BME: Body Modification Ezine

A tattooed person suspends from hooks, laying flat, one leg higher than the other. Their head is back, and they seem to be smiling, dark hair dangling like an anime character.

Celebrating body modification culture since 1994.

Category: Features

  • Regulation: Attacks from Within? [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt

    Regulation: Attacks from Within?

    “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft a-gley,
    An’ Lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain / For promis’d joy.”

    – Robert Burns

    Over the past six months I’ve been contacted by an increasing number of piercers and amateur activists complaining of perceived problems in the piercing industry, and seeking my help in pushing through regulations of various kinds to combat them. Most of these piercers are talented and experienced and often some of the best in the industry. While being very clear that I’m not attacking them, but simply their methods, what I’d like to show in this column is that while their actions are well-meaning, they are ultimately misguided and perhaps even destructive to the body modification community.

    The first thing that should be addressed is that the piercing industry is only a very small part of the (atypical) body modification community. The piercing industry represents the commercial application of a very small subset of this community’s interests and because of it being a mass-market commercial application, there are certain incompatibilities, since one is built around the individual, and the other around larger issues such as public safety, contract law, and business ethics… all concepts which often run contrary to the extremist individual freedoms embraced by those drawn to atypical body modification, as well as the ever broadening freedoms being demanded by modern societies.

    The big first question from my point of view is “why now?”

    Why wasn’t the piercing community aggressively pushing for regulation five or ten years ago? At its simplest, the golden age of piercing is over. Five years ago shops regularly had “thousand dollar days” and there was more than enough business to go around. In 2003, competition is heavy, the market is saturated, and profit margins are lower and lower. Aging piercers are realizing that they’ve been putting long hours into what may be a dead-end job, and are asking themselves what the future holds — and how they can secure that future.

    It’s expensive to run a good shop. Customers are rarely willing to pay more for high quality jewelry, and far too few are even willing to discriminate by the safety practices of the studio. As such, with pricing being equal, the better a studio is, the less money its owners and staff take home with them. It’s very easy for unscrupulous studios to legally undercut prices by reducing quality and seize a significant market share in exchange for cutting corners and providing substandard service — but let’s face it — that’s true in every industry, and it’s what makes capitalism work!

    In response, a number of well-meaning good piercers are trying to push through regulation that would force every studio to conform to their tightly bordered and high-end standards. Much of the time this is accomplished by pointing out the many problems that arise from not maintaining those standards — slightly elevated (but still very manageable) rates of infection and complication, more young people with piercings (as if that’s a bad thing), and so on. This is further sought by publishing “scare articles”, citing their qualifications as required knowlege (nursing skills, CPR courses, and so on; all excellent knowledge to have as a piercer, but whether it’s required is very much up for debate), and generally using an approach of attacking others (often validly) to make themselves look better.

    In light of recent attention by the mainstream media on procedures such as tongue splitting, others will make extremely negative statements about heavy mods and the artists that embrace them in an attempt to make themselves appear more responsible. I suppose they feel that painting others in the most dangerous, frightening, and irresponsible manner will make them appear more responsible to the mainstream in juxtaposition.

    Problem is, that doesn’t work.

    First of all, we need to realize that the majority of politicians (and media) are not involved in the body modification community and often don’t like piercing and see it with a preexisting set of prejudices. As such, they won’t see any juxtaposition of “high quality” versus problem studios — they will simply see the problems and, like all bigots, stereotype our entire community by the acts of the worst of the bunch.

    Second of all, we need to acknowledge that there is no central professional organization of piercers for regulators to work with in drafting balanced legislation. While groups such as the APP have made excellent progress over the last decade, they still represent only a very tiny percentage of piercers. Almost all attempts to form such organizations have eventually degraded to infighting and apathy.

    Because of those two factors, much of the political action on piercing is either pushed through by a individual piercers who don’t represent the industry on the whole, or, worse yet, by politicians working with doctors who don’t have any comprehension of or sympathy for atypical body modification. When this occurs we tend to see things much like gay sex laws — heterosexual sex is typically legal at 16, with homosexual sex not becoming legal until 18, and we see piercing being restricted to 18 even though cosmetic surgery is permitted at 16. In addition, we tend to end up with tightly defined rules which restrict jewelry use, procedures, and even aftercare to only one possibility. Since piercing is still very much evolving and improving, locking its growth like this is a potentially harmful act, and tends to restrict valid and sometimes even superior methods — as illustrated by some areas’ bans on dermal punches, scalpels, and other needle alternatives.

    We also need to recognize that what an industry perceives as being right for it is not always right for the surrounding community (or from the industry’s point of view, the customer). The actions of groups like the RIAA are good examples of that of course, where we are watching a power shift from the music listener and the musician to the corporate distribution channels.

    So what should we do? How can we ensure a high quality piercing industry that encourages the growth of the body modification community, gives consumers a range of options, while still ensuring basic safety?

    Now, I’m not about to propose that this should be an absolutely unregulated industry; simply that we need to balance individual freedoms and public safety. Clearly we need to ensure minimum standards as far as sterility goes and making certain that regulation controlling contamination are adhered to — no studio has a right to willfully and negligently endanger its clients. I’m happy to say that a growing majority of jurisdictions have already enacted such laws covering piercing studios, nail salons, dentists offices, and so on. I am fully in support of such laws. They restrict no one’s freedoms and simply increase the safety level.

    My focus with BME will continue to be education over regulation. This is why I dedicate resources to developing FAQ documents, BME/Risks, and work to get qualified authors writing columns. An educated consumer base will make the decisions that it sees fit for itself — and we do have the right to purchase low quality product should we choose to. After all, assuming base standards are in place, the worst that can occur from a lower-end studio under normal circumstances is a small scar. Given that we allow — and even encourage — the consumption of junk food and candy by even young children, thereby damning them to live in the most obese and unhealthy culture in human history (in effect allowing corporations to market a product that shaves 15 years or more off a person’s life), it seems somewhat hypocritical to suggest that we should restrict piercing to only the most conservative, limited, and safe options?

    As far as age standards go — and we do need to strike a balance between the rights of parents, the rights of youths, protecting against predatory piercers, while making sure not to fall prey to ageism — we must create them in context with other age restrictions. It’s too easy to allow politicans to force into place high age restrictions as a shallow cover for an attempt to ban and keep piercings out of schools and so on. We allow youths to sign for surgery and drive at 16. We allow youths to sign for abortions without parental consent at as young as 14. We allow marriage and sex at 16 in most areas, and we even allow firearms to be owned by teens… If we are then to restrict piercing to 18, we need to justify how piercing is more dangerous than these acts and why comprehending them is out of the range of a young person’s ability. From my point of view piercing is a safe and excellent way for young people to practice independence and responsibility, and I worry that when we spend so much effort telling young people that they are immature that they will be utterly unprepared for the world when they reach adulthood.

    I mentioned earlier that I believe informed consumers can make a good decision. Because of that, one type of regulation that I would like to see in place is disclosure laws. We require food manufacturers to place ingredients and nutritional information on the packaging in order to allow consumers to make an informed decision. We require auto manufacturers to disclose pollution and mileage data. Why should piercing studios not be required to state what material their jewelry is manufactured from? Without this information, the average consumer can’t tell if they are being sold a $1 mass-manufactured barbell made of cheap low-grade steel, or whether it’s a $20 piece of “implant grade” jewelery — while the vast majority of people can heal a piercing just fine with the cheap stuff, it will take a bit longer, the complication rate will be a fraction higher, and some people will have reactions. Certainly someone should have a right to choose that path, but I do not believe that a studio has the right to surreptitiously impose that path on unwitting customers.

    Ultimately though there is only one way to guarantee a high quality industry: Consumers must, on their own, decide to support high quality studios. Poor quality studios don’t thrive in a vacuum — they thrive because of their large customer base. If you’re reading this, you probably have the knowledge required to judge which studios in your area are the good ones. Tell your friends. Write experiences about them. Tell the piercers why you go to their studio and not another, and tip them appropriately. People have a choice in life — all of our laws make it clear that we believe as a culture that people have a right to make bad decisions and purchase an ill-advised product should they choose to. Why should piercing be different? Are we really comfortable with ours being the one industry that’s tightly restricted and dictated by the whims of politicians?

