Changes

{{Construction SiteGraphicWarning}}[[Image:Male smegma.jpg|right|thumb|Smegma on a human [[penis]].]][[Image:Female smegma.jpg|right|thumb|Smegma on a human [[vulva]].]]

'''Smegma''' is the name given to a flaky material that accumulates underneath the [[Imageforeskin]] in males, and underneath the [[clitoral hood]] and within the labial folds in females. In males, it is composed of secretions of ectopic sebaceous glands in the [[foreskin]], mixed with secretions of the prostate, seminal vesicles, mucin from the urethral glands, and desquamated epithelial cells.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Parkash |init=S |etal=yes |title=Sub-Preputial Wetness - Its Nature |journal=Ann Nat Med Sci (India) |date=1982 |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=109-112 |url=http:Male smegma//www.cirp.jpgorg/library/anatomy/prakash/ |accessdate=2019-10-16}}</ref> <ref>{{REFjournal |last=Hyman |init=AB |last2=Brownstein |init2=MH |title=Tyson's <q>Glands</q> |journal=Archives of Dermatology |date=1969-01 |rightvolume=99 |thumbissue=1 |pages=31-37 |url= |accessdate=2019-10-16}}</ref> Smegma on is not "filth". It is natural, normal, benign, harmless, and beneficial.<ref name="vanhowe2006">{{REFjournal |last=Van Howe |init=RS |author-link=Robert S. Van Howe |last2=Hodges |init2=FM |author2-link=Frederick M. Hodges |title=The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a human penismyth |journal=J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol |date=2006 |volume=20 |issue=9 |pages=1046 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/vanhowe2006/ |DOI=10.1111/j.1468-3083.2006.01653.]]x |accessdate=2019-10-16}}</ref>

[[Image:Female Intact]] adult males who wash their [[penis]] and [[glans]] periodically with clean water usually do not have smegma between the inner foreskin and glans. In infants and boys whose [[foreskin]] cannot yet be pulled back (natural [[phimosis]]), smegmadoesn't matter, while the [[foreskin]] protects the glans.jpg|right|thumb|The illustration "Smegma on a human vulva.penis" is therefore not typical for [[intact]]men who wash their genitals regularly. Hardened smegma accumulations may be softened by soaking with vegetable oil.

Smegma is Excessive washing and the name given to a flaky material that accumulates underneath use of soap inside the [[foreskin]] in malesshould be avoided, and underneath because soap removes the [[clitoral hoodskin]] and within the labial folds in females. In males, oil so it is composed of secretions of ectopic sebaceous glands in the foreskin, mixed with secretions of the prostate, seminal vesicles, mucin from the urethral glands, and desquamated epithelial cellscan cause non-specific dermatitis that may be mistaken for [[balanitis]].<refname="birley1933">Parkash S, et al. Sub{{REFjournal |last=Birley |init=HDL |author-link= |last2=Walker |init2=MM |author2-link= |last3=Luzzi |init3=GA |author3-link= |last4=Bell |init4=R |author4-Preputial Wetness link= |etal=no |title=Clinical Features and management of recurrentbalanitis; association with atopy and genitalwashing |trans- Its Nature. Ann Nat title= |language= |journal=Genitourin Med Sci (India) 1982;18( |location= |date=1993-10 |volume=69 |issue=5 |pages=400-3) |url=https:109-112.</ref><ref>Hyman AB; Brownstein MH/www. Tyson's "Glands," Archives of Dermatology, volncbi. 99, nonlm. 1 (January 1969): ppnih. 31-37gov/pmc/articles/PMC1195128/ |quote= |pubmedID=8244363 |pubmedCID=1195128 |DOI=10.<1136/ref><ref>Van Howe RS, Hodges FMsti. The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth69. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2006;20(9):10465.400 |accessdate=2020-02-28}}</ref> ==Beneficial aspects of smegma==

Smegma contains natural [[skin]] oils that are beneficial to the health of the [[mucosa]] that covers the [[glans penis]] and the inside of the [[foreskin]]. The oil also has lubricating advantages.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Wright |first=Joyce |init=J |author-link= |title=How smegma serves the penis |journal=Sexology |date=1970-09 |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages= Smegma was believed to be carcinogenic 50-3 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/ |accessdate=2020-06-21}}</ref>

Circumcision advocates Smegma is usually washed away for cosmetic reasons. Excessive washing and use of soap inside the past who alleged a relationship between [[foreskin]] should be avoided.<ref name="lack of circumcisionbirley1933" and genital cancers formerly implicated smegma or smegma-borne pathogens as the causative agent. Only two histologic studies of human smegma have ever been conducted, both of which found it to be perfectly harmless. />

== Smegma was falsely claimed to be carcinogenic == Circumcision promoters of the past who alleged a relationship between "lack of circumcision" and genital cancers formerly implicated smegma or smegma-borne pathogens as the causative agent. Only two histologic studies of human smegma have ever been conducted, both of which found it to be perfectly harmless.  The hypothesis that human male smegma is carcinogenic was first formulated in 1932 by circumcision promoter [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]], M.D.{{MD}}<ref>Wolbarst A. Circumcision and Penile Cancer. The Lancet, vol. 1 no. 5655 (January 16, 1932): pp. 150-153.{{Wolbarst1932}}</ref> Wolbarst also believed that circumcision prevented epilepsy. (In the early part of the 20th Century, the paroxysm of [[masturbation ]] in children was often misidentified as an epileptic seizure.) He wrote: "[Circumcision] diminishes the tendency to [[masturbation]], convulsions and other reflex phenomena of local irritation."

The smegma hypothesis was finally disproven by an exhaustive study by Reddy in 1963.<refname="reddy1963">D.G. {{REFjournal |last=Reddy; I.K. |init=DG |last2=Baruah. " |init2=IK |title=Carcinogenic Action action of Human Smegma," human smegma |journal=Archives of Pathology, vol. |date=1963-04 |volume=75, no. |issue=4 (April 1963): pp. |pages=414-420 |url=https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/wiley/the-carcinogenicity-of-smegma-debunking-a-myth-Q15V0m4Zml |accessdate=2019-10-16}}</ref> His results were: "The conviction that human smegma is a carcinogen could not be substantiated."

See also [[penile cancerRobert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]] & Hodges (2006) concluded: "The purpose of the scientific method is to distinguish between wishful thinking, strongly held opinion, and provable fact. The smegma theory of disease, which began as wishful thinking on the part of circumcision zealots such as [[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Abraham Wolbarst]] and [[cervical cancerAbraham Ravich]], has evolved into irrefutable dogma, but as modern physicians, we need to recognize that, until proved otherwise, smegma is harmless."<ref name="vanhowe2006" />