Malleables… Ramblings, Questions, Decisions

[JohnnyBorg]

Here's a summary I found on malleables shared by someone on Reddit. Data on malleables are very sparse for sure.

Was the user someone who had a malleable implanted? Or just speculation?

[duke_cicero]

Here's a summary I found on malleables shared by someone on Reddit. Data on malleables are very sparse for sure.

Was the user someone who had a malleable implanted? Or just speculation?

The tone of it sounds like speculation to me.

[JohnnyBorg]

Here's a summary I found on malleables shared by someone on Reddit. Data on malleables are very sparse for sure.

Was the user someone who had a malleable implanted? Or just speculation?

The tone of it sounds like speculation to me.

This is why I avoid r/penileimplants. It’s chaotic over there and the comment sections of some of the posts - especially the malleable ones - are threads of wild questions with zero replies.

@RigiconDownUnder I think I’ll have a solid perspective on this eventually and might be able to demonstrate some new data on patient satisfaction - whether it’s positive or negative data is yet to be seen. I think we’ve seen guys like Duke, TheDriver, mbambo, etc all very happy with their malleable implants, and their journeys are well documented.

With that said though - I think I’ll be bringing some flavor to the conversation, because I’m smaller in length and girth (I think ALL the guys who are happy with their malleables are also larger than me. I’m about same length of mbambo but the dude is FAR girthier than me ). It will be interesting to see how my experience stacks up, because one very real concern I have with my own situation is that my smaller size will need to be made up for by technique technique technique. And there’s no question that an IPP is more rigid than a malleable overall.

I’m very excited to keep healing and get the show on the road

[lasthope2.0]

Love this thread!

I'm a dumbass, so I asked my AI assistant (future sex robot) for her thoughts

Claim 1: "A malleable doesn't make you hard... it's like two pencils that keep you straight."
This is partially misleading and oversimplifies how malleable penile implants function. Malleable (or semi-rigid) implants do provide sufficient hardness and rigidity for sexual intercourse—they're designed specifically for that purpose. They consist of bendable rods (often silicone-coated with a metal core) surgically inserted into the corpora cavernosa (the erectile chambers of the penis). You manually position the penis upward for an erection-like state, and it remains firm enough for penetration without deflating or softening over time. The "two pencils" analogy is crude but somewhat apt for the rod-like structure, but it ignores that these rods create a reliable, semi-rigid erection on demand—no natural arousal required. It's not just about "straightness"; it's about functional rigidity. In contrast, inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) use a pump to inflate cylinders for a more natural-feeling erection, but malleables are simpler, with fewer parts and lower mechanical failure rates. They're often preferred by patients desiring simplicity or with limited dexterity (e.g., due to arthritis or neurological issues).

Claim 2: "Your own body still has to be aroused for any girth."
This is flat-out wrong. Malleable implants bypass the body's natural arousal process entirely. The rods provide constant rigidity and occupy the space previously filled by blood during a natural erection, so girth is determined by the implant's size and the penis's anatomy at the time of surgery—not by arousal, blood flow, or hormones. Once implanted, the penis maintains a fixed girth in both flaccid and "erect" positions; there's no inflation or deflation like with an IPP. No sexual stimulation is needed—the device works mechanically. This is a key advantage for men with complete ED, where natural arousal doesn't produce any erection or girth increase anyway. Sensation and orgasm remain possible if nerves are intact, but the implant doesn't rely on them for function.

Claim 3: "If you're dead set on this you will become smaller and it doesn't matter which brand."
This is a myth rooted in perception, not fact. Penile implants do not inherently make the penis smaller—any perceived shortening is usually due to the underlying ED causing penile atrophy (shrinkage from disuse) before surgery, not the implant itself. Studies show that objective measurements often reveal no significant length loss post-surgery compared to pre-op stretched length; outcomes depend on surgical technique, patient anatomy, and post-op care. Up to 72% of patients perceive shortening, but objective data debunks this as memory bias or unengorged glans (head) making it seem shorter. Implants actually halt ongoing atrophy from ED.

Claim 4: "An IPP is the only way you can become full again"
Not true—both types restore erectile function effectively, though they differ in feel and use. "Full" likely means a natural-like erection with variable rigidity and flaccidity. IPPs do excel here: they inflate for a firm, girth-expanding erection (mimicking nature) and deflate to a soft state, offering better concealment and satisfaction rates (often >90% for patients and partners). However, malleables provide reliable "fullness" for intercourse without pumping, with high satisfaction in suitable candidates (e.g., 80-90% in some studies), lower costs, and fewer complications like mechanical failure or infection. Neither "restores" pre-ED fullness perfectly, but both enable satisfying sex. Choice depends on lifestyle, dexterity, and preferences—not one being the "only" option.

