By marking one's self, the tattooed person permanently wears distinguishing characteristics of whatever culture (or subculture) they want to be a part of and be accepted by. Unlike other acts of conformity (or rebellion) which are temporary in nature (hair coloring or style, friends, actions, dress, etc.), the markings of tattoos stick with that person until they are altered or erased (either of which takes great effort and/or pains.) Note that in the definition of conformity (which is perfectly fine to work with) that it does not stipulate a national society, simply prevailing society. The Manson Family members were certainly not going along with the mores of 60's society at large, but there were prevailing standards and practices within that subgroup that every member was expected to follow. Edited by - Cornell Lingus on 5/27/2008 5:21:20 PM
The problem with your statement is that it's an over-generalization. It presupposes that all people who get tattoos do so in order to achieve acceptance within a particular group. That may be your assumption, but you haven't cited any supporting evidence. Although I'm not a tattoo fan and most tattoos seem banal or just plain unattractive to me, some people's tattoos (and I would count Jandi Lin's, Sophia Santi's, and Ryder Skye's among these) appear to have a highly personal element to them which suggests legitimate self-expression rather than conformity. My take, anyway. -------------------- Edited by - bob on 5/27/2008 6:38:53 PM
Yeah, you're right, Bob. I guess the books and studies written on the subject of tats are just plain wrong. And here I thought I'd learned something in cultural anthro. Clearly Ryder is getting the tats to alienate people and drive them away.
Show me a current scholarly work that proves the generalization is true in every case, or even in 90% of the cases across all cultures. Just give me a citation for my further researches.You've set up a false dichotomy between tattoos as a means of conformity and tattoos as a means of antagonism. Clearly, there are other possible motives that don't fall within your rubric.
I don't think I even need to read the books and studies you're talking about to know that they're so Eurocentric and conservative in focus that they'd probably equate Maori traditional body art with the common tramp stamp. In other words, complete bung.
You mean Maori body art that denotes tribal heritage and rank, thus conforming to norms within their prevailing local culture? And how a whole bunch of MTV-watching lemmings have gone out and gotten tattoos because they want to fit in with what passes as the prevailing culuture of their day and place? Damn, you really proved me wrong. Edited by - Cornell Lingus on 5/28/2008 1:27:04 AM
Sure I can: Someone gets a tattoo that marks a personal rite of passage. Someone gets a tattoo because it makes them feel sexy. Someone gets a tattoo because they think it's beautiful. Someone gets a tattoo to remind themselves of something that they're anxious not to forget. None of those reasons falls neatly into your dichotomy. People have their idiosyncrasies. Things are not always easily explicable.
No, I mean that they could take two things - in this case, Maori body art and tramp stamps - and read so little from the two of them that what they come up with is "these two things are about conformity." Lots of things are about conformity. You know, like talking. Or writing. Why didn't you point out either of those as "one of the ultimate forms of conformity," instead of tattoos? I'll tell you, in case you're not sure: because it would be a ridiculous statement to make. Language - verbal and written - is about so much more than conformity that to reduce it to this one aspect is like looking at an elephant and a mouse and saying they're the same because they're both grey - in other words, ignoring a lot more than you're paying attention to. As with tattoos. There is such a myriad of reasons for body art, across cultures and eras, that to focus only on the fact that they somehow relate to conformity is ignoring far more than what you're paying attention to. And here's more about the different reasons for being tattooed: link 1 link 2 link 3 [edit: fixed end to fit with Bob's post, since I couldn't post my post for a couple of hours while ADT was under the weather] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 5/28/2008 1:43:57 AM
YOu're confusing me, killbill. Make up your mind which side you're on. Your posts say one thing, yet I've been through two of the three links and nearly everything in there supports my position--most voluntary tattooing as conformity, people taking marks indicating a social affiliation in some way that cannot be removed easily. Thanks for the supporting evidence, though. ...and the third link also reiterates the same.
