Next, I looked at the relationships between numbers of tattoos in relation to the above behaviours. Binge drinking showed a rise between having no tattoos up until having three with a difference of 8. 8%; however, a dramatic drop occurred after that which showed that there were 7. 6% more individuals without tattoos who engaged in binge drinking when compared to those with four plus tattoos. This could be due to a number of factors, including participants in Koch et al. study having different ideas of what binge drinking was, dishonest responses, or other variables that went unmentioned in the study (Koch. et al. , 2010).
In regards to marijuana, with one tattoo the number of users increased 16. 6%, and remained around 29. 3% with the progression of tattoo number. The only consistent measure with tattoos was number of sexual partners, the most dramatic being those who reported to have been with more than nine partners. 8. 8% of individuals without tattoos and 42. of those with four or more tattoos responded they had been with nine or more partners in the last year, which makes for a difference of 34. 1% (Koch. et al. , 2010). The last form of adornment looked at, intimate piercings, showed the most consistency; those with intimate piercings were more likely to participate in all these behaviours.
Exactly 50% of those with intimate piercings reported binge drinking, as opposed to the 39. 2% of their counterpart; the use of marijuana and other drugs was higher in those with intimate piercings when compared to those without by 27. and 18. 2% respectively (Koch. et al. , 2010). Looking at these numbers, there is a clear relationship between body adornment and other deviant behaviours; however, they do not account for why there is a link. Why is it that bodily-adorned individuals seem to differ in these secondary behaviours when compared to those who have refrained from decorating their bodies? Gordon Forbes provides a potential answer, though perhaps maybe not as straightforward as some would like.
Forbes’ research into family experience, motives, and personality begins by backing up Koch et al. findings, stating that “those with modifications were more reckless and risk-taking, drunk more often, and used marijuana more often (Forbes, 2001)”. In looking into individuals’ pasts to see if family makeup had influence on deviant behaviour, Forbes found that there was no significant difference between adorned and plain individuals when it came to their upbringing. What he did discover was how personalities differed; those who were more reckless as children had higher rates of body adornment later in life (Forbes, 2001).
By having a reckless personality by nature, it is more likely that an individual will engage in a multitude of deviant behaviours other than adornment, it is just in their character. Another point is that many who decide to adorn themselves do so because other family members have done it. In fact, it is more likely for a person to tattoo and pierce himself or herself if they have a strong connection with another body adorned person. Forbes also makes a note about how body adornment is becoming mainstream-it is not as deviant as it was before.
Due to this, individuals may be engaging in these secondary, more dangerous behaviours because they feel adornment is not enough to separate them from the mainstream. With the addition of each new deviance style, a person strays further from the norm. However, with the addition of drug and alcohol use, and increased sexual activity, the risks also rise. Alessia Quaranta assesses the risks associated with tattoos, and individuals’ knowledge of them.
While this risk may add to the appeal of deviant behaviours, the lack of knowledge on them could provide another reason for the correlation; lack of knowledge in one area may spill over to lack of knowledge in other deviant behaviours; a reverse halo effect of sorts. As previously established, there is no major difference between adorned and plain individuals when it comes to their upbringing; thus, one must then turn to look at the potential other reasons for risk ignorance. Quaranta interviewed university freshmen and found that 46. with tattoos had no reason for doing it, or did it to simply stand out, and 57. 9% did so with barely a month of consideration (Quaranta, 2011). This alone shows lack of proper decision-making skills; these ‘skills’ are then easily applicable to other decisions and are simply carried over to other deviant and risky behaviour.
Additionally, many of the students interviewed were unaware of many risks that came with body adornment. 28. 1% were unsure if piercings could transmit disease, 57. 6% had no previous advice before going in for any type of body modification, 79. did not sign an informed consent form and 28. 1% were unaware of complications after the fact such as scarring, bleeding, and allergies (Quaranta, 2011). However, it is worth noting that those who studied in health care and sciences had decreased numbers in relation to the above variables. This could be due to the fact that those in sciences are more aware of how diseases can be transmitted, or simply because they participate less in the act of body adornment. Either way, this shows potential for career choice to play a part when engaging in certain risks.
While Quaranta focused on simply the knowledge of risk in relation to body adornment, we have already proven there is a relationship between modification and other deviant behaviours. Using this knowledge, it would not be reaching to say that those who engage in risky body adornment are also likely to participate in higher-risk situations relating to drugs, alcohol and sexual activity. Furthering the above point of lack of knowledge carrying on to other decisions, Forbes has previously reported that individuals are more likely to participate in body adornment if family members have previously done so.
This mindset also applies to other deviant behaviour. It would not be absurd for an individual at university level or younger to see authority figures they have a relationship with and mimic their behaviour; this is an example of how authority can skew knowledge. If dad drinks and has tattoos, and has never suffered any negative consequences, why would someone who grew up in that atmosphere stop to question the risks of following in dad’s footsteps?
In short, the risk factor involved with body adornment can highlight reasons for why individuals engage in this behaviour in the first place, along with behaviours involving drugs, alcohol and sexual activity. Lack of knowledge, when combined with a reckless personality and having known individuals who have engaged in both body modification and some form of secondary deviance without consequence, provides a perfect recipe for individuals to engage in a multitude of deviant behaviours.
While the positive correlation between body adornment and secondary deviant behaviour may not be overtly clear in some cases, it is undeniably there. Other things to consider when looking at these statistics is the probability that increasing number of piercings and tattoos, along with specifying their location, would offer clearer statistics in terms of predicting secondary behaviour. For example, a teenage girl with an anchor tattooed on her ankle and pierced ears sends a much different message than a woman who has multiple, large tattoos covering her arm, and more metal on her face than skin.
Another point worth noting is that while family background does not directly influence the deviance behaviour of body adornment, there is the potential for background to provide a basis for secondary deviant behaviour, with body adornment following later. For example, an individual may be predisposed to binge drinking, and already be engaging in that behaviour before tattoos or piercings come along.
Additionally, the reason behind one’s choice to engage in body adornment affects their choices in these secondary behaviours as well. In the future, by dividing participants based on reason for adornment, one may receive a clearer picture as to indications of future behaviour. Body adornment absolutely has a correlation to the other deviant behaviour mentioned in this paper, but it is certainly not the only variable at play when measuring secondary deviant behaviours such as drug and alcohol use or sexual activity.