It's obviouis that if the testicles only produced sperm and another organ produced testosterone separately, that more men would seek or be castrated. In fact, if there were two separate organs, one for baby making and one for testosterone making, women would demand castration of the baby making organ. Does this make sense or not? Is it different then a vasectomy? Thoughts?

A vasectomy accomplishes what you suggest. Eliminates the reproductive possibility, while still producing testosterone.

The opposite is attractive to me - retaining reproductive capability, but losing the testosterone.

Addressing the original premise (More men would seek castration if..."), I would fill in the blank with:

...if more women were comfortable with Domme Female roles and would make castration a prerequisite for having any kind of sexual relationship with them. If more women were Dominatrixes and completely uninhibited with their sexuality, and offered men unlimited sexual access to them, either as cuckold pussy eaters or oral slaves and allowed to have unlimited sexual delights within the constraints of having been castrated, then I think you would find more men volunteering for those positions. But it seems the opposite is true, few women are that sexually liberated, nor do that many seem to be natural Dommes. Pity, if they only knew the power they had, I think more of them would explore their Dominant side. IMHO, of course.

amahl_shukup (imported) wrote: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:47 am Addressing the original premise (More men would seek castration if..."), I would fill in the blank with:

...if more women were comfortable with Domme Female roles and would make castration a prerequisite for having any kind of sexual relationship with them. If more women were Dominatrixes and completely uninhibited with their sexuality, and offered men unlimited sexual access to them, either as cuckold pussy eaters or oral slaves and allowed to have unlimited sexual delights within the constraints of having been castrated, then I think you would find more men volunteering for those positions. But it seems the opposite is true, few women are that sexually liberated, nor do that many seem to be natural Dommes. Pity, if they only knew the power they had, I think more of them would explore their Dominant side. IMHO, of course.

The tooth fairy will bless you.

Motivated by a tax write off ?

Blaise (imported) wrote: Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:54 pm The tooth fairy will bless you.

LOL

I just want my baby caiman back. He had such a beautiful smile.

chilli-

Down with testosterone! down with testicles! That is my stance.

If men and women did not go through puberty until their early 20's and were able to engage in sex only one time, and never again, THAT would certainly change everything. Just how, when, and with whom would you shoot the wad?

Use to be humans did not live past early or mid 20 years of age on average, though some lived into their 30's , and beyond. It was biologically necessary for humans to have sex and procreate at a very early age, thus puberty started around 11, 12, 13 years of age. Sex at that age was normal in ancient history, and for a good reason.

Our bodies have not adapted with the times. We live longer. We seem to be more immature in our earlier years. We should enter puberty at a much later time in life.

We need a way to suppress sexual urges but not the other important development processes of testosterone. Yet the development of the male body, and sexual urges, are both fed by testosterone.

Just imagine, a developing male body, without sexual urges.

You can't miss what you never had.

Then, at age 20 or 21, after one hopefully has more common sense, the sexual urges finally develop, and then quickly fade at age 25 or 26.

Having a short window of opportunity to enjoy and engage in sex would certainly change things.

twaddler (imported) wrote: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:37 pm Down with testosterone! down with testicles! That is my stance.

I agree... Large low hanging testicles (In my case silicone ones) and more Testosterone down on my shoulders (Androgel)