Category Editorial

Point #66: From the Editor

1 Comment read Editorial, From the Editor

 IMG_3716Kim Zapata headshotBy Kimberly Zapata

A mix of curiosity, boredom, and contempt for being confined indoors during yet another Northeast snowstorm this season led me to Google (the boredom killer since the ’90s). Instead of searching for cute cat pics, the closest Buffalo Wild Wings, or what to do when your baby is teething—all, I hate to admit, are in my recent history—I simply searched “piercing.” Why not, right?  The results were interesting, to say the least.

Hits came back for Wikipedia, tips on how to obtain safe piercings, and links to local spots. Then I hit the “News” filter: “Student allegedly ran piercing operation at Chesterfield middle school,” “Oral Piercing – Is it worth the risk?,” 8 Celebrities and their Crazy Piercings,” “Tattoos, body piercings potential risks for Hepatitis C, HIV,” and the now infamous woman who “almost died” from a botched pair of cheek piercings. (More information on this story can be found here.) While I could write about each and everyone of these topics, it was the headlines themselves that struck me. Notice anything in particular? Risks? Survived? Crazy? Almost died?

These words cut through me. After spending the last five years of my life working in the industry I have loved for the last decade I thought things were different. (I had convinced myself public perception of piercing had shifted and things were getting better, especially better than “crazy.”) But what these words, and these headlines, did was serve as a reminder that while we—as an industry—have in fact come a long way, we still have a long way to go.

So what can we do to change public perception and make our industry safer for ourselves and our clients:

  • Continue to do what we do best, i.e. perform clean and safe piercing procedures using the highest-quality tools and jewelry.

  • Continue educating ourselves and others. The Association’s annual Conference is not only a great place to take classes and brush up on techniques, it is a great way to network and swap stories, ideas, and industry tips and tricks. (And the more we know, they more we can share with our clients!)

  • Share our positive experiences online. It has been said over and over again, but it warrants repeating: We—as an industry—are responsible for how others perceive us, and how others remember us. As James Weber stated in issue #57, “we define ourselves by what we write about ourselves,” and I feel the same is true of what we record and share. Post pictures of properly placed piercings and high-quality jewelry, share videos of piercing procedures, and counteract the “scare” stories with the positive ones—in The Point, your Facebook feed, on your blog, or in another industry publication.

Change takes time, and it comes from within. Sure, we can ignore these headlines—pass them off as rare exceptions and chalk them up to ignorance—but, to quote Ghandi, “if we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change.” And with continued dedication and persistence to be the best body piercers we can be, we can shift this dynamic.

For more information about sharing piercing photos and videos online, and tips on precisely how to “make safe piercing viral,” check out our Social Media page.

SafePiercing inbox: where your tip goes

1 Comment read Questions & Answers

Anonymous asked:

Not trying to be rude, but why should I tip a piercer when piercings cost so much? I feel like the jewelry and equipment don’t cost much and so they should profit from it a lot? Is it necessary because not a lot of people go to get piercings?

That’s a fair question.

First, you do not have to tip your piercer. We do not expect it, but it is appreciated when it does happen.

But you know I’ve got to break down the other part of your question. So, here goes. Continue reading →

Point #65: From the Editor

Comments Off on Point #65: From the Editor read Editorial, From the Editor

IMG_3716Kim Zapata headshotBy Kimberly Zapata
The Point Editor

As 2013 draws to close, I—like most—have been reflecting on the year as a whole. When I consider 2013 in piercing, I am in awe at what we as a piercing community have accomplished. The Point, our very own industry publication, saw its first year fully online—reaching a wider audience than we could have imagined. Legislation was passed in numerous states that promotes safe piercing (like New York’s bill requiring parental consent for the piercing of underage individuals) and protects the rights of modified individuals (see Arkansas’s fierce fight to defend scarification). Other countries made equally impressive strides: South Australia is working to ban piercing guns, and just last month the newly formed LBP (Lationoamericana Body Piercing A.C.) hosted their first annual Conference, the first Congreso Internacional de Perforadores Profesionales, in Mexico. While the Conference consisted of a wide array of events and classes, there was also a fantastic announcement: Mexico is officially banning piercing guns!

While some U.S. states and several European countries have already banned piercing guns for use on cartilage, including ears and nostrils, and other areas of the body, Mexico is the first country to ban its use entirely. This is huge, though I don’t need to tell those of you in the piercing community why piercing guns are so dangerous. (Many of you have seen the work of a gun piercing gone bad.)

