If you remove cost factor...

[Daniel006]

I know that cost is a huge factor with bottom surgery and impacts the kind of surgery people choose, or if they choose to have surgery at all.  I'm curious.  If cost was not an issue, would you choose to undergo bottom surgery at all, and if so, which kind (meta/phallo) and what features (urethral lengthening, scrotoplasty, etc.) would you have?

[LordKAT]

I'd be on my way to Serbia.

[GnomeKid]

I'd be on my way to Serbia.

this.

[TerriT]

It doesn't matter, you still have all the emotional and relationship stuff to deal with. Maybe think about something you could lose that provides all that money. What if you're a breadwinner and could lose all you have and provide? Is just not that simple.

[sneakersjay]

I still would have gone with meta even if I had more money.  Lots of other factors that make a phallo not a good thing for me.


Jay

[mm]

Urethral lengthening is what I want for sure so I can pee standing and use a urinal too. I am still not sure on meta or phallo as there are so many pros and cons for both procedures.  It does make it interesting when you don't have to consider cost.

[King Malachite]

It depends.  If I was a smaller guy that had good growth, I would go with a metoidioplasty with urethral lenthening and scrotoplasty using the surrounding fat.

If I didn't have much growth and not smaller, then I would go for an ALT or Groin flap phalloplasty with an erectile device.

[mangoslayer]

I used to think I would have chosen meta if I had more growth, but I honestly really like my phallo. At first my dick seemed huge but now I feel like it's just right. Money didn't even play a factor for me in the first place, the costs would have been the same since what I paid out of pocket for was travel and stuff. They both have their pros and cons but i'm glad I got phallo.