I have just been reading the aptly titled Piercing Bible by Elayne Angel - an expert in the subject and engaging writer, who maps the rise in its modern popularity as well providing an insight into some of the colourful characters behind the 1970's and 1980's revival of what is actually an incredibly ancient practice.
I am the product very much of an era that disapproved of difference and if tattoos were considered at all it was with strong disapproval. Men with earrings belonged to primitive tribes - or had sailed around the world ( probably gathering anchor tattoos along the way). I gather the gold earring was meant to pay for a decent funeral wherever the hapless sailor died.
As a school boy I learnt about piercing via an unusual route: primitive rock art in Central and Southern Africa abounds with images of men who we believe had been infibulated as a part of a ritual or rite of passage to prevent intercourse. In this type of male piercing the foreskin is stretched forward over the glans in order to permit a sharp spike to be pushed through. In Borneo a similar practice occurred but was / is done directly through the glans not to prevent sex - but enhance the experience for the female partner.
Tattooing isn't quite such a traumatic experience as the needles used only penetrate a few microns in order to enable the ink or dye to penetrate the surface. History tells us (with obviously very few preserved examples) that this was practiced by our very earliest ancestors. Many cultures today continue to daub themselves in this way and it is probably safe to say that their art is copied by the modern primitives as some tattoo'd people call themselves.
Piercing takes the observer to arguably another level. Where one could and may do tut tut at the sight of a tattoo and judge its owner, there is a perception that it represents little more than a rebellious streak. Women with them were previously judged 'common' until the press noticed the wife of a British politician sporting one on her ankle.Pierced ears are probably still de rigeur women while men can sport earrings if they are wealthy, eccentric, or play football - but not in business, law or senior management!
After reading Elayne Angel's book, my early understanding of the practices of the rock artists has changed and doubly increased my abhorrence of female infibulation and circumcision - the always non consensual mutilation of young girls predominantly in Africa. So too has been my unquestioning acceptance of male circumcision as a cultural right (and to some rite): what parents think or believe that they are doing when they agree or request that their newly born son be circumcised is difficult to comprehend in the light of modern medical thought. I think I'm correct in saying that Princess Diana put a stop to it in the Royal family. Our Roman civilisers did not approve of the 'Jewish practice' and even experimented with foreskin restoration.
The modern fashion and portfolio of piercings do arguably emanate from three enterprising fans of the practice - Doug Malloy, Fakir Musafar and Jim Ward who operated out of Los Angeles in the 1970's and 1980's (and of course the so-called Punk rebellion). In addition to experimenting and providing exotic sounding names to different piercings, they also constructed a mythology and history - much of it fantasy. Elayne Angel studied and worked with these three men which adds considerable gravitas to her book and expertise in the subject.
Among the most infamous myths is of course the story of the Prince Albert. For the uninitiated this is a modern version of the rock artists' infibulation and involves a metal ring being inserted through the urethra. Eye watering or what? According to Malloy, this was named after Queen Victoria's consort who he claimed was the most famous person to sport one. A great story but there's apparently no evidence to support it! However this did not stop me recently convincing - with incredible ease - an American friend that all male members of the current British Royal family sport them ... well - Zara Phillips did have her tongue pierced didn't she?
Which returns me to the general perception or acceptance of piercings. Just like the scars of genital circumcision, the vast majority are apparently hidden from public view and the idea of them remains socially frowned upon. The issue that concerns me most, however, is that of choice.
When I see a Muslim, Jew or male member of the so-called upper middle classes (Christian or secular), I sadly see a baby that was in all likelihood traumatised by a painful procedure carried out by adults exercising their dominance over him. I certainly don't see an informed adult voluntarily undergoing an operation that will have an unalterable effect upon him later in life. However when I see a person - usually a young person - sitting opposite me on the train with more metal than the Bank of England, I do conversely know that I am looking at someone who has consented to the body modification that he or she has had done: a question of personal choice rather than custom or questionable medical practice. Times certainly are a-changing ...
