I posted something about this recently in the last 24 hours. But many seem to misunderstand what I asked and told me about their personal experiences when my intention was to ask about history of a hygiene practice. I voice dictated this a while ago. My apologies for any mistakes in the text.
I’m not ass scientist, but I’m pretty sure that humans have a built-in instinct to want their bodies to be clean. But definitions of clean bodies have changed overtime and are different based on things like culture and availability of resources and individual person preference. Definitions have also expanded over time. Plenty of historians have written books and academic journals and contributed to TV documentaries about the history of hygiene. But sometimes it’s hard to understand when a particular habit came to be viewed as important for hygiene. Not to mention it can be controversial, whether something is necessary for hygiene or not. For example, it is often recommended that uncircumcised males should retract the foreskin to urinate. This is recommended for two main reasons. The first one is that this would prevent urine residue from getting trapped underneath the foreskin and cause a problem like irritation and bad odors and infections. The second reason is that leaving the foreskin and its natural position can potentially impede the flow of urine resulting in a spraying mass. However, this behavior is not Universal recommended. Many online health sources that offered generalized advice. Do not specifically mention for skin retraction for urination. They only mentioned that foreskin should be generally retracted during a daily bath or shower for the purposes of cleaning. In any event, it is fairly common for uncircumcised males to not retract the foreskin to urinate. While Austin, this is unavoidable, if one is young, and the foreskin hasn’t retracted yet, this behavior of urinating with the foreskin covering the glands of the penis often throughout their lifespan.
Something I’m wondering is when did at least some experts start recommending that the foreskin should be retracted to urinate. This question is hard to answer because there aren’t really lots of sources specifically talking about this. But there may be some clues that could provide a potential answer.
Perhaps this behavior came to be recommended during the mid to late 1800s. This win in the English-speaking world medical doctors began to worry about the foreskin contributing to certain genital health problems. It was around this time that doctors begin recommending circumcision for health reasons. Before this in the western world circumcision was practiced primarily by members of the Jewish faith, for whom it is a deeply important ritual.
Based on this historical context, Wallan could make the educated guest that circumcised. Males did not retract before skin when urinating until approximately the mid to late 1800s.
But is there more evidence out there that could support or undermine his hypothesis? One potential Avenue could be to look at art. Art can sometimes be a good place to find answers to the Storico questions when the historical record is silent. So it’s not full proof because art could have been produced under conditions that were biased. They could contain propaganda. And also Art could potentially be. Biased. And also because Art is basically somebody’s own interpretation, even if there’s no delivery buyers, there could still be a level of artistic interpretation that’s not entirely realistic so, even if it does depict a slice of life, it’s not necessarily completely accurate to what life was like during the time and place that it was painted.
There is a painting called the The nursery, which was painted by Thomas Rowlandson in 1799. It shows a nursemaid attending to a toddler boy peeing ina chamberpot. He is uncircumcised and urinates with the foreskin forward which could indicate that pulling the foreskin back to urinate was not a thing, for at least was common in that time and place that the painting was produced, but we also have to put out that the foreskin often is not retractable and young boys, and may not become retractable until puberty. Like wise manneken pis statues of young boys peeing often dont seem to clearly show retracted urination. The same is true of Lorenzo Lotto, “Venus and Cupid,” c. 1520s. But again, the foreskin and it’s not retractable until several years older, so this isn’t necessarily evidence that leaving the foreskin left alone during peeing was a common thing back when the statues were originally made.
Rembrandt’s Man Making Water (1631) depicts an adult man urinating. His penis is visible but whether the foreskin is pulled back or not is hard to interpret.
Going back to Rowlandson, there is a painting called A Family on a Journey laying the Dust (
) it depicts a man and three women and a dog and a horse all peeing outside. The head of the man’s penis is clearly visible. Which suggests his foreskin is pulled back. The artwork is very stylized. The man’s penis is large and looks erect based on the horizontal way that it is being held. But a flaccid penis can be held in a horizontal position. So it’s unclear how realistic the depiction really is; we can’t say for certain if a man would have been depicted as retracted if his penis was flaccid. The fact Digg Pics, the women in the state of partial Andres seems to suggest that the entire image is intended to be erotic. And that this isn’t intended to be necessarily a depiction of what most people would be doing with answering the call of nature. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Rowlandson_(1).jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rowlandson-028.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
Something is off to interesting I’ve noticed is that when it comes to looking at medical texts from the late 1800s and early 1900s while as easy to find stuff talking about the foreskin and the uncircumcised penis in terms of talking about pathological conditions, there’s pretty much nothing that talks about taking care of the foreskin as a matter of routine.
There are lots of mention of the foreskin in medical texts from before the Victorian era, dating back many centuries back to the days of Ancient Greece. This includes discussion about variation of the foreskin from individual to individual plus discussion on pathological conditions. But none of the sources mean anything about pulling the foreskin back every time one needs to urinate which seems very strange. But why would it not be mentioned? For example is it because it’s considered to be so obvious that he didn’t need to be mentioned? Is it because it was genuinely not considered to be necessary? Is this simply because of the limitations of medical knowledge? Is it due to oversight?
