TOPIC: Talking about aesthetics and PMMA

The pros and cons of PMMA and other PE surgeries have been widely discussed here from a medical and functional point. I had never heard of PMMA before I came across PhalloBoards, and it seems to be a quick way to get significant Girth enhancements quickly and rather permanently.

I want to ask those of you who consider or have already undergone penile plastic surgery a rather heretic question (I feel like a sheep stepping into a lions\' den): Do you think that the result you will gain / have gained apart from the \"better\" Girth is also aesthetically pleasing? To be more precise: Would you unter all circumstances prefer a \"bigger\" penis to a more \"natural looking\" one? Or does a bigger penis \"automatically\" appear more beautiful to you? Or is aesthetics nothing that should be discussed when we talk about male reproduction organs, or about the size rush?

Of course, we could discuss a lot about taste and aesthetics, and this is a very personal view of mine. The reason why I ask: I have studied carefully all before-after pictures here, and I seldomly found really appealing appearances in the \"after\" pictures, but mostly always in the \"before\" pictures. Ok, the \"new\" penises are bigger, more impressive without doubt, but they regularily lost their natural touch, that look which would make people think \"hey, the guy seems to be born with that size\". Some pre-op contributors here are also worrying if the Foreskin will still slide easily over the shaft or adhere to it, or have the natural \"touch\" as before. To me, the PMMA-filled penises look mostly like bigger cylinders, whereas the glans has remained in its (small) original size, somehow not quite fitting to the picture. (To get it clear: I\'m not talking about mishappenings like nodules, unevenness, or graft assemblies around the shaft base, I talk about a 100% perfect surgery and aftercare.)

Or to rephrase it: I would always prefer a naturally, proportionally looking penis to a bigger one (if I had to choose), also because I would not want my penis to be recognized as \"artificial\", as a product of surgery. Somehow they do not manage to make a PMMA or otherwise enhanced penis look really natural. It is like with girls with huge silicon boobs - you see and you know they are not natural, and this would repel me from touching and enjoying them.

Maybe my view is biassed because of my reluctance to let any scalpel or syringe getting close to my crown jewels; maybe I am just looking for excuses not to think closer about PE surgery, but I would be interested in your opinions. I consider my penis to be rather good-looking and natural; I like the shape of the shaft, the glans, the natural touch. Noboby would ever doubt that everything is made by mother nature...

Looking forward to your opinions, or flames...

Okay, Skeptical One, I can go with your assumption that the outcome of a well-done, not exaggerated PE surgery might be aesthetically satisfying, especially to the beholder. I don\'t know any men in my neighborhood who had plastic surgery done on their penises, and therefore could only judge from the photos I\'ve seen here and from the before-after pics I saw on some web sites of cosmetic surgeons. And I admit I found a few post-op penises I would consider \"nice\", but many I would call \"artificial looking\", and I also saw some really ugly ones. But none of them, or maybe one or two, would have a \"natural\" look.

You are right, it is hard for me to accept anything less than 100% natual looking outcome. In my opinion, a PE surgery is a very \"unnecessary\" modification of the body, considering the fact that the penis is usually fully functional pre-op, so why fix something which is not broken? But IF I wanted a cosmetic surgery for any reasons, I would not like anybody to notice the difference from an unnatural appearance, and I wouldn\'t like to trade a bigger Dick for any function loss or artificial look.

I nevertheless feel respect for anybody undergoing such a procedure; having read all the progress stories here gives me an impression how hard it must be for many of you to suffer from a small penis, and what you sometimes have to go through with all the post-op care and procedures, incertainties, promises and expectations. But objectively, there is mostly no reason for it besides psychological sufferings and therefore a psychological release effects by PE.

@marsupilami

I think that an enlarged Girth could lead to an end-result that is natural in appearance & to the touch, but I guess it all depends on the eye of the beholder. You can achieve a natural appearance with a successful outcome, and that is why I said there is a high likelihood of aesthetic sacrifice, but not a guarantee/assurance of aesthetic sacrifice. I have seen end-results that looked remarkably natural, but that isn\'t to say the end-results weren\'t palpable. PE Aesthetics as I understand it pertain to both the look and feel of a post-op penis.

