The evolutionary relevance of foreskin conditions
Why have these hindrances not been deselected?
a Second Practical Theory
Written by Robin . at 30 Nov 2005
Why is there a phimotic ring?
Why did we evolve a phimotic ring?
--- and why wasnt it deselected?
This idea occurred to me maybe because the last few weeks Ive been repairing my roof. This involves roof-covering which one sticks to the roof, folds over the sides, and then nails the sides down. - You must hammer the sides down because otherwise the wind can get underneath and rip the covering off.
Its a simple almost mechanical point.
If we had evolved with infant epithelial adhesions - sticking the prepuce and glans together without any phimotic ring, then the prepuce would easily rip off the glans, causing considerable damage and skin bridges etc.
I wish I could trace the development back to mammals - but I really dont understand the os-penis of mammals and the spongy filling cavaties of the primate penis.
I suspect evolution only had primates to practice with and needed to experiment with synchronising when the protecting ring releases, and when the epithelium keratinizes.- and didnt get the timing quite right.
So, it seems there was a priority for evolution and mother nature to protect the epithelium till it had time to release by itself without being ripped, and it was either irrelevant or supported other evolutionary necessities if this meant that sometimes the ring was still too tight to be sexually functional when the appropriate time came.
The anti circs call the phimotic ring "the preputial sphincter", and claim that its there to protect the glans till late puberty. Yes I could think of it as a preputial sphincter, but I give it another meaning and purpose, : of protecting the epithelium, for the first year or two (so that it does not rip) - and not directly to do with protecting the glans.
Evolution Theory1 THE PECKING ORDER THEORY