If you could get any form of modification, without worrying about society (whether because it's accepted or because you simply DGAF), money, or the fact that it may be permanent, what would you do?

I'd have to say that eyeball tattoos are eerily amazing (ink injected into the sclera). I'd also consider full sleeves and small ear tunnels (not overwhelmingly big, but definitely bigger than your typical piercing).

And, though it's not permanent, I'd probably dye my hair constantly.

What about you?

Frankly, I don't understand the fascination with cosmetic body modification. Whether it be tattoos or some of the more "invasive" practices, they have never had much appeal to me.

Even given your parameters, I can't think of anything I would have done.

To each his own.

fr8mech wrote:

Frankly, I don't understand the fascination with cosmetic body modification. Whether it be tattoos or some of the more "invasive" practices, they have never had much appeal to me.

Even given your parameters, I can't think of anything I would have done.

To each his own.

My wife says that I am handsome enough and I do not need any modification.

WarRI1 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

Frankly, I don't understand the fascination with cosmetic body modification. Whether it be tattoos or some of the more "invasive" practices, they have never had much appeal to me.

Even given your parameters, I can't think of anything I would have done.

To each his own.

My wife says that I am handsome enough and I do not need any modification.

My lady says same - and I wouldn’t be interested in defacing my body anyway.

einsteinboricua wrote:

If you could get any form of modification, without worrying about society (whether because it's accepted or because you simply DGAF), money, or the fact that it may be permanent, what would you do?

Ehhh... I have three ear piercings which were still just barely open the last time I checked a year or two ago. I've seen a handful of people who wore a smallish ring through a septum piercing well, but I doubt I would. I kinda got turned off of piercings in general when I had two neighbors (roommates, one of whom was otherwise very attractive) who quite literally looked like victims of drive-by body piercing attacks. Just because it sticks out a little bit doesn't mean it has to have a hole in it and a ring or stud through it.

That brings me to the other part- "Intimate" body piercings: Nope, no how, no way, not me, and if you want me to touch whatever intimate part of you is pierced you'll either take the ring/stud/whatever out of it first or it's a strict no-go. Pierce whatever you want as many times as you want, just don't expect me to be turned on by it.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I'd have to say that eyeball tattoos are eerily amazing (ink injected into the sclera).

Yikes!

einsteinboricua wrote:

I'd also consider full sleeves and small ear tunnels (not overwhelmingly big, but definitely bigger than your typical piercing).

I'm perfectly okay with tattoos as a concept. I've seen some breathtakingly beautiful ones that I liked a lot, but I find it hard to muster much respect for anyone who goes through the pain and expense of getting a tattoo only to get some 100 year old Sailor Jerry garbage flash off the wall of a tattoo shop that is already being worn by thousands of other people, the black panther clawing it's way up whatever body part it's on being the most common example, because to me that shows an almost criminal lack of imagination.

As for "prison" tattoos (technically they're more "reform school" than "prison" because one can get perfectly acceptable tattoos in prison) that feature crooked letters, misspelled words, un-ironic stick people, and the inevitable oddly asymmetrical cross, I'd like to say "No, just... no", but I have met a few people who had these as souvenirs of a troubled youth who went on to be productive members of society.

einsteinboricua wrote:

And, though it's not permanent, I'd probably dye my hair constantly.

My hair is about 60/40 black/white with no grey and won't take color at all. I once considered going blond but my stepmom, whose hair and skin color is very similar to mine, decided to go blond around that same time and looked ridiculous so that killed the whole idea for me.

I would wear a wide-ish mohawk during the summer because it'd be so much cooler temperature-wise than other hairstyles, though.

I have a few tattoos. I would like to get a few more and some piercings, too, but the brosband and I discussed it and we decided that I don't really need them.

Never understood cosmetic surgery. Most women come out looking like Michael Jackson merged with a guppy. I’ve seen beautiful women get it to hide their aging, only to come out looking like a mutilated mess. Never understood it.

The stupidest thing I’ve ever seen is a guy with those giant hoop/stretched earlobes complaining about his career prospects.

TSS wrote:

That brings me to the other part- "Intimate" body piercings: Nope, no how, no way, not me, and if you want me to touch whatever intimate part of you is pierced you'll either take the ring/stud/whatever out of it first or it's a strict no-go. Pierce whatever you want as many times as you want, just don't expect me to be turned on by it.