    To the piercers who are pushing for these laws, while I applaud what you are attempting to achieve (a high quality industry), I hope you consider that your actions may not achieve your goals, and could in fact have the opposite effect. There are better ways. Make sure that when you push for regulation and make public comment, you push for minimum standards and disclosure laws, and not for self-serving regulation that may come back to haunt us all, and that you respect the right of others to make their own informed decisions, even if you disagree.

    Thank you,


    Shannon Larratt

    BME.com

  • What is ‘Body Modification’? Part One – Through the Modified Looking Glass

    Written by

    BME

    ‘Body Modification’?


    Interviewer: So why do people get tattoos?

    Me: There are probably at least as many reasons as there

       are tattoos.

    Interviewer: Yes, but generally why?

    Me: Because people modify their bodies.

    Interviewer: Some people.

    Me: All people.

    Interviewer: Not everyone gets pierced or tattooed.

    Me: They all do something; haircuts, make up… even clothing
       changes the way in which your body looks and moves

    Interviewer: But those things aren’t permanent.

    Me: So temporary body modification isn’t body modification?

       That doesn’t make much sense…

    The above is paraphrased but pretty accurate and has actually occurred more than a few times. It is probably a good example of me trying to be a smart-ass; it is also what brings me to this:

    The term ‘body modification’ has popularly come to refer to a loosely grouped set of practices — tattooing, piercing, branding, scarification — and it is usually with this pop meaning in mind that the common question “Why do people modify their bodies?” is asked. The problem here is that the question being asked is significantly different than the question that is very likely intended: “Why do people modify their bodies with tattoos, piercings, and so on?”

    The former is a general question about the human experience and motivation while the latter is one that develops out of the first and looks only to particular methodologies. By analogy, to ask the former is as if to ask, “Why do people compete?”, and the latter, “Why do people race cars?” Part of the reason I think that people are often mystified by why someone would modify their body is because they have gotten tied up in the idea that this one particular usage is the pure definition of what is body modification. So then, what is body modification if not just these or similar procedures?

    Most of the discussions I have encountered concerning what does and does not count as body modification have born a great resemblance to the debates which occupied a large portion of my academic career over whether or not something was art. In the case of debates over art, it can often be shown that what is actually being argued is not whether or not something is art but rather whether or not something is good or bad art. Obviously, according to most theories of art, whether or not a piece is possessed of any great talent or merit is not what determines if it is art. That is to say, even though it may suck, even though you hate it — it is still art.

    In the case of body modification I have found that what is often at stake is not really whether or not something is or isn’t body modification but rather whether or not it is the sort of body modification that is of concern to the parties engaged in the debate. For instance, is hair dyeing body modification? In that it is an alteration of the body it would seem that hair dyeing is body modification on its face. However, since it is not permanent and because it falls (depending on the color) well within acceptable practices many people will claim that it is not body modification. Much of these debates focused upon what other terms would be assumed to be built into or implied in their use of the term body modification. On a practical level this is often expected and quite essential. It is common to use a specified definition for purposes of certain discussions (BME is a fine example of this in its motivation and choice of what it considers body modification for content inclusion) but that definition should not be mistaken for or masqueraded as exclusive or complete.

    Body modification as it is commonly used today is a fairly recent introduction to our language and seems to have emerged mainly from the communities that practice it as described. And it is within these communities that I have been able to find the most common adoption of the term and debate over its definition. The other place in which I was most readily able to find the term applied was in anthropology — where it is often used in a very broad fashion.

    Anthropologically speaking, the term is taken at nearly face value. It is applied in most any case where the body of a person is in some way altered — from hair styles and body painting to skull shaping. The interesting (and important) thing about this is that taken in this way there is no record of any human culture or society without practice(s) of body modification. And it is for precisely this reason that I support some of the broadest possible interpretations of what is body modification.

    I do this because it helps to break down the artificial barrier between the modified and the un-modified. I am fond of pointing out that we are all individuals whether we like it or not. By our very nature we are different from one another but there are also many shared qualities. In embracing our own unique stature I think that it is important that we do not needlessly create the perception of even more difference. If body modification is something we all engage in, in one form or another, then there are no un-modified people.

    From this point, we may find a better way for those who do not choose certain forms of modification to understand the motivations of those who do. If the person who shaves, manicures, and is possibly considering a nose-job learns to see tattooing or tongue splitting as simply an alternative example of the same general behavior (modifying the body) that they themselves engage in, it may become less mystifying to them. In fact, body modification taken as part of the overall effort to intentionally create the image that others perceive when they apprehend you — especially in an effort to better express one’s self — is something that I think most people would readily accept as the sanest and most rationale thing in which a person can engage.




    Erik Sprague

    because the world NEEDS freaks…

    Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more?

    Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published June 10th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

  • Is getting a BME tattoo lame? [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt

    Is getting a BME tattoo lame?

    “To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting.”

    – E.E. Cummings

    One of the things that BME preaches rather endlessly is a doctrine of individuality, self-expression, and self-determination, and when people ask my advice on tattoos I always urge them to get custom work and never copy someone else’s tattoo. Because of that, I am regularly asked what I think of people who choose to tattoo the BME logo on them. Short answer: Personally, I think it’s awesome, and very much in line with my general ideology on tattoos.

    The tattoo section of BME also has a gallery of music related tattoos, largely images of band logos. While I suppose it’s very valid for a fan who feels that a band is an important part of their life to commemorate that with a tattoo, I don’t see that getting a BME tattoo is quite the same thing. A band is special because of the creative expression of the people in the band that is then enjoyed by the “fans”. BME on the other hand is special because of the creative expression of an entire subculture which is then appreciated by that subculture (and the mainstream world).

    To put it another way, getting a tattoo of a band logo is an act of appreciation for the work of another person — saying “your music is important in my life” — whereas getting a BME logo tattoo is an act of appreciation for the work that we all did together. The vast majority of people who’ve chosen to mark themselves with the “BME4LIFE” message are regular contributors to BME, and can validly say that they helped create BME. More so than saying “I love Grobschnitt” or “Eloy Rules!”, a BME tattoo says, “I love myself. I’m proud of who I am, and I care about my family.”

    Short of choosing the life of a sociopath, even the most individualistic people have family and community, not just by birth, but in modern times they also have the one they chose for themselves.

    Most cultural groups develop iconography to identify and league themselves in a form that has meaning to them. Scottish tartans — the striped and checked patterns which represent different Scottish clans — date back nearly two millennia, and have evolved over time both to reflect both new manufacturing technologies and cultural and political changes such as clan intermarriage. With just a scrap of fabric from a person’s tartan it can be possible to identify where they are from, who they are related to, and in some cases even what they do for a living. Because of a ban on the tartan in the 18th century in an attempt to kill off the culture, coupled with modern commercialization, the direct significance of patterns is certainly up for debate, but the underlying drive is not. The heraldry of European families also illustrates similar motivations.

    African scarification in different regions is well defined and carries a very specific set of iconography as well. While it’s dying out quickly, by the marks on a person’s body you can tell where they’re from, who their family are, and what point in their life they’re at. Maori facial tattooing serves a very similar purpose, signifying both individualism, allegiance to a certain tribal group, and as a marking of social status — with the lowest people not being tattooed at all (as they effectively had no identity).

    The notion that body modification is an important part of defining one’s identity is far from unique — I’d go so far as to say it’s nearly universal. The Greek historian Herodotus wrote in the 5th century BC of the Thracians (who lived in what is now Turkey and Bulgaria), “to have punctures on their skin is with them a mark of nobility; to be without these is a testimony of mean descent.” Nearly every culture has at one point in their history used permanent markings to signify both individual identity and group identity.

    It’s also not an expired idea in any way — gang tattoos, fraternity brands, and BME tattoos are all permanent body marks that involve both an act of individualism and an integration into a specific tribe by embracing and personalizing its shared symbols. When a person marks themselves with any of these they’re not simply making an esthetic statement, nor are they bowing down before an idol. They are glorifying themselves and what they stand for and what they work toward in life.

    So to return to the question of why a person who encourages individualism and discourages copying others ideas as one’s own would support tattooing a “website’s logo”, I say that a BME tattoo, assuming that it is in the context I’ve described here (and I really believe it almost always is), does in fact achieve those goals. It’s not just a tattoo of a pretty picture; it’s a tattoo of an idea.

