Category Issue 70

Point #70: From the Editor – Kendra

Comments Off on Point #70: From the Editor – Kendra read Editorial, From the Editor, Issue 70
Kendra Jane headshot

Kendra Jane Berndt

“We can not know where are going if we do not know from where we come.”

-unknown

It is an incredible honor to be saying “Hello” and officially introducing myself as one of new editorial team for The Point. I have had the pleasure of being a contributing editor and author for The Point over the past 3 years. Some of you may know me, however most of you probably won’t. In the grand scheme of things I am definitely a new kid on the block. This month I celebrate 5 years of piercing, and I come by this industry a different path than most. I bring with me a bachelor’s degree in both science and education, with much of my past experience focusing on education in one manner or another. I had the distinguished pleasure of being chosen an Al D Scholar in 2010, and now sit on the Al D Selection Committee. I have also since been a research assistant for Paul King, and join him on the Body Piercing Archive Committee, as well as am a Super Volunteer at Conference. You will once again find me behind the registration desk this year. Come say hi! I am greatly looking forward to working with our new team, Marina and Jim, to bring you the industry’s only dedicated trade journal.

In this, our first issue as a new team, we want to take you on a journey over the past two decades, as we get ready to celebrate the Association of Professional Piercers’ 20th anniversary this June in Las Vegas. It is amazing to see what this industry has grown from and I personally can not wait to see what the future holds for both the APP and the body piercing industry as a whole.

Point #70: From the Editor – Marina

Comments Off on Point #70: From the Editor – Marina read Editorial, From the Editor, Issue 70
Marina Pecorino headshot

Marina Pecorino
Managing Editor of Content & Statistics

Several years into my professional piercing career, I served as a Love Volunteer for the APP Conference & Exposition 2012. I can honestly say that my life is forever changed as a result.

Despite a diverse career history and my current work in an unrelated field, the piercing industry continues to be a major passion in my life, much like it is for most of you. I am elated (and a bit nervous) to tackle this challenge and break out of my shell as part of the newest editorial team for this historic publication. I am even more thrilled to be given this opportunity during such a monumental anniversary.

In planning for this transitional issue, many new ideas have begun to hatch. Not all of these ideas will come to fruition, but our team has a shared goal to broaden The Point with an influx of new information and energy. We also realize the importance of honoring the history and upholding the continued mission within these pages. Current technology and the accessibility of information makes this an incredibly exciting time for the safe piercing message. Please join us in the dissemination of this message by sharing The Point with your colleagues, clients, and friends.

With great enthusiasm,

Marina Pecorino

Point #70: Evolution of Our Industry from a Piercer’s Perspective

Comments Off on Point #70: Evolution of Our Industry from a Piercer’s Perspective read Editorial, Features, Issue 70, Lifestyle, Social Media & Safe Piercing

Luis Garcia, Vendor Liaison

by Luis Garcia

Though it might not seem it to some, our industry is a fairly new one. One of the things I find so amazing about body piercing is how much it has changed and evolved over the last 20 years. When I look back, I thought it would be an amusing trip down memory lane (and a good read) to recount how I’ve seen body piercing evolve as an industry, and how our clients and trends have evolved with it.

 

I began piercing in the early ’90s, in fact as of December 20, 2015 it will be 25 years.  At that time, very few people got pierced. You would see nostril piercings or helix piercings, navel piercings, maybe the occasional tragus or tongue piercing, but little else was prominent. Heavier piercings were generally relegated to the gay leather and fetish communities, punk rockers, and other subcultures.  Keep in mind this was in the very early days of public internet use, so people had to find out about piercings from magazines or from seeing people on the street. Sure, cities like New York, San Francisco, and LA had more prominent subcultures for body piercing, but most other cities had more of a “proto” subculture when it came to body piercing. Even I had trouble getting pierced before then, having many of my piercings done during goth industrial nights at local clubs in the late ‘80s, or at leather parties I had snuck into.

 

At that time clients were almost all enthusiasts, and were always insanely grateful to have someone to help them get the piercings they wanted. They took aftercare seriously and listened to what you told them to use. There was little worry about conflicting information, because there were few people giving out this information.

 

Most of us still pierced with clamps. Body jewelry was fairly expensive to purchase wholesale, and it was limited compared to what we can get today. Internal threading below 14 gauge was hard to come by, and there weren’t as many lengths and diameter options.

 

Paul King preparing to pierce Alicia Silverstone’s navel in the Aerosmith video “Cryin’”
Paul King preparing to pierce Alicia Silverstone’s navel in the Aerosmith video “Cryin’”

The first big changes I remember came with two big public media navel piercings. The first was when Rachel from Season 3 of the Real World got her navel pierced on the show. The second was when Alicia Silverstone “got her navel pierced” (it was a stunt navel) in Aerosmith’s “Cryin’” video (by our lovely treasurer Paul King!), both in 1993. This very visible jump into the mainstream media started body piercing’s slow crawl into the limelight we see it in today. I immediately saw a jump in business and a growing interest in body piercing.

 

It was around this time that I also found usenet newsgroups and the group rec.arts.bodyart. For you young folks, usenet newsgroups were a bare bones way to communicate and interact on the early internet, similar to what Facebook does now, but closer to how reddit works. Rec.arts.bodyart was the first place I found to share and gain information and knowledge about body piercing without having to travel to a convention. Even so, things were pretty limited, and bandwidth was much lower than what we are used to today. There was no easy uploading of photos, very few people could afford digital cameras, and even scanners were still fairly pricey, so it was mostly all text-based posts back and forth. This was also when I found out about the APP, nabbing any of the few newsletters that were available.

