Behind ear tattoo

aisling.laura

i'm considering getting a small tattoo behind my ear, nothing too intricate, maybe a music note or such, and i was wondering if anyone has any experience of being tattooed behind the ear in dublin or surrounding area?

i believe that it can be a difficult place to tattoo and so i'm not sure where would be the best place to go.

any recommendations or advice would be great

hot2def

its a godawful idea.

a) it is not a spot conducive to good lines, accuracy or holding ink.

b) it is not a place you can acutally hide. it doesn't matter what you do with your hair if you move at all it is pretty visible.

c) it will affect your ability to get jobs, court judgements and wedding invites.

d) Anyone with visible tattoos will tell you that other people take it as a license to inform you of their opinions on tattoos. For the rest of your life. the more "extreme" the tattoo is percieved to be, the broader the license. And a tattoo above the collar will fall into the "extreme" category.

e) and really, what age are you? I'd say chances are you are under 25. When you are young, you can make anything look chic, particularly if masses of lste teen/early twenties girls are running to be rhianna/the cole woman. what are these things going to look like when you are 40? At some point, all those lovely tweety birds/tazes seemed like a good idea to a late teen....

truthinwords

Mine aren't visible at all. I have a set of switchblades done in a neo-trad style one behind each ear. If you want to get it you want to get it you don't need the opinons of a bunch of strangers on a forum. Especially when certain people continuously go down the fire and brimstone route when it comes to visible tattoos.

Edgedinblue

i say go for it if thats what you want! i have a star behind my ear, love it! didnt hurt, its done really well. the ink is perfect on it and hasnt faded! i guess it just depends on what you want done, and if you mind people seeing it or not

hot2def

No, I am afraid I'll have to disagree there.

it matters whether or not *you care* if other people care. becuase, like it or not, through out life other people will have sway over your life. end of.

now, I amn't saying no one should get it done, I am saying the vast majority of people should not get it done. some of the factors involved are

Age. if you are fairly young and think this is "cute" "discrete" "feminine" or "dainty", leave it a few years. people use words like that to deliberately play down the visual impact of a head tattoo. there is nothing descrete about a tattoo on your head. plus if you are 18-25, you have always lived in a time when tattoos where fairly acceptable. It hasn't always been like that, and probably won't stay that way.

Previous tattoos. If you have other tattoos, in particular those that AREN"T described by your peers as "cute" "discrete" "feminine" or "dainty", you will have some experience with the impact tattoos have on your day to day life. At least you descision to get a highly visible tattoo wll be somewhat informed.

Motive. Honestly, did you every even think about getting this tattoo before Rihanna and her legions of fans got theirs? fashionable tattoos stop being fashionable WITH A VENGEANCE, and once the fad dies down they are looked about universally as "common". Look back and see does anyone have anything nice to say about tweety/tramp stamps/kanji.



you can, of course, do what you like. What would I know? But, if my pointing these things out to you via the internet has raised your ire, imagine how you will enjoy it from other people, forever. probably less politely too...

hot2def

truthinwords wrote: »

Mine aren't visible at all. I have a set of switchblades done in a neo-trad style one behind each ear. If you want to get it you want to get it you don't need the opinons of a bunch of strangers on a forum. Especially when certain people continuously go down the fire and brimstone route when it comes to visible tattoos.

case in point - you already have a large area of coverage, no?


haven't you already complained in the past that we have to be all sunshine and roses on this forum, even if we think a tattoo is bad/a bad move?


she asked for advice. in public. I have some experience in the area. No doubt she will get a flood of "you go girl, I think there sO CUTE ^_^". Why is it a problem to have someone explain why they think its a bad idea?

truthinwords

Yeah I have a few other tattoos both visible and not so visible. I'm not saying you have to be nice I just don't get why your so consistently against visible work?

If people deal with the consequences, don't complain about reactions/employment issues I don't see the issue. I love tattoos I want to be covered head to toe and am willing to live with the consequences of this.

I'm also a fan of the argument that the more people wandering around with siqq tribal and stars on their neck (which walking down O'Connell st you see more and more) it makes it easier for those of us with decent work or even not so decent work to find jobs/get left alone by those who can't moderate their mouth.

