Very well said patriceny.

I suppose you could call the subject, "polarizing" as that's the "in" word now. It's a subject that invites controversy, but I try to avoid conflict in general, but like to educate people. It's nice to be nice.

Did I answer everyone's questions?

I don't know if you have children (or if that is even relevant, I guess), violetwest, and addressed this point, but what do you think is appropriate for kids? Single piercing in an infant's earlobe? Beautiful small unicorn or flower tattoo for a ten year old? Are there rules or legalities for tats and piercings and modifications of children?

Tattooing a unicorn on a 10yo? "Sheesh!" comes to mind. : )

First, absolutely no tattoos before age 18. It's illegal and unethical and no reputable tattoer would do it.

The issue of ear piercings for babies and young children is complex. There are good reasons against it -- the issue of hygiene (you are not supposed to touch a fresh wound with unclean hands, and how do you prevent that with babies); the issue of placement (bodies change as they grow, and that perfect lobe placement as a child may change and be in the wrong place after maturity); and the issue of consent (young children cannot consent to permanently alter their bodies). As well as the issue of using a piercing gun, which is definitely not recommended.

There are also cultural issues. For instance, in many Hispanic families, it's traditional to pierce a baby's ears, and if the mothers don't do it, they will get pressure from older women in the family.

Most reputable piercers have policies against piercing very young children. But a few will do it because they feel the alternative (home piercings and gun piercings) is worse, and they want to provide a safe, quick piercing, with appropriate jewelry, if parents are going to do it anyway.

Here is some info on ear piercing guns, from the safepiercing.org website:

"What is the APP Position on Ear Piercing Guns?

It is the position of the Association of Professional Piercers that
only sterile disposable equipment is suitable for body piercing, and
that only materials which are certified as safe for internal implant
should be placed in inside a fresh or unhealed piercing. We consider
unsafe any procedure that places vulnerable tissue in contact with
either non-sterile equipment or jewelry that is not considered medically
safe for long-term internal wear. Such procedures place the health of
recipients at an unacceptable risk. For this reason, APP members may not
use reusable ear piercing guns for any type of piercing procedure.
While piercing guns may seem to be a quick, easy and convenient way of
creating holes, they have major drawbacks in terms of sterility, tissue
damage and inappropriate jewelry design. These concerns are addressed
below.

Reusable ear piercing guns can put clients in direct contact with the blood and body fluids of previous clients.

Although they can become contaminated with bloodborne pathogens
dozens of times in one day, ear piercing guns are often not sanitized in
a medically recognized way. Plastic ear piercing guns cannot be
autoclave sterilized and may not be sufficiently cleaned between use on
multiple clients. Even if the antiseptic wipes used were able to kill
all pathogens on contact, simply wiping the external surfaces of the gun
with isopropyl alcohol or other antiseptics does not kill pathogens
within the working parts of the gun. Blood from one client can
aerosolize, becoming airborne in microscopic particles, and contaminate
the inside of the gun. The next client’s tissue and jewelry may come
into contact with these contaminated surfaces. There is thus a
possibility of transmitting bloodborne disease-causing microorganisms
through such ear piercing, as many medical studies report.

As is now well known, the Hepatitis virus can live for extended
periods of time on inanimate surfaces, and could be harbored within a
piercing gun for several weeks or more. Hepatitis and common staph
infections, which could be found on such surfaces, constitute a serious
public health threat if they are introduced into even one reusable
piercing gun. Considering the dozens of clients whose initial piercings
may have direct contact with a single gun in one day, this is a cause
for serious concern. Babies, young children, and others with immature or
compromised immune systems may be at higher risk for contracting such
infection.
Additionally, it is not documented how often piercing guns malfunction.
Some operators report that the earring adapter that holds the jewelry
will often not release the earring, requiring its removal with pliers.
These pliers, which contact contaminated jewelry immediately after it
has passed through the client’s tissue, may be reused on multiple
customers without full sterilization. Few, if any, gun piercing
establishments possess the expensive sterilization equipment (steam
autoclave or chemclave) necessary for such a procedure.

Piercing guns can cause significant tissue damage.

