Tattoos and piercings

We had a discussion of tattoos and piercings at one of the cafes tonight.

Is it beauty, conforming to a social group, or is it self mutilation?

I must confess I know very little about this topic and that makes it very interesting for me.

To start off with, we can agree that tattoos have the characteristic of being somewhat painful to acquire and rather permanent.

While some may just like the graphic beauty of tattoos, for others, the pain and permanence mean tattoos are used to mark a significant event, experience, or relationship.  Perhaps to mark the solidarity of a group in the passing of one of them, or the bonding of the group.

But what about tattoos in the more private parts of the body that are not meant to be seen.  Some said that this is a delicious secret like wearing silk or designer underwear that only the owner will know and revel in that secret knowledge.  Strange?

Piercings tends to be more for the beauty of it.

Some said that they would only have tattoos that are original and significant rather than just popular. That tattoos can be part of a person's identity and that it also invites others to see part of this identity and therefore relate and talk about it.

When asked why people have a tattoo or piercing done, very often they answer because they like it.

Is this to conform to their social group or is their sense of beauty influenced by their social group?  Maybe it is the people who do not have tattoos and piercings that are out of it and don't appreciate the finer points of the art?

Graham mentioned that variations in art such as improvising in jazz or playing a classical music piece with feeling is all about making variations within set rules to give some fresh variety.  Is piecing elsewhere on the body other than the earlobes just this kind of variation?  Is tattooing just another variation of clothing or fashion, or like cosmetic surgery such as removing a mole?

Would tattooing and piercing be less popular if the opposite portion of society show less distaste for it?  This is the rebellious theory that no doubt applies in some cases.

As usual, there are always more questions than answers.  However, the significant thought for me is the concept of beauty and "neatness".  Can we actually define beauty and attractiveness without being influenced by the social group or role models that we look up to?

When we see someone or some arrangement as good looking and attractive,  we naturally want to be more like that.  Are we conforming or are we independently judging what is beautiful?  Particularly if we think a certain person has good taste, then we think it is sensible to give more weight to what they wear, tattoo, or pierce,  are we conforming?

If we think we look beautiful but others don't think so  (especially those whose tastes we respect),  can we still continue to think we are beautiful?

Is beauty in the eyes of the beholder rather than the mind of the model?

The life of a hermit seems so much simpler.......but perhaps not as much fun.