Oh hell no. Now that is definitely out of the question for me. That and places that look awful being pierced (honestly, thin ladies can pull off a navel piercing; guys (no matter the shape) will never do it).

TSS wrote:

My hair is about 60/40 black/white with no grey and won't take color at all. I once considered going blond but my stepmom, whose hair and skin color is very similar to mine, decided to go blond around that same time and looked ridiculous so that killed the whole idea for me.

I've only dyed my hair twice, just for the fun of it, but have never been able to reach the color I want. I guess it's the curse of having jet black hair: the hair needs to go through at least 2 rounds of bleach.

DL717 wrote:

Never understood cosmetic surgery. Most women come out looking like Michael Jackson merged with a guppy. I’ve seen beautiful women get it to hide their aging, only to come out looking like a mutilated mess. Never understood it.

Right there with you. I used to work in the industry - I've seen more "happy customers" during that time than most people will see in their lifetimes. You can *always* tell what they had work done on. Particularly face work. Bill Burr said it best: "Do you want to look like a 40-year old or like a 20-year old lizard?"

Just look at some people like Kenny Rogers, Donatella Versace, Mickey Rourke and Michael Jackson. Thanks, no.

I saw some D-List rapper on TV the other day with all kind of face tattoos and all I could think was "your fifteen minutes are coming really quick! What are you going to do then?"

That's another thing that grinds my gears: How do these flash-in-the-pan "entertainers" get all these tattoos when they have almost nothing? They look professional so I am guessing they have not been in prison.

Your guess is as good as mine - I don’t know how these morons even get on TV or get a Youtube following in the first place...the people I follow on Youtube are travelers, pilots, cooks and scientists.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I'd have to say that eyeball tattoos are eerily amazing (ink injected into the sclera).

This should qualify as body mutilation. Who in their sane mind would let some amateur inject some toxic shit right into their eyeballs?

einsteinboricua wrote:

TSS wrote:

That brings me to the other part- "Intimate" body piercings: Nope, no how, no way, not me, and if you want me to touch whatever intimate part of you is pierced you'll either take the ring/stud/whatever out of it first or it's a strict no-go. Pierce whatever you want as many times as you want, just don't expect me to be turned on by it.

Oh hell no. Now that is definitely out of the question for me. That and places that look awful being pierced (honestly, thin ladies can pull off a navel piercing; guys (no matter the shape) will never do it).

Yeah, I've only recently started seeing guys with navel piercings. No matter how hot the guy is, a navel piercing still just doesn't work. I'll go out on a limb and say the opposite is true of nipple piercings: Fine on guys (possibly because our nipples are purely decorative to begin with?), but they just don't look good on women in my opinion.

einsteinboricua wrote:

TSS wrote:

My hair is about 60/40 black/white with no grey and won't take color at all. I once considered going blond but my stepmom, whose hair and skin color is very similar to mine, decided to go blond around that same time and looked ridiculous so that killed the whole idea for me.

I've only dyed my hair twice, just for the fun of it, but have never been able to reach the color I want. I guess it's the curse of having jet black hair: the hair needs to go through at least 2 rounds of bleach.

Back when it was all black I tried dying my hair using Kool-Aid. I was going for a "tint" really, something that would show up only in bright sunlight. To make sure it took on my hair I left it on twice as long as recommended, but still every bit of it rinsed right out and not a speck remained. I took grim comfort in the fact that the bottom of my bathtub was dyed exactly the shade I had been going for for months afterward, meaning that I had at least mixed the flavors I used properly.

I will probably have a nose job early next year. Not because I want to change my appearance, but for medical reasons to increase the airflow through my nose. So I would prefer not to do anything to my body, but sometimes we don't have a choice, changing is sometimes better

Dutchy wrote:

I will probably have a nose job early next year. Not because I want to change my appearance, but for medical reasons to increase the airflow through my nose. So I would prefer not to do anything to my body, but sometimes we don't have a choice, changing is sometimes better

Years and years ago a friend of mine got his deviated septum repaired, and since his whole nose was deviated to one side as well (think Stephen Fry) a nose job to center his nose was included. Because he had quite a large nose no matter which direction it pointed in and the doctor was going to be working on it anyway, he got the doc to shave a little bit off and straighten it out in profile as well while he was in there. YMMV, but it couldn't hurt to ask if you think you might need it.