Though slightly pointy in appearance, most ear piercing studs are
quite dull. Piercings must therefore be accomplished by using excessive
pressure over a larger surface area in order to force the metal shaft
through the skin. The effect on the body is more like a crush injury
than a piercing and causes similar tissue damage. Medically, this is
referred to as “blunt force trauma.” At the least, it can result in
significant pain and swelling for the client, at the most in scarring
and potentially increased incidence of auricular chondritis, a severe
tissue disfigurement.
Occasionally the intense pressure and speed of the gun’s spring-loaded
mechanism is not sufficient to force the blunt jewelry through the
flesh. In these cases, the earring stud may become lodged part way
through the client’s ear. The gun operator, who may not be trained to
deal with this possibility, has two options. S/he can remove the jewelry
and repierce the ear, risking contamination of the gun and surrounding
environment by blood flow from the original wound. Alternately, the
operator can attempt to manually force the stud through the client’s
flesh, causing excessive trauma to the client and risking a
needlestick-type injury for the operator. How often such gun malfunction
occurs has not been documented by manufacturers, but some gun operators
report that it is frequent.

When used on structural tissue such as cartilage, more serious
complications such as auricular chondritis, shattered cartilage and
excessive scarring are common. Gun piercings can result in the
separation of subcutaneous fascia from cartilage tissue, creating spaces
in which fluids collect. This can lead to both temporary swelling and
permanent lumps of tissue at or near the piercing site. These range from
mildly annoying to grossly disfiguring, and some require surgery to
correct. Incidence can be minimized by having the piercing performed
with a sharp surgical needle, which slides smoothly through the tissue
and causes less tissue separation. A trained piercer will also use a
post-piercing pressure technique that minimizes hypertrophic scar
formation.
Cartilage has less blood flow than lobe tissue and a correspondingly
longer healing time. Therefore infections in this area are much more
common and can be much more destructive. The use of non-sterile piercing
equipment and insufficient aftercare has been associated with increased
incidence of auricular chondritis, a severe and disfiguring infection
in cartilage tissue. This can result in deformity and collapse of
structural ear tissue, requiring antibiotic therapy and extensive
reconstructive surgery to correct. Again, medical literature has
documented many such cases and is available on request.

The length and design of gun studs is inappropriate for healing piercings.

Ear piercing studs are too short for some earlobes and most
cartilage. Initially, the pressure of the gun’s mechanism is sufficient
to force the pieces to lock over the tissue. However, once they are
locked on, the compressed tissue cannot return to its normal state, is
constricted and further irritated. At the least, the diminished air and
blood circulation in the compressed tissue can lead to prolonged
healing, minor complications and scarring. More disturbingly, the
pressure of such tight jewelry can result in additional swelling and
impaction. Both piercers and medical personnel have seen stud gun
jewelry completely embedded in ear lobes and cartilage (as well as
navels, nostrils and lips), even when pierced “properly” with a gun.
This may require the jewelry to be cut out surgically, particularly in
cases where one or both sides of the gun stud have disappeared
completely beneath the surface of the skin. Such consequences are
minimal when jewelry is custom fit to the client, allows sufficient room
for swelling, and is installed with a needle piercing technique which
creates less trauma and swelling.

Jewelry that fits too closely also increases the risk of infection
because it does not allow for thorough cleaning. During normal healing,
body fluids containing cellular discharge and other products of the
healing process are excreted from the piercing. But with inappropriate
jewelry, they can become trapped around the hole. The fluid coagulates,
becoming sticky and trapping bacteria against the skin. Unless
thoroughly and frequently removed, this becomes an invitation to
secondary infection. The design of the “butterfly” clasp of most gun
studs can exacerbate this problem. Again, these consequences can be
avoided with implant-grade jewelry that is designed for ease of cleaning
and long-term wear.

A further note on ear piercing studs:

Most ear piercing studs are not made of materials certified by the
FDA or ASTM as safe for long term implant in the human body. Even when
coated in non-toxic gold plating, materials from underlying alloys can
leach into human tissue through corrosion, scratches and surface
defects, causing cytotoxicity and allergic reaction. Since manufacturing
a durable corrosion- and defect-free coating for such studs is
extremely difficult, medical literature considers only implant grade
(ASTM F138) steel and titanium (ASTM F67 and F136) to be appropriate for
piercing stud composition. Studs made of any other materials, including
non-implant grade steel (steel not batch certified as ASTM F138),
should not be used, regardless of the presence of surface plating.

Misuse of ear piercing guns is extremely common.

Even though many manufacturers’ instructions and local regulations
prohibit it, some gun piercers do not stop at piercing only the lobes,
and may pierce ear cartilage, nostrils, navels, eyebrows, tongues and
other body parts with the ear stud guns. This is absolutely
inappropriate and very dangerous.

