Category News

Point #72: Sailor Sid Update – Paul King

PaulKingPaul King
Committee Chairperson & APP Treasurer

 

The Leather Archive and Museum and the Association of Professional Piercers are thrilled with the success of the Sailor Sid Diller Photographic Archive fundraising campaign!

This project began in September 2014, when Elayne Angel forwarded an email to the APP from the Leather Archive, a non-profit museum[1], requesting a grant of $10,000 to preserve a fragile collection of Sailor Sid Diller’s ephemera, letters, photographs, and films, that had been passed on to the LA&M by Jim Ward.

The Officers and Board of Directors of the APP thought it would be best to share this undertaking with the greater piercing community. The goals of the fundraiser were to raise a considerable sum of money for preservation expenses, as well as educate folks in the piercing community who may have never heard of or knew very little about our communities’ historical figure “Sailor Sid.” the LA&M loved the idea of a fundraising campaign and worked closely with the APP in every step of the process. The financial goal was upped to $11,000 to cover most of the costs of gifts to those that would contribute to the campaign. The online Indiegogo portion would be $6000 with the APP committing to match up to another $5000. The campaign was a resounding success exceeding all expectations!

Badur Ramji with Sailor Sid in the 2015 Body Piercing Archives
Badur Ramji with Sailor Sid in the 2015 Body Piercing Archives

The Indiegogo online campaign raised $12,286, with 102 registered contributors.[2] The largest contributors were Badur Ramji (Punkmedics) and Vaughn Body Arts (Cody Vaughn) at $2,500 each, Tiffany Diamond (DV8 Body Art) at $1,000, and 3 additional contributors: James Weber, Metamorphosis (Kristin and Joe Otter), and Billy Wood Jr., at $500 each. If you see these folks out and about or online, please thank them! In addition to the online Indiegogo campaign, the APP raised another $2,654 onsite at Conference and LA&M raised $3,824 from a business donor. Altogether, we were able to raise funds totalling $23,764!

Originally, the scope of this endeavor was focused on preservation with the intent to share a representative selection of the digitized photographs and films online. However, as a result of the exceptional support, the LA&M has committed to digitizing the entirety of Sailor Sid’s archive, making it all available online! This will be a huge and unprecedented undertaking for our communities.

In addition, this project raised enough funds to cover the expense of an exhibition featuring original materials and film screenings during the next annual APP Conference and Exposition. [3]LA&M’s archivist, Jakob Vanlammeren, will be in person to oversee the exhibit and lead small groups on tours.

Both the LA&M and the APP are excited about the possibilities for future projects that will save precious collections that are historically significant to both communities.

The campaign would like to acknowledge the efforts of the individual team members that helped make this happen: from LA&M—Rick Storer (executive director), Jakob Vanlammeren (archivist and project lead), Jeffrey Storer (social media), and Christina Court (reviewer), as well as from the APP—Paul King (advisor), Miro Hernandez (social media), and Dannielle Greenwood (designer), Matte Erickson (BPA), Becky Dill (BPA), and Kendra Jane Berndt (BPA).

Point #71: Help Save Sailor Sid! – Paul King

PaulKingPaul King
Committee Chairperson & APP Treasurer

Over Memorial Day Weekend, the Leather Archives & Museum (LA&M), with cooperation from the Association of Professional Piercer’s Body Piercing Archive (APP, BPA) launched a month-long fundraising campaign for the preservation of piercing pioneer Sailor Sid’s archive.

LA&M logoThrough our joined efforts, the project will achieve:
1. Creation of an online exhibit. This project will put an immense amount of “paper only” photographs, films and documents online, available for research and casual use.
2. Preservation and conservation of important history. The Sailor Sid collection at the LA&M is currently in a fragile physical state. Many hours of carefully removing photographs from harmful photo pages and cataloging papers will be required to keep this collection available for generations to come.
3. Digitization. Photographs, films, letters to and from Sailor Sid and other records will be digitized using archival quality scanners. The project will also allow for reel films to be sent to digital facilities to make them available online.

Recognizing the urgency for saving this fragile historical piercing collection, the APP’s Board of Directors has committed to assisting LA&M in this common cause. This support includes a generous matching grant of up to $5,000. While the archival work, digitization, and exhibit creation will be conducted by the LA&M, the amazing resources in Sailor Sid’s collection will benefit leather and piercing aficionados alike. By joining forces, the LA&M and APP are both excited to see this collection come to life as well as be protected for future generations.

