, now an industry standard but at that time something pretty exotic. There was also an assortment of heavy gauge hypodermic needles, the kind used on livestock, and what in the 1950’s had no doubt been a state-of-the-art ear-piercing gun. This latter contraption consisted of plunger on the end of which was a removable needle about 3/4” long. Over the needle fit a short metal sleeve called a canula. By pressing firmly on the plunger, the needle and canula were forced through the tissue and a fork-like stop on the opposite side. Once the pressure was released, a spring would retract the plunger pulling back the needle and, hopefully, leaving the canula in the tissue. The jewelry could then be inserted by butting it against the end of the canula and following it through the piercing.

    My mother worked for twenty five years for an eye doctor, so I had gained some rudimentary awareness that sterilization of the instruments was in order. Fortunately I had a pressure cooker which I usually used for cooking, but it worked just fine as a stand-in for an autoclave. These were the days before AIDS, so we gave no thought to latex gloves. After all, even dentists and tattooists worked without them. Only doctors doing surgery wore them. We assumed that as long as our hands got a thorough washing, that was enough.

    The piercing process may have been crude, but at least we got the jewelry insertion principle right.

    Except for using the ear-piercing gun as part of the procedure, the piercing technique itself was much like it is today. The nipple was first cleaned. Since surgeons were using it in surgery, we had elected to use Betadine instead of alcohol. Next a dot was made on either side of the nipple where we wanted the opening of the piercing to be. A rubber band was wrapped several times around the handle of the Pennington forceps and adjusted for the right grip. The nipple was clamped into the forceps and the marks aligned in the same place on either side. Once the ear-piercing gun was placed in position, the needle and canula were forced through the nipple. As the needle retracted, the canula was left in place. After laying aside the gun, the forceps were removed and the jewelry inserted.

    Though still crude by today’s standards, Doug’s technique worked amazingly well, and the piercing went smoothly. Eric returned to San Francisco happy.

    Soon afterward Doug called me up and asked me to have lunch with him. He picked me up in his sports car, and we went to the Red Room, a little Swedish café in West Hollywood not far from the frame shop where I worked. Over lunch the conversation naturally turned to the subject of piercing. To my surprise Doug said he thought I should start a piercing business. I already knew how to make the jewelry. All that remained was for him to teach me what he knew about the various piercings and his techniques for doing them. I could start out working part time from home, and he would share his private mailing list of enthusiasts around the world as the basis for mail order. When I pointed out that I lacked the capital to launch such an endeavor, he told me he was prepared to lend me whatever it would take. He firmly believed that a need existed for such a business and told me that from the moment he first laid eyes on me at the library, he’d known that we were destined to do something together. This was it.

    Presented with such a generous offer and the possibility of creating a career for myself doing something I loved was not something I could pass up. I said yes.

    Next: In The Beginning There Was Gauntlet

    Jim Ward is is one of the cofounders of body piercing as a public phenomena in his role both as owner of the original piercing studio Gauntlet and the original body modification magazine PFIQ, both long before BME staff had even entered highschool. He currently works as a designer in Calfornia where he lives with his partner.

    Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC. Requests to publish full, edited, or shortened versions must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published November 11th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada

  • Does God Hate Your Tattoos? [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt

    Does God Hate Your Tattoos?

    “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.”

    – Ephesians 5:29

      

    BME recently had the opportunity to have a virtual talk with Jay (iam:TautooJay), who is heavily tattooed and is in training to become a youth pastor. We were also joined by Faith (iam:serpensfeminin), a former Mormon raised in the Church of Latter-day Saints, Tiffany (iam:MissTiffany1), a Christian piercer from California, Karen (iam:Mighty_Mouse), a young Christian from Virginia currently sailing in Bermuda, and “Puck”, who asked us to keep him anonymous. Monty Vogel of the QOD staff (iam:MONTE) and owner of Body Mods in Nebraska also joined us, along with Mark, an old friend from San Francisco.




    BME: How do you feel God sees your body modifications?

    Jay: Honestly, I think God has more pressing matters than me getting tattooed. The Catholic Church took a stance on tattoos hundreds of years ago at the Council of Northcumberland that they were fine as long as they were not defamatory of the faith in any way. I’m not a Catholic, but Christian tattooing has been going on since right after Christ died — there are Roman reports of people with crosses or “Yeshua” (Jesus’s name in Hebrew) dating as far back as the first century, and seventeenth century wooden tablets of tattoo designs have been found in Israel.

    Faith: The church’s teachings are clear that bodies are our “temples”. They are the portals through which our spirits pass, and they must be cared for. The way I’ve interpreted this is that we are here to learn, to grow, and to gain experience, and to do that we have to love ourselves. Before modification I didn’t even recognize the face and body I saw in the mirror — so how could I love it? Modification has helped me grow and understand myself, and I believe it’s helped my spirit grow. It’s been an essential part of being alive.

    Tiffany: I don’t think God minds unless it’s a Satanic tattoo. People get tattoos of the things that are important to them — Christians have been getting tattoos since Christ ascended to heaven.

    BME: How do you express your spirituality through your body?

    Faith: I don’t feel the need to be spiritually demonstrative — I have a huge respect for people that use their body to worship, but it’s not what I do.

    Jay: I have Jesus on my back with “Saved by Grace” written underneath. I have Psalm 23 on an anchor, praying hands, an eagle, Yeshua, a cross of three nails and a crown of thorns, an angel and a devil, a sacred heart, and “Jesus Saves” across my collarbone. I’m a walking billboard!

    Tiffany: In Exodus 21:5-6 it says, “If the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children: I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or the door post, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.” — I am a servant of the Lord and I will serve him forever! So in a way, my piercings are done for him, to show that I am his servant.

    Karen: I have a dove with an olive branch in its mouth on my left calf. God regularly uses doves has His messenger or helper — when the dove returned to the ark after the flood, he carried an olive branch in his beak to tell Noah there was dry land where he could build a new world for the glory of the Lord. I want to get a cross tattoo soon.

    BME: What makes you think it’s “OK” as a Christian to get these mods?

    Jay: Who says “it’s OK”? Society? Society is messed up. As Christians, we are called to separate ourselves from society. Although body modification is on the rise, it’s not the cultural norm — it’s not looked on as being completely acceptable. Christians don’t have to be acceptable to society — they are called on to be acceptable to Christ alone. I answer only to Christ.

    Tiffany: Follow that voice in your heart.

    Jay: I prayed for months before getting my first tattoo and signs just pointed me closer to getting one. If someone wants to know if it’s right for them, the answer is in prayer. What God may want for me may not be what He wants for someone else who He’s planned to go into business and win souls for Him — whereas I’m hoping to work with inner city youth and the less fortunate as well as kids… and they like the tattoos!

    Karen: As long as I pray and I know my heart is right with God, and I feel his spirit with me, then I know I’m on the right track. Before I started into mods I didn’t really know who I was, what my body was. The Bible says my body is a temple, but without knowing it, how could I honor it? Now I do that by making it more beautiful.

    Monty: I had a minister come in today and get his ear pierced. He had been asking the head pastor of his church if he could get it done for over four years — it was just recently that the pastor was gone on a trip and called to say that God had told him three times that day to allow the minister to get his ear pierced. The reason the minister wanted the piercing was that six years ago, while in Florida, he opened his Bible and his attention was called to Proverbs 25:12 — “As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear” — He knew then that he wanted to get his ear pierced, and today he finally got it done.

    BME: What do you think of people who tell you God disapproves of your mods, or that the Bible forbids them?