Although gun piercing establishments usually train their operators,
this training is not standardized and may amount to merely viewing a
video, reading an instruction booklet, and/or practicing on cosmetic
sponges or other employees. Allegations have been made that some
establishments do not inform their employees of the serious risks
involved in both performing and receiving gun piercings, and do not
instruct staff on how to deal with situations such as client medical
complications or gun malfunction. Indeed, surveys conducted in jewelry
stores, beauty parlors and mall kiosks in England and the US revealed
that many employees had little knowledge of risks or risk management
related to their procedure.

Considering that a large proportion of gun piercers’ clientele are
minors or young adults, it is not surprising that few gun piercing
complications are reported to medical personnel. Many clients may have
been pierced without the knowledge or consent of parents or guardians
who provide healthcare access. Therefore, the majority of the
infections, scarring and minor complications may go unreported and
untreated. Furthermore, because of the ease of acquiring a gun piercing
and the lack of awareness of risk, many consumers fail to associate
their negative experiences with the stud gun itself. They believe that,
since it is quicker and easier to acquire a gun piercing than a
manicure, gun piercing must be inherently risk-free. Often it is only
when complications prove so severe as to require immediate medical
attention that the connection is made and gun stud complications get
reported to medical personnel.

Despite these pronounced risks associated with gun piercing, most
areas allow gun piercers to operate without supervision. Recent
legislation has begun to prohibit the use of guns on ear cartilage and
other non-lobe locations, and the state of New Hampshire has made all
non-sterile equipment illegal, but these changes are not yet nationwide.
It is our hope that, with accurate and adequate information, consumers
and the legislatures will understand and reject the risks of gun
piercing in the interests of the public health."

Interesting, I didn't know a tattoo was illegal under age 18. Do you mean that it just requires parental consent? Because I know a person who got a tattoo after he lost a sibling, and he was only 14. Goodness knows you can't judge grief, but it did make me uneasy.

I'm thinking no tattooing before the age of 25! My first tattoo, at the age of 21, was horrible. I just went in, picked some flash off the wall, and got a tattoo from the first available artist. I ended up with a fairy that looked like a hermaphrodite. Needless to say, the poor thing was covered with another tattoo a few years ago.

I don't believe there are any federal laws regarding tattooing a minor but there are state laws that vary. Some states allow for parental consent and some do not. In my state of Texas, minors must have parental consent. However, as Violet said, most reputable artists (that I know) won't tattoo a minor even if they have consent.

too funny, Magda

state and local laws vary. In my jurisdiction, tattooing a person under 18 is illegal without a court order; and certain piercings on minors under 18 can be done with parental consent, except for nipple and genital piercings, which are prohibited until 18.

Thank you, all.

Mtn, I agree "sheesh!" But I know a 10 year old girl who is asking for one for her birthday next month. Her mom is on the fence because she and dad have tats, and their dtr has "loved unicorns since she learned how to talk. It's a lifelong love for her." The girl's ears were pierced for her fifth birthday.

just say no -- illegal and unethical. And those tattooed parents should know better. Stickers, body paint, or henna. Maybe a good body painter for a birthday party.

Nipple and genital piercings? Ouuuuuuuuuuuuch!!!!

well, all this stuff hurts, you know. Don't believe anybody who says to the contrary. As we say, "pain is part of the point" -- otherwise just get stick ons. Pain in this context has meaning; it's transformative and ritualistic. You become a different person on the other side.

I'm sorry violet, but that last bit is TMI....at least for me.

probably so--edited out my response to joanie

Thanks violet. I wish I could unsee it :-)

not sorry -- only trying to be considerate.

base jumping in Norway:

I have a feeling I'm glad I missed whatever it was.

I confess this is an area I don't understand at all, voluntary submission to pain of that nature. Does the psychological component of that desire worry anyone?

"I ended up with a fairy that looked like a hermaphrodite."

Lol, MagdalenaLee!

I'm glad you brought that up, kswl. I do wonder about that aspect. Are there religious connotations to the pain, rather like the self-flagellants of medieval times?

at the risk of getting into areas which this board does not want me to, I will just say that most people do NOT engage in body modification for masochistic purposes. When we say, "pain is part of the point" it merely means that you brave the pain and the result is a significant, permanent ornament.

at this point, for those curious about this or other aspects of body piercing, please go get a copy of "The Piercing Bible" by Elayne Angel, which is the book I assisted with and is a definitive resource on body piercing. Or email me privately (goes to check to see if my settings are okay with that . . . )

ETA: not sure, but it says people can "message" me. ???

