davidtup (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:57 am One of the counseling services in the US for people with HIV has noted that a large portion of their clients have genital issues ie either want to be castrated or nullified or have a vaginaplasty.

Interesting post in total. Thank you.

The snippet of quote here is very much of interest. Can you provide, either by post or Private Message, the name of this clinic, or other references to your statement? Their information would be very helpful in furthering the understanding of, and gaining acceptance of, eunuchism and rationales for it.

I'd have to do a search for the exact source but if I remember right it was the Gay Men's health crisis center in New York. I'd read it a few years back and ran into it again as my shrinks mentioned it.

Both the general one I went to for my psych evaluation and the specialist at the big clinic in Toronto. It's all part of the fact that on a diagnosis like this, HIV, certain things that are on the back burner become a priority. What the astonishing point was, was the high number that wanted it.

As a note my doctor has a fool proof method of ensuring that this is what the patient wants. He prepares, ie opens and exposes the testicles and the patient cuts the cords them selves. The doctor finishes up and closes.

kristoff wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:35 pm Interesting post in total. Thank you.

The snippet of quote here is very much of interest. Can you provide, either by post or Private Message, the name of this clinic, or other references to your statement? Their information would be very helpful in furthering the understanding of, and gaining acceptance of, eunuchism and rationales for it.

After some thought on the subject of what should the protocol for getting an elective castration be, I have considered various aspect after having done some research into the subject.

Firstly, a medically necessary castration for what ever reason is in a sense a forced procedure. At times the patient doesn't even have a say in the matter, ie emergency procedure due to accident or injury. The rest of the time it is still forced as the only possible way of survival is to get the procedure. It is like some one who puts a gun to your head and says, get castrated or die a long, slow and painful death.

The incidence of suicide by men who have been medically castrated is very high, some will chose suicide over castration. The same goes for women who have had a mastectomy, the psychological equivalent of castation. Suicide rates for persons who are disabled or have had amputations is also very high.

The prime factor is the support the person receives.

In the story 'A Word of Warning', the prime factor is not the castration but the fact that everyone rejected him after.

We live in a society that rejects persons who are different. For example I know of a teenager who was castrated due to an accident and afterwards was totally barred from playing any sports due to the outright ban on any use of steroids or hormones. He could in a disabled league. The divorce rate after castrations and mastectomies is very high, and many times where a divorce doesn't happen the other party takes on a martyr complex. The same thing happens after many are disabled, but the courts and society looks down on the non-disabled party, they are supposed to become the martyr.

But this rejection of persons who are different, especially physically is even supported in the bible. In Leviticus, there is a prohibition on anyone who is not physically perfect from entering the temple grounds, the blind, lame, a birth mark, etc. They, like homosexuals, are abominations onto the Lord.

We see in our society how being physically perfect is exaulted. Those persons who are good looking are more likely to be hired, and promoted, etc. They are chosen over persons who may be better qualified. We have created a society that promotes physical perfection, in what ever form it choses. This perfection mandate causes many problems like anorexia and plastic surgery and fitness addictions. Other societies women may consider that even though they weight 200 lbs they are too thin as their standard of beauty is different.

I've talked to plastic surgeons who have said that they have run into many patients who are constantly requesting procedures. Not just women but men as well. They like the prescription addict can easily go to another doctor to get what they want from another doctor if one refuses.

As for us who are sexually/genitally dysmorphic, ie the eunuch and the trans and everyone in between, our society looks down on us and calls us insane or mentally ill. Yet a desire for castration or a vaginaplasty is no more different than a person who is obsessed that a body part is mis-shapen or wrong, ie a nose. Our society does not look at them and say they are ill.

Many of the gate-keepers are opposed to any of the changes we feel are necessary for us. They, if they could, would refuse any changes people commonly do now, from breast reduction or enhancement to the face lifts.

Then there are those that have such high standards of what a woman is. Some of the worst are the post op transexuals. Some have such a 1950's or should that be 1850's, ideal of what a woman should look and act like. Many of these have courses on how you should look and act and unless you look and act like they think you should, No Way will they ever allow you the access to what you need.