    If BME has played the catalyst in bringing about someone’s emancipation from the shackles of conformity and somehow helped them “be themselves”, then I can’t imagine how signifying that with a shared symbol of the people who collectively fight for that is anything but wonderful, beautiful, and meaningful.


    Shannon Larratt

    BME.com

    PS. If you want a BME tattoo yourself, first and foremost remember that it’s your tattoo and your symbol. Don’t be afraid to alter it and fine-tune it (or not) to reflect your own feelings and interests and thoughts. Don’t be afraid to integrate it into other pieces (one of my favorite BME tattoos is one where a BME head was put on the end of a staff in a larger tattoo) and always remember: you built this site… It’s not just a trademark of a website — it’s an icon of a subculture with a set of shared values and beliefs and activities.

  • By Way of Introduction – Through the Modified Looking Glass

    Written by

    BME

    By Way of Introduction
     

    According to custom, something like this would have been my first installment for Through the Modified Looking Glass, wherein I explain my choice of column title, plans for future subject matter, and background. The problem with that is that I have always felt such pieces tend to be cop-outs which avoid a true effort. And while I try to maintain a familiarity and respect for custom, I quite often find myself circumventing it. So, as a sort of additional piece for this month I will do the classic ‘intro’.

    First, why ‘Through the Modified Looking Glass’? The reference is, mostly, obvious — if not cliché. I am, as it happens, a Lewis Carroll fan but the greater motivation behind my choice is the use of the looking glass reference by another tattooed sideshow aficionado and performer: Mike Wilson. In his interview that appeared in Modern Primitives, Wilson describes the idea of becoming heavily tattooed:


    "...signifying a possible way of going through the looking glass for me to achieve a whole other frame of reference, and to elicit experiences beyond the 'normal'... presenting yourself as a signal beacon drawing things to happen to you."

     

    I shared with Mike some similar influences — surrealism and circus sideshow history so it’s not surprising that we also held some similar views. In fact, this was as close to some of my own ideas and inspirations for my transformation project as I had ever seen expressed by another. I only first saw the interview in 1995 and through my own carelessness for not taking advantage of opportunities I missed my chances to meet Mike in person before his untimely death. I have since come to know some of his friends and colleagues from Coney Island and the title of this column is in part an homage as well as an expression of that shared notion. I like to think too, that Mike as a performer realized one of my own personal joys of the stage and being a tattooed man – taking others through the glass for awhile just by being part of their day.

    That is the story, for what it’s worth, of the title. But what do I actually intend do to do with this pulpit? Well, as evidenced by the first installment, The [Modified] Body Politic, some subjects will choose me and simply demand to be addressed. In the absence of such ready made topics in the future I hope to address and give an accounting of the land I find through this modified looking glass and that others may report discovering through their experiences with me. I will also attempt to put some use to the formal training I have had as a philosopher by examining concepts and terms like ‘body modification’. I would also suggest to anyone who has a topic they would like to see here that they contact me via my IAM page or email. And of course, feedback is always welcome.

    Now then, you may be asking ‘So, who the hell are you anyway?’ Well, my given name is Erik Michael Sprague but I am far better known these days as The Lizardman. I was born on Fort Campbell, KY in 1972. My mother is an elementary school teacher and my father works both as a high school teacher and a mountain warfare instructor for the military. Growing up, they always encouraged me and told me I could do whatever I wanted — I took them seriously. And so, using the tools they provided me with in my upbringing and thanks to the support of them, my younger sister, and many dear friends I did what I wanted: I became a performance artist. A professional freak. Along the way I have worked a myriad of jobs (lifeguard, farmhand, karate instructor, warehouse crew, bartender, college instructor, and many more) and picked up a degree in philosophy (I abandoned my doctoral thesis to devote my time fully to myself as an artist). Currently, I live with my girlfriend, Meghan, in Austin, TX with one snake and three ferrets when I am not traveling the world speaking and performing. My modifications, rituals, and experiments are documented here on BME as well as on my own pages. Ultimately, I hope that through this column I will find another way to express and develop ideas and to make a contribution that others will find in some way worthwhile.



    Erik Sprague

     

    because the world NEEDS freaks…

    Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more?

    Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published May 24th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

     

     

  • Beauty: Eye of the Beholder? – Fakir Rants & Raves

    Written by

    BME

    Beauty: Eye of the Beholder?

    “The body belongs to the spirit that lives inside. And to no one else.”

    Greetings

    Welcome to my new column. It’s a genuine pleasure to be a contributor to BME online news for “we the alternative people”. After fifty years of research, my own personal explorations and the mentoring of hundreds of others, I feel obligated to share with all those special persons “who hear the sound of a different drummer.” So every month now, look for this column where I will bring you a mix of news, views and hopefully information that will empower and help you further your own passions. I welcome challenges and questions to answer in the column. So feel free to write me about whatever moves you. As an “old dad” in the body modification movement, I hope to offer this column as a clearing house for new ideas/adventures and hopefully a place to moderate some of the conflicting views that often plague us.

    The subject of this first column is inspired by my recent experience with a new television show now in production. The show is a series being called Eye of the Beholder in which the host, Serena Yang, is traveling all over the world to film and interview people who are different — from the moko mark revival devotees of New Zealand to gothic corset wearers in San Francisco to body piercing and tattoo fans in the U.S., Canada and Europe. The series, which will air on Discovery Channel in 2004, has an interesting and intelligent slant. Its theme is exploration of the question: What is Beauty?

    Serena interviewed me in depth in May 2003. She will continue interviewing folks of our ilk at the coming APP conference in Las Vegas. She is a sharp and perceptive interviewer who honed her skills interviewing such celebrities as B.B King, Carlos Santana, Ravi Shankar, Martin Scorsese, Robert DeNiro, Robert Redford, Harrison Ford and Sean Penn among others. She has a passion to ask why one does what they do. She has said of herself, “the value of listening to these people is a continuing education for me … the reward is coming away from each person with a wider vision of the times we live in, the issues we need to explore and the choices we can make.”

    So with that introduction, I spoke at length to Serena about Modern Primitives, body modification, body rituals, spirituality and similar topics during my May piercing school. She asked good questions and many of them started my mental processes whirling. I began to ask myself questions like: “what really differentiates the visual impact of one body alteration from another”, or “is there a universal, cross-cultural way to gauge the significance of a beauty ideal”? After the interview, Serena came very close to surrendering to our persistent Intensive instructors about having her nipples pierced. We’ll get her next time!


    Intensives instructor Tod Almighty meets Serena Yang of Discovery Channel
    Tod tries to convince Serena to get her nipples pierced.

    For my next shoot with Discovery Channel, at Dark Garden Corsets, Serena did allow herself to get involved in a bodymod. Fakir laced her rapidly into a tiny corset with a twenty-inch waist. She reeled about, spun on high heels, panted and was totally delighted with the sensation and look. She emailed me today:

    "Good to see you again last week and experience your corsets first hand! I am a corset convert now, thanks to you! I've always liked them from a fashion standpoint, but now I can appreciate them on all their myriad levels."

    The Price of Beauty

    Getting down to brass tacks (which are sometimes lovely to sit on), many of us are obsessed with being different, looking different, expressing our differences. Yes? Why are we doing this? What is the payoff? These are the kinds of questions Serena asked me in our interviews. They made me think. What is the Essence of Beauty anyway? What’s the payoff? What are we, or anyone in any other culture, after by making a body alteration?

    First it seems obvious we wish to satisfy our own vision of ourselves, how we look and feel to ourselves. And second, and probably more important, we wish to look “beautiful” to others. Of course we must realize some “others” may have different ideas of what is beautiful and claim ownership of what is not rightfully theirs. For example, take the proposed legislative ban on tongue splitting in Illinois. And we know that most of the “others” in our culture are programmed and conditioned to certain fixed notions that may conflict with our own. And that they often try to take our bodies from us — act like they have the right to claim possession of what is ours for “God” and his emissaries, or parents and spouses, or governmental and correctional agencies, or educational and medical institutions. But we know better. The body belongs to the spirit that lives inside. And to no one else.