I would guess that the masochistic aspect of tattooing and piercing is pretty much nonexistent for the vast majority...

just like the vast majority of athletes don't cliff dive, base jump or compete in ultra marathons, etc....

but, the phrase 'no pain, no gain' can be used in lots of different ways- athletics, academics, careers, etc ... isn't that the way the pain is viewed by most getting pierced or tattooed?? something that must be endured to get to the end result!? that is certainly how the people I know who are 'modified' view it...

You get a rush from conquering fear/unpleasantness too. You might get nervous going into it but then your brain chemicals kick in and you are euphoric on the other side. I remember going to get one of my piercings, I mean, I can remember the absolute pit of the stomach feeling on that long bus ride in. I felt so relieved and tough afterwards! I wanted to go get ten more piercings! I think different people have different levels of tolerance for how much fear/unpleasantness and how much euphoria they want to go for. You would never catch me BASE jumping, but I like walking over tall bridges, for example.

For me it's like spicyness - I'm a spice fanatic and I think at one point I was almost physically addicted (not heroin level, like maybe chocolate level) to the high you get from eating something super spicy. It adds another dimension to your meal!

lots of people like to feel that rush... that's why rollercoasters keep getting higher and faster and horror movies keep getting scarier...

but, I don't think too many people get piercings and tattoos for the same reason.....

some people are into cutting themselves for different reasons- to help themselves 'feel pain' , etc or some because they enjoy pain and they can look at their scarred arms, legs and stomachs remembering the cut- sometimes with sadness or sometimes with a thrill, but they are not the majority either.....!

I have no idea about ritualistic aspects of pain. Pain is just one of the components to getting a tattoo. Sure, I suppose there is an element of "pride" to have gone through the pain, especially if it's a really large piece. I'm one of those who say it didn't really hurt all that much. I have a high pain tolerance and I took Benadryl prior to my (3x3hr) sessions for my back. I literally dozed off a few times.

I don't have any piercings except for ears, just like every other person. Which brings me to a point. Do you have pierced ears? Did it hurt? All this tattooing, body modification and piercing that is being talked about on this thread is just an extreme form of getting your ears pierced. So really, we are talking about people doing something that is stepping outside of social mores and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

if you have had your ears pierced, you have "voluntarily submitted to pain of that nature."

ETA: Magdalenalee, we had the same thought at the same time. In truth, there's no end to what people will do to their bodies to make themselves more attractive, socially acceptable, or comfortable with themselves.

I'm not sure how comfortable some folks feel with themselves who are going through serious body modifications...I think taking oneself as one is would be a sign of being the most comfortable. I think going through extreme modifications to get a rush when they see the shock and awe on others' faces is a sign that, without the modifications, they might feel unnoticeable or somehow inadequate....that they are reliant on others for their reaction to feel powerful, rather than reliant on their own authentic power. Same as with women who dress like hookers, or clowns, or caricatures... because they think they can't get attention otherwise....when the truth is, by themselves, as they are, they are enough. Only difference is, the hair can be redone, the make up and clothing can be changed...the tats, piercings, implants, teeth alterations, much harder to undo.

However, there's a certain element of doing it for oneself. Presentation is in one way communication with others, but can also be self-directed or self-motivated. Making the link to interior decoration - sometimes we decorate a room for accolades, but sometimes we decorate to feel comfortable in that room ourselves. Different people may have different admixtures of those motivations.

The literature shows various motivations: beauty and art, physical endurance, individuality, personal narrative, group affiliation and commitment, resistance, spirituality/cultural tradition etc.

Personally speaking, part of how I present myself is resistance to cultural norms about female presentation. So since I have that motivation personally, I guess I don't see it as a bad thing in others.

But, robo, since "Personally speaking, part of how I present myself is resistance to cultural norms about female presentation" aren't you saying human females (and males) must be altered to be culturally relevant? What culture is it that requires permanent alteration? Cultural norms change frequently and rapidly. When is enough alteration enough? If we were required by our culture to permanently alter ourselves, would you then not alter?

