Watch me rant!
I read something this evening that made me feel like I need to come out about something: My name is Gwen, I am a Bible-believing Christian, and I have two tattoos and eight piercings (three in each earlobe, one in my left cartilage, and just got my tongue done yesterday).
And unlike the apparent feelings of the people on this site, I do not believe body modification and Christianity are mutually exclusive, nor particularly at odds with each other. They tackle an interesting question, but I was extremely frustrated reading through all the responses.
World Magazine, with which this blog is connected, is a conservative newsmagazine -- think Time or Newsweek for the Jerry Falwell set. My parents subscribe to the magazine, and I read their copy fairly regularly. There are some places I really like World's take on the news, and other things I read simply as another perspective to things I read or listen to elsewhere.
Despite knowing the perspective the magazine takes, I have a problem with this blog entry from the beginning. Just the phraseology indicates right away a bias against body modification, which to me, reduces the possibility of having a good dialogue: "...a show on body art, including everything from African tribal markings to modern-day Western expressions of adolescent rebellion. The exhibit aims to paint today’s often violent self-decoration - such as implants under the skin, scarring, tattoos and piercing - in a less critical light." (Emphasis mine.)
To me, that all implies little first-hand knowledge of the body modification culture and those who embrace it.
The phrase "expressions of adolescent rebellion" seems to smack of the cultural mire in which conservatives so often seem to find themselves enmeshed. Too often, denominations find themselves stuck in a 1950s sensibility that sees nothing of any sort of advancement.
For instance, my church will not allow Sunday School and church workers to attend the movie theatre. I once asked my former pastor the reason behind this ban. He drew a parallel between going to the cineplex to see a movie and going to a bar to have a good burger. (Obviously, we don't go to bars, either. That's grounds for getting thrown out of church.)
The burger has nothing inherently wrong with it, he said, but going to a bar has "a certain reputation." You're going to a bad place to get an amoral/good product. Thus he drew the parallel to movies -- the movie itself may be good, but the theatre is a bad place. And somebody who saw someone from our church enter a bar would not think he or she was going to get a burger. They'd think booze. Likewise, the quality of choices for a theatre is suspect.
That may have been a valid observation in 1950 -- "rebels" went to the theatre to neck and such -- but as someone who has sat many hours in the movies over the past few years, I rarely see anybody kiss, let alone anything more naughty.
Drawing the parallel again -- in the 1950s, tattoos WERE for rebels and Armed Forces members. That was true. Spend any time talking to a tattoo artist or in a shop, and you'd see a huge variety of people getting body modification for multiple different reasons. Rebellion is a possibility, sure, but can we whitewash the reasoning for people's choices? No.
I am likewise frustrated by the "often violent self-decoration" phrasing. It seems pejorative, and again, given from a seemingly hear-say accounting of what body modification is. Though suspension and constriction are somewhat more violent in nature, most of your mainstream body modification has nothing to do with that.
Early on, several people address the apparent Scriptural prohibitions for piercing or tattoos, but they are also ably answered later in the posts. To add to what is already posted there, I offer the fact that in Genesis, Abraham's servant brings "rings of gold" for the nose of the wife he found for Isaac. There are other mentions throughout the Bible of jewelry -- the melting of the gold to make the golden calf in the wilderness in the book of Exodus, and just other random mentions. So it follows, at least in my poor little mind, that if jewelry is mentioned, piercing is involved, too. Given my knowledge of Middle Eastern/Asian cultures, it probably wasn't just a daintily pierced ear, either.
The apparent belief that the placement of tattoos and piercings are sexual in nature just made me want to scream as well. I won't argue the fact that nipple rings and genital piercings ARE likely more sexual in nature, and a Christian probably should think twice about that. If he or she is looking to have a pure thought life -- those may not be the way to go.
But then again, when I was considering getting my nipples done (and still am), it has little to do with the sexual nature of that particular piercing. Personally, I like the look of nipple piercings, and that's that.
I personally don't find a pierced cock to be terribly attractive, but what if a man wanted to pierce himself to improve his aesthetic perception of himself? As far as I'm concerned, go for it. But I *hate* that the church and these people would frown on that.
The question brought up about the sexual uses of a tongue ring got me snarky, though, I must admit: How do these Good Conservative People know about those sorts of naughty things? Hmmm???
For my own part, I got the tongue piercing A) because I knew it was one of the more painless ones and fast-healing and B) it can be decently camoflauged and C) I wanted to commemorate a life change. The fact that it CAN be used in a sexual manner really did not play into my decision as to how to use it (though - *cough* - I am a bit curious).
