It actually is medically necessary if the foreskin is too tight (phimosis). I had it done on the doctor’s recommendation and my sex life life greatly improved. But this was as an adult, so not really the same thing.
Yeah, but that’ super rare. Only around 0.6% of boys experience it before they’re 15. Even if you’re born with true pathological phimosis, circumcision is usually a last resort because topical steroids are safer and have a pretty high success rate.
“The incidence of pathological phimosis is 0.4 per 1000 boys per year or 0.6% of boys are affected by their 15th birthday.”
In this context age is not relevant as I am using the “synonym of man” definition of “boy”
I am talking about the fact that there are non-boys with penises (Such as myself, I am AMAB agender) and boys without penises.
There are better terms that could be used here. In this particular case, for example:
“The incidence of pathological phimosis is 0.4 per 1000 boys per year or 0.6% of boys are affected by their 15th birthday.”
“The incidence of pathological phimosis is, counting only people who have penises, 0.4 per 1000 people per year; 0.6% are affected by their 15th birthday.”
Less concise but accuracy>conciseness in this context
It actually is medically necessary if the foreskin is too tight (phimosis). I had it done on the doctor’s recommendation and my sex life life greatly improved. But this was as an adult, so not really the same thing.
Yeah, but that’ super rare. Only around 0.6% of boys experience it before they’re 15. Even if you’re born with true pathological phimosis, circumcision is usually a last resort because topical steroids are safer and have a pretty high success rate.
“The incidence of pathological phimosis is 0.4 per 1000 boys per year or 0.6% of boys are affected by their 15th birthday.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3329654/
penis != boy
better terminology could be used.
You’re right. My bad
If we were talking about adults yeah, but the study is mentioning 14 year old boys…
In this context age is not relevant as I am using the “synonym of man” definition of “boy”
I am talking about the fact that there are non-boys with penises (Such as myself, I am AMAB agender) and boys without penises.
There are better terms that could be used here. In this particular case, for example:
“The incidence of pathological phimosis is, counting only people who have penises, 0.4 per 1000 people per year; 0.6% are affected by their 15th birthday.”
Less concise but accuracy>conciseness in this context