Also if she gets a **** tattoo she gets a **** tattoo to add to the endless list of **** tattoos on this board and judging by the perhaps I'll get a music note it will more then likely be a **** tattoo. I just don't see why she shouldn't get her **** tattoo behind her ear as opposed to on her ankle or as some tramp stamp tribal combo monstrosity.

Will

Chill out a bit folks, if you wanna argue keep it civil. Try not to resort to offensive language and all that.

Thanks.

truthinwords

I don't think it's an argument. I'm more likely to agree with hot2def on other issues then most posters on here. We just don't agree on visible coverage which is fair enough, it's more a difference of opinion then anything.

Irish Halo

Hot2Def I think is just pointing out the reality to someone who might be unaware of the fallout of "a small tattoo behind my ear ... maybe a music note or such". The fact they have chosen the location before the design and this is probably their first tattoo is leading him to be as negative as possible because most people will be and the OP needs to know that.

I also disagree with truthinwords because IMO no matter how common visible (above the neckline or wrists) tattoos become they will always been seen negatively by a certain section of the public sadly.

hot2def

truthinwords wrote: »

Yeah I have a few other tattoos both visible and not so visible. I'm not saying you have to be nice I just don't get why your so consistently against visible work?

If people deal with the consequences, don't complain about reactions/employment issues I don't see the issue. I love tattoos I want to be covered head to toe and am willing to live with the consequences of this.

I am not against visible work.

The issue here is that you (and lots of people) have made a formal descision to be a heavily tattooed person. You are accepting of the consequences, a tattoo enthusiast, probably fairly heavily pierced with big lobes (although, I haven't seen you in a while, I don't know). you don't care that you are now outside of normal to most of the population. great, me too.

But, I can assure you, this is NOT the case for 99% of the people who come in to the shop asking to have their hands/neck/face tattooed in the last year. They are invariably young women with no visible tattoos (frequently with no tattoos at all), who are at pains to inform you they aren't "into tattoos" but just want something "small and feminine", somwhere "discrete" like their hands/neck/face. The language they use when describing it clearly indicates they are uncomfortable with the visibility of tattoos, or indeed, tattoos at all.

When you try and talk them out of it, some will even flat out tell you that its ok because it looks nice on rhianna. a dead vole would look nice on rhianna. The reality is that most of these girls haven't dealt with how they feel about tattoos/tattooed people/being tattooed in the slightest, they merely made an exception for this one sort of piece. and when the fad dies, so with the exception, and they will hate it. I see it all the time.

I'm also a fan of the argument that the more people wandering around with siqq tribal and stars on their neck (which walking down O'Connell st you see more and more) it makes it easier for those of us with decent work or even not so decent work to find jobs/get left alone by those who can't moderate their mouth.

Also if she gets a **** tattoo she gets a **** tattoo to add to the endless list of **** tattoos on this board and judging by the perhaps I'll get a music note it will more then likely be a **** tattoo. I just don't see why she shouldn't get her **** tattoo behind her ear as opposed to on her ankle or as some tramp stamp tribal combo monstrosity.

It disturbs me how often I am confronted with the "f.uck 'em, it'll be easier for people like us if there are loads of ill thought out, trashy visible tatts walking around". firstly, it isn't true, society will always make a distinction between "one or two" and "bodysuit".

Secondly, I couldn't live with myself if I took people money when *I knew* they would hate their tattoo soon after, while sneering behind their back about what a stupid tattoo it was. And f.uck any tattooist who does.

if i think you are making a huge mistake, i am not doing it. Of course you can find another tattooist to do it, no doubt. but I just don't want or need your money that badly

Hellrazer

Nothing like a heathy debate.

Have to say I agree with both of you.Personally if I had the time and or the money Id be heavily inked and couldnt care less about what anyone thinks.

But Im with Hot2def on the whole first tattoo as a highly visible one being totally wrong.Its a fad--Its going to change and all these young girls/blokes with highly visible tattoos will be forming a queue to the laser clinic.

The OP could get it done elsewhere but if any artist has a shred of decency about them then they`d refuse to it as a first tattoo.

Star Lord

I also agree with aspects from both sides.

For people who are into tattoos, go for it!

