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.

Full circumcision (particularly for infants) is a ridiculous treatment or prevention for any form of phimosis.
Those who follow Abraham are asked to please consider using his methods of partial circumcision.

DR. MED. F. SAITMACHER
"Sozialhygienische Betrachtung zu einer
routinemässigen Zirkumzision männlicher Säuglinge"
Das Deutsche Gesundheitswesen Jahrgang 15 Heft 23 Pages 1217-1220 (1960)

Routine Infant Male Circumcision
From the Standpoint of Community Health and Welfare
Translation: R. Stuart

(Introduction : Schoeberlein says "Keil states only 1% and Koester 0.5% to 1%, without giving any references for these figures"on p 376 (28))

Extract from Saitmacher on p.1218
Keil states the frequency of phimosis is 1%. This figure may be correct for extreme cases. However, if one takes into consideration cases where the foreskin could not be retracted without difficulty or pain, it appears too low. We found among our 229 youths that 20 had these problems. This corresponds to a frequency of 8.7%. Among a further 64 examined cases we observed a long extension of the foreskin, which however could be retracted more or less without difficulty (27.6%).

Discussing hygiene: "We must conclude that in 33.2% of the examined cases the preputial area was incredibly unclean" The reasons given were "shyness", "laziness" and that "It was completely unknown to some of the examined boys that the foreskin could be retracted."
. . . R.S. Only 8.7% of these boys had a phimosis. Therefore, it appears, an unawareness of the possibility of retracting the foreskin, is not limited to young men with genital disabilities.