Sometimes you just have to pee in the sink. ― Charles Bukowski 88 Posts 9/07
Posted - May 28 2008 : 3:14AM
Yeah, you're right, Bob. I guess the books and studies written on the subject of tats are just plain wrong. And here I thought I'd learned something in cultural anthro. Clearly Ryder is getting the tats to alienate people and drive them away. ____________________________ Funny... I just took anthropology last semester and that wasn't covered. Although I am sure you learned in class that there are many flaws in anthropological studies that are not necessarily specific fact, rather observation by researchers who are not without some societal bias. I also didn't realize you knew me so well as to prove that I am trying to alienate myself and drive people away. Have we met or is this just speculation? removed part of the extra wide line Edited by - heynow on 5/29/2008 10:34:18 AM
Ah, still reading stuff and ignoring far more than you're paying attention to, I see... Go back and read the links again. If you really think all the different reasons for getting tattoos can be summed up with the sentence "people just get tattoos to conform," then I salute you for being able to - in the face of all evidence to the contrary - stick to your belief that the elephant is a mouse.
I was being facetious in response to one of Bob's incorrect observations. I know you aren't trying to be alienating. Please continue with the story of your tats.
^Oh come on you two, let's not make this argument longer than it needs to be... Cornell Lingus made the statementTo which Bob objected, feeling that there can be other reasons for tattooing oneself than a desire to conform, statingAnd then Cornell Lingus got snarky (Bob's word), believing that it was ridiculous to assume that anyone could ever get a tattoo for any reason other than a desire to conform, and saidWhich made Ryder Skye angry, probably because she took offence to the whole conformity issue, and so was equally snarky back, sayingWhich I think Cornell Lingus didn't quite realize was a snarky comment, and thought that Ryder really did believe that he felt she was trying to alienate people, which led him to explainReferencing the observation of Bob's that he felt was incorrect; namely that Ryder's and others' tattoos could be anything other than conformist. And that's where we're at now. Everyone on the same page? Good. Now, on with the argument. Cornell Lingus: Bob (and I) have cited or described many situations in which someone has a desire to get a tattoo that do not involve the statement or feeling "I'm doing this so that I can fit in." You've ignored the emotions/reasons present in the examples, and stated that because some people have tattoos already, anyone else that gets one must be trying to conform. In some sense, you're right: there is an aspect of conformity to tattoos. There's also an aspect of conformity to eating meat, driving a car, getting married, wearing pants, writing poetry, using a computer, owning a pet, reading the newspaper, watching fireworks, and any number of other things that are a part of human life. They have all been done before, and will be done again; they all bring us closer to a collective experience. But to say that the driving reason for any of these things is to conform is ridiculous - people have different reasons for doing each of these things, and in fact different people can even have different reasons for doing the same thing. So to reduce all of these activities to "acts of conformity" ignores far more than what's really going on in the mind of the person doing them, and only paying attention to the fact that other people do these things as well. This is why I feel (and it seems like both Bob and Ryder will back me up on this) that to reduce tattoos to "one of the biggest acts of conformity" is beyond an oversimplification; it is ignoring so much of the richness of the experience, history and culture of what body art can be that it makes the statement seem a bland generalization at best, and a blatant ignoring of clear facts at worst.
What body art can be is the same thing that anything else can be. It can be anything. It can be wonderfully expressive, creative, inspiring, seductive or even sensual. What it often is (instead of everything else it can be) is a pair of MC Hammer pants (for those of you old enough to remember those awful things). Or anything that's fashionable to the point of being tasteless.
^I agree RP. This is why I was drawing the spectrum above between Maori traditional body art at one end, and tramp stamps at the other. My problem was that Cornell Lingus was equating the two - along with any other tattoo - as being exactly the same. Which seems ridiculous to me. And yeah, I remember MC Hammer pants. And I remember being smart enough not to buy a pair when all my friends were snatching them up. I guess I was an alright kid.
First, I think your detailed summation above was a good one. Thanks! With regard to the above quote, I'd say only this: A lot of tattooing does seem "conformist" to me in the simplistic sense. Much of it seems unoriginal. Most of it, to my eyes, looks ugly and disfiguring. But not "necessarily" and "everyone" and "always".
[Link]
Hypermastia Deactivated User
These R The Buttocks Of Ryan Star: No Butt Can Compare 248 Posts 6/07
Posted - May 28 2008 : 10:21PM
an exceptional looking, naked woman is great......a woman whose skin is naked is the best but I'll take tatoos over Horrendouse piercings (Courtney Cummz) No Nipple Or Genital Piercings, Please I waited till I was 31 to get one small tatoo on my forearm
^+1 on staying away from horrendous piercings... I've had a few bloody experiences (either me bleeding, her bleeding or both of us) due to piercings in "non-traditional" places, be it lips/cheeks, nipples, or clit/cunt. Basically I'm juts too rough for girls with piercings. And when I say this they always get all tough and they're like "no, I'll be fine" until they're bleeding from a torn bottom lip... Now I stay away from girls with piercings in strange places without exception.
