Banner
    Tattoos, Piercings And More Alcohol Drinking Linked - Are You Surprised?
    By News Staff | April 23rd 2012 03:00 AM | 27 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Tattoos and body piercings are so ubiquitous in western societies that they are more cliché than  edgy, but social scientists in France say they may be more than fashion trends - they may be harbingers of doom. Individuals who get them  are also more likely to engage in risky behaviors that include substance and alcohol use. 

    They conducted this truly first-of-its-kind survey on four different Saturday nights, when most French youth frequent bars and clubs before dancing, collectively approaching a total of 2,970 individuals (1,710 males, 1,260 females) as they were exiting drinking establishments - apparently without being punched in the face, showing the patience of French young people. The young men and women were asked if they wore tattoos and piercings or not, and were then requested to breathe into a breathalyzer in order to evaluate their alcohol consumption. 

    This study was the first in France to find more alcohol per liter of exhaled breath in association with tattooing and body piercing. 

    "A host of previous studies have routinely shown that individuals with body piercings or tattoos are more likely to engage in risky behavior than non-pierced or non tattooed people," said Nicolas Guéguen, professor of social behavior at the Université de Bretagne-Sud and corresponding author for the study. He listed sex without protection, fighting, theft, and alcohol consumption as several examples of risky behavior. 
    "We found that pierced and/or tattooed individuals had consumed more alcohol in bars on a Saturday night than patrons in the same bars who were non pierced and non tattooed. This is the first time that we found a relation among tattoos, piercings, and alcohol consumption in France." 


    It's not just France. Clearly no sober person got a tramp stamp of an actual whale tail.

    He suggested that educators, parents and physicians consider tattoos and piercings as potential "markers" of drinking, using them to begin a conversation about alcohol consumption as well as other risky behaviors.

    Myrna Armstrong, Professor Emerita at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center and author of some of the studies cited by Guéguen, concurred. "However," she added, "you need to look at the ages of the groups being examined. While France may not have the same issues as North America, the two groups here that tend to favor tattooing and piercing – 13 to 18, and 18 to 25 years of age – are already considered high-risk people in terms of their drinking and other behaviors simply because of their ages and their age-related desires to experiment.

    "I thought the approach to studying this topic was fascinating. However, I am concerned with the tendency to see a tattoo or piercing and automatically profile or stereotype that individual as a 'high-risk person' as this may or may not be conducive for helping them. A clinician, for example, can spend some time not judging individuals about their present tattoos, but talking to them about safe tattooing, etc. and alcohol in general … not because they have tattoos or piercings but because they are in a high-risk age group."

    She added that people have tattoos or piercings for different reasons, such as religious beliefs. In addition, there is a difference between those who have few tattoos or piercings and those who have many.


    Yes, apparently women with a tattoo on their lower back and a cut-off shirt are showing their devotion to spirituality.

    "In 2009, we conducted a study of those with one to two, three to four, and five or more tattoos," she said. "We found that those with only one tattoo were very similar to those without any tattoos in terms of high-risk behaviors, including alcohol. We also graded body piercings and found that individuals with seven or more were the really high-risk group. In other words, be very careful about generalizing among those with many tattoos or piercings and those with only one."


    To be published in the July, 2012 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical&Experimental Research

    Comments

    What is a "Professor Emerita?" The correct term is "Professor Emeritus." Before you answer that Armstrong is a female, then please ponder that the Latin term "professor" is masculine. So, you've not only kept a masculine noun from the Latin, which poses the same "sensitivity" problem as the "Emeritus" bit, but you've also rendered it incorrect by mixing it with a feminine adjective. Is it really so important to APPEAR politically correct that you'll forsake BEING correct?

    "Emerita" is in fact the correct term, as either adlective or noun. Professor is only Latin by way of Middle English and the word used here is now modern English and the term is not gender specific so it may take a male or female adjective. I suppose if you had made your assertion a century ago someone might have considered your point of view but as it is I doubt you'll find a source on usage that counsels any but the (correct) usage employed above.

    You might have a point if we were talking about the word "professor." But we're not. We're talking about the honorific title "Professor Emeritus," in which case the expression is entirely Latin. Therefore, the admixture of the feminine adjectival form with the masculine noun is incorrect, just like your comment. I accept your apology, and thanks for playing.

    Gerhard Adam
    Actually it seems like you're both partially right and partially wrong, since it may be used in Latin or a combination of latin and english, so it isn't properly one or the other.
    A full professor who retires in good standing may be referred to as a professor emeritus, or professor emerita for women.