 

In 1994, the first, and what I would consider the most important and influential body art website launched, Body Modification Ezine, or BME, and it was glorious. Now we (both piercers and enthusiasts) had a place at our fingertips that we could submit images and look at what everyone was doing all over the world. No more waiting for quarterly publications like Body Play and PFIQ, or the tiny bit of info you could get from tattoo magazines.

 

As more and more people gained cheap and easy access to the internet, BME grew. They added live chat functionality, a section for clients to share their experiences, a question of the day section, an extreme section for harder modifications, and even an “adult” section for the more saucy side of things. I remember spending hours on BME almost every day, never getting tired of everything there was to see and learn.

 

By the late ’90s, it was more and more common to have clients bring in print images of things they had seen on BME. This is where the type of clients I’d see started to change. While many were still light piercing enthusiasts, they weren’t the die hard piercees I had become accustomed to seeing. They were much more squeamish and sensitive to the portfolios they flipped through.

 

It was also at this point that freehand techniques started to spread slowly out into the industry, causing a slight fuss. Many piercers, myself included, were concerned about the safety of these new techniques, having sharps so near your fingers during the procedure. Of course, as time went on, many of us did begin to test and adopt freehand methods, seeing that there were certain benefits to be reaped, both for us and our clients.

 

As the early ‘00s rolled in, BME introduced a new companion website, IAM.bmezine.com. Modeled after social websites like Livejournal, but meant specifically for those in the body mod community. In many ways, it did things the right way before Myspace and Facebook existed. With the ability to design your own page, post diary entries, create your own forums, and easily upload images (that could also be auto submitted to the main BME website), it became a huge hit within the industry, and with even the lightest of piercing enthusiasts. This was also when I started attending the annual APP conference. It was amazing to have somewhere with so many piercers all in one place, all sharing and learning.

 

With the mid ‘00s came Myspace and Facebook, followed by Twitter, and the ushering in the of the social media era. As more and more people joined these sites, made connections, posted photos, and shared opinions, the need for a dedicated social website started to slowly dwindle, and less and less people stayed on IAM.

 

The other thing that rolled in with the mid ’00s was the public eye being drawn to some of the heavier things some piercers were doing, and posting for public consumption. Several piercers got themselves into some trouble here and there because of it, so many of us started to be more conservative with what we offered at our studios.

 

It was also in the mid ‘00s that I noticed clientele had drastically begun to change. A good portion of clients had no interest in piercing as a whole. They instead just wanted the latest accessory. While studios had always been a retail business, this pushed piercing studios into a more retail mindset, having to really consider the full customer experience and customer service became a greater focus than it had ever been. What once had been risqué for many was now chic, and many clients wanted that chic boutique experience. With the proliferation of smartphones, clients also began to have immediate and constant access to the internet wherever they went. This brought up companies like Yelp in the mid to late ‘00s, where anyone could review anything, making the customer experience one of the most important things. This didn’t just go for in-shop interactions, but also for any online interactions, and even personal blogs and webpages being scrutinized by potential clients. This caused more and more of us to realizing that once something is on the internet, it never really disappears.

 

It was also in this timeframe that freehand techniques began to become more standard and accepted techniques as previously. This is partially due in turn due to the internet as well, especially with how easy it was to get information and interact with other piercers. As this information spread, more and more of us started to ditch piercing clamps, with some taking strong stands that one was better than the other (when the truth is all that matters is that the client gets a clean, safe, and properly placed piercing). It did lead to many (in my opinion) fun and amusing debates amongst us. The annual APP Conference & Exposition also had grown exponentially, with more piercers wanting to test the waters and experience what had made so many of us fall in love with that one week a year.

 

As the late ‘00s and early ‘10s rolled in, Facebook, Twitter, and even newer internet based  technologies like Instagram and Pinterest had all become household names. Clients could instantly save a photo they saw to their phones and bring it in. Piercers could immediately share their work and have hundreds if not thousands of people liking, tagging or repinning these images in a matter of minutes to hours. This is what still amazes me sometimes; how quickly and easily information can spread, both good and bad. This also lead to the pseudo-death of BME and IAM. While many still visit the site, and even still have IAM accounts, Facebook with its ease of connection–one place where you can chat, blog, and share all aspects of your life and lifestyle–now exists and IAM and BME have suffered because of this. Similar to how small businesses have been hurt by big box stores.

 

And that, my babies, is the end of my recount of how I’ve seen our industry, clientele, and the interaction of the two change over the years. Hopefully you have not only learned that I am old as dirt, but that these changes have made for some interesting and great things happening to our industry and organization.

 

Point #70: When is Piercing Mutilation? – Paul King

3 Comments read International, Issue 70, Legislation, Medical, News

PKing photo for conference 2011By Paul King
APP Treasurer

Considering Female Genital Piercing as “Female Genital Mutilation” in the United Kingdom

The Current UK Situation

On March 19, 2015, the London Evening Standard published Martin Bentham’s article online, “Women with Vagina Piercings to be Classed as FGM.”[1] The tabloid article is claiming that the United Kingdom’s (UK) Department of Health is requiring that healthcare professionals report known incidences of female genital piercing as “female genital mutilation.” This article was and is still being widely shared in social media and has proliferated through various copycat online articles through sites such as BBC and Huffington Post, etc.[2] The response has been an incredulous outcry from UK piercers,  other piercers worldwide, piercing enthusiasts, and even UK nurses.[3]

In this article, I will outline some pertinent history on the topic of “Female Genital Mutilation,” particularly in the UK and how it relates to female genital piercing; explain some key legal definitions and concepts; illuminate legal and ethical concerns; and suggest options for immediate responses and longer range strategies potentially affecting the Association of Professional Piercers (APP), UK piercers, global body altering industries, and other body modification communities.