As an interesting note: I understand that in many strict Moslem societies getting a sex change is very easy. Just walk into a doctor and say you are homosexual. I haven't seen any actual statistics but I understand that some of these places they are performing more per capita than in the US and other places.

To sum up the protocol should be

An evaluation to ensure that there is no underlying cause for the desire. If there is how will the 2 interact. Help, aggravate or neutral.

Also that it is a true desire not imposed on the person by another. Are their expectations realistic. ie it will not cause them instantly to be attractive, their other problems will not go away.

Do they have support, ie friends, partners and/or family who will support them in their decision?

Do they have a knowledge of the consequences of their actions and are they willing to take full responsibility.

For those that do not desire HRT are they prepared to accept that they may be physically or mentally addicted to their hormones and replacement therapy may be necessary.

All this can be done easily and cheaply.

As a note it should also be done for all non-reconstructive surgery. Especially the second or more.

Then do what my doctor calls a physician assisted self castration.

davidtup (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:55 pm But this rejection of persons who are different, especially physically is even supported in the bible. In Leviticus, there is a prohibition on anyone who is not physically perfect from entering the temple grounds, the blind, lame, a birth mark, etc. They, like homosexuals, are abominations onto the Lord.

Who told you this line of bullshit interpretation?

mrt (imported) wrote: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:03 pm Sadly what you say is also in the mind of some dumb head doctors who think that regardless of the cicumstances you gotta be crazy to want to have your testicles removed.

I say if the person was incompetent to sign the consent form, are they competent to lay the charges and law suit, as well as any proceeds resulting from it? If they were incompetent then, and are now competent. Why are they now? A result of the surgery?

Many shrinks are totally fucked up when it comes to sex, either for religious reasons, or others. Those that are any good and have any care for the person will tell you that they have a problem with that subject and refer you to someone more open minded. Too many of theses so called experts are closed minded about the subject.

I'd say of the guys who I've met over the past few years, from support group type of lists, from Pagans to the sm crowd, to the HiV PoZ, recovery, and others. Those I've chatted with via e-mail, etc. of the bottoms, maybe 75% would easily get castrated, and have a pussy installed and have regularly thought and fantasized about it. And be willing to proceed with it. Of the Tops I've corresponded with, most would fuck a eunuch and a guy with a cunt.

The groups that absolutely should not be involved, are the lawyers and the insurance industry. It should be the surgeons, the counseling industry and the patients.

Paolo wrote: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:07 pm Who told you this line of bullshit interpretation?

It is in Leviticus, some have said it was only for the priests to follow, but in practice it was anyone who entered the temple. That was one of the things Christ apparently had a big problem with. The temple guards would kill anyone who didn't pass certain standards.

mrt (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:58 pm The husbands who want to limit their own sex drive with surgery to match their wives? I really hate to see that (myself) and think it would be far better for them to dial UP the wives drive with HRT. But this is probably why I would make a poor judge of this...

The thing is, it's her body. And in my case, even though we discussed it, she rejected the idea as she believes the risks (cancer, stroke) outweigh the benefits. And she knows them, she's in the health care field. So it's her body and I can't force it on her; on the other hand a friend of mine, whose wife is a retired nurse, did take HRT, as she couldn't live with herself and her menopausal changes. She was motivated. My wife apparently likes her sexless state.

One thing I learned in 20 years of marriage, you can't change the other person. You can only adapt yourself to the other person; if you are really lucky, occasionally a positive change in your own behaviour will prompt one in your partner. But for the most part, you are the one that needs to learn to adapt.

The adaptation can take different ways: outside partner, divorce and find a new spouse, or try to match your drive to your spouse's.

In my case that would be the elimination of my sex drive and ability. But it is MY body and my call if this is the path I chose to take. Surely men married to menopausal women, or to women who have health issues that prevent a normal sex life, should have more options opened to them than just being frustrated and angry all the time; especially if they have kids and are beyond child bearing years. I would think that a mutual agreement between spouses should be enough in these cases. Perhaps an interview of the couple together with a competent psychiatrist, then a 6 month to one year trial period of chemical castration, should qualify us for elective castration. Sort of like the TS who must live as such for a year on hormones before SRS.

