|
|
Macky
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
Yesterday, our 18 Year old son was about to ask his nephrologist a question but decided that it was more appropriate to ask me. Then when we got in the car, he laid a neologism on me. I honestly told him that I didn't know if it was a medical name for part of a penis. I had to go to the "Urban Dictionary" to find its meaning. The definition seems to uphold the sex neutral tradition of considering circumcised men as mutilated and inferior. 
That doesn't bother me. I'm happy with my circumcision and I'm glad I don't produce smagma as defined below.
So any suggestions on what to tell my son?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smagma
smagma 34 up, 18 down love it hate it
Not actually sweat at all, caused by sports, sexual activity, regular wear & tear, or other wise. It is the pastey white substance found under the foreskin of a man, usually during warmer weather, or over heating for a period of time with out minimal bi-daily cleaning. Also fefered to as Fromunda Cheese, which is the delighful cheese that you get from-under your foreskin. Incomplete men with out the forskin are not capable of producing this substance, thus they do not have the musk or "mojo" that men with foreskins do have. The poor foreskinlees souls tend to be less satisfying in the sack, and get uglier women.
[edited to put the Wink" right - timmy]
[Updated on: Tue, 28 April 2009 16:22] by Moderator
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I have never seen it spelt "smagma", nonetheless this is a benign substance, yet subject to myth and mystery.
Use logic when considering it. The glans and the inner foreskin are mucous membrane, like the eyeball and the inner eyelid, and smegma is the result of the manifold secretions, cowper's fluid, sperm, old pee, bits of sloughed off membrane etc that gather there normally and naturally. Nature put it there and nature cleans it out. It is the result of keeping the place in good condition. I think it is a bit like sleepydust in the eyes after sleeping.
As a society we have learned to dislike natural odours. Smegma has quite a string natural odour, and we associate strong smells with decay and corruption. So we have become vigorous in rooting them out with soap, water, deodorant etc.
It's a simple matter to flush the smegma away with water by retracting the foreskin and removing the deposits.
Smegma has been blamed for causing penile cancer (no real evidence) and praised for preventing it (no real evidence). Ladies seem to find it unpleasant, but US ladies apparently dislike foreskins anyway (fear of what you do not know?).
I'm not a fan of having it. I washed mine away. But it is truly unimportant.
[Updated on: Tue, 28 April 2009 16:23]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Macky,
The Urban dictionary is wrong. First the word should be spelled smegma. Second it is produced by a pair of sebaceous glands in the corner of the frenulum and(I think) only in an extremely vicious circumcision would these glands be cut out. Most circumcisions leave the frenulum intact or mostly intact and the glands emit their product at the deepest corner.
When I was young man I certainly noticed the very strong smelling smegma produced by these glands and by squeezing the glands (not the glans) I was able to express the smegma in the ducts on its way to where the space under the foreskin would have been if I had still had one. In people with a foreskin it tends to follow the path round under the glans in the deepest part of the foreskin fold. And, of course, that is the place where people wash it out.
So it is untrue to suggest the circumcised don't produce it, as I am certainly circumcised.
But I think it has a purpose and I think that is to separate the mucous membrane of the glans from the mucous membrane of the inside of the foreskin. I have at least one friend who has suffered adhesion between these two mucous membranes and that led to inability to roll down the foreskin (and pain in trying to do so).
Cleanliness may be next to godliness but too much cleaning under your foreskin may be bad for you!
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
acam wrote:
> But I think it has a purpose and I think that is to separate the mucous membrane of the glans from the mucous membrane of the inside of the foreskin. I have at least one friend who has suffered adhesion between these two mucous membranes and that led to inability to roll down the foreskin (and pain in trying to do so).
What may interest you is that there is no such thing as "adhesion", nor are the supposed two mucous membranes actually two membranes. There is a term that escapes me at the moment for a single mucous membrane which, gradually, parts. The inner foreskin and the glans are one single surface, and the junction retreats gradually over time. Imperfect separation leads to what folk used to describe as adhesions.
The rather unpleasantly rough forced separation of what become "two" surfaces happens during neonatal circumcision, however supposedly gently the procedure is performed. The penis is intended by nature, by "god" if you like, to develop naturally.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel out of this. I haven't produced visible smegma since my early teens.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Timmy,
I wonder what they were then.
I had squeezed and produced a small quantity of sebaceous substance that had the distinctive and very strong smell of smegma. Since I did not like the smell I used to rid myself of it.
It wasn't done once or twice.
I didn't know that smegma also covers newborn babies or that the word was used of the product of other sebaceous glands. I thought it was the distinctive strong smelling thick stuff I found.
When I had and squeezed adolescent spots they too produced stuff of the same consistency (it squeezed out like toothpaste out of tiny toothpaste tubes), but that didn't smell.
I looked at the first seven or eight pages of what Google found for 'sebaceous glands smegma' and the older citations seem to think there are glands and the newer stuff doubts it.
But, if the doubt is well founded, where did the waxy strong smelling stuff I found come from?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re Foreskins: This Sounds Yucky 