Honestly I'd just like to not have to maintain my facial hair anymore. But perhaps I just need to find a better razor to deal with that one and not some crazy lazer procedure.

T18 wrote:

Honestly I'd just like to not have to maintain my facial hair anymore. But perhaps I just need to find a better razor to deal with that one and not some crazy lazer procedure.

Is growing a beard not an option where you work?

Even though they always devolve into a contest to see who can claim to use the most obscure and expensive products, the various beard/shaving/razor threads that appear on here from time to time have contained some very good real-world recommendations. I'm a basic Bic Disposable and Barbasol guy, but I realize that combo doesn't cut it for everyone.

TSS wrote:

T18 wrote:

Honestly I'd just like to not have to maintain my facial hair anymore. But perhaps I just need to find a better razor to deal with that one and not some crazy lazer procedure.

Is growing a beard not an option where you work?

Not at all, I just hate having facial hair, don't think it looks good on me and I dislike the way it feels.

T18 wrote:

TSS wrote:

T18 wrote:

Honestly I'd just like to not have to maintain my facial hair anymore. But perhaps I just need to find a better razor to deal with that one and not some crazy lazer procedure.

Is growing a beard not an option where you work?

Not at all, I just hate having facial hair, don't think it looks good on me and I dislike the way it feels.

Interesting. Barring the possibility of facial hair being uneven or patchy, I've only seen a small handful of people I thought looked better without it... well, one in particular springs to mind but there must have been one or two others I don't recall right this moment. On the other hand I have seen A LOT of guys who were wearing either a very unflattering style of facial hair for their face or who had chosen a complimentary style but were executing it badly. On the third hand, there is every probability that I personally am not the market to whom you wish to appeal and any suggestion I make will be taken as a reading from a negative barometer, so...

Do what makes you happy, dude.

And try the old-school double-edged razors because I've yet to read a negative review on them.

As long as I live, I will never understand the appeal of paying someone hundreds of dollars to permanently doodle on your body. I cannot think of anything that is so special and meaningful to me that I want it in the form of a tattoo - those who are special to me, I prefer other methods of letting them know.

I would get a flipper on my back so I would transition into a dolphin-human.

My main concern is that it's permanent so that's quite problematic.

As a kid I thought having displays in the eyes would be cool. Not to watch something, although that would be cool too, but to display something, for example a fire, or a beating heart, etc. We're not there yet, although you never now, there may exist lenses with displays ?

I would definitely die my hair if I still had hair... I expect science to give me hair back at some point so I keep it on my bucket list.
Probably would die the beard too to go with it.

I would try tattoos if they were not permanent and not toxic.

Aesma wrote:

As a kid I thought having displays in the eyes would be cool. Not to watch something, although that would be cool too, but to display something, for example a fire, or a beating heart, etc. We're not there yet, although you never now, there may exist lenses with displays?

There already exist contacts with vivid but fixed graphics on them such as the ones worn by "Uncle Sam" in this music video by Seether (round 3, towards the end)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBXkWVZD4qE

Contacts with moving or changeable graphics can't be far behind. The only problem I see is providing a power source, maybe microscopic photovoltaic cells or something powered by body heat.

Aesma wrote:

I would definitely die my hair if I still had hair... I expect science to give me hair back at some point so I keep it on my bucket list.
Probably would die the beard too to go with it.

Just out of idle curiosity, what color is/was your hair and beard naturally?

Aesma wrote:

I would try tattoos if they were not permanent and not toxic.

I'm not aware of any particular toxicity of modern tattoo inks, but I'm not super well-read on the subject and I'm sure some pretty nasty stuff must have been used in the past. Consider this though: If self-powered displays can be made for the eyes, they can be made for the skin as well. Night out? Vivid full sleeves. Job interview? Either nothing or maybe a tasteful company logo on the upper arm.

extender wrote:

Just look at some people like Kenny Rogers, Donatella Versace, Mickey Rourke and Michael Jackson. Thanks, no.

Wasn't Mickey Rourke's boxing injuries the reason why he needed it?

Erebus wrote:

extender wrote:

Just look at some people like Kenny Rogers, Donatella Versace, Mickey Rourke and Michael Jackson. Thanks, no.

