Influence of Tattoos on Perceptions of Bodily Appeal and Intelligence - Research Paper Example

A STUDY OF THE VARIOUS AFFECTIVE IMPLICATIONS OF TATTOOS AND FACIAL PIERCING IN GAY COMMUNITIES Tattoos and Piercing: Telling Stories with Bodies? The body has always been a site of conflict, a battleground where the long histories of societal and cultural strife leave their marks. It can, at times, be used as a blank canvas on which one’s identity is inscribed anew. (Lawrence 2010) It becomes, in such cases, a machine for propaganda as well. From the mutilated body of virgin females the exultant body art of the victorious warrior, the rich history of body painting predates the Christian world and, till this date, spans hundreds of centuries. Wohlrab, Stahl & Kappeler (2007) in their research comes across diverse and intricate ideological, sociological and psychological affinities that often influence the individual imperative for tattoos, facial arts and body piercing. While they categorically treats each argument by relegating them into seven separate ‘boxes’ of sorts, I believe in a wider approach that can essentially as well as particularly account for the primitive human urge to tell their stories through their bodies. With the advancement of current technologically improved body art salons and tattoo parlors, there world has seen a sharp rise in the number of tattoo and piercing enthusiasts over the last few decades. Since the Hippie movements of the 1960s, tattoo and piercing are often seen as a residual trait and, now, a potential marker of the rampant drug culture. Sociological and cultural theorists identify distinct psychosocial motivations behind the urge to decorate, brand, modify oneself through the enforced markings. My study focuses particularly on the affective implications of tattooing and piercing in the gay communities. In this context, however, it is vital to consider the overall psychological, social and cultural aspects in order to gain a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of these affective behavioral traits. A General Overview of the Empirical Evidence on Body Modification Victoria Pitts (2003) in her highly interesting book The Cultural Politics of Body Modifications tells of a young, post-adolescent, 20-something male with a strong affinity for tattooing and body piercing. His willing submission to extensive, long and painful procedural techniques of artificial scarification has been Pitts’ first subject of inquiry in her research. The extent of his body modification was not only striking, but also highly time-consuming and costly. The end result, however, was the distinctly hybrid body of an inter-continental, inter-racial, cross-cultural non-western indigenous persona that may organically have had Caucasian roots, but now resembled a rich intermixture of tribal forms. He adopted the practices of body art as well as that of genital mutilation from the Maori tribes. This kind of body modification and its related affective behavior may be seen as a classic trait of a cultural type known as ‘cyberpunk’ – a tech freak who adds technologically advanced knowledge to a love for tribal philosophy, life lessons and art and show-cases the same through their bodies. (Pitts 2003) A team of researchers including Swami, Stieger, Pietsching and Furnham (2012) conducted an extensive double blind study on four hundred and forty subjects, both man and women, who were exposed to a set of diverse and varied stimuli to understand and theorize some of the central tenets of my research trajectory - namely, physical attraction, intelligence and behavioral changes. They were presented with models, of both sexes, sporting a number of different and culturally divergent facial piercing, tattoos, and other forms of body arts. Martino and Lester (2011) showed in their survey results comprising 49 undergraduates who were shown pictures of a man and woman with and without piercings. The pierced models were assessed to be less intelligent, caring generous honest and religious although more creative and mysterious. I observe that the results were highly interesting in terms of the inter-relations between the participating subjects’ own openness to tattooing and piercing, as well as their sexual orientation. In fact, it was distinctively concluded that the males with multiple piercing received the most negative ratings based on scales of attractiveness and positive emotional influence. In addition, it was evident that the consensus of the subjects varied on the question of pierced females, who were rated higher than the pierced males. The subjects were tested on what may be termed “the Big Five” emotional imperatives and personality factors – emotional stability, extraversion, personality and conscientiousness. (Swami et al. 2012) Standards of beauty and perceptions of attractiveness is an intensely subjective issue, and factoring in these emotional variables with the physical nature of the research, I