Right, so I've gotten a bit behind on blogging, but I'd like to address some of what I've missed. So from Braunberger's "Revolting Bodies":
Tattoos. Bam. Right there. Because here's what's fascinating about them to me: the essay talks about cultural inscriptions and rewriting and meaning of tattoos. And it talks about men's tattoos carrying connotations with bravery and the like, while women's carry different connotations entirely.
(Mind you, I think it's a little unfair of Braunberger to assume that men's tattoos carry connotations of bravery and so many other positive things because they also have negative connotations (obviously). I feel like phrasing her argument like that means she is almost ignoring a lot of the problems surrounding tattoos as a whole, but in fairness, her argument is about women, so here's my big question:)
Why are men's tattoos affected by society/culture but not rewritten, whereas Braunberger claims women's tattoos are rewritten/reinscripted entirely?
I agree with many of the points she's making, and of course from a
On an entirely different note: consent. The sexual connotations surrounding tattooing are fascinating - the whole pain/pleasure concept, in particular, because while it's "natural" for men to tattoo women, it's somehow "perverse" for other permutations (father tattooing daughter, or more to the point, man tattooing man) to exist. So why is there so much controversy surrounding something that is, on some level, presented as a heterosexual act?
And then we get into something disturbing with consent. Because apparently it's not okay for a woman to have tattoos on purpose - like Braunberger says, women in side shows were rendered at least somewhat more acceptable by their narratives (their unwillingness to get the tattoos, having no say in the matter, etc.). Even when the tattoos are cosmetic ("permanent makeup"), women are not actually told (in the instances presented) that they are being tattooed, and this somehow makes it more acceptable to undergo this procedure. There is the notion that this procedure would have been unacceptable had women realized the process involved tattooing and accepted it readily.
So what are we supposed to take from this? I'm not sure. Braunberger sets it up a bit like tattoo-rape, and what's terrifying is that it then means these acts of tattooing are only acceptable if the women DOESN'T give her consent (even if this is only true in narrative alone). What's more, we're told about the decline of these side show narratives after the advent of electric tattooing, taking the more physical (and presumably more painful) act and taming it in a way that results in said decline. What's being said here? Does tattooing have to be painful and non-consensual for women in order for it to be socially acceptable?
Lovely questions here, Kelsey, about issues of consent and femininity. I wonder, too, if the example of the permanent makeup allows us to ask some interesting questions, too, about what actual signals "consent". If the actions that are about to be performed on a woman's body are couched in euphemism, to what extent is "consent" possible? Is it possible to consent to permanent makeup but NOT to tattooing? What does this suggest about broader relationships between body, language, and control/agency? I think you're onto something fascinating here. Keep developing this!
ReplyDelete