Wasn't Mickey Rourke's boxing injuries the reason why he needed it?

1. Apparently plastic surgery is extremely addictive. Mickey may have needed some reconstructive surgery after a bout, but couldn't leave it alone and kept getting more. Michael Jackson looked his absolute best in the Thriller video after he'd had his first nose job, but kept going back for more surgeries he didn't need. The friend I mentioned in Reply #16 who looked like a dramatically improved version of himself after his nose job got addicted and kept getting unnecessary procedures done until he became a ghastly caricature not unlike the puppet from Saw.

2. Despite numerous bad examples that should serve as clear warnings, people still think they can get procedures done "on the cheap" that will be equivalent to what top plastic surgeons do. Almost everyone in Hollywood has a little nip or tuck done here or there: It's undetectable on the ones who went to a top-rated doctor, and it's grossly obvious on the ones who tried to save a buck by either going out of the country or using a "Grade B" or lower doctor here in the US.

Yeah, one thing I can never understand is plastic surgery or botox.

Heck, a PR beauty queen that was one grade above me at the school I went to got botox. She looks old.

Before and After

einsteinboricua wrote:

Yeah, one thing I can never understand is plastic surgery

I can and I had it. You have to remember that plastic surgery isn't invented to make people more beautiful - whatever that may be - but also - and mainly so perhaps - to correct something which is wrong: horrific burns, accident damage, something which you are born with etc. Plastic surgents do wonderfull and very useful things and actually work on the quality of people's lives. So I think in that respect your opinion about this is quite shallow to be honest.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Yeah, one thing I can never understand is plastic surgery or botox.

Heck, a PR beauty queen that was one grade above me at the school I went to got botox. She looks old.

Before and After

I think there might be something going on in that second picture besides Botox because Botox is temporary and all it does is relax (paralyze, really) the muscles it is injected in to. It can be temporarily effective on small wrinkles such as are found on the forehead and around the mouth, but the downside is that wherever it is injected won't move until it wears off which gives Botox users a peculiar mask-like, mannequin-ish lack of expression.

Joan Rivers on the Graham Norton Show discussing elective plastic surgery in general and doing a perfect impression of someone who's just had Botox injections starting at 2:25-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui7zg3GyIto

Dutchy wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Yeah, one thing I can never understand is plastic surgery

I can and I had it. You have to remember that plastic surgery isn't invented to make people more beautiful - whatever that may be - but also - and mainly so perhaps - to correct something which is wrong: horrific burns, accident damage, something which you are born with etc. Plastic surgents do wonderfull and very useful things and actually work on the quality of people's lives. So I think in that respect your opinion about this is quite shallow to be honest.

The development of new techniques in plastic surgery was a much needed gift to many of the wounded during the world wars.

Dutchy wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Yeah, one thing I can never understand is plastic surgery

I can and I had it. You have to remember that plastic surgery isn't invented to make people more beautiful - whatever that may be - but also - and mainly so perhaps - to correct something which is wrong: horrific burns, accident damage, something which you are born with etc. Plastic surgents do wonderfull and very useful things and actually work on the quality of people's lives. So I think in that respect your opinion about this is quite shallow to be honest.

You are clearly talking about two entirely different things.

Dutchy is talking about repairs - like on a car after a traffic accident. Approved! Me too.

einteinboricua is talking about converting the human body into a christmas tree. Disliked. Me too.

TSS wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I would definitely die my hair if I still had hair... I expect science to give me hair back at some point so I keep it on my bucket list.
Probably would die the beard too to go with it.

Just out of idle curiosity, what color is/was your hair and beard naturally?

Undefined, which is kind of the problem. Dark blonde or something like that, that can go lighter when exposed to sun.

Aesma wrote:

TSS wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I would definitely die my hair if I still had hair... I expect science to give me hair back at some point so I keep it on my bucket list.
Probably would die the beard too to go with it.

Just out of idle curiosity, what color is/was your hair and beard naturally?

Undefined, which is kind of the problem. Dark blonde or something like that, that can go lighter when exposed to sun.

Gotcha. Around here that shade of hair is referred to as "Honey Colored"- not quite blond, not quite brown either, but will get much closer to true blond with sun exposure.

Bigger isn't always better.
With that in mind, I suppose I could have that certain part of me reduced in size so that it didn't befuddle every woman I have met.
I mean to say, if I had the end chopped off so that it left just the normal 12 inches that would be enough for most, wouldn't it?