Sailor Sid—photo courtesy of Leather Archives and Museum
Sailor Sid—photo courtesy of Leather Archives and Museum

About Sailor Sid…

Sid Diller, better known as “Sailor Sid,” got his first tattoos and piercings while serving in the Coast Guard during World War II. Famous for his extensive genital piercings (reportedly over 100 in the penis and scrotum), Sid worked predominantly on gay men, mainly from his Silver Anchor studio in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Sailor Sid did it all: Prince Alberts, ampallangs and apadravyas, frenums, lorums, and any other part of the male anatomy. When Sailor Sid passed away in 1990, his collection of personal papers and effects related to his piercing career were entrusted to Jim Ward, founder of the original piercing studio, Gauntlet. Ward donated the collection to LA&M in 1997, where it has remained in climatecontrolled storage ever since, largely inaccessible due to lack of processing resources.

The collection itself is extraordinary in its scope. Sid kept meticulous records of his piercing work, documenting his procedures with hundreds of Polaroid photos, many identified with time, place, and subject neatly typed on labels. In a testament to Sid’s seemingly endless creativity, these pictures are stored in hand-made “binders,” crafted by Sid out of wood, string, bolts, and wingnuts. In addition to the photographs, the collection includes pages of his personal correspondence (Sid was a tireless letter-writer), various magazine and newspaper clippings on the history of piercing from publications as diverse as The New York Times, National Geographic, and Fetish Times, piercing instructions, 8mm films from his travels, floppy disks, slides, and even comic strips he saved.

Sailor Sid
Sailor Sid—photo courtesy of Jim Ward

But the collection is in urgent need of protection. Based on a cursory inspection of the collection, it has already become clear that there are some pressing preservation concerns due to its age:
• Homemade photo albums are an impressive display of ingenuity, but they aren’t the best option for long-term storage and preservation.
• Yellowing newspaper articles and correspondences need to be photocopied
• Photographs need to be transferred to archival quality sleeves
• Digitization of the 8mm films is an increasing concern due to their delicate condition.
• Importantly, the collection remains unprocessed and uncatalogued. The accessibility of the collection is extremely limited.

Sailor Sid—photos by Doug Malloy
Sailor Sid—photos by Doug Malloy

Info about the LA&M:
The Mission of the Leather Archives & Museum is: “The compilation, preservation and maintenance of leather lifestyle and related lifestyles [including but not limited to the Gay and Lesbian communities], history, archives and memorabilia for historical, educational and research purposes.”

The Leather Archives & Museum is a library, museum and archives pertaining to leather, fetishism, sadomasochism, and alternative sexual culture and practices.

The museum is located in Chicago’s Rogers Park neighborhood on the far north side of the city. The 10,000 sq. foot facility houses a collection containing original erotic art from artists as diverse as muralist Dom Orejudos (who worked under the name Etienne), Robert Bishop, Tom of Finland, and Robert Mapplethorpe and artifacts from individuals, groups, sex clubs and events, such as The Mineshaft in NYC, Fakir Musafar, and San Francisco’s legendary Catacombs, just to name a few. Other features of the museum include:
• Eight exhibition galleries
• The 164-seat Etienne auditorium
• The Leather SINS Screening Room
• A 600 sq. foot reading library to house the research collections (published books, magazines, scholarly publications, films and electronic resources)
• A 1,425 sq. foot climate controlled storage space for archival contents (unpublished papers and records from notable activists, artists, businesses, and organizations)

Sailor Sid Diller—photo courtesy of Leather Archives and Museum
Sailor Sid Diller—photo courtesy of Leather Archives and Museum

The institution was founded in the early 1990’s with the motto, “Located in Chicago and serving the world”. Today, LA&M’s programs continue to uphold this dictum by making collections available outside of Chicago through social networking, digitization, traveling exhibitions, and loaned exhibitions. Social media also plays an integral role in LA&M’s outreach, with a combined audience of over 20,000 followers though its presence on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Flickr, Pinterest, FetLife, and YouTube, or through the website www.leatherarchives.org.

LA&M’s Jakob VanLammeren (Archivist/Collections Librarian) holds a Master’s in Library and Information Science with a focus in Archives from Dominican Uni-versity. Since being hired full-time in July 2013, Jakob —has established priorities, completed the arranging and describing, and/or managed the completion for over a dozen collections; developed, revised and created written procedures for archival processing and work plans; created catalog records, provided ongoing supervision and management of volunteers and interns, and given tours and presentations to student groups and/or organizations.