I see too many marriages fail at menopause because of the sex drive disparity. If the low-drive person consents to a third party for the high-drive person, great. But not every wife is that accommodating!

Well, that's looking at it from my viewpoint. Others in the wide panoply of sexual identity seeking castration for other reasons would need different criteria.

John

Hi, all. I'm new here and don't want to step on any toes, but I really feel the need to throw my 2 cents in here. I am tapping this post out on a mobile device, so I shall be breif..

While I do not hail from a eunuch point of view (I'm intersex and in the process of transitioning toward androgyne) I do have a certain regrettable amount of SOC experience. If I were to tell the medical system that I wanted hormones or surgery to reclaim my androgyne birthright, I'd be laughed out of the office. Sad, I know, but it is the way of things. I see no reason why the cisgendered medical community would not do the same thing to one expressing a desire to transition to eunuchdom. At present, it appears to me that the only way to escape the straightjacket of gatekeeping is to game the system. Do one's research, study hard, and tell the gatekeepers exactly what they want to hear. Dishonest? You bet. Sad? I don't think so. We live in what is, in many ways a sick society, and to that end I have no problem with saying whatever I need to to accomplish my aim.

Please don't get me wrong; I'd love to see some sort of rational, non-gatekeeping way of regulating elective surgery and body mods, but there is more at stake here than malpractice suits - that's what waivers are for. There is cultural policing at work here. I'd love a rational standard, but who in a position to create one wouldn't restrict x or limit access to y? How are we to make sure this isn't penned and watered down by some well meaning but utterly conventionally vanilla individual? I'd rather see complete avalibility of any genderhack and an airtight waiver. Anything less makes it likely that at least someone will fall through the cracks.

As for regret, anyone that goes to a doctor to be castrated and still has doubts gets what they deserve. I know it sounds harsh, but I believe in personal responsibility. Old fashioned of me, I know.

Thanks for reading this....

I understand your point of view and agree in part with what you say. I do have a slight difference of opinion on the following:

Oberon888 (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:41 pm As for regret, anyone that goes to a doctor to be castrated and still has doubts gets what they deserve. I know it sounds harsh, but I believe in personal responsibility. Old fashioned of me, I know.

In some ways, it's true, the best way to learn a lesson is the hard way, but on something that has far reaching consequences as castration or other serious mods/amputations, in general and mental health, no one should just be able to go the doctor's, request to have something lopped off, and go home with a spur-of-the-moment desire fulfilled. I know so many people who regret even simple, small tattoos that could have been spared had they only had to wait a day or so to got under the needle - and those can even be reversed to an extent (though I've seen the results of that and the tattoo sometimes looked much better).

It is unfair that in many places, a woman can get an abortion at will (and I know some who have life threatening guilt years later afterwards) because she can do what she wants with her body, yet someone spending years living as the opposite gender, taking hormones to alter their body and test drive the basic hormonal and social states, seeing appropriate counselors, yet still has the hardest time getting the actual surgery done.

In general, I think some body mods are just too severe to simply say "you reap what you sow" - there are too many physiological and psychological ramifications to let such things be allowed as walk-in service. There should be some controls/ standards/ guidelines/ etc. to help ensure people are making well informed decisions and truly understand the long term consequences. For those that do know what they're getting themselves into and can demonstrate that, they should be able to have better access.

And back to the other topic of surgically matching ones self their partner’s sex drive – have you considered or tried chemical means as a trial run? At least that is more reversible than actual surgery.

I'm going to take a doctor's side here since I am married to one. The first principle of medicine is to first "do no harm". Granted some treatments (chemotherapy comes to mind) are harmful, but the good outweighs the harm. This principle is a conviction for most conscientious doctors. For non-medically required surgery, one has to expect that the physician must be first convinced that the benefit of the surgery will outweigh the harm. Especially since the surgery is life-altering, and renders the patient permanently sterile, and has potentially harmful side-effects (osteoporosis).

So SOME kind of assessment will be needed, however what I and others balk at is a blanket NO to a castration request without considering the patient's needs and particular life condition.