Something occurred to me while browsing these threads. There is a great antipathy among doctors to perform castration on patients and for one reason or another it is difficult for a wannabe to get what he wants.

The whole hypocrisy that occurred was that it is the medical research community that has developed castration chemicals and drugs to facilitate eunuchism. It is not illegal to dispense them nor is it illegal to voluntarily request and have performed castration of any type. There are no laws against becoming a eunuch (are there?). There are recognized procedures for sugical castration developed by doctors themselves.

Why did they make these drugs in the first place or create these procedures unless there was an expectation that patients would come in and ask for them? Why, if the procedures and medicines are in place legally, is it considered sick to want to use them?

It is not the patients who invented the medicines and pills, and not the pateints who taught the procedures in med schools. So why should they be denied the service?

I don't know if my question is clear, but if you understand it, do you have a comment to make?

yankee masha (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:13 am Something occurred to me while browsing these threads. There is a great antipathy among doctors to perform castration on patients and for one reason or another it is difficult for a wannabe to get what he wants.

A real double standard exists here. Doctors do not want to perform castrations or penectomies. However, they are very willing to perform hysterectomies.

Doctors are usually emotionaly arrested at the age where they entered medical school. they go from high schoolto college, then to medical school and don't emerge into polite society until they're 32. They are engrossed in medicine and the hierarchy and ego of doctors and that never cahanges. The macho attitude of high school and fraternity level stays with them. They posture behind their reputation (which they create), act like they can do no wrong and prejudge everyone who comes inot their office as an idiot who doesn't know his own mind.

There. Got that off my chest.

A good doctor is worth keeping like a fine treasure. Most of them are scary these days. just ask a nurse.

But where is the logic of developing medicines that you never are going to use?

Doctors only treat the sick. So why do they appropriate voluntary praactices to themselves?

You're right about the hysterectomy thing. The macho attitude is that women's bodies somehow aren't as sacred as men's. They don't call ovaries the family jewels, do they?

You are asking a question that most of us in the Eunuch Archive and eunuch community have been asking for a long time. We done have the answer either.

River

I just noticed your legend under your avatar reads. Gateway To The West. I'm from that area as well.

yankee masha,

I don't claim to be any sort of history buff, but I believe (through some of the readings on the history of castration) that one of the most likely reasons that drugs were invented for castration would be to treat repeat sexual offenders. I would guess that they (the medical community) see it as a "humane" treatment option as opposed to physical castration. As far as surgical castration expertise, that was probably developed through the need stemming from cancer treatments of the prostate and testicles. Of couse many types of drug treaments are used first before any type of surgery is performed.

I , for one, have sought out several doctors (and still seeking if the opportunity presents itself) to perform an elective castration in my area. Stand back for a moment and take a look at it from a doctors point of veiw. Doctors uphold an oath to administer treatment for the sick and injured, and prevent desease. If a perfectly heathy person would ask for an elective procedure that may comprimise their health and wellness, that would go against the oath that they stand for. Along with the fact that it may indeed have some legal implications for fear of being sued for malpractice and it doesn't seem to matter if you are willing to sign a consent form to prevent you from sueing them . Mainstream medical opionin goes with the beliefs of the general population. That is, it's not ethical to perform such a procedure that is desired from a very small percentage of people (like us).

IMHO, this is what I gather from others that have persued this issue, and from first hand knowledge that I have experienced dealing with doctors.

I guess i one of the luckey ones here because my doctor prescribed chemical castration when i asked him for the prescription.I thank it all depends on your doctor.Also when i talked to the psychologist she said if the doctor would not prescribe depo provera for me that i was to see her again and she would find a doctor who would. So maby i just got luckey and found the rite people who would help me but yes thay are out thair.

Thank you both. Christina, you have explained the first reason: why they developed such drugs, although I don't see it being a result of sentencing of sexual offenders. i think the drugs were in place before the sentencing idea. I am not sure which came first --the chicken or egg. Drug companies don't develop drugs unless there is a need for them. And castration of sex offeners is a rarely used option.

I am not looking to be castrated myuself, I was just puzzled as to why these drugs were developed unless there was a need for them.

I understand why docctors decline to handle patients who want castration voluntarily. I have said that myself elsewhere on these boards. Can't blame them for protecting themselves. Medical lawsuits have become a hairy issue fro doctors.

I do feel though that this area, like midwifery, could be a practice for paramedicals who are not doctors and they could set up clinics privately under the law. But it may be that they don't want the onus of criticism that would come about. One can readily envision the Christians picketing them and bombing them.

The issue is important however, and I am rather amazed at how many people just in this midwest area i live in are eunuchs or wannabes.

Since I have always been fascinated by the idea of being with a eunuch -- a fantasy that was not that prominent even to myself, although looking back it was very much there -- I think the whole idea of it is more integrated secretly in the minds of people, especially heterosexual men than anyhone would guess.

yankee masha said "

yankee masha (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:22 pm I just noticed your legend under your avatar reads. Gateway To The West. I'm from that area as well.

"

The Arch is about 4 miles from where I live in south town, where in the area do you live?

River

OOps! Sorry, I was thinking of Pittsburgh. it used to be called the gateway to the West but i guess your area was also. Unless Pittsburgh has an arch I don't know about. i haven't lived there in years.

Back to the topic, though, last night I was watching hte History channel and they had a documentary on new sex stuff. During the course of it I got my original quastion answered -- why did they develop these chemicals in hte first place? Well, it seems that things like deperova (is that spelled right?) and other suppressive drugs were developed for birth control -- for women to use. But they also work to suppress male sexuality and kill off the sperm, which leads to dying balls.

Again the comment about hysterectomy being okay wti medical people is shown to be valid. Jsu tabout all these castration chemicals were designed to desex women in the first place. It is only now that a mal contraceptive pill is available, and it is very new. it blocks sperm production, and/or neutralizes the sperm by stopping the flagella from being able to move it out of the testicles. So there is a drug on the immediate horizon that men will be able to request that will stop the fertility. it is supposeed to be perfected fully within 5 years, but seems to be available now???

What is interesting is that they said most of these drugs were reversible??? Does anyone know about that?

Another more interesting but grisly anti-rape device, developed during the 80's is an insertible hollow tube. A woman places it inside her vagina. if a man tries to rape her, his penis goes into it and waiting there is either a needle-like hooked harpoon which destroys his cock by piercing it two inches deep and when he pulls out the whole sheath sticks to his dick. it can't be pulled off without tearing the penis with it., Some have actual narrow razor blades which slice his penis into fillets. he goes in hard and comes out with bloody strips of meat hanging htere. This was on the same program. Maybe some EA writer would find it an interesting story idea? Anoher one had abrasive inner walls to hurt the penis without necessarily castrating the rapist. None of them caught on. I can just see some rapist suing his victim for castrating him.