must conclude that the ambiguity of self-reflections play a strong role in the affective modifications of the body. While such closed readings and subject based studies involving individual ‘ratings’ of physical attractiveness may seem, to some extent, to be redundant, such researches do offer us concrete sociological data that comes handy in understanding the distinct ideological and socio-cultural ramifications of these behavioral models. Tattoo and facial art has become a rather niche area of interest in cultural, critical theories as well as psychological studies. The tattoo art industry flourishes through a kind of intense cult following that includes members from different walks of lives. However, such rating based studies show us a very important aspect of such life choices – that is, the complexities of social perception and a lack of acceptance of the same. Degelman and Price (2002) in a study conducted on college students discovered an interesting turn of events. A number of college and university level students were shown photographs of female models sporting tattoos and asked to rate them on certain scales of 13 personal attributes - such as, beauty, fashion sense, religion, athleticism, femininity, so on and so forth. An astounding number of negative ratings greeted this effort. Nine out of these thirteen personal factors featured a majority of negative comments, irrespective of the participants’ own life choices regarding tattoos and facial piercing. (Degelman & Price 2002). Resenhoett and Wiseman (2008) showed that the perceptions regarding a person with tattoo is more negative than without tattoo. In a couple of experiments with 158 college students authors found that tattoos hampered perceptions. A model with dragon tattoo was shown to 158 students and ratings were negative and significant for the model with tattoo. A similar research review was presented by Catherine Kahl who cites multiple studies conducted on intellectually able subjects from higher academic strata – university/college level –that confirm this striking paradox of perceptions regarding body modification. Based on the ratings received on a seven-point Likert Scale, the studies recorded a predominantly negative reaction to various forms of body piercings and combinations of body arts. The models featured different combinations of facial tattoos, nose eyebrows, lips, belly button, nipples piercings etc. (Kahl) Thus, both these theorists observe that, simply put, even tattooed and pierced subjects went on to condemn the modified body of the model. Thus, the general negativity associated with the idea of body modification is both widespread and baffling given the rising demand for tattoo parlors and salons. Another strain of research focuses on the prevalence of tattooing and facial piercing among marginalized groups. These minority groups may often include – criminal and gang members, prison inmates, homosexuals, and the mentally ill. These minority groups and their specific tattoo and facial art have been of great interest among researchers. In a previous research conducted by Birmingham, Mason and Gubin, as cited by Degelman and Price (2002), a survey of the tattooed population in a male adult prison showed extensive genealogical history of mental illness, psychosis and schizoaffective disorders. The tattoos often come to represent childhood traumas, dysfunctional homes and other forms of self-expressions. Kahl has noted a number of relational links between tattoo and piercing enthusiasts and those with histrionic disorders. It is impossible to separate these instances of the general negative associations with body modifications from its related prejudice against certain specific groups of people – for example, gay, lesbian and transgender communities, who are at the centre of my research interest. In this context, therefore, it may be seen how tattooing and facial piercing carries a kind of social prejudice with it. My work particularly focuses on gay male communities who indulge in such forms of body modifications. A huge amount of data exists on the study of body image and body transformations, which have been highly relevant to my understanding of the subject and my subsequent research trajectory. Understanding Beauty and intelligence: Implications of Tattoos and Facial Piercing in Gay Communities In a world of technological advancements and a wide links of mass media, socio-cultural perception of body image, identity and self-worth are intricately linked to the media images of sexuality, fashion and art. (Locke 1997) These images tend to marginalize and victimize specific target groups like the gay and drag communities, by processes of negation. The current advancement and adoption of ‘body technologies’ (Pitts 2003) become specifically relevant in context of my research on gay communities. The issue of identification is, of course, at the centre of this agenda. While it may be seen as a form of extreme