Why is there such a negative view of implants outside of the Internet?

[Gt1956]

NOTHING is better than a natural blood filled dick. Even if it only works 70% of the time.

Dude you always say that.

Yes, he does.
And even though it annoys the hell outta me I am a free speech absolutist and spent 23 years playing Army for a living so that he has the right to say it.
Why does it bother me? Because some of us have no clue what it’s like to have a sustained blood filled dick without chemical/pharmaceutical assistance accompanied by superhuman efforts to keep up the stimulation.
I was, I guess, 31 when I had the pressure studies and dye tests done. That would have been around 1987.
Hell, after 37 years I don’t even remember that urologist’s name. I do remember being pretty down about not being “a normal man.” He did tell me that it was just a guess but my problem didn’t appear to him to have been trauma or an accident, I was probably just born with veins that didn’t get squeezed off enough to maintain an erection. I had plenty of blood flow in. It just leaked out about as fast as I could pump it in unless I was flat on my back, perfectly still, with my left hand compressing the pubic mound. Then I could sustain a moderate erection for 4-5 minutes. Otherwise 30-45 seconds and bye bye boner.
So if I sometimes come across as an implant cheerleader it’s due to personal experience. You cannot miss that which you gave never had. It’s true that my LGX has left me slightly less girthy (about 3/8ths of an inch) but I don’t give a shit about that.
So, for a slightly different opinion: yes, there are things far better than a blood filled dick. A dick that works tops my list.

In lots of the world freedom of speach is an unknown concept. Our version of it also means the freedom to voice unpopular thoughts. Only god knows how many times I've put my foot in my proverbial mouth using my speach.

While I generally agree that I'd prefer my original dick. Its based upon a long vigorous sex life with a fantastically willing & skilled partner. Sadly I've lost her. So an industry along with a skilled dr has provided me with a reliable penis but I'm missing the partner side of the equation. Just my crappy luck.

But I'll share some recent developements with all my FT colleagues. Mainly because there is a huge follwing of members that are worried to death about womens reactions to meeting a man with an implant.

I've recently been talking with an age appropriate for me woman. In the early stages to trying to assess compatability. We've danced around the expectations of a sex life. Holy shit, that is a big topic to work with. This lady expects sex. Great news! She did date a guy that was younger than her for a few years that had early ED. They broke up not related to his ED. A stupid mouth killed the relationship. So I assured her that IF we progressed to dating & sex became a possibility, that she'd get get scewed....no doubt about it. This woman then said that she has known two women whose partners had implants & had given her good reviews. Her former partner said he'd never resort to that & I told her he was stupid. Convo danced some more, she put the clues together & deduced that I might have an implant & I confirmed it. Yes, its a difficult talk but I believe women like a man that can solve a problem. Early on I pledged to tell her the truth & I kept my word. She is not revolted by it. Actually her main concern was if I got normal pleasure out of it.

We talked about the forum & I described the range of mens feelings about implants.

Guys, in my limited experience. At least some mature women have met or heard of other women that are having sex with an implanted man. There is a lot of implants out there. There is a lot of high libido women that want that stiff dick. Blood filled or saline filled doesn't matter as long as the dick works & the owner has a reasonable personality.

So circling back to the original topic of this thread. It doesn't seem like the women that have been exposed to implants in the real world & like sex have a negative opinion of implants. Think about it. If a single woman will buy a vibrator to cope with being single. Why in the world would she have a negative opinion of a partner with an implant? There has to be some kind of parallel thinking between the two items.

As a side note. My wife knew of two women that had a negative opinion of Viagra. Neither of them were very interested in sex. Are we seeing a correlation between desire for sex & the acceptance of any means that gets the job done?

[wilsonmill]

Agreed gt1956, women get vaginal surgery as well as maintenance to get wet again as they age.

[LetoMan]

My dick never worked well. I managed to have some decent sex over the years with some of my partners, but it’s never been great. There weren’t even pills available until I was in my mid 20s. I can’t tell you how many hot girls I somehow managed to bed back in college that I ultimately couldn’t do anything with. In a way I think I built a reputation back then as a ladies man to compensate… I didn’t get that much satusfaction out of being in bed.

If I could go back to 16, I’d happily take the chance that something goes wrong in exchange for an implant. I would have had almost nothing to lose, but so much to gain.

I think the people who don’t think you should get an implant do so mostly because they have no idea how terrible severe ED is. They might say sex isn’t just about penetrative sex. And that’s true! But if for some reason we lost the ability to ever have penetrative sex again, we’d be right back where we started.

The bottom line is that if you have a satisfactory or better sex life, you are not even thinking about an implant. It’s only us guys with almost nothing to lose. The equation for us is pretty simple.

If you are really on the fence, the question is how good are things now. If your answer is “pretty good but could be better” then maybe you don’t want an implant. But I suspect anyone who is even considering it doesn’t answer that way.

[ams700xxx]

A malleable solves these concerns

All implants have two major concerns: infection and erosion and mallable has really worse to produce erosion. Especially for younger active people.

[ams700xxx]

Interesting.
It's true that all surveys show high satisfaction rates with implants.
So why would someone say tell you to avoid implant like the plague?

One reason is probably the perspective. A female doctor/physio and a male without any ED problems whatsoever, will of course think of an implant from their perspective.
The female: She is used to being fucked by men with a working dick. She thinks it sounds weird with an implant.
The male will consider his working dick, and thinking that who wants to have a plastic dick?
And even though both of them intellectually hear what you say, your dick doesn't work properly, it gives you constant stress etc, I think they still don't really get it. They can't put themselves in your situation, and they don't really know what it is to have an implant (or being fucked by an implanted dick in the case of the female).
Hence the spontaneous reaction from them is that they compare the implant to a working dick, not an impotent dick.
They, and most people who don't know the details, will of course have a negative attitude towards a dick with plastic cylinders in it, a reservoir in the belly, a pump in the scrotum, having to manually pump up the dick before sex. It doesn't sound very appealing when you live in a world of problem-free sex with a natural dick. Of course, taking a pill sounds like a much better option.

All of us would of course prefer a working natural dick. I would also prefer to be on pills if I just knew the pills worked. In my case, they helped, but they took me from basically not being able to have sex at all to being able to have crappy sex.
In that situation, an implant is not a bad option. In terms of sex quality, it is a million times better. But you do have the downsides coming with it as well.

Of course there are risks with implants. The infection being the worst. But with top surgeons, the infection risk is <1% for first surgery, and around 1-2% on revisions. Assuming 10 years between revisions, a 40-year old man will need around 4 surgeries. That will take accumulated risk of infection to 5%.
5% is a tangible risk. Small, but still real. We're not talking one in a million or even one in a thousand. We're talking 5 out of 100 men.
Using a low-volume surgeon will take that accumulated risk up to 10-15%.

Exactly!

[frwmw1]

I get the impression some people seem to think men choose implants unnecessarily.

My experience was, I went and saw a Urologist, he said "dont get an implant it will make it worse", and ordered a doppler scan.

After the doppler scan results, he STFU and referred me to a specialist Urologist surgeon who does implants.