Journal of Body Piercing — APP
Piercers in Canada were recently informed by Health Canada that they were not allowed to use products containing gentian violet.1 A recall was put in place due to a link to cancer risk. At least one manufacturer voluntarily discontinued sales of their products and their license was cancelled.
Continue reading
by Brian W. Skellie, APP Medical Director
Biomaterials made in the USA and in a short list of countries who maintain reciprocal quality control agreements can currently be verified as ASTM or ISO compliant. Those materials made outside of these qualifying countries cannot due to a lack of quality control protocols and lack of consequences for substandard and falsified products. The provenance of the material should be listed on the certificate of tests.
Learning what the ingredients are, as well as the proportions of a material, is a minimum step in the right direction to indicate that it does contain what we need, and does not contain harmful impurities over a certain threshold. Chemical tests are not confirmation of quality by themselves. The only way to be sure about the quality of the material is to have reliable chemical and microstructure tests performed under strictly regulated controls during the final purification melt and on the ingot (block of metal) produced, prior to forming it into bar, wire, sheet, etc. We must be assured that the correct ingredients have been mixed and cooked together in the correct way, and that the material has been treated and handled correctly during the process according to the ASTM and ISO specifications. There is more to the ASTM and ISO standards than chemistry. So if a certificate says “chemistry only” the material has not been fully tested to fulfill the material properties required by the standard, and may break or include foreign matter among other disadvantages. Basically, we want the raw materials to fully meet the standards for surgical implant, and we want documented proof that it was tested and completely fulfills all the requirements during the melting of the alloy. No misleading shortcuts. No half-steps. Add a proper surface finish, cleaning, passivation, and sterilization and then we can wear it with a clear conscience.
Currently, our requirements for gold, niobium, and platinum are measured based on chemistry alone. We have a strong theoretical rationale to use them based on the fact that they are three of the most biocompatible elements and have a longstanding history of acceptable level of response in the body. Unfortunately, they are not as strong when compared to other biomaterials, and do not have the same sort of detailed specifications for use in the body. For gold and platinum, because of proprietary alloys and strict legal regulation for the karat content, the chemical analysis is all we have access to if we don’t use gold or platinum group metal alloys that have already been through ISO 10993 testing for biocompatibility. Gold and platinum group metals are frequently mentioned in biomaterials and dental implant science texts as inert substances with low potential for allergy
“CORROSION AND CORROSION CONTROL IN THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
“The need to ensure minimal corrosion has been the major determining factor in the selection of metals and alloys for use in the body. Two broad approaches have been adopted. The first has involved the use of noble metals, that is, those metals and their alloys for which the electrochemical series indicates excellent corrosion resistance. Examples are gold, silver, and the platinum group of metals. Because of cost and relatively poor mechanical properties, these are not used for major structural applications, although it should be noted that gold and its alloys are extensively used in dentistry; silver is sometimes used for its antibacterial activity; and platinum-group metals (Pt, Pd, Ir, Rh) are used in electrodes.”
1 Biomaterials science: an introduction to materials in medicine, Buddy D. Ratner https://books.google.com/books?id=Uzmrq7LO7loC page 434
For this reason, and historical antecedents we feel comfortable with some gold alloys for initial piercing jewelry. Most of our evidence related to gold for use in jewelry is based upon historical, that is to say experiential and anecdotal sources. Gold has been used in jewelry fabrication since prehistoric times, and has had a similar length of history in surgical and dental applications.
Gold implants are used in various medical procedures, including reconstructive surgery of the middle ear, upper lid closure in facial nerve paresis-induced lagophthalmos, drug delivery microchips, antitumor treatment, treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, use on the surface of voice prostheses, and endovascular stents, with sound clinical results.
2 Demann, Eric TK, Pamela S. Stein, and James E. Haubenreich. “Gold as an implant in medicine and dentistry.” Journal of long-term effects of medical implants 15.6 (2005). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16393135
Our standards are necessary for jewelers and regulators as well as piercers, healthcare professionals, and the public. APP publications have previously addressed the general public as the primary audience for our jewelry standards. Our simplified explanation of the rationale for our jewelry standards is helpful for clients, but not specific enough for regulators, and missing information for jewelers. We have chosen to rely firmly upon specifications that have been pulled from medical and dental implant sciences, and voted to allow to permit the use of certain traditional jewelry materials that are composed of biocompatible elements which seem to demonstrate an acceptable response in the body. This represents two categories of materials: specified and agreed upon.