    So in context of any immediate or intimate group that accepts the truth that the body belongs to the one living inside it, the payoff often seems to be to “Stand Out in the Crowd”, to be unique, to be special, to be noticed in that group. This part of the “beauty ideal” seems to be universal in all cultures. In many tribal cultures I have studied, certain members of the tribe either volunteered or were selected by elders to be modified. Example: the young males of New Guinea known as Ibitoe whose septums were pierced for large spikes and whose waists were systematically reduced to wasp-like proportions with tight belts. They were special in their communities, honored, revered. Same goes for women in Africa whose lips were pierced and enlarged to hold huge plates. The larger the plate, the more beautiful. And the Padung women of Burma/Thailand with their giraffe necks stretched to ten inches or more.

    So now in the mixed contemporary culture in which we live, there are conflicting standards about beauty and the way it is achieved. On the one hand there is a passion to conform to certain popular beauty ideals by “quick fixes”: injections of botox or collagen, plastic surgery like liposuction or breast implants that make a rapid physical alteration. Or the taking of pills to do this or that with the body without external effort. On the other hand, a different kind of logic rules in those who modify their body in more difficult, more time consuming and more deliberate ways via tattooing, body building, piercing enlargement, corseting and similar practices. I guess that’s most of us. Yes?

    So on a universal scale, what are some of the standards by which mankind has cross-culturally gauged the relative value of beauty? How do we rate beauty’s significance on a scale of 1 to 10? After collecting information on hundreds of examples of body mods in different cultures, including our own subculture, this is what I discovered:

    • In general, the more effort, time, discipline, persistence, patience and physical hardship that was endured to make the alteration, the more precious it is rated, the more it is honored, the more beautiful it is.
    • The more the alteration sets one apart from those surrounding him or her,
      even if others also have the alteration, the higher it is rated in the group which generally prizes rarity.
  • Beauty is perceived more as difference than conformity; when too many members of a group have the same alteration, it drops in value.
  • To illustrate the reality of these principles in contemporary circumstances, here are a few examples. A woman with a sixteen-inch corseted waist is more apt to “stand out” in a crowd than a woman with silicon breast implants (unless they are as big as watermelons). Point is you can’t have that small a waist by taking a pill or a quick slice of the knife. It takes time. Or you have the buff male body builder on the beach. He is always going to draw more admiration than the guy with a fake tan, snappy clothes and plastic surgery. And in our own world of body mods, we often get more and more radical piercings and tattoos so we stand out from others — keep pressing limits to achieve or maintain beauty status within our group.

    • How would you rate these body modifiers on a universal Scale of 1 to 10?

    Erica
    Sheryl
    Fakir

    Value Added

    So far in this column, I have been examining only one aspect of what’s involved with alterations of the body (what I call “Body Play”): a specific aspect labeled BEAUTY. But “beauty” only deals with the aesthetic side of life, the part of us that dwells in the five-sense world, only relevant with other people. How about the deeper side of us that operates in the “invisible world”? How about the inner emotions, feelings, spirit and energy that animates the body? Or going one step further, how about unseen forces and beings that may dwell outside the body and influence or be influenced by what is happening within body? What if body rituals dealing with the unseen world somehow play a bigger role in our life journey than those so obvious to the five senses? Body rituals like cutting, ball dances, suspensions or hook pulling? Or what if our energy added to such a “gift” delivered under hardship to an unseen deity or archetype adds value to the gift in such a way that we receive a very special blessing in return? That’s what they practice in Hindu Culture in body rites and festivals like Thaipusam.

    The aspects of body alteration dealing with unseen forces and energies will be the subject of my next column. It will be called Body Play: State of Grace or Sickness. Again I will focus on the cultural conflicts we are all facing when we give in to our passions.

    Yours for more beauty in the world and less struggle,


    Fakir Musafar
    fakir at bodyplay dot com


    Fakir Musafar is the undisputed father of the Modern Primitives movement and through his work over the past 50 years with PFIQ, Gauntlet, Body Play, and more, he has been one of the key figures in bringing body modification out of the closet in an enlightened and aware fashion.

    For much more information on Fakir and the subjects discussed in this column, be sure to check out his website at www.bodyplay.com. While you’re there you should consider whipping out your PayPal account and getting yourself a signed copy of his amazing book, SPIRIT AND FLESH (now).

    Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published May 18th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

  • The [Modified] Body Politic – Through the Modified Looking Glass

    Written by

    BME

     
    After his earlier well-received guest column, I’m very happy to announce that Erik Sprague, better known as the Lizardman, has joined the monthly column staff of BME. Here’s to enjoying this first column, and many more to follow,

    BME.com

    The [Modified] Body Politic

    There is currently pending (it has passed the house and is awaiting review in the senate) in the Illinois state legislature a bill that would effectively ban tongue splitting as a procedure. A lot of people might assume that my interest in such legislation derives from my own experience with tongue splitting but, in fact, what I find compelling about this issue are the far more sinister aspects I perceive — namely, the legislation of prejudice and the use of the media’s body modification obsession to promote personal political agendas. In my view, what is at stake here is not really tongue splitting but something far more fundamental: freedom of expression. However, to provide some background on the subject I will provide a brief accounting of my history with the procedure before addressing what I think are really the core issues.

    In 1997 I sought out an oral surgeon and was able to convince him to perform on me a tongue bifurcation using an argon biopsy laser. This was one of the first tongue splittings in modern record (two other individuals using different methods appearing at about the same) and almost certainly the first using the biopsy laser. I immediately began to share my experience and the success of the procedure with the world at large through online resources like BME, SPC, and my own website. I also publicized it through my own live appearances and shows. Soon, a number of people had contacted me and even stayed with me in order to have their tongues split by the same surgeon. Within a year, the procedure had gone from rumor and myth to being one of the more popular “heavy mods” (keeping in mind that popular in this context still means probably less than 3000 people worldwide today – six years later!) A little more than 2 years later I appeared in Time magazine and on Ripley’s Believe It or Not! Tongue splitting was now entering into millions of homes and my touring meant more and more press for the procedure. This was a double edged sword, because as it certainly made more people who might have desired the procedure aware that it existed and was a possibility – it was also just a matter of time before some of those who said “ewww!” when they saw a forked tongue initiated a backlash.

    It happened first in Michigan when a piece of legislation was introduced to ban tongue splitting there. That ban was narrowly defeated. Now, in Illinois we have Rep. David Miller who has authored the following (taken from the Illinois General Assembly Website):

    Synopsis As Introduced
    Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Prohibits a person other than a licensed physician or dentist from performing tongue splitting. Provides that a physician or dentist authorized to perform tongue splitting may perform tongue splitting on an individual only if there is a therapeutic or clinical basis for performing the procedure on that individual. Makes a first offense a Class A misdemeanor and a second or subsequent offense a Class 4 felony.

    Mr. Miller is a practicing dentist who after seeing an article in which I was pictured (so I am told and was reported in early stories covering the bill) brought one of my images into session along with his draft, obviously playing to shock value. He also came armed with a number of alleged facts, many of which I have spent a great deal of time in interviews about the bill having to correct.

    Mr. Miller asserts that his bill is addressing a health care issue — unqualified, unlicensed practitioners performing a dangerous procedure (tongue splitting). This is perhaps where Miller has done himself a bit of a favor compared to his equally bigoted colleagues in Michigan who described tongue splitting as ‘gross’ and ‘unnatural’. In Michigan this resulted in the legislature being very quickly identified for what it was — an attempt by a group of politicians to legislate into law their own opinions. That bill was defeated mainly because it would have restricted a freedom of expression without grounds. Miller has obscured this by saying that he simply wants to make sure that the unqualified are not performing the procedure but that doesn’t make a lot of sense given the text of his bill. First, if that were the case then he really should better acquaint himself with the section of Illinois law that he is attempting to amend because it already contains provisions against practicing medicine and surgery without a license that more than adequately restrict tongue splitting to the realm of the medical professional. Second and more importantly, if he only wants to see people using qualified personnel then why include the latter portion of the bill which precludes even the qualified surgeon from performing the procedure without a “therapeutic or clinical basis”. This language is sure to be interpreted by doctors and their lawyers as effectively banning them from the procedure. Tongue splitting is a purely elective procedure. It falls in the same general arena as a rhinoplasty, breast augmentations, liposuction, and the like. It is here that Miller reveals his bias. He does not seek for any of these other, far riskier, elective operations to be justified on a clinical basis.

