I’m 16 1/2 and I’m wondering if they would consider me to get laser hair removal. I would just like to know if age really matters.
Oh yeah and I’m a girl 
Hi,
I think your age should be fine. I know with electrolysis, younger people report more sensation, because their skin is more hydrated in the upper layers. But with a good technique and equipment, it can be made comfortable or almost so on most people.
Which area do you seek to treat? Why are you considering laser to do it? There is a good overview of laser at www.hairfacts.com and you should read it before you decide on a method.
Many people are misled by the abundant laser advertisments in the media to think that this is the newest and most effective hair removal method. Please, do your research first and you may be saving a lot of money and aggravation.
Thank you:)
you might want to wait a few more years before you start your hair removal treatment.
Laser may not work well on all types of people. It is usually considered as “permanent hair reduction” however, with carefully scheduled repeated treatments, permanent hair removal result can be achieved.
To be fair, there are also reports of electrolysis won’t work on them.
I don’t know what the regulatory agencies in your country have ruled, but here in the USA, your statement </font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”> with carefully scheduled repeated treatments, permanent hair removal result can be achieved. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>could not be made in either print or video media without facing an FCC, and/or FTC fine for fraudulent advertising. I won’t say that no one has ever had this result, but those whose jobs it is to regulate these things here have concluded that one can’t go into this treatment with that as one’s expectation.
[ March 28, 2004, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Mina ]
ants:
What do you mean by “reports that electrolysis won’t work on them”? There is no medical or scientific report to that extent.
You may be referring to someone’s negative experience with electrology. But after asking that person a couple of questions, it becomes very clear what has gone wrong. Many times it’s incapable tecnique, incapable equipment, patient didn’t keep up with the schedule, or some thing of that sort. I have not been happy with many of my dentists, but it would be rediculous to conclude that dentistry didn’t work.
When properly utilized, electrology does work. However, when utilized improperly, many things in this world will not work.
Yb, you constantly link people to the HAIRFACTS section to check out your proof of Laser’s shortcomings. Yet on the very same page which discusses Electrologies dissadvantages it lists one of MANY as being, " Some consumers do not respond to treatment". Maybe this is what ANTS is talking about. After all, you are the one that wants us to make sure about the FACTS of each method, so I find it odd that suddenly you have a problem with members discussing what you want us all to read. Here is the full list of Electrologies dissadvantages as seen on the HAIRFACTS section you want people to be aware of.
Can be expensive.
Can be painful.
Can be tedious.
Can be difficult for large amounts of hair.
If done improperly, it can result in:
partial to full regrowth
lasting skin damage
spread of infection
Regulation varies by state, so inadequate controls exist to ensure competent practitioners.
Regrowth rates have not been accurately established and cannot be predicted due to numerous variables.
Some consumers do not respond to treatment.
I don’t have a problem with anything on that page other than taking issue with the statement “Some consumers don’t respond to treatment.”
Although I know that trying to explain this is like discussing the Buffalo Sabres/Dallas Stars Stanley Cup Final’s Infamous “In The Crease” call to someone who did not see it.
Although it is true that some people visit electrologists, and don’t see results, it is not because they are somehow resiliant to treatment. It is because they either have not the electrologist capable of bringing enough of their problem under control to be noticeable, and or, they are not persuing enough treatment scheduled properly to bring about the desired result.
I have personally treated clients with enough active follicles and a replacement drive to drive an electrologist to drink, and although it took longer than 9 months, we did get to permanent removal. Long before that, we got to the place where they looked finished, but had to maintain a schedule to keep that outward appearance intact.
One follicle in growth phase can not be properly treated without being deactivated. That is the fact.