There are many factors in aesthetic satisfaction, most importantly our own subjective analysis (eye of the beholder). Then you consider how the performing physician, surgical method, product/implant, post-op protocol, your own unique penile anatomy/shape, etc all play a vital role in the aesthetic end-result. I\'ve seen every one of these factors play a role in a person\'s aesthetic outcome, and with so many factors, it\'s easy to see why artificial enhancements tend to leave traceable artificiality in a post-op penis.

But again, seeings how diverse penises are, I suspect a good majority of PMMA penises I\'ve seen on this forum could get a pass from unsuspecting lovers. I\'ve also seen graft-type procedures with remarkably natural outcomes. But as I mentioned previously with the boob-job analogy, enough examination with even the best results might turn up signs of enhancement. That would have to come from a suspecting and trained eye & hand, and I doubt most of us will have this issue.

If you are the kind of person who can\'t accept anything short of a 100% natural looking outcome, I may not be keen to recommend Phalloplasty. That doesn\'t mean you can\'t obtain the ideal outcome, it just means aesthetic irregularities (minor or major) with all methods are more common than not. It also depends on how well you can tolerate minor and subtle aesthetic irregularities, which quite frankly, are undetectable to most.

marsupilami wrote: That means, you agree that an enlarged Girth, for example, will not necessarily lead to better aesthetics, let alone a natural look, but rather the opposite.


To sum it up, most of you prefer size to a natural look and admit that the natural look gets probably lost by the PE surgery.

I personally do not agree with this or take this view.
What I said was that in weighing the importance of the outcome, achieving a natural look is superior to increased size. Meaning that if I could gain .5\" and maintain a natural appearance or gain 1\" and look artificial, I would choose the first option.

Hello jimmyjames & all the other contributors,

Thank you so much for your open and clear statements, and for your high ratio of self-criticizm. I didn\'t expect that critical view on your own body features in a community which is so much into \"enhancing nature\" and striving for what nature (allegedly) hadn\'t given them at birth.

I found the opinions expressed so far do match to a high degree (only sometimes, it drifted a bit into the \"mishappenings of surgery\" direction, which was not my core statement).

If I read everything correctly, most of those who intend to have PE surgery go with Skeptical One and \"accept the fact that there is a high likelihood of sacrificing some extent of your natural aesthetic\", even if the surgery will turn out as a complete success (not talking about nodules and the like). That means, you agree that an enlarged girth, for example, will not necessarily lead to better aesthetics, let alone a natural look, but rather the opposite.

jimmyjames, I looked at your photos in your linked thread again. It didn\'t look so bad on the third photo on the left in phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...1552858&postcount=19 , means, quite natural. Maybe because the glans is still in a good proportion to the shaft. Many of you emphasized the connection of aesthetics with proper glans-shaft proportions. On the other hand, I saw some (natural) penises on the internet which had a very massibe, bulgy shaft and a small glans, and it still looked \"natural\".

What makes a penis look \"natural\"? Maybe the natural penis has a certain slight curvature, an elegant silhouette, which gets a bit lost when filled with PMMA, giving him a more rigid and \"foreign body\" appearance. This is like with the breasts after a boob-job, when the boobs look unnaturally \"stiff\" and \"protruding\" when filled with too much of silicone.

To sum it up, most of you prefer size to a natural look and admit that the natural look gets probably lost by the PE surgery.

One more note: I disagree with buttercups in that one could \"fix\" aesthetics with surgery, if there isn\'t anything \"broken\". I\'m not talking about accident damages which need cosmetic repair, but about \"normal\" body features. I wonder if the preop penis of buttercups really looked so ugly as he says. I think it is just a personal perception, as we already discussed in the PDD thread. Sometimes, when I see a person with not-so-model-like body features or a not-so-model-like face, I feel respect for the naturalness ans simpleness of that person, who does not intent to \"improve\" him/herself by improving some body parts. He/she has learned to accept and live with the (alleged) aesthetical shortcomings. I wonder, for example, why women (and also increasingly men) would want to erase the wrinkles from their faces. The wrinkles show that you have lived a life, with joy and sorrows, and that you are still standing. Why does everybody strive for perfectness and youth? What worth does youth have in itself?

Okay, I\'m already talking too much, getting hobby-philosophic, and, what is more, in bad English. I still welcome more statements from you, also contradicting ones...