— article co-authored by Leather Archives & Museum and Body Piercing Archive

Sailor Sid Diller—photo courtesy of Charles Gatewood
Sailor Sid Diller—photo courtesy of Charles Gatewood

Point #71: In the Office-Josh Prentice – Caitlin McDiarmid

CaitlinMcDiarmidCaitlin McDiarmid
APP Administrator

 

 

“I began by getting pierced in a shop in Alabama and becoming friends with the people working there. I worked as receptionist for a short stint before being offered an apprenticeship. I have been enthusiastic about the art of piercing ever since. During my apprenticeship I learned the fundamentals, like disease prevention and basic technique, but was left to learn a lot on my own. By networking with my peers in the profession I have become a pretty well rounded piercer. I’m now a proud member of the APP, and look forward to keeping with standards and promoting health and safety to the piercing industry as long as I’m involved, and will always advocate for the industry that has allowed me to make a profession of something that I truly love.”—Josh Prentice

JoshPrentice
Josh Prentice

“The lack of emotional security of our American young people is due, I believe, to their isolation from the larger family unit. No two people—no mere father and mother—as I have often said, are enough to provide emotional security for a child. He needs to feel himself one in a world of kinfolk, persons of variety in age and temperament, and yet allied to himself by an indissoluble bond which he cannot break if he could, for nature has welded him into it before he was born.” —Pearl S. Buck

“Our differences are apparent during meetings and discussions about the business of the Association—we see that clearly. However, our love for each other far surpasses any conflicts or differing opinions.

This reality was driven home by the loss of Josh Prentice while we were in Atlanta. Josh volunteered at the Conference the last three years. I only knew him at Conference, only knew him as one of “my” volunteers. I only him as one of “my” volunteers. I only spent three weeks with him — but he was family and so I grieve for him like I would for family. We all do. We came together, sobbed and mourned upon the news of his death. We worked as best we could on the tasks at hand. Wept during breaks and wept after we were adjourned. We supported each other as best we could. We reached out to our loved ones—our other family members—and let them know we loved them and pleaded with them to be safe in their actions.” — The Point Issue 39: In the Office – Caitlin McDiarmid (Spring 2007)

Josh Prentice
Josh Prentice

I wrote that article just a month or so after we lost Josh. And it’s true, I didn’t know him very well or for very long. I think Josh’s death made me realize the impact of relationships—the impact of one single human connection can have. The fact that his death occurred at the same time we were holding a Board meeting in Atlanta also had its own impact. For me it was a serious reminder that ultimately this Association is built on those personal connections, those personal relationships we have—as colleagues, as mentors/students, instructors/ attendees, vendor/customer, Board/ members… and human to human. It made sense to me to have Bethrah included in this article, someone who knew Josh way better than I did.

“Josh Prentice was a remarkable young man. He quit school at the age of 16 to support his family after his father became disabled. After working a handful of different jobs his sister and brother in-law encouraged him to pursue a piercing apprenticeship. He was hesitant at first but once he made the decision to pursue piercing as a career there was no stopping him.

From the beginning he worked diligently to expand his skill level and knowledge base. In 2004 he attended his first APP Conference with us and shortly after came to work in the Atlanta location of Virtue & Vice. When the piercing portion moved two doors down in 2005, Josh’s previous work experience was a true blessing. He pretty much knew how to do everything construction related. Separate from his in-shop time Josh was a brilliant networker. He was in regular contact with piercers all over the country. He was constantly gaining insight, information and new techniques.

On a personal note Josh was a truly loyal friend. He was supportive during some of the crappiest times of my life. He was funny, sweet, sarcastic, brave, and warm. I have this strong memory of him prancing around the counter with his arms open to hug me for no apparent reason at all, smiling his big goofy smile. Even all these years later, there are barely words to describe the empty place he left behind.

I think he would be quietly proud of his legacy. The recognition of those who hold it all up through their hard work and dedication. Those who are unassuming and don’t behave with entitlement. Those who say ‘yes’ to the grunt work and actually show up and do it. That’s who he was, a beautiful example of all of those things.” —Bethrah Szumski

Bethrah brought me to tears last year when she mentioned that Josh’s mother had spoken to her and thanked us all for remembering and honoring her son in the way that we do every year at Conference.