Taking issue with Facts selectively to suit your own opinions is something that I find very troubling. I’ve known all along that you and yb we doing this, I just never thought I’d hear you admit it. Can others, like Laser practitioners do the same? Let me get this straight. Everything that MIGHT be bad about Laser is a not only a Fact, but should be brought up as Fact by you guys all the time. Any bad Laser results you come across in your profession or hear about on Forum’s like this, which are FOR problems, is translated as “typical” Laser experiences by you. When someone asks on the Electrology section why it seems like ther are so many problems, an Electrologist is alway quick to point out the truth about these Forums as being a faulty indication of true customer satisfaction. But with Laser it’s “typical”. Hypocrites. Laser is always the problem, and not practitioner skill, or potently hairy people, or not drinking enough water. It’s always the Laser’s fault. And anything bad about Electrolysis has an explenation, or is just the ignorant opinion of a bunch of other people masquerading as professionals. It’s always the other guys fault or the consumers fault. Pardon me if I disagree with you guys and argue once in a while.
[ March 30, 2004, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: redhead ]
</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>What do you mean by “reports that electrolysis won’t work on them”? There is no medical or scientific report to that extent.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>There are lots of negative feedback from people switching from Laser to electrolysis. Why can’t I take negative feedbacks from those who gave up electrolysis and now enjoy the (relatively) newer technology - Laser.
</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>I have not been happy with many of my dentists, but it would be rediculous to conclude that dentistry didn’t work.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>I did not conclude electrolysis does not work. However, I simply stated the fact electrolysis does not work on some clients.
And you might tell me there are many people who switched from Laser to electrolysis because Laser does not work on them. Let me tell you something obvious, for those satisfied with results from Laser, they won’t be stupid enough to go to electrolysis.
ants:
How about a recent example from my 4-month-old son? He grabbed his pacifier and tried to put it in his mouth with the wrong end. And guess what? It didn’t fit. Obviously. Now, if he would be old enough to type, he would have gone to the pacifier forum and would have left a post there that pacifiers do not fit in mouths in some children. How logical would that be?
You might want to re-read my last post. It clearly explains what could be at fault, but it’s not the procedure of electrology.
[ March 30, 2004, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: yb ]
Once again, for the record:
It doesn’t matter if it is auto mechanics, or brain surgery, practitioner skill is the most important thing, followed closely by having the best available equipment.
My statement on L.A.S.E.R. is NOT that it always fails, or always has negative results. (although for those who are looking for permanent removal of 100% of the hairs they see and feel light based methods appear to be failures.) My statement is that in the best of hands, in the best of situations, it is not a sure thing that can offer any specific result. If all you want is thinning either of size or number of hairs, what it can promise may be all you need, assuming nothing goes wrong. Furthermore, the long term research has not yet ruled out a host of negatives one would have hoped to have had ruled out prior to widespread use of this type of procedure. Lastly, those who need continued hair removal after discontinuing light based treatments, frequently find those efforts to be more difficult due to follicle distortions or increased hair thickness or increased number of hairs not present prior to light based treatments.
Anyone considering hair removal should know that the commercial spot they saw on the soft news TV show is not all it is cracked up to be. These shows often claim that “the medical profession recommends light based hair removal over obsolete electrolysis treatments” when in fact the Merck Manual still lists Electrolysis as the only proven permanent method of total hair removal and states the limitations of light based systems.
I don’t want anyone having poor treatments with an electrologist who is removing 4 hairs per hour, or blasting holes in skin and saying “no pain no gain” any more than I want anyone having a bad result with a poorly researched L.A.S.E.R. program.
If your electrologist is doing bad work, you get a chance to see that fact, and you discontinue treatment. A bad light based treatment has been completed before you have any chance of knowing that something went wrong.
The rest of your charges are getting me confused with other people on this and other boards.
Thanks for being a positive force for moving discussions and keeping the board active.
[ March 30, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: James W. Walker VII, CPE ]
</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Originally posted by yb:
<strong>ants:
How about a recent example from my 4-month-old son? He grabbed his pacifier and tried to put it in his mouth with the wrong end. And guess what? It didn’t fit. Obviously. Now, if he would be old enough to type, he would have gone to the pacifier forum and would have left a post there that pacifiers do not fit in mouths in some children. How logical would that be?
