- Jun 16, 2009
- 3,035
- 0
- 0
Caruut said:Good call. Wounds are less messy and easier to clean without hair, and a massage from your soigneur is less likely to end up ripping hairs out/tangling them up if haven't got them.
Didn't know that it healed much quicker. Is that a documented thing or just personal experience?
From my own experience and NOT referring to any scientific claims or anything: generally speaking, the hair/ no hair option affects several parts of the overall wound experience.
Accident: A smooth leg will often get almost burn style large surface injury where in the same accident, a hairy skin surface can seem to dig in more. Some hairs are ripped out, others remain and the surface to surface friction is higher resulting in a "deeper" and more irregular wound.
Healing: THe healing time of these two types of wounds are different. Then there is the second impact of hair. If the wound is serious enough to need something like "Op-site" then the hair will need to be removed first or it won't work properly (and be a b!tch to remove). Even without opsite, hair makes wound treatment unpleasant because you are trying to add or remove adhesive dressings on an irregular and painful surface.
Often a smooth leg can get away with some topical cream where in the same circumstances a hairy leg will have a messier injury that requires wound dressings and can leave scarring.
In this photo of Jens' leg, you can see in the image below that the larger patch of "burn" is healing in a flat and regular manner, mainly because there is no hair cluttering up the scab.