The specified biomaterials are exact standards for materials that can be purchased ready to use for making body jewelry based on evidence that meets CDC recommendation Category IA: Strongly recommended for implementation and strongly supported by well-designed experimental, clinical, or epidemiologic studies.
This would include all biomaterials which have been developed using ASTM and ISO standard specifications for implantation.
The agreed upon materials of gold and platinum alloys, niobium, and fused quartz, soda lime, and borosilicate glass are within the ideal of CDC recommendation Category II: Suggested for implementation and supported by suggestive clinical or epidemiologic studies or by a theoretical rationale. For example, there is strong evidence that the pure elemental form of each of these materials are well accepted by the body, and they should retain that quality when alloyed until a threshold level of sensitizing or toxic elements are added to the mix. ASTM F2999 and F2923 limit the harmful levels of toxins based on California Prop 65.
Our standards are based on utility rather than our own invention. We use existing medical and dental expertise for materials that are currently being used in human implants and prosthesis. We rely upon a body of evidence and experimentation that we as an industry have not yet become capable of doing ourselves. For this reason, it is important for us to find and understand reliable information from other fields that can be applied to our own.
Simple descriptions should be clear for the biomaterials we choose for body jewelry. Existing materials which are made to ASTM and ISO implant specifications are tested according to consensus based scientific standards to ensure long term safety in the body. We choose these material specifications to avoid reinventing the wheel, and the ISO 10993 series of tests for those new wheels can be prohibitively expensive. We use the specifications F67, F136, F138, F1295 etc as a summation of what we need for safe materials, before they are formed into jewelry. We should not have to elaborate the minutiae of these specifications to know that they are applicable and achievable for our purposes. Can get away with less precision? Not without introducing high levels of risk.
Understanding biomaterials is one of my goals as both an experienced professional piercer and long time member of ASTM Committee F04 on Medical and Surgical Materials and Devices. I hope that some of the information we have to share is helpful to you.
1 Biomaterials Science: an Introduction to Materials in Medicine, Buddy D. Ratner http://books.google.com/books?id=Uzmrq7LO7loC page 434
2 Demann, Eric TK, Pamela S. Stein, and James E. Haubenreich. “Gold as an implant in medicine and dentistry.” Journal of long-term effects of medical implants 15.6 (2005). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16393135
by Chris Beierschmitt
BA Biological Sciences – Columbia University
PhD candidate in Molecular Biology – US San Diego
Although the internet and social media have been boons for the distribution of information and ideas, most will agree that they have served as a double-edged sword. For every fact-based and informative article shared, it seems that there are two more that dabble in pseudoscience or outright lies. As professional piercers, we have a unique opportunity (and maybe an obligation) to utilize our platform to educate our clients and fellow industry people about a wide range of subjects. The problem is: scientific literature is written with language that allows researchers to appreciate the mechanical and technical nuances of a given topic, but it’s nearly indecipherable to the general public (i.e.: the taxpayers funding the research). Tackling this divide between scientific writing and comprehension by the average reader is a rough task, and while this burden should largely fall on the shoulders of the scientific community, there are methods piercing professionals can use to sift out pearls of relevant information from these daunting piles of data.
In order to stay profitable, news organizations rely on click traffic to their websites so advertisers will buy ad space from them. It’s no mistake that headlines often share similar architecture, a la: “Scientists prove…;” “…you won’t believe what happens next;” or “Doctors are baffled by….” The unifying theme behind a majority of these articles is that, somewhere deep down, they are rooted in some intentional or accidental distortion of a real scientific finding. Like a childhood game of telephone, where an initial message is gradually corrupted as it passes from person to person, so do the relevant findings of a scientific publication as it is interpreted and communicated by people who don’t fully understand it. Before sharing one of these articles, it is our responsibility to find out how the authors came to their conclusion and if it makes sense. This means reading the article with a skeptical eye and finding the root of the author’s claims. Hopefully, the base of their writing can be found in apeer-reviewed scientific journal. The struggle isn’t over here, though, as many journals are behind paywalls and/or so jam-packed with difficult language that they are nearly unreadable. Knowing this, why should we strive to find a peer-reviewed source instead of just taking someone’s word for It?