You might want to re-read my last post. It clearly explains what could be at fault, but it’s not the procedure of electrology.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Are you saying electrolysis always works (Okay, fine), but what’s the point of telling people off when they are looking for other method, Laser, which might be more suitable for them.
And, I read your posts a number of times. You are in fact indirectly suggesting Laser won’t work at all. You’d better have good backups on this.
(Clients switching from Laser to electrolysis -> not a good backup, simply there are people switching from electrolysis to laser as well.)
</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Originally posted by yb:
<strong>You might want to re-read my last post. It clearly explains what could be at fault, but it’s not the procedure of electrology.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>So, there’s always excuse for electrolysis when failed.
</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>My statement on L.A.S.E.R. is NOT that it always fails, or always has negative results.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Good.
</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>The rest of your charges are getting me confused with other people on this and other boards.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Would you please elaborate a bit?
I don’t mean to say that laser is never beneficial. I believe that it depends on what results one wants to get.
I’m just looking at what laser has to promise and try to compare it with what most people are really looking for.
Most people are interested in permanent hair removal. Laser can promise up to 60% hair reduction (reduction meaning the hair not regrowing or regrowing shorter and thinner) for 4 to 12 months after treatment. Not everyone responds to laser and some get harmed (even when used properly). No one can tell how much reduction will be achieved and how long it will last. Even if we would have the best case of 60% reduction for life on every patient, s/he would still have to remove the rest of the hair with electrolysis. And I’m suggesting that it could be cheaper to do the whole area with electrolysis from the beginning, eliminating all the ifs and doubts (assuming a competent electrologist).
I remember a post by redhead, where he said that he has reduced the hair on his hands with laser and he’s satisfied with the look. If no more regrowth comes within the next few years, I call this case a success for laser. All redhead wanted was less hair, and this is what he got. He has since become a big proponent of laser. But most females (and males) would like NO hair left at all (for their money). This is only possible with electrolysis, and I’m just guessing that it can cost less overall than redhead had paid.
I think that a consumer should be given a sober perspective on hair removal. I see laser ads all over the media, and they all imply results that they cannot give. As a result, many people are intrusting their skin and wallets to laser clinics, having no knowledge of what’s really awaiting them. Even on this forum you can read a lot of posts from people who expected a permanent cure and were devastated by the results. And where did they get the idea that laser will provide them with this permanent cure? Again, false advertising. This is what I was trying to correct in my posts about laser.
Just to be real clear, I don’t consider my results to be typical with Laser. Since I am a poor candidate because of my hair color I conclude that an ideal candidate would logically have better results then me. I’m happy with my results from Laser, but was given false expectations that they would be better, and wish they were better. This is not Lasers’ fault, but my practitioners, that didn’t tell me how poorly my color hair responds. I still believe that my results were permanent (over 5 years since last treatment) and therefore believe in the permanency of results, and that on ideal candidates, at a good clinic, results would be much better. I tried Electrolosis afterwards on many of the same areas I had treated with Laser because I DID want better results. After a lot of time and more money, I decided I couldn’t do any more Electrolysis because of a lot of stuff listed as a disadvantage of Electrolysis on the Hairfacts.com section. I concuded that Electrology works great at removing my color hair which Laser never could, but for me it wasn’t worth the trauma to deal with really large areas. I did one area on my genitals with Electrology and actually believe I have more hair there now, “white hairs”. So go figure. My inability to stay Electrology’s tedious, painful, and expensive course made me a poor candidate for Electrogy too, and I have got no further treatments of any kind for many years until I heard about the Aurora, on this Forum from RJC2001. It turns out I am a great candidate for this machine. Best of all it appearantly works best on areas that were previously treated with Laser, and I will be doing those areas at some point in the future.