    Jay: We all make mistakes and we all fall short of the glory of God. They may judge me, but I know I have also judged others falsely. We’re in the same boat. Those who accuse me of going against the Bible, I talk to them as I would a friend. I point out the fallacy in the kindest way I can. You have to realize most of these people were born into this faith and their culture was intertwined with it and they don’t know any better. They never really looked up the context of the verses they are using against modified people.

    Faith: Scripture isn’t law — they’re guidelines that make our lives more meaningful. God doesn’t want us to be an animal — he wants us to live with free will. I think it’s tragic that so many Mormons hang onto the Prophet’s every word, letting him make all their choices for them. He gives good advice for most things, but I just don’t see how an earring or two is going to make you betray your faith.

    Tiffany: I work at a piercing and tattoo studio so I don’t usually meet people who say things like that, but it does give me a chance to talk about Jesus with those that may never get to hear about Him. Since I look the way I do and work where I do, I fit into “their type” — and they’re more willing to talk to me about it. If I didn’t have these piercings and tattoos, I might not be able to reach these people.

    BME: Do you have any verses that you use to change their minds?

    Jay: Usually I don’t resort to using Scripture on people who think tattoos are a sin. After I point out the error in the use of the Scriptures they quote, there’s really no need. Bible trivia wars are kind of stupid… and I’d win in the end!

    Tiffany: The obvious one of course is Matthew 7:1-6 — “Judge not, that you not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”

    Karen: I like Galatians 6:17, “Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus”, and Isaiah 49:16, “See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.”

    BME: What sorts of responses do you generally get from other Christians?

    Jay: Some get wide-eyes and quote Leviticus 19:28 because that’s what they’re told growing up. I tell them it was written to Levitican priests and dealt with the issue of pagans mutilating their bodies to act as spirit mediums. Others like the artwork and are fine with it, but would never do it themselves. Still others — many others — love my work. Some want to get tattoos, others would never get touched by a needle, but they love my tattoos.

    To all these people, I show the utmost respect and expect the same in return. It all boils down to the fact that we share the same faith and we’ve all experienced grace. The hard part is showing that grace to others, which is where a lot of modified and average Christians fail.

    Tiffany: My Pastor likes my nostril piercing… My studio has tattooed and pierced members of the congregation. I’ve had negative run-ins, but it’s the positive ones that I focus on.

    Mark: The Lutheran Church I attend is two thirds queer, but everyone seems to find my piercings entertaining. An older gay man asked me if I had any hidden piercings. When I told him that I also had my tongue and nipple pierced, he replied, “Oh, I’ve had the nipple for years. Got it done in 1968 — by a friend, with much ceremony, believe me!”

    As far as the theological implications, I really don’t feel there are any. Surely God is more concerned with one’s relationship to Her and to one’s neighbor than with how one decorates oneself. I also dye my hair various colors, sometimes corresponding to the liturgical season — last winter it was blue for Advent, then I re-dyed it red just before the Christmas Eve service!

    Karen: I don’t hide my tattoos and piercings either when I go to church. People into mods aren’t going to want to go to church if all they see is dressed up, uninked people. God loves people with mods, and so does the Church.

    Puck: That’s not always true, Karen. I was asked to leave my youth group when I was thirteen years old for having a pierced navel and purple hair. They thought it wasn’t appropriate for me to be around the younger children while having such “outrageous style”. Many parents wouldn’t allow their children to come to youth group meetings because I would be there. I had to stop going to that church.

    I also went to a Methodist church summer camp and wasn’t allowed in the church with the rest of the kids because of my hair and piercing. Eventually I turned away from God. I just felt like if the people praying with me in church wouldn’t accept me, then God wouldn’t either.

    Faith: My stereotypically Mormon grandmother has a hard time accepting the fact that I have my tongue pierced because she can only imagine sins behind it. I guess she doesn’t understand that I’ve never given or received oral sex and I’m still a virgin — and no piece of metal in my tongue is going to make me change my values. All of my friends, most of whom are Mormons, see my ink and “plugs” as just a part of me — things that make me the quirky and amusing person that I am. I was even told by one of my closest friends that they never would have gotten to know me if they hadn’t wondered what was wrong with my ears!

    I respect other people’s choices, and I’d hope they’d offer the same in return. We’re all put here for the same reason, but we’re not supposed to lead the same lives.

    Way back in 1995, about a year after starting BME, I received the following semi-literate email:

    “I think you are doing is self mutilation and I for one am very disgusted. But there is hope for you! Read the BIBLE!”

    It may come as a surprise that I actually have read the Bible, and it no more says “don’t get tattoos” than it says any number of other cultural concepts — not theological concepts — such as “spare the rod, spoil the child.” In fact, the Judeo-Christian family of faiths is full of tattooed and pierced characters, and parts of the Bible are very clear that extreme modifications — self-amputations even — are what God wants for some people. Under Christian theology, body modifications are like words — they’re tools. They can be used to bring glory to God and help live a good life, or they can do the opposite.


    There are many parts of the Bible that mention piercing in passing since it was relatively normal in Biblical times, but the only passage that seems to even vaguely ban body modification — tattoos* in this case — is of course Leviticus 19:28, which reads,

    “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.”

     
    * I should note that the original Hebrew text reads “k’thoveth qa’aqa”, or “writing that is stuck in”, usually used to refer to a form of modification closest to ink rubbing — a pagan funerary rite at the time, very different from modern tattooing.
    		  

    Leviticus is a book of laws telling the Jews of the time how to lead their lives. As such, the laws break down into three general types — first, laws regarding morality (bans on prostitution, bestiality, and so on); second, laws regarding health (advice on subjects such as food preparation — kosher laws); and third, laws to differentiate the Jews from the pagans (bans on certain rituals, haircuts, and so on). In the New Testament Jesus does away with these laws. That doesn’t mean that bestiality is suddenly OK, but it does give a modern Christian much more personal freedom in terms of things like the way they trim their beard and the way they choose to decorate their bodies, because they are now judged by their faith, rather than adherence to a set of hard and specific rules.

    “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

    – Romans 3:28

    “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.”

    – Colossians 2:16

    This is explained perhaps more clearly in Galatians 3:23-24, which tells how Jesus replaced the old covenant with a new one:

    “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”

    As well as the mention of tattooing or cutting in Leviticus, body piercing is also mentioned throughout the Bible. When the Israelites fought the Ishmaelites, Gideon told his warriors that they could take the golden earrings of the enemies they slew (Judges 8:24), and numerous passages mention the piercings of the Israelites as well (Exodus 32:3, Ezekiel 16:12, Isaiah 3:21, and so on). Other sections, in Deuteronomy 15 and Exodus 21 describe body piercing on servants (as a normal part of society), and nose piercing is described as beautifying and normal when Behuel and Nahor’s daughter is married in Genesis 24.

    Sometimes Christians object to body modification on the basis of it defiling God’s creation — after all, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 is fairly clear that the body is the temple,

    “What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

    Earlier, in 1 Corinthians 3:17, a dire warning is issued:

    “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”

    The question is, what does “defile” mean?

    I’ll spare telling you that the Catholic Church has already publicly proclaimed tattoos as acceptable, and that Crusaders were commonly covered in Christian tattoos in order to proclaim their faith and ensure a proper burial — A good way to understand what’s appropriate for a temple is to look at the range of Christian churches that history has produced. Until about the 10th century A.D., Christian architecture was largely reminiscent of earlier Roman buildings. In the Middle Ages huge Cathedrals dominated, covered in spires, sculptures, buttresses — anyone who’s been in these structures knows how overwhelmingly powerful they are psychologically.