Before you think about doing this, have a look at what happened to me. My penis was perfectly uniform beforehand. It looks better now after two more procedures with a different doctor. This is three weeks after my first procedure with Dr. C and company. Sometimes it doesn\'t turn out how you expect and want. I hope to get a real looking penis after one or two more touch ups here in Korea but I\'m preparing myself for always having an unaesthetic penis unfortunately. You can also find many people on the forum who had great outcomes as well, so it just a risk you have to decide. My photos are in this thread.

phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/how...dr-6733309?&trail=15

I\'ve always been of the camp that believes that if you pursue artificial enhancement of a body part, there is a good chance your result will have traceable artificiality, some more so than others. Think breast enlargement. Most of the time it\'s obvious, and even the best boob-jobs can ultimately be detected with thorough examination.

To seek out penis enlargement is to accept the fact that there is a high likelihood of sacrificing some extent of your natural aesthetic. Now that isn\'t to say that it wont pass to the untrained eye/hand. Think about how diverse penises are...shapes, contours, etc. Despite even obvious alterations, it\'s probably easier to get a pass on the appearance/feel than something like a boob-job.

Sure, you could try the conservative approach with fillers (i.e. PMMA), and that may help yield the best results, but it will still be prone to aesthetic irregularities that come with filler augmentation (e.g. irregular contour, nodules, dwarfed glans, etc), albeit at a lower risk. For those who put aesthetics highest on their priority list, the conservative filler approach is the best way to go.

The case with aesthetics and PMMA is that they are ALMOST mutualy exclusive. One will never know the outcome of a PMMA session till the collagen has formed and the swelling has completely gone, a few months at least. As one goes for more sessions, the aesthetics may or may NOT improve. For example, on my 3RD session my unit looked really really good. But on my 4th session which was to address some aesthetics issue and add 0.25\" Girth ruined the last session work. So now, for me at least, I have to go for another session and I know the results will not be guaranteed...

BTW, I think the easiest penises to come out looking good are the ones with no injuries, straight and uniform shaft and uncut. OF course other shapes may fair just as well too but these are my own observations...

If you can\'t live without a natural looking Dick then don\'t do it. You will regret it. Once in a while I still regret it, but let\'s be honest - my preop Dick didnt look all that great either. It was very thin at the base and had its own share of oddities. Anyone who has a perfect Cock should not consider surgery.

And to expand on your analogy, I\'ve seen plenty of women for whom plastic surgery was definitely an improvement. I\'ve also seen plenty of natural tits that simply don\'t look great. It all depends on what you\'re working with.

IMHO.

The glans ratio thing is seems pretty important. On the upside if anything my glans is far larger in proportion than usual, so I wouldn\'t mind the proportion being normal looking after adding Girth.

I agree. Aesthetics is most important. My idea is to push my size to the limits set by an aesthetically looking penis. Unfortunately, as you alluded to, the glans is one obstacle of having a large aesthetically pleasing penis.

Aesthetics are key to me as well. I lived for years with a deformed looking, odd feeling penis and I don\'t want to go through that again.

There is no reason to assume you will get flamed for your opinion on the matter. Aesthetics are extremely important in my opinion. The final outcome has to look natural.

Of course, there are many other men who take a different view. They may be married and in a place where the appearance comes second to the added size.

This really is an individualized experience on all counts. What may be important to one guy may not even be on the next guy\'s radar.

I don\'t think you\'ll get flames. It\'s a good point. I think bigger is better, within aesthetic reason. Most but not all PMMA\'d guys in here fall within that, in my opinion. Funny thing is when I think about it in reverse, like how important is aesthetics of a woman vs physical characteristic I\'ll go with aesthetics. I\'m thinking here like, breasts, buttocks, etc. I\'d prefer an aesthetically pleasing but not ideally shaped one to a perfectly shaped one with something off about it.

Well, I don\'t have any pictures, but, when I pulled my skin back preop it would go from a rather \"thick\" 5.25 at the CS to 4.7 at the base. This was while Erect. It looked a bit strange.

Also my penis would sometimes go inside my body when Flaccid. It could shrivel up to less than 1\". It NEVER does that now. For me, I consider that an improvement.

That was embarrassing. How my base is now basically 6\" looks better. My penis has some \"unnatural\" aspects to it now.

But I think, for me, the benefits outweigh the cons. But this is *for me*. Someone might look at my own Dick preop and post op and say they prefer my Dick preop. But that is *for them*.

If having a perfect aesthetic outcome isn\'t negotiable you should not mess with it. It is all about expectations.