I have my own piercing gun horror story: the first time my ears were pierced, at nine years old—andPoint65-piercing gun with a gun—the piercing became infected within two weeks. Whether the infection was the result of contaminated equipment, poor quality jewelry, a terrible aftercare regimen, user error, or “twisting” the posts I will never know. I reluctantly removed the studs and waited another four years before having them repierced, again with a gun. (It was the ’90s; my mother and I didn’t know any better and actually assumed it was preferable to the “ice cube and sewing needle” method she knew.) My second experience was worse than the first; while the stud did pierce my lobe, one of the guns mechanisms failed and the jewelry was never ejected. This means my ear was pierced but the gun was still attached. Imagine sitting nervously on one of those cold stools—in front of a floor-to-ceiling window—feeling the jewelry pass through your skin and then hearing the phrase, “Uh oh.” After a few painful minutes of poking and pulling the piercing “tech”—i.e. counter girl—was able to wiggle the jewelry free and I walked away with a pair of pierced ears that miraculously healed.

The APP has taken the following stance against piercing guns:

It is the position of the Association of Professional Piercers that only sterile disposable equipment is suitable for body piercing, and that only materials which are certified as safe for internal implant should be placed in inside a fresh or unhealed piercing. We consider unsafe any procedure that places vulnerable tissue in contact with either non-sterile equipment or jewelry that is not considered medically safe for long-term internal wear…[f]or this reason, APP members may not use reusable ear piercing guns for any type of piercing procedure. While piercing guns may seem to be a quick, easy and convenient way of creating holes, they have major drawbacks in terms of sterility, tissue damage and inappropriate jewelry design.”

However many states and communities have not. (Keep in mind these decisions and regulations are passed at a local, not national, level in America, hence we cannot push for a nationwide ban.) That said, as we start the new year, I have a challenge for all piercers (and piercing enthusiasts): Join together and work to ban piercing guns in your state, city, or municipality. How? Education, education, education. Continue to educate piercees, public health officials, legislators, and anyone who will listen about the dangers of piercing guns, the jewelry they use, and the untrained individuals who operate them. Petition those who have the power to write, present and vote on these regulations. And do what you do best: perform safe and healthy piercings in sterile conditions all day, everyday.

There is power in numbers, so let’s pull our voices together and work to make 2014 an even better year for safe and professional piercing. And, as always, enjoy this issue of The Point.

 

Safe Piercing guest post by APP member Miro Hernandez of Dandyland Piercing in San Antonio, TX

1 Comment read Editorial, Lifestyle

Why choose to get pierced by an APP member?

Because you and your body deserve so! When you choose to get pierced by an APP member you are making a statement that you and your body value your health and safety more than anything else. Many professionals in various industries are members of professional organizations, why shouldn’t your piercer be in one as well? Granted, there are great piercers out there that are not members, those that choose to do so are showing you their dedication to their occupation, and more importantly, you as a piercee. Though the organization has no say in the matter of a piercer’s skill or merit, members are required to meet a minimal set of standards that cover jewelry and environmental criteria, often times, standards that far exceed the minimal standards that many states have set forth. These standards and requirements set forth by the APP, have your health and safety in mind.

One bad piece of jewelry can lead to a bad experience, easily turning people away from an art form that they could have easily embraced. When you get pierced by an APP member, you are getting pierced by a moral, ethical piercer who refuses to put anything less than the highest quality jewelry in your body. With the amount of jewelry that has flooded the market, not all of it being good for you, you can rest assured that member piercers have made a conscience, knowledgeable decision with proven, factual, scientific evidence that the initial jewelry you are being pierced with is in fact, made specifically to implantation standards and is safe and suitable for your body.

Member piercers often are more than just piercers, but educators as well. They work hard with the general public on educating them as to what they should be looking for when getting pierced, which in turn means that they are seeking out means of furthering and continuing their education. Members will often attend the annual APP conference or travel to work alongside other piercers to seek and gain more knowledge, whether it be technique, safety and cleanliness, jewelry trends, bedside manner, etc., so that you, the piercee, can rest assured that you are in the safest, most knowledgeable of hands.

Piercers tend to be a very passionate bunch and love their professions and the experiences they are able to give their customers. Make your experience a statement that you value your health safety over all else, get pierced by an APP member!

Miro Hernandez
Dandyland
San Antonio, TX
piercermiro@gmail.com
www.facebook.com/piercermiro
IG @piercermiro

 

Point #64: From the Editor

Comments Off on Point #64: From the Editor read Editorial, From the Editor

IMG_3716Kim Zapata headshotBy Kimberly Zapata

This is a strange issue for me as it is the first post-Conference recap I am covering as Editor, and I’m doing it from the confines of my fourth-floor walkup in Brooklyn, New York. You see this event, the 18th Annual Conference of the Association of Professional Piercers, is the first Conference I have missed in years. My reasons were good—I was nine months pregnant with my first child (who I am happy to say was born on July 14, 2013)—but that did not make the week any easier, especially when I logged onto Facebook and saw my feed full of posts by colleagues and friends about their APP adventures. I lived vicariously through check-ins, status updates, and photos, and while I am certain I did not miss the temperatures this year (dry heat or not, it seems as though it was just damn hot), I did miss the camaraderie, the classes, and the parties, handshakes and hugs. So as you can imagine when the content for this issue came tumbling in—an issue dedicated to post-Conference coverage—I was both excited and at a loss.