    So, just what is David Miller seeking to do? He is, I think quite plainly, attempting to make his opinions into law. And in doing so, he does not seem to care that he is infringing upon one the most basic and respected of our freedoms: Freedom of Expression. While the expression he opposes today is tongue splitting, it could just as easily be something else like breast implants, dancing, hair dye, or wearing a blue shirt — from a purely logical standpoint any one of these would be just as good as tongue splitting for the form of his argument. He has shown no basis whatsoever as to why tongue splitting should be singled out for restriction. What he has shown is that by exploiting visceral reactions and making unsubstantiated allegations that one can very nearly pass one’s prejudices into law (though I hardly think this qualifies as a major revelation in politics). But given that this law would be very hard to enforce since only the stupidest people would advertise their violation of it and that it would be easily circumvented by going outside Illinois, I have to wonder if there isn’t possibly something more to this…

    Miller and his bill have been receiving a great deal of press lately and this is the lifeblood of modern politics. While Miller has certainly not impressed me in my debates with him or his statements to the press, he is certainly no fool. He has to have realized that the defeat of a similar bill in another state would weigh against his chances for success. But I think he has also realized that body modification is currently very popular with the media — at least in terms of ‘eye candy’ and “heavy mods” like tongue splitting especially so. While the agencies behind them may not support or endorse body modifications the cameras will always gravitate to them. By putting out modification related legislation this otherwise unnoticeable politician has garnered himself national and even international press. As a community, if we are to be such, we can only hope and try our best so that he does not profit such exploitation by confronting his efforts and exposing his motives.




    Erik Sprague

    because the world NEEDS freaks…

    Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more?

    Copyright © 2003 BMEZINE.COM. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published May 15th, 2003 by BMEZINE.COM in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  • Piercing guns are blasphemy! [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt

    Piercing guns are blasphemy!

    “The reward of a thing well done, is to have done it.”

    – Ralph Waldo Emerson

    “One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man.”

    – Elbert Hubbard

    Those of you who have been reading BME for a long time probably remember our “No Piercing Guns” t-shirt published about five years ago, which we discontinued after lawsuits were threatened and launched against us and others with similar warnings. The gun manufacturers’ objection was with the list of reasons printed on the back, centered around the sterility issues as well as some of the design flaws that made the guns unsuitable for body piercing in general.

    This shirt addressed the core problems with classic-style piercing guns (essentially a spring-loaded device that propelled a piercing stud through flesh and was then reused on every client with minimal contamination control; rarely any more than an alcohol wipe), starting with the sterility issue. Because the guns were designed to be reused and their plastic bodies precluded the ability to autoclave them, bloodborne pathogens could easily be transmitted between clients — there are numerous known and well-documented cases of hepatitis being spread by these guns.

    The shirt also addressed the issue that the stud was relatively dull (far duller than a piercing needle) and was basically just rammed through the tissue with force. Now, on earlobes you can probably get away with this and not affect healing dramatically, but on other parts of the body significant damage could occur. Most notably in upper ear cartilage, these studs have been documented as being able to actually shatter the tissue, leading to collapse of the ear altogether and other serious problems. The “one-size-fits-all” nature of the studs (short; designed for a close fit around an earlobe) compounded this problem and by compressing the tissue could lead to increased swelling and irritation, which often would eventually lead to infection and/or rejection.


    Finally, the design of the guns in general was not really conducive to accurate placement. While they could “hit their marks” on lobes most of the time, their design made it difficult to accurately place the jewelry in any other part of the body — although I should point out that most reputable piercing gun manufacturers do emphasize that their guns are only to be used on earlobes and even go so far as to cancel the contracts of businesses that abuse their guns.

    While I’m mentioning “reputable” piercing gun manufacturers (it makes me sick to say that) I’ll also point out that a number have redesigned their guns to use disposable cartridges which go a long way to making them “single use”, thus dramatically reducing the chances of passing contamination from client to client. In a perfect world one might be able to make the argument that this design of gun is perfectly appropriate for use on earlobes.

    However…

    It’s not a perfect world.

    One has to take the human factor into account — this doesn’t solve the problem. It simply shifts the blame.

    A body piercer is expected to have at least a year of apprenticeship before they’re considered “trained”. Not because piercing — the act of piercing itself — is in and of itself difficult, but because there’s an enormous amount of peripheral knowledge that must be learned and practiced in order to keep the client safe. It’s not unusual for a piercing gun technician to receive just an hour’s training in the food court of some mall… Do you really think that’s enough time to adequately explain and train the finer points of universal precautions?

    You see, even if the disposable cartridge type of piercing gun goes a long way to addressing the obvious contamination issues, if the surrounding area (the gun body, the outside of the cases, the storage bins, the hands of the technician, whatever) becomes contaminated, it’s all for naught. The same of course goes for piercing studios, nail salons, barber shops, and any other business that comes in contact with blood; its safety really is judged by the lowest common denominator.

    In addition to poorly trained staff potentially negating any benefits to the redesigned guns, the issues that make the gun unsuitable for anything other than at best earlobes have not been addressed and likely can not be addressed. And that — the fact that the gun will never be anything other than a tool for punching holes in earlobes — is the main reason that BME doesn’t support the piercing gun and doesn’t publish stories built around it.

    But BME does publish things like self-piercing stories, often highly irresponsible and misguided. So why not publish stories using a gun? Doesn’t the end justify the means, at least a little? I don’t think so; in my opinion piercing guns are a dead end. Piercing guns have nothing to do with body modification. They’re a mistake.

    Look at it this way; if you wanted to become an astronaut, would you teach yourself to drive a motorboat, or would you teach yourself to fly an airplane? Both are methods of transportation, and really, it’s a lot cheaper and a lot more accessible to learn to be the skipper of a little fishing boat… But it’s not a path that leads you toward the heavens — just as piercing guns will not lead you to body modification.

    There is no direct bridge between the piercing gun industry and the body modification community. Sure, you can “move up” from the gun, but it represents not a step up from where you are, but instead a rejection of where you are and the embarkation on an entirely new path with sounder philosophies and methodologies. What that means is that by contributing financially and socially to the piercing gun industry, you are helping solidify a false path (and again, that ignores the fundamental health factors that on their own should be enough to convince any lucid individual to stay away from these devices).

    If BME were to pledge support to the piercing gun industry it would be spitting in the face of the piercing and body modification communities by propping up a business that in my opinion not only endangers its customers but misleads them about their potential future. After all, the easiest way to keep a person from achieving enlightenment is by sending them on a holy quest that is anything but holy — nearly every religion warns in its own way of the danger of false idols and dead end paths.

    I realize that I’m largely preaching to the choir here, but that doesn’t mean that you won’t have friends and relatives who end up in the sights of the well-funded and well-advertised piercing gun machine… Remember, “friends don’t let friends get gunned”. Unless you’re looking for a dead end path that’ll put your life in needless danger (and, if body modification is a spiritual act, perhaps even put your soul in peril), seek out a professional that can do a good job making all your dreams come true… not some hack that at best can do a shoddy job of making one dream come true, with no hope for the rest.

    Needles, dermal punches, and scalpels make my day.
    Use them well,


    Shannon Larratt

    BMEzine.com

  • Maybe we should judge books by their cover? [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt

    Maybe we should judge books by their cover?


    "A popular admonition goes 'Don't judge a book by its cover.' Yet we do it all the time. We ascribe qualities of character to people based on their physical characteristics. And our language takes shape to reflect that attitude."

    – Anu Garg, founder of
    wordsmith.org

    One of body modification’s core purposes is communication. Humans are of course communicating animals — in some ways the complexity and depth of our methods is our most unique and defining characteristics. So when we permanently inscribe a public message using our bodies, it is the most core and true way in which we can communicate, as we say “I feel so strongly about this that I will become it”.

    I don’t think anyone would have any problem agreeing that the way you wear your hair and clothes and so on is a way of communicating who you are to the world. Even if a conscious effort is made “not to succumb to fashion”, that as well broadcasts a message. It’s inescapable. By looking a certain way we invite contact from some people, and also send a “stay away” message to others as we give them a brief but powerful visual introduction to who we are. Every culture in history has ascribed uniforms of style and appearance to themselves as a whole, to their subgroups and castes, and then of course to the individual.

    It is impossible to escape this conversation without withdrawing totally from in-person human interaction. Humans are designed for content-rich multi-media communication — to illustrate, think how different it is when you read a movie script versus actually seeing it, where you can watch the way a person presents themselves, how they move, their tone, and so on. Everything we can observe, we interpret.