A Brief Overview of “Female Genital Mutilation

To some degree, most of us have an idea of what “female genital mutilation” is and what it is not. However, “Female Genital Mutilation” (“FGM”) is a very complex subject containing passionate and sometimes conflicting beliefs. Within individuals as well as between groups, “Female Genital Mutilation” includes diverse and sometimes contradictory understandings of “Human Rights,” patriarchy, feminism(s), xenophobia, Islamophobia, sexism, racism, colonialism, Western ideology, economics, etc. I have studied this subject intensely for several years; I  am still learning and therefore I make few claims.[4] Most of the complexities of “FGM” are outside the scope of this article.

Throughout this paper, I use “FGM” and “female genital mutilation” in quotations. I believe the phrase and acronym are popularly recognized so I perpetuate their usage, however, with great ambivalence. I prefer and generally use “female genital alteration,” (“FGA”), or even more neutral, “genital alteration.”[5] These are less biased and less reductive ways to talk about diverse procedures of the genitals that contain debated and complicated social meanings and motivations, as well as a wide range of psychological and physical outcomes. Even the term “female genital piercing” carries problems of vagueness, which leads to confusion. As any professional and experienced piercer can tell you, not all piercings are the same; a “clit piercing” is not a “clitoral hood piercing.”[6]

The language and visual images used by the programs to eradicate “FGM” are so compelling and horrifying for the majority of Westerners that it becomes unimaginable to call into question data, rhetoric, or effects of this authoritative campaign.[7] Although the United Nations (UN) agencies including the World Health Organization (WHO) have made four separate categories to differentiate the “FGM” practices, their literature describes all “FGM” practices as having the exact same physical and emotional traumas. As a result, the most invasive infibulation with clitoral excision carries the same description of trauma as the most benign prick.[8] The UN et al. understands what they’re doing, they’re not looking for compromise; they are seeking complete eradication of all practices within one generation.[9] Setting aside further ethical considerations of UN et al.’s campaign for the eradication of “FGM,” we will only address the repercussions from the overreaching definition of “Type IV female genital mutilation.”

Illustrations by Jennifer Klepacki from The Piercing Bible: The Definitive Guide to Safe Body Piercing by Elayne Angel www.piercingbible.com
Illustrations by Jennifer Klepacki from The Piercing Bible: The Definitive
Guide to Safe Body Piercing by Elayne Angel www.piercingbible.com

The legal definitions of “FGM” includes: “Type IV is a category that subsumes all other harmful, or potentially harmful, practices that are performed on the genitalia of girls and women.”[10] The UN and therefore the UK provide no qualitative or quantitative scale for “harm.” A rash, abrasion, puncture, burn, and/or contusion, etc., any injury that is a result of a deliberate action, no matter how temporary or permanent is technically “harm.”[11] The UN/WHO’s own documents acknowledge their definitional language for “female genital mutilation” was deliberately broad to close any potential legal “loopholes” for the practices they were trying to target.[12] 

The UN/WHO have identified “female genital mutilation” as occurring in ethnic groups in or immigrated from 28 African countries as well as Iraq, Israel, Oman, United Arab Emirates, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan. I would assert that the UN/WHO never intended or considered for their definitions to include Western “normal” personal grooming practices on adult female bodies that frequently result in injuries. The UN/WHO’s stance on Western women altering their genitalia for aesthetics using cosmetic surgical procedures was intentionally left ambiguous.[13] To further complicate the ethics in this issue, other  UN policies do not consider “traditional” genital modifications of the male body as “mutilation,” in fact, the UN agencies UNAIDS and WHO, fund and promote medicalized male genital alteration in the same African communities in which they seek to eradicate female genital alteration.[14]

Important History Relevant to the UK

The trending tabloid articles take out of context an issue with a long history. For perspective, Ioffer some background on the development of the UK’s “FGM”campaign. This historical timeline is by no means exhaustive:

In 1985, the UK passed its first regulation on the prohibition of mutilating female genitalia. “Mutilation” is never defined.[15]

In 1987, UK authorities conducted “Operation Spanner.” This investigation targeted adult male homosexuals engaged in consensual BDSM.[16] Among the arrested was one of the UK’s most prominent and historically important professional body piercers, Alan Oversby, a.k.a. “Mr. Sebastian.” His criminal activity included, “performing a [Prince Albert] piercing for the purposes of sexual pleasure….”[17] All defendants pled guilty and lost all appeals, both in the UK and EU courts.[18] For this article, the crucial point to understand is that UK law will disregard adult consent to criminally convict a body piercer. In the Spanner Case, guilt was determined on the subjective ideas of “harm.” Current understandings are that one can pierce at least male genitals for adornment, but not for sexual gratification.[19]

In 2003, the UK replaced its first anti-“FGM” law of 1985, with the “Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003,” but they still did not clearly defined “mutilation.” In addition, the act refers to “child abuse” and the protection of “girls” throughout the document, then concludes under the definitions section 6 (1), “Girl includes woman.”[20] Obviously, this muddles the understanding of what constitutes “child,” “girl,” “child abuse” as well as a consenting (female) adult.[21] 

In 2008, The United Nations (UN) and the World Health Agency (WHO) released an UN inter-agency seminal work on the subject of “FGM.”[22] This document contains their standpoint on the issue, definitions, and candid rationale for their language choices. This is the document that most national governments refer to when considering definitions and implementing their own programs. It is the source document from which the National Health Services (NHS) and the Information Standards Board’s program ISB 1600 draw their global statistics, UK statistical projections, and legal definitions.[23] 