    The Gothic period produced churches with complex and intricate decoration and gorgeous glasswork. Centuries later in the Baroque era churches were less physically imposing, but were encrusted with wealth — golden opulence was used to manifest God. Other periods and areas have seen simple churches, small humble buildings relatively unadorned with the people themselves bringing the glory, and in modern times we’ve seen churches constructed in every conceivable style. We’ve even seen very successful temples built using nothing but television transmissions and a studio.

    Marshall Mcluhan may be oft-quoted saying that the medium is the message, but in this sense, I think God might correct him and say, “No, Marshall, it doesn’t matter what the medium is — it’s the message that counts.”


    I hope it’s clear that if we’re to speak in objective terms, that there’s no specific ban on body modification in the Bible, and that its value as something good in one’s a life versus its involvement in sin is very much determined by the way it’s being used — to put it another way, telling someone that their Christian tattoo is wrong would be no better than telling someone that praising God is wrong because someone else shouted blasphemies. Speech — and tattoos — are just a part of life. They can be right, or they can be wrong.

    So a Christian certainly can’t go out and get a tattoo or other body modification if it leads to sin, or stands for sin, but modification — mutilation even — is acceptable if it helps the person lead a righteous life. Sex might be another good example. The Bible is full of things that could make a person believe that sex is a bad thing — prostitution, lusting after others’ wives, and forms of masturbation are all mortal sins. However, reading other parts of the Bible it’s clear that God intended sex to be something wonderful — but He wanted it to be used in the right context (a loving marriage under God).

       “Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.
       Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.
       How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!
       Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.
       A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
       A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.
       Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.
       Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled: for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night.”

    – The Song of Solomon

    It’s all about context. That which might be a sin when used against God is a beautiful thing when used for Him — it’s why a Christian couple can have a fulfilling and guilt-free sex life that involves bondage, anal sex, oral sex, Cleveland steamers, or whatever else makes them happy — as long as it’s loving and sanctifies the marriage bed (so no Cleveland steamers with the neighbors when the wife’s out of town!).

    To give a more extreme example, eunuchs (castrated or even penectomized men) were common throughout various cultures in Biblical times, and hence came to be included in the Bible and were even embraced by several sects. The Byzantine Church had numerous eunuchs in ruling positions, and the Christian Coptic Church embraced castration as a holy path. While relatively common between 300 A.D. and 1,100 A.D., it continued in eastern Europe until surprisingly recently. Matthew 18:8-9 warns,

    “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.”

    Matthew 19 continues, warning against adultry and other sins of the flesh, and in verse 12 says,

    “There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

    Even extreme body modification is permissable — if it’s done to serve God or to protect the individual from falling prey to sin or to God’s enemies. Of course, modern Christians on the whole believe this passage is “metaphorical”… but there’s certainly nothing that says that clearly, and if it’s metaphorical, how can one decide what else is as well? Many early Christian scholars such as Origen, considered one of the fathers of the faith, castrated themselves. A small number of patristic writers such as Tertullian actually referred to Jesus as a eunuch.

    So what we see in the Bible is that Christianity has at best one highly vague ban on a specialized form of cutting, and then goes on to describe body piercing at length as normal, and even goes so far as to encourage extreme body modification when done for the sake of God. The New Testament contains one clear and overwhelming message: Love. Under Christian theology the whole point of God’s appearance on Earth as Jesus was to get rid of blind arbitrary rules, and replace them with a more fluid code of goodness.

    “This is my commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do what I command you.”

    – John 15: 12-14

    I won’t get into it in this article in any depth, but the Bible also draws similar conclusions about ritual. In 1 Kings 18 and Mark 5 we hear descriptions of pagan sorcerers and priests performing rituals involving cuttings and bloodletting, but at the same time, Christian penitents and monks have been performing self-flagellation and even crucifixion in the name of their faith (Matthew 16:24) since the beginning — not a single early Christian church didn’t embrace these rituals and they are still popular in many areas such as Brasil and the Philippines. Again, it’s all a matter of what you’re using the tool to achieve.


    Some Christians will warn others against involving themselves in tattooing or piercing because they perceive it as being sordid, using scripture such as Romans 12:17 to justify it,

    “Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.”

    However, it should be clear from the “double standards” in the Bible that God doesn’t believe that one should censor oneself because someone else has used a tool for evil. You can wield a sword in God’s army, or you can wield in as knight in Satan’s service — your final resting place is not determined by the sword, but by the army you choose to serve in. When Paul says in Philippians 4:8,

    “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

    he isn’t saying to think of things that appear to be true, or appear to be honest, or appear to be just, pure, or lovely — he’s giving clear message in clear terms: be a good person and put Jesus above all else.

    If you want to be a good person with tattoos, God will still love you. The Christian who tells you otherwise isn’t hearing the message for some reason and may need your help far more than you need theirs.


    Shannon Larratt
    BMEzine.com

    PS. I am not a Christian, but if you’d like to meet other Christians interested in body modification, you can click here to meet them in the new BME Personals (or place your own ad), and there are of course many more on IAM — a few are linked in the interview above.

  • People in glass houses… [Guest Column]

    Written by

    BME


    People in glass houses…
    by Shannon Larratt


    Nature shows that with the growth of intelligence comes increased capacity for pain, and it is only with the highest degree of intelligence that suffering reaches its supreme point.

    – Arthur Schopenhauer

    I’d like to introduce two guest columns on the same subject — self-injurers, people who cut themselves to get through life — and then follow with a few thoughts of my own. You may want to read the guest columns first:


    The Art of Self Mutilation

    by Cora Birk

    I’m a cutter. I’ve been doing it on and off since I was seven years old. When I first started, I did it with razor blades in the bathroom while no one was around and in places where no one would see… I enjoyed the pain and the blood, and the feel of metal opening up my skin. No one ever caught me, even with the worst of my scars from that time, which is now a hairline fade that goes from my right kneecap to my right ankle. After all these years it’s still my favorite mark.

          (read more)

    		 

    Self Injury

    by Monty Vogel

    I don’t think most SI’s believe that they’ve found the best method for coping with their problems; just something that works for now. Most of the people I spoke with would like to find a better way, but have problems reaching out for help and understanding. I believe the more we understand about self injury, the easier it will be for self injurers to find that needed help.

          (read more)

    It’s not unusual for me to get photos and stories submitted to BME of subjects that most people will assume are “self-injury” or “cutting” in the clinical sense of the word. It will come as no surprise that these stories are almost universally rejected by the review team, and when I post the pictures they’re met with complaints ranging from “these people are sick” to “these people will make us look bad”… But I think if we’re to play that game fairly, we have to call a spade a spade — all of us body modifiers are demented sick-in-the-head self-mutilators that ought to get psychiatric help before we hurt ourselves.

    But that can’t be true, can it?


    Self-injurers tend to describe their acts as a stabilizing force in their lives. It grounds them, and keeps them sane. While it is true that for many there are less physically damaging drugs available which can help them cope, these often come with mental “zombie” side-effects that many find unacceptable. To put it simply, many self-injurers cut not simply to hurt themselves, but to heal themselves — on some levels, the cutting improves or even saves their lives.

    Now let’s take a cold look at body piercing and tattooing. It is a painful act done without anesthesia or pain control, often in unregulated and unsanitary situations that put the wearer at needless risk, to say nothing of the long term potentially stigmatizing and life-destroying effects. If we are to judge ourselves by the same standards, that is… And what of suspension, pulling, and play piercing? Or even SM sex play where people “get off” on pain? Clearly on an objective level these are sick people hurting themselves for no good reason.