Yes, it's sort of sad that some people could see a piercing or tattoo and think 'That's nasty! I'm out of here!'. I think it gives a person character and I would never judge a person by looks only.
Sorry babe, I'm just not a fan of bleeding! It's not to say I don't like watching girls with piercings though... And I guess if I have to be honest, I'd probably be ok with fooling around with a girl with piercings in all sorts of random strange places; I just wouldn't have sex with her, where things tend to get more out of hand.I'm not sure whether this was directed in part at my comment above, or at many other comments in the thread in general; but if it was directed at me, I have no problem with the look of a person with piercings, I just have too many personal experiences of drawing blood from them. It has nothing to do with judging by looks only, it's a purely practical matter. Many unusually-placed piercings can look hot as hell, if you want my purely aesthetic opinion on the matter.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - May 29 2008 : 1:06PM
You have me curious - what exactly were you doing that ended up making the piercing bleed? Where were the piercings? Hood, labia? I have my hood and my labia pierced, and I've done some fairly crazy stuff with them in. I've had them slapped, pulled hard, even whipped. The only thing that made something bleed was I masturbated too hard too soon after the last time I had my hood pierced, and it had a tiny bit of blood, but no actual drops of blood.
Sometimes you just have to pee in the sink. ― Charles Bukowski 88 Posts 9/07
Posted - May 29 2008 : 10:29PM
To quickly jump back into the tattoo quarrel... I feel there are people who get tattoos for the wrong reasons (ie. fitting in (as stated), although I will also agree that one cannot generalize the act of getting a tattoo into any one category such as conformity. As far as good/bad tattoos go, I almost feel that even though we can have a personal opinion, we cannot judge someone for their choice of art. Art is based on personal taste (for example: I went to the MOCA museum a couple years ago and one of the "art" displays was an empty white-walled room with a small pile of candy in one corner. That was considered art good enough to put in a museum. To me it was lame.) The idea of good and bad tattoos is the same. Some people may love the way a frog looks tattoo'd to a girl's ass (as well at the girl) while others may write how bad it is on this thread. The argument is ultimately never ending when it comes to personal opinion. Sorry for the rant, I hope it at least made some sense. I would have put up links to direct comments but there were too many and I am being lazy. Also... to answer a thread from a while ago. The latin writing on my back says "Cicatrix manet" which means "The scar remains" Now back to your piercing conversation...
Lower lip: fucking her doggy style, yanked on her face, lip bleeding everywhere. Lower lip: french kissing, cut my tongue (don't even ask me how). Nose (bulllring): pulled on it while eating her out, cut the part of my finger where the side of your nail meets the skin. Bled like a motherfucker. Nipple: cut my nostril while fucking cowgirl. Labia (ring): caught it with my finger and yanked (accidentally), cut my finger and made her bleed. Now that I read that stuff all written down together, maybe it's not so much that I'm rough... Maybe it's just that I'm really clumsy. Either way, too much blood. (In case anyone's wondering, the two lower lip accidents and the nose were the same girl, the nipple another, and the labia another.)
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - May 30 2008 : 1:25AM
killbill- I'm cringing and smiling at the same time. You do sound kind of clumsy. And I know I am... *sigh* I was making out with this guy that I love messing around with, and the tone had been set for a particularly high-energy night. He had his hand on the back of my head, and was pushing and pulling my head up and down while he was fucking my mouth. In between, he would slap my cheek a couple of times. One of the times he took his dick out of my mouth, he went to slap my cheek, but I accidentally looked in the direction of that hand. He ended up hitting my nose and giving me a bloody nose. We both started laughing. I laid down and he brought me ice for my nose, and within half an hour we were back at it. I'm trying to visualize how you could cut your finger on a labia hoop. Hmm... what a bizarre conversation. BTW - Ryder- I like your tattoos. Very sensual and beautiful.
