By Paul King
APP Treasurer

In the summer of 2012 Allen Falkner contacted me, requesting help from the APP for a member of the suspension community. A woman was having a legal custody battle over her children. The other party’s attorney was using her participation in hook suspension as evidence that she was an unfit mother. I recommended that he take the issue to the APP Board, as  I was sure they would help in some way. But I wasn’t sure exactly what help would look like and what the implications, would be.

The APP’s primary purpose is laid out in the mission statement: The Association of Professional Piercers (APP) is an international health and safety organization. It is a nonprofit voluntary alliance dedicated to the dissemination of information about body piercing.

As a modern adaptation, (hook) suspension utilizes body piercing needles to pierce the tissue rather than the actual hook. However, after this commonality, the differences start to outweigh the similarities: Suspension is temporary without the complication of trying to heal the body with a foreign object present. Suspension requires knowledge of, and experience with, placements and configurations with considerations for differences in weight and torque bearing tissues. This must all be done in tandem with an expertise of the support rigging that rivals that of a mountaineer. Body piercing is almost always performed by a single practitioner while suspension is usually done with well-practiced and coordinated teams.

The mission statement goes on to say: the APP is a united group of piercing professionals…

Anyone that looks around the APP’s annual conference, online forums, or The Point publications will see faces of people that suspend and those of people that pierce. However, not everyone that professionally pierces suspends, and vice versa. Many people that are active in the suspension community participate within teams without needing to learn or to perform piercing. These are two distinct-yet-overlapping communities that have independent jargon, histories, skill sets, social norms, and motivations.

Body piercing has become a professional industry. While there are some who perform suspensions professionally, I’m unaware of a single person that financially sustains themselves on suspension. For most in the suspension community the words “paid professional” have no place. Although some appreciate donations to cover costs, most practitioners perform the services out of love of the experience, the benefits of gathering together, and the privilege of being entrusted to guide another through this powerful process.

The APP has political clout, but does it have the legitimacy and the authority to represent the suspension community before judicial, legislative, and public health officials? I don’t think so, and some veterans of the suspension community agree. On March 28, 2013, leaders from all the teams present during the Dallas Suscon met for dinner to discuss openly if they felt there was a need for greater community-wide coordination and cooperation, and what that might look like. Some of the needs that emerged were safety standardization, legislative representation, international cooperation, and contact consolidation. Simply put, there is a need for a common, stable, and readily accessible location that anyone, anywhere, can go to for reliable information and help.

A small work group formed from the initial Dallas meeting. This group’s primary tasks are to solicit feedback and ideas from teams and individuals within the suspension community at various Suscons around the world, investigate these community-proposed options, organize and delegate viable plans, work their butts off, and continue to hold meetings to report on progress. At present, the group includes seven workers: Allen Falkner, team member of Traumatic Stress Discipline (TSD), USA; Bruno Valsecchi, member of APTPI, Italy; Eden Thomson, team member of Skindependent, New Zealand; Håvve Fjell, team member of Wings of Desire (WoD), Norway; Mike Coons, team member of Hooked, USA; Misty Forsberg, team member of Hanging City, USA; and Steve Joyner, team member of Constructs of Ritual Evolution (CoRE), USA.

On June 12, 2013, while at the APP conference, suspension teams and individuals came together for the second forum. During this meeting, the group submitted a working mission statement for a proposed new organization, to be known as the International Suspension Alliance (ISA): The International Suspension Alliance (ISA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the unification of the body suspension community through education, outreach, and the dissemination of information pertaining to the safe practice of human suspension to practitioners, the general public, and health care professionals.

86 people attended the open meeting. The entire meeting, including presentation and Q&A, was videotaped and is available for everyone to see here.

The third open meeting occurred in Oslo, Norway, July 24, 2013. Transparency and solid communication with the greater suspension community remain paramount for the work group. Allen Falkner et al. compiled a list of concerns and addressed them frankly. A complete video of this meeting is also available.

Over the next several months, more open meeting times and locations are scheduled:

September 2013 – Livorno Italy during Italian Suscon
September 2013 – Omaha, Nebraska during Mecca
April 2014 – Dallas, Texas during Dallas Suscon

The need for community organization is not theoretical; it is very real. In some U.S. cities, counties, and states legislation is circulating that—if passed—will dictate, restrict, and in some cases, prohibit hook suspension. On December 6, 2002, the Florida Board of Medicine determined and then ratified that hook suspension was a medical procedure and therefore requires an M.D. to be present for and approve of all suspensions performed in the state.  In 2010, the city of Minneapolis prohibited all suspension practices. December 5, 2012, Coconino County Public Health Department, AZ implemented the revised Body Art Code, which banned suspension. The Coconino regulation acknowledges that suspension could be motivated by the desire for a “spiritualistic ritual.” It seems easy to imagine that any law blatantly banning what in some circumstances is an expression of religious belief and in other circumstances is performance art could be defeated in a U.S. court under First Amendment protections, but this of course assumes that the community has the resources and organization to challenge such discrimination.

Time and time again, body modification (tattooing, piercing, scarification, suspension, and extreme/heavy) communities are at the mercy of legislators, medical and mental health professionals, local law enforcement, and health inspectors. The people in power have their perspectives, informed by their own biases and agendas. We can let them establish whether or not these practices are legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, healthy and cathartic, or emotionally unstable and dangerous—or we can establish our own. Operating only from a position of defense and reaction to what they do is inefficient and garners as many defeats as victories. It’s exhausting and we’re always fighting these battles on their terms and their turfs. Like it or not, much of this comes down to good old fashion PR. How we talk about our practices and how we portray and organize ourselves in person, in the media, and on the internet does matter in shaping the minds of policymakers and the greater public opinion.

I talked to Allen about the group’s progress. His words sum this article up best: The future is really up to the suspension community.  The work group’s only function is to set up and establish the organization.  Once we have membership, the real work begins.  At this point I cannot speak for the organization. I am simply one person, but it is my hope that we will soon have one unified voice that will work to help those within our community.

1  There is at least one other documented custody battle in which suspension participation was used as evidence that a parent was unfit for custody. In the second case this tactic was applied towards the father. In both of these instances, the individuals requested to remain publicly anonymous.
2 Steve Joyner, Allen Falkner, and www.suspension.org are credible resources.
3 http://www.floridahealth.gov/Environment/community/body-piercing/newinfo.htm
4 minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@council/documents/webcontent/convert_260915.pdf
5 http://www.coconino.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1044