1, you wipe away good bacteria which causes problems
2, The wetness is a secondary, stand-alone issue
3, Environmental problems (for the sake of this post, we’ll not niggle on the environmental impact).
My confusion is:
1,How are we not wiping away good bacteria with toilet paper? There’s some modicum of moisture…down there…due to…what’s…going on, ya know? How is that different?
and
2, if moisture itself is a stand-alone issue, doesn’t this mean bidets are equally as bad?
I also wonder why it’s ok to use them on babies but not as adults.
Probably a silly topic, def. low brow, but it has me curious.
The article in the Daily Mail - which is itself a strong contender for a toilet paper alternative - cites the well-known and completely informed paragons of modern behaviour Gwyneth Paltrow, Will Smith and Will.i.am, but unfortunately no one who actually does anything medical.
Maybe we should find out what doctors, like House or that one in the Simpsons think.
I would suggest that as many humans have never used expensive and elaborate products to wipe their dates, then paper is probably fine for most people most of the time, and skid marks is the most tragic consequence that we face.
One term from the OP that stood out to me: “begging.” I notice on yahoo numerous articles turn up like that. “Doctors are begging people to…” …eat this, throw out this vegetable, whatever…
And there are others. Usually it’s a picture an attractive female athlete. “She didn’t know what people were looking at.” Or “The photographer just kept filming.”
And “So and so slams Trump (or Biden or whoever).” I think they have staff writers with limited title hook writing ability so a lot, like “slams,” gets re-used whether it’s warranted or not.
So I’m betting it’s click bait. Was the article trying to sell anything?
I think compared to TP, bidets were established to be the superior approach in a thread a few months ago. TP just doesn’t get us as clean.
Something I stumbled across: they sometimes “do do” poop transplants.
My WAG is flushable wipes or soaps are probably fine, but the term “wet wipes” in general includes products that are alcohol based or explicitly antibacterial.
These might have too harsh an effect; removing all trace of life might have knock on consequences. And let’s face it, we only need a level of clean that leaves no trace to human eyes or noses, so why take the risk of overkill?
He only sees people when they have problems, which he then ascribes to wet wipes. He doesn’t see all the people who use wet wipes who don’t have a problem. Is he saying that everyone he sees who have issues are users of wet wipes? Or at a higher rate than the general population?