I worked through the week backwards. I began with the events of the banquet dinner: the President’s Award, the Josh A. Prentice Award, the Innovator’s Award for Creativity, and the Award for Technical Innovation. As the pictures poured in, I saw the fashion show everyone was talking about (seriously, all of my social media pages were abuzz about it) and the opening party. I also saw pictures of piercers and other industry professionals learning and conversing. Some were taken in the classrooms but others captured the moments that took place in hallways, restaurants, and at the Bally’s main casino bar (an unofficial meeting ground for many). Even though I will never know what was said as these shots were taken, I know—from my prior experiences—the dialogue exchanged was unlike any other. (Sure there were jokes and the annual idle chatter, but there was also advice—given and received—stories shared, and memories made.) It is a conversation neither you nor I can replicate, one that articles fail to fully capture, and one that is exclusive to the Conference experience.

In addition to the thank-yous and award announcements, we are fortunate enough to have two “full-Conference” coverage articles this year: one from Courtney Jane Maxwell and the other, “Confessions from a Conference First-Timer,” by Amanda Badger. While Amanda’s article reminded me of my own first Conference experience—so much so I could feel the nervous, anxious excitement well in my chest (even amidst the breastmilk!)—Courtney’s article pointed out just how far we have come. We also have recaps from Dianna Brown, Parker Webb and Jacob Spjut, a few of our ever-amazing Al D. scholars

So as I sit here, typing with one hand while my newborn babe—propped in the other—pulls and sucks on my breast, I hope you find this issue as nostalgic as I did. Relive your annual pilgrimage in these posts, photos, and pages, and let them serve as a reminder as to why you do what you do (and keep doing it with pride). And if you weren’t at Conference this year, like me, read on to see what you missed, and what you have to look forward to next year!

Welcome to issue #64 of The Point: The Journal of the Association of Professional Piercers.

Point #63: President’s Corner

Comments Off on Point #63: President’s Corner read Editorial, President's Corner

ThePoint_Issue60_v2_Elayne headshotBy Elayne Angel

I bounded out of bed this morning excited to finally have the time to record my  “President’s Corner” video, having finished the current round of edits on the forthcoming update of the APP Procedure Manual. Imagine my shock and dismay when I looked in the mirror to find that my entire face was hugely blown up with red burned-looking patches of tissue under both eyes and in my nasolabial folds. (One of my eyes was all but swollen shut!) My best guess is that I’m having an allergic reaction to a facial moisturizer that I’ve used for quite some time with no other such incidents, and the doctor I visited thought the same. Unfortunately, this means no video recording for me today…

But this episode did remind me of a problem I experienced while guest piercing a few months back. When I travel, I generally make use of the supplies provided by each studio, requesting only that my glove size (XS) be “on hand.” I had never had any problems with sensitivities or allergies before, so I was very surprised when the backs of my hands swelled up with an itchy and painful red rash. The gloves I wore were nitrile, which according to several sources (i.e., Ambitex University and the National Safety Council) is less apt to cause a reaction than latex, which I have used for decades without issues. On my final day I grimaced in pain each time I changed gloves and washed my hands. The residual effects—including inflammation, soreness, and itching—lasted over a week and were followed by flaking and peeling. It was not pleasant or pretty, and it was kind of scary. What if all types of medical gloves suddenly caused such a reaction?

Granted, my appointment book has been extraordinarily full lately, which is wonderful. I usually pierce one client after the next throughout my workday; so, I wash my hands and wear gloves in a continuous cycle for many hours, day after day, but piercers in very busy studios frequently do the same.

When the problem occurred, I didn’t know whether it was the soap I was using to wash my hands or the gloves themselves. So the next time I worked, I used the same soap and changed up the gloves to chloroprene, and thankfully didn’t have any problems. It became clear that nitrile was the culprit, even though I had worn it successfully in the past. Many piercers are aware that long and/or frequent exposure to a substance can lead to sensitivities, which is one of the reasons latex allergies are so prevalent in the medical and dental fields. (Editor’s note: In fact, another article in this issue—by Kendra Jane—tackles allergies as well. Click here to read more.)

In any case, one takeaway lesson for today is this: situations can change and flexibility is needed.

