Smegma: Difference between revisions

Add external link.
WikiAdmin (talk | contribs)
m adjusted REFjournal
Line 5: Line 5:
'''Smegma''' is the name given to a flaky material that accumulates underneath the [[foreskin]] 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
'''Smegma''' is the name given to a flaky material that accumulates underneath the [[foreskin]] 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
  |last=Parkash
  |first=S.
  |init=S
  |etal=yes
  |etal=yes
  |title=Sub-Preputial Wetness - Its Nature
  |title=Sub-Preputial Wetness - Its Nature
Line 17: Line 17:
}}</ref> <ref>{{REFjournal
}}</ref> <ref>{{REFjournal
  |last=Hyman
  |last=Hyman
  |first=A.B.
  |init=AB
  |last2=Brownstein
  |last2=Brownstein
  |first2=M.H.
  |init2=MH
  |title=Tyson's <q>Glands</q>
  |title=Tyson's <q>Glands</q>
  |journal=Archives of Dermatology
  |journal=Archives of Dermatology
Line 30: Line 30:
}}</ref> Smegma is not "filth". It is beneficial, benign, and harmless.<ref name="vanhowe2006">{{REFjournal
}}</ref> Smegma is not "filth". It is beneficial, benign, and harmless.<ref name="vanhowe2006">{{REFjournal
  |last=Van Howe
  |last=Van Howe
  |first=R.S.
  |init=RS
  |author-link=Robert Van Howe
  |author-link=Robert Van Howe
  |last2=Hodges
  |last2=Hodges
  |first2=F.M.
  |init2=FM
  |author2-link=Frederick M. Hodges
  |author2-link=Frederick M. Hodges
  |title=The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth
  |title=The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth
Line 50: Line 50:
Excessive washing and the use of soap inside the foreskin should be avoided, because soap removes the skin oil so it can cause non-specific dermatitis that may be mistaken for balanitis.<ref>{{REFjournal
Excessive washing and the use of soap inside the foreskin should be avoided, because soap removes the skin oil so it can cause non-specific dermatitis that may be mistaken for balanitis.<ref>{{REFjournal
  |last=Birley
  |last=Birley
  |first=HDL
  |init=HDL
  |author-link=
  |author-link=
  |last2=Walker
  |last2=Walker
  |first2=MM
  |init2=MM
  |author2-link=
  |author2-link=
  |last3=Luzzi
  |last3=Luzzi
  |first3=GA
  |init3=GA
  |author3-link=
  |author3-link=
  |last4=Bell
  |last4=Bell
  |first4=R
  |init4=R
  |author4-link=
  |author4-link=
  |etal=yes
  |etal=yes
Line 87: Line 87:
The hypothesis that human male smegma is carcinogenic was first formulated in 1932 by circumcision promoter [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]], M.D.<ref>{{REFjournal
The hypothesis that human male smegma is carcinogenic was first formulated in 1932 by circumcision promoter [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]], M.D.<ref>{{REFjournal
  |last=Wolbarst
  |last=Wolbarst
  |first=A.L.
  |init=AL
  |author-link=Abraham L. Wolbarst
  |author-link=Abraham L. Wolbarst
  |title=Circumcision and Penile Cancer
  |title=Circumcision and Penile Cancer
Line 104: Line 104:
The smegma hypothesis was finally disproven by an exhaustive study by Reddy in 1963.<ref name="reddy1963">{{REFjournal
The smegma hypothesis was finally disproven by an exhaustive study by Reddy in 1963.<ref name="reddy1963">{{REFjournal
  |last=Reddy
  |last=Reddy
  |first=D.G.
  |init=DG
  |last2=Baruah
  |last2=Baruah
  |first2=I.K.
  |init2=IK
  |title=Carcinogenic action of human smegma
  |title=Carcinogenic action of human smegma
  |journal=Archives of Pathology
  |journal=Archives of Pathology
Line 124: Line 124:
  |last=Wright
  |last=Wright
  |first=Joyce
  |first=Joyce
|init=J
  |author-link=
  |author-link=
  |title=How smegma serves the penis
  |title=How smegma serves the penis