UN et al.’s Type IV female genital mutilation is defined as “All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterization.” This is where Western-style female genital piercing would be classed. The term “Medical” includes any procedure not necessary for physical and psychological health. Cultural and religious necessities are explicitly excluded as medically necessary. The UN et al. also specifically includes “stretching” and “harmful substances.” It also states “herbs” as well as implying chemical bleaches, depilatory creams, hot waxes, etc. when they cause any injury fall into this category.[24] The UN explains that they use such broad language to “close loopholes” in their campaign against “FGM.”[25] Of course the problem of this slippery slope argument is that they have included ANYTHING that causes ANY degree of injury to the female genitalia.  This includes female genital body piercing and potentially the reinsertion or stretching of a female genital piercing.[26] Looking through medical reports for the US and Europe reveals thousands of female genital injuries, annually. Research reveals that most of these emergency room visits and treatments are for procedures we would never label “mutilation”such as “personal grooming” with razors, scissors, and clippers; skin bleaching; electrolysis; “Brazilian” waxing; pubic hair dyeing; and pubic hair removal with lasers or depilatory creams; etc.[27] Presented this way, Type IV’s all inclusiveness may seem absurd. However, the UN categories were not intended to understand and document “our” bodies and practices; this descriptive system was intended to scrutinize “their” bodies and practices. For the law to make any sense, the allegation of “female genital mutilation” must be kept in context with the bodies being targeted as “FGM-affect.”

        

The 2013 UK Intercollegiate FGM report instructs authorities, including healthcare professionals, on how to identify, record, and report “FGM.”[28] This includes explanations for “FGM-affected” immigrant communities from the previously mentioned UN/WHO listed countries. The UK draws from this list for their statistics of probable “FGM” risk in the UK, since authorities admit there had been no prosecutions and little actual evidence to support concerns of widespread “female genital mutilation.”[29]

On April 1, 2014, the Information Standards Board released directive ISB 1610. This document detailed information on standardized codes and procedures for healthcare workers to report incidences of “female genital mutilation” in the UK. This guide includes UN/WHO definitions for Type I, II, and III. However, Type IV, which covers anything else, now includes “unknown” as ISB Type 9. “Type 9” mutilation means some sort of injury and/or scarring has occurred but it can’t be identified or there isn’t a clear ISB code for it. Type 9 is how “piercing” should be categorized.[30]

In July 2014, the Department of Health issued “Recording FGM in the Patient Healthcare Record” reminding healthcare providers, particularly General Practitioners, that ISB 1610 requires mandatory reporting of “FGM” byall healthcare staff effective Sept. 1, 2014. The Department of Health has been collecting and reporting this data since then.[31]

In Jan 2015, the Secretary of State and Parliament released a comprehensive report, in response to a July 2014 summit, requesting greater cooperation between the departments of law enforcement, education, and healthcare to escalate the campaign against FGM in the UK.[32]

Female Genital diagram TexOn March 10, 2015, the House of Commons released a report titled, “Female Mutilation: Follow Up.” The Home Affairs Committee demanded that laws be clarified to include all UK female genital cosmetic surgeries on the grounds that it is hypocritical to specifically target the eradication of female genital procedures of “FGM” -identified communities both located inside and outside the UK, while allowing the rest of UK females to modify their genitals.[33] This report is likely the impetus for the Evening Standard’s article of March 17, 2015.

On March 17, 2015, The London Evening Standard’s website posted the article “Women with Vagina Piercings to be Classed as FGM.” This article appears to have ignited the current public awareness that female genital piercing could be, and perhaps have been, categorized as “female genital mutilation.” Requests have been made of the author and the paper to see if they have knowledge of any evidence that the government specifically addresses Western-style practices of female genital piercing, so far, without reply. Most likely, the author was drawing from previous documents that generally include “piercing” as a standard example of the UN Type IV / ISB Type 9 “FGM.”[34]

Concluding Thoughts

At the time of this writing, I have no evidence that UK authorities would interpret the piercing of a white indigenous adult female’s genitals for adornment as “female genital mutilation.” The protection of the genitals of all minors under the age of 16 is already enforced by strict regulations. The UK has cultural views and therefore legal guidelines on young persons that differ from many states in the US. In the UK, persons 16 and older can consent to sex and medical treatments, without the necessity of parental consent.[35]Although, internationally, there exists a widely held professional ethical standard that only persons considered adults, at the “age of majority,” should have their genitals pierced. However, if a UK body piercer performed a female genital piercing on an adult woman from a UN/WHO/UK recognized “FGM-affected community” the legal outcome gets trickier to predict.[36] If the piercing were discovered by a healthcare provider, the situation would create an ethical dilemma for the healthcare worker, compelled by law to report any alterations. If the reported incident were investigated by law enforcement, it could lead to criminal prosecution of the body piercer, counter staff, shop owner, and/or a friend(s) that accompanied the piercing client (anyone that “aids, abets, [counsels] or procures”) for violation of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 carrying a penalty of a fine with up to 14 years imprisonment.[37] To mitigate risk, a UK piercer could refuse to pierce female genitalia, while continuing to pierce male genitalia. As another option, UK piercers could sort clients by using the same geographical criteria as the National Health Services and law enforcement; however, in practice, I doubt denying services based on country of origin would go  over well. It would probably lead to accusations of xenophobia and racism.

Therein lies the crux of an ethical dilemma. Most people will not believe that every injury of the female genitals is “mutilation.” “Female genital mutilation” is understood to only happen in “FGM-affected communities.” It’s common sense that Janet Jackson’s, Christina Aguilera’s, or Lady Gaga’s pierced genitalia is not “female genital mutilation,” and as such the definitions of and rules for “female genital mutilation” should not apply.[38] However, “common sense” is not universal; it is influenced by life experience, education, class, economics, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, country of origin, etc. Healthcare workers, police, legislators, and the public operate under this blind bias.[39] Few want to admit that they see and treat others differently, that is because it directly clashes with other deeply held Western values of tolerance, decency, and fairness.

