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 encourage early prevention. Jan 2021 : Please read the new summary.

BACKGROUND The Cultural Taboo Available Literature |
DESMOND MORRIS Best Sellers Bodywatching page 218 - 220 Babywatching page156 - 158 Previously I held Desmond Morris in great respect. His anthropological views always appeared balanced and intelligent. However in the best sellers Bodywatching and especially in Babywatching we can review an amazingly illogical argument about circumcision. While we may sympathise with his opinion, we must be amazed at his illogical thinking. Morris offers no discussion of phimosis, but in the best seller Bodywatching: he writes "In fact circumcision has no medical advantages, ..." His opinions over circumcision reach their high point in Babywatching. Whereas the encyclopedias say that they do not know the origins of traditional routine male circumcision, Morris claims "It started as an ancient Egyptian custom ... It seems to have its origin in snake worship" He describes the thought association between snakes and foreskins and then in developing his subject "Apart from the original superstitious reasons".... He writes that "The ritual mutilation spread and spread" -- As Hastings pointed out in 1936, this custom did not spread, this is "proved beyond all doubt by the existence of circumcision in America and Australia where no sane person would allege African influence." His method of proving that "There is not a single valid argument in favour of mutilating baby boys ... "is to present a list of laughable reasons for Circumcision (with no mention of phimosis and no references!) then subsequently he has no difficulty in showing how irrational each idea is "(1) It limits intercourse. ... (3) It makes men holy because the prophet Mohammed was born without a foreskin. (4) It is unclean to have a foreskin. (5) It prevents masturbation. (6) It provides an offering to the gods in the form of a symbol of male virility. (7) It removes a physical defect fro the male body. (8) The Devil hides beneath the foreskin, and therefore to remove this skin is to remove his hiding place and expose him. (9) It caused many medical conditions such as hysteria, epilepsy and nocturnal incontinence. (10) It caused mental illness. ... (12) Its removal makes a boy grow up to 'feel regular'." As Morris freely admits: "All these reasons are complete nonsense." This is correct . Morris says nothing of any of the significant ideas of initiation, fertility, sacrifice. Nos. (2) and (11) are the only vaguely pertinent ideas "(2) It provides a badge of tribal or social allegiance." His answer to this is "It no longer provides a mark of allegiance because it has been carried out on sch a wide range of males from so many cultures and societies in different parts of the world." This is simply untrue ... as shown by the Muslims and Jews where circumcision is still a mark of allegiance. "(11) It caused cancer of the penis in males and cancer of the cervix in their wives." ... he answers without any proof or references "Claims that it causes cancer have now been revealed as completely false." I have not researched the area in depth, however a brief look at the MEDLINE studies on penis cancer show that all studies suggest a connection between phimosis and cancer The one thing Morris does is to demonstrate vividly the irrational thinking which surrounds this subject.