Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

inner skin:outer skin, whats a good ratio?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    For better understanding of how keratin plays a role in the skin and mucosa membrane here is a short animation on the keratinization of the epidermis.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OKosGSm7Ps4

    Over time the layers of keratinocytes develop and desensitization is a factor in the mucosa membrane and glans. I hope this helps those understand how keratin is present in skin and the natural vs expose mucosa membrane & glans are affected. The inner part of the foreskin is important in exchanging antibodies that the woman during intercourse passes on as well as receives. Often the mucosa membrane of the penis is blamed for contraction of STDs and HIV, but there is no evidence that truly supports this as Langerhan cells attract themselves to HIV receptors and attack foreign bodies. This is one of the main argument in the research of AIDs. I hope it helps those understand the purpose of "the inner skin", but also the shaft of the penis which protects this tissue and keeps it from drying out and further keratinization to occur.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Finn View Post
      For better understanding of how keratin plays a role in the skin and mucosa membrane here is a short animation on the keratinization of the epidermis.
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OKosGSm7Ps4
      "The inner part of the foreskin is important in exchanging antibodies that the woman during intercourse passes on as well as receives. Often the mucosa membrane of the penis is blamed for contraction of STDs and HIV, but there is no evidence that truly supports this as Langerhan cells attract themselves to HIV receptors and attack foreign bodies. This is one of the main argument in the research of AIDs".

      Really? ...Source? What research results do you have to support all of this? Or any of this? Third party research results would be appreciated.
      Last edited by Info; 09-02-2017, 08:02 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Here is more evidence and medical journalism as to how langerhan cells have an important role in the mucosa membrane(inner foreskin) and how it is evidence to how the cells react to the AIDs virus in the environment of the foreskin. While the virus will survive a few minutes in open air exposure on the shaft of the penis here is an article that goes into evidence that contradicts superficial initial claims that the langerhan cells are vulnerable to the virus, but actually research has found that it is a "natural barrier" as defined in the article.
        http://www.cirp.org/news/healthday2007-03-05/
        And here is a more updated article defining the langerhan cells and the role they play in the body immune response to the virus.
        http://nltimes.nl/2016/12/08/protein...erdam-research

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Finn View Post
          Here is more evidence and medical journalism as to how langerhan cells have an important role in the mucosa membrane(inner foreskin) and how it is evidence to how the cells react to the AIDs virus in the environment of the foreskin. While the virus will survive a few minutes in open air exposure on the shaft of the penis here is an article that goes into evidence that contradicts superficial initial claims that the langerhan cells are vulnerable to the virus, but actually research has found that it is a "natural barrier" as defined in the article.
          http://www.cirp.org/news/healthday2007-03-05/
          And here is a more updated article defining the langerhan cells and the role they play in the body immune response to the virus.
          http://nltimes.nl/2016/12/08/protein...erdam-research
          Both of these articles deal with the same study, and are from the popular press. Interesting, but this is the definition of light reading, not anything actually authoritative, ie directly from an abstract which was a peer reviewed confirmation of the results. And, if you read it carefully, there is nothing that states that the results of this one study applies even in a general way to all people (in fact there is a contrary statement in one of the articles), which is what your statements implied. Science tries to be as exact as possible. This information is still below that standard.

          Comment


          • #20
            No, Info. These are two entirely different studies a decade apart and by two different health organizations with entirely different researchers. Geijtenbeek was referenced as another researcher and medical journalist for which the recent research held a basis for in further development for study and possible treatment. The second researcher picked up where Geijtenbeek left off a decade ago from his previous study. Ribeiro used reference to support his colleague in a different program entirely to further more research. This shows evidence where you fail to address counter studies or cases. You didn't read it. Light skim reading is the basis of your lack of education on the matter. It's funny that in a previous post you said scar tissue isn't composed of keratin, but it is present and develops and multiply in the body's immune response. You seem to venture in creating more holes in your arguments and unfortunately it's a false narrative you concoct to make you feel you know something others don't. This becoming is pointless as you have no evidence of your claims and digress the discussion into an argument where you have no proof or basis behind anything you say. Sad!
            Last edited by Finn; 09-05-2017, 03:39 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Again, this discussion would be better without sidestepping and indirect straw man argument.

              I'm not discussing scar tissue, I'm replying to the links you provided regarding penile mucosa acting as a barrier to HIV. Technically neither your interpretation of the articles, nor your statements are true. But that aside, it would be a better discussion if you stay on topic. What I've questioned is the light, ie non scientific, treatment of the HIV barrier issue. Again, Science (and Medicine) are as exact as can be. The articles you presented are a light treatment (as the popular press invariably is) because they leave much information out of the discussion. The issue is more complex, and the study's results much less definite than you implied. Consequently, I asked for something more authoritative.

