The Effectiveness of Dry vs Water-Based Anogenital Hygiene Practices in Adult Homo sapiens Displayin
1 - The University of the Universe
2 - The Anational Institute for Bullshit
ABSTRACT
It is a well-documented fact that the anogenital hygiene practices vary greatly among human population, depending both on geography as well as on religious and cultural heritage (1). Ever since the advent of the modern-day Internet, the human kind has been known to discuss various methods of anal hygiene on multiple online platforms, with great fervour and in great detail (wiping front-to-back and vice versa, wiping sitting vs. wiping standing, washing vs. wiping, etc).
Nevertheless, a thorough comparative study on the effectiveness of such methods was lacking, due to a certain taboo surrounding the subject - resulting in difficulty of obtaining human models for research. In this study, we compare the effectiveness of wiping versus washing practices, in terms of achieved level of anogenital cleanliness. Our study strongly indicates that the water-based methods of anogenital hygiene are significantly more effective than the paper-based approach.
INTRODUCTION
While the majority of the world population employs a water-based anal hygiene approach (2), such applications are limited nearly exclusively to the Southeast and East Asia including the Indian subcontinent, as well as the Middle East, the North Africa, the Southern and Southeastern Europe and some regions of Latin America.
The vast majority of the Western societies - also referred to as “The First World”, limit themselves to the paper-based methods exclusively - with exception of Italy and Greece, who maintain their anal hygiene in a similar fashion as their Mediterranean neighbours qualifying outside of the First World etiquette (namely the former Yugoslavian republics, Turkey, and the North African countries - Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, South Sudan, Tunisia, Western Sahara, etc).
The world-wide availability of Internet and multiple social media platforms, such as Facebook, Reddit, Youtube, Instagram, Yahoo, Quora, etc. have sparked a heated debate (3) on which one of the plethora of employed methods and strategies is the best and most functional one - however with little to none scientific research to back such argumentation.
Therefore, we have designed the following comparative study in order to elucidate which of the two methods yields better results in terms of anal cleanliness.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
In order to prevent the online cross-platform censorship that could result in inability to deliver our results to the target audiences for educational purposes, our experimental design included the substitution of anal sphincter and feces with human maxillofacial area and Gutella (Fecerro), respectfully.
Human mouth has proven a valid model structure for human anus - as both are the two ends of one same tube, and are located only a few millimetres apart in a human embryo (4). Moreover, both stomata are flanked by a pair of cheek enantiomers, displaying a vertical reflection plane symmetry σv (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. The reflection planes are located at the G-string and nasal septum, respectively.
Localised areas of epidermal trichosis surround both openings in adult Homo sapiens, while such phenomenon is absent in prepubescent humans. Anal trichosis greatly outmatches maxillofacial hair growth in female H. sapiens, while the opposite trend is observed for their male counterparts.
The overall hair growth around both stomata varies greatly from subject to subject, depending on race, skin type as well as fashion trends, but nevertheless displays striking consistency within the same human (5) (color, hair thickness, hair length, hair growth density, the overall affected area, etc).
Ultimately, both stomata are severely affected by consumption of spicy foods (6); moreover, they both form a border between internal mucosae and skin, with their respective epidermal tissue structures resembling each other greatly, especially when compared to the flanking cheek regions.
Since the vast majority of female H. sapiens do not display sufficient facial hair growth to resemble an unshaven anus (male or female), only male laboratory humans were employed. This is the sole reason behind the exclusion of human females from this experimental design - however the same anogenital hygiene results obtained in this study can be applied to female population, too, due to a striking lack of distinction between male and female anuses (7).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
As feces substitute, a simil-fecal substance called Gutella was employed. At room temperature and the average air pressure of 1 atmosphere, Gutella displays the consistency of a soft, well-hydrated, fiber-rich fecal matter, much alike to that of an average vegan (8).
Only the original Gutella, provided by the Fecerro company was employed (Fecerro - a fusion of two latinisms “fecis” - shit and “errare” - committing errors). In order to prevent the lot-to-lot variability, exclusively the Christmas 2018 German edition of Gutella was employed (Fig 2).
Figure 2. The Gutella Christmas 2018 German Edition. No animals or Christmas biscuits were harmed during this study.
The full composition8 of Gutella, Fecerro is reported in Table 1.
For the purpose of this study, the mouth and lips region of each adult H. sapiens male was smeared with approximately one teaspoon of Gutella.
For determining the effectiveness of DRY HYGIENE METHODS, each test subject was asked to thoroughly clean themselves using toilet paper only (brand undisclosed). The overall level of cleanliness was assessed subsequently, using olfactory, palpatory and gustatory methods.
For testing the effectiveness of WATER-BASED HYGIENE METHODS, the same procedure was repeated; yet after a quick initial round of wiping, our test subjects proceeded to wash the smear- and wipe-affected area with water and soap (brand undisclosed). The overall level of cleanliness was accessed by employing the same three methods as above.