For those that aren't into tattoos/tattoo culture, then it's undoubtedly a very very ill thought out and generally bad idea. They do not even have the beginnings of an idea of how much a visible tattoo will effect their every day life, and should be told in no uncertain terms that they should go away and put some damn thought into what they are actually getting done.

Raze_them_all

Ah it's the turns out my tattoo means kick me in mandarin sub!


Personally I'm of the belief that hands, face and head tattoo's should be the last places to get tattoo'd. Personally I have my head tattoo picked out for the last 6-8 months but I know I wont be getting it for at least another 10 years.

I have one tattoo on the back of my neck which isn't visible until you notice it, but once you do, you always notice it, if that makes sense? At the time I was very heavily pierced and could not be mistaken for anything but a body mod fan.

I think certain tattoo's like hands/neck/head tattoo's used to be for tattoo fanatics and for those who ran out of space, TBH I'd like to see it return to this.

truthinwords

hot2def wrote: »

I am not against visible work.

The issue here is that you (and lots of people) have made a formal descision to be a heavily tattooed person. You are accepting of the consequences, a tattoo enthusiast, probably fairly heavily pierced with big lobes (although, I haven't seen you in a while, I don't know). you don't care that you are now outside of normal to most of the population. great, me too.

But, I can assure you, this is NOT the case for 99% of the people who come in to the shop asking to have their hands/neck/face tattooed in the last year. They are invariably young women with no visible tattoos (frequently with no tattoos at all), who are at pains to inform you they aren't "into tattoos" but just want something "small and feminine", somwhere "discrete" like their hands/neck/face. The language they use when describing it clearly indicates they are uncomfortable with the visibility of tattoos, or indeed, tattoos at all.

When you try and talk them out of it, some will even flat out tell you that its ok because it looks nice on rhianna. a dead vole would look nice on rhianna. The reality is that most of these girls haven't dealt with how they feel about tattoos/tattooed people/being tattooed in the slightest, they merely made an exception for this one sort of piece. and when the fad dies, so with the exception, and they will hate it. I see it all the time.




It disturbs me how often I am confronted with the "f.uck 'em, it'll be easier for people like us if there are loads of ill thought out, trashy visible tatts walking around". firstly, it isn't true, society will always make a distinction between "one or two" and "bodysuit".

Secondly, I couldn't live with myself if I took people money when *I knew* they would hate their tattoo soon after, while sneering behind their back about what a stupid tattoo it was. And f.uck any tattooist who does.

if i think you are making a huge mistake, i am not doing it. Of course you can find another tattooist to do it, no doubt. but I just don't want or need your money that badly

I think that visible tattoos are becoming more acceptable due to the Cheryl Cole hand piece/ Rihanna neck piece. That "nice girl" on the telly and the young one down the road having something simmilar helps old people overcome that look of terror they get when they encounter me on the bus.

Will

Those people won't have to worry about getting a job though, they're (generally) set for life and don't have to worry about interviews and trying to hide their tattoos so they will come across professional.

What society deems acceptable for a pop star and for the average joe are totally different.

dearg lady

Will wrote: »

Those people won't have to worry about getting a job though, they're (generally) set for life and don't have to worry about interviews and trying to hide their tattoos so they will come across professional.

What society deems acceptable for a pop star and for the average joe are totally different.

Sigh. How true. Maybe I should become a pop star so

fair play to ya hot2def for your no nonsense advice. It's a nice place for a tattoo, but you're right, so many people don't think through the implications.

truthinwords

That's true but I think things are definitely changing. There's a guy working in Heuston station with a big scorpion tattooed on his face. Ten even five years ago that wouldn't have been the case. I think in a lot of jobs women can get away with small stuff in visible places like the back of the neck/behind the ear that they wouldn't have been able to a few years ago but I don't think the same applies to men. I think a lot more people have become aware of the possibilities open to them with tattoos and the styles and abilities of the artists here. Don't be surprised if you start seeing visibly tattooed people in more and more professional positions. Plus if the Church of Bodymodification gets approved as a religious institution(this is pending) it would be illegal to discriminate against it's members for being pierced/tattooed etc.

dearg lady

truthinwords wrote: »

Plus if the Church of Bodymodification gets approved as a religious institution(this is pending) it would be illegal to discriminate against it's members for being pierced/tattooed etc.