A scientific paper is (in most cases) the result of months to years of hard work and revision. In order to be published, it must be submitted with some novel finding, have published references for any claims about previous research, and must have data for any new claims. After submitting a paper to a scientific journal, it is preliminarily reviewed for novelty and general content. If this is found acceptable, it is given to several scientists unrelated to the journal for review. After weeks to months of review, the journal decides whether the author should be allowed (or is able to) address any concerns that the reviewers had. If the journal decides that the author will be able to revise their paper to address reviewer concerns, they will be given time to perform the necessary experiments and/or gather the appropriate data to do so. This revision process will take anywhere from a few days to a few months, depending on how demanding the revisions are. Finally, the paper is re-submitted with revisions, the journal performs any necessary editing for grammar and format, and in a few weeks to months, the paper is published. Authors must declare where their funding is coming from (e.g.: government, private industry, etc.), as well as any potential conflicts of interest. If an author is found to be lying about these details, they risk ruining their reputation as well as the journal redacting their paper.
This is where things get a bit tricky. While open-access journals are steadily becoming more and more common, many papers are stuck behind paywalls. University systems, research institutions, and some libraries pay subscription fees so their members can access these pay-to view journals, but this leaves the average reader with the option to only read the paper’s abstract or buy access to an article. There are some legal grey areas and blatantly illegal ways to circumvent paywalls for science articles. For legal reasons I won’t be naming them in this article—though, if you spend a short bit of time on a search engine, I’m sure you wouldn’t have trouble figuring it out. If we wish to remain within the law, it’s best to first read a paper’s abstract to determine if it might contain information that is interesting or relevant. In a vast majority of cases, an abstract will let you know if it is worth investing your time in decoding a paper in its entirety. A repository of listings for nearly all research articles can be found at PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/), which is maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine, located at the National Institutes of Health. While not all listings on PubMed contain links to the full-text of an article, you can at least find an abstract and contact information for the author(s) of a given paper. If you are a taxpayer in the US, you are paying for this archiving service, so don’t be shy about making use of it.
Since every listing in PubMed should have contact information for the author(s) of a paper, you have a direct way of contacting the researcher and/or physician who knows the most about the article you are interested in. While there is no guarantee, I can say with high confidence that if you send an email to a paper’s author requesting a copy of their work, they are going to be happy to send it to you directly. This might seem a bit weird, but it’s more common a request than you think. To increase your chances for success, try to send an email to the first author listed on the paper. The order in which names are listed for a research paper are (for the most part) organized in such a way that the person who contributed most to a project will be listed first, and the person who runs the lab where they are employed is listed last. As such, by sending a correspondence to the first author, you are directly asking for information from the person who probably knows more about the paper’s contents than anyone else on Earth. After you do your due diligence and carefully read the paper, you could even send an email back to the author to ask them any questions you may have. If you decide to ask questions, be sure to give the researcher an “out,” and ask them if there is someone else you should be contacting with questions (e.g.: a postdoctoral worker or graduate student in their lab). Don’t be surprised if responses take a while; researchers are often inundated with mountains of email and it takes a while to sort through all of them.
Reaching out to the scientific community is a step forward in the direction of further legitimizing the piercing industry. If we want to be regarded as professionals who are progressive and interested in the health of our clients (as well as ourselves), we should be using resources outside of the piercing community to prevent our well-intentioned sentiments from becoming an echo chamber. The next time you see a health or science-related news article shared on social media, take a moment to evaluate the source and investigate it yourself. Start a dialog with fellow piercers about what the findings of a publication might mean for client health. Encourage others to engage with this material and ask questions of their own. Together, with a keen set of skeptical eyes and help from scientific literature, we can be sure our industry will continue to improve for years to come.
Table of Contents
You can also experience this issue in an eReader/phone/tablet-friendly, flip-through format or download the .pdf file to keep.
Stephanie VonHütter-Thomas, PhDc
Skinethics Body Art Studio, APP Member
It is no secret that the subject of psychology has been my passion for a very long time, particularly the field of behavioral research. It is this passion for understanding human nature that ultimately drove me to embark on what has become a six-year journey in higher education.
The journey began in 2010, when I enrolled as a graduate student through Capella University, almost a decade after completing my undergraduate degree in Accounting. In 2013, I completed my masters degree in Industrial Organizational Psychology while running our studio, piercing full-time, and volunteering to work in state legislation. These were crazy times to say the least, however in the end, I could not have asked for a better experience.
Immediately after graduation I enrolled in the doctoral program for General Psychology. My thoughts at the time were that I had already incorporated study habits into my daily lifestyle so there was no point in stopping. After all, Capella was a great school and I had enough student loan debt to desensitize me from the financial fears, so what was stopping me? This move was something I viewed as a “no-brainer” because it promised to afford me the opportunity to offer a valuable contribution to the body modification community while also nurturing my own personal growth and future security.