    But we know that’s not true because we’ve been there. After all, we hold up as a hero the woman who reclaims her body with a genital piercing after being raped. We don’t even think to point out that maybe she’s now a headcase that’s carrying on the abuse by mutilating her genitals — because we know that’s not true. We’re thrilled to read the story of the young down-on-his-luck man who’s feeling “reborn” after his first suspension — we would never say “well, if you thought he was messed up before, look at the sick stuff he’s doing now, hanging from hooks!”

    Maybe you’re telling yourself that you and the folks I’ve just mentioned in the previous paragraph are “better” than self-injurers because you’re wearing marks of “something good” (which you probably can’t put into words, let alone prove to a psychiatrist). Ignoring the fact that to some self-injurers the cuts represent survival (“something good”), and ignoring the fact that many “normal” people see all modifications as marks of “something bad”, plenty of modifications are very specific markers of problems — after all, “Born to Lose” and “Life is Pain” are two of the most persistent and popular classic tattoo designs.

    …and you’re telling me that saying “I’m a survivor” is somehow worse than “I’m a loser”?


    (Let me just be clear so there’s no hurt feelings: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with these tattoos either and I think they’re perfectly legitimate statements on the part of the wearers!)

    It should come as no surprise that many people see pain as good and life-affirming. “No pain, no gain” is the motto of a vast number of self-improvement schemes — we understand that facing and surviving pain is a part of bettering oneself and of facing life’s challenges. Even “love hurts”. Extreme athletes and thrill seekers describe feeling more and more alive the closer they get to death. We make heros of people who’ve lived through painful accidents, and reward those who endure painful trials of fire. Pain may hurt, but all of our legends and myths tell us that it’s the path to divinity.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that we should encourage people to see injuring themselves as a solution. If someone is hacking up their arm to get through life, then there are very likely problems in their life that need fixing — but don’t ever assume that the injury is the problem. At best it’s a symptom, and no one was ever helped by trying to suppress their symptoms. And guess what — sometimes tattoos and piercings are also symptoms of a problem. So are lots of things.

    If self-injury helps a person improve their lives, then it’s a good thing in my books, and every bit as valid as an injury that you happened to pay someone else to do to you. Personally, I even think it can look good. So try and treat them with the same respect and caring as you’d expect from some mundane about to approach you about your facial piercings.

    Be healthy,

    Shannon Larratt
    BMEzine.com

  • Lizardman Q & A, Round IV – Through the Modified Looking Glas

    Written by

    BME

    Lizardman Q & A – Round IV

    A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open.

    – Francis Bacon

  • What’s in a Name? [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt


    What’s in a Name?


    'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
    Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
    What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,

    Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
    Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

    – Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II
    William Shakespeare

    One of the things that’s unique about the way that body modification is used in the West is that it’s individualistic. On a historical level, when you examine body modification in more “primitive” cultures, body modification’s purpose was deeply steeped in social identity and social structure. One’s modifications signified one’s role in life and position in the tribe — a role generally immutable and determined by birthright. That is, body modifications played a role in transforming the individual into a piece of the whole. In modern society body modification often does the opposite — its role is to transform a piece of the whole into an individual. It is a way of defining a unique and self-determined identity.

    Much of who we are is defined by our community and our family. Our skills, interests, and our names are all chosen primarily by others while we were children and infants — modern body modification is a part of a larger set of actions that represent a significant step in human cultural evolution — the end of homogeneity.

    The Internet has played a fascinating role in this shift through the seemingly innocuous requirement of asking people to choose usernames for their email, websites, and IM clients — what is this but an adult choosing to name themselves? Thus it is put into common consciousness the idea that one’s identity is self-defined, rather than externally assigned. There’s nothing stopping people from using their real name online, but how many people do you know that do that?

    Until recently, online identities tended to be secondary — almost like secret identities — but as the line between the online world and the offline world blurs, the dominant identity takes control, and often that’s the online one. For those of you who’ve attended IAM BBQs and other offline events of online communities, you know that you are more likely to know people by their chosen name than their given name. As a result, name tags usually list the IAM name, and it’s very normal for people to refer to each other by those names in conversation — and often not even know the given name of their friend!

    People with body modifications are already very used to a self-defined identity — an adult identity that’s different than the child identity — so it should come as no surprise that an increasing number of IAM members are legally changing their “real” names to match the identity they’ve created for themselves. Now, before you cringe at how weird this is, ask yourself: Are your friends the ones you chose, or were they assigned? Do you watch the movies you choose, or are they assigned? Do you wear the clothes you choose, or are they assigned?

    Why should a name be any different?


    Meet the Reverend Grenade Bee Of Death, who you may also know as iam:Grenade. When he married he took on his wife’s name with his own, and of course after their divorce it only reminded him of things he’d rather forget. He worked a solitary job, and over time most of his friends were people he met online, where while playing the game Planetarion he was known as The Holy Handgrenade of Antioch. Grenade came to be his regular online name, and when he started meeting online friends in person, no one could bring themselves to call him “Martin” — so the nickname Gren stuck.

    The name Martin became less and less relevant as almost everyone called him “Gren”. After an epiphany as to the nature of people and friendship, and after time spent with good online friends he legally changed his name to Grenade Bee Of Death. After posting this to his IAM page, and explaining how easy it was, he helped a few others do the same.

    I asked him whether he felt different with his new name and what he described was very similar to the amputee fetishists who when asked if they feel different without their legs reply, “no, now I feel normal!”


    I find that there is very little difference, to be honest. Given that very few people need to use my surname in addressing me, and that people have been calling me Gren for a long time, I feel little change.

    I had to give my name to a policeman the other day, and I got the distinct impression he thought I was taking the piss, but he was very reasonable about it, just asking me for spelling.

    On an emotional level it is kind of liberating, and in the same way that I embraced piercings and tattoos... it is something that I have chosen for myself. I think it's another thing that makes me feel more in control of my own life.

    Obviously there are some elements of regret, in that I no longer carry my family name. I guess that if I change my mind later, then "change of name" is a fully reversible "mod"!

    Now meet Swirly Wanx Sinatra, the first person to contact Gren about doing the same, formerly swirlywanx on IAM, now going by his full and legal name, iam:swirly wanx sinatra.


    About two years ago “Daz” started realizing that blending in just wasn’t for him. While looking through large amounts of tattoo flash with an older brother he saw that it was mostly just commercial scribbles and commented, “that’s awful… just a load of swirly wank!”

    The comment stuck, and when he joined IAM he did so as swirlywanx — of course at BBQs people had no idea he was actually Daz, and simply called him “Swirly”. At the same time his non-IAM friends started doing the same, and in jest started adding surnames and completing the identity. Soon he realized that he’d “grown into” Swirly, and after choosing “Sinatra” as a classy surname (“Wanx”, sounding too much like a down-on-his-luck pornstar, was demoted to a middle name) he legally became Swirly Wanx Sinatra.

    Other than the occasional outburst from fools thinking he’s degrading Frank Sinatra, after a bit of checking that they’re not being messed with, people tend to respond with something along the lines of “that’s fucking cool… stupid as shit, but cool!”

    Now meet RooRaaah Mew Crumbs.


    For his whole life, Andrew Paul Johnson had been called Roo (on account of And-rew of course) — you know him on IAM first as AndyRoo, then RooRaaah, and now as iam:MisterCrumbs. He never liked his full name, and it didn’t feel right — “it just doesn’t fit with how I see myself.”

    Starting with Roo, a friend a few years ago added “Raaah” and he liked it (“simple as that!”). “Mew” comes from his passion for cats, and his tendency to actually say “mew” a lot in conversation (“you have to experience it to appreciate the full greatness of how it sounds”). “Crumbs” as well comes from a quirk of his character and interests —


    I think it stemmed from Danger Mouse... I'm not sure if you have seen it but Penfold used to say "Crikey crumbs sir!" when they were in a spot of bother, and it stuck with me.