    There is a third, somewhat less common usage, following the full title (e.g.,"professor of medicine, emeritus".)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_States
    The adjective "emerita" [ɪˈmer.ɪ.tə] is derived from the past participle of the Latin word "ēmerērī," meaning to "earn through service." The plural form of "professor emerita" is "professors emeritae," while the plural of "professor emeritus" is "professors emeriti." The plural form of a group of male and female professors is "Emeriti". A Professor Emerita is also called "Emerita professor," a slightly less formal term.
    Thanks, but the term is Latin. I get that the usage is English, but the term is Latin. You'll pardon me, I hope, if I find Wikipedia less-than-reliable on a question like this. Same goes for eHow. Put another way, I know a lot more about usage questions, Latin or English, than either of those sources. (No doubt you made the politically-correct-but-incorrect crowd feel a swell of validation, though.)

    Gerhard Adam
    Actually I made the point that (1) language evolve all the time, and (2) no one cares how dead languages are integrated into new usages.  So you can be as grammatically correct as you care to believe, but in the end, it doesn't matter a whit, because we no longer live in Rome.
    You'll pardon me, I hope, if I find Wikipedia less-than-reliable on a question like this.
    As far as reliability goes, compared to anonymous posters, Wikipedia is practically the gospel.
    Hank
    HA HA - I think you got called politically correct!
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    Yep ... that's me :)
    Well, technically, you didn't make either of those points. Ordinarily, I would be willing to give you the benefit of the (substantial) doubt on that claim. Unfortunately, you bandied about Wikipedia and eHow in an academic discussion, which I would liken to quoting The View in a discussion of, say, David Hume. So, you will have to pardon me if I point and snicker at your trying to weigh in on this thread all intellectual-like. And if you want to profess plausibly that you have no concern for dead languages, you might want to re-think your input altogether. For my part, I am secure enough in an actual understanding of the topic to need no confirmation from Wikipedia, which is comprised of input from anonymous posters - a point which has, self-evidently, escaped you. I will pardon you, since you probably studied under a series of "Professors Emerita."

    Gerhard Adam
    LOL .... keep digging ...

    BTW, I see exactly how much credibility I should assign to your view.  After making a specific point that the phrase was a Latin one, you had absolutely no problem in using the english plural form of professor.  Yeah ... that tells me a bit too.
    Alas, it didn't tell you quite as much as I had hoped you might grasp, your self-soothing LOL notwithstanding. Did you, by any chance, notice the punctuation marks around "Professors Emerita?" (To give you a much-needed boost, I did it again.)

    BTW, I am still chuckling over your swift resort to Wikipedia as a source so vastly superior to anonymous postings. Truly, Gerhard, thanks for that one. I guess one must don a Big White Cowboy Hat of Understanding to obtain the wisdom that anonymous posters become more reliable in a gaggle.

    Gerhard Adam
    I guess one must don a Big White Cowboy Hat of Understanding to obtain the wisdom that anonymous posters become more reliable in a gaggle.
    Hank .... I get another point!!!    [I knew I was right about him - PPA].
    Hank
    You should at least explain it to him.  Other sites have Godwin's Law - where a discussion is over when someone mentions Nazis.  On Science 2.0, we have Gerhard's Law, wherein a discussion is over once someone mentions his hat.

    P.S. I actually got compared to a Nazi yesterday.  Not here, on some weird political cult site. That was awesome.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    How'd you manage Nazi?  You're not the brown shirt type.
    Hank
    I was more insulted at being called a journalist.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    What a cheap shot...
    Gerhard Adam
    Well, you could always go to this site:

    http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/gender-troubles-2-emeriti-faculty/

    Oh wait, he quotes Wikipedia too.  I guess the OED is out (it only cites "emerita" since 1842), so ... Hmmmm ....
    No apology given or needed. I defy you to find a creditable use of "Professor Emeritus" with a female referent. The title "Professor Emerita" or sometimes "Emerita Professor" in the UK has been in common usage for over a century and is a listed title at Oxford, Cambridge, the Imperial College in London, Harvard, Yale, etc. Notice it is not italicized (as a foreign phrase should be) which rather than being an oversight is an indication that the phrase has been accepted into English. I refer you to almost any style guide, such as the American Heritage Book of English Usage or The Chicago Manual of Style.

    Once stolen and fully assimilated, a foreign word or phrase is often treated using English rules. Its use in English need not adhere to Latin usage (and obviously does not). For example "pendulums" has evolved from incorrect, to accepted as one correct option, and is now the preferred plural of "pendulum" despite the fact that it would be incorrect in Latin. I fully expect that in time "pendula" will actually be considered incorrect in English. (Indeed some spellcheckers already flag it.) "Datum" is all but extinct in general writing and rarely found in technical writing.

    BTW, not only does the title predate the latter 20th century PC trend in language, but it also isn't being "sensitive" or PC to distinguish male from female. Most attempts at PC neuter terminology ("firefighter" for "fireman" for example) in an attempt to promote equivalence of the sexes. Witness the tendency to use "alumni" as a gender-neutral singular (at which I cringe).