Lots of cultures require some type of alteration to be culturally relevant or socially acceptable, ours included. Examples in Western society include male circumcision and infant ear piercing. More extreme examples abound in non-Western societies, such as female circumcision.

I'm not sure what you mean by culturally relevant. We all exhibit some sort of self-presentation simply by virtue of getting up and putting clothes on in the morning, brushing our hair (or not). Cutting our hair, or not. Makeup, or not. etc. Given our social milieu, we all make choices about whether to "fit in" to that milieu or stand out.

For my own self, I dress plainly and comfortably, without makeup and without doing my hair. That's my small resistance, that I put as much into my toilette as the average guy and no more.

Since that's my own little rebellion, I can in some ways understand other people also resisting cultural norms, and I can certainly understand if they chose to resist differently than I do. Maybe part of that is tattoos or body mods.

I do think women in particular often do alter ourselves physically and permanently to fit into cultural norms. Dieting is probably my number one example. Laser hair removal. Foot and spine issues from high heels. Obviously not all women, but it's part of the price of being female for some. Men too, go to the gym to get great big biceps and washboard abs. That's working with your body to achieve an effect. I'm not against it - I admire people who are skilled at self-presentation and in general I just admire hard work in search of a goal. Not my cup of tea to do that with my appearance, but I get it in others.

Personally speaking, part of how I present myself is resistance to cultural norms about female presentation.

Then, I suppose, you expect-- and should expect-- the normative culture to have some resistance in return. It sounds like while on some level that must be the intended effect, there is some resentment that that is the effect. Unfortunately you can't really have it both ways.

I am not speaking individually about you Robo, just that your statement seems a fairly succinct statement regarding non-normative appearance.

As I mentioned before, I don't personally understand the why's. I do know others don't understand why I don't wear more make up (just blush) or wear clothing cut low enough for my cleavage to show. I really feel it is all in how each person feels most comfortable. So yes, I agree with Annie on that, but not that everyone, and I don't think she meant it that way either, that gets tattooed or pierced needs the attention. Many beautiful people, inside and out, get tattoos and piercings. To me it's not any different than someone having plastic surgery or botox injections. Again, something I don't understand personally, especially when you look at some of the disasters because of it. I think it's easier to look at a beautifully "painted lady" than it is one with a frozen scary face from botox.

Magdalena, I am not blanketly labeling anyone with anything. I'm expressing the impression I get from people who go out of their way to be extreme in appearance. The way someone adorns themselves, either temporarily or permanently, is communicating something about them. And, as with any communication, sometimes what is received is not the intended message. The message I receive when I see someone like this fellow is that he is craving attention, negative or positive, and gets it by creating an image that is well beyond convention. I suspect he enjoys his power to shock people. Perhaps you read his image differently. And perhaps if I got to know him beyond his image, I'd find out a lot more about him...that perhaps he isn't like he appears at all. But at first blush, there it is.

why do you think that's not the intended message? Certainly people with extreme mods may be seeking attention and may be seeking to shock. I'd say they succeeded with you. You keep posting pictures of visibly extreme body modifications, which is really not what I'm trying to address here.

I want everyone to know that for every person who looks like the photo posted, there are a thousand "normal" looking people with piercings and tattoos you cannot see. Are they seeking attention? Probably not. I can only answer for my motivations definitively, and they are not to shock or to gain attention. If you are interested in someone else's motivations, you must ask them.

I could even guess, perhaps, that some people with a lot of extreme mods could be really deep into a personal journey that doesn't have too much to do with other people's reactions.

I think as palimpsest said, the resistance goes both ways - it's perhaps equally undesirable or (insert adjective here) to care too much about how people react to how you look, as it is to care about how other people look. I'm fairly oblivious/uncaring about how others look for the most part, for me it would be nice if everyone would be like that but that would be a pretty naive expectation.

The very very few people who I can think of who seem to really not care what they look like or what other people think of how they look, though, don't do anything out of the norm, though: no makeup, no piercings, even of ears, serviceable haircuts, serviceable clothing, sensible, shoes, literally nothing that stands out or really expresses their personality at all, just bland serviceability. It's out of the norm in the sense that there is no real personal expression that is identifiably a style, maybe? But there's nothing that would make anybody notice anything. They are not usually even out of style, because they have this generic uniform and clothing gets replaced by what's available so it's not like they are even wearing clearly outdated clothing.