self-expression, tattoos and facial piercing also serves a kind of social rebellion against cultural heterosexist norms, against biases that are deeply ingrained in the way we perceive and appreciate beauty. (Grogan 2007) Homosexual agenda and body modification are closely related areas of research and study. It is necessary to understand the politics inherent in perceptions of beauty and attractiveness in order to grasp in entirety the varied possible ramifications of the issues surrounding tattoos, scarification, piercing and such. Dawn Atkins (1998) in her extensive research and collaborative work presents us with one vital aspect of these gender inequalities. The initial industrial standard of the ‘perfect’ body image was centered around females. This is a two-fold victimization; this not only reduces women into sex objects, but also completely ignores the ‘different’ and diverse standards of beauty in other minorities or marginal communities. (Locke 1997) While such a media is heterosexist and propagandist, it as nevertheless survived to a great extent. Atkins focuses on the idea of the ‘male gaze’ that is solely and perpetually directed towards women. This negates the homosexual aspect of sexuality and is extremely violent in creating social biases that robs a large section of people – particularly, the gay male population – of their physical, social and sexual identities. Prior to the 1980s, when studies began to take notice of male anorexia and eating disorders, the gay men lived in a state of absolute sexual isolation. Even during the 1980s and 1990s, studies mostly interrogated into the reasons behind men suffering from such female diseases. (Atkins 1998). Sanders (2008) offers a comprehensive account of what may be sociologically considered “deviant”. He goes on to list main traits as a marker of deviant behavior: an act or appearance is considered deviant when social consensus regards the said act/ individual to be harmful, both morally and socially. This is, of course, an extremely subjective and narrow stance, and has consequently been at the center of much critical debate. Secondly, the factor of rarity is accounted for in labeling something “deviant”. Therefore, is something is relatively uncommon or different or unfamiliar, the most prevalent tendency is to condemn it as ‘bad’ or ‘shocking’. Again, this stance is highly injurious to minority communities like the LGBT population. The final, and perhaps the most appropriate, way of identifying deviant behavior is by judging the consequences of the action or person under consideration. In this context, criminal or potential damaging behavior comes under the purview of deviant. This final definition, thus, automatically exempts tattoo arts, facial and bodily piercing from the list of deviant acts. (2008) Issues of beauty, simultaneously, is inextricably linked with the social notions and cultural idea of ‘maleness’ or masculinity. In an interesting project handled by A. Halkitis, on HIV affected gay men from New York, the study attempted to chart the markers of masculinity and male physical attractiveness in terms of a survey that took into account the subjective notions of the participants as well as the factors that went into the making of those notions. (2001) Facial and bodily tattoos or piercing seemed to be a common denominator for several subjects. The attempt to ‘butch’ themselves up, to overcompensate in some way, by acquiring facial and body tattoos. Unsterilized needles and improper usage of equipments were causal factors in a few cases of AIDS affliction. The interlinks between the constructed association of masculinity with tattooed bodies when taken into account there may seem to be a conflict of ideologies and interests in the social normative ideas of masculine beauty and attractiveness. It is sociologically necessary, then, that an understanding of the eroticized and fetishist associations of gay sexuality with tattoo and facial art is reflected upon within the context of wider plane of study. The question in play should not only take into account the issues of attraction and intelligence which are, in themselves, externalized attributes – markers of how one is perceived by the society at large- but also, the self-expressivity hidden in such actions of body modifications. Quite simply then, a man cannot be identified as gay because he has, say, a tattoo of a butterfly, or a rather slick nose ring. Rather, the ideological implications and motivations behind those symbols must be reflected upon. As D.J Bem notes in his works, same-sex desire, like heterosexuality, depends on a variety of variables that interact and influence each other - some voluntary, some non-voluntary. These variables to some extent are genetically determined and are functionally dependent on brain neurology, hormonal profiles and other biological determinants. (Bem 1996) Thus, tattoos or facial piercing can, at most, be seen as expressive of certain social or cultural