So, on to the topic I planned to cover in the video:

The Association recently received a plea for help in a message from a piercer in Louisiana who was distressed to learn that as of March 7, 2013, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners has issued a formal opinion outlawing surface anchors (the preferred terminology of the Association of Professional Piercers). It was provided in response to an inquiry from one of the Health Inspectors at the Food and Drug Unit, which is responsible for regulating body artists in the state. The letter from the Medical Board states, “…the practice known as ‘dermal anchoring’ or ‘dermal piercing’ is a medical procedure [emphasis added] in that placement would be underneath the epidermis layer of the skin.”

The piercer who sent us the correspondence mentioned that after speaking with Mr. Warren, the Health Inspector for her area who requested the ruling, she believed the practice was decreed a medical procedure because the State Board was informed that these piercings were all being performed with biopsy punches. In the state of Louisiana, piercers are prohibited from using such punches.

The APP will be sending a letter to the Executive Director of the Medical Board who signed the ruling, and also to the Health Inspector to let them know that surface anchors can be done with ordinary piercing needles and that biopsy punches need not be used—and that the organization does not consider this form of body adornment to be outside the realm of ordinary body piercings. We will also explain that other body piercings routinely traverse this same tissue. Further, we will be sharing our formal position statement with them:

What is the APP Position on Surface Anchors? (Also referred to as Single-Point Piercings, Dermal Anchors, Microdermals, and other names.)

In a surface anchor piercing procedure, a tiny ornament is inserted into a single opening that is formed in the tissue with the same tools that are used for body piercing. This opening is the entrance as well as the exit. When properly performed by a skilled practitioner, surface anchor piercing is no more risky than an ordinary body piercing and takes no longer to perform or to heal. They are considered to be body piercings by the Association of Professional Piercers.

Surface anchor piercings are similar to “surface piercings,” which are done on flat areas of the body, but successful placement options are greatly expanded. Surface anchor piercings are a viable alternative to standard surface piercings as they appear to be easier to heal and not as subject extensive scarring. Any residual scarring is apt to be limited due to the tiny size of the jewelry.

Surface Anchor piercings are much less invasive to insert and remove, and should not be confused with subdermal or transdermal implants, which are more extreme forms of body art that do not fall within the scope of the Association of Professional Piercers.

We hold out hope that our support will be able to get the ban overturned in the state of Louisiana, which is where  I ran my own studio, Rings of Desire, for over a dozen years before Hurricane Katrina hit. But that’s a different story…

In early 2000, I personally assisted the legislators for that state in promulgating the original body art regulations. At that time, they were quite amenable to input from professionals in the community. Hopefully they still are, and the decision will be reversed once they have additional information. The APP has had success in the past getting such a ban overturned in the state of New Jersey. But there is no guarantee, so once again the theme may recur: sometimes situations change and adaptability is necessary.

Point #63: From the Editor

Comments Off on Point #63: From the Editor read Editorial, From the Editor

IMG_3716Kim Zapata headshotBy Kimberly Zapata

As we all know, switching The Point to an online-only format has been quite the change. In many respects, this switch was inevitable; the internet is the “way of the future,” though the future has been here for quite some time. But this does not mean many of us—myself included—do not miss the way things were: the touch and feel of freshly printed paper, the glossy cover that slid beneath our fingertips as we flipped through each and every page, and that one piece of mail that made the day better (you know, that something special that wasn’t a bill or brochure for office supplies). So it is in these moments of nostalgia that feedback—like that from Randall Martinez—is all the more important.

Randall is from a small town in Nebraska. Having lived in major metropolitan areas for the last 17 years—and having never been to Nebraska—I can only speculate what “small town” means. What I know it means for Randall is that, until recently, Randall was never exposed to an issue of The Point. However, once The Point became a fully-online APP publication, Randall took note. He contacted Elayne Angel in April, commenting on her President’s Corner:

“This is really cool that they [the issues of The Point] are available online. I [have] never seen an issue of The Point until now. Thanks from Nebraska.”

As simple a gesture as this comment was, it means a lot not only to myself, Elayne Angel, Kendra Jane, Jim Ward, Brian Skellie, and the entire Point team, but to our community as a whole. In this digital age we often think of ourselves as closer than ever before, but we’ve also become lulled into a false sense of security that everyone—everywhere—knows what we are thinking and doing at all times. We tend to forget how very big this world is, and how very small we are. While the internet helps to bridge this gap—what could possibly help us achieve our mission of the “dissemination of information about body piercing” better—notes from Randall remind us just how far we have come, as an organization and piercing family, and how far we have to go.

So while it’s okay to feel nostalgic (hell, that is one reason we will be publishing an annual “Best of the Best” anthology), to quote Dolores Umbridge—”progress for progress’s sake must be discouraged,” but progress for the sake of change—change like Randall and others have no doubt experienced—is worth each and every painful step. So sit back and enjoy this issue of The Point, whether you are reading it from a computer screen in your shop, the comfort of your home, or your cellphone, laptop, or e-reader at the 2013 APP Annual Conference and Exposition.