Omg

[Webster]

OK, this thread has been playing on my mind somewhat, and although Danny and I have corresponded by private message, I think there's a couple more things that I should still say publically, seeing as so much has been said publically on this thread that probably never ought to have been.

I think I have made clear in my post above that I feel Danny must be an exceptionally strong and driven person to have done what he has in the face of inevitable social derision. His very candor in coming onto this thread proves that.

However, having said all this, it doesn't mean that I wasn't one of the people who joined in the mocking on the first page of this thread. Sometimes it is easy to talk-the-talk with regard to an equalitarian worldview of wishing everyone to be free to do as they will with their lives and their bodies, but not so easy to walk-the-walk, when long-instilled socio-cultural perceptions cut in before one has a chance to step back and think a little more.

I don't purport to comprehend the attraction of genital injections, but hell, there are a whole lot of things I don't comprehend, but which I accept unquestioningly and without laughing about them. More ironically, there are a swathe of bodily alterations that I find extremely attractive, ... innovative tattoo designs and piercings being among these. Even though I could never undertake these myself!

So, with this in mind, I have to say that in retrospect the beginning of this thread sucks majorly. For me, it has transformed from being a series of funny gags into what I would now class as my lowest ebb in my relatively short time of posting at LPSG. It is an example of the pack mentality jumping on something it doesn't comprehend, tearing apart an individual's life-choice, and failing to think about the person at all... something which, as pointed out by another poster above, is all the more out-of-place on a Support board.

Anyone who's read my postings on these boards will know that I always jump in with a quick one-liner when the occasion arises, and really, I have no plans to change that. It's part of me, and it's the same way I am offline. However, before hitting the return key to post in future, I might well just take that extra second to reflect. Danny may have a cock the size of the Statue of Liberty, but I clearly have a mouth akin to the Grand Canyon on occasion as well, since I can fit both feet into it with no problems whatsoever.

I've already apologized to Danny privately, but as I said at the beginning of this ever-more-rambling post... a public apology is necessary as well, since the mockery, derision and thoughtlessness of this thread is so very public as well. And I apologize unreservedly for my comments, which were never intended to hurt, but which through their lack of consideration for the person they were aimed at ultimately, had precisely that end result. Surely I came to these boards in part to learn a little more about the world and to be given new food for thought, and perhaps this thread has succeeded in those ends more than any other to date. It's just appalling that a human being had to be treated the way that Danny was in order for these insights and realizations to be made.

Light-hearted Alex promises to resume normal service again after this, but some things need to be said with a more serious head on.

________________________________________________________
I'm impressed.

 

[Shelby]

As I began reading this thread my fingers were itching to point out the hypocrisy of all the homophobe bashing gay apologists dissing Danny.

Thanks to Webster and even moreso to Danny himself it appears to have self corrected.

But I still can't quite let it go. The next time you decide to make fun of ignorant unenlightened homophobic rednecks take a break and go look in the mirror.
​

 

[mindseye]

As I began reading this thread my fingers were itching to point out the hypocrisy of all the homophobe bashing gay apologists dissing Danny.
​

You're comparing apples and oranges; and your use of the phrase "homophobe bashing gay apologists" reveals your bias on this issue.

 

[Shelby]

You're comparing apples and oranges; and your use of the phrase "homophobe bashing gay apologists" reveals your bias on this issue.

How so? Because some people are predisposed at birth to be sexually attracted to the same sex but not to bodymod?

As for my bias, you may have something there but probably not what you think. I'm biased against all whiners. If you feel oppressed do something about it. Make yourself an example of excellence. Encourage others in your grievance group to do the same. Make it glaringly obvious (by actions not by words) that you're far superior to those who fear you. That's the real path to respect.
​

 

[Shelby]

Look here, I didn't mean to stir up a bunch of shit or come across so harsh. What I was hoping to do was point out that it's human nature to question things that are foreign to us. No one is immune. So before we start feeling self-righteous we might oughta take a look at ourselves.

 

[raflin]

You boys are JEALOUS, it's obvious. Come on boys, grow up.:wink:

 

[mnlivinglarge]

Remember the human

The golden rule your parents and your kindergarten teacher taught you was pretty simple: Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you. Imagine how you'd feel if you were in the other person's shoes. Stand up for yourself, but try not to hurt people's feelings.

In cyberspace, we state this in an even more basic manner: Remember the human.

When you communicate electronically, all you see is a computer screen. You don't have the opportunity to use facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice to communicate your meaning; words -- lonely written words -- are all you've got. And that goes for your correspondent as well.