affiliations or beliefs, but those drives are not naturally produced as an after-effect of acquiring the same. They may, in fact, be inductive of sexual attraction in certain cases, but the natural orientation of sexuality cannot be affected by the same. A comprehensive and extensive survey of the literature on physical attractiveness and beauty dates back to Plato. (Sugiyama 2005) The concept of power and the paradox of physical attraction have been the subject of several social, critical, psychological theoretical and practical studies. Much of the research done in this field highlight the terrifying sense of frustration and fear in individuals who are perceived as different, they are the perpetual ‘others’. The terrible anguish of being ‘ugly, of not conforming to the set standards of beauty continue haunt subjects – such as, those belonging to the gay and transgender communities- through categorical marginalization. (Patzer 2006) Body and facial scarification, alteration and modification complicate our understanding of beauty and ugliness. It has served to create a new standard of masculinity and male physical beauty. Inversely, the transgender bodies, on the other hand, transform their maleness through extensive bodily alternations and ‘masking’ it into a desirable vision of femininity. Another crucial aspect of all research precedents on the gay male community and the affective nature of the various forms of body modification focus on the evolutionary dynamics of body art and tattooing. (Carmen, et al. 2012) Certain studies have gone on to take into account the prevalence of tattooing and specific personality types. Evolutionary study however shows a dynamic interrelation between individual psychological and social affiliations and the practice of body art and facial piercing. They were often symbolic gestures that declared the subject’s love, camaraderie, group mentality or just individual assertion of selfhood. The questions of particular affinities expressed through the organic alteration or accessorizing of the face and the body refers back to our original stance of the body as a blank ideological and cultural canvas wherein the subject inscribes and advertises his own subject-hood. (2012) The ambiguity related with the psycho-sexual development of same sex desire has often found expression in specific facial or bodily enhancement. (Sison & Greydanus 2007) The practice of tattooing or facial piercing may be simplistically seen as a fashion choice, or it can be treated as a vital socio-cultural focal point of interaction between identity, selfhood and appearance. While there is a consistent increase in the number of clinical body alterations, tattoos and such other body art forms emerge as a declaration of a redefined identity, that can reinforce or contradict an individual’s own organic, body and self. These facially and bodily inscribed images enhance and highlight certain crucial aspects of a subject’s personality and require serious study. My research trajectory involves the same in context of the gay male community. The implications posed by such studies are wide and far-reaching. Tattoos and facial piercing not only has psychological and physical connotations that tie up social and cultural perceptions with a subject’s own understanding of himself, but they are also highly charged methods of ideal embodiments of fantasies. My work, in addition to the existing body of research, can effectively account for and enhance critical understanding of subliminal identity politics, crisis of selfhood and adverse mental ramifications in the said section of the population. Implications of Tattoos and Facial Piercing in Straight Communities – understanding beauty and intelligence Gueguen (2013) in his research explores how women with tattoos are interpreted and approached by men. The results based on 220 men showed that tattooed women were approached easily while another experiment on 440 men showed more chance of dating and having sex with tattooed women on the first date. The study also discusses the risks associated with the misinterpretation of such women with tattoos. I can, therefore, conclude, that an extreme urge for expressivity, a statement of existence, identity and acclamation. Facial and bodily piercing, scarification and tattoos were emblems of sexual and self-assertion. These behavioral aspects challenge the psychological precedents of mental and personality disorders and claim understanding for their need for acceptance and recognition. A related strand of sociological explorations studies the issues of male bonding and tattoos/ piercing and other modes of body transformations. Coe, Harmon, Verner and Tonn (1993) note the disparities in the current researches on body images and modifications, which focus solely on the affective aspects of these activities and choices in context of the mentally ill. Now the issue has shifted to include much varied dimensions of interest such as the issues