In March 2015, the UK Home Affairs Committee recognized the “double standard” of pressuring other communities to stop their “mutilation” practices while allowing UK females to have genital cosmetic surgeries. They have appealed to parliament to amend the 2003 law in order to criminalize female genital cosmetic surgery.[40] This action will likely meet allegations of patriarchy and sexism. Many Westerners fail to realize that our understandings of medicine and science (such as “necessary” or “not necessary”) as well as violence, mutilation, harm, pain, etc. are always shaped by culture. Ones most deeply held religious and moral beliefs, including notions of what is “right” or “wrong” are shaped by the culture one is born into. The dominant culture within any particular nation is in a more powerful position to propagate its beliefs.

The UK government and anti-“FGM” organizations genuinely desire to protect immigrant women and their daughters. Most Westerners, this author included, would find it repugnant to defend the most commonly told story of a practice that physically restrains a very young girl crying against her will, to have her clitoris cut out and her vagina sewn shut, a procedure that endangers her life, sexual pleasure, and ability to procreate. However, the anti-“FGM” campaigners risk weakening their public support when they overreach their claims to consider all practices regardless of invasiveness, all females regardless of age, and all physical and psychological consequences regardless of the wide range of experiences and perceptions, as the same. Once the UN et al. labels a community as practicing “FGM,” then at the international level, those community adult women’s legal “rights” to consent to any genital alteration are stripped away.[41] 

I’m not saying we should do nothing for individuals that want to be helped, or that we should not impose policies to protect minors, particularly in our own countries, but I do believe definitions and regulations that could specifically deny a female adult the choice to consent or not to consent to altering her genitals, whether by: piercing the genital tissue; or shaving, trimming, bleaching, dyeing, lasering, or waxing the pubic hair; or surgically altering the appearance, etc., violate current commonly-held notions of sexual equality and fairness. 

So what can be done in the UK?  Ultimately, the course of action is best decided by the piercers and the women of the UK, although international piercing communities should assist when asked. Currently, an e-petition is circulating that UK citizens can sign requesting that the government legally recognizes female genital piercing is not mutilation.[42] UK citizens can write and call their elected officials. They can email responses to all names and department heads associated with the anti-”FGM” regulations.Everyone can email news agencies that spread the story. At its source, this is an international issue that will keep occurring as a result of the definitions and policies of United Nations and the World Health Organization. Since the medical field and personal grooming industries may be affected, alliances should be sought. Body piercing communities and their allies should simultaneously apply pressure for legislative changes at both the local as well as the international levels.

As I conclude this article, I am reminded of the small group of piercers that came together in 1994, to stand up against a misguided California state bill that was going to unnecessarily burden our industry. The Association of Professional Piercers was born from this handful of determined activists. Twenty years later, the APP has educated thousands of piercers and has helped shaped numerous city, county, state/province, and national regulations around the world. My concerns about this current issue in the UK are somewhat eased by the excitement of what the future may hold with this opportunity for the UK piercing community to unite behind a common cause.

Author’s note: This article was written on a very tight deadline. I am filled with deep gratitude for Nici Holmes, Kendra Jane, Marina Pecorino, and Elayne Angel for their incredible assistance during this process, filled with last-minute questions and requests.

 

The Association of Professional Piercers’ Official Response on the UK Categorization of “Piercing” as “Female Genital Mutilation.”

The Association of Professional Piercers does not consider elective female genital piercing to be mutilation or “Female Genital Mutilation” (“FGM”). We support the right for all adults to pierce their bodies in a safe, informed, and consensual manner when performed by a qualified practitioner under appropriate asepsis.

We are urging UK government officials to readdress the language of the current laws and regulations to clarify the confusion arising from the current definitions, including definitional section 6 (1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, in which “Girl includes woman,” as well as any “FGM” regulations that include the term “pierce,” such as ISB 1610 of 2014. We are available to assist in this process.

The Association of Professional Piercers is an international non-profit organization dedicated to the dissemination of vital health and safety information about body piercing to piercers, health care professionals, legislators, and the general public. Socially and legislatively, body piercing is situated within the greater body modification community. As a result, we recognize that our role extends beyond the discipline of body piercing. Our position on body art practices such as tattooing, cosmetic tattooing, branding, scarification, suspension, and other forms of body modification is as follows:

We support the right for all adults to adorn or modify their bodies in a safe, informed, and consensual manner when performed by a qualified practitioner under appropriate asepsis. While the APP does not directly regulate, perform outreach, or offer procedural guidelines on practices other than body piercing, we support health and safety organizations that do. Our most fundamental principles as expressed in our environmental criteria and ethical standards extend to the greater body modification community and its practices.

 