^That's an awesome story. One time during sex we got going in opposite directions and smacked foreheads so hard we both felt kinda faint. Not very sexy, but hilarious after the fact. Yeah cutting my finger on a labia hoop was pretty impressive, but I think I'm most proud of cutting my tongue while French kissing, cuz, like, seriously, what the fuck. Back to tattoos. Ryder Skye, awesome. Jandi Lin, holy shit that art is impressive. Tramp stamps, and dolphins on ankles, not so much. I like Stoya's as well. I'd post a pic but I can't find one right now. Maybe y'all have seen it already though. There was much talk of it in her thread, which used to have a pic, but it seems to have disappeared. [edited to say: I hate getting bloody noses. Like I really hate them, more than most other injuries.] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 5/30/2008 1:41:05 AM
OMG, that was a Felix Gonzalez-Torres installation... Gonzalez was a hispanic homosexual. His piece in the MOCA is titled "Untitled (A Corner of Baci)" 1990. [Taken from 'Art on the Edge and Over'] It is a spill of Italian chocolates. "Baci" refers to "kiss" in Italian. Each piece has a waxed paper strip under its foil wrapper that speaks of love. Will you accept a kiss from a gay man? The point is, it may look like a corner of lame-ass candies, but when you know the story behind it, then suddenly the candy becomes a very personal and purposeful social/political statement. Much like people's tattoos... I find it hard to believe that someone would permanently mark themselves without some deeper meaning behind it. Though it may look lame on the outside, you have no idea what it means to that person on the inside. My small chest tattoo looks way lamer than my giant back piece, but it means so much more to me than my back. And whose opinion matters except the person creating/wearing the art? Art is personal expression and everyone is free to express themselves however they wish.
This is awesome, having both Ryder and Jandi posting on this thread about pornstars' tattoos, as both of them have some of the coolest tattoos in the biz. I'm not sure that I completely agree with Jandi's statement above, though. Unfortunately, there are many times when people do mark themselves permanently without some deeper meaning; usually when they're drunk. Take this Shay Jordan interview as an example. She says:And she's by no means the only person to have a story like that. Although tattooists are not supposed to give tattoos to people who are clearly drunk or high, it still happens sometimes, and people end up with all sorts of things that they regret from that day on. Maybe if Jandi is willing to change her sentence above to "I find it hard to believe that someone who is sober would permanently mark themselves without some deeper meaning behind it," then I'd agree with her.
I'd agree with Jandi if she were willing to change her sentence above to read: "I find it hard to believe that someone who is sober, over 18, not living with their parents, intelligent, and self-aware would permanently mark themselves without some deeper meaning behind it."
It was a general direction, seems some people get hung up on little details, which I find kind of weird and annoying. I don't know how many times I've read things like 'She has tattoos, so she's ugly' on this board... and the mainstream porn industry classifies tattoos as 'cheap looking'. That's like saying 'You're black, and we only want white girls, fuck off'. (I'm trying to learn how to spell tattoo in pluralis :P) Edited by - Gunzo on 5/30/2008 11:42:27 PM
I'm with you all the way there Gunzo, that's what I've said in some other threads, like this one about Monique Alexander's new tattoo:[edit: added quote, link to pic of tattoo] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 5/30/2008 11:38:50 PM
We seem to think in similar ways. I guess it has to do with how people watch porn, if they're after eye candy (in that case, I love light pure skin without tattoos, g/g, posing stuff) or are intruiged by the performers (and directors). People dissing a girl like Belladonna don't know what they're missing out on imho. Looks can never make up for lacking personality.
I got it during my first trip to Spain when I studied abroad in Granada. It's a design taken from the walls of the Alhambra, a medieval Islamic palace... "the jewel of Andalucia." It's a conch shell. Islamic pilgrims used to take shells with them so that they could drink from the fountains along the way. Eventually, the conch shell came to symbolize water and life. The conch shell is a recurring motif in Islamic as well as Christian art and architecture.
Thanks for sharing, Jandi! I've always wanted to visit the Alhambra. Among other things, I'm an architecture and artisanal tile buff. When I finally get there one of these days, I'll see things with slightly more informed eyes.
I can't say I agree with this analogy. Getting a tattoo is obviously a choice, and disliking tats -- or more specifically, disliking (disagreeing with) their choice of getting ink done -- is not the same as "disliking" people because of their skin color.
Little Puck Interview
Posted - May 27 2008 : 4:07AM