Table 1. Average Gutella composition (8)
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The total of five test subjects was employed in the study. Such laboratory humans displayed different ethnical and cultural backgrounds, sexual orientations, relationship-, professional- and financial statuses, as well as different beard grooming habits and styles.
DRY METHOD EVALUATION
In all five cases, no subject was able to reach the level of a completely Gutella-free toilet paper following multiple rounds of wiping. When invisible to the naked eye, all apparently smear-free toilet paper failed to pass the olfactory test, therefore qualifying as soiled.
Visible residue Gutella clusters (also known as "tarzanelli", "Köddel", "tarzančići", etc) were clearly identifiable by naked eye on each test subject (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Test subject nr. 5 displaying typical tarzanelli vulgaris structures firmly adhering to hair, following full three rounds of wiping. A visible smear halo is present on the left cheek, confirming the hypothesis that wiping practice leads to propagation of soil on flaking regions. Our results strongly suggest that “front-to-back” is the only recommendable wiping technique.
No amount of wiping only has yielded their full removal, moreover excessive rubbing was noted to cause localised skin redness and irritation, as well as leave minute toilet paper residues on facial hair.
The olfactory, palpatory and gustatory tests of human labial and maxillofacial epidermis followed. All five test subject were still found to reek of Gutella, despite multiple rounds of wiping. Palpatory tests revealed the typical stickiness of affected areas; the recognisable Gutella taste was clearly identified on each test probe (aka index finger) as well.
Gustatory test (Fig. 4) further confirmed the previous findings, as the distinct trade mark Gutella taste was detected on cheeks, beard and lips of all five test subjects, indicating the presence of residual simil-fecal mater in all test subject.
Figure 4. Laboratory human nr. 4 undergoing the final phase of gustatory test. An average gustatory probe displays between 2000-8000 of papillae containing multiple taste receptors. In our study, we employed a high-end, extra long probe supplied by Heimann Inc., averaging around 8000 papillae. Despite multiple wiping cycles, not yet hardened tarzanelli percussor structures can be seen by naked eye.
WATER-BASED METHOD EVALUATION
Despite being smeared with the same amount of Gutella and limited to only one to two quick rounds of wiping, apt to remove the gross amount of soil, the subsequent rinsing procedures immediately yielded satisfactory results in all five test humans.
No hair-adherent debris or dried up Gutella residues were reported. Olfactory, palpatory and gustatory tests revealed that each subject was, indeed, Gutella-free. Full absence of skin redness and irritation was confirmed for each test subject.
Moreover, prolonged procrastination of washing practices following the initial wiping phase was proven to negatively affect the washing procedure itself, making the removal of dried residues harder. We suggest that such effect may be due to increased solidity and dryness observed in the residue tarzanelli population.
Figure 5. Test subject nr. 3 following one round of rinsing. Correct application of watersports methods lead to immediate and permanent removal of tarzanelli vulgaris, as well as to full clearance of the smear frontier. No skin redness was reported.
Delayed engagement into watersports, however, did not fully hinder the ultimate fecal removal, albeit rendering the entire washing procedure longer: the use of higher water temperatures was reported, as well as increased water and detergent consumption. Even under these conditions, each test subject was able to successfully remove all of the residue fecal-like matter. Skin redness phenomena were absent or significantly lesser compared to dry methods, as no over-abuse of toilet paper was reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study strongly indicates that the water-based anal hygiene practices by far outmatch the wiping-only methods. Moreover, only this former approach managed to yield satisfactory anogenital cleanliness level in all test subject, independent of their wiping style.
No wiping method employed reached an acceptable level of cleanliness.
Other factors such as ethnicity, cultural background, sexual orientation, skin type, relationship and economical status, proved not to have any influence on the outcome. Furthermore, the failure of dry methods to provide sufficient level of cleanliness was independent of the wiping style employed (folders, crumplers, front-to-back, back-to-front, etc).
The average amount of toilet paper consumed during wiping only practices compared to washing methods was five-fold.
Considering the higher ecological impact of toilet paper versus water, we strongly believe that the worldwide switch to water-based methods would benefit not only human lives and human health, but this planet as whole (asshole).
Full video link of our experimental set up can be found here:
REFERENCES
Just google it for fucks sake!
The Digestive Tract and Derived Primordia Differentiate by Following a Precise Timeline in Human Embryos Between Carnegie Stages 11 and 13. Ueno S1, Yamada S1,2, Uwabe C2, Männer J3, Shiraki N1, Takakuwa T1. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2016 Apr;299(4):439-49. DOI: 10.1002/ar.23314. Epub 2016 Jan 30.
Pruritus Ani. Parswa Ansari et al. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2016 Mar; 29(1): 38–42.DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1570391
Anal anatomy and normal histology. Pandey P1. Sex Health. 2012 Dec;9(6):513-6. DOI: 10.1071/SH12034.
The Characterization of Feces and Urine: A Review of the Literature to Inform Advanced Treatment Technology C. Rose, A. Parker, B. Jefferson and E. Cartmell Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2015 Sep 2; 45(17): 1827–1879. DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2014.1000761