of comradeship, friendship, bonding and emotional relationships among men. (Coe, et al. 1993) Tattoos, thus, often serve as markers of male alliances, as in the initial working class ghettos, military affiliations and biker gangs. Clinton Sanders, in the most recent edition (2008) of his iconic work Customizing the Body, talks about the wider dimensions of tattoo and piercing and the gradual evolution of the societal perception of such practices from the 1980s when he brought out the first edition of his work. There has been a rapid transition of perception from the widespread stigma of ‘deviant’ psychotic expressions to a common phenomenon with popular cultural sanction. In fact Martin and Dula (2010) constructed a method to analyze the stigma against tattooed individuals based on the Big Five personality measure. Results showed significant differences of stigma between tattooed and non tattooed college students based on MSATS (Martin Stigma Against Tattoos Survey) scores. When the questions of deviancy and differences are tackled, we can focus on the physicality of the acts of facial and body modification in context of a gay population and reflect on them in terms of beauty, body image, acceptance and personal perception of attractiveness and intelligence. Cunningham, Druen and Barbee (1997) had in a previous research concentrated solely on the ‘face’. Given their theoretical arguments, the politics related to the face and its mutilation/ transformation/ modification/ alteration/ scarification and piercing of the face gains prominence in terms of beauty, because when all is said and done, the social configuration of physical beauty begins with the image and cultural dominance of the perfect ‘face’. I find a special pertinence of this argument with my own critical inquiry into the affective nature of these factors on the perceived physicality and intelligence in gay males. The drag queen culture, in a similar way, transforms the facial and bodily features of a man into the adapted form of a woman. The issues of identification and personal transformation, thus, gains prominence. Another double blind study by Fishbein, Hennessey, Yzer and Curtis (2004) conducted on one hundred and fifty nine subjects, paired as romantic partners, including both heterosexual and homosexual participants, tried to map the dynamic interchanges of sexual and physical attractiveness in terms of the psychological and social understanding of what we generally term “romance”. The risk factors, health issues and other variables were taken into consideration while researching the coordination between these two concepts: romance and risk. An astounding 80% of the subjects voted in favor of “appearance” as the most important factor of relevance in choosing one’s partner, while a meager 4% voted for “accessories”. (Fishbein, et al. 1996) Thus, overwhelming majority of our socio-cultural and popular notions of love hangs on the understanding and appreciation of beauty and physical attractiveness. The evolutionary justification behind tattooing and face art cannot detract from the alarming and extreme sociological imperatives among young gay teenagers to acquire a certain standard of “desirability” have led to an explosive rise in cosmetic alterations, body modifications, facial surgeries and such. The prevalent liberal cultural slogans of beauty being only “skin deep” and the so-called celebration of difference in all forms have proved to be hollow. In has been observed in several studies that dissatisfaction with one’s body is a sadly rampant trait and also, unfortunately, an addressable one, in this technologically and medically advanced age. The constant recourse to cosmetic and surgical enhancement, scarification and branding is not only physically harmful but also psychological redundant. This distorted self-reflection of an individual cannot be treated physically or clinically. (Hatield 1986). It requires a complex understanding of underlying psychosexual and social study of an intricate trajectory involving personality and mental disorders. It is also noteworthy that a dominant percentage of young adolescent males who seek body modification are gay teenagers. This has been becoming more and more evident in the recent years as an increasing amount of empirical evidence is coming into light and has certainly given rise to much concern. However, one thing has become clear in the course of this extensive research review, that dissatisfaction with one’s body and the constant urge to gain an ideal body image is a gender-neutral subjective imperative that is fast emerging as a terrible social ailment. In this context, as subjects compete in a sexual marketplace for suitable mates, certain studies see tattoo art and facial piercing as eroticized signals of sexual attraction. Totten, Lipscomb and Jones (2008) showed the importance of tattoos from marketing management perspective. Above 40 percent of the 496 respondents from 14 different