uncircumsised i would think..................bit hard to see though.
Amethystfairy:)
Smegma
"The animal kingdom would probably
cease to exist without smegma."
Thomas J. Ritter, MD 
"Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD [co-author of Say No to Circumcision] underscored its importance when he commented, 'The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma.'" ("Where Is My Foreskin? The Case Against Circumcision," by Paul M. Fleiss, MD, Mothering, Winter 1997)
"Infant Smegma: Skin cells from the glans of the penis and the inner foreskin are shed throughout life. This is especially true in childhood; natural skin shedding serves to separate the foreskin from the glans. Since this shedding takes place in a relatively closed space -- with the foreskin covering the glans -- the shed skin cells cannot escape in the usual manner. They escape by working their way to the tip of the foreskin. These escaping discarded skin cells constitute infant smegma." / "Adult Smegma: ... Adult smegma serves as a protective, lubricating function for the glans." ("Care of the Uncircumcised Penis," American Academy of Pediatrics, 1984)
"An infant's glans is very delicate and can be seriously irritated by urine. The foreskin acts as a cover for the glans and produces smegma for a protective coating." (p. 55) / "As to smegma, the normal secretion produced under the foreskin, Gairdner claimed that this substance protects the glans. This is particularly important if wet diapers are left on too long, since decomposition of the urine can cause irritation of the glans if it is not coated with smegma." (p. 64) / "[T]here is not a shred of evidence to support to theory that smegma is carcinogenic." (p. 91) / "All animals produce smegma, and none is circumcised. When mammals reproduce, smegma is deposited. If smegma contained a carcinogen or even an irritant, then the propagation of the species would be jeopardized. No such phenomenon exists." (p. 106) (Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy, by Edward Wallerstein, Springer Publishing Co., 1980)
"Several researchers have tried to prove that smegma causes cancer; all have failed. Not only is smegma not harmful, it is actually beneficial, serving as a protective coating and lubricant for the glans." ("The Circumcision Decision," by Edward Wallerstein, Pennypress, Inc., 1980)
"This process of rationalization has culminated in the supposed relationship between the husband's foreskin and cancer of the genitals--one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of medicine. The theory is that the uncircumcised penis, because it may generate a waxy substance called smegma, can produce cancer of the penis and cancer of the cervix (neck of the womb) ... Further evidence that circumcision is not linked with cancer comes from tests of human smegma. In 1942, the National Cancer Institute conducted careful experiments and found that smegma had no carcinogenic effect whatsoever. This test was duplicated in 1963 on a more extensive scale by Dr. D. G. Reddy and others, with the same conclusions. Negative results have also been obtained in a number of other experiments (Circumcision in Infancy, Charles Weiss, M.D., Clinical Pediatrics, 1964)."
("The Unkindest Cut of All," by John M. Foley, MD, Fact, July 1966)
"Analogous to tears, smegma is the compilation of secretions by ectopic sebaceous glands located in the prepuce, the seminal secretions of the Cowper's gland and the prostate, the mucin content of the secretions of the urethral glands, and the sloughed epithelial cells. It provides the necessary mucosal lubricant and moisturizer and is rich in sexual pheromones. The prepuce normally prevents detection of this phenomenally charged scent until the glans is exposed at the time erection takes place." (Routine Neonatal Circumcision: An Update, by Robert S. Van Howe, MD)
"Is smegma useful? Yes, certainly. It lubricates the cavity between the foreskin of the penis and the glans, thus allows smooth movement between them during intercourse ... Nature has ... provided a natural ointment, smegma, to ensure easy lubrication and protect this delicate region of the male genital organ. / To secure its even distribution, smegma is formed from the whole inner surface of the foreskin cavity ... Smegma production ... is concentrated in the cells of innumerable small prominences, minute microscopic protrusions of various shapes and sizes found on the inner surface of the foreskin cavity ... Sexual intercourse becomes a regular feature of life [in adulthood] and the function of smegma assumes its full value ... Freshly formed smegma ... is a wholesome lubricant--making for ease in erection and smoothness in sexual intercourse." ("How Smegma Serves the Penis," by Joyce Wright, MD, Sexology, 10/70, pp. 50-53)
"If allowed to accumulate for several years, smegma might possibly cause some irritation. But, even this is doubtful." (Modern Sex Techniques, by Robert Street, Lancer Books, NY, 1959, p. 154)
There were pictures too but I can't paste them. But probably better as they are not a pretty sight if you're eating your breakfast.
Regards
Tucker
Thats why I asked for help for you....
You asked for help for me because I was trying to lighten things up?
Er ... OK ...