Bibliography

  1. Ahmadu, Fuambai S. and Richard A. Shweder. “Disputing the myth of the sexual dysfunction of circumcised women: An interview with Fuambai S. Ahmadu by Richard A. Shweder.” Anthropology Today, 25 (2009): 14–17.
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8322.2009.00699.x
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice by the Committee on Bioethics.”Pediatrics 95, no. 2, (1995): 314-317.
    http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP/
  3. Bibbings, Lois, and Peter Alldridge. “Sexual Expression, Body Alteration, and the Defence of Consent.”Journal of Law and Society 20,no. 3 (1993): 356-370. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1410312
  4. Bjerring, Peter, Henrik Egekvist, and Thomas Blake. “Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Three Different Depilatory Methods.”Skin Research and Technology4, no. 4 (1998): 196-199. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0846.1998.tb00110.x
  5. Brunn Poulse, Pia, and Maria Strandesen. “Survey and Occurrence of PPD, PTD and Other Allergenic Hair Dye Substances in Hair Dyes.” The Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 2013.
    http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2013/02/978-87-92903-92-1.pdf
  6. Christoffersen-Deb, Astrid. “’Taming Tradition’: Medicalized Female Genital Practices in Western Kenya.”Medical Anthropology Quarterly 19, no. 4 (2005): 402-418. http://www.jstor.og/stable/3655495.
  7. Coleman, Doraine L. “The Seattle Compromise: Multicultural Sensitivity and Americanization.” Duke Law Journal 47, no. 4 (1998): 717-783. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372912
  8. Darby, Robert, and J. Steven Svoboda. “A Rose by Any Other Name?: Rethinking the
  9. Similarities and Differences between Male and Female Genital Cutting.”Medical Anthropology Quarterly 21, no. 3 (2007): 301-323.
    DOI: 10.1525/MAQ.2007.21.3.301.
  10. Delanty, Gerard. “Habermas and Occidental Rationalism: The Politics of Identity, Social Learning, and the Cultural Limits of Moral Universalism.”Sociology Theory 15, no. 1 (1997): 30-59.
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/202134
  11. Eyal, Nir. “Informed Consent.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,edited by Edward N. Zalta  (Fall 2012 Edition).
    http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/informed-consent/    .
  12. Filc, Dani. “The Medical Text: between Biomedicine and Hegemony.”Social Science & Medicine 59, (2004).
    DOI:10.1016/j.socsimed.2004.01.003
  13. Glass, Allison S., Herman S. Bagga, Gregory E. Tasian, Patrick B. Fisher, Charles E. McCulloch, Sarah D. Baschko, Jack W. McAninch, and Benjamin N. Breyer. “Pubic Hair Grooming Injuries Presenting to US Emergency Departments.”Urology 80, no. 6 (2012): 1187-1191.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.08.025.
  14. Hastings Center. “Seven Things You Should Know About Female Genital Surgeries in Africa.”Hasting Center Report 42, no. 6 (2012): 19-27.
    DOI: 10.1002/hast.81
  15. Herbenick, Debby, Venessa Schick, Michael Reece, Stephanie A. Sanders, and J. Dennis Fortenberry. “Pubic Hair Removal among Women in the United States; Prevalence, Methods, and Characteristics.”Journal of Sexual Medicine 7, no. 10 (2010): 3322-30.
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01935.x
  16. Johnsdotter, Sara, and Birgitta Essén. “Genitals and Ethnicity: the Politics of Genital Modifications.”Reproductive Health Matters Journal 18, no. 35 (2010): 29-37. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20541081
  17. Kelly, Brenda, and Charles Foster. “Should Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery and Genital Piercing Be Regarded Ethically and Legally as Female Genital Mutilation?”International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (BJOG). 2012.
    DOI: 10.1111/j/1471-0528.2011.03260.x
  18. King, Paul R. “Investigations of Female Genital Alteration in the United States Within Nonimmigrant Communities.” UC Berkeley Undergraduate Journal. 2015. In press.
  19. Leonard, Lori. “‘We Did It for Pleasure Only’: Hearing Alternative Tales of Female Circumcision.”Qualitative Inquiry 6, no. 2 (2000b): 212-228.
    DOI: 10.1177/107780040000600203
  20. Moyn, Samuel.The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Kindle edition, 2010.
  21. Prinz, Jesse. The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. 2007.
  22. Schramme, Thomas. “Should We Prevent Non-therapeutic Mutilation and Extreme Body Modification?”Bioethics 22, no. 1 (2008): 8-15.
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00566.x
  23. Sheldon, Sally, and Stephen Wilkinson. “Female Genital Mutilation and Cosmetic Surgery Regulating Non-Therapeutic Body Modification.”Bioethics, 12 no. 4, (1998): 263–285.
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00117
  24. Smith, Courtney. “Who Defines ‘Mutilation’? Challenging Imperialism in the Discourse of Female Genital Cutting.”Feminist Formations 23, no. 1 (2011): 25-46.
    DOI: 10.1353/ff.2011.0009
  25. Trager, Jonathan D.K. “Pubic Hair Removal: Pearls and Pitfalls.”Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology19, no. 2 (2006): 117-23. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S108331880600060X
  26. UNAIDS & World Health Organization. “Male Circumcision.”Technical Guidance Note for Global Fund HIV Proposals, 2011. http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/programmes/programmeeffectivenessandcountrysupportdepartment/gfresourcekit/20110831_Technical_Guidance_Male_Circumcision_en.pdf
  27. UNFPA-UNICEF. “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Accelerating Change (Joint Funding Proposal).” UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting. E-book. http://www.unfpa.org/publications/female-genital-mutilationcutting-accelerating-change.
  28. UNICEF. “Eradication of Female Genital Mutilation in Somalia.” United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, 2004.
    www.unicef.org/somalia/SOM_FGM_Advocacy_Paper.pdf‎
  29. Wade, Lisa. “The Politics of Acculturation: Female Genital Cutting and the Challenge of building Multicultural Democracies.”Social Problems 58, no. 4 (2011): 518-537. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2011.58.4.518
  30. Wagner Jr., Richard F., Trudy Brown, Rebecca E. Archer, and Tatsuo Uchida. “Dermatologists’
  31. Attitudes toward Independent Nonphysician Electrolysis Practice.”American Society for Dermatological Surgery 24, no. 3 (1998): 357-362.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9537011
  32. World Health Organization. “Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: an Interagency Statement: UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO.”World Health Organization, (2008). http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/9789241596442/en/
  33. World Health Organization. “Global Strategy to Stop Health-care Providers from Performing Female Genital Mutilation: UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNIFEM, FIGO, ICN, IOM, WCPT, WMA, MWIA.”World Health Organization,(2010). http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/rhr_10_9/en/
  34. Yoder, Stanley P., Noureddine Abderrahim, and Arlinda Zhuzhuni. “Female Genital Cutting in the Demographic and health Surveys: A Critical and Comparative Analysis.”DHS Comparative Reports no. 7, (2004). Calverton, Maryland: ORC Macro.
    http://www.measuredhs.com/publications/publication-cr7-comparative-reports.cfm
  35. Young, Cathy, Myrna L. Armstrong, Alden E. Roberts, Inola Mello, and Elayne Angel. “A Triad of Evidence for Care of Women with Genital Piercings.”Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, (2010). DOI: 10.1111/j.1745.7599.2009.0479.x

