This site discusses phimosis in its specific forms of phimotic ring, frenulum breve, adhesions or skinbridges. During erection these conditions inhibit the relationship between foreskin and glans. This functionally restricts the erection, and thus has an effect on the sexuality. With our culture's attitudes on health care, it would be appropriate to monitor boys before puberty and encourage early prevention.

2012 : note from author: My previous idea of monitoring boys before puberty is impractical, unecessary and now only of historical interest. please see Postscript.

updates and supporting education on new site :

Am I Alone? - The Cultural Taboo

When I first discovered my condition, the doctors rejected the idea that this condition influenced my erection and my sexuality. I thought my situation must be a complete rarity. I started to research through the literature and question other people about their experiences.

When I first wrote to the Kinsey Institute and the British Health Education Authority (Oct '94), my sample group consisted of 4 men who had experience of phimosis. Talking with these first few men was more informative than over a hundred publicly available books.

When first going on line (Feb 96) I`d talked with around 120 people and directly with 15 cases. (see impressions from my first sample group).

Now, (Feb 2001) I have talked personally with over fourty cases, and heard through the www. of at least 1,000 more. All experiences are described in The Passages to Manhood, not one experience disagrees with my descriptions.

We seem blinded by cliches about male sexuality e.g. that the size shape etc. has nothing to do with the sexuality, and that no male should worry about their penis, because "everyone's normal we're all just a bit different"

Male pride avoids this subject. The subject of genital difficulties and especially foreskin difficulties is socially unacceptable, men don't complain, and especially about foreskins.

Occasional medical studies point out the lack of research. "It cannot be masculine pride alone ... which has caused the phenomenon to be neglected by male physicians and psychoanalysts, ... resulting in a general or collective repression of the phenomenon." (Grewel)

"The request for circumcision to alleviate painful erections and intercourse and frenular tears is not widely appreciated in the urological literature. Being unpublished, these complaints can easily be ignored... " (Pienkos)

My impressions from practicing doctors appear to confirm this, and substantiate Grewel's view of the psychologists collective repression.

Our male dominated medical profession appears totally blind on the subject of phimosis. The clearest demonstration of this is the sheer lack of terminology. The conditions comprising phimosis have for centuries not been named. On the other hand names for infections caused by phimosis are of sentence long latin complexity. Naming is a clear sign of cultural recognition

This is added to the confusing effects of over a century of anti and pro circumcision fanatics, which has left our culture with a legacy of rumours and red herrings about foreskin conditions and circumcision.

The basis of the taboo lies in deeper areas. Perhaps the evolutionary and social insignificance of the sexually inadequate male plays a role.

When I first started thinking about circumcision and phimosis, I used to get a gut reaction in my stomach. I could only think about it for a short while and then I`d feel disgusted and I had to stop, ... but it would keep coming back, ... Why did I feel this revulsion for the theme?

Background - 2 of 2