I suppose the other option would be a couple of strategically placed holes so that my lady friends could play a tune on it whilst blowing down the end.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Bigger isn't always better.
With that in mind, I suppose I could have that certain part of me reduced in size so that it didn't befuddle every woman I have met.
I mean to say, if I had the end chopped off so that it left just the normal 12 inches that would be enough for most, wouldn't it?

I suppose the other option would be a couple of strategically placed holes so that my lady friends could play a tune on it whilst blowing down the end.

You're talking about your nose, right?

I suppose a part of my body has been modified. But then so have the majority of males born in the US. I'm happy with mine. Others perhaps not.

TSS wrote:

Aesma wrote:

TSS wrote:

Just out of idle curiosity, what color is/was your hair and beard naturally?

Undefined, which is kind of the problem. Dark blonde or something like that, that can go lighter when exposed to sun.

Gotcha. Around here that shade of hair is referred to as "Honey Colored"- not quite blond, not quite brown either, but will get much closer to true blond with sun exposure.

Yeah something like that. When I was a kid it was blonder, and during the summer almost platinum. So I'd try that. Maybe also jet black.

Aesma wrote:

TSS wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Undefined, which is kind of the problem. Dark blonde or something like that, that can go lighter when exposed to sun.

Gotcha. Around here that shade of hair is referred to as "Honey Colored"- not quite blond, not quite brown either, but will get much closer to true blond with sun exposure.

Yeah something like that. When I was a kid it was blonder, and during the summer almost platinum. So I'd try that. Maybe also jet black.

Jet black, or when it's dyed commonly referred to down here as "shoe polish black", seemed to work well enough for Elvis, whose hair was naturally a dirty blond/honey color.

Nothing in the context it is being discussed here.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Bigger isn't always better.
With that in mind, I suppose I could have that certain part of me reduced in size so that it didn't befuddle every woman I have met.
I mean to say, if I had the end chopped off so that it left just the normal 12 inches that would be enough for most, wouldn't it?

I suppose the other option would be a couple of strategically placed holes so that my lady friends could play a tune on it whilst blowing down the end.

After starting TRT my average lil guy grew an inch longer and 3/4” bigger around putting me above average. My boys did shrink however. What the good Lord giveth, the good Lord taketh, I suppose.

I did get my first tattoo to celebrate my sober/clean time at 18 months.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I suppose a part of my body has been modified. But then so have the majority of males born in the US. I'm happy with mine. Others perhaps not.

That qualifies to genital mutilation in my book. It's the forcible removal of the single most sensitive part of the male human anatomy, and it is done to an infant who is incapable of defending himself. Ghastly.
The worst part truthfully is that it's not elective surgery, but something (dare I say merely 'cultural'?) that is enforced on the newborn who has no way to defend his [human] rights.
It's one of the most barbaric, ritualistic, tribal, ancestral, unnecessary, evil, painful procedures, designed solely and entirely to reduce the sensitivity of the male anatomy, in turn reducing the pleasure and the likelihood of masturbation. Cue how most men will need lubricant in order to masturbate in the US - something that is totally unheard of for the intact male.
Recent psychological studies are directly correlating the high levels of violence in US society to the fact that the first major/significant interaction most newly born male babies will have with another fellow human, will be the violent, painful, bloody encounter when they will be strapped onto a table by the practitioner who will forcibly mutilate their perfect penile anatomy for no reason.
I cannot even begin to express how wrong child genital mutilation is.

oldannyboy wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I suppose a part of my body has been modified. But then so have the majority of males born in the US. I'm happy with mine. Others perhaps not.

That qualifies to genital mutilation in my book. It's the forcible removal of the single most sensitive part of the male human anatomy, and it is done to an infant who is incapable of defending himself. Ghastly.
The worst part truthfully is that it's not elective surgery, but something (dare I say merely 'cultural'?) that is enforced on the newborn who has no way to defend his [human] rights.
It's one of the most barbaric, ritualistic, tribal, ancestral, unnecessary, evil, painful procedures, designed solely and entirely to reduce the sensitivity of the male anatomy, in turn reducing the pleasure and the likelihood of masturbation. Cue how most men will need lubricant in order to masturbate in the US - something that is totally unheard of for the intact male.
Recent psychological studies are directly correlating the high levels of violence in US society to the fact that the first major/significant interaction most newly born male babies will have with another fellow human, will be the violent, painful, bloody encounter when they will be strapped onto a table by the practitioner who will forcibly mutilate their perfect penile anatomy for no reason.
I cannot even begin to express how wrong child genital mutilation is.

