Issue number 37
August 16, 2001
Quorum of One is intended for adult
readers
Special Tattoo Issue
In this issue, QOO investigates
the hows, whys, whens, wheres, wherefores, whozis, whodunits, whodathunkits and
whatthefucks of . . . tattooing!
First, a look back
at:
In ancient times there
were no tattoos. Then one day, some guy said, "Hey! I think I'll invent
tattoos." And he did.
Editor: Ahhh, David? Been doing lots of
research here, have we?
Me: Yeah, I
know it's not very informative but I need to finish this thing fast so I can
take off on vacation.
Editor: Well, at least try to flesh it out
a little, huh?
Me: OK, here
goes . . .
First, a look back
at:
In ancient times there
were no tattoos. When people wanted to mark their bodies for reasons of vanity,
to betoken membership in a group or to fulfill the symbolism of some forgotten
ritual, they had to rely on primitive, painful, crude, barbaric techniques that
we find unspeakably repugnant today. Like intentionally cutting open the skin
and then filling the wound with some kind of color-bearing substance. If you
can believe that. Eiuw. Luckily for us, mankind has made a great deal of
progress since then.
Of course, the ultra-modern, sophisticated, cutting-edge technology that we now have for puncturing holes in the dermis and filling them with ink was not invented overnight. In fact, it was gradually developed over thousands of years of research, scholarly reflection, experimentation, and trial and error. But mostly trial and error. Come to that, mostly error. But hey.
No one knows exactly
when, where or how the art of tattooing as we know it today was originated, but
most of the respected scholars who have seriously studied the issue . . .
No, wait . . .
No one knows exactly when, where or how the art of tattooing as we know it today was originated, but most of the scholars who have looked at the issue . . .
That's not really
right either . . .
. . . most of the people who have
thought about it . . .
Well, actually . . .
. . . some of the guys down at Earl's think that maybe the story might have gone something like this:
One day long ago, in
ancient Egypt, or possibly Greece, if not Rome, Babylon, Mesopotamia, China,
India, the Yucatan Peninsula, Micronesia or somewhere else entirely, a man
whose name is lost to history but whose middle name was Carl was standing near
a blazing fire holding a pot of indelible ink and a small but very sharp stick.
Suddenly, a tornado blew in, a tidal wave hit, a hurricane struck, a volcano
erupted and a violent earthquake shook the ground. Sunspots flared, a total
eclipse blacked out the sun and the Aurora Borealis lit up the sky. An alien
spaceship landed and Bigfoot emerged from the forest. Somewhere, a dog barked.
In the ensuing chaos the small, sharp stick somehow got heated in the fire,
dipped in the ink, punched into the man's upper arm, then reheated in the fire,
redipped in the ink and repunched into his upper arm, etc., over and over about
3,000 times, ultimately forming a tight, uniform pattern that spelled out
"Winona Forever". When his wife saw this she flew into a jealous rage
because Winona happened to be the guy's ex-girlfriend's name. So she murdered
the poor schmuck and was sent to prison, where she and her cellmate invented
tattooing.
Centuries passed. For
a long time tattoos were considered to be a low, debasing, disgusting form of
self-mutilation fit only for prisoners, carnies, bikers and people too out of
it to realize that they don't belong to and shouldn't emulate any of those
groups, which meant about 0.0004% of the population. Well, things have come a
long way since then. Today, we are happy to report, tattooing has made much
progress, has entered the mainstream and is now recognized for what it really
is: a low, debasing, disgusting form of self-mutilation fit only for prisoners,
carnies, bikers and people too out of it to realize that they don't belong to
and shouldn't emulate any of those groups, which means about 60% of the
population.
And now for
frequently asked questions about tattoos:
Q: I'm thinking about
getting a tattoo but I'm afraid it will hurt. People say it hurts. Does it
hurt? Much? How much? No, really -- I need to know.
A: There is no reason to
hesitate about getting a tattoo just because of a minimal amount of fleeting
discomfort. Think of it this way:
Imagine a tiny
pinprick. Just a minuscule, barely perceptible pinprick on the very surface of
your skin. Now imagine a series of pinpricks like that in rapid succession,
lasting no longer than a few seconds. Now imagine the tattoo artist telling you
a joke to put you at ease. Now imagine how cool and sexy you're going to look
with your new tattoo. After the bleeding stops and the swelling goes down. And
before the colors fade and before stress, aging and weight fluctuations stretch
the image out of shape till it's unrecognizable. Now imagine that this process
actually lasts longer than a few seconds. Now imagine that it hurts like a
bastard and goes on for the better part of an hour. Which seems like five. You
see? Nothing to worry about.
Q: Thanks for reassuring
me. Will my medical insurance cover the cost?
A: Also, the joke that
the tattoo artist tells you is really crass and stupid, plus you've heard it a
thousand times already. The "Would I?!" joke, maybe. Or maybe the one
about "Your medical insurance will cover this."
Q: Is it true that Bill
Clinton has a tattoo of Monica Lewinsky with her mouth open on his left
testicle?
A: Of course not. I
can't believe that someone would actually ask this question. This is the type
of idiotic rumor that gives tasteless corporeal disfigurement a bad name. You should
be ashamed for even having thought of such a thing. As a body art expert I can
assure you beyond any shadow of doubt that former president Clinton has no such
tattoo, never did and never will. This kind of ludicrous calumny always crops
up in the aftermath of any scandal and I can guarantee you that it has
absolutely no basis whatsoever in fact. I entreat you to forget all about this,
forget that you ever heard this rumor, forget that you ever asked this
question, forget that you ever wondered about anything at all, forget that you
know anything about anything, forget that you were ever born and deny that your
parents ever met. Sheesh.