    Now that the change is complete, RooRaaah refuses to answer to “Andy” any more, and has spent the last while trundling around Liverpool changing his details. His workplace was incredulous and tried to refuse to accept the name change, but ultimately they didn’t have a choice — it is his legal name. At first there was a lot of explaining, but now he just leaves them stumped with a “why not”.


    It's very liberating changing something that has been with you since birth, but that wasn't of your deciding. To other people it's only a name, but to me it's my identity — or at least a small part of it which the outside world uses to address me.

    Andrew Paul Johnson or RooRaaah Mew Crumbs — not a hard choice really is it?

    I just feel more relaxed with this name. When I think of Andrew Paul Johnson, I don't think of me. Now, when I hear my name, I do think of me.

    HooorahRooRaaaah!

    In a recent poll of about 1,500 BME readers, only about forty percent said they’d never considered changing their name — this is a very common drive. Well over a hundred people told me they actually went by a chosen name, and forty-five of those had legally committed to the change.

    In talking to people who’d chosen their own names and rejected their given names one commonality appeared — the idea that the new name “felt right” — that it actually represented who they were, rather than acting as simply an ID tag of sorts. Body modification is of course the same phenomena, a remaking of the self into what “feels right”, and it’s for that reason that the online body modification community is one of the groups pioneering what may soon come to be a tsunami of name changes reflecting online identities.

    What effect this will have in the long term is of course still to be determined — is the world a better place when we don’t feel identity-bound to the past? Can you build a successful tribe out of a multitude of individuals, or do you need people to voluntarily accept some degree of slavery? I hope these people’s stories help you think about your name and what it means to you, whether you have any interest in self-defining or not.

    Good luck figuring out how you’d like the world to know you,


    Shannon Larratt
    BMEzine.com

  • Becoming a Word [Guest Column]

    Written by

    BME

    Becoming a Word
    by iam:saram

    One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words.

    – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    As a reader, writer, and outspoken speaker, I have a lot of respect for words. The right words are worth a lot in life. People may say that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” but the true power lies in the words themselves. Written and spoken language is truly an amazing, indispensable thing. Where would we be without words? Words can inform, hurt, persuade, pacify, and document. Words can start and stop a war. Words are supposed to be protected in the United States, but some people want to censor and silence the words they don’t like. Putting something into words can give it power, or take power away from it. Words can be beautiful to look at, and beautiful to hear spoken. They can also be offensive or disgusting. One word may have many meanings or connotations. I believe that words are power.

    However, we frequently take words for granted, especially the simple ones we use all the time — the conjunctions and pronouns and articles. We say them and write them every day, without thinking twice about it. Without them, language would be completely different!

    When I heard about Shelley Jackson’s Skin project, I was intrigued. Here was an author combining concept art and experimental literature. Ms. Jackson’s project would put each word of her new short story on an individual. By tattooing the appointed word onto the body, each person would “become” that word. Each word in this story is equally important and identically recorded. The book will have one edition, a “first printing,” so to speak, on the flesh of thousands of people. It could be the largest single volume of literature ever published, easily weighing a few tons!

    I contacted Ms. Jackson about the project, expressing my interest based on my literary background and love of words. I’ll admit it — I’m the kind of girl that likes to page through the dictionary from time to time. I’m a voracious reader, and my college degree is in English Language and Literature. I’m a fan of literacy, correct spelling, proper punctuation, and good grammar. I appreciate a big vocabulary. I immediately heard back, and I was in. I received a waiver to sign and return (acknowledging the risks of participation and the rules of the project). I sent it back and anxiously awaited the arrival of my word.

     
     
    ABOUT SKIN & SHELLEY JACKSON

    Writer Shelley Jackson invites participants in a new work entitled “Skin.” Each participant must agree to have one word of the story tattooed upon his or her body. The text will be published nowhere else, and the author will not permit it to be summarized, quoted, described, set to music, or adapted for film, theater, television or any other medium. The full text will be known only to participants, who may, but need not choose to establish communication with one another.

    Participants will be known as “words.” Only the death of words effaces them from the text. As words die the story will change; when the last word dies the story will also have died. The author will make every effort to attend the funerals of her words.

    Readers interested in becoming words should visit Shelley Jackson’s website at ineradicablestain.com and visit the “SKIN: A MORTAL WORK OF ART” subpage. There are also additional writings on the page if you’d like to see what she’s all about first. As of this writing there are still words available.

     

    I spent a lot of time considering what words I might get, and what words I would like. The text of the story is top secret, so I had no idea what words would be available. I knew that some words might have punctuation attached, and some could be offensive or objectionable. The rules for the project explain that a participant can reject his or her assigned word, but they cannot apply for another. You accept the first word, or you don’t participate. I was a little nervous — what if my word was bad? I really wanted to be part of the project, but not at the cost of a tattoo I didn’t really want. It was a long two weeks before I got my word.

    I had decided that the best odds were on an immensely common word, like “a” or “you” or “the.” These simple words are the most commonly used in the English language (just as their counterparts are common in other languages). These words are elegant but overlooked. They are the backbone of every famous book, story, or speech. My inner geek was rather excited by the idea of getting one of these. On the other hand, I supposed I could get something random, like “oven” or “together” or “agronomy.” Since I don’t know what’s in the story, I could imagine any number of words that could turn up!

    The envelope arrived at long last. I wished one last time for a truly great word, and opened it. It was as I had expected — I received “the.” I assume that many people got a “the,” or an equally common word. The story probably contains hundreds of these words. We could form a “the” club!

    When I mentioned this to other people, I got very mixed reactions. Some people were interested, most were surprised, and a good number had some misgivings about getting a tattoo of the word “the.” I explained, as best I could, my rationale behind participating and my interest in this particular word. I like “the.” It’s small, short, and even a beginning reader knows what it is. It’s taken for granted and entirely essential. I think it’s a nice-looking word, too.

    The project rules state that the word must be tattooed in a “book font,” so I chose a thick version of Footlight MT Light. I looked at dozens of potential fonts, but this one really appealed to me. I printed out several different sizes and toyed around with placement. Behind an ear? Inside my lip? On my back? I knew that the tattoo would be small, but it doesn’t exactly match anything I have so far. I don’t want to limit my future tattoo plans with one little “the.” I eventually chose a spot between two other tattoos and my scarification, on my left side. There was a little blank space that just called to me, the perfect spot for the tattoo.

    I visited my friend Paul Keplinger at Curious Tattoo in College Park, Maryland, because I knew he’d do a good job (and I love to spend time with him). Paul does quick, solid blackwork — he did some scrollwork down my ribs and it looks great. I really think that just about anyone could pull off these little letters, but Paul seemed like the obvious choice. After explaining the project and the word to Paul (and everyone else in the shop), things were finally coming together. At three small letters, this is the quickest, smallest, and most simple tattoo I have ever gotten. Paul did it with a tiny little liner, and it was done in no time at all. The spot was a little sensitive, and the small liner felt very sharp, but it was through before I could even really start to feel much pain. One spot is a little thick, to compensate for where Paul made me laugh (goddammit), but I don’t think it’s very noticeable to anyone but myself. I think it looks great.


    So now I am “the.” I am a definite article, derived from Old English. I may be small and simple, but you need me. You use me all the time. I give you power, and you give me power. I have become a word.

    saram


    Article by iam:saram. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published online October 10th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

  • Body Modification: Rights & Responsibilities – Through the Modified Looking Glass

    Written by

    BME

    Body Modification:
    Rights & Responsibilities

    The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.