But the thing that scared me -- there's a comment further down about how women often have designs on the lower curve of their back (vanity pieces) -- and how that is such an ostentatious display of sexuality. Taking that thought to its extreme, is that the same sort of belief that leads to "if the woman wore a red dress at night, she was asking for rape?"
Further, sexuality is in the eye of the beholder. The viewer is the one responsible for his or her mind, not the person with the piercing or tattoo.
The caveat that body modification is destruction of "God's temple" likewise makes me incredibly angry. For me, body modification is all about adding to the beauty of what God has given me. And for many who get tattoos, at least, I think it is similar reasoning, whether or not they believe in a deity. The human form is beautiful, and tattoos or piercings can greatly enhance that.
As I said above, I have two tattoos: a kanji for "inspiration" on the inside of my right ankle, and a flower with a perched butterfly on the top of my left foot. Neither was chosen out of sexuality, or "adolescent rebellion," or anything like that. I chose "inspiration" as a recognition and invocation of the creative forces in my life, and I thought about it for a long time before inking it. The flower and butterfly were chosen randomly, but now have deep meaning. The butterfly and flower both have regenerative natures -- the cycle of life -- and I've gone through some tough times and come out stronger. The butterfly is also symbolic to me because of its mythological connection to Psyche/the soul and my grandmother's death.
I will add a caveat here, speaking only for Christians. I firmly believe in Christian liberty -- that a person has a right to make his or her own decisions regarding things not firmly spelled out in the Bible -- but I think a Christian needs to balance that with discretion toward others who may not believe the same. There are some (and apparently, many of them post on the blog site) who might be thrown off in their faith to find out someone in the church has a tattoo or piercing. The Bible says we need to be careful of that, and I agree.
Mostly, for discretion, I would advocate choosing carefully what images may be inked in a tattoo (likely not a naked woman on the bicep of the deacon in church) and be careful as to the kinds of overt piercings.
The nature of the bulk of those postings made me SO angry, though. It comes across like anybody who has a tattoo is automatically bad and rebellious. Is it any wonder that many people feel judged coming into a conservative church?
Is it any wonder I sometimes like the people who are into body modifications a LOT better than my fellow Christians?
I'm disgusted.
And unlike the apparent feelings of the people on this site, I do not believe body modification and Christianity are mutually exclusive, nor particularly at odds with each other. They tackle an interesting question, but I was extremely frustrated reading through all the responses.
World Magazine, with which this blog is connected, is a conservative newsmagazine -- think Time or Newsweek for the Jerry Falwell set. My parents subscribe to the magazine, and I read their copy fairly regularly. There are some places I really like World's take on the news, and other things I read simply as another perspective to things I read or listen to elsewhere.
Despite knowing the perspective the magazine takes, I have a problem with this blog entry from the beginning. Just the phraseology indicates right away a bias against body modification, which to me, reduces the possibility of having a good dialogue: "...a show on body art, including everything from African tribal markings to modern-day Western expressions of adolescent rebellion. The exhibit aims to paint today’s often violent self-decoration - such as implants under the skin, scarring, tattoos and piercing - in a less critical light." (Emphasis mine.)
To me, that all implies little first-hand knowledge of the body modification culture and those who embrace it.
The phrase "expressions of adolescent rebellion" seems to smack of the cultural mire in which conservatives so often seem to find themselves enmeshed. Too often, denominations find themselves stuck in a 1950s sensibility that sees nothing of any sort of advancement.
For instance, my church will not allow Sunday School and church workers to attend the movie theatre. I once asked my former pastor the reason behind this ban. He drew a parallel between going to the cineplex to see a movie and going to a bar to have a good burger. (Obviously, we don't go to bars, either. That's grounds for getting thrown out of church.)
The burger has nothing inherently wrong with it, he said, but going to a bar has "a certain reputation." You're going to a bad place to get an amoral/good product. Thus he drew the parallel to movies -- the movie itself may be good, but the theatre is a bad place. And somebody who saw someone from our church enter a bar would not think he or she was going to get a burger. They'd think booze. Likewise, the quality of choices for a theatre is suspect.
That may have been a valid observation in 1950 -- "rebels" went to the theatre to neck and such -- but as someone who has sat many hours in the movies over the past few years, I rarely see anybody kiss, let alone anything more naughty.
