Tattoos are the graffiti of the human body. And just as the graffiti 'artist' defaces property public and private, the tattoo 'artist' defaces the human body, torturing the skin with needles and injecting it with ugly dyes. When I see yet another tattooed, pierced, tackle-box head, I wonder what this phenomenon means. Some thoughts of Theodore Dalrymple are worth pondering:
First, it [tattooing] was aesthetically worse than worthless. Tattoos were always kitsch, implying not only the absence of taste but the presence of dishonest emotion.
Second, the vogue represented a desperate (and rather sad) attempt on a mass scale to achieve individuality and character by means of mere adornment, which implied both intellectual vacuity and unhealthy self-absorption.
And third, it represented mass downward cultural and social aspiration, since everyone understood that tattooing had a traditional association with low social class and, above all, with aggression and criminality. It was, in effect, a visible symbol of the greatest, though totally ersatz, virtue of our time: an inclusive unwillingness to make judgments of morality or value.
Second reason for thoughtful people to tattoo themselves: to rid the art of its association with "aggression and criminality." Cf. the use of "queer" by homosexuals to take back the nasty connotations of that term by the community that owned it. There are other elements tattoos are associated with, especially in connection with (often trite) "tribal" tattoos.
There is more to say on this, but I'll spare you.
This semester, a few months after teaching the Apology, a student came to me wanting to know the Greek for the unexamined life is not worth living for men. I got the Loeb volume, photocopied the relevant page, and highlighted the passage in English and Greek. What did she want it for? A tattoo, naturally. At the final exam this week there it was, printed (accents, breath-marks, and all) across the nape of her neck.
On the one hand, I generally disapprove of tattoos for the same reasons given in the post. On the other, it was gratifying to know that Socrates had made an impression.
Second, one need not get it to be an "individual" but to "identify" with an idea, group, philosphy, etc.
Third, since the Bible doesn't forbid it, and assuming we have liberty of conscience, then what prohibts it? Subjective opinion? Much like the parents of the kids in the 60's who told them not to listen to the Beatles, or the kids in the 50's who were told not to watch Elvis shake his hips?
Fourth, what it may have represented is not what it represents now. Doctors, lawyers, and even house wives are "getting inked." I mean, why should I ever choose to eat rice and beans (if I had the money to eat steak) since it represents what poor people ate? The lower class.
Anyway, I have about 12... :-)
I'm practically still a kid myself--mid 20s--but my father grew up listening to rock n' roll in the 60s and I think he would have better off listening to those parents. Sometimes these conservative intuitions are right . . .
I am familiar with that verse, and I must now come clean with what I forgot to add in my original post. I didn't get any of my tattoos "for the dead." Furthermore, I don't believe that Lev. 19:28 is part of what is commonly referred to as part of the moral law. It has ceremonial intentions, i.e., the setting apart of Israel from the nations around them.
Hi Mike,
Well, I don't know the specifics, but certainly we can take things too far. Did your father get involved with the drug-counter culture? Were the Beatles a gateway into that? And, yes, sometimes conservative intuitions are right. I am myself a conservative. But, that doesn't mean that they always are. I've still seen no moral reason to not get one, and the reasons above are mostly false and outdated. They don't affect my speech, driving, thinking, sensor-motor control, personality, behavior, &c. So, that you notice something in your father which would cause you to think he shouldn't have listened to Elvis, that would be unnoticeable with me.
Hi Thomas,
I don't have a "casual attitude" toward HIV. And, I may be more youthful that some, but not others. I'm older than the above commenter, Michael Sullivan. Your claim that my comments about a reputable establishment RE are "amusing," and the following question, only reinforce my assumption that you haven't really looked into this specific issue before.
For starters, a RE will have FDA approved ink. Every customer, according to industry standards, has a brand new package of needles opened right in front of their eyes. The actual tattoo gun and other non-disposable tools are is autoclaved. This is the same procedure that your local hospital uses on its non-disposable tools. Gloves are always worn. During one of my visits my artist took off his glove to answer a phone, and then put a brand new one on after he hung up the phone. Fresh ink is used for every session. The ink used on a previous client is tossed into a biohazard trash can, like in your local doctors office. Or, take Oregon. Performing tattoos there, without a license, is a felony. To get a license, in most states, requires being certified as to your knowledge of health and safety precautions, as well as the current state regulations. Lastly, if you get a tattoo from a RE, and have the papers to prove it, you are even allowed to give blood. In the old days you had to wait 12 months.
So, as I said, it's about as dangerous as getting HIV from a routine stitch-up at your doctors office.
