Male Initiation and the Phimosis Taboos
UNDERSTANDING PHIMOSIS

ITS CONSEQUENCES AND EARLY PREVENTION

March 2021
808 words

Of all the problems in today's world –
phimosis would be the easiest to resolve.

There are many degrees and combinations of the different forms of phimosis. In Germany phimosis was found in 8.8% of boys [1]. However, this statistic excludes figures for short frenulum; or for relative phimosis, which can only be observed during erection. Statistics for short frenulum are only measured in boars at 5.7% [2] and bulls at 2.1% [3]. Although the os penis is a different structure, phimosis is also problematic and farm animals are monitored by the British Breeding Association because "Copulation failure in food animals can be economically devastating to producers."[4]

The most prestigious and influential study in the English-speaking world gives statistics between 1% and 2% [5]. It was conducted over a period of seven years, with boys being monitored and educated about foreskins every year. The doctor who wrote the study reports this, but did not take into account that his monitoring and education may have raised awareness, and that this encouraged boys to experiment with and stretch their own foreskins.

It is common medical knowledge that phimosis causes pain and difficulty when retracting the foreskin, and that this often happens at the beginning of puberty or during first sexual intercourse; this is the main indication for circumcision. However, these difficulties have hardly ever been researched. Why does our culture allow such painful difficulties to happen in the first place? Even if treated promptly, such spoiled and painful first intimate experiences are guaranteed to leave disturbing memories.

However, maybe such cases are the lucky ones. Psychological research never mentions that healthy, non-masochistic boys avoid pain and difficulty and thus develop avoidance behaviours. In 1990, Beauge [6] described the mechanics of masturbation with phimosis, and that gentle stretching of the phimotic ring can alleviate the condition. But he never discussed the sexual fantasies associated with these forms of masturbation.

Even in early childhood, a young boy with epithelial adhesions sticking the foreskin to the glans, will avoid the pain (and danger) of forcefully breaking them. Whereas an uninhibited boy will freely pull on and play with his ‛bottle nose dolphin’ in the bathtub.

Following puberty, the anatomical inhibition of the foreskin has a direct and active effect on self pleasuring behaviour. Phimosis preconditions the sexual behaviour, fantasy, and the consequent social behaviour.

Each specific phimotic condition has a specific effect. Masturbation in the flaccid state does not support penetrative fantasies. The potential pain of the frenulum or relative phimosis is normally associated with subconscious fear and its consequences. A tighter phimotic ring directly restricts stimulation and awareness of the glans, – and though imagination plays the largest role in sexual matters, if the corporeal self-awareness is limited, then the imaginative fantasy will also be limited. All these conditions physiologically inhibit the full and normal potential of the anatomical member, and thus openness, versatility, and fulfilment in sexual fantasy and behaviour.

In addition, a phimosis can tighten throughout adulthood when the skin becomes less elastic. Even small problems in this area are going to become fully conscious to those affected within days, and with modern medicine and prompt treatment such cases have no profound psychological consequences.

However, since Greek and Roman times until the late 1800s, there was no readily available treatment for phimosis and very little awareness.

In animal herds, phimosis is probably an advantage because some alpha animals do not compete in the mating rituals, and are thus free to take care for the group. But in a monogamous society, it means that both males and females are affected. Over generations, 8.8% would affect the whole culture. Phimosis stimulates and supports all forms of non-penetrative, inhibited and perverse sex from dominas' slaves to paedophilia. Basically, it reinforces tendencies towards loneliness and confusion, and it wastes love.

This is a deeply seated chaos factor in our culture. And these days it's senseless: The modern solution to phimosis would be a few drops of an enzyme solution to release any stubborn painful epithelial adhesions between glans and foreskin, at an early age. This would enable infant boys to play with and stretch any tightness out of their own foreskin.

This has never been researched, however there may be a starting point in the anthropological literature, with Bryk's account of Tahitian boys, who make use of the urine collected in the pocket of the foreskin to loosen up their own adhesions [7]. If urine acts as a catalyst, the remedy may be as simple as a few drops of olive oil, or salt water.

The earlier a boy can develop a pain-free, comfortable relationship with his essential physical and anatomical masculinity, the greater the chance is that he will develop a healthy sexual relationship with himself and others.

map
Technical
You will need an old fashioned desktop screen to read all the other pages. Help to reprogram the site would be appreciated.

Chapter One: The Conditions
Chapter Two: From Innocence to Ignorance
Chapter Three: Anthropology
Chapter Four: Solutions

References
[1] Schöberlein Dr. Med. Werner; 1966 "Bedeutung und Haufigkeit von Phimose und Smegma" Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift; 7, p. 373 - 377 / Translation R. Stuart: "The Significance and Frequency of Phimosis and Smegma"

[2] Wohlfarth E; 1990 "Zur Persistenz des Frenulum praeputii beim Eber" Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr.; Dec 1;103(12):406-9 / Translation R Stuart: “Persistence of the Preputial Frenulum in Boars" "Due to Persistent Frenulum praeputii, the inability to fertilise was found among 5.7% of breeding boars."

[3] Spitzer JC et al; 1988 "Breeding Soundness Examination of yearling beef bulls" J Am Vet Med Assoc Nov 1;193(9):1075-9 "Yearling beef bulls were subjected to a breeding soundness examination . . . 862 bulls, . . . Of 109 bulls classified as unsatisfactory, 16.5% had persistent penile frenulum." (i,e. 16.5% of 109 unsatisfactory = 18. 18 of 862 = 2.09% overall)

[4] St Jean G; 1995 "Male Reproductive Surgery" Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract Mar;11(1):55-93

[5] Øster Jacob; 1968 "Further Fate of the Foreskin" Archives of Disease in Childhood British Medical Association, April 43:p.200-203 / Relevant Quotes / Full Text

[6] Beauge Michel M.D.; 1991 "Traitment Medical du Phimosis Congenital de l'adolescent" Quimper, France. Thesis for the University Diploma of Andrology. Director of Studies Professor G. Arvis. Faculty of Medicine Saint-Antoine University Paris V1 University Year 1990-1991 / Relevant Quotes / Translation by Dr J. P. Warren: "Conservative Treatment of primary Phimosis in Adolescents"

[7] Bryk Felix; 1931 "Die Beschneidung bei Mann und Weib" Gustav Feller. New Brandenburg. Saite 173. "Bei den Einwohnern von Tahiti verwenden die Jungen ihren in der Vorhautstasche eingestauten Harn zur Auflockerung und Erweiterung der sonst an ihrer Eichel fest anhaftenden Vorhaut." Translation DeepL.com "Among the inhabitants of Tahiti, the boys use their urine, which is trapped in the foreskin pocket, to loosen and widen the foreskin, which is otherwise firmly attached to their glans." / Full Translation : David Berger MA "Circumcision in Man and Woman" American Ethnological Press New York (1934) AMS Press (1974) p. 202.

not included but interesting: [8] ุster [5] quoting : Burrows, H; 1944 "The Union and Separation of Living Tissues as Influenced by Cellular Differentiation" Yale J. Bil. Med.,17,397. "Separation results from keratinization of the cells under the influence of androgen"

Original Old Index Page