The concept that an anatomical deficiency in the erection can influence the sexuality appears to contradict every advance in understanding which our culture has made over the last century. - Psychological research has concentrated on parental and environmental phenomenon, and the urological disciplines do not include sexual behaviour. Scientific research has overlooked this area of human sexuality.



It never ceases to astound and confuse people that I (and numerous other men) have taken till adulthood and even fairly late in adulthood to discover such a rudimentary ailment and inadequacy in his external body.

First, to answer the implication "weren`t you rather stupid?" well yes!, - but I feel this question may also cause some embarrassment among the doctors who have examined me over the years, the authors of the sexual advice books which I read, and the therapists and even experts in sexual research who I have consulted.

It often takes a long time for people to discover things about themselves, and this happens with lots of people in lots of different walks of life (even when there is adequate available information). Questions and doubts apparently occur with this subject because men are notoriously rumoured to be worried about their penis and every person on the street has understood that sexual problems are inevitably the result of early upbringing, parents and a resultant psychological deficiency.

Any anatomical problems of the penis are generally understood to be illusory. Even the unbiased listener if they understand that men do indeed have anatomical complaints, they reason with accepted modern awareness that some sort of psychological imbalance must have been the primary influence which allowed the anatomical disposition to become a problem. - This is not the case.

It is necessary to correct these misunderstandings, and analyse and describe this aspect of human nature.

The Late Initiate - 1 of 11