    So when we modify our bodies in a way that’s visible to the public, we are communicating. Like it or not, we are sending a message. It is unavoidable.

    The interesting thing about transmitting a message with body modification is that it’s a message that will almost certainly be misinterpreted; how can an unmodified mainstream be expected to understand something that’s totally alien to them? But maybe it’s like abstract art: a subconscious way of communicating? Body modification is the most guttural and carnal way we can communicate, even more so than the primal cries of a fresh baby.

    Body modification doesn’t just seize control of the message; it changes the medium of transmission into the message. Marshall McLuhan of course wrote, “the medium is the message”, referring to the subliminal effects of the choice of medium both on the message and as the message. McLuhan believed that mass media would eventually bring us to a “global village” and the “spiritual form of information” would eventually transform all of “the human family [into] a single consciousness”. I have to wonder if the embracing of body modification — where humans transform themselves into the message itself — is a step toward that dream?

    If a person walks around in public yelling while holding a sign with a drawing on it, can we reasonably say, “oh, maybe they just liked the way the sign looked and didn’t think about what it meant”? Of course not — I think we all agree that if someone runs around carrying a sign that they don’t understand that the person is being a bit of an idiot… So why should it be any different with body modification, where you become the sign?

    There’s nothing wrong with judging a book by its cover when the author actually got to design it — a well designed cover should reflect the content of the book quite accurately. We, the modified, are in the privileged position of being willing to design our own covers, but we must take that privilege seriously. After all, what would you think of a book where the author had just done random scribbles that bore no relevance to the content, or did it poorly — or even worse, just copied the cover of someone else’s book?

    The other thing to remember is that we, as books, have only one cover, and we keep it for life. The message we inscribe on it is permanent, so we must be secure in saying what we say today tomorrow and the day after as well. The messages we choose to become must be eternal truths, or at least ones that can be eternally cherished and valued.

    Being aware of the above, how should we think about our body modification plans? How can we make our body modifications work for us, not against us?

    As I see it, we have five primary considerations that should be taken into account for any body modification decisions:

    1. Quality
    If you get a tattoo of something you care about, what does it say when you don’t bother going to a qualified artist? After all, you are becoming the tattoo. It’s not just a sticker that you can throw away — it is you. By stating something poorly, even if the message is true, the fact that it’s poorly stated may become the primary message. This world of ours has been populated by a multitude of amazing and beautiful people, but only those that put in effort to speak clearly and eloquently rise and succeed.

    2. Interpreted meaning
    How others interpret your mod is of course of primary importance since it’s what will open or close minds and doors. At present the modified represent between one and ten percent of the Western population, depending on what demographic you are looking at, so most people seeing your mods will be seeing them as alien to their own existence. The meaning they draw from them is with minimal common ground. If you want to reach the mainstream with your message (to say you don’t is to advocate isolationism and separatism), the interpreted meaning either has to be clear to them, or at least provide a bridge so you can open a productive dialogue and reveal to them the true meaning.

    3. True meaning
    The actual meaning will only be clear to you and to people who take the time to get to know you well. Depending on how abstract your message is, it may also only be apparent to those who are also modified since there are things one learns on this path that are very difficult to put to words. Either way, it’s important to concisely define your goal, and ensure that you’re working toward it with clarity, and that your mods are expressing that goal — even if you’re simply saying “this is making me happy”.

    4. Vibe
    While the specifics of a mod define its literal meaning, there is also a larger “vibe” that’s created by both the subtleties and the overall look you’re building. At its simplest, let’s take a classic rose tattoo. What vibe (if any) does it put off when it’s on an ankle? What about a forearm? A shoulder? A neck? In the pubic region, peeking out from just above the belt-line? When a person first comes into the range our senses, our mind automatically “classifies” them. That’s not a bad thing; it’s what allows us to structure ourselves socially. Body modification of course allows you to seize control of that process — use it to your advantage.

    5. Endurance
    It’s important to ask yourself exactly what message you’ll be sending not just today, but for all time. Will the mod become “dated”? There’s nothing wrong with something screaming “I got this in 1985″, but if a mod is permanent, you must consider both whether the message will continue to carry relevance (maybe you’d have been better off with a N’Sync t-shirt than a tattoo?), and more importantly, will it change in meaning in the future?

    Now don’t get me wrong — I believe that the primary consideration in any mod should be:


    “Does it make me happy?”

    …but as the metaphysical poet John Donne wrote, “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main…” Few of us can escape our role in the larger universe where we must productively communicate with the beings around us. So we must always remember that our body modifications, so long as they fall on public skin of course, are not just for us — they are also broadcasting a message to outsiders.

    And in return, we should feel free to judge others by the messages (or lack of messages) that they choose to transmit to us. We are the communicators. Complex communication is the tool we use to raise ourselves to being something other than animals. Remember that the next time you transform yourself into a message.

    That message can help you achieve your goals, or it can hinder you. While we are to some extent bound by the prejudice and ignorance of the lowest common denominator, ultimately the power rests in our hands.

    Good luck and keep on spreading your message,


    Shannon Larratt

    BMEzine.com

  • What the Modified can learn from Satan [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt


    What the Modified can learn from Satan

    “I shall tell you a great secret, my friend. Do not wait for the last judgment, it takes place every day.”

    – Albert Camus

    Anton LaVey, the late founder of the Church of Satan, a modern spiritual movement that preached self-determination and self-empowerment as well as a rejection of societal norms (including mass religion) and embracing individually defined ritual for personal gain, defined the fifth of nine “Satanic sins” that all free individuals should avoid as “Herd Conformity”, writing,

    That’s obvious from a Satanic stance. It’s all right to conform to a person’s wishes, if it actually benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting an impersonal entity dictate to them.

    Clearly “the modified” have rejected the herd. Unless massive changes happen in mainstream society, body modification by definition forces the individual to stand outside the herd, whether in secret or in public. Simply by taking that little step of putting a small piece of metal through your navel, or permanently etching a design under your skin, you become something other than faceless.

    Not that stepping out of the herd guarantees success. While LaVey did call on his flock to practice discretion when it suited them — or, as my father once told me, “if you’re going to be a sociopath, you can be more effective if you don’t advertise the fact” — he also felt that there were times when it was important to be public about one’s allegiance. When asked how Satanists could achieve mainstream success and world domination, he replied,

    We need to do things, not just huddle together like pigs to keep warm. That’s what will destroy Christianity’s stranglehold on evolution and progress. When Satanists make pioneering discoveries and achievements, objective authorities can’t point to Satan as the Father of all that’s worthless and detrimental to society. They can’t say, ‘Gee, I wish we could use this vaccine — it’s too bad you’re a Satanist.’ On the contrary — they will be forced to see and acknowledge the quality, productivity and superiority of Satanic thought.

    Many famous people joined the Church of Satan at the time that LaVey wrote those words — Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, the Eagles, Tina Louise, Sammy Davis Jr, and a multitude of others who chose to remain anonymous — and similarly, many well known celebrities and other people of influence are members of BME and body modification enthusiasts. I wish I could list them here in a way that didn’t violate their right to privacy, but unfortunately body modification carries a higher stigma in the 2000′s than Satanism did in the 1970′s. As a result, the vast majority keep their interests a secret, even when they rise to positions of power that would be difficult to erode no matter what they pledged to publicly.

    In any case, the modified should learn from that statement and follow its advice. The easiest way to disprove the theory that the modified are degenerate losers that’ll never amount to anything is by not only succeeding in life, but by being better than them at everything. Not only does the modern Western world test truth by measuring success, but more importantly, whoever wins gets to set the rules for the next round of the game… Right now there are many rules in place designed to keep us down; only by asserting ourselves and succeeding can we change those rules — whining isn’t going to change anything.

    Satanists are superior people. To gain immortal perspective and power, you must actively practice isolation from the herd. Turn off the television set. It’s meant to program you to think like everyone else. Use it as a device for your own pleasure, but as with fire or electricity, be aware of the danger. Use your difference, your alienation, rather than be used by it. Know that it’s your differences that makes you powerful — you don’t want to lose them, or you lose your power.

    Our biggest advantage may be that we, at least for a moment, were able to reject the shackles that enslave and imprison the herd — and if we could do it once, we can do it again. In order to exercise control over the herd and solidify their position the powerful (wealthy families, corporations, banks, governments, and so on) impose a way of living that is detrimental to achieving success and rising through the ranks. So what do we need to do?