And of the few people I can think of like this, their personalities aren't particularly bland, they just don't express it in any way by their clothing, ornamentation hair or things like that. It's the opposite of doing one's best to look current and at one's best, and the opposite of trying to have some sort of quirky individual self-expression. It's expressionless.

That's how I roll, probably about 80% anyway. I've often thoughts it's odd that I care so much more about how my house looks than myself when so few people see my house. Illogical. Mind you my moment of true freedom will be when I wear caftans 24/7--haven't gotten that liberated yet. something I enjoy and think is pretty and comfortable physically but is a little too far out out of the norm to be truly comfortable psyche-cally.

I will say that many tattoos and piercings aren't meant to be seen, or not by many. I guess I wanted to point out that amongst the many varied motivations for body mods, among which certainly is outward appearance (whether aiming for beauty, personal expression, signalling conformity to a group or supposed nonconformity to 'the man'), I think there really are other true motivations that are more inward. And of course one might say one wants to look good to or for oneself rather than to or for those around one - not sure if that's truly achievable or not.

Among the people I know personally these days with tons of visible tattoos, well of course I met them through my own social circle so they have similarities - but I wouldn't call them boring or bland. they're typically musicians, artists, longtime alt music fans or otherwise a little less staid, they're still getting tattoos well past the first blush of youth, they seem to enjoy getting more, and I think they know by now that tattoos are common enough not to signal nonconformity but they seem to plan out and enjoy the artistic and self-expression aspects.

The people I know seem to pick the artists carefully. I find the art interesting to look at and the people tend to lead kinda fun lives, or at least it seems to me. You know, road trips, scooters, punk rock, bluegrass, drag, deep end dining, geekdom, film, burlesque - they seem to have pretty neat interests and are fun to talk to at dinner parties. Maybe a common thread among the people I know is that they tend to be a little intense, like REALLY into their interests. But then again it seems everybody gets intense around here in the winter, it's just way too drab not to.

Yes, I know a couple of people, male and female, who have really stuck to thematic tattoos and made sure they got them done well and its really quite nice. One woman I know is all classic Sailor Jerry, and it suits her personality. A Japanese person I know has all Japanese style. Both of them have them pretty much covered up in normal work clothes. I think even when it's done to what most people would consider excess, it can be done well.

But another factor is, where I live, tattoos, piercing and slight stretching are so common that it's really no longer a statement of an expression of "difference".

No doubt many tattoos are done for self expression and internal emotional reasons. My cousin has done dogs who have passed, people who have passed, and other memorials...one was a father's pocket watch. A fellow I know has one that was a symbol created for his wife and two daughters with their initials. (Fortunately, he hasn't divorced.) One he is currently working on is an array of botanically correct wild flowers on a botanist.

that's how it seems to me too- so common that it was 'trendy'--- the heavily tattooed just don't stand out as much anymore....

and it seems(to me) the young aren't tattooing as much now... even facial piercings seem to be fewer now than a few years ago....

Okay, off topic but i have to ask:. robo, what is "deep end dining?"

I looked it up on the internet and it seems to be eating uncommon foods.

Yes, uncommon and unusual to the Western palate. Or sometimes even the Eastern palate. I will eat a lot of different foods, but my husband has me beat and we have friends who will try anything short of poison. I remember my anthropology professor saying that humans in general have remarkably restricted diets and that even adventurously inclined cultures eat only a very small percentage of the varieties of edibles that could be available to them.

I have a pretty diverse palate. I think it's from growing up in South Texas. I would go to my friends Mexican grandma's house and eat Menudo (tripe soup), Barbacoa (steamed beef or pork cheeks - waking up in the morning to an entire pig head in the sink was something to see!), fruit w/ lime and chili, Saladitos (salted plums), Molé (savory chocolate sauce), nopalitos (prickly pear cactus pads), Chicharrón (deep fried pig skin). Eating all that stuff opened me up to trying just about anything at least once.

I asked my husband what the strangest thing he's eaten is and he said balut, which is a duck embryo in the egg. I think the oddest thing for my palate I've eaten is century egg, but of course for people who grow up with them they're a treat. Maybe the least appetizing (to outsiders) thing people around here eat is Solomon Gundy, which in Nova Scotia means pickled salt herring and onion. Then again it kinda sounds like a Manhattan deli sandwich! I think in Jamaica it's the name of a fish pate. We also eat dulse which is a strong, salty dried seaweed you eat out of hand. Very acquired taste, much stronger tasting than most Asian seaweed products.