smoothie36 (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2016 2:56 am
I found the results to be the same. I was chemically castrated, and then surgically. No noticeable change after the surgery. Chemical means buying and taking pills forever. Expensive and may have side effect problems. Surgical costs more up front but then nor more costs or pill taking.
I am a chemical eunuch. I took Androcur and Tamoxifen combination for 4 years, and had to stop in 2009 because of the side effects of low T was really getting to me. To my pleasant surprise, all the desired castration changes remained even after stopping: atrophied genitals continued to atrophy and recent ultrasound scan of my testicles were the size equivalent to a 10 year old. my penis lost over 1 inch. My free testosterone was 75 ng/dl (normal range 250-827). After 10 years of becoming a permanent chemical eunuch, I am back on testosterone supplement to help with my constant fatigue and osteopenia.
I can't say I am terribly happy with having had to get back on testosterone supplement. That wasn't the point of getting castrated. But the side effects are serious.
So, chemical castration does become permanent as well. If your goal is just smaller genitals, like me, then this is a viable option. But if you wish the junk all gone and the smooth look, then of course, surgical castration is the only way to go.
Regardless, either way often causes osteopenia / osteoporosis, depression, fatigue, among other side effects.