On Tuesday, the Arkansas State Senate passed a bill that bans “non-traditional” tattoos and body modifications. Based in part on a call to improve the safety of non-doctor administered cosmetic procedures, the bill would effectively ban scarification, dermal implants and certain tattoos yet to be defined by the vagueness of the bill’s language.
Introduced in March by Sen. Missy Irvin (R – Mountain View), the ban — targeted at licensed body-art professionals — meant to address the possibility of staph infections, was seemingly conceived from Irvin’s discomfort with the procedures. Before the Arkansas Senate’s Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee, Irvin said of body modifications, “If you review the pictures of scarification, it’s an interesting technique but very problematic,” ultimately comparing the procedure to female genital mutilation. As for dermal implants, Irvin suggested “spikes and things like that” and “peel[ing] back the skin.”
“We can’t [even] control infections 100 percent in hospitals in extremely sterile environments where everybody is trained,” said state Health Department attorney Robert Brech, who assisted in authoring the bill. Brech has stated that the health department had not yet identified a single case of infection from scarification or implants, and did not have any data or research on the public health impacts. “[The] potential for infection is there… You’ve got people who are not medically trained cutting into the skin.”
Scarification, or inkless tattooing, is a method of forming permanent scars on the skin via branding — or the direct contact of the skin to a heated metal surface — or cutting. Dermal implantation is the practice of placing jewelry or a non-organic substance under the skin for the purposes of anchoring or changing the contours of the skin.
Shock value in legislating and the politics of ickiness
Misty Forsberg, a licensed body-art professional from Fort Smith, Ark., testified to the Senate that Irvin’s perception of the practice is inaccurate and deceptive and that the bill’s vague language will cause contradictions, such as the possible banning of body piercings.
Forsberg also argues that banning the practice will not get rid of the public desire for these types of procedures and will only drive body modifiers underground. “If it’s passed you’ll see professionals cease to do it,” she said. “Professionals like myself won’t break the law to do it. It will be left to untrained individuals underground… a ban on it will only increase the danger of having untrained individuals perform it on the public and leaving that public with no safe way to pursue this art.
“We can look at Oklahoma as proof of this, which chose to stand by its ban on tattooing for so long,” Forsberg continued. “Tattooing was still performed during the ban in almost every city in Oklahoma, but with no regulation or law to govern the practice because it was performed illegally. I am asking that this not happen in Arkansas. As a member of the body art industry in our state, I don’t want to see us take a step backward in progression and safety. The right choice, and the choice which puts the welfare of the public first is to vote no on this bill. We simply cannot allow laws to be passed based solely upon unresearched opinions.”
When asked about the possibility of a higher infection rate due to black market procedures, Brech responded to the committee that, “You could make that argument with anything.”
In considering the health risks of the procedure from a licensed professional, Forsberg stated that they are “equivalent in the depth and comparable in risk to that of a tattoo without ink. The result is the intentional application of scars for the purpose of decoration. The state’s fear of high infection rates is unfounded, as the initial healing time is faster than even that of many basic body piercings.”
Despite clarification on the nature of the procedures, it was perceived that the bill cleared the committee by shock value alone. Many senators used tongue-splitting as a rationale for their decision-making, despite the fact that tongue-splitting is not covered in the bill, with one senator going on record in calling the procedure “the grossest thing I’ve ever heard of.”
Branding, a more severe form of scarification utilized by many African-American fraternities, is protected by law, however. “The legislature made that determination in 2001,” Brech argued before the committee. “Branding is allowable. It’s been done for years. We’re not looking to change that. We’re trying to limit more emerging things than what traditionally has been done. The implants and scarification are sort of emerging. There’s not a lot of that that happens in Arkansas now.”
The right of free expression
However, on the Senate floor, opposition to the bill came from four Republican senators, all arguing the same point. “I didn’t think the bill was needed,” said Sen. David Sanders (R – Little Rock). “What an individual chooses to do in terms of those types of modifications to one’s body, that should be left to them.”
At the heart of this debate is the question of if a person has the right to speak or express himself in a way that may be offensive to others. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a person is free to express themselves without fear of government intervention. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state can deny a person rights afforded to that person by the federal government.
In asking if body modification is free expression, one must ask what purpose do body modifications serve? In 2011, an interview ran on SWNS.com with the tagline, “A respectable mother celebrated her divorce by asking her new boyfriend to cover her entire body — with a single TATTOO.” Jacqui Moore, 41 at the time of the publication of the article, covered 85 percent of her body in a “full-suit” black-and-gray tattoo — only leaving her face and half of her right leg untattooed. The mother of two daughters explain her choice to be fully tattooed as a reflection of her new life direction, post-divorce. ”I went to get a new tattoo to symbolise my freedom and the new chapter in my life.
Different sociologists would explain Moore’s choice in different ways. In Margot Mifflin’s 1997 “Bodies of Subversion: A Secret History of Women and Tattoo,” the author argues that tattooing among women relates directly with various waves of feminism and the modified women’s desire to resist against traditional perceptions of femininity.
In Michael Atkinson’s 2003 “Tattooed: The Sociogenesis of a Body Art,” Atkinson argued that tattooing offers an emotional “pressure valve” on emotions, fears and desires that would otherwise be suppressed or distorted from public view. By creating this visual expression of the person’s internal turmoil, the tattoo or modification helps to defuse the potential for more personally destructive behaviors.
Finally, according to Victoria Pitts’ 2003 “In the Flesh: The Cultural Politics of Body Modification,” Pitts argue that body modifying serves as stress relief for the marginalized and the disenfranchised. In her interviews, she discovered that in modifying their bodies, her subjects found a means to overcome their personal struggle — even in a self-realized manner.
In one of Pitt’s interviews, a rape victim was able to find peace in her body via her tattoo:
“‘I can’t believe it, even now when I’m sitting here talking to you [about being raped]. I was out of my body for almost two years. I can’t really find any other way of explaining this to you than by saying I felt numb. I tried not to think about my body because I felt dirty, ashamed, and like, you know, I wanted to crawl out of myself… I thought a tattoo might help me reclaim my body, bring it back to my control, you know. I lost my body, I was a stranger in my own skin. I cried the whole time I was being tattooed, all the fear, and hate and sorrow came to the surface, and every time the needles struck me I relived the pain of the rape. I don’t think any amount of talk, with whoever, could have forced me to get in back in touch with my body like that… I consider that day my second birthday, the day I really started to move on with my life.’ (Jenny, 24)”
To ascertain which if any of these theories explain Moore and other body modifiers is pointless. The primary issue in play is that regardless of one’s take to it, it is an expression she is entitled to make in the realization that a person, for religious, health, scientific or personal reasons, has the inherent right to do something with their own self that may piss off someone else. In today’s political environment, in light of continuing challenges to abortion and women’s rights, this concept has never been more important. Ultimately, the life a person chooses to live is that person’s choice alone.
“Body modification has been around as long as humans have lived, and with its rich and fascinating history, the practice is unlikely to die out anytime soon,” wrote Lori St. Leone for Lightspeed Magazine. “But despite some lingering societal disdain, modifications, even of the more esoteric variety, are becoming more mainstream and acceptable every day, and the craft behind performing these procedures is being constantly perfected and refined by the artists involved. [As] new ideas and techniques become reality and traditional standbys are adapted and perfected, it’s safe to say that humans will continue to reshape and redefine themselves by modifying their bodies.”
The bill, SB 387, passed the state Senate 26-4 and will now head to the Arkansas House, where it will face heavy opposition. A complementary bill, SB 388, introduced by Irvin to address licensing and training of body-art professional, is currently being heralded by the Arkansas body-art community.