Prudent Tattooing

Back in1988 (Aug. 2nd) The Independent carried an article by Ruby Wallace on how for her being tattoed was a ritual or rite of passage marking her recovery from anorexia nervosa. In the following letter to the Institute, Roger Knights defends tattooing with the broader argument that the body made beautiful in this way can be indicative of a more integrated attitude to the world.

Regarding the bill proposed by Teresa Gorman MP (reported on p. 13 of Social Inventions No. 26) to reduce the NHS's expenses by requiring 'compulsory insurance against future tattoo removal': If new legislation on tattooing must be passed, it should be adopted in a prudent - ie, step-by-step - manner (as indeed should all ground-breaking legislation).

'A mandatory waiting period between requesting a tattoo and receiving it'

A logical first step would be to regulate only 'high-risk' tattoos. Risk factors could be determined by a survey of the NHS's removal operations. I expect such a survey would show that regretted tattoos were most often those commissioned impulsively by the young. A first step remedy would be a mandatory waiting period between requesting a tattoo and receiving it, for customers below a certain age or having their first tattoo done.

Other regretted-tattoos are most likely those that are terrible (poorly executed), topical (eg political), teen-aged (eg rock-band logos), typographic (English-language slogans), tasteless (eg crude cartoons), or visible (ie those on hands, face, and neck, including the open-collar area just below it, but excluding the nape. Borderline areas are those that are sometimes visible: ie the forearms and, for women, the lower legs and feet.) (Some tattoos - the ones readers may most remember seeing - have nearly all these negative attributes.)

A remedy would be to require tattooists to give customers an NHS-provided advice booklet on choosing a tattooist and tattoo. Advisory articles that could be reworked have already appeared in specialist periodicals.

'A videotape containing ten or twenty interviews with patients undergoing tattoo removal'

Customers should also be lent or given a videotape (which can cost as little as £5 to the producer) containing ten or twenty interviews with patients undergoing tattoo removal. The patients' comments should not reflect a rejection of tattoos as such, but only of the high-risk types of tattoos they personally chose. Although many MPs might prefer a 'strong' warning against any and all tattoos, it would be counterproductive.

Ideally, this videotape would also contain interviews with satisfied tattooees explaining how they got what they wanted - ie because they read books and magazines, consulted with others, and carefully considered their motives and options. Their terrific, timeless, tasteful, discreetly placed tattoos could serve as models for viewers.

Tattooists would like off-loading the task of discouraging high-risk tattoos onto a third party; it would deflect client annoyance at uninvited counselling, a 'high risk' activity in itself.

This September, in Body Art magazine no. 17, the following objections to the proposed bill were made by its editor, Henry Ferguson. (Subs. are £26, single copies £7, from Publications Ltd, Blake House Studios, Blake End, Rayne, Braintree, Essex CM7 8SH, tel. 0376 550020. Have a chair nearby when you open a copy!)

The cost of the insurance, after overheads (eg for paperwork), would be so high that few customers would willingly buy it. (My guess is that a 10% surcharge would be perceived as 'too high'.)

This would drive many customers away from 'legitimate' tattooists (those operating out of storefronts) and into the hands of the less established operators who work out of vans, their homes, or the customer's flat. These practitioners are less skilled, the conditions of their work are less sanitray, and the illegality of the proceedings would encourage irresponsible behaviour. Result: more regretted tattoos, transmitted disease and NHS expenses.

It would be difficult to punish non-conforming tattooists (who in any event aren't terribly intimidated by the majesty of the law), as it would be hard to prove their responsibility for any particular tattoo. (Even if they could be convicted, it is so easy to buy or build tattooing equipment, and tattooing is so attractive to many people, that new entrants would soon replace them.) On the other hand, if customers are the ones to be punished, the high costs of imprisoning so many could exceed the NHS's current costs.

'Why don't they just tell hospitals that tattoo removal is not available to non-paying patients? This may seem hard, but personal freedom and self-determination have their obligations as well as advantages.' (This is the situation in the U.S. now, which I can't imagine changing. But if this seems too harsh to accept in the U.K., a reasonable firststep remedy would be to require patients to pay some of the costs. The NHS's costs could also be cut by employing the new ruby-laser tattoo remover, which requires only a technician, not a surgeon.)

'Tattoos symbolise a less confrontational, more integrated attitude to the world outside one's skin and life-in-general'

I have written at length on this topic, though not tattooed myself, because such wonderful progress in the art has occurred recently, making good tattoos extraordinarily beautiful. I especially like the cosmic doodling of the so-called 'tribal style'. I even think tattoos in that style could be socially beneficial. They symbolise a less confrontational, more integrated attitude to the world outside one's skin and life-in-general. This is a hopeful trend, ecologically and otherwise. I wouldn't want to see it stamped out by impulsive, confrontational legislation. It would be especially inept to do so in the U.K.: 'Briton' means 'decorated colourfully'.

I know my hopefulness may seem wishful, but consider the commonplace observation, by writers on ecology and human-scale societies, that reorienting the public away from its current idolatry of consumerism and the nation-state, in favour of a sustainable life-style and local institutions, will be a major task. If such 'a great change' is to occur, perhaps not only the minds but also the bodies of men must be fitted to it.

Roger Knights, 5446 45 Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98136-1108, USA (tel 0101 206 932 5446; fax 0101 206 932 9324).

Previous / Next / 1993 Social Inventions Journal Contents