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 :

It is clear that the majority of the medical profession do not recognise any connection between these genital conditions and the sexuality. ... Initially, most doctors treated me as if I was under a delusion, this was mutual, I diagnosed that the doctors showed symptoms of a taboo.

One suggested very tactfully that if I had a sexual problem, I did not need any operation on the foreskin but should seek "professional help" (ie. from prostitutes), I could add that in my opinion this was one of the most thoughtful comments which I received (simply because he acknowledged what I said about a sexual problem!).

Both diagnosing surgeons failed to see the relative phimotic ring, I saw no reason to point it out and then have to persuade them against a circumcision - first I wanted the "tight band" removing - I had no idea at that time how the "tight ring" would influence my erection . and it was pretty obvious they hadnt either. ... I have had to point it out to several urologists - it obviously takes a trained eye to recognise this pale ring

It seems the practical doctors have only rarely received feedback from individual men on these problems. One urologist suggested that he was being tactful by not asking the men about possible sexual problems to do with their condition (8). It is not the practical doctors job to understand such matters. Urologists and surgeons are trained to be aware of the practicalities: a man experiences pain difficulty or tension, and this requires an extremely small routine job, - the most commonly performed in the world - which in comparison to e.g. heart ops, is truly are not worth worrying about.

Surgeons and urologists operate for cosmetic, so-called "free choice" or hygienic reasons and have no idea of any sexual effects during erection.

It is not the surgeons job to understand sexual behaviour and psychological research has concentrated on parental and environmental phenomenon.

Freud was a taboo breaker and thus he has my full respect; but unfortunately he confirmed the taboos about circumcision (see Oedipus complex). Today, our cultural wisdom unquestioningly interprets adult sexual inhibitions in terms of problems with upbringing and environment.

Years previously I had consulted psychologists with the primary symptom of quelling my erection (to make it manageable for masturbation and when waking in the middle of the night). This should have been an obvious symptom of a difficult foreskin, for anyone who has studied the subject of problems in male sexuality. I never thought of consulting a surgeon or urologist about these disturbances and neither did the psychologists, such ideas simply do not belong to our cultures accepted thinking patterns.

Recently I consulted psychologists again, imagining they would be interested in the true cause of my disturbances. It is clear that psychologists have never researched and have no training or awareness of the effects of genital pain and difficulty from foreskin conditions.

Even those practicing psychologists who specialise in giving sexual advice, receive no training or education on foreskin conditions. I consulted 3 specialists in this field. The idea that foreskin conditions lead to sexual difficulties is categorically rejected.

See also The Psychologists Collective Repression

This taboo is not simply all caused by a medical oversight on behalf of the experts - this is a cultural taboo. The taboo exists at street level.