Repost of another post from another thread, to increase visibility.

As posted by Jesus:

Re: What is the ideal age for castration

We have some data on this question from the third survey that was run on the EA community. The first article based on the survey has just been submitted for publication, so it may be a while before much of the data is published. Two questions were relevant to this thread:

If you are permanently castrated, at what age were you actually castrated?

If you could have been castrated at a different age, at what age would you have preferred to be castrated?

After removing responses from those who had been involuntarily castrated (prostate and testicular cancer, accidents, etc.), there were 146 who had answered both questions.

If you are permanently castrated, at what age were you actually castrated?

Average age: 47.5

Youngest had been castrated at 18

If you could have been castrated at a different age, at what age would you have preferred to be castrated?

Average age: 25.6

38 would prefer to have been castrated at age 12 or younger (26% of the entire group)

Another 16 would have preferred castration by age 17 (an additional 11%)

37 (25%) would prefer to have been castrated at age 40 or older

What would be very interesting would be for those responding here to give their REASONS for choosing a particular age. We didn't ask that and it would be valuable information.

When I was 17, I decided "for sure" that I needed to get the surgery done at some point in my life. However, I figured I could push it aside until my late twenties or even thirties and just get it done easily once I was financially independent and didn't have people around to ask questions. That way of thinking was naive and irresponsible. I only lasted about 4 years before I started buying sutures, scalpels, and hemostats online.

As for life-changing decisions at young ages, I say age has nothing to do with it. Some individuals are intelligent, understanding, and considerate as a toddler, while others have no patience for anything complicated even as a young adult. However, when someone has good decision-making at an early age, they still tend to improve even more as they get older.

The few examples we have of "voluntary" preteen castration such as David Reimer all had disastrous results. But by the very nature of such things we only hear about the failures and not the success. I imagine there were other "David Reimers" who turned out fine but why would they go public. But I have more to add.

The problem, as I see it, is if voluntary preteen castration and nullification ever became legal no one knows what the long term ramifications would be. Suppose two adults voluntary nullified as 12 year olds married and then decided to adopt a baby boy. Once that boy reached the age of 12 (the same age at which his parents were nullified) would he be more likely to desire castration than a boy adopted by intact parents? My guess would be he would.

Suppose a church opens for members who predominantly support voluntary castration at a young age. Would boys raised in such a church be more likely to ask to be castrated. Once again I'd say yes.

But even so I feel that 12 year olds should be allowed to choose provided they receive approval from a castration neutral medical professional.

I don't know if David Reimer's nullification could be called "voluntary"

Voluntary, in that his parents agreed to the proposal made by Dr. John Money, in his supposition that remodeling the outer genitals (to the best extent at the time, and for a child) would be the best course of action.

For those that don't know, Reimer was, as an infant, the victim of a botched circumcision that mutilated his penis. Money recommended that the child be castrated as well, and raised a girl. Long story short, it didn't work as planned, and in adulthood, Reimer committed suicide.

You can learn more by searching him up on Google or such.

So, the question is not if a kid is able to choose on his own, but if the parents have the right to have him castrated or nullified. In my erotic fantasies they absolutely have the right to use and abuse, but in the reality I don't think it would be a improvement for the human race

CircItaly (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:52 pm I don't know if David Reimer's nullification could be called "voluntary"

Well, David has never requested to be castrated. So it wasn't a voluntary castration, even though his parents agreed to get it done, that was unacceptable. Doctors and parents judgements are often questionable. In USA (and Canada back then) parents who refused to get their sons circumcised were told to force retract their sons foreskin, which often cause para phimosis for which circumcision will be proposed to cure it. That is questionable too, in some European countries, it is forbidden to it and parents who do it risk a 10 years sentence. David twin brother was supposed to be circumcised along with his brother to cure para phimosis but his circumcision was cancelled because of what happened to his brother. Guess what, his para phimosis was cured within a month, with out medical help. The trick is just leave the boy's penis alone. BTW his twin brother has also committed suicide. No ones are ever born crazy, they are driven crazy by society and their religious believes. According to European doctors, only 1/1600 boy need to be circumcised. So why do they circumcise so many boys in USA ?

100% agree

Circumcision and especially completely removing the frenulum is a partial destruction of the man s sexual pleasures as an infant and without his agreement.

The medical people make tons of money off circumcision and pressure parents to cut their newborn sons.

The mothers seem especially guilty of pushing to circumcise their newborn sons to " look cleaner " than the natural uncut penis with its protective foreskin. How many fathers ever push to cut their daughter s genitals to make them look cleaner and be easier to keep clean in western countries ? The medical establishment would crucify any father pushing to cut off his newborn daughter s genitals to " look cleaner " and be easier to keep clean.

Go into any women s locker room and take a good, deep smell of how many females smell and tell me males need cleaner genitals !

Back to castration.

Most young boys have no idea of the intense sexual pleasures and sex drives that their balls will give them after puberty. Most young boys have little idea of what sex is or feels like. How can they possibly decide before they ever experience full grown manhood and sex to even know what they would be giving up ?

Too many young boys and teens would be suseptable to pressure from drs, parents, teachers, peers, girls, religious leaders, and who knows who else and then regret it for life.

Experience has taught us that the young are not able to make rational choices about alcohol, voting, marriage, driving and a number of other decisions that they will make in adulthood, I dont understand how anyone could expect ALL kids to be able to make that type of decision at an early age, you say one kid can make the decision and the next can't. We as a society have chosen 18 to be the general age of consent for a reason, it could be 17 or 19 but w e chose 18 as the time our kids are capable and responsible enough to make decisions that are permanent and unchangeable bacause they (as a whole) will not have the tools to make the best choices for themselves. Yes there are exceptions to the rule, but you can't change the rule for all because the exception.