When you're holding a conversation online -- whether it's an email exchange or a response to a discussion group posting -- it's easy to misinterpret your correspondent's meaning. And it's frighteningly easy to forget that your correspondent is a person with feelings more or less like your own.

It's ironic, really. Computer networks bring people together who'd otherwise never meet. But the impersonality of the medium changes that meeting to something less -- well, less personal. Humans exchanging email often behave the way some people behind the wheel of a car do: They curse at other drivers, make obscene gestures, and generally behave like savages. Most of them would never act that way at work or at home. But the interposition of the machine seems to make it acceptable.

The message of Netiquette is that it's not acceptable. Yes, use your network connections to express yourself freely, explore strange new worlds, and boldly go where you've never gone before. But remember the Prime Directive of Netiquette: Those are real people out there.

Author Unknown

 

[bigtard]

it is insensitive and using the excuse that he did it to himself makes about as much sense as slamming someone that has an extreme hair color or style and saying its because they chose that color.

Making fun of dyed hair is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Tenderhook]

I don't understand why people risk ruining what they have for the slim chance of getting a little more.

 

[mindseye]

I don't understand why people risk ruining what they have for the slim chance of getting a little more.

Would you take a better-paying job if it meant a slightly longer commute? The longer commute means that your chances of being in a fatal automobile accident are increased, but I bet a lot of people would choose to take that risk. And I doubt you'd think it was odd of them to "risk ruining what they have" for a little more.

We make choices regarding risks and benefits all the time. (Will I have yummy artery-clogging pizza for dinner, or asparagus?) Heck, Las Vegas and state lotteries thrive on people making ill-informed choices about risks.

What a bland world it would be if everyone assessed risk the same way. We'd have no professional sports, no movies that required stunt doubles, no space exploration, and no pioneers in extreme penis enlargement.

 

[Tenderhook]

Would you take a better-paying job if it meant a slightly longer commute? The longer commute means that your chances of being in a fatal automobile accident are increased, but I bet a lot of people would choose to take that risk. And I doubt you'd think it was odd of them to "risk ruining what they have" for a little more.

We make choices regarding risks and benefits all the time. (Will I have yummy artery-clogging pizza for dinner, or asparagus?) Heck, Las Vegas and state lotteries thrive on people making ill-informed choices about risks.

What a bland world it would be if everyone assessed risk the same way. We'd have no professional sports, no movies that required stunt doubles, no space exploration, and no pioneers in extreme penis enlargement.

Dwel't a miner, forty niner, and his daughter, Clementine.

The risk vs. benefit point is well taken generally, but the benefits of a higher paying job is far more easily measured in absolute terms than the benefits reaped from increasing penis size.

Also, the hedonistic pleasure of eating Pizza does not pose a risk to a person's digestive system unless if done in an extreme manner, which is what this man has done to his penis. This is the penis equivalent of eating Pizza every day for years.

Yes, the world would be bland if we all assessed risk the same way: We wouldn't have people like this person to talk about, or humanity would cease to be because all men would be obsessively pumping their penises like this guy.

Sorry, Mindseye, but your arguments sound a lot like rationalizations.

 

[mindseye]

Sorry, Mindseye, but your arguments sound a lot like rationalizations.

Well, your question was literally about risk, and weighing benefits against risk is really the only way to answer that question. I'm thinking now that you were asking a more general question about his motivation.

And that style of question is one I've heard over and over. "Why would anyone get a facial tattoo?" "Why would anyone eat raw fish?" "Why would anyone pierce their nipples?" "Why would anyone wear shorts in this weather?"

Was that the question you meant?

 

[Tenderhook]

Well, your question was literally about risk, and weighing benefits against risk is really the only way to answer that question. I'm thinking now that you were asking a more general question about his motivation.

And that style of question is one I've heard over and over. "Why would anyone get a facial tattoo?" "Why would anyone eat raw fish?" "Why would anyone pierce their nipples?" "Why would anyone wear shorts in this weather?"

Was that the question you meant?

My question was rhetorical. Sorry if it wasn't obvious.

I've already started a thread asking about people's motivations to do this. I'm not planning to have this discussion on any other thread.

 

[Charles Finn]

or sheep

 

[SKORN]

???

 

[jeff black]

Would you take a better-paying job if it meant a slightly longer commute? The longer commute means that your chances of being in a fatal automobile accident are increased, but I bet a lot of people would choose to take that risk. And I doubt you'd think it was odd of them to "risk ruining what they have" for a little more.


THERES A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TAKING A JOB AND ALTERING YOUR PENIS :biggrin1:

 

[The Dark Venetian]

<Content Deleted by User>