The main reason for the post was the standard you created

And I would probably say the main "elemental" reason was a specific word you used mutilates. It just felt unusual even though I can personally understand this POV and this is my first instinct.

But what is mutilation. To me personally a Prince Albert is a mutilation. Personally I think there is not something right in your head if you are willing to do this to yourself. This is not a tattoo, or an ear ring but something different.

But I can also understand how this can be no big deal to a man. I think you are kind of weird but is the problem them or me. And doing it for a reason just to feel better about themselves is such an arbitrary thing.

The rest of the questions was to better understand other tests cases. To better understand what I thought / think is your point of view and to better why you drawed the arbitrary line in the sand exactly the place you drew the line.

They were hypotheticals I came up with pretty quickly but were examples of me trying to think of situations that could be considermutuliation by someone for arbitrary reasons but were also closer to a functional point of view of doing something restorative. Thus I started out with a question that was more medical involved, moved to the Prince Albert, and then moved to things that are cosmetic but I think most people can relate to personally from an empathetic point of view.

For example having 2 balls on the outside if an IED damages 1 and we then have to remove it and then we can keep it at 1 ball or we can put a plastic ball in and now you have 1 normal ball and to outsiders you may want to have a sexy time with you will appear to have 2 balls even if 1 is plastic and it is a secret.

Aka the individual questions were not there for individual reasons but instead was trying to refine the state of your "proposed solution," by throwing test cases at the proposed solution that you may not have thought of even if they are peripheral to the original comments about Viagra and such. Except it is not really peripheral questions but instead refining the state of the understanding via challenging things from different points of view.