              Like this, for instance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2064110/

              If you read this (it should be easy, it's essentially a very simple summation), you will see that what you implied in your original statement about "foreskin" is more complex (and it includes a significant downside), and it again makes your statement technically not true (I'm sure you'll see this right away).



              And.... since you insist ..... scar tissue is recognized as, and has been confirmed as, a collagen formation (a kind of proteinous tissue), not a keratin formation, neither in whole or in part. This is a very basic fact, taught in US middle schools. Keratin is a chemical manufactured by epidermal and mucosal cells (as part of a normal process) while the peptides which form collagen fiber orientation, and an eventual scar, are blood borne chemicals in a response to an unusual event. Two very different processes, two very different chemicals (in the case of collagen a complex combination of chemicals), so....two very different formations. My suggestion then, is to forget about keratin as a component of scar tissue. Otherwise you stand in opposition to many decades of research into human physiology, and thus in opposition to Science, Medicine, and basic fact. Everything I've said here can be found online. I suggest authoritative sources.

              And it should also be said:

              Penile mucosa is fragile. It can micro-tear quite easily, and often does with various forms of sexual activity. It is still recognized that a break in the physical barrier (a tear in penile mucosa) can act as a portal for the HIV-1 virus. This means that the process you were refering to (Langerhans cells) is, in any event, essentially bypassed with a break in tissue, making Langerhans cells, and penile mucosa itself, not some all-encompassing protection from HIV and "STDs" (STDs is your reference, and as such is also quite vague, and therefore essentially untrue). This physical break, in a physical barrier, can result in HIV-1 transmission to a partner (this is a simplistic description, but still accurate as such).

              So rather than try to characterize me (as you have above) with what looks like an intent to insult me, I would appreciate it if you stay on topic, and try to focus on the ideas presented. They were your ideas, after all.
              Last edited by Info; 09-06-2017, 03:48 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Info, you're just weaving around the facts to support your opinion. You've digressed this discussion to form attacks against me and you create a self-perpetuated image. I am not the enemy. You have made yourself that image. I've seen you over edit and changing your arguments after I showed supporting evidence. First you said keratin isn't in skin, which was wrong. After I showed how keratin played a role in skin and mucosa membrane you changed it to scar tissue doesn't have keratin. And please, keratin is in the family of fiberous structural proteins that make up the skin, not a chemically manufactured byproduct. It's bad when you went on a spiel about HIV and Aids after I made a side comment about the barrier of the mucosa membrane and how it has protective measure against infection. As for the 2007 publication of this medical journalism, I am aware of the dated research that has had no advances for circumcision as it places blame on micro tears. The basis behind blaming micro tears is not due to the foreskin, but the frenulum which can be sensitive to such activities. Due to that off-hand speculation, the researchers and doctors formed an opinion that the mucosa membrane should be removed along with the frenulum. And tears in the foreskin are rare due to the frenulum. It is more due to a shorter tendon that composes of the structure and weakening due to rough activity that these tears occur. Circumcised penises also form tears, especially during puberty as skin growth is restricted and rough play create those stretch marks and injuries. Those tears are evident around the mucosa membrane, near the glans and surgical scar.
                At least the subject of scar tissue was brought up as it is more susceptible to cancer. Whether it is permeable to the AIDs virus there isn't much out there in research to say, but what is certain is different cancer form due to circumcision. It is ironic that doctors push for circumcision to prevent penile cancer only for another type of cancer to become as much as a risk in it's place and with the relatively similar rate of penile cancer. Personally, I find this form of carcinoma more scary as it is due to a medical elective procedure and not something that is easier remedied by use of a proper mild soap & water.
                In any case, the "inner and outer skin" that circumcised individuals lack are equally important in developing. Yes, I can say it's nice to have plenty of both. And it's not just for coverage. It feels nice. I hope those who are restoring recognize both epidermal layers that why different in structure are important to restore. The ratio of the two isn't as important as the sexual contact it creates during intercourse. And for those worried about sensitivity and over keratinization understand that it does break down over time and with the conditions that full coverage enables. Perhaps those who are more far along in their restoration with a fuller coverage can focus on creating a ridged band effect with their mucosa membrane, creating more folds in the "inner skin" with use of a shaped retainer and light tugging, but for those missing too much mucosa membrane it's a harder step. It is as always the greater, more important step to create the proper coverage which nature intended than a primary focus of either.

                Comment


                • #23
                  A pissing contest has been initiated. Time for beer and popcorn!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Exactly what I was thinking. Haha

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Nah, no pissing contest. All anyone has to do is read what I've written, and then read his reply, and judge for yourself.