 

[1] My article won’t digress into an anatomy lesson, but it is noteworthy that Western-style piercers do not pierce “vaginas.” http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/women-with-vagina-piercings-to-be-classed-as-suffering-from-fgm-10113202.html

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/31938409; http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/18/vaginal-piercings-classed-fgm-new-nhs-guidelines_n_6892376.html; http://www.thefrisky.com/2015-03-19/nhs-genital-piercings-count-as-female-genital-mutilation/; http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-with-vaginal-piercings-will-be-recorded-as-suffering-fgm-under-new-nhs-rules-10116464.html; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2999462/Women-vaginal-piercings-classed-having-suffered-female-genital-mutilation-says-Department-Health.html; http://www.infowars.com/uk-regulation-to-label-women-with-vagina-piercings-victims-of-genital-mutilation/; http://www.prisonplanet.com/uk-regulation-to-label-women-with-vagina-piercings-victims-of-genital-mutilation.htm; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11480359/FGM-Vaginal-piercing-to-be-recorded-as-female-genital-mutilation.html; http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fgm-women-vaginal-piercings-classed-5356141; http://guernseypress.com/news/uk-news/2015/03/17/vaginal-piercings-classed-as-fgm/

[4] A 60-page excerpt of my 2014 honors thesis, “Investigations of Female Genital Alteration in the US Within Nonimmigrant Communities” is pending publication for this Fall 2015, in the UC Berkeley Undergraduate Journal.  http://escholarship.org/uc/our_buj

[5] I only use the language of “female genital mutilation” when specifically addressing the UN et al.’s “FGM eradication campaign.”

[6] Refer to the anatomical drawings showing the variety of female genital piercings. Illustrations by Jennifer Klepacki. Used with permission of The Piercing Bible: The Definitive Guide to Safe Body Piercing. www.piercingbible.com.

[7] World Health Organization, “Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: an Interagency Statement: UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO,” World Health Organization, (2008), 11, http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/9789241596442/en/; UNICEF, “Eradication of Female Genital Mutilation in Somalia,” United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, 2004, www.unicef.org/somalia/SOM_FGM_Advocacy_Paper.pdf‎; (For alternative narratives and standpoints to the anti-”FGM” campaign, see: Lori Leonard, “‘We Did It for Pleasure Only’: Hearing Alternative Tales of Female Circumcision,” Qualitative Inquiry 6, no. 2, 2000: 212-228, DOI: 10.1177/107780040000600203; and Hastings Center, “Seven Things You Should Know About Female Genital Surgeries in Africa,” Hasting Center Report 42, no. 6 (2012): 19-27, DOI: 10.1002/hast.81

[8] Ibid, 9, 11, 24.

[9] UNFPA-UNICEF, “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Accelerating Change (Joint Funding Proposal),” UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting. E-book, 2012, 12, http://www.unfpa.org/publications/female-genital-mutilationcutting-accelerating-change2012.

[10] WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation…2008, 26.

[11] Ibid., 26-28.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., 28.

[14] UNAIDS & World Health Organization, “Male Circumcision,” Technical Guidance Note for Global Fund HIV Proposals, 2011. http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/programmes/programmeeffectivenessandcountrysupportdepartment/gfresourcekit/20110831_Technical_Guidance_Male_Circumcision_en.pdf

[15] Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, Chapter 38, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/38

[16] “BDSM” is the acronym for Bondage and Discipline, Sadomasochism. It is an umbrella term for a wide range of sexual play and expression considered outside mainstream sexual norms.

[17] Bibbings, Lois, and Peter Alldridge, “Sexual Expression, Body Alteration, and the Defence of

Consent,” Journal of Law and Society 20,no. 3 (1993): 361, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1410312

[19] Ibid.

[20] Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, Chapter 31, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/31/pdfs/ukpga_20030031_en.pdf

[21] Since the age of sexual consent and medical consent is 16 in the UK, clearer language that addresses the specific  age would correct this problem, as an example: “under 16,” “16 through 17 years of age,” “under 18 years of age,” or  “18 years of age and older.”

[22] WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation…, 2008.. (I critique this document in much greater depth in my thesis, “Investigations of Female Genital Alteration…”.)

[23] As an aside from our immediate issue, the 2008 UN Interagency statement on FGM is the source of the UK’s ongoing issue of whether female cosmetic surgeries are mutilation or not. (The document takes the stance those “elective” surgeries such as vaginal rejuvenation and hymen repair ARE mutilation while acknowledging many Western countries may not agree).

[24] WHO, “Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation…., 2008, 27, 28.

[25] Ibid., 28.

[26] All italic emphasis in this paragraph was added by the author. I include “reinsertion” since when jewelry has been taken out of a piercing, the piercing fistula starts to shrink, reinsertion in some instances may stretch the piercing channel. Generally, in a well-healed piercing and executed by an experienced piercer, changing female genital jewelry carries a remote possibility of tissue trauma; as such I did not include “jewelry changes” under Type IV.

