Please Use Protection: Why

Please use Protection: Why ‘Radical’ Body Modification Should be
Protected by Law

“I wish that people didn't need legislation to protect them in the first place. Do we really need a law stating that men and women should be given equal rights? To me, it's obvious. It's not obvious to a lot of people out there, though. Do we need legislation that says employers cannot hire or fire based on the way someone looks but instead should make their decision on the merits of the individual? Again, that seems obvious but that's not the way it works. Having said that... There are circumstances when body modification can be unsafe or even dangerous in certain job settings. An employer should never have to risk the safety of others because they can't consider the modification in question.” Chris Carter, President of the Church of Body Modification

The United States of America is one of the few countries whose citizens have freedoms and rights. There are laws protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity and religion. But what about protection for things that fall in between the categories or are a combination of the categories, such as body modification, specifically those modifications seen as ‘radical’ or ‘extreme’ such a piercings, tattoos and scarifications? Many ethnic groups and religions practice body modification to show status in society, to show devotion to a deity or to achieve spiritual enlightenment. Although body modification practices are often linked to homosexuality, today many people, regardless of age or gender, engage in body modification. Yet people who participate in body modification today are looked down on. In this paper, I will explain why there should be legislation protecting the rights of modified individuals.

One major human characteristic protected by law that is still being fought about across the entire nation is sexual orientation. Homosexuals, bisexual and heterosexuals have argued whether or not homosexuality corrupts the mortal soul since the first homosexual person came “out of the closet.” So called “straights” sought to put as much of a gap between themselves and “queers” as possible. Clothing, speech, mannerisms and body modification all fell under close scrutiny when it came to trying to determine if a person was gay or lesbian. Out of all the bigotry arose a group that some call “radical queers” (Pitts 87). These so-called radical queers “not only eroticized the new body art practices, but also deployed them as a form of sexualized, embodied politics” (Pitts 87). “Radicals” gave a new meaning to body modification. They took it from being homage to one’s heritage or acting out against society to something sexual. For radical queers, body modification was not just a way to adorn themselves but to make a statement about their sexuality and be viewed as more desirable by other homosexuals.

But radical queers are not the only subgroup of homosexuality that makes use of body modification. Those involved in BDSM (bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, sadist and masochist), transgender and fetishism all make use of body modification. The use of modification in such contexts may be used as signs of who is “master” or “servant” or it may signify the types of fetishes in which one indulges. Body modification allows practitioners of alterative sexualities to express themselves.

Another group still fighting for equality is women. Throughout time women have been the most oppressed group of people. They were literally sold to men, forced to produce children, and before genetic studies it was always the woman’s fault if a son was not produced. So it is no surprise that now that women have achieved some equality, they are reclaiming their feminity: their bodies. One way some women have sought to reclaim their bodies is through the use of body modification.

Sociologist Victoria Pitts dedicates an entire chapter in her book In the Flesh: The Cultural Politics of Body Modification focusing on women reclaiming their bodies through body modification. The stories of five women’s reclamations are detailed in the chapter. Four of the five women were described as members of the lesbian SM community in their areas who survived childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is a common thread between many women who chose to reclaim their bodies through modification. Their modifications free them and mark their progress of personal growth, something highly valued in today’s society.

Every culture in today’s world may trace its origins back to a “primitive” race that practiced various forms of body modification. In the United States of America, many people can claim at least one Native American ancestor in their lineage. Whether this ancestor came from North, South or Central America, more than likely their tribe practiced at the very least pierced and stretched earlobes, septums and labrets. Tribes may also have engaged in tattooing, scarification, skull-binding and heavy dental alterations (Perlingieri 79). The modifications (specifically piercings) denoted one’s rank in society. Nobility sported jewelry made from precious materials such as gold and gemstones while the lower class wore jewelry made from bone, wood, clay or other such materials (Perlingieri 82).

Even if one’s ancestors do not come from the Americas, tribes from Oceana (Micronesia, Polynesia and Melanesia), to this day, still participate in earlobe and cartilage piercing and stretching as well as tattoos (Perlingieri 93). The indigenous tribes of Borneo make use of tattoos extending from the knuckles up and from neck down. They also pierce and stretch earlobes and the men used to pierce their genitals to signify that they were “a desirable warrior and potential mate” (Perlingieri 96). In New Guinea, people sported stretched septum piercings, tattoos, and stretched earlobe piercings. (Perlingieri 99-100). Native tribes in the Solomon Islands, Marquesas Island, Easter Island, Bali, and Ancient Java all had pierced and stretched earlobes (Perlingieri 102-105).

