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.

Supplementary file to Statistics and "The Validity of Routine Medical Checks" REALISTIC STATISTICS Schöberlein`s statistic of 8.8% relates to phimosis visible when flaccid, among young men. In order to arrive at a realistic figure, we must add 5% who develop a phimosis during adulthood. (considerably more in old age) 2% frenulum. 2% pain and difficulty inherent in some tensions and degrees of phimosis which are not visible when flaccid. Half the (personal opinion of 4%) frenulum cases occur with, and are included in the phimosis figures. Skin bridges (in uncircumcised boys) also appear to occur mostly together with phimotic ring Diseases and infections are also largely covered in these figures, (undeveloped foreskin, --> no natural retraction,--> uncleanliness). How to arrive at Realistic Statistics. What would give us really realistic statistics would be a survey on a group of men who were 80 yrs. old and over. Most older men will not be concerned about the social stigma and thus more likely to tell the truth, especially when they learn that by recording their experience it could help youngsters. Maybe with the skin shrinkage, by the time a man is 100 yrs. old, practically every male needs a surgical correction... ? It would be interesting to make a test survey on a group of old age pensioners. How many were circumcised, when, why... and remember to ask if they consider retraction necessary ... Extra Points about Statistics I believe the total figure is at least 12.5% not because of the medical studies, but simply because of the men I have talked with. I have talked personally with around 40 cases, and have questioned not more than 250 men; (I have certainly not had the opportunity to speak with 4,000 men!) I realise such personally collected statistics are scientifically invalid; All one really needs to say is "If the statistics were only 1%, this would be too many". I believe, if parents were aware of a 1% chance they would want to check their children. I have never seen any valid source references for a 1% figure. (The lowest recorded statistic, is Øster with 2.4% and this was recorded after seven years of annual check-ups and education).