Who do you consider more a eunuch ?

[lister02 (imported)]

Males who have no balls but take trt and remain otherwise manly and sexual or males with testicles that have failed or are dead, but remain low t and lose their ability and interest for sex?

[boytocut19 (imported)]

Males who have no balls but take trt and remain otherwise manly and sexual or males with testicles that have failed or are dead, but remain low t and lose their ability and interest for sex?

Both i think.

[Losethem (imported)]

Those that are male but physically have no testicles - YES.

Those that are male and desire to be castrated - NO.

Those that are male but have medically certified non-functioning testicles - Perhaps, but I consider them hypogonadal.

Those who claim they are and still have their testicles - HELL NO, but if I get my hands on them they will be, at which point I will say YES.

--LT

[Eunuchorn (imported)]

I am the adopted son of a mumps survivor. Go Figure.

[JesusA (imported)]

By definition, a eunuch is someone born male, whose testicles have been removed, destroyed in place, or rendered fully nonfunctional. If they retain any function, the individual would be described as hypogonadal.

Chemical castration, where the testicles are rendered totally nonfunctional does produce a eunuch, though it may be reversible if not continued for too long. Crushing the testicles in place such that they are totally nonfunctional would produce a permanent eunuch.

As early as the Assyrian Empire, eunuchs were often produced by crushing the testicles of small boys and infants, and one of the Assyrian words for 'to castrate' was marruru, which is related to the verbs maraqu ('to crush') and marasu ('to squash'). In the early 2nd century, the physician Soranus of Ephesus (flourished 98-138 AD) warned men against lifting infants as young as 4 or 5 months old and carrying them about on their shoulders for fear of castrating them by crushing their testicles.