Not for the squeamish
Samantha brought this (Georgia House Bans Genital Piercings for Women) to my attention. Between her bursts of outrage, I got the impression she wants an explanation for why the law is necessary, and especially why it applies to women but not men.

I'm afraid I can't explain it to Sam. Georgia didn't seem to be in the 19th century last time I was there. And I can't imagine this going down too well in Little Five Points.

I'd also be quite interested to know the thinking behind the legislation. When places I like do things that are wrong, it pisses me off.

I'm no fan of piercings (or tattoos for that matter). It's always seemed unnecessary mutilation of the perfectly lovely human body and in the case of tattooing, pretty much irreversible. And if asked my opinion on whether someone should get something done, I advise them not to. If they still decide to go ahead... well, I've said my piece so I might as well forget it, politely admire the art or shiny thing, and get on with life.

(The only thing that makes me slightly mournful is when blood donors get punctured or painted, and take themselves out of the loop for 12 months. But I guess you can't live your whole life around blood donation, even if there are far too few people who already give.)

The point is that if people want a tattoo or piercing, and it's not hurting anyone else (well judging by some reports, not hurting in a bad way, at least), then I don't see what business it is of anyone else's, especially not a bunch of fossilised, conservative Christian, Washington wannabes.

I may not want it doing it to myself, but I'll be damned if anyone can justify why people oughtn't to be allowed to.

Who'd have thought that in the 21st Century we'd still be coming up with doozies for dumblaws.com?