I must admit that I was utterly terrified to enter the world of doctoral education as a modified person; rejection isn’t something that anyone enjoys. I was certain that I would be gawked at, scoffed at, judged, and possibly even shunned by my academic peers, but to my surprise, none of these things happened. In fact, I will be bold and go as far as saying that I receive more acceptance from the academic community at this level than in any other peer group I have been a part of. It was as if for the first time in my life I was being taken at face value, judged only by my merits with my physical appearance having nothing to do with any of it beyond the topic of my study. How refreshing!
After years of completing course work, residency requirements, and taking on a part-time job as a teaching assistant in Research Statistics, I am finally in the dissertation phase of my terminal degree. The dissertation process requires a study that is inferential by design as opposed to descriptive, meaning that the study must compare variables in order to demonstrate research skill at the doctoral level.
My study topic is one that I selected very early, but spent a great deal of time revising in order to meet academic requirements while also attempting to create a study worthwhile for the body modification community. The purpose of the study is to compare a series of variables using a multiple regression statistical analysis in order to report any noted patterns or relationships between age, gender, personality type, impact of life experiences, perceived spirituality, and how extremely modified an individual chooses to be. In other words, I am exploring what drives one person to be extremely modified while others within the community approach their body art more conservatively.
For those who aren’t aware, there is a great deal of misinformation in the world of Psychology regarding body art practices. Much of this misinformation is due to the use of research sampling methods that do not accurately represent the overall community. For example, how can anyone determine motivations to pursue radical forms of body art by interviewing 10 white American females, ages 20-25, on a midwestern college campus? The simple answer is that you can’t; yet, many psychologists have done exactly that, largely due to a lack of understanding. This issue has led to generalizations about our community that may or may not be true, many of which are damaging within certain social constructs. This in combination with the ongoing fascination the psychology profession has with pathological diagnosis has led to negative categorizations of anyone wishing to alter their appearance outside of social norms.
Since all respectable research is born out of need, I was essentially tasked with finding the gaps in the literature, choosing one such gap to pursue and determining a way to fill this gap scientifically. Aside from the obvious issues relating to sampling in prior studies, peer reviewed articles repeatedly indicate the need for a means to measure quantity of body modifications. This measurement tool must be simplistic while also measuring body art in a way that is meaningful with corresponding language to describe it consistently. This gap in research resulted in my development of the first instrument for quantifying body modification known as the Unorthodox Elective Body Modification (UEBM) Dimensional Assessment. The approach used in this instrument is definitely simplistic by design, using formulas already seen in science and medicine, yet promises to change the way psychologist study the body modification community. This instrument will be used for the first time in my data collection process to be conducted at this year’s annual APP Conference in Vegas. The results for each individual will be compared to their determined personality type along with the other psychosocial constructs previously mentioned to determine if there are any relationships or visible patterns. While this study will not remedy all our struggles, it is my hope that this research will serve as a foundation for future research relating to the modified community. I hope that many of those attending Conference will consider participating in this study, if not for me, but for the betterment of the community and it’s future.
The moral of this story is that you can be anything you want, regardless of your appearance. In my case, it was the love and support of my family and close friends that got me through the rough spots and believed in me even when I struggled to believe in myself. There are always opportunities to make a difference; it is simply a matter of deciding where you fit into the mix. Find your gifts, then find ways to incorporate those gifts into your pursuits and never let your body art be a problem or an excuse. We often allow others to stifle our dreams based on choices we made when we were young without ever actually putting ourselves out there to see what actually happens. If you had asked me 10 years ago, I would have told you that the idea of enrolling in graduate school was insane because I truly thought those days were over. At the very least, I would have said “not for me,” laughed and walked away shaking my head. I decided to become more moderately modified during my late 20’s and early 30’s so at that time I saw my commitment to body art as closing the door to more mainstream pursuits. Later it became clear to me that the only person stopping me from pursuing everything I wanted in life was ME, not my body art. Today, I can’t imagine being anything other than a scholar, a scientist, a professor, a writer, and a psychological researcher. My dissertation mentor once said to me, “you are not a modified person who happens to be getting a PhD; you are a research scientist who happens to be modified.” I can live with that.