Now if the the thousands of cherubs display the glans, then it implies that the foreskin has been removed
I didn't want to get graphic. But in classical paintings of thousands of cherubs, all kinds of art, everything I've ever seen basically including the Coventry Satan figure, you can see that they have a thingie down there, it's visible, but it ain't snipped. Your assertion that they all are is incorrect. (Why would a cherub get snipped? Now there's a funny if useless question.)
V
(Why would a cherub get snipped? Now there's a funny if useless question.)
Maybe it's a Jewish cherub...? 😉
it was a long time ago but my first boyfriend was circumsised so i knew no different. my next boyfriend wasnt and to be honest i didnt like it at all!!! all my boyfriends since have not been, so i cant really compare now, i just remember thinking it wasnt as nice with the 2nd one! i thought from a womans perspective it was less enjoyable as there was too much flesh moving about (sorry to be so graphic) he asked me afterwards which one i preferred, i should have lied about it! i actually think they look nicer when they have been and it is supposed to be more hygenic but then i suppose that depends on the man!
another one of ex partners had a very tight foreskin, to be honest i think he should have had it off as it squeezed him when he pulled it back, a bit like an hour glass effect! i think men can be a bit protective of their foreskins - understandably so i suppose! 😮 😉 i remember watching a circumsision years ago on tv and i cried for hours i found it so upsetting. the baby was really crying and was in distress. wish i had never seen it :dft006:
Intersting results of a recent study just reported in the NY Times:
Male circumcision, already shown to reduce the incidence of H.I.V. infection in men, also reduces transmission of both herpes simplex virus Type 2 and human papilloma virus, a study has found....
The study confirms the results of two previous trials in South Africa, and Dr. Gray believes that taken together the studies have significant implications for public health.
“The findings suggest that there are important lifetime health benefits to the procedure,” he said. “I think it’s important that pediatricians consider the lifelong benefits that might accrue from circumcision when they are advising parents on whether the procedure should be performed in baby boys.”
Other experts agreed. Robert C. Bailey, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who has published widely on the subject, said the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional associations “are not taking the lead in providing clinicians, nurses and midwives — the people who assist parents in making decisions,” with the information they need. “And so parents are not being fully informed,” he added.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/health/27std.html?bl&ex=1238299200&en=40ab6d677c5bac74&ei=5087%0A
it was a long time ago but my first boyfriend was circumsised so i knew no different. my next boyfriend wasnt and to be honest i didnt like it at all!!!
I suppose its what one gets used to seeing...
all my boyfriends since have not been, so i cant really compare now, i just remember thinking it wasnt as nice with the 2nd one! i thought from a womans perspective it was less enjoyable as there was too much flesh moving about (sorry to be so graphic) he asked me afterwards which one i preferred, i should have lied about it! i actually think they look nicer when they have been and it is supposed to be more hygenic but then i suppose that depends on the man!
The above and the other study would seem to add weight to the hygiene point. I don't know about it being less enjoyable because when errect the foreskin retracts, so it probably makes little difference during intercourse.
I think that the key difference during intercourse is that a circumcised penis is less sensitive because of the procedure, the additional fondling/itching, the contact of the head with the pants as its always exposed. This would mean that, all things being equal, a circumcised pereson would be less likely to ejaculate very early. This is a plus as women generally take longer to climax, and some never do during sex - anything that helps the male delay his climaxing should help....
another one of ex partners had a very tight foreskin, to be honest i think he should have had it off as it squeezed him when he pulled it back, a bit like an hour glass effect! i think men can be a bit protective of their foreskins - understandably so i suppose! 😮 😉 i remember watching a circumsision years ago on tv and i cried for hours i found it so upsetting. the baby was really crying and was in distress. wish i had never seen it :dft006:
Yes, I think that people in a culture get used to something, and the opposite can seem unthinkable even when its clearly a pain...
The documentary on TV that you watched though was not in my view representative - I'm from a culture where male babies are always circumcised and I've never heard of babies crying and distressed over it. Its a very simple, painless procedure that has been done for thousands of years, in ancient times by people who had very little medical knowledge or concept of basic hygiene.
Its a very simple, painless procedure that has been done for thousands of years, in ancient times by people who had very little medical knowledge or concept of basic hygiene.
I can guarantee you one thing: I'd cry if anyone tried it on me!
Hi,
I have heard the same issue earlier. A friend of mine had experienced the same problem. He then went to a doctor, discussed his issues and finally decided to circumcised. As he underwent virtually painless circumcision, it wasnt that painful. He got circumcised at [url]Dr.Buenafe's clinic[/url] and is now content without any physical issues. As every individual is different, your husband's problem could be resolved through medication without the need of getting circumcised. Yet, I recommend taking expert advice before you both take a decision.
Thank you,
Jerry.