    – H. L. Mencken

    They are not out to get you. They already have you.

    You have no rights. Rights are nothing more than political contrivances, pure fictions of the system. To believe you have rights is to fall prey to the deception that freedom is derived from government when in fact government exists only to curtail freedom. What rights are provided in a political system may very well be reflective of certain core beliefs or fundamental values of the systems creators put in place to prevent or restrict the system’s regulation of certain areas of activity but those rights exist only as creations of the system. To be truly free one must exist outside of and beyond the reach of any governmental system. Whether or not the current state of the world even allows for this as a possibility is highly debatable. Regardless, very few people are prepared for or even interested in such an existence. To be so free is to be in a very precarious position — it is an existence without the benefits of government in terms of security and infrastructure and one of perceived outcast. So precarious, in fact, that most people upon consideration would prefer to take a degree of security in trade for giving up all but those rights delineated by a government. Would you rather be utterly on your own and completely free or do you prefer having laws and police and hospitals and various agencies for regulation and certification? Could you accept a world where other people do just what they want regardless of your ethical disdain or distaste?


    Rights are never absolute. As they are created by a system that system will always allow for (in practice) the restriction of those rights. There is no conceptual ideal so great as to stop the actual workings of the machine. Go ask any protester in the holding cell if his constitutional right to free speech kept the police from shackling him and dragging him downtown. It may, however, be what eventually gets him out of the cell via the judicial process. Of course, it may not as well. Many times the actual practice of exercising ones rights is strictly limited to an arguably responsible manner. The classic example for free speech is yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. Furthermore, many systems will deny or further restrict the rights of those with a history of ‘irresponsible’ behavior such as convicted felons being denied voting rights or gun ownership.

    So what about body modification? Is it a right? Can it be construed so as to be covered by an existing right in our system of government? Under what pretense does the government regulate and restrict our complete freedom to do what we want with our bodies?

    Freedom of speech, via the First Amendment, is probably the most obvious route towards addressing body modification in a political context — at least in the United States. The First Amendment states:


    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Through practice and interpretation “speech” has come to be seen in a broad context encompassing not just simple speech but also expression. Some have further decided to pro-actively interpret the intent of this amendment as a directive to the government not only to respect the free expression of the people but also to encourage a climate in which the people feel free to express themselves. It is through such policies that we can see the development of a common misconception about the First Amendment. It is meant only to ensure your right to make your speech and not to ensure that you will not be offended by the speech of others. However, in the aggressive efforts of government to satiate ‘squeaky wheels’ we can see them attempting to walk the fine line of restricting the speech of some in order to encourage the speech of others. Very often this is tied to issues of religion, with the dissenting non-believers demanding that all appearance of religious icons and expression be removed from public spaces and forums. I myself am not a believer in any religion and I do find the near constant bombardment I receive from many sources to be offensive. However, in the case of non-state funded or mandated expressions I am far happier putting up with the annoyance of their free speech than I would be attempting to walk on the border of hypocrisy by restricting their religious expressions in order to make me more comfortable in my expressions of non-belief*.

     
    * I would like to note here though that so called ‘moments of silence’ or ‘silent meditation’ are complete bullshit. One need simply ask; ‘On what basis and authority is my speech being restricted to silence in favor of those around me who want to engage in silent prayer? Why am I not allowed to sing or dance or chatter per my want?’ If John wants to have a silent prayer beside me that is his right but it is not his right to have me forcibly silenced.

    In terms of body modification, I think, it is important to realize that if you view your modifications as expressions to be covered by this ‘right’ then you must almost certainly also recognize the right of the person who calls you names to make their expressions of disapproval. And those voicing disapproval should keep in mind that voicing that disapproval comes at the cost of allowing the expression. Surely the ideal of creating an environment in which everyone can make personal expressions without fear or hostility or disapproval is a fine and noble goal but it is also one that fails the test of practicality in a world that contains diverse and often contradictory viewpoints. Furthermore, it should not be viewed as sufficient cause for the restriction of free speech as protected by the First Amendment. But this cuts both ways — just as you should not demand that your expressions through modification not be mocked under the First Amendment, those who disapprove should not be able to restrict your expressions simply because they find them distasteful.

    And, in fact, this is not the traditional justification for such restrictions. The classic example, mentioned above, of screaming fire in a crowded theater is used to illustrate a situation in which the exercise of an individual’s right to free speech deserves to be restricted in that it creates and clear and present danger to the rest of the theatre goers who may be trampled or crushed in a rush to escape the fictitious fire. So, if body modification is a form of expression or speech as covered by the First Amendment then how can it be that the government can restrict or prohibit it via policies and legislation such as school piercing bans and the anti-tongue splitting bills popping up in many states.

    Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.

    – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    In the case of school bans the argument is often made that students, who are often minors, do not enjoy the full rights and benefits of a normal citizen because as such they do have the same responsibilities. As they are not legal adults there are many instances in which they are not held to the same standards, one example would be contract law, as would an adult and since they cannot incur the same penalties for violations, they are not allowed the benefits. Another position is that the school environment represents a context within which there are greater needs at play which supercede those rights. I believe that Shannon more than adequately illustrated how patently false this claim is in his article on school policies. As for the former position, I think it is worth considering the vast difference between something like free expression and things like driving and gun ownership in terms of the needs and benefits of restricting the youth.

    As for legislation such as the anti-tongue splitting bills, I think that as I pointed out in my column on the then pending Illinois legislation, such bills can often be traced to prejudiced politicians attempting to make clearly unconstitutional laws to enforce their prejudices upon others while also doing some self-aggrandizing soap box politics. They look to exploit a sure media draw in the form of body modification in order to further their careers at the expense of the rights of their constituencies.

    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.

    – Henry David Thoreau

    Now let us get a little bit crazy.

    The majority of modification related legislation has little to do with speech or expression in its content or intent. Along with many school level bans it is claimed that the motivation is one of public health and safety. And while many people, modified and not, will support such measures as requiring autoclave testing, gloves, courses in cross contamination and the like it remains to be shown that it is the responsibility and province of the government to put such regulations into place. Such regulations can make the process of getting tattoos or piercings safer but they are also very often used to promote the interests of certain parties or views (i.e. manufacturers of certain products being mandated into use, requiring certifications and memberships from specific associations, or effectively banning tattooing by requiring it be done by a doctor or with a doctor in attendance).

    The government is not concerned with your health and well being as a matter of altruism. It is only concerned with your condition to the extent that a cattle rancher cares about the health of any individual or group of cows within his herd. And much like the rancher, the government takes action to regulate the procedures and hazards to which you are exposed because it owns you and feels that it is simply maintaining and protecting its property.

    You are government property. They have laid claim to you as possession and currency. The slogans may read ‘Hearts and Minds’ but it is the ass they’re really after.

    This is one of the fundamental aspects of the political world. People are resources just like metal deposits, forests, and so on. And similarly, governments lay claims based on their borders or historical precedent (the happenstance of the geography of your birth or your parents citizenship). If anything, people as citizens are the primary operating resource of competing governments. Look at the role of China in international politics over the last century and India’s increased presence — primarily based upon their large populations.

    As such, governments are committed to the management and exploitation of this resource. Some may do so in a more caring way while others may use a Draconian efficiency. However, none will abide the population willfully making its own decisions on matters that affect their value as a resource. Think of the rancher analogy and imagine what steps would be taken towards cattle that display self-destructive or herd disruptive behavior. Now consider government attitudes and actions towards suicide, euthanasia, and to a lesser extent public declarations of self-ownership like many ritual body practices and body modification. Look at the abortion debates, the bottom line has always been one of the government is going to decide what women can legally do with their bodies. The argument of whether or not a procedure is allowed only logically follows after it is conceded that the government gets to make that choice and they get to make that choice because they are the ones that own the bodies.