As the years go on, there are more and more people in our industry who never knew Josh or worked with him at the Conference. When I established the Volunteer Award in 2008 (first awarded in 2009) it was simply that I wanted to honor outstanding volunteers for their work and I wanted everyone to remember Josh, who to me epitomized that every single person makes a difference. They make a difference in their lives and the lives of others.

In 2009 I honored both Ed Chavarria and Tiana Mc- Guire. I had wanted to give the award starting in 2008 and had just not put my ducks in a row to get it established. So I made up for it by the double award. I joked when it was first awarded that I knew Josh would have laughed at me for giving a big Lucite obelisk in his name, so I made the awards more personal; less fussy. Over the years, I have honored John C. Johnson (2010), David Kelso (2011), Gus Diamond (2012), Luis Garcia (2013), and Ryan Ouellette (2014). I believe I made good choices and that Josh, if here, would agree. Then he probably would have made a joke about why hadn’t he gotten the award yet, saying something like “I mean it has my name on it.”

When I think of Josh, the loss of him reminds me to reach out and really find out how people are doing in their lives. The memories of my interactions with Josh remind me to be genuine, give with the whole of my heart, smile more, and when I make a mistake say I’m sorry and move on. Small lessons, but important ones.

The Conference after Josh passed, some of his friends gathered around an empty area next to the Splash Bar in the Riviera Hotel’s Casino. We gathered in a circle with glasses in hand and made a toast to Josh, many of us pouring a bit of our drinks on the floor in his honor. At that very moment all the lights went out in the casino. True story.

Josh Prentice
Josh Prentice

We miss you Josh. But we won’t forget. And I hope long after I am gone from the organization, someone will still be passing on these simple undeniable words: Every single person can make a difference.

Point 71: Al D. Sowers – The Man Behind the Scholarship – Shorty

ShortyCalmaShorty
APP Member, Ink & Pistons

Editor’s Note: In order to write this article Shorty spoke to Al’s colleagues and friends. This article was possible in part to the verbal contributions of Gale Shub of Body Circle, Michaela Grey and David Vidra.

The annual APP Conference and Expo is something that piercers from all over the world look forward to throughout each year. For many it’s the highlight of their year. A time filled with camaraderie between like-minded individuals, catching up with old friends, and making new ones. This is a time of focused learning, with knowledge being shared around the clock, for six solid days, class after class of information, plus the invaluable time at the bar late into the evening. For some less fortunate individuals, the idea of attending Conference is only a pipe dream. But to a small handful of deserving individuals, one man’s legacy has made this pipe dream a reality.

Al D. Sowers
Al D. Sowers

Al D. Sowers is a man often mentioned by many, but very few know more than a detail or two. Who is he? What did he do that was so deserving of having a scholarship named after him? What did he do to inspire the generations of piercers that he preceded?

Al started his piercing career before piercing was a thing in North America. There is little information available about where he started or who taught him. He was very involved in Seattle’s gay/leather scene in the ‘80s, as were other pioneers of the industry. Al also played an important role in the early days of body jewelry, being one of the go-to piercers for Tom and Gale of Body Circle Designs. He helped to perfect basic designs and create some new ones. In the early ‘90s, Michaela Grey and Jim Ward began Gauntlet’s body piercing seminars teaching body piercing fundamentals to those that wanted to learn. It was in 1993 that Al signed up for Gauntlet’s advanced piercing seminar and met a man named David Vidra. Al and David clicked immediately and became very close, both personally and professionally.

Board dinner in Atlanta after meeting at Piercing Experience - 1998
Board dinner in Atlanta after meeting at Piercing Experience – 1998

At the same time, many in the community saw a need to come together and organize piercers, addressing new legislation and creating a formal set of standards for our fledgling industry to follow. In 1994 the APP was officially formed. In October of 1995 Al became its first official business member and David became the second. Together Al and David set out to not only help bring piercing to the mainstream and make it a profitable business, but also to make it as safe as possible. Al helped to create and evolve the APP’s minimum standards. He pushed to make the proper sterilization (autoclaving) of jewelry and tools a minimum requirement. He also suggested that jewelry should always be run in a clean ultrasonic prior to sterilization to remove any manufacturing debris.

In addition to helping set standards he quickly became part of the Board for the APP, serving as secretary for a short time and spearheading local and international outreach. Al and David were known for their ability to think outside of the box and willingness to buck the system in the name of safety. They were always pushing to raise the bar and create the safest possible procedure for the client.

