15,498
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
* [[Penile cancer]]
[[Category:Physiology]]
Add link in SEEALSO section; Add category.
}}</ref>
[[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]]), smegma doesn't matter, while the [[foreskin]] protects the glans. The illustration "Smegma on a human penis" is therefore not typical for [[intact ]] men who wash their genitals regularly. Hardened smegma accumulations may be softened by soaking with vegetable oil.
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 name="birley1933">{{REFjournal
Smegma is usually washed away for cosmetic reasons. Excessive washing and use of soap inside the [[foreskin]] should be avoided.<ref name="birley1933" />
== Smegma was falsely believed claimed to be carcinogenic ==
Circumcision advocates 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]], {{MD}}<ref>{{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."
[[Robert 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 [[Abraham Ravich]], has evolved into irrefutable dogma, but as modern physicians, we need to recognize that, until proved otherwise, smegma is harmless."<ref name="vanhowe2006" />
==Video==
<br>
* <youtube>v=Do_inwgYR6E</youtube>
{{SEEALSO}}
* [[Cervical cancer]]
* [[Immunological and protective function of the foreskin]]
* [[Penile cancer]]
* [[Penis]]
* [[Preputial sac]]
{{LINKS}}
* {{REFweb
|url=https://www.medicaldaily.com/just-what-smegma-and-why-does-it-make-us-cringe-334414
|title=Just What Is Smegma And Why Does It Make Us Cringe?
|last=Cara
|first=Ed
|init=
|publisher=Medical Daily
|date=2015-05-21
|accessdate=2022-11-19
}}
* {{REFweb
|url=http://www.yourwholebody.org/smegma-101
|last=
|first=
|publisher=Your Whole Body
|accessdate=2020-06-20
}}
|accessdate=2020-12-06
|format=
|quote=Circumcision alters human behavior. Many males who originate in circumcising cultures, and who are likely to be circumcised, have special emotional issues. [[Circumcised doctors]], therefore, tend to behave differently from normal doctors. Those who become doctors may use junk science to promote male circumcision. The myth of cancer protection by circumcision continues to be a favourite claim of such doctors.
}}
* {{REFweb
|accessdate=2021-01-19
}}
NSFW
* {{REFweb
|title=Smegma
|url=http://www.foreskin.org/smegma.htm
|archived=
|trans-title=
|language=
|last=Erickson
|first=John
|init=
|author-link=John A. Erickson
|publisher=
|website=http://www.foreskin.org
|date=
|accessdate=2022-08-29
|format=
}}
{{ABBR}}
{{REF}}
[[Category:Education]]
[[Category:Physiology]]
[[Category:From Intactipedia]]
[[Category:From IntactWiki]]
[[de:Smegma]]