The jury is out on most of your assertions. There are still medical benefits from having the procedure done, though in today's world not entirely necessary - we are quite hygienic these days. The psychological aspect of an infant developing into a violent person because of an experience in which they feel no pain is totally absurd. Almost blasphemous if you ask me. I can't even believe people would actually believe such a thing. Your masturbation claim is unsupported. I do agree with it being mostly a cultural thing now. That doesn't make it right or wrong.

Anyways..

On topic, I have several tattoos. Plan on more in the future.

But after a recent hospitalization I do not plan on ever getting elective surgeries again. My near death experience was proof enough to me that I don't need to do any further unnecessary intrusive procedures on my body. Just not worth it.

oldannyboy wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I suppose a part of my body has been modified. But then so have the majority of males born in the US. I'm happy with mine. Others perhaps not.

That qualifies to genital mutilation in my book. It's the forcible removal of the single most sensitive part of the male human anatomy, and it is done to an infant who is incapable of defending himself. Ghastly.
The worst part truthfully is that it's not elective surgery, but something (dare I say merely 'cultural'?) that is enforced on the newborn who has no way to defend his [human] rights.
It's one of the most barbaric, ritualistic, tribal, ancestral, unnecessary, evil, painful procedures, designed solely and entirely to reduce the sensitivity of the male anatomy, in turn reducing the pleasure and the likelihood of masturbation. Cue how most men will need lubricant in order to masturbate in the US - something that is totally unheard of for the intact male.
Recent psychological studies are directly correlating the high levels of violence in US society to the fact that the first major/significant interaction most newly born male babies will have with another fellow human, will be the violent, painful, bloody encounter when they will be strapped onto a table by the practitioner who will forcibly mutilate their perfect penile anatomy for no reason.
I cannot even begin to express how wrong child genital mutilation is.

The vast majority of Americans are unaware of the reason circumcision was ever started and became the norm in America. It was all about preventing masturbation, and nothing else. It was spearheaded by religious whack jobs. People like the 7th Day Adventists and “Dr.” Kellogg of the cereal fame were the kind of nutjobs running around during this movement.

oldannyboy wrote:

It's one of the most barbaric, ritualistic, tribal, ancestral, unnecessary, evil, painful procedures, designed solely and entirely to reduce the sensitivity of the male anatomy, in turn reducing the pleasure and the likelihood of masturbation. Cue how most men will need lubricant in order to masturbate in the US - something that is totally unheard of for the intact male.

Does it? Because I honestly can't feel the difference before and after.

In any case, I'd probably invest in liposuction to get rid of my manboobs & excess fat. And maybe a bit of work on my nose in order to clear the blockage on my left nostril that's causing me to breath out of one nostril.

In fact, maybe I should skip lipo and just focus on my nose because the only reason I can't strenuously exercise is because of that blockage. If I can breath through my nose properly, I'd definitely be able to participate in more strenuous exercises, hence making it easier to lose all the fat.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

It's one of the most barbaric, ritualistic, tribal, ancestral, unnecessary, evil, painful procedures, designed solely and entirely to reduce the sensitivity of the male anatomy, in turn reducing the pleasure and the likelihood of masturbation. Cue how most men will need lubricant in order to masturbate in the US - something that is totally unheard of for the intact male.

Does it? Because I honestly can't feel the difference before and after.

In any case, I'd probably invest in liposuction to get rid of my manboobs & excess fat. And maybe a bit of work on my nose in order to clear the blockage on my left nostril that's causing me to breath out of one nostril.

In fact, maybe I should skip lipo and just focus on my nose because the only reason I can't strenuously exercise is because of that blockage. If I can breath through my nose properly, I'd definitely be able to participate in more strenuous exercises, hence making it easier to lose all the fat.

Let’s be honest. How much sex are you really having sporting man titties?