    I can only hope that this is as offensive to others as it is to me.

    I see two basic ways of dealing with the situation as it stands.

    1. In order to gain more rights and freedom regarding our bodies and body modification it must impressed upon the system the value of allowing such freedom. If it can be shown that body modification can be beneficial then it would behoove the system to allow, if not promote it.
    2. The other option is to get enough people to deny the government’s position and claim to one’s body — to create a herd revolt. On an individual level, making such a denial could be very precarious and anyone choosing to do so should remember that a government is a system rather than a single entity and successfully navigating it on such a dangerous course is dependent upon breaking down and recognizing the individual components and people which make it up and exploiting them directly on that individual basis to the greatest possible extent.

    As always, thank you for hanging in there with my rambling and making it to the end.

  • A 48 hour waiting period for tattoos? [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt


    A 48 hour waiting period for tattoos?


    "Aesthetics are not our concern. If an adult understands, and it's clear that they understand, go do it! You or I may not like it, but the last time I checked this is America!!! Someone who understands what he or she is doing is free to do it."

    – Carl Goodman, Marblehead Board of Health

    The story on the right by Alan Burke appeared in last Friday’s (October 3, 2003) edition of The Salem News in Salem, Mass. Local legislators recently passed regulation instituting a 48 hour waiting period for almost all tattoos and piercings. At first glance, it’s a fascinating concept — kind of an enforced “are you really sure you want this tattoo?” BME caught up with the chairman of the Marblehead Board of Health, Carl Goodman, and talked to him about this unusual legislation and what motivated it.


    Article about 48 hour waiting period

    BME: This is probably the first time in the country any such legislation has been instituted — what made you decide to do it? What was the motivation?

    Carl Goodman

    Goodman: The State had alerted boards of health that we were authorized to regulate and that the State was, again, leaving it to local boards to deal with these issues. I believe it was through the Department of Health that they made some model regulations available for local boards to work with. We looked at it and recognized this is becoming an increasingly common practice and therefore we really needed to address it from a public health perspective. If practitioners chose to operate in Marblehead we wanted to ensure that public health was protected.

    BME: I don’t understand though how the 48 hours does that. You’re quoted as saying that it’ll reduce the number of drunks getting tattoos, but what’s to stop someone from being drunk again 48 hours later?

    Goodman: They certainly can, but at least there’s an opportunity for someone to go “wait… what was I going to do?” It’s really because of the permanency and because it does involve what we consider to be a surgical procedure — and there is no medical professional in attendance. We had no one come forward from the industry when we published our public notice. Had there been someone saying, “hey, could we have an exception if we had a registered nurse in attendance who certified…”, but we didn’t have that. Given that this is a procedure where dyes are applied under the skin, it seemed reasonable to make sure that a customer would be giving clear consent that would be obtained in any medical context.

    BME: Does the legislation also ban tattooing drunk people?

    Goodman: Oh, absolutely!

    BME: So, isn’t the 48 hour thing superfluous? I’m not entirely clear what it’s trying to stop.

    Goodman: I don’t think it’s superfluous. It’s trying to assure that the regulations are complied with, that people have considered whether or not they want to have this permanent procedure performed.

    BME: When they go to the tattoo studio to make their appointment, does the tattoo studio have any requirement to give them any paperwork — how does someone get informed about the risks?

    Goodman: There’s detailed information that the practitioners will be required to give. The regulations provide that the Board of Health will develop the form for consent and notice and so on. Within the regs we’ve listed a number of issues, most of which come out of the model regs — the basic surgical risks, as well as the permanency, and so on. We’ll have all of that available, and those kinds of notices can be amended from time to time by the board so that if issues come up we’ll be able to deal with them and revise as needed.

    This notice will have to be sent to the Health Department.

    BME: Are you saying that all tattoos done in Marblehead have to be registered with the government?

    Goodman: Notice of the tattoo, yes, but not what the specific tattoo is.

    BME: The notice will include their name and identification? And it will have to be filed with the government, not just kept on record by the studio?

    Goodman: Yes, that’s correct.

    BME: Hmm… You’d also said that the 48 hours gives parents a chance to step in?

    Goodman: Well, yes, if you’re dealing with minors then clearly we think it’s in the minor’s best interest that the parent have the opportunity to determine whether or not this invasive procedure is acceptable.

    BME: Most areas restrict tattooing to 18 and over anyway. What’s the age limit in Marblehead?

    Goodman: I don’t think we set a minimum age. It’s not our place to step in and tell parents that they can or can not allow their children to do something, but it is our place to make sure that minors who are undergoing a procedure obtain parental consent. If the parent permits it, that’s an individual family decision. I don’t want to get into that role!

    BME: Will parents have to actually be at the studio?

    Goodman: The parent must sign the consent forms. As in any other situation where parental consent is required, the proprietor of the establishment will have to determine that consent has been legitimately obtained. We don’t specify the parent has to be there, but in any situation where you need to confirm consent, you want to be sure you’ve actually got it!

    BME: You’re quoted as saying there will be severe penalties for violating this 48 hour ban. What are the penalties?

    Goodman: In this case it can be up to loss of license. Alternately, suspension of license or fines. If they continue working without a license, prosecution would follow which would be up to town council. The first thing that would happen is an application for a cease and desist order from the courts.

    BME: Does this waiting period apply to all piercings as well?

    Goodman: There’s an exception in there for single ear piercings with disposable one-time-use tools, for the jeweler that has the sleepers or the gun that does a single pierce…

    BME: Does that mean if a person did an ear piercing with a needle there would be a 48 hour waiting period?

    Goodman: No. Many places will do what’s called a “single pierce” where the entire instrument is disposed of. The routine, traditional ear piercing is excluded, as well as anything of this nature performed by a licensed physician. If you want to have a whole series of holes in the ear, and a physician is going to do that for you, our regulations don’t apply.

    BME: I know that it doesn’t currently have a tattoo studio, but how big is Marblehead?

    Goodman: Marblehead is four square miles with a population under twenty-five thousand. It’s geographically not a location where there’s a high probability that someone would want to practice this art, but as a board of health we wanted to be sure that if someone comes to town that he or she is dealing with the public in a proper way that protects the public health.

    Our role — our obligation — is to protect public health, and that’s what we try to do here. But we haven’t had any bodyart applications for license yet, so I’m not sure that it will ever come up!

    BME: Finally, what did you mean when you said that people having metal objects protrude from themselves wasn’t a public health issue?

    Goodman: The aesthetics are not a public health issue is what I meant. Whether or not I personally like a particular kind of body art — the aesthetic issue — has nothing to do with public health. I personally may have some opinion, but that doesn’t enter into the public health issue. The public health issue is the conditions under which this is done, that it’s sanitary, that the practitioner has a certain level of competence, and that the individuals undergoing the procedure are aware and understand the surgical risks and other attendant risks associated with the procedure.

    Aesthetics are not our concern. If an adult understands, and it’s clear that they understand, go do it! You or I may not like it, but the last time I checked this is America!!! Someone who understands what he or she is doing is free to do it.

    This is Marblehead. We believe in independence.

