How close is chemical castration to the "real thing"

Post Reply
WheelyCurious
Articles: 0
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2022 9:23 pm

Posting Rank

How close is chemical castration to the "real thing"

Post by WheelyCurious »

As one new to and exploring the idea of becoming a eunuch, I am very much in agreement with the suggestion to try a fairly reversible 'test drive' of chemical castration before doing anything that can't be undone. Everything I read sounds like it is a wonderful thing for those that are so driven but I want to be SURE before I go for the 'big snip' ✂️🔪

However it still leaves me wondering a bit about how close are the two options in what they do. Obviously chemical doesn't get rid of the dangly bits, but otherwise????

So my question for those who have done both reversible chemical castration (i.e. not stuff like CaCl injections) and surgical, is what do you see as differences in the effects?

Better?

Worse?

Just Different?

I look forward to hearing your experiences on how close the test drive matches the end result...

WheelyCurious
Losethem (imported)
Articles: 0
Posts: 3342
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2001 9:01 am

Posting Rank

Re: How close is chemical castration to the "real thing"

Post by Losethem (imported) »

It depends on what your goal is. If you're wishing to lose your testicles but remain sexually active/interested after, you'd need to take testosterone once your nuts are gone, and the chemical castration route would be pointless because your goal is not to lose your testosterone, but to lose your testicles.

If you wish to lose your testosterone, chemical castration is a reasonable "test drive" of what it would be like to be castrated.

There are many threads on this here, you could probably sort out your questions by reading through a couple.
WheelyCurious
Articles: 0
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2022 9:23 pm

Posting Rank

Re: How close is chemical castration to the "real thing"

Post by WheelyCurious »

Losethem (imported) wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:09 am It depends on what your goal is. If you're wishing to lose your testicles but remain sexually active/interested after, you'd need to take testosterone once your nuts are gone, and the chemical castration route would be pointless because your goal is not to lose your testosterone, but to lose your testicles.

If you wish to lose your testosterone, chemical castration is a reasonable "test drive" of what it would be like to be castrated.

There are many threads on this here, you could probably sort out your questions by reading through a couple.

I would like to lose the testicles from the standpoint of comfort / getting them out of the way, but my interest is more in the described mental changes of losing the testosterone... From the threads I've read I'm thinking in terms of doing minimal E post castration as it seems from the described side effects that having some sort of HRT, of either T or E is better than the middle ground of nothing.

I am particularly worried about osteoporosis since I am already at the osteopenia level from the waist down due to my SCI making me non load bearing in my legs.
nutlessstud (imported)
Articles: 0
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 7:48 am

Posting Rank

Re: How close is chemical castration to the "real thing"

Post by nutlessstud (imported) »

If you're having issues with health, such as bone density issues, it's a very bad idea to fuck with your hormones at all. You'd better just let it be.
Valery_V (imported)
Articles: 0
Posts: 1279
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:06 pm

Posting Rank

Re: How close is chemical castration to the "real thing"

Post by Valery_V (imported) »

nutlessstud (imported) wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 9:54 am If you're having issues with health, such as bone density issues, it's a very bad idea to fuck with your hormones at all. You'd better just let it be.

I fully support the opinion of my colleague.
Paolo
Articles: 0
Posts: 9709
Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 8:53 am

Posting Rank

Re: How close is chemical castration to the "real thing"

Post by Paolo »

I can remember back in the early days of EA, with the "festering, reeking, open sewer" of a message board we had then (Talula's quote), osteoporosis was a real hot-button topic that led to a lot of flame wars.

Now we know it's very real - and nothing to mess with!

If you're suspect of having it, or at risk for it, find a way to get tested for it! It's not as if it's "something you can adapt to" and live with.
WheelyCurious
Articles: 0
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2022 9:23 pm

Posting Rank

Re: How close is chemical castration to the "real thing"

Post by WheelyCurious »

Because of my paralysis, I have several different potential medical issues, and this is one of the biggest reasons I want to be very careful in my explorations and do things with medical supervision.... Of course the paralysis is one of the bigger underlying things behind my wanting to go in this direction... I kind of suspect that if the equipment still worked I'd be less inclined to mess with it....

There was a survey done in the SCI community many years back where folks were asked to rank their priorities if only certain functions could be restored...

Number one for the quadriplegics was hand and arm function, which bumped the rest of the list down one, but otherwise it was the same for quads and paraplegics -

1. Normal bladder and bowel function

2. Normal sexual function (of whatever sort preferred)

3. Walking...

While there have been some very significant signs of progress towards effective recovery for some traumatic SCI injury types, which might lead to actual availability of treatments for average patients (not just those lucky enough to get to play lab rat) in 10-20 years (the FDA and the 'medical ethics' types will do all they can to block and slow progress) I don't have such an optimistic future - according to the researchers I've had the opportunity to ask in various contexts, there is so little research into ischemic injuries, they don't even have an "animal model" for them to try stuff....

WheelyCurious
Post Reply

Return to “Eunuch Central”