Drawing the parallel again -- in the 1950s, tattoos WERE for rebels and Armed Forces members. That was true. Spend any time talking to a tattoo artist or in a shop, and you'd see a huge variety of people getting body modification for multiple different reasons. Rebellion is a possibility, sure, but can we whitewash the reasoning for people's choices? No.
I am likewise frustrated by the "often violent self-decoration" phrasing. It seems pejorative, and again, given from a seemingly hear-say accounting of what body modification is. Though suspension and constriction are somewhat more violent in nature, most of your mainstream body modification has nothing to do with that.
Early on, several people address the apparent Scriptural prohibitions for piercing or tattoos, but they are also ably answered later in the posts. To add to what is already posted there, I offer the fact that in Genesis, Abraham's servant brings "rings of gold" for the nose of the wife he found for Isaac. There are other mentions throughout the Bible of jewelry -- the melting of the gold to make the golden calf in the wilderness in the book of Exodus, and just other random mentions. So it follows, at least in my poor little mind, that if jewelry is mentioned, piercing is involved, too. Given my knowledge of Middle Eastern/Asian cultures, it probably wasn't just a daintily pierced ear, either.
The apparent belief that the placement of tattoos and piercings are sexual in nature just made me want to scream as well. I won't argue the fact that nipple rings and genital piercings ARE likely more sexual in nature, and a Christian probably should think twice about that. If he or she is looking to have a pure thought life -- those may not be the way to go.
But then again, when I was considering getting my nipples done (and still am), it has little to do with the sexual nature of that particular piercing. Personally, I like the look of nipple piercings, and that's that.
I personally don't find a pierced cock to be terribly attractive, but what if a man wanted to pierce himself to improve his aesthetic perception of himself? As far as I'm concerned, go for it. But I *hate* that the church and these people would frown on that.
The question brought up about the sexual uses of a tongue ring got me snarky, though, I must admit: How do these Good Conservative People know about those sorts of naughty things? Hmmm???
For my own part, I got the tongue piercing A) because I knew it was one of the more painless ones and fast-healing and B) it can be decently camoflauged and C) I wanted to commemorate a life change. The fact that it CAN be used in a sexual manner really did not play into my decision as to how to use it (though - *cough* - I am a bit curious).
But the thing that scared me -- there's a comment further down about how women often have designs on the lower curve of their back (vanity pieces) -- and how that is such an ostentatious display of sexuality. Taking that thought to its extreme, is that the same sort of belief that leads to "if the woman wore a red dress at night, she was asking for rape?"
Further, sexuality is in the eye of the beholder. The viewer is the one responsible for his or her mind, not the person with the piercing or tattoo.
The caveat that body modification is destruction of "God's temple" likewise makes me incredibly angry. For me, body modification is all about adding to the beauty of what God has given me. And for many who get tattoos, at least, I think it is similar reasoning, whether or not they believe in a deity. The human form is beautiful, and tattoos or piercings can greatly enhance that.
As I said above, I have two tattoos: a kanji for "inspiration" on the inside of my right ankle, and a flower with a perched butterfly on the top of my left foot. Neither was chosen out of sexuality, or "adolescent rebellion," or anything like that. I chose "inspiration" as a recognition and invocation of the creative forces in my life, and I thought about it for a long time before inking it. The flower and butterfly were chosen randomly, but now have deep meaning. The butterfly and flower both have regenerative natures -- the cycle of life -- and I've gone through some tough times and come out stronger. The butterfly is also symbolic to me because of its mythological connection to Psyche/the soul and my grandmother's death.
I will add a caveat here, speaking only for Christians. I firmly believe in Christian liberty -- that a person has a right to make his or her own decisions regarding things not firmly spelled out in the Bible -- but I think a Christian needs to balance that with discretion toward others who may not believe the same. There are some (and apparently, many of them post on the blog site) who might be thrown off in their faith to find out someone in the church has a tattoo or piercing. The Bible says we need to be careful of that, and I agree.
Mostly, for discretion, I would advocate choosing carefully what images may be inked in a tattoo (likely not a naked woman on the bicep of the deacon in church) and be careful as to the kinds of overt piercings.
The nature of the bulk of those postings made me SO angry, though. It comes across like anybody who has a tattoo is automatically bad and rebellious. Is it any wonder that many people feel judged coming into a conservative church?
Is it any wonder I sometimes like the people who are into body modifications a LOT better than my fellow Christians?
I'm disgusted.