    So there you have it, straight from the source. Personally I wish everyone would self-impose a 48 hour waiting period (at least) on any such decision, but I’m not entirely sure that I’m comfortable being forced by the government to do so, let alone filing my name with them when I do so. At the same time, we all know that many tattoo studios, especially the less established or lower-end ones survive off of “walk-in” appointments where a person wanders in off the street and leaves with a tattoo an hour or two later. How eliminating this sector will affect the business is difficult to predict, but given the permanence of tattoos, one has to ask oneself whether it is ethical to tattoo a person that wouldn’t want that tattoo 48 hours later.

    Goodman was very clear that these regulations are up for revision, and that he understand that not everyone sees the posted legal notices. Anyone, especially those in the area, are always welcome to visit or contact the Board of Health (at 781-631-0212) and discuss the issues, and they are willing to work with studios (should they ever open in Marblehead) to fine-tune these regulations to serve the public good.

    We should also look at some important nuances in both Goodman’s statements, and in the regulations themselves. Other than the waiting period, one of the things that sets Marblehead’s regulations apart is the empowerment of parents. A majority of areas are restricting tattooing to 18 and over, regardless of the parent’s wishes — Marblehead leaves that power in the right place (the individual or their guardian), whereas too many governments have seized it for themselves. In addition, Goodman, who personally does not like tattoos or piercings — going so far as to avoid shopping at stores where he’s going to have to come in contact with it — still stands vehemently behind the credo of “I may not like what you’re doing, but I support your right to do it” (in 48 hours that is).

    Correction: Mr. Goodman wrote us to clarify, “while you are right that I am personnaly not a fan of body art, the Evening News while generally correct, at least in
    substance, on its quotes, did not correctly quote me in the last paragraph. What I said in response to Mr. Burke’s question about seeing people with multiple facial piercings was that I know some people try to avoid shopping in certain establsihments …. I actually wouldn’t modify my shopping patterns because of a clerk’s appearance, although I certainly have would because of a clerk’s attitutde!”

    In addition it should be noted that State law in Mass bans anyone under the age of 18 from being tattooed, so Marblehead’s lack of legislation in that area does not mean that minors are permitted, even with parental consent.

    BME will continue to follow this story — if similar regulations are passed in your area, let us know!


    Shannon Larratt
    BMEzine.com

  • Does your kanji tattoo mean what you think it does? [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt


    20 KANJIS:

    Does your kanji tattoo mean what you think it does?


    Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he has been born - the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things.

    – Aldous Huxley

    I hear people say all the time that the sheets of kanji (“Japanese writing”) that you see in tattoo studios aren’t accurate… that your tattoo of “beautiful soul” more likely actually means something along the lines of “very good sushi”. With the aid of Dita, webmaster of BMEJapan.com, I chose twenty random tattoos from the BME galleries and asked her what they actually meant.

    Tattoo Meaning
    They say it means: “To be different”

    Actual meaning: “Difference” — the tense isn’t quite right, but it’s close at least — difference and different are pretty similar.

    They say it means: “Mad power”

    Actual meaning: “Crazy force” — translating slang is going to be vague at best. Literally it’s probably as close as you’re going to get in two characters, but will it be understood?

    They say it means: “Within the depths of sorrow, there is joy”

    Actual meaning: “Withing the depths of sorrow there is true joy”. Done perfectly — maybe quoting from a Japanese calendar is a good idea!

    They say it means: “Extreme change”

    Actual meaning: “Strange weird” — I’d say that’s a “no match”…

    They say it means: “Taurus”

    Actual meaning: The symbol on the left appears to be “big”, and the one on the right isn’t even Kanji…. So who knows what or if it actually means anything. I’d just tell people it’s a Blair Witch tattoo.

    They say it means: “Modified Soul”

    Actual meaning: “Modified Soul” (you thought this one was going to be wrong, didn’t you, but it turns out Dita translated it for the wearer!)

    They say it means: “Without a friend in the world”

    Actual meaning: This is a well known expression; “no-win situation”. I suppose one could sort of say it means the same thing, but hey, only James Tiberius Kirk can win the Kobayashi Maru.

    They say it means: “Stylish”

    Actual meaning: Not only does this not say “stylish”, but it doesn’t even really say anything — the stencil was put on backwards so it’s reversed. Were it not reversed it would say “dream”.

    They say it means: “Depression”

    Actual meaning: This is actually a Chinese character which means “collapse”.

    They say it means: “Drunk”

    Actual meaning: “Drunk” (and very nicely brushed too!)

    They say it means: “Soulmates”

    Actual meaning: “Soul” — which no more means “soulmates” than “to masturbate” means “to have sexual intercourse”.

    They say it means: “I’m a stupid round-eye”

    Actual meaning: “Stupid foreigner” or baka gaijin!

    They say it means: “Pistol”

    Actual meaning: “Pistol”

    They say it means: “Naughty girl”

    Actual meaning: This appears to say “closed-minded woman”. Not only is the grammar attrocious — these symbols shouldn’t be used together like this — but it also means pretty much the opposite of what they thought.

    They say it means: “Enlightenment”

    Actual meaning: “Enlightenment”

    They say it means: “To thine own self be true”

    Actual meaning: “To thine own self be true”

    They say it means: “Mike”

    Actual meaning: This is not actually kanji, but katakana. Literally it means “Ma-i-ku”, the closest translation of “Mike”.

    They say it means: “Sworn brothers”

    Actual meaning: “Adopted brother” — given the context (about a dozen friends all got this tattoo together) it probably makes sense.

    They say it means: “Independent woman”

    Actual meaning: It does mean “independent woman”, but the grammar is really. These characters shouldn’t be used together like this, but the meaning still comes across.

    They say it means: “Winter blizzard”

    Actual meaning: “Winter snow wind”

    It’s important to also add that kanji characters gain a lot of their meaning from context (that is, how they’re used, what letters they’re around, and so on). Because of that, it’s difficult to accurately translate single-character kanjis because they don’t have a context.

    In any case, yes, I realize this is the most “fluff” piece I have ever written, but I hope you enjoyed it. I suppose I could go on with explanations of how to find kanji meanings and so on, but it should be obvious: learn to read and write Japanese!

    Personally I wouldn’t get something that I didn’t understand first hand tattooed on me, but if you decide to go for kanji and don’t read it yourself, at least do yourself the favor of asking someone you trust for help.

    Sincerely,

    Shannon Larratt
    BMEzine.com

  • Robert Dill and his Anti-American Mission [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt


    Robert Dill and his Anti-American Mission


    Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.

    – John Adams, 1765

    Jodi Faltin, a fourteen year old grade nine student was recently suspended from school in Blairsville RD because of her eyebrow ring. Her parents went to the school board and stressed that she was a bright student and that they, as her parents, felt that she should be allowed to wear the ring if she wanted to. The school board didn’t budge, and she remains suspended as long as she wears the eyebrow ring.

    As I’m mentioning news items, I’d also like to bring up the popular television show American Idol. In a recent article in the Tri-Valley Herald, the following rule is mentioned:

    “Some people waiting to get into the park spent their time reading the rules, which said contestants must be 16 to 24 years old on Aug. 3, 2003, and that anyone with visible tattoos would be kicked out. That sent at least one young woman with ankle ink scurrying to the parking lot to get ‘concealer, socks, pants, whatever …’ from her car.”

    Banning of tattoos for musicians? Given that, oh, 99% of pop stars and rock musicians are tattooed, these rules not only seem repressive, but actually bizarre. Clearly having a tattoo does not damage a musical career, and if anything is representative of the type of individual who’s able to excel in that lifestyle — so we must ask ourselves, if the purpose of American Idol is not to choose the best potential pop star, what is its purpose?

    Is American Idol just another tool in the hands of the mega-corporations in the creation of consumer slaves that all look and think the same?