And, lastly, there has not been one documented case of someone contracting HIV from getting tattooed. This according to the CDC who began studying this issue in 1985. But, there have been 7 known cases where someone has contracted HIV from their dentist! This is found in the CDC's "Estimated incidence of AIDS and deaths of persons with AIDS, adjusted for delays in reporting, by quarter-year of diagnosis/death, United States, January 1985 through June 1997." They also claim this in this report published in 2006. CDC categorizes tattooists as "personal service workers" along with hairdressers, barbers, manicurists, acupuncturists, and massage therapists.
best,
Paul
I checked out the article. No doubt the history is correct. But then, modern reasons for getting tattoos have changed. As I said, doctors, lawyers, politicians, high powered sports agents, college professors, singers, professional athletes, the military, CEOs, &c, &c, &c. All walks of life have them. And, considering the cost - it aint cheap - the "lower class" would be excluded from getting any descent tattoo at a reputable establishment.
Be that as it may, the article closed out this way:
"It's a sign of the degeneracy of modern life that tattoos have become so widespread. What used to be a mark of degradation (in the case of slaves and criminals) or uncivilized behavior (in the case of barbarians) is now commonplace and accepted in most social circles. In 1 Corinthians 6.19, we read "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?" To tattoo the body is to deface this temple."
The argument is odd:
1. If something was uncivilized then, it should be now.
2. Tattoos were.
3. They are now.
That seems odd. And, to use the homosexual Greeks as a standard of "conservativism" seems a bit odd. Women were for making babies, boys for fun, went a saying. And some scholars don't agree that this was the common practice, but was reserved for the aristocracy (Bruce Thornton is one such scholar). So, should we argue that the resurgence of popularity with homosexuality means that we are getting more civilized? Or, the attempts at stopping gay marriages is a mark of "degeneracy?"
Lastly, the context of 1 Cor. 6 is about joining your body with a prostitute. These out of context arguments from 1 Cor. 6 are always funny. After all, why eat McDonalds, your body is a temple. Why play sports where you could get injured, your body is a temple. Should you work out, make your temple bigger? And, why can't you adorn your temple? If you can't, should women ditch the makeup?
best,
I must say your response is very good. And it impresses me that you didn't take offense when you might have.
Right now, my hair is getting pretty long, mostly out of laziness and frugality with time and money. Frequent haircuts waste time, cost money, and are unnecessary given my way of life. So when my wife recently suggested I get a haircut, I said half-jokingly that I was 'flying the colors,' the colors of the '60s. So now I ask myself whether there is much of a difference between having long hair and wearing a tattoo.
No doubt there are differences, but I can't say they make a moral difference. In the 60's some people were repelled to the point of hate by the sight of a young man with long hair. This puzzled and offended me: how can you hate me because my hair is longer than yours? Can you judge a man by the cut of his clothes and the length of his hair? I seem to recall a tune by the Yardbirds that dealt with this theme. The title, I think, was "Mister, you're a better man than I." The idea was if one could judge another by the length of his hair, then 'you're a better man than I.'
A high school teacher gave a hygienic argument: no way to keep long hair clean. But that's absurd. Of course, there is risk whenever the skin is breached, even by careful professionals. But I concede that one can get pierced and tattooed without much health risk.
A lot of us have trouble taking seriously a man with earrings or tatoos on the face. A Charley Manson look still blocks one's ascent up the corporate ladder. But times change. Time was, when to be well-dressed a man had to wear a hat. Not so since JFK went around without a hat. Now a hat is contraindicated .
There's no point in debating aesthetics. How could I prove to you that a middle-aged woman's varicose-veined legs are uglier than they would have been without the tattoos?
You are right about 1 Cor 6.
On balance, I'd say you have successfully resisted my assertion that tattooing defaces the human body. It may in some cases, but not in all. I may be a conservative, but I am not a hidebound conservative. (I'm not bound to my untattooed hide.) How much would it cost to get 'Omnia mea mecum porto' tatooed onto my arm?
I recall seeing Frank Zappa on Joe Pyne's televised talk show. Must have been mid to late 60s. Pyne to Zappa: "I see you have long hair. You must be a girl." Zappa to Pyne: "I see you have a wooden leg. You must be a table."
I suppose I don't get offended over this issue because I've been discussing it with those who make much the same claims as the above for the past 13 or 14 years. So, it rolls off my back now.
I certainly agree that some types of body modification are defacing, and can definitely hinder one's acceptance in the mostly non-tattooed world. None of mine are unable to be hidden, if I need them to be. So, many people don’t even know that I have any. No "tear drop" under my eye! But, perhaps in the next 30 years CEOs will be sporting full sleeves (that's code for arms tattooed from shoulder to wrist)!
I'm glad you're not a "hidebound" conservative, since there's now a tattooed conservative group! But since some have conservative meaning tattoos, I guess they are hidebound. :-)
And, lastly, you could get that tattooed on your arm from an RE for around $100; a bit more than a haircut, but you don't need to keep going back every 6 months. :-)
best,
Paul
Thanks for your response and the link, but I got a security alert when I clicked on it.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.