regions reportedly possessed some kind of body art and both positive as well as negative attitudes were associated with body art. Arndt and Glassman (2012) showed that people view feminine tattoos more positively compared to the masculine art. Customers are more inclined to deal with women wearing feminine body art. The same impact does not work for men since feminine tattoos are not consistent with them. Literature Gap From the discussion above one may conclude that sexual perception is intertwined with perception of beauty and intelligence and this is true for both gay and straight communities. While gay community’s use tattoos to depict group spirit ad identify themselves separate from the mainstream, even straight people want sot mark themselves unique from their peers through tattooing. From an extensive literature review it is seen that no literature has taken a detail study of the differences in perceptions of tattooing and body piercing between the two groups – gay and straight communities. This is what this current research attempts to address and fill the gap in existing literature. Both groups (Gay and straight) are taken up to study their perception of physical attractiveness and intelligence from the art of tattooing. References: Atkins, D. (Ed.). (1998). Looking queer: Body image and identity in lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgender communities. Psychology Press. Arndt, Aaron and Myron Glassmn, What Tattoos tell Customers about salespeople, Marketing Management Journal, 22(1), p.50. Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103(2), 320. Carmen, R. A., Guitar, A. E., & Dillon, H. M. (2012). Ultimate answers to proximate questions: The evolutionary motivations behind tattoos and body piercings in popular culture. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 134. Coe, K., Harmon, M. P., Verner, B., & Tonn, A. (1993). Tattoos and male alliances. Human Nature, 4(2), 199-204. Cunningham, M. R., Druen, P. B., & Barbee, A. P. (1997). Angels, mentors, and friends: Trade-offs among evolutionary, social, and individual variables in physical appearance. Evolutionary social psychology, 109-140. Degelman, D., & Price, N. D. (2002). Tattoos and ratings of personal characteristics. Psychological Reports, 90(2), 507-514. Fishbein, M., Hennessy, M., Yzer, M., & Curtis, B. (2004). Romance and Risk: Romantic attraction and health risks in the process of relationship formation. Psychology, health & medicine, 9(3), 273-285. Grogan, S. (2007). Body image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women and children. Routledge. Guegen, N. (2013) Effects of a tattoo on men’s behavior and attitudes towards women: An experimental field study, Arch Sex Behav. 42(8), 1517-24 Halkitis, P. N. (2001). An exploration of perceptions of masculinity among gay men living with HIV. The journal of mens studies, 9(3), 413-429. Hatfield, E. (1986). Mirror, mirror: The importance of looks in everyday life. SUNY Press. Kahl, C. M. PERCEPTIONS OF BODY MODIFICATIONS. Html Document. Retrieved March 3, 2014. Locke, P. (1997). Male images in the gay mass media and bear-oriented magazines: analysis and contrast. The Bear Book: Readings in the History and Evolution of a Gay Male Subculture, 103-140. Lawrence, T. (2010). A Tattoo Is For Life: A Sociological Study Of The Changing Significance Of Tattoos. Retrieved March 3, 2014 Martin, B. and D. Chris (2010), More Than Skin Deep: Perceptions of and Stigma Against, Tattoo, College Student Journal, 44(1),200 Martino, S. and D. Lester (2011), Perceptions of visible piercings: a pilot study. Psychol Rep 109 (3), 755-8 Pitts, Victoria. (2003). In the flesh: The cultural politics of body modification. Palgrave Macmillan. Patzer, G. L. (2006). The power and paradox of physical attractiveness. Universal Publishers. Resenhoett, A. Villa, J. and Wiseman, D. (2008) Tattoos can harm perceptions: a study and suggestions, J Am Coll Health, 56(5), 593-6 Sanders, C. (2008). Customizing the body: The art and culture of tattooing. Temple University Press. Sugiyama, L. S. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. The handbook of evolutionary psychology, 1, 292-343. Swami, V., Stieger, S., Pietschnig, J., Voracek, M., Furnham, A., & Tovée, M. J. (2012). The influence of facial piercings and observer personality on perceptions of physical attractiveness and intelligence. European Psychologist,17(3), 213. Sison, A. C., & Greydanus, D. E. (2007). Deconstructing adolescent same-sex attraction and sexual behavior in the twenty-first century: perspectives for the clinician. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, 34(2), 293-304. Totten, J.W., Lipscomb, T. and M. Jones (2009), Attitudes toward and Stereotypes of persons with Body Art, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 13(2), 77-96 Wohlrab, S., Stahl, J., & Kappeler, P. M. (2007). Modifying the body: Motivations for getting tattooed and pierced. Body image, 4(1), 87-95. Read More