Al was passionate about the necessity for sharing knowledge. He believed that in order for piercers to be successful, they should be appropriately educated and that education should be industry specific. It was that passion which pushed Al to become one of the first industry specific OSHA bloodborne pathogen instructors in Seattle where he also began teaching his own piercing seminars. Along with his local teaching, Al helped developed some of the core curriculum that would be presented at the annual APP Conference. He also traveled to Europe to help with the piercing movement that was beginning to explode there and teach bloodborne pathogen and infection control procedures.

Meeting in New Zealand
Meeting in New Zealand

Al continued working in the industry for many more years, continually pushing to raise standards and mentoring many young piercers. In 2000 he finally retired due to declining health issues and sadly passed in February of 2001. Al’s passion for education is the reason the Association of Professional Piercers decided to honor his memory with a scholarship. This scholarship gives less fortunate but deserving piercers the opportunity to attend Conference, where they can learn and understand new concepts and techniques specific to the piercing industry. Continuing education is a necessity for our industry and if there is any one thing we can learn from Al it is to never settle. Always strive to learn more.

Body Circle Designs was founded in 1991 by Tom Finch and Gale Shub, making simple, high-quality, handcrafted body jewelry for piercers in the Seattle area. The focus was on using only the highest quality surgical steel, simple but beautiful design, and hand-polishing each piece to a flawless mirror finish. Cheap piercing jewelry, poorly made caused too many problems, such as rejection. But quality jewelry was hard to find back then. By working with skilled and experienced piercers such as Fakir, Al D. Sowers and Elayne Angel, we perfected the classic styles of body piercing jewelry and developed many new and innovative designs.”

First meeting of the short-lived European APP in London
First meeting of the short-lived European APP in London

Point #71: APP’s New Secretary – Aaron Pollack

Aaron Pollack

Aaron Pollack
Flying Tiger Tattoo

Hello Point Readers! I am honored to have been selected as the incoming secretary for the APP. I will be taking over the role Bethrah Szumski has been in for quite some time, this means I have quite the shoes to fill. I am excited for the challenge and humbled by the opportunity to work for our Members. I have been piercing since 2006. I currently work at Flying Tiger Body Art in Auburn, Alabama (War Eagle!). I attended the Fakir Intensives and my first Conference was in 2009. In 2013 I fulfilled a career goal of becoming an APP Member. Shortly after becoming a Member, I started volunteering for the Media Committee, and became chair of that committee in December. I would like to thank Bethrah for all her hard work over the years. Shadowing her has shown me that the secretary position is a large task, but she has been excellent in preparing me for this new role. This is an exciting time for the APP, and I am looking forward to working with the Association in this new capacity.

Point #71: Environmental Criteria Update

Dear APP Members,

The Association of Professional Piercers Membership Committee and Board of Directors thanks you for being a part of our organization. In response to overwhelming demand from our members, we have made significant strides in updating our membership requirements. To ensure all of our members are operating at the current minimum standards, we are requiring that all current members who have a video walk through and environmental criteria older than two years provide an updated video walk through and submit updated environmental criteria. If you are receiving this letter, your video walk through and environmental criteria are older than two years as of December 31, 2015.

These updates should be submitted no later than January 1st, 2016. There will be no video processing fee with digital or hard copy submissions.

You can upload all your completed forms, signed pages, photos of your autoclave(s), scans or photos of your documentation, and everything else to Google Drive as a single Google document or PDF (Google Drive is the preferred method). Upload the video to YouTube (www. youtube.com/upload), set to unlisted, and Creative Commons license. (Go to info and settings, then choose advanced settings, then Creative Commons license.) Next, copy the link to your video, paste it into the document you created, then share the completed application with media@safepiercing.org or email.

Pre-Application Processing Checklist:

  • Application Form
  • Copy of current CPR certificate
  • Copy of current First Aid certificate
  • Copy of current Bloodborne Pathogens training certificate
  • A narrated unedited 360 degree video of your shop
  • Photograph of all autoclaves with Make, Model, and Serial Number
  • Copy of two most recent spore tests from each autoclave
  • Copies of piercing aftercare sheets
  • Copy of Business License
  • Copy of shop/personal business card
  • An example of advertising
  • Copy of certificate of Liability Insurance (if applicable)
  • Copy of jewelry invoices from last 90 days

Pre-submission video checklist:
Pre-Video Checklist

  • Show the front of shop
  • Show the back of the shop too.
  • Required: Videos must be shot in LANDSCAPE view, not portrait.
  • Required: No cuts or editing in the video
  • Go through every drawer and closet in the shop.
  • Tattoo stations may be omitted.

