It is a commonly held view in conventional medical circles that the only way through which a post-pubescent man can enlarge his penis is by submitting to penis enlargement surgery. It is a view that many men have bought into, leading them to save considerable sums of money in readiness for this surgical operations. Penis enlargement surgery is, of course, a sort of ‘augmentation surgery’ – which culminates in the man who undergoes it having a bigger penis upon its successful completion. It is classified as being a form of cosmetic surgery, although a great majority of the men who submit to it certainly don’t do so for cosmetic purposes. Rather a majority of the men who submit for penis enlargement surgery do so in an effort to become better performers in bed; which makes their interest in penile enlargement functionally, rather than cosmetically motivated.
There are, however, many people who hold the view that there is absolutely no justification for this surgical procedures aimed at enlarging penises. To support their view, they give a number of arguments.
The first argument given by the opponents of enlargement surgery is to the effect that the results yielded by the surgery tend to be ‘underwhelming.’ Incidentally, this is a view held by people who have actually gone through the procedures, so it is a view worth giving a lot of consideration to. They argue that if they had the foresight to see just how little, in terms of penile size, they would get out of the procedure, they would not have submitted to it. Truth be told, it is rather hard to obtain spectacular penis enlargement results out of these penile enlargement surgical procedures. Upon arising from the operating theater, many people end up asking whether the operation has in fact been carried out – because they can’t see any appreciable change.
Another argument, given by the opponents of penis surgery, is to the effect that the potential benefits of the surgical procedures (even where they lead to real penis enlargement) are too little, compared to the potential risks of the surgical procedures. They argue that if one carries out a rational cost-benefit analysis, the risk one puts himself at, in undergoing penis enlargement surgery, is too huge compared to the marginal penile size gain they stand to get out of it all.
Yet another argument, given by the opponents of penis surgery is to the effect that, ideally speaking, all surgical procedures should be reserved for life threatening situations. According to this school of thought, there is no justification of people putting themselves through the huge surgical risks in a bid to relief themselves of what often turns out to be no more than a self image problem.
A further argument given by the opponents of penis-surgery is to the effect that, in the existence of other equally potent (yet cheaper and less risky) penis enlargement approaches, there is no justification for putting oneself through penis surgery. Of course, the view that there are other equally potent penis enlargement approaches is one that is fiercely opposed by the practitioners in the conventional medical establishment. But if the other penile enlargement approaches also work, then this would be a rather weighty argument: the one to the effect that there is no justification to go for surgery, when cheaper and less risky penis enlargement alternatives exist.