Stephanie Hutter-Thomas, PhDc
(a.k.a – Stephie Von Hütter Thomas)
Co-Owner/Piercer/APP Member
—Skinethics Body Art Studio
Founder/Co-Owner
—Bodies of Knowledge
Girard, Ohio
http://www.skinethicsbodyart.com
http://www.bodiesofknowledge.net
stephaniehutterthomas@gmail.com
Brian Skellie
APP President
As I eagerly anticipate our next meeting, the gratitude that I feel towards my colleagues in this organization is responsible for a reliable renewal of enthusiasm. The APP mission, presence, and conscientiousness are core to my personal experience, education, and priorities. My purpose remains the same although my responsibilities change after this Conference.
Getting to know the membership better over these years working within the organization and at the helm has been a privilege. By making certain sacrifices and spending a lot of time on the road, I have appreciated real life meetings with quite a few of you. It has been both informative and delightful to visit with you, your studios, and manufacturing facilities.
These days, it is much easier (via the myriad of technological advancements available) to find out more about our colleagues and their work and attitudes. I’m convinced that this friendly professional espionage/stalking following is one of the best things for collegiality in our business. Evermore accessible technology has facilitated a greater sense of familiarization and a willingness to communicate. This development has provided a foundation for friendships and interaction with people who I may have otherwise been more reserved with, and I live with a daily appreciation of how online translation provides access to the world.
Our community seems to be rising, bolstered by social media and a culture of sharing among peers. Access to current information and peer review alongside beautiful examples of our work have created a level of accountability for achieving our goals and is keeping this trade lively. Aptitude and quality are continually improved upon and excellence may be recognized.
Even as I step down from Presidency this summer, we have committed to participate internationally to keep the momentum with fellow trade organizations going. I find it refreshing to see the progress of LBP and the UKAPP, along with the continuing success of our Associate Corporate Members, APTPI, ASAP, BMXnet and meetings in Germany, Spain, and France. Let’s make this happen!
Donate to Science
And help a FELLOW PIERCER,
STUDIO OWNER, & DOCTORAL CANDIDATE
You are invited to be part of a research study being conducted by Capella University PhD candidate, Stephanie Hutter-Thomas (Stephie Von Hütter Thomas). In order to fulfill her PhD requirements, Stephanie must complete a doctoral dissertation that presents new information for the scientific knowledge base. As a result, Stephanie has chosen to invest her time in research that will serve to promote a deeper understanding of the modified community. Some of the details regarding the study are listed here in order to help you determine if participation is right for you.
Study Title:
Sociocultural Evolution: An examination of personality type, life events, age, gender and perceived spirituality and the influence these variables have on self-reported levels of body modification.
WHAT IS THIS STUDY ABOUT?
The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a relationship between personality and impact of life experiences, spirituality/religiosity, age, gender, and how modified one chooses to become. The study will include only APP 2016 conference attendees in the interest of limiting participants to only those over age 18 and those who view body modification as their lifestyle choice. You do not need to be an APP member to participate, however, you must be attending conference this year.
The goal is to secure 150 participants to take part in this study in order to use the desired statistical analysis. If you decide to be in this study, your participation will last about two hours. The questionnaires you will be completing will be administered in a meeting room at the APP 2016 conference in Las Vegas. Information regarding rooms and time slots will be announced.
WHAT WILL I HAVE TO DO AND DOES IT COST ANYTHING?
If you decide to be a part of this study, all you need to do is watch for this years conference course schedule, choose a timeslot that works best for your schedule, and make it to the indicated room number. Participants will not be paid, however all participants in this study will receive a gift for giving their time freely to this endeavor. It is important to note that Stephanie is NOT receiving any funding from the University, the Association of Professional Piercers, or any other third party for conducting this study. All costs relating to the purchase of copywrited instruments/questionnaires, promo materials and gifts to participants are paid solely by Stephanie.
This study will help to expand the information currently published by offering data compiled from those who see body modification as a part of their lifestyle, not a trend. By donating your time to this project you will not only help another piercer complete a major academic goal, you will also be helping to improve the overall understanding of the modified community.