Front Counter

  • A non-porous front counter that can be disinfected
  • Disinfectant products behind counter
  • Gloves behind counter
  • Bags or cups for contaminated customer jewelry
  • Suggested: signage asking clients not to touch jewelry
  • Suggested: a thoroughly organized, neat counter and desk area

Sterilization Room

  • Non-porous flooring
  • Clear separation between dirty and clean
  • An ultrasonic or instrument washer for piercing tools
  • An employees only sign
  • Does your autoclave meet requirements?
  • Is your clean up room totally contained?
  • “No handwashing in dirty room” sign
  • Suggested: A clean jewelry ultrasonic or steam cleaner or both
  • Suggested: HEPA filter

Hand washing Area

  • Is it in the studio, or a separate employee handwashing area? (bathrooms and sterilization room sinks are not acceptable)
  • Hands free paper towels (single hand)
  • Suggested: hands free faucet (infrared or foot pedal)
  • Suggested: hands free soap (infrared)

Piercing Room

  • Sharps Container wall mount and placed correctly
  • A Biohazard tool tray
  • Lidded trash cans, foot operated or infrared
  • Is your piercing studio private, with minimum 8 foot walls?
  • Do you have an appropriate (non-porous, massage/dental/ medical style) piercing table
  • Is your artwork framed, nonporous and easily disinfectable?
  • Is your storage sealed, disinfectable and appropriate?
  • Suggested: HEPA filter
  • Suggested: Sterile Gloves for piercing procedures

Bathroom

  • Is the bathroom clean, with an operational toilet and sink?
  • Are there appropriate handwashing products in the bathroom?
  • There must be no piercing related items in bathroom storage.
  • Suggested: A sign that asks clients not to touch or change their jewelry in the bathroom.

The Membership Committee is available to anyone who needs any assistance in any way, shape or form. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions (members@safepiercing.org).
THE APP OFFICERS & BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
• Brian Skellie—President
• Cody Vaughn—Vice President
• Paul King—Treasurer
• Bethrah Szumski—Secretary
• Jef Saunders—Membership Liaison
• Steve Joyner—Legislation Liaison
• Christopher Glunt—Medical Liaison
• Ash Misako—Outreach Coordinator
• Miro Hernandez—Public Relations

Point #70: The APP wants to thank North Bay Bioscience

The APP wants to thank North Bay Bioscience, LLC (NBBS) and Autoclave Testing Services, Inc. (ATS) for working with us to find an efficient streamlined process for the reporting of spore tests results for the APP Members who test with them.  Once the APP Member gives permission for their testing company to release spore test records to us, we will be able to review test results online.ATS-Logo-small

The APP can now get information/reports on our Members who test with NBBS or ATS via an online portal.  This will make maintaining records much easier and allow the APP to have immediate access to test results.  Members who test with them will no longer have to send in their spore test results monthly/quarterly; instead if for some reason we are NOT seeing test results we will contact the Member.

We have also sent out an inquiry to SPS Medical in the hopes of doing something similar.

Point #70: Announcement of Body Piercing Archive

ANNOUNCING THE APP BODY PIERCING ARCHIVE

Paul KingPaul King
Committee Chairperson and APP Treasurer

Anyone who has sat in on one of my classes knows my passion for recovering and preserving our community’s history. Historic Western attitudes of pathology and shame led to the loss of much of our history. I am filled with honor and excitement to publicly announcement the Association of Professional Piercer’s newest committee, the Body Piercing Archive (BPA). The formation of the Body Piercing Archive was authorized by the Association of Professional Piercers’ Board of Directors in June 2014. We have been working behind the scenes on establishing a committed team of workers, an organizational structure, and some preliminary goals.

Mission Statement:

“The mission of the Body Piercing Archive is to select, collect, document, preserve, exhibit, and interpret the personal, social, and material evolving histories of Body Piercing to ensure these artifacts are available to present and successive generations.”

For those familiar with archival collections, the goals laid out in this mission statement are daunting, requiring a commitment of time, training, and resources. We are proceeding methodically by rolling out the archive as manageable and contained projects.