    So you have managed a trifecta of error in usage, reasoning, and imagined motivation. Your "correction" is of the type that is actually counterproductive but without even the excuse that the form you promote was ever correct in your lifetime.

    You make a number of valid points. Yet this is typical when one attempts such sophistry. You come to the point rather readily with your invocation of the Latin word "alumnus." Accepted into English? Check. Not italicized? Check. Masculine form used interchangeably between the sexes, according to the guy who wants to defend "Professor Emerita" as correct?

    P.S. Sorry for calling you a "guy." You're obviously a woman.

    |You make a number of valid points. Yet this is typical when one attempts such sophistry.

    And yet you choose ignore my "valid points" and include an ad hominem reply. You have made an enjoyable troll but I'll plainly state the arguments so that perhaps other readers will know how to take your assertions.

    1) This article is written in English and written English usage rules apply. Not Latin rules of grammar or usage. You say that you "get that" but apparently you really don't.

    2) The OED, Merriam-Webster, and the American Heritage Dictionaries all list the phrase as English, having been fully assimilated into the language. All state it need not be italicized and that "professor emerita" is correct for a female subject.

    3) The American Heritage Guide to English Usage, The Chicago Manual of Style, and The New York Times Manual of Style (this is a news article after all) all state that "professor emerita" is correct for a female subject.

    4) All of the Ivy League (US) and Russell Group (UK) schools use the term "emerita" for a female subject. (And even should Texas Tech be using an incorrect (to you) term the reporter must use the actual term the school gives.)

    5) Given the above, this is reporting not sophistry. We are not discussing some fine disputable point and supporting a conclusion on which honest people differ. The guides to usage and the predominant users all agree and I am informing you of the settled form in English. A dispute needs two sides. Once again I defy you to show me one style guide or creditable example that indicates "professor emeritus" is correct for a female subject.

    That being stated, I'll also note:

    |Masculine form used interchangeably between the sexes, according to the guy who wants to defend "Professor Emerita" as correct?

    No check. Comprehension fail: "use 'alumni' as gender-neutral singular" does not mean that. It is the singular and plural forms that are mixed. Many English speakers use "they" to indicate a singular subject of undetermined gender, e.g., "When a person visits the company they must check in at the main desk." Similarly, collegiate logo companies often use "alumni" on stickers and shirts for a single subject of either sex. I do not like it but this is the evolution of language. (And it does have PC roots because it conflates the genders instead of distinguishing them.)

    I suspect that the correct masculine and feminine forms of emeritus have survived precisely because they are rarely used and those who do use them professionally tend to be more conscientious about proper usage.

    I pointed out two instances in which English words derived from Latin have a pluralization that does not follow Latin grammar, the correctness of first is now accepted and the second is in flux. This shows that your statement of Latin grammar rules is not sufficient to prove your point. And the broad agreement in the citations above show that the term is hardly in flux. Find another argument.

    | You're obviously a woman.

    And you obviously have decided that at this point it's just easier to be incorrect about everything and pretend you were trying to shoot the moon!

    Fifty years ago a person getting a tattoo was making a permanent statement that he was an inferior human and proud of it. Nowadays it means.....the same thing. There's just more of them.

    OK OK, as a result of a cancer dignosis, I have been tattooed for radiation and pierced for chemo. Under the circumstances, I'm having another drink.

    Not only is it not surprising, it's not even new ::
    Man against himself.
    Menninger, K. A.
    Oxford, England: Harcourt, Brace. (1938). 497 pp.

    Abstract
    The author gives a detailed description of suicide in all its different forms. Asceticism and martyrdom, neurotic invalidism, alcohol addiction, antisocial behavior, and psychosis are described as chronic forms of suicide. Another form is focal suicide, which includes self-mutilation, malingering, polysurgery, purposive accidents, impotence, and frigidity. A chapter on psychological factors in organic disease introduces the conception of organic suicide. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

    You could probably add nude photography to the risk-taking behaviors associated with tattoos and piercings. My formula for the likelihood of a woman having nude pics floating around somewhere out there is:

    (T +P) / pi,

    where T is the number of tattoos and P is the number of piercings other than earrings. If she has more than three tattoos and piercings, the probability approaches 1.0.

    Hank
    We could do this all day. (T + P) * (3/SE) = Number of places she'll let you put it.  

    where SE is is Self Esteem on a scale of 1 (would date Charlie Sheen) to 10 (willing to try and hit on, ummm, me)
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Once while riding an elevator a heavily tattooed young man got on. We began to chat and I mentioned I used to work as a police beat reporter. I observed that the biggest drawback to tattoos is that every cop assumes you are a convicted felon. He shyly looked at me and said, "I am." Oops.

    awesoem man!!!!
    www.facebook.com/zzz