Researcher: Stephanie Hutter-Thomas
Email Address: stephaniehutterthomas@gmail.com or Stephanie.Hutter-Thomas@capella.edu
Telephone Number: (studio) 330-545-8317 (mobile) 330-509-8956
Research Supervisor: Dr. Herb Hauser
Email Address: HERB.HAUSER@CAPELLA.EDU
Ryan Clark
Immaculate Body Piercing
No matter what your opinions are on the current trend and associated claims regarding daith piercings, you can’t deny their existence and the impact that trends like these – I’m looking at you, triple forward helix – have on the piercing industry. Perhaps more important to consider, is the way that these trends influence how clients or potential clients perceive us. With the way that information is shared these days – mostly thanks to the prevalence of social media – there is likely always going to be a “new” trendy piercing. To most of us, these piercings will be old hat. They may not (read: hopefully won’t be) touted as some sort of miracle cure for some ailment. Regardless of the circumstances, there is much to be gained from anything that is bringing potential clients into your studio. Being honest and transparent is always going to be more important than making a sale. However, there are many things to take into consideration when you find someone at your counter who likely never expected themselves to end up in a piercing studio.
First and foremost, it’s always going to be important to dispel myths. We all know there are many associated with piercings; from not being able to breastfeed after getting nipple piercings to, more recently, daith piercings being a cure for migraines, anxiety, and whatever else the internet has come up with since the writing of this piece. Remember, it is our job as ethical piercers to disseminate information about piercing to our clients and a large part of that is diffusing misinformation, even when doing so means potentially losing a sale. I’d go so far as to say especially when it means potentially losing a sale, because building trust is infinitely better for business than taking someone’s hard-earned money under false pretenses.
Since the current trend centers around daith piercings being the miracle cure for migraines, we can use that as an example. When a client walks in asking about the headache cure, we should be telling them that there’s absolutely no verifiable evidence to support that a daith piercing cures anything other than an unadorned ear. As ethical piercers, these types of misconceptions should be cleared up before talking with the client about doing a piercing. There really isn’t any wiggle room on this, because it’s fact whether we want to accept it or not; any “evidence” that has been seen is purely anecdotal. We should all know that individual experience is irrelevant in relation to things such as cures for medical conditions. Since you can read all about confirmation bias, case studies, and double blind experiments in Jef Saunders’s recent blog about the speculation that daith piercings cure migraines, I won’t delve too deeply into this.
While there isn’t a whole lot of reason to define what anecdotal evidence is or explain the general lack of scientific consensus to someone who just walked in looking for a piercing, you should be able to if needed. The same way you can explain that a vertical hood piercing isn’t going to cause nerve damage to the clitoris, you should be able to explain that a daith piercing probably isn’t going to cure their migraines. If the client still wants the piercing (and many, if not most will) then you can at least carry on with a clear conscience.
The type of clients who end up in your studio because of trends like these present a unique opportunity. Many of them have preconceived notions about piercing studios, and piercers, that they will find simply aren’t true when visiting studios that meet industry standards. Again, a huge part of our job as piercers is to educate, and these situations often become excellent chances. When your client decides they still want a daith piercing, you get to inform them that they’re not stuck with the poorly-sized curved barbell that they probably saw in whatever article they read. You have the opportunity to inform them that real body jewelry comes in many sizes, styles, and implant grade materials. The term standard, doesn’t really apply; the sky’s the limit now a days with body jewelry designs.
You become an ambassador for the entire piercing industry every time one of these clients walks through your door. While we should all be doing our best to give every client the best experience they can have, these types of people should be given extra consideration. You can teach them about jewelry standards, especially in regards to what to look for when choosing a piercing studio. You can correct misconceptions about allergies to everything except gold, while explaining that you offer a wide selection of jewelry including nickel-free gold, if that’s what they would like. When they ask if you’ll be using a gun (and there is a good chance they will) you have the chance to explain how piercing guns are unsafe. They will inevitably pass this information onto their friends and loved ones who ask about the rad new piercing they got. In turn, this single piercing experience has the potential to save an untold number of people from the bad experience of being pierced by untrained hands.
I think it is sometimes easy for us to lose sight of what we’re really trying to accomplish as piercers. Obviously we are trying to do clean, safe piercings, but that’s only one facet of the job. Many of us are guilty of worrying excessively about the opinions of our peers, yet failing to go above and beyond to impress the people who matter most: our clients. These are the people who are literally giving us a reason to come to work every day. By no means am I saying that you should disregard the opinions of your peers; in a tight-knit industry like ours, they definitely do matter. However, your personal feelings should always take a back seat to the health, safety, and mental-well being of your clients. So when someone is desperately searching for relief, it is unethical to not be upfront about your almost certain inability to provide that relief with a piercing. However, if you take the time to be compassionate and informative in your response, you just might end up with a lifelong client anyway.