Q: Is it true that Bill Clinton has a tattoo of Monica Lewinsky with her mouth open on his right testicle?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it true that the
Pope has a tattoo of a crouching bear on his left buttock?
A: No. The Pope has
seven tattoos, but none depict animals. And those that do aren't crouching. And
those that are aren't bears. And those that are aren't on his left buttock. So
there.
Q: What about other
forms of body art, like henna, piercing, implants, scarification, stretching,
branding and cultivating fungus infections in decorative patterns?
A: The Pope has some of
those too. These alternative forms of body art, especially piercing, have
become very popular in recent years, gaining ground right along with tattooing.
Pierced earlobes have been common for decades, of course, but in the past 15
years we've been seeing more and more pierced tongues, eyebrows, cheeks, noses,
lips, uvulas, corneas, frontal lobes, kidneys, fingernails, hair, etc. Piercing
is considered to be a little more "extreme" than tattooing and is not
necessarily recommended for everyone. For example, if you are Dizzy Gillespie
it is not recommended that you get a cheek stud. You are also dead, by the way.
On the other hand, if you are not a trumpet player you can get as many cheek
studs and lip rings as you want. Just remember this simple rule: Keep them in
to eat soup, take them out for water fights.
About implants:
Implants are small, or sometimes not so small, aseptisized 3D forms, usually
made of nylon, that are inserted under the skin in a kind of para-surgical
procedure that you don't want to think about too much. Popular implants include
a cross under the back of the hand, pointy lumps on either side of the forehead
like vestigial "devil horns" and a stegosaurus-style ridge of fins
along the forearm. Implants are considered to be even more drastic than
piercing, and indeed this is a type of body art that makes a bold, powerful
statement. Specifically, the bold, powerful statement that it makes is: "I
do not have, or apparently want, a job."
Branding, as the name
implies, is burning the skin in such a way that it scars over in an allegedly
attractive pattern. Modern-day branding is done with fine, ultra-precision
laser tools rather than the rough-hewn red-hot irons usually associated with
the term. You might be surprised to learn that this form of body art is totally
painless, easily reversible and always in exquisite taste. You might also be
surprised to learn that you too
can earn big $$$$ -- up to $5,000 a week extra income
in tax-free CASH -- working in your spare time from your own
home with no training or special skills required and 100% entirely legal!!!
So when it comes to body art, it all depends on what you want. Think of the future: Do you want to go through life looking like a dull, uninteresting, conformist drone or do you want to go through life looking like a dull, uninteresting, conformist drone who didn't exercise a whole lot of judgment when you were in your early twenties?
Q: I'm in my early
twenties. Also a metal band. As you know, having a tattoo is virtually a
requirement for someone with my job description, along the same lines as having
long, flowing hair and an aggressive rabid snarl pasted across my face at all
times, even when sleeping or talking to my grandmother.
My question is: I've been thinking of getting a "jigsaw puzzle" motif
tattoo covering my entire face, neck and chest, but I'm worried that if the
band doesn't make it I'll never be able to go back to school and finish my MBA.
On the other hand, Jeff (he's the bassist) just met this guy last week who
knows somebody who works for Warner Records, so it looks like we're going
straight to the top forever. Or maybe it was Island. Or Tower. But anyway, what
do you think about the tattoo?
A: My advice is: go for
it. At best, you'll earn enough money with the band to retire when you're 25.
At worst, you'll always be able to fall back on a job as a telephone solicitor.
Come to think of it, my other advice is: wear earplugs.
Q: I'm a devout Catholic
woman, and in emulation of our Holy Father I'm thinking of getting a tattoo of a
cute little winking bear on my right buttock. My problem is this: I'm afraid
that the weight of the ink in the tattoo will make my butt look big. How much
does the average tattoo add to one's body weight?
A: This is another
example of pointless worrying over the alleged side effects of tattooing. A
tattoo will only add a minor, miniscule, insignificant, unnoticeable,
irrelevant, inconsequential, negligible gram or two to your body weight. The
weight of the ink in an average tattoo is estimated to represent 0.0004% of the
average person's weight. No matter what your morphotype, muscle mass or fat
ratio, and no matter what activities you may or may not pursue now or in the
future, a tattoo can have no impact in any way on anything having to do with
your figure, looks or physical capacities. For proof, just look at the people
who rely most on their bodies: there is hardly a single actor, fashion model or
sports figure today who doesn't have at least one tattoo.
Flash:
The
European-American Taskforce for Working Out Ridiculously Meticulous Statistics
has been compiling a vast database of sports information for the past 100
years. Following the results of the recent IAAF World Championships in Athletics
held in Edmonton, Alberta, the Taskforce has released conclusive findings that
indicate that overall athletic performance in a great many of the world's major
sports has declined by exactly 0.0004% since 1991. According to the report,
every single sport in which lesser body weight is a positive factor, including
high jumping, long jumping, pole vaulting, any running or walking race, as well
as soccer, basketball, baseball and even horse and Formula 1 racing, has shown
an astonishingly uniform reduction of precisely 0.0004% in overall performance.
By remarkable coincidence, other sports in which a higher body weight seems to
be a plus, like sumo wrestling, rugby, hammer throwing, shot putting, etc.,
have without exception shown an improvement in overall performance of the exact
same proportion: 0.0004%. The researchers agreed that this phenomenon was
highly unusual, to say the least, but were unable to offer any explanation.
©2001 by David Jaggard