    1. Reject all things that enslave us. We know we don’t have to look like them… so why do we have to accept the rest of the self-imposed slavery?
    2. Once you’ve chosen your path, do it well. Work hard. Do it as well as you can, and win, using those victories as the foundation for more.

    But once you’ve achieved some modicum of success, how do you spread that influence universally? LaVey’s Satanism sought not only to liberate its members, but to liberate humanity, and it recognized that to do that it ultimately would be faced with destroying its philosophical nemesis, Christianity.

    Choosing not to go to church isn’t enough. It’s not going to stop the brainwashing of millions of other people. There can be no room for this ecumenical attitude of, ‘Well, if God works for them and makes them happy, it won’t hurt me to let them go on believing it.’ But it does hurt you. When there are that many people in positions of authority thinking muddled, incoherent thoughts, it’s going to affect you. To completely overthrow mystically-oriented religions, Satanists choose active opposition. We don’t need to show any tolerance or good fellowship to these sheep now that we’re calling the shots. Have Christians ever shown Satanists any mercy?

    In our case, we need to ensure that we do a few important things to get started:

    1. If a job rejects us because of mods, or a business treats us badly, we need to stop giving them money, and we need to make sure that everyone we know does the same, and we need to make sure the business knows it. We need to ensure that we aren’t paying to be oppressed, and we need to ensure that our money feeds only those who value us and the freedoms we stand for. Put simply, don’t support those who would destroy you!
    2. If someone, be it a parent, a friend, or a stranger reacts negatively to the modified, we should first try and correct their ignorance, but if they choose to embrace their stupidity, blacklist them. Cut them out of your life. Do them no favors, and accept none in return. If they are not willing to accept who you are as a free person, you should not accept them as your passive jailor. Even if they don’t discriminate against you per se (ie. the double standard of telling someone you love them while saying you hate who they are), as long as they support a system that does they are declaring themselves your enemy.
    3. If we find ourselves in a position of hiring employees, we should do our best to hire qualified and modified people and ensure they do the job we give them well. Doing so will have a snowball effect; the more modified people the public sees, the more willing they are both to take that step themselves, the more comfortable they are around modified people, and the more likely they will be to hire modified people themselves. We need to make being a free individual “normal” and desirable.
    4. The more success we reach personally, the more we should use that success to show the world not just that “Joe is a success”, but that “Joe the modified man is a success”. This is extremely important. We need modified doctors, lawyers, bankers, police, athletes, and more. If you’re modified, and people look up to you, use that to our advantage. When people imagine a stereotype of success, it should include individualistic (rather than conformist) behavior, including body modification.

    Because I am a proponent of “friendly isolationism”, people often write me and say, “Shannon, why do you always have to be so ‘us-and-them’… wouldn’t it be better to build bridges instead?”

    To me the idea of building a bridge is ludicrous. Why would a free person want to build a bridge to a slave colony? If anyone should be building bridges it’s them — to escape their boring prisons! The only reason to open a dialogue with the unmodified is to allow them the opportunity to take a step in the right direction — toward our way of life, a way of being that doesn’t place fearful boundaries on our bodies as defined by skin… a way of life that provides powerful tools that can guide a person to enlightenment.

    Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m very aware that there are many paths up the mountain and that the view from the top is probably the same — certainly there are free and enlightened individuals that choose not to undertake body modification personally. I’m reminded of the scene in Once Were Warriors (a highly recommended movie that addresses the need to bring the values that allowed people to survive oppression and slavery into modern lives) when a facially tattooed Maori asks his younger brother why he doesn’t wear the traditional moko. “I wear mine on the inside”, he replies, and there’s certainly truth to that statement.

    But it’s not that easy. Just because a person says “I choose not to be modified” does not mean that they actually made a choice. Hiding under your blankets at night because you are afraid of the dark is very different than loving the light. Their “choice” may well simply mean that they are afraid to step into a self-determined and self-responsible way of living.

    Assertion: Body modification is the most accessible and safest “key” to unlocking the doors to personal freedom, individual affirmation, and spiritual enlightenment that I’ve ever seen. We, the modified, need to work hard to succeed in life, and through our actions ensure that this key is protected and can reach as many people as desire it.

    Keep fighting,

    Shannon Larratt

    BMEzine.com

  • A Modified Man in the Air Force [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt


    A Modified Man in the Air Force

    “Don’t ever go in the army Trey. A black man don’t got no place in the army.”

    – Furious Styles, Boyz N the Hood, 1991

    As those of you who read the BME newsfeed know, earlier this year the US military amended its dress code regulations to clearly ban certain types of body modification. Specifically, this included banning what it called “mutilation” — implants, split tongues, stretched ears, and so on. For example, the following was added to the Navy’s regulations:

    8. Mutilation. Intentional body mutilation, piercing, branding/intentional scarring that are excessive or eccentric are prohibited. Some examples are (1) a split or forked tongue; (2) foreign objects inserted under the skin to create a design or pattern; (3) enlarged or stretched out holes in the ears (other than a normal piercing); and (4) intentional scarring that appears on the neck, face or scalp.

    What you may not know is that those regulations were passed as a retaliatory measure against a small number of people in the military who were involved with heavy body modifications on their own time. Even though these activities hurt neither their performance or their commitment to the military or their country, nor did they reflect poorly on the military, these individuals were forced to have dangerous and damaging surgery to “correct” their body modifications.

    BME had the opportunity to interview the airman that appears to have been the catalyst in this entire process. I’m keeping his identity anonymous here so as not to further endanger his chosen career. He is an IAM member though and I’d be glad to put other members in touch with him.

    BME: What made you decide to join the military?

    As far back as I can remember I either wanted to be in the Army or fly in the Air Force. Around ten my uncle would give me Army stuff from work — he was a Supply Sgt. in the Army National Guard. At around sixteen I learned that my chances of flying were slim to none… That and the fact that I wanted to get out of my parents’ house as fast as I could influenced my decision to join the Army.

    Right after my junior year of high school I signed up for the Army Guard and did basic training, and then I did my senior year of high school. That way I could get the discipline — the discipline that I needed to keep my life from going down the drain.

    After two years in the Army Guard I decided that I was not far enough from home — I needed more distance from my roots, so I went into the Active Duty Air Force in August of 2000. As it stands now I am preparing to go to Guam and then fifteen months later I will be in Fairford, UK.

    And what made you originally decide to get a tongue splitting?

    I had always been interested in heavier body modifications, and the research I did about tongue splitting showed me that:

    (a) It was a way to move forward spiritually. I believe that all body modifications are an expression of what your mind thinks your body is (or should be)… Something akin to aligning your inner image of yourself with the outer image.

    (b) It was a reversible procedure (or so I thought).

    (c) It was not against any current military regulations.

    (d) There was very little chance of complications and it heals quickly.

    (e) It was easily hidden.

    How did you actually do the procedure?

    The procedure was done three times in total. The first time, March 16th, 2002, it was done by a friend using scalpel. Another friend recut it for me on August 1st, and then again on Christmas Eve of 2002, to cut out the regrowth using a cautery pen.

    Did your tongue splitting affect your effectiveness as an airman in any way?

    In my opinion I don’t believe that it negatively affected me in any way. I took leave for the procedure. When I went back to work I was talking normally and the people that I work with never had a problem with it.

    Was it apparent to others?

    Unless I showed you that it was split or if you were looking hard in the right light for the split you couldn’t tell. If you were looking for it, it looked more like a crease in my tongue than a split… Plus at work I didn’t show it off. If someone asked me I would usually tell them that I was not comfortable with that subject in the work environment.

    Anyway, most of my fellow airman just wanted to know the usual questions that all modified people get. “Did it hurt?” “Why did you do that?” “How much did that cost?”… Stuff like that. I think we’ve all gotten the same questions at one point or another. Once they got the answers to their questions they seemed to accept it. I’ve never heard a fellow airman that has talked to me complain about it.

    How did your CO find out about it?

    The day after I got it done I went and talked to a “friend” who was also on leave. I went by his dorm room to pick up some stuff I’d let him borrow. He asked me why I was talking funny, so I showed him and asked him not to tell anyone at work.