No way! that's mad! Though workplaces could still have a 'dress code', but I guess it'd be a step to it becoming more acceptable

ClutchIt

Truthinwords: are you actually egging on the OP to get a tatoo behind their ear even tho you think it will be a "**** tattoo"? Just because you think in some crazy way her having a tattoo will make you seem like less of a freak?

Loopy

truthinwords wrote: »

Plus if the Church of Bodymodification gets approved as a religious institution(this is pending) it would be illegal to discriminate against it's members for being pierced/tattooed etc.

But of course proving that an employer didn't employ you because of a visible tattoo would be hard, unless they came right out and said it..

Hellrazer

ClutchIt wrote: »

Truthinwords: are you actually egging on the OP to get a tatoo behind their ear even tho you think it will be a "**** tattoo"? Just because you think in some crazy way her having a tattoo will make you seem like less of a freak?

Clutchit--I dont think Truthinwords was "egging" anyone on.He was giving his opinion on the issue at hand.
Now Ive edited your post to remove the not so nice stuff--Consider this a warning.

aisling.laura

ok didn't think i'd get such a response but thanks for all the replies anyways.

just to clear one or two things up, it's not my first tattoo, i already have quite a large tattoo on my foot that is visible more often than not, and so i know the implications of visible tattoos and peoples reactions to them. (which have been mostly positive)

i am a fan of tattoos and plan on getting more throughout my life.
i don't like either rihanna or cheryl cole's tattoos and definitely haven't based my decision to get a tattoo behind my ear on either of them.

i may not get tattooed behind my ear for my next tattoo, i merely wanted to weigh up the pro's and con's, the pain, quality etc. and thats why i said 'a music note or such' as i have not completely decided yet.

as for the work situation, my future career will more likely be in a hospital.
i've spoken to someone in the hospital where i'm currently doing work experience and small visible tattoos are not against dress code in most hospitals.

Star Lord

I'd suggest double checking this with your HR person to ensure that you are not going to have any repercussions from going ahead with it (if you decide to do so)

Raze_them_all

Also large foot tattoo's are easily hidden, head tattoo's not so much

dearg lady

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Also large foot tattoo's are easily hidden, head tattoo's not so much

Agreed, I have a reasonably sized foot/calf tat which I'd consider pretty 'discrete', cos it can be very easily covered. I'd still think seriously before gettin a tattoo anywhere on my head.

truthinwords

ClutchIt wrote: »

Truthinwords: are you actually egging on the OP to get a tatoo behind their ear even tho you think it will be a "**** tattoo"? Just because you think in some crazy way her having a tattoo will make you seem like less of a freak?

Yeah that was my plan us freaks are really devious you know. I never said she should get a **** tattoo. I just said she should get it wherever she wants but obviously you saw what you want because you came here with an agenda. I'm just waiting for the likes of you to decide to call me a freak as your passing me by on the street (let's just say I get the impression your that kind of person) so I can make a complete show of you in public.

ClutchIt

truthinwords wrote: »

I just don't see why she shouldn't get her **** tattoo behind her ear as opposed to on her ankle or as some tramp stamp tribal combo monstrosity.

Because she would become very upset if she didn't like it (and according to you this would be certain as you're so sure it would be a **** tattoo).

I'm not at all as sure as you that it would be **** however, but if you think getting a music note or such is so lame, and you'd be the first to laugh at this poor girl if she did get the tatt, then why not try tell her that you oh so cool heavily tattoo'd types would advise against?

truthinwords

You've completely missed the point. It's her choice what she gets I don't have to like it, she does. I don't mock others for getting **** tattoos I have a lot better things to be doing but if someone asks for an opinion they'll get an honest one. If she gets a music note and likes it fair enough millions of others people have that exact same tattoo and I'm sure a good proportion of them still like it. The issue is whether or not she should get it behind her ear or not. Also for the record I'm neither cool nor heavily tattooed (yet).

Star Lord

*Puts on Mod hat*

Play nice folks, first and last warning.

truthinwords

I was only responding to his comments. Is that not allowed?