As a matter of fact, my mother's attitude about ear piercing never made much sense to me as even as a child I had read descriptions of Charles I's preparations for his death. His ears were pierced and he went to the headman's block wearing a stunning pearl earring.
This earring, shown above, now resides in a gallery in Nottinghamshire. If a King annointed by God Himself could pierce his ears, how on earth could it be 'lowborn' to do so?
Tattoos likewise were perceived in Western 'Anglo-Saxon Society' in the 20th Century as appropriate only for the lowest classes. The stereotype was that of a drunken sailor who awakened the next morning with tattoos obtained entirely without premeditation or much thought. That too has changed.
Tattoos, known as 'skin art' or 'Ink' is now common among men and women of all classes in Western culture. Usually undertaken after much thought and planning, it has become a 'tribal' rite, a permanent form of art that symbolises something personal to the individual who wears it.
Who am I to recoil in horror from this? I always was an individualist myself, always some one who felt that no one else should dictate my choices. When one has a child, the dangers of hypocrisy loom immense on the horizon but how can one deny a child the same freedom of expression one claimed for oneself? Furthermore, I have marveled at some of the 'skin art' I have seen in the past decade.
In fact, I entered a tattoo parlour some years ago when tattoos were becoming fashionable with a rather vague thought of obtaining a monochromatic necklet in a Celtic style. As some one who admired the Odhinic tradition of self-Sacrifice in the quest for wisdom, such an ordeal would be apt. (Less radical than plucking out an eye for a start!) I was told by the proprietor that a necklet of the type I envisioned would be terribly painful and rather expensive. At the time, I really could not have afforded it even if I had decided that it represented a necessary rite of passage. Whether or not I would have had the courage to undergo that particular procedure remains a question unanswered.
I always aspired to be a true 'Warrior Woman' and pursued fencing and martial arts as well as collecting edged weapons. My daughter followed the same tradition and now is a 2nd Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo at the age of 18. She asked me to design her first tattoo. As her name is Freya, the bind-rune I created for her contains all the power inherent in the name of the ancient Northern Goddess. She was determiined upon a tattoo. In all honesty, my choices were limited. I could prohibit the ritual and be ignored or I could participate in it. I chose to be part of it after repeating all of the old, worn arguments against permanent skin art.
Argument: 'You are only 18. Your tastes will change.'
Answer: 'I am in my prime now. I lke the person I have become. It is truly ME. Why shouldn't I create a permanent record of this stage in my life?'
For the comparative mythologist, such a response is unanswerable. It IS a valid rite of passage and one that bears a profound significance. It is far less radical than some of the rites of passage I once contemplated. Furthermore, I must recognise that her motivations are solely positive. There is nothing self-destructive in her desire to create a record of her soul upon her own flesh. Finally, it is her flesh ultimately and not mine.
