Technically it's not a tattoo, it's body modification.
So it isn't really comparable to a tattoo since it's completely different. Sure there's a pattern involved, but that's really all.
I've heard of it and it can actually look really quite good.
As I remember, there was some table of self harm that was split into 4 sections that describe it well.
(Quick check and found it on the Wikipedia self harm page: "Walsh and Rosen (1988) created four categories numbered by Roman numerals I–IV, defining Self-mutilation as rows II, III and IV")
I:
Stuff like ear piercing and nail-biting. It causes minimal damage physically and is socially acceptable.
II:
Other piercings, tattoos and "ritualistic clan scarring" (scarification). It's moderately damaging and is accepted by some groups.
III:
Cutting, burning, etc. Again, moderately damaging and this isn't acceptable in the general population.
IV:
Stuff like amputation. This tier is severly damaging and is unacceptable.
I think that chart, although it's old, has it spot on.
There's a definite destinction between body modification and plain self-harm in my eyes. (Of course, the line can be blurry, but that would be on a case-by-case basis and personal opinion.)
Also, you mention about it being culture from somewhere, but isn't tattoos and piercings the exact same? They all started like that.
|