Counterpoint: Needle, and Threat

As always interested in airing both sides of the same coin, or whatever seems to have currency (yuk, yuk) at the moment, I present here Spartacus' response to my post of yesterday. I felt then that I'd found some holes in his assertion and – with no disrespect at all – wanted to point them out and give him the opportunity to fill them in, or/and correct any mistake(s) in my perception… which he does quite handily (to a strong degree) below. 

Important to note, folks: holes in theories/assertions are not necessarily leaks, and thus are not sufficient on their own, necessarily, to sink these positions. In many cases, a point simply has not been stated fully, or adequately, or is possibly still in the process of form(ul)ation – this latter being the case of many of my own positions. 

Take it away, Spartacus! 

Thank you sir, for your reply, you make some good points, though my age-impaired, semi-calcified mind still clings stubbornly to feelings of derision when confronted by a tat. 

I'd like to try to clarify what I was saying when referring to tattoos as "…blasphem[ing] against nature…" and being "…irreverent towards one's body…". I anticipated your argument about eating right and exercising, and I agree, you're absolutely right–it's the "body as a temple" concept. In addition to nutrition and exercise, destroying the body and mind with drugs, alcohol and other toxins should also be included in the category of disrespecting/abusing our bodies. 

However, I really had something different in mind when I made those statements. It goes back to our culture's notion that we somehow exist apart from, and above, nature (or God if you're of that mindset). It's the arrogant and misguided belief that we can exert our dominion over nature and bend her to our whims because we somehow "know better"–and with that belief system we usurp the wisdom of nature (or God if you will). We were born with bodies which have been honed by millions of years of evolution–those bodies are exquisitely fine tuned to meet our needs and serve our purposes. It seems to me that it is the height of arrogance to think one can improve on nature's work by applying a tattoo. When I see an attractive young woman with a tattoo (OK, so I'm an old goat too!) I think, "You were perfect without it, how could you think that trashy looking splash of color disfiguring your skin was somehow an improvement over what nature (God) has given you?" 

Now I suppose someone could take what I've written above and say that logically it follows that one should also therefore accept those infirmities and imperfections which nature gives us–and ultimately therefore one should reject any type of medical intervention. No, I make a distinction between superficial vanity and taking legitimate steps towards maintaining/improving one's health (on a somewhat unrelated note, I do also think current medical technology has outstripped our culture's understanding of how best to apply those technologies–but that's a discussion for another time!).  

Your points about the thoughtful use of "aboriginal" tattoos is well taken, however, I would submit that the vast, vast majority of Westerners wearing them have little or no appreciation for what they mean other than, "hey dude, check out the cool tat!". And even if they do appreciate the meaning and significance of what they're wearing, do they really have a RIGHT to wear it? I don't think so. Most of those traditional tattoos represent a right of passage and full membership in a traditional culture–if you haven't been accepted by that tribe, group, whatever, and gone through their initiation ceremony/ordeal, then you have no right to wear those markings. If you are wearing them sans ceremony/acceptance, you are a fraud, plain and simple–it's just like someone using a badge to pose as a police officer, or a kid using a fake ID to get served in a bar. 

A big part of my distaste for tattoos is with those "fatuous followers of fashion". It seems like I almost instinctively reject anything which smacks of trendiness or fashion. I despise "sheeple"–those going through life following the herd, with hardly an original thought of their own. Tattoos have become fashionable, and I submit most of the new wearers of tats today decided to get one with the same half-mindless thought process which guides their other fashion accessory acquisitions–they see others wearing it, decide therefore it must be cool, so they now want one too. 

So, sorry, I'm just not buying. Tats are stupid and vulgar. I pity the young people today who have fallen for the hype (or groupthink). 

PS–I loved the story about your dad's grammar critique! 

My turn, Sparks: 

The "'body as a temple' concept" is, of course, Biblical (though hardly limited just to people who defer to the Bible!): 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 reads "…the immoral person sins against his [or her] own body. Don't you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have [received] from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body." 

I was sure Spartacus felt the same as I, that there are other (arguably greater) disgraces one might do to one's body beyond burying pigments under the skin. I'm glad he seizes the opportunity (and I'd've expected no less). 

For myself, though, I cannot place tattooing on the same level as deliberately ingesting/imbibing toxins, whether quick-acting (excessive alcohol, and various il/legal pharmaceuticals), or slow (fats and sugars) – or depriving same body of needed nutrients (e.g., through anorexia/bulimia) or reasonable maintenance (exercise, regular medical and dental checkups, etc.). 

Simply put: a trim woman with a small tattoo of, say, a sunburst on her shoulder blade is far more attractive to me than a woman with fifty extra pounds, unkempt hair, and a cigarette dangling from her lips. Spartacus, I suspect you'd agree. If not, there's a woman down the road I will not introduce you to anytime soon! Your wife should appreciate that. 

