The hygiene myths experts are trying to break

A woman arrives with persistent skin irritation in the intimate area. Creams and powders have been tried. The rash clears and returns again. After a careful consultation, the cause turns out to be the perfumed sanitary pad she switched to months ago, the one marketed with promises of lasting freshness. The fragrance she trusted as a sign of cleanliness was the irritant the whole time. (Author: Vijay Chaudhry Founder & CEO, Lakons)
Skin in the genital area is among the most sensitive on the body. It absorbs what it contacts, reacts fast to chemical irritants, and tolerates prolonged friction and moisture poorly. The hygiene habits most Indian women follow daily are built around marketing logic, rarely around that sensitivity.

Walk down the feminine hygiene aisle in any Indian supermarket. The dominant message is scent. Pads with odour-lock technology, intimate washes promising all-day freshness, deodorant sprays for the vulval area. Women have been conditioned to treat any natural body odour as a hygiene failure. Fragrance became the fix.
Dermatologists hold a very different view. The synthetic compounds in these products, the musks, preservatives, and stabilisers that carry the scent, rank among the most common triggers for contact dermatitis in the genital region. The itching, redness, and swelling that follow is routinely mistaken for a yeast infection and treated with antifungals. The antifungals do nothing because the irritant is still being applied twice a day.
Mild body odour that shifts across the menstrual cycle is entirely normal. A sharp, unfamiliar odour paired with unusual discharge is a clinical signal worth investigating. A scented spray addresses neither situation correctly.

Most women pick a sanitary pad based on absorbency and price. The top sheet, the layer sitting directly against the skin for hours at a stretch, rarely enters the decision. When that layer is synthetic or contains chemical gels that interact badly with heat and moisture, the skin responds. Redness along the panty line, rawness at the inner thigh, a burning sensation by the end of day. These are contact reactions; the pad is causing them.
Softer, skin-compatible materials exist and the difference in experience is real for women with sensitive skin. The material composition, printed in small type on the back of the packet, rarely gets read. Absorbency claims on the front of the pack drive most purchasing decisions. That habit is worth reconsidering.

The belief that thorough washing equals better hygiene runs deep in Indian households. For most of the body, that logic is sound. For the vaginal area, it works against the body's own systems.
The vagina maintains a naturally acidic pH, between 3.8 and 4.5 in healthy adults. Lactobacillus bacteria sustain this acidity. It is the body's primary defence against infection. Soap is alkaline. Used internally, or applied repeatedly on the external vulval area, it disrupts this balance and creates conditions where harmful bacteria and fungi establish easily. Bacterial vaginosis and yeast infections are both strongly associated with washing practices women follow under the genuine belief they are being hygienic.
Plain water, used externally, once or twice a day. That is the recommendation that holds across dermatological and gynaecological guidance. Everything beyond that is largely a commercial proposition.

India is a warm country and most working women spend the bulk of their day seated. Heat, sweat, and synthetic fabric together create friction and moisture in a region that needs air to stay healthy. Synthetic underwear, leggings worn through a long day, jeans through a humid afternoon, each of these contributes to the cycle of irritation women blame on hormones or weather, when the cause is considerably more straightforward.
Cotton underwear, worn loose enough to allow airflow, changed daily, and fully dried before use, resolves recurring fungal infections in some women after months of failed topical treatments. The solution is unglamorous. The results are consistent. Clinicians recommend it because it works, and because the alternative, synthetic fabric worn day after day in a tropical climate, reliably undoes whatever else is being done right.

Irritation that returns after treatment, odour that has shifted from the usual, discharge that looks or feels different, skin that breaks with minimal friction calls for a doctor’s visit, and a single visit is enough to identify the cause. Bacterial vaginosis, a yeast infection, contact dermatitis from a product, and early vulval skin conditions present similarly. Treating the wrong one extends the problem.
Women across age groups delay these consultations out of embarrassment or the assumption that the symptoms are too minor to merit clinical attention. Months pass and the discomfort continues. A gynaecologist or dermatologist identifies the cause at the first appointment. The hesitation is the only thing standing between the symptom and the solution.
Hygiene routines have become increasingly product-driven over the past decade, while clinical guidance has stayed remarkably simple. Check the material used in sanitary pads, avoid fragrance, wash externally with water, wear cotton, change out of damp clothing, and see a doctor if irritation or discomfort continues for more than a few days. This approach is cheaper, safer, and far less damaging than the layered routines many women are encouraged to follow. The hygiene industry has built a massive market around the idea that more products mean better health, but dermatologists and gynaecologists consistently point to the opposite. The gap between what is marketed and what is medically necessary deserves far more scrutiny than it receives.