    I wanted to explain my reasons to work on my own time, but the next day he went out of his way to go in to work and tell my shop chief… Then it was a matter of the news travelling up the chain of command.

    How did they respond at first?

    The way that the military responds to most things that they cannot figure out… they “up channel it”.

    By the time I made it off leave — only five days — it was already at 9th Air Force Legal. I won’t say how far past that it went but it went a lot further than I think anyone thought it would. After about three months of trying to decide out what to do they came down and said that there was no legal recourse that they could find, but the matter was still open.

    On January 1st, 2003, a new regulation went into effect, a broad regulation that bans, among other things, tongue splitting.

    What options were presented to you?

    I really had no options. I was given a direct order by my CO to reverse it. I was given about forty minutes notice of this meeting, and then was told that in five hours I was going in for an evaluation. Then four days later I had another evaluation, and then three days after that I had the surgery. The only options I had were obey, disobey, or fight it via legal, which would have meant losing my orders to Guam.

    Why do you feel the military felt so strongly about this?

    I think they thought that I was sticking my nose up at that them, like I was daring them to try and do something about it… But that was not my intention at all — I just did it for me.

    Why did you choose to reverse the split, rather than say, quitting?

    Ever since I joined the Air Force I have wanted to do my twenty years and retire at thirty-seven. I’d have lost everything I’ve worked toward. If I have to bend for some new regulations to fall into line and complete this goal of mine, then so be it.

    How was the reversal procedure and the subsequent healing?

    The procedure was about an hour long. It was done under general anesthesia so I don’t remember any of it.

    They cut all of the skin from the inside of my tongue and stitched it up with twelve stitches. I was out of work for a week with far more extensive pain and swelling than when I had the split done.

    Four days after the surgery I noticed that I had a large loss of feeling and taste in the front of my tongue. I brought this up at my first check-up, and was told that it would be weeks before I got feeling back. When I went back for my two-week check-up, I brought it up again. The doctor said that it could be months.

    It’s now been two months and while there has been some improvement, there is still a large loss of feeling and taste. I can feel the mass of scar tissue in the front of my tongue. Even though I am classified as “fully healed” I still have problems with it.

    That doesn’t sound very nice at all…

    I also have a shorter tongue and less movement in the front part. I have throbbing pains that would be best described as “ghost pains”. I also catch myself trying to move it independently as if it was still split, since that’s how it is in my mind.

    Not only that, but in my work environment I feel I’ve lost some trust in the system. Normally, whenever there’s a change in a regulation the people that it affects get grandfathered, which is how it was when new tattoo regulation came out — they didn’t force everyone to have emergency tattoo removals. I feel that because I was just a single airman the military didn’t take grandfathering my case seriously.

    If you’d known the problems the reversal would cause you, would you still permit them to do the reversal procedure?

    It would have made me take a step back and think harder as to whether or not I should fight the ruling or not… I guess it depends on if I get full function out of my tongue back. I am in the process of seeing what legal options I have if full function does not return.

    Did anyone appear to “feel bad” about forcing you
    to undergo this procedure? What about when they saw the
    aftereffects?

    As far as the people that out-rank me I’ve not had any sympathy for any of the pain or on the issue of the fairness of the order. I was forced to return to work six days after my surgery when I still had stitches and a substantial amount of pain. I had to just sit at work for three days because I was not allowed on the flight line because I had such a bad speech impediment that I couldn’t use a radio.

    When I came in with stitches my supervisors said that it looked really “sick” and told me not to show them again. Now most of my supervisors say you can’t tell that I ever had it done — when I tell them that I can tell on account of having no feeling in my tongue they just dismiss it.

    How did your fellow airmen react to the reversal?

    Most of the people that know me or of my case thought it was wrong of the military to force me to reverse it. A few have had the attitude of “you should have known that this was coming when you first did this”, but they’re a very small minority.

    I’ve also had a few that wanted to help me fight this, going so far as to start writing letters to the Air Force Times. Out of fear of backlash to my fellow airmen I asked them not to do that. Overall most people simply say that the military should have grandfathered me.

    What would your advice for “the modified” also interested in a military career be?

    I’ve never suggested someone should get into the military. It’s a personal choice. If you want to get into the military and don’t have any tattoos showing on your forearms or above the collarbone, then you’ll be welcomed as any non-modified person would. If you’re into piercings on the other hand, you’ll be ridiculed until you either take the piercings out or learn to deal with the ridicule.

    Note that when I say “piercings” I mean those that can’t be seen; piercings below the neck. In the Air Force you can have holes in your lobes. You just can’t wear jewelry on base.

    For people into the heavier side of body modifications I’d tell them to stay away from the military. If you get modified after you enter the military then you’ll be in violation of their rules and regulations. If you’re modified before the military they probably won’t let you into the service anyway.

    All that said, do you personally support the military’s new regulations on body modifications?

    I don’t see how I can support a regulation that was unfairly enforced on me. So personally, no, nor do I support them from a professional point of view. I was not treated fairly.

    I believe that these regulations are too broad and too open to interpretation. Now anything that makes you look anything other than, as I say, “Christian Conservative”, can be considered violating a regulation. It’s up to the commander to decide whether or not it’s violation…

    Does the military in general consider the bodies of its staff its “property” to surgically alter as it sees fit? That is, does this attitude manifest itself in other ways as well?

    The military sees its personnel as government property. They can’t force you to get procedures, but on the other hand, the military is not forced to keep you either, nor are they forced to give you an honorable discharge if you decide not to get a procedure that they want you to get done.

    Almost every person in the military is told that if you get a sunburn bad enough to stop you from wearing your uniform that it’s “destruction of government property”.

    Do you know if this has affected others in the military?

    Yes, it has… I talked to a fellow IAM member that is the Marines about this who had similar issues. Also, the new regulations forced an airman at my base to remove his 000 gauge plugs in his lobes so that they shrink back down. He never wore them on base though. Even though he did not break the regulation he had the same choice as to whether or not to fight as I did… And he made the same choice I did. He now has about a 6 gauge hole. So as to not get into trouble if someone sees him he wears a small mall-bought post in it.

    Thank you for talking to us, and good luck in Guam.



    DAY ONE

    DAY TWO

    DAY SEVEN

    DAY EIGHT

    DAY 36

    “The modified” are a fascinating cultural group. We span all religions and political leanings, and, unlike race, we actively choose this path. While some would argue that we are born into it, just as people are born into a sexual orientation, I would argue that all humans are born with the innate desire to self decorate and explore and enhance themselves and the world through body modification — most people are simply too repressed and afraid. In any case, before I get off track, on many levels we are a distinct cultural group and it’s important that we learn to think and act as such when we need to.

    Farrakhan and other minority revolutionary leaders often refer to the military as “the white man’s army”. What I think is meant by that, on a more general level, is that the military exists to defend a certain mainstream status quo, rather than to protect the interests of minority and subcultural groups that don’t have massive representation in the governance of the nation. As such, these leaders hold that when minorities enter the military, they may be fighting to keep empowered a group that does not act in their best interests.

    I can’t say whether “a black man has no place in the white man’s army”, but I can tell you with certainly that “a modified man has no place in the unmodified man’s army” — you don’t even have to take my word on it. It’s the law! They’ve illustrated through forcing this involuntary surgery to “make normal” the appearance of their staff that they’re willing to go to extreme lengths to destroy freedom of the body. That says to me that all modified people, and all people who care about the rights of the modified should seriously consider whether it is in their best interests to assist in a military-industrial complex that seeks to destroy us.

    “Seeks to destroy us”…

    It seems like a crazy statement, doesn’t it? But we’ve just watched one of our friends get a body modification that brought him closer to spiritual fulfillment and enriched his life… Then we watched the government step in and offer him two choices: (a) the end of his life as he knew it, or (b) surgical destruction of something he loved and had enhanced his life.

    This isn’t the place for me to be making larger sweeping statements about the military — my pacifist attitudes on that subject are no secret to readers of my IAM page. However, I do need to point out that a nation’s military on some level must represent the will and the face of its people. What message is being sent by these acts and these regulations to the people of America, and, since America imposes its military might — and the culture it espouses — on the world, what message is being sent to the modified people of the world? What freedoms are being protected, and what freedoms are being trampled?

    Think about it,

    Shannon Larratt
    BMEzine.com

    • Latest Tattoo, Piercing, and Body Modification News