Claim 5: "This will only make it less likely to achieve your original size when you do get an IPP."
There's no strong evidence supporting this. Switching from a malleable to an IPP is possible and often done successfully (e.g., in cases where patients want more natural function). In fact, studies show IPPs may yield slightly greater post-op length and girth gains compared to malleables (e.g., +0.6 cm length vs. +0.2 cm), but starting with a malleable doesn't "lock in" smaller size—it can preserve tissue by preventing atrophy until an upgrade. Risks like infection or scarring from the first surgery could complicate a revision, but that's not unique to malleables and doesn't inherently reduce achievable size. If anything, early implantation (of either type) helps maintain original size by countering ED-related shrinkage.

[JohnnyBorg]

Love this thread!

I'm a dumbass, so I asked my AI assistant (future sex robot) for her thoughts

Claim 1: "A malleable doesn't make you hard... it's like two pencils that keep you straight."
This is partially misleading and oversimplifies how malleable penile implants function. Malleable (or semi-rigid) implants do provide sufficient hardness and rigidity for sexual intercourse—they're designed specifically for that purpose. They consist of bendable rods (often silicone-coated with a metal core) surgically inserted into the corpora cavernosa (the erectile chambers of the penis). You manually position the penis upward for an erection-like state, and it remains firm enough for penetration without deflating or softening over time. The "two pencils" analogy is crude but somewhat apt for the rod-like structure, but it ignores that these rods create a reliable, semi-rigid erection on demand—no natural arousal required. It's not just about "straightness"; it's about functional rigidity. In contrast, inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) use a pump to inflate cylinders for a more natural-feeling erection, but malleables are simpler, with fewer parts and lower mechanical failure rates. They're often preferred by patients desiring simplicity or with limited dexterity (e.g., due to arthritis or neurological issues).

Claim 2: "Your own body still has to be aroused for any girth."
This is flat-out wrong. Malleable implants bypass the body's natural arousal process entirely. The rods provide constant rigidity and occupy the space previously filled by blood during a natural erection, so girth is determined by the implant's size and the penis's anatomy at the time of surgery—not by arousal, blood flow, or hormones. Once implanted, the penis maintains a fixed girth in both flaccid and "erect" positions; there's no inflation or deflation like with an IPP. No sexual stimulation is needed—the device works mechanically. This is a key advantage for men with complete ED, where natural arousal doesn't produce any erection or girth increase anyway. Sensation and orgasm remain possible if nerves are intact, but the implant doesn't rely on them for function.

Claim 3: "If you're dead set on this you will become smaller and it doesn't matter which brand."
This is a myth rooted in perception, not fact. Penile implants do not inherently make the penis smaller—any perceived shortening is usually due to the underlying ED causing penile atrophy (shrinkage from disuse) before surgery, not the implant itself. Studies show that objective measurements often reveal no significant length loss post-surgery compared to pre-op stretched length; outcomes depend on surgical technique, patient anatomy, and post-op care. Up to 72% of patients perceive shortening, but objective data debunks this as memory bias or unengorged glans (head) making it seem shorter. Implants actually halt ongoing atrophy from ED.

Claim 4: "An IPP is the only way you can become full again"
Not true—both types restore erectile function effectively, though they differ in feel and use. "Full" likely means a natural-like erection with variable rigidity and flaccidity. IPPs do excel here: they inflate for a firm, girth-expanding erection (mimicking nature) and deflate to a soft state, offering better concealment and satisfaction rates (often >90% for patients and partners). However, malleables provide reliable "fullness" for intercourse without pumping, with high satisfaction in suitable candidates (e.g., 80-90% in some studies), lower costs, and fewer complications like mechanical failure or infection. Neither "restores" pre-ED fullness perfectly, but both enable satisfying sex. Choice depends on lifestyle, dexterity, and preferences—not one being the "only" option.

Claim 5: "This will only make it less likely to achieve your original size when you do get an IPP."
There's no strong evidence supporting this. Switching from a malleable to an IPP is possible and often done successfully (e.g., in cases where patients want more natural function). In fact, studies show IPPs may yield slightly greater post-op length and girth gains compared to malleables (e.g., +0.6 cm length vs. +0.2 cm), but starting with a malleable doesn't "lock in" smaller size—it can preserve tissue by preventing atrophy until an upgrade. Risks like infection or scarring from the first surgery could complicate a revision, but that's not unique to malleables and doesn't inherently reduce achievable size. If anything, early implantation (of either type) helps maintain original size by countering ED-related shrinkage.

Thanks LastHope - Claim 5 in particular is definitely hearsay. There’s a reason why malleables are leveraged as salvage implants - they can keep the corporal bodies expanded and prevent further shrinking from ED. Later, a patient can switch to an IPP if they so chose and take advantage of cycling, etc. That really seems like implants 101

Unfortunately on r/penileimplants, there really tends to be a heavy bias against malleables (and honestly just general misunderstandings) whereas on FT the discussions are a lot deeper and rooted in holistic analysis + logic.