                      One of us knows what he's talking about (it's basic information). One of us makes a claim, or a statement, and then dodges the associated issues with word salad replies. One of us recognizes an authoritative source. One doesn't. One of us stays on topic, and gives solid, basic information. One of us throws a bunch of random, unconnected information into his post, while denying what he wrote when he's called on it.

                      In both cases it's all right there in little pixels, for your viewing pleasure. The funny thing is, the majority of members here aren't interested in any of it. I'm not interested in any of it. My thing was a claim that one of us made about being in medical school. One of us has avoided that claim, (makes no reference to it), and has done since.

                      So ... how about you guys; did that claim help you believe any of his ideas?
                      .......
                      Last edited by Info; 09-12-2017, 03:46 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Let facts be the basis of discussion in the related discussion of inner outer foreskin ratio, not conjecture or failure to provide proper study to support reasoning for discussion, nor personal attacks which not only have nothing to do with the discussion, but are only a smear campaign to delight someone's ego. I only provide fact with reference to back up what I say, like any medical student does. It's not my fault someone else pees against the wind. Let's stay on track.
                        The mucosa membrane and glan have a endogenous reaction when pre-ejaculate comes in contact during arousal. Obviously as it is meant to be an internal organ, I find old text books published in North America describe intercourse with the word "friction". As it is an inaccurate depiction of the act, friction causes discomfort for the female partner and as far as infection. While the intended loose tissue of the penis is a form of lubricant I find my own natural state holds not so much a ridged band, but more a single fold of mucosa membrane when pulled back. While less defined than other male subjects it's still considered what falls under the ridged band. If one is hyper sensitive in the glans such as myself, the foreskin retracts mid coitus, perhaps a reaction through smooth muscle, but can't be certain on this physical response. Inevitably, the glans is at least partially covered and the uncomfortable hyper sensitivity is relieved. In further findings of this physical reaction, the outer skin narrows and that is certainly due to smooth muscle in the shaft skin. Whether the inner skin also reacts, the outer skin certainly does so. So, for those with this hyper sensitivity issue whether at climax or throughout, I would say to refrain from over tensioning and actions that may have long term consequences of what is already damaged through circumcision. The ratio of mucosa membrane to shaft skin may differ between individuals, but it can be said that these physical responses during indulged activities can return with time and patience. I can not say whether this is a shared response between others, but for those of hyper sensitivity, this pseudo-phimosis is preferable. For those with less sensitivity in the glans, I would focus more on full coverage and sensitivity to return or enhance over time. Not all intact men have this over sensitive reaction I have. It's not pleasant. But comparing with a fellow Quebec male who is intact he has the opposite of myself where his foreskin hinders sensation to his glans as it rolls over during intimacy. He still prefers being intact, but he takes longer to hit peak. So, he uses a ball stretcher to pull his redundant foreskin back to have more sensation during intercourse. So, for those reaching for a CI-10 and don't have much sensitivity you can always look into those techniques. These are two case to go by if sensitivity and questioning inner outer foreskinratio and what would be preferred. While difficult to surmise by just the two subjects of my friend in the boonies and myself it does bring a better understanding of differences in intact males. Perhaps more inner foreskin may allow more sensation transfer signal between the glans and the mucosa membrane during masturbation, but it seems to be up in the air with this case of my fellow Quebec friend who has as much redundant foreskin for that lengthens the time of intercourse. I say full coverage is more important, but depending on your sensitivity of your glans perhaps more shaft skin for hyper sensitive types would be preferable, but more inner foreskin might be for those with less glans sensitivity. Keep in mind these are two cases of individuals with different physical response.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Finn View Post
                          Let facts be the basis of discussion in the related discussion of inner outer foreskin ratio, not conjecture or failure to provide proper study to support reasoning for discussion, nor personal attacks which not only have nothing to do with the discussion, but are only a smear campaign to delight someone's ego. I only provide fact with reference to back up what I say, like any medical student does.......
                          You have to wonder if this member is having us on. Maybe: one of his posts in another thread is fairly lucid. But somehow, when it comes to the realm of human physiology, then the ideas begin to fall apart, and become a sort of random, run-on shotgun presentation. There's a basic unfamiliarity with physiology woven through it. The phrase "cargo cult science" comes to mind, but hey, who cares? Nobody, including me at this point. Know why? The "like a medical student does" statement. It's revealing, and it's all I was in it for, so that's good enough for me. Sooooooooooooooo ... I'm done with it.

                          Post on, sir, and enjoy your day.
                          Last edited by Info; 09-13-2017, 08:12 PM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X