There is a culture in existence today making use of body modification. It is a global group known as Modern Primitives, also referred to as ‘Neo Primitives’ (BMEzine) .The beginning of Modern Primitives came about with Roland Loomis, born in 1930 (Perlingieri 21). For thirty years Loomis practiced body modification in secret, documenting every instance through photography. The modifications Loomis practiced reflected modifications associated with indigenous peoples. In 1979 Loomis exposed his modifications at the first International Tattoo Convention in Reno, Nevada (BMEzine). Loomis changed his birth name and became known as Fakir Musafar. With Fakir’s “coming out” as a modified individual, the Modern Primitives kicked off. They encourage the rediscovery of “the cultural meaning of radical body modification” (Atkinson, Young 119). In effect, the Modern Primitives achieved the feeling of being not a subculture but their own tribe.

A major aspect of culture is religion. A quick survey of the average Christian will give a person the idea that body modification is a sin according to the Bible. But is it? In Exodus 21:5-6, the Bible states “But if the slave declares: ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I do not want to leave as a free man,’ his master is to bring him to the judges and then bring him to the door or doorpost. His master must pierce his ear with an awl, and he will serve his master for life.” Also, in both Ezekiel 16:12 and Genesis 24:22 nose rings are mentioned, not in a negative way, but as a form of adornment. In Leviticus 19:28 is the famous argument “You are not to make gashes on your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves; I am the Lord.” But not all translations of the Bible agree on whether or not it is tattoos that are banned. According to the King James Bible, American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, Webster’s Bible Translation, and the Young’s Literal Translation the word is not “tattoo” but “mark. So clearly the only body modification the Bible may or may not ban is tattoos. Even then, with the birth and death of Jesus a new covenant was formed, negating many of the Abrahamic laws from the Old Testament.

There are in fact, some religions that to this day use body modifications. Hindus, members of the Plains North American tribes in North America (
Sioux, Crow, Nez Perce, and the Mandans), tribal religions in Africa, etc. use body modification. When Hindu women reach puberty or marry, they pierce their nostril. In the Tamil Hindu religion, kavadi (a frame of spears piercing the body) is practiced (Pitts 125). The Plains North American tribes hold a ritual known as the Sun Dance where the chest is pierced; then the chest (through the piercings) is connected to a cottonwood tree with rope. The men then dance until they break free (Pitts 125).

As of September 22, 2008 the Church of Body Modification (known as CoBM) became officially recognized as a religion (CoBM). The church states that it “represents a collection of members practicing ancient and modern body modification rites.” and that members “believe these rites are essential to our spirituality. Practicing body modification and engaging in body manipulation rituals strengthen the bond between mind, body, and soul. By doing so, we ensure that we live as spiritually complete and healthy individuals” (CoBM). Thus, body modification may be protected under laws inhibiting religious discrimination in the workplace. Even if that protection only covers those religions that make use of body modification.

Because connections existing among body modification, religion, gender, race, and sexual orientation, there needs to be legislation passed that protects the rights of modified individuals. One could make the argument that the protection should only extend to those practicing body modification because of their race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. How though, would one be certain that a modified man practices the modifications because of race, religion or sexual orientation? The protection would have to cover all modified individuals.

Works Cited

Atkinson, Michael, and Kevin Young.. "Flesh journeys: Neo Primitives and the
Contemporary Rediscovery of Radical Body Modification." Deviant Behavior 22.2 (Mar. 2001): 117-146.

BME: Body Modification Ezine- The Biggest and Best Tattoo, Piercing and Body
Modification Site Since 1994. 15 April 2006. November 2008. http://wiki.bmezine.com/index.php/Modern_Primitive

Carter, Chris. Electronic Interview by Barefoot Gypsy. November 12, 2008.

Church of Body Modification. 2000-2008. November 2008. http://uscobm.com/

Klesse, Christian. "Racialising the Politics of Transgression: Body Modification in Queer Culture."
Social Semiotics 17.3 (Sep. 2007): 275-292.

Perlingieri, Blake Andrew. A Brief History of the Evolution of Body Adornment: Ancients Origins
and Today. Tribalife Publications, 2003.

Pitts, Victoria. In the Flesh: The Cultural Politics of Body Modification. Palgrave Mcmillan, 2003.

The Holy Bible. Holman Christian Standard Bible. Nashville: Holman Bible Publisher, 2003.

***
My professor did not even grade the paper's arguments based on my thesis. He graded the entire thing on a thesis HE came up with: 'Radical' Body Modification is discriminated against at work.' Needless to say I made a F on this paper. Sorry it's so long but that's what the requirements were.