The issue of humankind's exertion of dominion over nature is of a far greater and different scale from that of some guy with his ex-wife's name tattooed (and crossed out) on his chest. I might decide to touch on that a bit here, but I think it belongs to another blog, another day, because it also embraces other morally questionable ideas, such as meat-eating, mineral-mining, and so much more. I.e., its impact is wholesale (on all of humankind), versus retail (on a single person). If you don't mind, sir! 

Back to the individual, then. I don't see that a tattoo is taken on, necessarily, out of "think[ing] one can improve on nature's work". I see it simply as a form of adornment, much like makeup, hair-tinting and styling, even (arguably) shaving. The only difference – for me a crucial one, which puts me in your camp (hey! I brought marshmallows this time!) – is its permanence. Therein for me lies the arguable stupidity. 

Were it not for that aspect of permanence, it would be no more significant that a shave and a haircut, two bits' worth of dye to tint the eyebrows (my younger brother did this once on a whim… or was that his bangs, after he'd shaved his head?), a clip-on earring and other jewelry, and so on – all of which may make one more attractive (or would you rather answer your wife differently when she asks you?) than before, and all of which are things we were not given by nature. 

Let's identify another later-blog topic that I see in what appears to be a rather shaky rock you're standing on. I believe you characterize yourself as agnostic… yet here you also use phrases like "the wisdom of nature", "nature's work", "nature gives us", and speak of nature as "her". Buddy, as you get older, you're going to have to fish, or cut bait… or stay away from the river. Those phrases are common when speaking about the world around us in poetic terms, yes – but you're also personifying it… and thus creating a god of your own. 

"Nature" is blind, mechanical, non-sentient, and an accumulation of processes, not a design/aim: something works, and continues… or fails, and dies out. But when you put "mother" or "she" there, you've made a demigod out of what is neither mother nor gender. Unless Mother Nature is a human, with all the inner and outer attributes of that state, you're focusing on what at the least is, by definition, a demi-deity: powers and strengths and objectives beyond our own, and beyond our ken, Barbie. And you're thus no longer agnostic. But let's tackle that one later. 

You do hit the nail quite well with your head in describing tattooing as a "superficial vanity"; heartily second the motion!!. Yet in your so doing, I think you're underscoring that the nature (!) of your objection is esthetic, and not of a higher principle. (Don't bristle at me like that!) You're drawing a line based on what you personally find distasteful, and not merely contrasurvival. Thus you're obligated to accept that this standard is yours only, and works for you – but cannot work for all individuals. 

Me, I find a woman most attractive if she has long hair (and I was married to one); if she has an accent (especially Slavic or German… although lately I've been finding some African and Indian accents breathtakingly lovely)… If it turns out there's a little dove tattooed just above the edge of her bikini top, I would not send her away. However, if she puts a cigarette in her face, all the attraction is lost – even if she has wings and a halo, and the most pure and unblemished of skin. 

Do you see what I mean? We're dealing with esthetics here. Nature doesn't cut our hair. Nature doesn't scrape the hair off our faces, or legs. Nature doesn't even trim our nails. And none of these physical traits fall under the header of "infirmities and imperfections". Your condemnation is esthetic, not moral. 

Tattoos are permanent. That's all. 

Now, aboriginal designs: yes; I do concede that faddists seize on them first, and in sickening droves. Whereas the deep soul that adopts the lifestyle and heritage with the tattoo… is extremely rare. But just such a person I feel, is not a poser. Sometimes an emulable culture has become terribly watered down (e.g., casinos instead of Kachinas), and this person seeks a return to the old nobility that that culture once historically bore proudly… and now no longer has any kind of worthy "initiator" to offer the interested. 

Hee-hee; I like that word, "sheeple"! I usually use "lemming"… but I might have to adopt your term, too, if you don't mind. Larry Niven mentions once seeing someone at a party wearing a button that read "Go, lemmings, go!". That kind of dittoheaded mindset sickens me… speaking as a man who gets together every Sunday with a bunch of other Catholics to say prayers in unison and bow (and scrape) and sing together, of course. 

I've said it before: "Vote Republican: it's easier than thinking!" and "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!". 

PS: Thanks for the compliments on my dad! As I said, I hadn't been trying to impress him (and never succeeded when I tried, even with jokes… when the utmost I could count on was a near-smile); I was practicing – no, exercising – my German, and wanted to get my thought across correctly… and I did! (Just picture your jaw dropping if you overheard your kid say, "Look over there, Andy – it's a real Focke-Wulf Fw 190D WrN 836017, unless I'm very much mistaken!" Yeah; like that.) 

Take care, good sir, you and family and dawgs! I think soon we'll be able, you and I, to start drawing up some moral guidelines/principles for humans to maintain their place on this earth, and in the greater universe: as individuals, as members of a tribe/nation, and as yearning souls.