Our first major short-term projects will be the organizing and cataloging of the APP’s corporate internal records as well as developing two public exhibits during the APP 2015 conference. In honoring the APP’s 20th anniversary, we will display the last 20 years’ development of our conference, outreach, and education. In addition, we will honor the passing of a piercing pioneer, Raelyn Gallina, with a memorial exhibit.

At this time, we are actively seeking loaned or donated items of importance pertaining to the APP’s history as well as Raelyn Gallina’s personal life and piercing career. Please contact us if you have any images, material items, ephemera, correspondences, and/or stories that you feel may be of interest to the BPA.

Some archives place a greater emphasis and dedication of resources to preserving and protecting objects at the expense of creating access to historical knowledge. Preservation will certainly be an important element of our efforts; however, early on we decided we wanted to focus our initial attention on projects that allow for community usage. Someday, the BPA committee and APP Board of Directors may consider a permanent facility; however, this is not a realistic goal today. For now, we will busy ourselves with getting a digital online archive developed for and promoted to the body piercing community, including professionals, researchers, and the general public. If the inaugural exhibitions of 2015 are well received, we will continue each year with new display themes as part of the annual conference experience.

Additionally, part of our medium-range goals is to form and build alliances with established archives that already have or are committed to receive collections of our history. We will be announcing some exciting collaborative developments very soon!

The Body Piercing Archive committee would like to give a special thank you to Barry Blanchard and Tod Almighty for their service and support. The richness and diversity of the history of body piercing can only be preserved and shared with community participation.

Contact information:

Please direct all general inquiries to:

Current Committee members:

  • Paul R. King – Committee Chair & APP Treasurer
  • Brian Skellie – Committee Member & APP President
  • Matte Erickson – Committee Member
  • Becky Dill – Committee Member
  • Kendra Berndt – Committee Member & The Point Co-Editor

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

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.”Bioethics12 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 #69: In Memorium – Raelyn Gallina

James Weber headshotBy James Weber

On September 6, 2014, the body modification industry lost one of its pioneers. After a long battle with cancer, Raelyn Gallina passed away.

In the early days of modern body modification, it was definitely a man’s world. Doug Malloy, Jim Ward, and Fakir are credited as being the “fathers” of the modern piercing movement, but while they were servicing a primarily male clientele, Raelyn was blazing a trail among women, offering piercing, branding, and scarification in the lesbian BDSM community. While Doug, Jim, and Fakir get the lion’s share of the credit for what modern piercing has become since it emerged in the late 70s, Raelyn’s name has often been little more than a footnote—and that’s a shame. (It is called “his-story,” after all.)

Raelyn_scarification
Raelyn was well known for her cuttings. Photos by Mark I. Chester.

While she made her home in California’s Bay Area (the center of the modern body modification resurgence in the U.S. through the late 70s and 80s), Raelyn also had a tremendous impact on early body modification on the East Coast thanks to her travels. In the early 90s, she would see clients and do workshops in and around the Philadelphia, Washington D.C., and Baltimore areas, offering not only piercing, but also branding and scarification. At a time when feminists were leading the movement to politicize the body, she was creating a safe space for lesbians, leatherwomen, butches, femmes, the queer-identified, and even the occasional man. She presided over a women’s space, but welcomed everyone from the local queer communities.

Raelyn (right) and her partner, Babs
Raelyn (right) and her partner, Babs

Raelyn battled inflammatory breast cancer over ten years ago, and last May she found herself dealing with a recurrence that affected parts of  her brain, bones, mediastinum, and lungs. She finished a course of 25 radiation sessions in June of 2013, and spent the fall and winter recovering. Although that radiation did a good job on many sites, Raelyn was still undergoing radiation treatments. Sadly, she lost that long, final battle.

Her partner of many years, Babs, was requesting help with medical bills, and with Raelyn’s passing, funeral costs have added to this expense. To anyone who is able to give even a small amount: any donation is useful and appreciated. You can send funds through the GoFundMe site (gofundme.com/8z2314), although they do take a percentage of all donations). PayPal donations can be made to the email address 2gardenhens@gmail.com, or checks or money orders can be sent to:

Babs McGary
1271 Washington Ave., #640
San Leandro, CA 94577

Raelyn was a pioneer in piercing, branding, and scarification, and even one of the early organizers of the APP, and without her influence our industry would not be where it is today. The world is poorer for her passing.