Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

InappropriateTA t1_iwlkkt1 wrote

Reply to comment by Cuillin in TIL, there's a condition called, "Encopresis" wherein the sufferer loses control of their bowels after holding in their stool as long as they can first. by SweetPrism

He didn’t say that everyone holds stuff in as long as they can. Just that when the outcome is pooping your pants, the holding of your bowels preceding that is always as long as you can.

35

ThingsIAlreadyKnow t1_iwlmrmg wrote

I think you both mistook the statement.

  1. Hold your bowels as long as possible
  2. Poop happens next.
10

blsterken t1_iwlnla2 wrote

As someone who has a todler at home, and who works with developmentally disabled adults, this is definitely not true for all individuals.

6

Cuillin t1_iwlzk1m wrote

No, there’s a difference between releasing when you sit down, and “holding it in as long as you can”

When you sit down isn’t necessarily as long as you can hold it; you could probably hold it in longer.

Taking a shit is just taking a shit, but holding it in as long as you can implies there’s a certain kind of um… emergency.

1

InappropriateTA t1_iwmj6r5 wrote

Right, what the guy above is saying I took to mean that people who are in an emergency situation where they have to hold it in and then end up pooping their pants, have held it in as long as they could.

9

Cuillin t1_iwmlx9v wrote

But that’s not what they said. They suggested ALL BM’s are the result of holding it in as long as you can

−4

InappropriateTA t1_iwmqvrf wrote

> By definition, doesn’t everyone poop their pants “after holding in their stool as long as they can”?

I’m not reading it that way. The qualifier about pooping pants is important.

5

welshmanec2 t1_iwnozyf wrote

I had a dodgy belly one time, didn't feel like I needed to poop right at that moment, certainly wasn't holding it in or anything - but I casually coughed and sharted my pants there and then.

3