Talk:Meatotomy

Prince Albert piercing aftereffects
I had a Prince Albert peircing which I was very proud of, after 1 year the peircing began to irritate - sure that this would pass I continued to wear the peircing. After about 6 weeks I notice that the Glans of my penis were starting to seperate and removed the peircing immediately.

I am now left with a unsightly hole in my penis which while not uncomfortable, creates a few physical issues: Urine Flow, Semen Flow & Power of Semen flow. As well as this my penus head remains moist for the majority of the time and this excess moisture (and depite bathing twice daily) tends to cause an unpleasant smell.

I understand that there are many cases far worse than this, but I beive that this was cased by a combination of factors: 1. Peircing was not positioned far enough down the urethra conbined with the weight of the peircing itself.

The problem here is that there is a mass of information about the benefits and the proceedure of the peircing but very list information relating to the issues which may arrise as a result.


 * Are you sure that the meatotomy entry is the proper place for your comment? If you are concerned that the Prince Albert piercing entry is lacking in information, that would be the proper place for your input on the matter.  One of the reasons that I have not addressed the long term impact of transurethral piercings, both with and without jewelry, is that there is little to no citeable data to support a variety of anecdotal issues.  In other words it's hard to tell the causes or prevelance of situations like yours. Glowimperial 13:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If I cite the frenulum as erogenous can I say...
Crushing it will destroy erogenous tissue?TipPt 16:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

At least make readers aware that they should really consider and push home diliation with their doctor.TipPt 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no original research. Anyway, no tissue is removed, so saying that erogenous tissue is lost is dubious. Jakew 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have two citations ... the Hass human sexuality (UCLA textbook) stating that the frenulum "...contributes stantially to the pleasurable feeling experienced during sexual activity" and a UCLA reference desk sexuality encyclopedia that states that the frenulum is "particularly responsive to stimulation" (relative to other zones on the penis).


 * How about ... The upper frenulum is crushed and split during the procedure, and to potentially preserve erogenous tissue (cites if you want), other techniques may be employed....TipPt 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Tip, but policy explicitly prevents novel syntheses such as this. I can't find any examples where authors have said anything like this before.


 * Out of interest, what methodologies did the UCLA authors use to determine these 'facts'? Jakew 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They are both university books ... long reviewed and used by folks not involved in any circ debate. You reviewed the Hass and said it was OK, the other is a from a reference book in the UCLA Central library ... their only reference encyclopedia on sexuality.TipPt 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Please Please...
...Don't put up a picture for this article. The article is extremely informative and I got the gist of it without needing to see an example. If somebody wants to see a meatotomy picture gallery, they can go to google images right?? Thanks MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No it does need a picture. People should not have to go to another site to look at a picture, or if you're really squeamish you could at least put a link to where a picture can be found.  If anything the picture you create in the mind might well be far more disturbing than the real thing.  And if you can't handle it, you probably should not be reading something with such a disgusting sounding title in the first place!  Nevart (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with MisplacedFate1313 (talk), I feel that pictures of such genitalia are unnecessary, especially for such a topic which may cause great disturbance in some people. I feel as if people are exploiting the ability to use images in an article to justify the usage of a graphic image that in many cases would not be acceptable morally. If anyone truly did want to see such an image of this nature then they could find it elsewhere as these are the things on Wikipedia that are taking away from its credibility and reputation as an informative portal used by many people of different ages, religions, and moral philosophy. Deathkami (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said on the page for anal piercing, Wikipedia is not censored. If you don't want to see it, you can configure your browser so you don't have to. It is not our job to babysit others' browsing habits. Please do not remove the image again. Thank you. --132 16:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

why does wikipedia even have an article on this filth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsar (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)