How many members are familiar with the prominence of silicone enhancement- both penile and scrotal? Apparently this is the most common amongst a vast \'sub-culture\', but only lurks primarily on gay-oriented sites. All I know about it is from comments on how dangerous it is. I have attached posted the thread from the testicular thread (scrotal enhancement option). Oh, I spoke with another member who claimed there is a doctor across the \'hall\' from Dr. C that does Silicone injections for testicular/scrotal enhancement. Anyone else able to verify this if they visit the Dr.? That member claimed that Dr. C knows of this procedure. Loading...Edit | Delete View Member ProfileSend Private MessageFind Member\'s TopicsFind Member\'s PostsSend Instant MessageRondo
Posts: 202 Today at 04:28 PMReply with quote#49I\'m now having a conversation with myself I guess.. Talked to Christian at the clinic- he said Dr. would not reccomend this other clinic which is \'shady\' and not in the same building but rather down the street. I\'ve learned that this whole silicone is an undercurrent (subculture?) to the whole PMMA thing, which in turn is an undercurrent to other Phalloplasty, which in turn is an undercurrent to non-surgical pe, which is an undercurrent to bullshit penis enlargement pills and the porn industry, which is an undercurrent of masturbation and the inherent desire for a bigger penis that is clearly universal. Any websites on penis reduction?
I really do understand your point hoddle10 and esp. imo :-
1-The aesthetic results of PMMA (nodules, lumps and asymmetry) esp. in a dynamic organ like the penis.2-The risk of Foreign Body Granulomas (in NewPlastic or Metacrill > in Artecoll or Artefill).
But if you don\'t mind I would like to give my opinion about what you have mentioned \"I\'m not convinced of it\'s safety over the longer term\", (and by that I am not trying to convince anyone to get PMMA or saying I am 100% sure about the long term safety of PMMA the answer will be NO) but lets think about it this way beside the two points mentioned above, as we know PMMA started to be used as a tissue filler in 1989 (and in joint prosthesis and in intra-ocular lens for >50 yrs) with the 1st worst generation of PMMA \"Arteplast\" i.e. around 22 yrs ago, so imo if there was at least one case of a long-term complication beside the ones mentioned above shouldn\'t we hear about it by now?? I am not saying I am 100% sure that it will never happen but at least imo >20 yrs for any product present in our body without one case of a long-term (+/-serious) complication.
I know some of you will not agree with me and I do understand that but this is only my opinion about it.
I remember reading about silicone injections being done in Tijuana a few years ago. The major problem with it is that, while it will increase Girth, it will turn the Dick useless for penetration. I saw one with my own eyes once at a gym. It looked like a big tit instead of a big penis, because the guy had himself injected lots of silicone on it.
Completely understandable Hoddle, as time progesses and things come to our attention that weren\'t there before our opinions change and adapt due to that new information. I know in my personal research PMMA still seems to be the most affordable, and simple option. However it is not without it\'s own risks and complications. Hence why I\'ll be waiting to have any procedures performed until I am 100% confident in the technology,usage, and application of such a procedure.
Androgen wrote: Interesting read Hoddle. Seems like with the advancement in technique, short down time, and dramatic results it would be appealing. However reading through it goes on to mention long term affects that weren\'t considered during the original testing. Personally, a debilitating case of granuloma isn\'t exactly my idea of fun lol.
Summary = not worth it
On a new note might I ask why you\'re considering changing your views on PMMA Hoddle?
I haven\'t really changed my views on PMMA as such. It\'s just that when it first came to the attention of the board, I championed it above the older methods, as it had the key advantage of avoiding the surgical process. The complication rate with PMMA itself seemed to be massively lower than the complications which occur from going under the knife for any PE procedure. However, I\'m no longer so keen to advocate the use of PMMA, as the procedure as I saw it back then, isn\'t what it has come to be. Also the profile of the average patient is far less than ideal in my opinion.
So, at the moment I\'m more inclined just to advise anyone that asks not to have this or any other procedure. The way PMMA is currently being used to build up substantial gains does concern me and I\'m not convinced of it\'s safety over the longer term. I want to make it clear that I have no solid evidence that how it\'s currently being used will lead to an unacceptable rate of complications, so don\'t want to anyone who has had it done to be concerned that I\'m now more oppossed to it than previously. My change of view isn\'t the result of discovering some new information regarding the long term safety of PMMA, it\'s purely to do with how the procedure has evolved.
In my opinion, what is implied in a moderator role is unbiasedness, among other things; which is in conflict with the idea of unbending devotion/support to any doctrine. That is, his opinion should not be crystallized but dynamically evolve with facts he gathers and interprets from data, research, discussions, etc. It would be comforting if that lead to an invariant view which proves to be robust to the test of time; however it does not have to.
I am sure our Hoddle will soon explain what he means.
Interesting read Hoddle. Seems like with the advancement in technique, short down time, and dramatic results it would be appealing. However reading through it goes on to mention long term affects that weren\'t considered during the original testing. Personally, a debilitating case of granuloma isn\'t exactly my idea of fun lol. Summary = not worth it On a new note might I ask why you\'re considering changing your views on PMMA Hoddle?
I read this study along time ago and it is the main influence behind my belief that the technique is more important than that material when it comes to penis enlargement. This is the key area where I belive the medical community have got things very wrong. Basically this report about silcone is what brought about the line of reasoning which made me advocate PMMA over other procedures. Though I\'m on the verge of withdrawing my support for PMMA.
I\'m a member of a couple of silcone orientated forums. I actually joined to learn about compications, as I thought it would be useful to know, assuming that removing silicone and PMMA would be similarly complicated. It\'s an under ground sub culture, but it\'s hugely popular. There are several forums of groups and they have thousands of members.
From what I can gather most of the guys who do this are gay though. I think it\'s more about pure size with little regard for aesthetics or even feel. All they seem to care about is getting as much of the stuff injected as possible. I think a couple of our gay members here have mentioned just how much more important size is amongst the gay community, which is probably why liquid silicone is so popular.
@Smartman, I\'m confident in the long term saftey of PMMA as it has been used for the last 20 years in Europe, Canada and now the US. But I\'m not sure of the long terms saftey of how it\'s currently being used in the penis.
My general opinion on PMMA hasn\'t changed. But originally this procedure was touted as an enhancement and that clearly isn\'t want most guys want. Most guys want to be as big as they can and it seems this procedure is being driven by consumer demand and not what the Dr deems advisable. I\'m not saying that I\'m expecting a huge number of guys who have had larger amounts, over multiple sessions, to have problems, just that I see far more scope for complications amongst those guys and this concerns me.
Originally I supported the procedure as something that would be a good option for smaller guys who wanted to feel more \"normal.\" But it seems there isn\'t much demand for that. However, in supporting that I\'ve inadvertently been part of a movement that has brought us to where we are today. I\'ve got nothing against guys having PMMA, but in my honest opinion I don\'t think the average guy is capable of making a sensible decision where the potential make enlarge his manhood exists. We only need the slightest nudge in order to convince ourselves that we are doing the right thing and the risks are worth it. So I just want to slightly distance myself from it, until we know a bit more about the longer term results.