[27] Bjerring, Peter, Henrik Egekvist, and Thomas Blake. “Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of

Three Different Depilatory Methods.” Skin Research and Technology 4, no. 4 (1998): 196-199. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0846.1998.tb00110.x; Brunn Poulse, Pia, and Maria Strandesen, “Survey and Occurrence of PPD, PTD and OtherAllergenic Hair Dye Substances in Hair Dyes,” The Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2013, http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2013/02/978-87-92903-92-1.pdf; Glass, Allison S., Herman S. Bagga, Gregory E. Tasian, Patrick B. Fisher, Charles E. McCulloch, Sarah D. Baschko, Jack W. McAninch, and Benjamin N. Breyer, “Pubic Hair Grooming Injuries Presenting to US Emergency Departments,” Urology 80, no. 6 (2012): 1187-1191, DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.08.025; Herbenick, Debby, Venessa Schick, Michael Reece, Stephanie A. Sanders, and J. Dennis Fortenberry, “Pubic Hair Removal among Women in the United States; Prevalence, Methods, and Characteristics,” Journal of Sexual Medicine 7, no. 10 (2010): 3322-30, DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01935.x; Trager, Jonathan D.K. “Pubic Hair Removal: Pearls and Pitfalls.” Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 19, no. 2 (2006): 117-23. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S108331880600060X

[28] “Tackling FGM in the UK: an Intercollegiate Recommendations for Identifying, Recording, and Reporting,” 2013.

[29] Ibid., 12.

[30] Information Health and Standards Board for Health and Social Care, “ISB 1610,” 2014, http://www.isb.nhs.uk/documents/isb-1610

[32] Secretary of State, “Female Genital Mutilation: The Case for a National Action Plan,“ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/384349/FGMresponseWeb.pdf

[34] I use the APP’s definition of “body piercing” to mean: “Western-style practices of female genital piercing.”

[36] There could also be a legal issue of Actual Bodily Harm, “ABH” (not related to “FGM”) if the client or piercer received sexual pleasure from the piercing process or if the piercing were performed in the context of a BDSM sexual scene. See information on the Spanner Case.

[37] “Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003,” sections 2 and 5.

[38] These three celebrities have all gone public with their genital piercings; no “outings” were done for this article. (Vibe Magazine interview with Serena Kim) http://brownsista.com/janet-jacksons-interview-with-vibe-vixen/; ((christina Aguilera’s Vertical clitoral hood piercing was confirmed with Taj Waggaman, body piercer, in a personal communication, March 23, 2015); (Lady Gaga, September 12, 2011), http://www.thesuperficial.com/photos/lady-gagas-about-to-feel-a-breeze/0913-lady-gaga-upskirt-01

[39] This is a link to a forum with nurses discussing the London Evening Standard “FGM” article. They expressed personal opinions on how they should interpret female genital piercing and the law. http://www.practicenursing.co.uk/forum/topic.aspx?TOPIC_ID=23989

[40] House of Commons, “Female Genital Mutilation: Follow Up,” 2015, 6, 7. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmhaff/961/961.pdf

[41] WHO, “Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation…,” 2008, 10.

Point #70: President’s Corner

Comments Off on Point #70: President’s Corner read Editorial, Issue 70, President's Corner
Brian Skellie headshot at 2014 APP conference by April Berardi

Brian Skellie headshot at 2014 APP conference by April BerardiBrian Skellie
APP President

Sir Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law states: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Had I been at Arthur’s elbow as he wrote those words, I’d have suggested adding: “to the uninformed observer.”

— James Randi, WHY MAGICIANS ARE A SCIENTIST’S BEST FRIEND

 

“As piercing professionals, what do you seek from the organization?”

It may seem from appearances that the APP has been conjuring constant advancements and results from our common mission. For more than two decades, behind the scenes this question has been the focus of enthusiastic volunteers aided by an astute administrator. We have had eight changes of leadership before our current board, most of whom I have had the pleasure of working alongside. They have contributed significant guidance, accomplished projects, and made decisions that have helped our field grow. I thank each of you for choosing to engage. In regards to this question, progress and development is an excellent answer.

“What if a piercer exceeds the basic requirements of their APP membership agreement?”

Another very pleasing question that comes up more often than ever before is in regards to where we might go to improve upon the minimum standards. These years of educational outreach have been fruitful, and we have received outstanding applications from an increasing number of supporters. I affirm: please excel. Impress us with your intuition and invention! Sharing your ideas raises the level for all of your fellow members.

“Do you feel the need to make changes before you apply?”

I’d like to think that there are many piercers out there who are not yet members, but who meet and exceed the skills and criteria required by APP membership. The fact remains that we encourage each piercer to feel welcome to start the application process and join. Our membership committee is here to help with your questions and to facilitate the process with a regular online APP Future Members group, and round tables both at events and online.

Participation in our educational events can demystify the technology and techniques important to our work and provide the foundational aptitudes so that you can become an APP member.

See you at Bally’s in Las Vegas for our 20th Conference, June 7-12, 2015.

 

*The Point Spring 1994 issue lists the first Board of Directors as Crystal Cross and Richard White, Ahna Edwards, Kent Fazekas, Gahdi Elias, Michela Grey, Blake Perlingeri, Rob Petroff, Maria Tashjian, and Alan Falkner.

In August of 1996, Maria and Blake stepped down and were replaced by David Vidra and Al D. Sowers.

June 1997 Kent Fazekas is named Chair

June 1998 Gahdi Elias is named Chair

From June of 1999 until June of 2002, Pat McCarthy held the position of President.

As of June 2002 this position was assumed by Bethra Szumski. She sat on the board as President until June of 2005.

In June of 2005 Alicia Cardenas became president. She remained president until June of 2008.

James Weber succeeded the position of President from June of 2008 until June of 2011.

In June 2011 Elayne Angel took over as the President, where she served until June of 2014.

Our most recent President is Brian Skellie who has been President since June of 2014.