SanDiegoLover wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

It's one of the most barbaric, ritualistic, tribal, ancestral, unnecessary, evil, painful procedures, designed solely and entirely to reduce the sensitivity of the male anatomy, in turn reducing the pleasure and the likelihood of masturbation. Cue how most men will need lubricant in order to masturbate in the US - something that is totally unheard of for the intact male.

Does it? Because I honestly can't feel the difference before and after.

In any case, I'd probably invest in liposuction to get rid of my manboobs & excess fat. And maybe a bit of work on my nose in order to clear the blockage on my left nostril that's causing me to breath out of one nostril.

In fact, maybe I should skip lipo and just focus on my nose because the only reason I can't strenuously exercise is because of that blockage. If I can breath through my nose properly, I'd definitely be able to participate in more strenuous exercises, hence making it easier to lose all the fat.

Let’s be honest. How much sex are you really having sporting man titties?

A lot. Some girls couldn't care less for manboobs.

oldannyboy wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I suppose a part of my body has been modified. But then so have the majority of males born in the US. I'm happy with mine. Others perhaps not.

That qualifies to genital mutilation in my book. It's the forcible removal of the single most sensitive part of the male human anatomy, and it is done to an infant who is incapable of defending himself. Ghastly.
The worst part truthfully is that it's not elective surgery, but something (dare I say merely 'cultural'?) that is enforced on the newborn who has no way to defend his [human] rights.
It's one of the most barbaric, ritualistic, tribal, ancestral, unnecessary, evil, painful procedures, designed solely and entirely to reduce the sensitivity of the male anatomy, in turn reducing the pleasure and the likelihood of masturbation. Cue how most men will need lubricant in order to masturbate in the US - something that is totally unheard of for the intact male.
Recent psychological studies are directly correlating the high levels of violence in US society to the fact that the first major/significant interaction most newly born male babies will have with another fellow human, will be the violent, painful, bloody encounter when they will be strapped onto a table by the practitioner who will forcibly mutilate their perfect penile anatomy for no reason.
I cannot even begin to express how wrong child genital mutilation is.

I had it done in college. I was awake and felt no pain during the surgery. And it still works just fine. It looks much nicer too. If newborns aren't being given a local anesthetic then the doctor should be in prison and the hospital sued. Otherwise there shouldn't be any issue.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I suppose a part of my body has been modified. But then so have the majority of males born in the US. I'm happy with mine. Others perhaps not.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I had it done in college.

Okay, since you had it done electively, thus making it inarguably "on topic" for this thread and you don't seem to be shy about talking about it, I've got to ask: Why did you have it done?

TSS wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I suppose a part of my body has been modified. But then so have the majority of males born in the US. I'm happy with mine. Others perhaps not.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I had it done in college.

Okay, since you had it done electively, thus making it inarguably "on topic" for this thread and you don't seem to be shy about talking about it, I've got to ask: Why did you have it done?

I was born about a month early and the doctor wouldn't do the procedure since I was premature. Even though I was healthy I guess it was standard not to do it since they wouldn't know if any symptoms that came up were due to being born premature or from the circumcision. There was nothing wrong with it medically but I just didn't like the look of it. I went to a cosmetic surgeon in Miami who specialized in it and he did a great job.

TTailedTiger wrote:

TSS wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I suppose a part of my body has been modified. But then so have the majority of males born in the US. I'm happy with mine. Others perhaps not.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I had it done in college.

Okay, since you had it done electively, thus making it inarguably "on topic" for this thread and you don't seem to be shy about talking about it, I've got to ask: Why did you have it done?

I was born about a month early and the doctor wouldn't do the procedure since I was premature. Even though I was healthy I guess it was standard not to do it since they wouldn't know if any symptoms that came up were due to being born premature or from the circumcision. There was nothing wrong with it medically but I just didn't like the look of it. I went to a cosmetic surgeon in Miami who specialized in it and he did a great job.

Elective surgery is fine. You elected to have your dick circumcised. End of story.
Mutilating an infant without his consent (and very often SURPRISE SURPRISE with little to no anesthesia - maybe some topical cream?) is borderline criminal and most certainly a violation on the convention on the rights of the child.
Some countries [I'd venture out on a limb and use the words "more culturally advanced democracies"] have already BANNED infant circumcision.

Personally -as a gay man- there's nothing I love more than an intact penis. So much more sensitive, so much more to play with. I've never had an issue with my beautiful, abundant foreskin. Love it.