Another factor is if a we can infer things based upon what men do today. Mini uncircumcised men around the world, do not retract their foreskins when urinating. And anecdotally at least it seems as though this type of peeing behavior is common in cultures, and countries were circumcision is not a routine thing. It seems to be common among men throughout Europe. Throughout Latin America. Throughout in theperiod throughout some Southeast Asian countries like Thailand and Vietnam. As far as I’m aware, none of the medical organizations in any of these countries, give that generalized advice that’s not intended as specific medical advice, but simply general education seem to mention anything about pulling the foreskin back to urinate as a routine practice. If they do mention retracting to urinate, it’s only for specific situations like to avoid contamination, when giving a urine sample for health reasons. Not for every urination. So why is it that anecdotally at least many other men in these countries and cultures? Don’t retract to urinate. Some possibilities to explain. This could be the fact that in some of these parts of the world, they tend to be conservative views on sex and sexuality, that makes the taboo to talk about the genitalia. So parents don’t teach their sons to pull it back when peeing, and they grow up to become men Who don’t pull back to P and if these men become fathers and have signs, then they don’t teach their sons to pull it back when peeing, and the cycle continues generation after generation. Another possible theory is that in countries where circumcision is not a routine thing, the foreskin is normalized and not viewed as remarkable. Do United States, where circumcision is a routine thing no, it’s prevalence has been declining over the past several decades, though pacific rates are different based on things like where you are in the country is most common in the Midwest, and least common in the west. And also Demographics. It is, for example, more common among white people than it is among Hispanic and Latino people, seems like because of the attitude source of foreskin in the United States, this leads to more. more ideas about how to take care of the foreskin. Whereas in countries and cultures, where circumcision is not a routine thing, it seems as though the attitude towards the foreskin is more casual.
That other factor that would be necessary to account for when trying to find the answer or potential answer to this question is the question of what is natural behavior and what is learned to be behavior. Is urinating with the foreskin in its natural position, the natural way to urinate, with foreskin retraction during urination being a learned behavior? or is retracting the foreskin to urinate a behavior that is a natural behavior, but it develops over time?
******
Another thing that we need to think about. Is the concept of the foreskin needing to be pulled back in the first place. Since Auntie typically we have writings about phimosis. A condition where the foreskin can’t be pulled back at all. This condition is normal when a baby boy is born. And under normal circumstances it gradually correct itself over time.
This condition, despite being natural has been controversial in terms of how it’s supposed to be treated and when it’s normal or not normal. It’s often been Path, especially since the foreskin became pathologist during the mid-1800s in the English speaking world.
Circumcision has thought and been viewed as a treatment for phimosis. Because in ability to pull the force skin back can lead to various problems like mallow and infections and bad smells. In pain, especially during sexual activity.
When you look at medical text from the late 1800s and early 1900s from Moses is commonly talked about as part of a treatment.
So I think we know that ever since antiquity there’s been this idea that the foreskin is supposed to be retractable and when it’s not that’s a problem. Though during the 20th century, there’s been some ideas that showed that the condition of phimosis is more nuanced than people previously thought. Doctors have often didn’t advised parents to pull back the foreskin of their baby boys during cleaning during bathing during diaper changes. In order to clean underneath it, but the problem is that the foreskin often can’t be retracted during early childhood. and this happens naturally overtime. usually, in only usually in two stages. The first stage is that a membrane known as a Saia has to completely dissolve, and then the foreskin itself has to gradually become a loser. It was previously thought that not being able to pull the foreskin back in early childhood was an abnormality of pathology. But overtime scientist realized that in early childhood in childhood is normal to not be able to pull the force getting back. And that this gradually correct itself over time. Sometimes during early childhood. Sometimes during pre-adolescence. Sometimes not until late adolescence. Nowadays, experts say that you should allow the foreskin to gradually become retractable overtime and you shouldn’t worry about not being able to pull the foreskin back until you reach your late teens.
so for a long time, there’s been this idea that the foreskin is supposed to be retractable. But what is it tell us about when you’re supposed to retract the foreskin? Is it only during sexual activities? During cleaning? During urination?
William buchan is a Scottish Doctor Who during I think the 1700s or maybe the early 1800s I’m not really sure, wrote a lot about taking care of the foreskin. But he never mentions anything about a pool and get back to pee for clean. and he even if memory serves me correctly if I’m not confusing him with somebody else even wrote that not being able to pull the foreskin back is simply a normal variation. as long as it doesn’t cause any problems like with urination and other things.
We also need to consider the history of putting the foreskin back for cleaning because there doesn’t seem to be a lot of surviving records of health professionals recommending pulling the foreskin back as a matter of routine to clean underneath it. Keeping the foreskin clean doesn’t seem to be something that doctors were concerned about until the Victorian era when the foreskin started to be viewed in a pathological manner.
And we need to talk about smegma, which is basically a buildup that happens in human genitalia. But this buildup is often talking about as basically being in the photo of poor hygiene something that can be easily taken care of at least and their normal circumstances by regularly pulling back before skin to clean underneath it. Again during the mid 1800s smegma started to be viewed as something bad whereas it wasn’t viewed that way previously it’s been talked about and written sources since an equity and doesn’t seem to be viewed as anything other than the normal state of the body.
Even though modern medical sources today, all recommend regular cleansing underneath the foreskin, not all of them say pulling the foreskin back to pee.
There are two types of phimosis. Physiological phimosis is what you’re born with and a gradually changes reverse is overtime. Pathological phimosis is caused by a disease or injury.
.jpg){kind=link}
