Once they reached adulthood, men's bodies were compared against a model that suggested that the middle-aged man was strong, rational, and virile. His body was charged with the propagation of mankind, the government of a household, and earning a living to support his dependents. Scholars have suggested that men rarely suffered from conditions that afflicted the sexed body, and that when they did so that these conditions did not affect men's sexual self-image. Manuscript records likewise show little anxiety about damage to men's sexual and reproductive function. Yet medical texts presented a different image. They suggested that genitourinary ill health threatened to undermine these manly abilities. Furthermore, they implied that when genitourinary illnesses appeared, they constituted a moment of crisis where the body might be unmanned and undone by distressing symptoms and disastrous long-term effects. The concerns focused on three key issues: impotence, fertility, and the loss of facial hair. Medical and surgical texts were effusive in their descriptions of the male genitalia, emphasizing that the penis and testicles were requisite to be considered a man. Yet hernias, bladder stones, swellings, and injuries all risked damage to these vital organs. Alison Montgomery has suggested that eighteenth-century medical and surgical writers generally displayed little concern for how these disorders could disrupt a man's body or potentially affect manhood; there was little evidence of anxiety about genital completeness, or penile problems. Seventeenth-century texts demonstrate some ambivalence about men's bodies. They praised the complete body but emphasized that injuries and illnesses that limited functionality were not total impediments to a full and active sexual life.