 
|
||||
              
|
Tuesday, July 28, 1998 By Reg Henry
Let me stipulate a general principle for today's discussion: The body is a temple and its walls should not be defaced. I refer specifically to tattoos and body piercing.
Admittedly, people who have a body like mine know that it is not exactly a temple, but more a memorial chapel to deceased beer bottles. But the idea is the same.
I confess to a strong prejudice against those who make themselves a walking billboard for someone else's art. I have only contempt for people who unwittingly summon every cab within a mile because the wind is whistling loudly through their bodily orifices.
On the other hand, I believe this is America and Bozos have the right to breathe free.
As it so happens, a bill in the state Legislature - the Tattoo, Body Piercing and Corrective Cosmetic Artists Act - threatens to bring the dead hand of government down upon professional practitioners of these arcane arts by insisting that they be licensed.
Despite the fact that I am personally opposed to any body ornamentation more eccentric than wearing a hat, I find it offensive that the writing is on the wall for those who would write on the skin.
My dislike of tattoos, in particular, dates from the couple of years I spent in military service. Many of my friends had tattoos, some in unusual places.
Indeed, some had a pair of eyes tattooed on their buttocks, so if you saw one of these guys from the back in the shower, you had the strange sensation of being watched by someone with a twisted smile.
The very worst thing about this - and I was always too sensitive to say anything - was that some of these butt faces were only marginally less homely than their owners' regular faces.
You can understand why a person who has been stared at by various bums could develop a healthy dislike for this particular art form.
One of my greatest fears is that my own children will get tattoos. I have told them that they can do any stupid thing - even become journalists if they so wish - but please, please, no tattoos. My teen-age daughter's response has been to lobby to have her belly button pierced.
This is terrible, of course, but at least a belly button would not normally be on view in future job interviews, unless, of course, she seeks a position as a Turkish dancer.
Thus I suppose a pierced belly button qualifies as body mutilation lite compared with the other alternatives. And I have to admit that, from a humane point of view, a pierced belly button might offer some welcome shelter to those microscopic creatures responsible for knitting our lint.
Negotiations are currently proceeding between teen-ager and concerned parents. Actually, it was concerned parents who inspired House Bill 332. Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Penn Hills, introduced his legislation after hearing from parents concerned about a tattoo and piercing parlor in Blawnox being close to a school bus stop.
Anyone who has ever waited for a bus can appreciate their concern. There have been times when even I, standing idly at a bus stop for the old 16A, would have been driven by sheer boredom to enter any handy tattoo shop and get my torso decorated with a full depiction of Admiral Dewey steaming into Manila Bay.
Oddly, though, bus stops are not specifically mentioned in the prospective - not yet, anyway. There is, however, a prohibition against facial tattoos done by regular tattoo artists. As Rep. DeLuca explained in a recent PG story: "Our feeling is that people don't need to mutilate their bodies, especially on their face."
I knew it! All this licensing stuff is really a cover for the fact that we don't really like tattoos much, and this is a way we can express our dislike and get some money for the government to boot.
This is blatant discrimination against certain ethnic groups such as the Maoris who tattoo their faces. OK, so there's not too many Maoris this side of New Zealand, but to paraphrase Dr. Seuss, "a minority is a minority no matter how small."
The issue here is all about consenting idiots not hurting anybody but themselves. Let me hasten to add that not everybody who gives or gets a tattoo or pierced body part is an obvious cretin. To very large people who belong to motorcycle gangs and find this column offensive, I would only say this: Hey, great tattoo, you ought to get money from the National Endowment for the Arts just for walking around.
To be fair, tattooed people are not limited to bikers. I know a certain Sewickley housewife - perfect in every way - who on her 30th birthday went out and had a tiny tattoo put on her lower back. It is a crescent moon and two little stars - which was supposed to represent a Scorpio symbol, but these days, she says ruefully, reminds her of the Iranian flag.
She told me that originally she wanted to have it done on her breast, but the tattoo artist pointed out that little stars might sag into big ones as the years progressed. Hmm, she said.
That proves that just because tattoos are nuts doesn't mean that tattoo artists are necessarily irresponsible.
The trouble with lawmakers is that they insist on making laws. If only it were not against my principles, I would propose that their foreheads be tattooed with the words: Let the free spirits be free.
Reg Henry's e-mail address is rhenry@post-gazette.com.
|
|||
