I rarely post but do enjoy reading many of the posts, informative and not.
Having been on Spiro for 5 months I have effectively all but eliminated night time erections and most of the daytime ones as well. As a consequence, my "dangles" have shrunk a bit, nuts and penis. Being as I have practiced foreskin restoration of the past 3 years (I envy those uncut guys) my foreskin has almost been restored to that of an uncut guy. With the penis shrinking in size I have continued with restoration and have more "foreskin" than before. Being a naturist enthusiast I have since adopted using a kynodesme when hiking to keep everything from dangling loose and down. Using the kynodesme to tie up my foreskin and pulled upwards, my penis slides "inwards" making only a small stub appearance and my nut sack pulled up flat. Thanks to somewhat shrunken nuts the visible effect definitely makes for a more eunuch look as the nut sack looks empty and/ or diminished and the penis just a 1 inch small stub of bunched up foreskin. Anyone else ever used or experimented with a kynodesme? I sure wish we had a place to post pics so I could show this.
For those that are not familiar with the kynodesme here is a link to a good site:
http://www.addicks3.fsnet.co.uk/nat/nud ... /kynod.htm
CHEERS
Snakecharmer
PS- The "higher" clearance works wonders when scrambling over blackberry vines where the "low danglers" might get hung up (ouch!) LOL
Kynodesme for eunuch?
-
snakecharmer (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 8:07 am
-
Posting Rank
-
FianceeUvBigGuy (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 711
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:40 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Kynodesme for eunuch?
Snakie,
I've not got the equipment to try this "Device", being born with a >^..^< instead of a
, but I do have a question; Might not the tight constriction of the foreskin create loss of circulation and the possible further consequence of gangrene?
So much as I'm fascinated, titillated, aroused, and utterly infatuated with simple castration I AM a lover of penises (especially those with a vacancy beneath) and any threat to one is a bit upsetting to me. That said, penectomy, preferably in public, ought to be performed on certain sex offenders AND terrorists.
I skimmed over your site and found it fascinating...Wellll, Duh! The bit re public erections raised a question, however; Have you encountered fellow male nudists who have lost their little pair of friends or undergone penectomy, partial or otherwise? I would assume that such a person, if the "removal" was voluntary, might be at ease with being seen at the beach, but what of the poor guy that has lost his ballsies, all or part of his penis, etc, "against his will", as in the case of a medical condition or as the result of a violent act?
It seems to me that the latter person would be loathe to expose himself, minus certain naughty bits. Can you enlighten me?
Well, I've only a few minutes to further frolic on this site before I must make ready to go to church, don my choir robe, and warble in praise of Our Lord. Ergo, off I go!
Thanks for the interesting post!
Sincerely,
Yoli
The Poster Girl for "CRAZY!"
I've not got the equipment to try this "Device", being born with a >^..^< instead of a
, but I do have a question; Might not the tight constriction of the foreskin create loss of circulation and the possible further consequence of gangrene?So much as I'm fascinated, titillated, aroused, and utterly infatuated with simple castration I AM a lover of penises (especially those with a vacancy beneath) and any threat to one is a bit upsetting to me. That said, penectomy, preferably in public, ought to be performed on certain sex offenders AND terrorists.
I skimmed over your site and found it fascinating...Wellll, Duh! The bit re public erections raised a question, however; Have you encountered fellow male nudists who have lost their little pair of friends or undergone penectomy, partial or otherwise? I would assume that such a person, if the "removal" was voluntary, might be at ease with being seen at the beach, but what of the poor guy that has lost his ballsies, all or part of his penis, etc, "against his will", as in the case of a medical condition or as the result of a violent act?
It seems to me that the latter person would be loathe to expose himself, minus certain naughty bits. Can you enlighten me?
Well, I've only a few minutes to further frolic on this site before I must make ready to go to church, don my choir robe, and warble in praise of Our Lord. Ergo, off I go!
Thanks for the interesting post!
Sincerely,
Yoli
The Poster Girl for "CRAZY!"
-
snakecharmer (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 8:07 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Kynodesme for eunuch?
Yoli,
In reply to your comment about "tight constriction". Yes, that is a real possibility IF one is not aware of the sensations "down there". One feels pain when constricted and if paying attention, and notice the pain, one can loosen up the tie. I find that one of the keys is tying a loose knot that makes for even pressure all the way around as "granny knots" and the like can cause uneven tension and constriction. As I "tugged" for several years in foreskin restoration, the feeling (and danger) of constriction is one that I am well familiar with.
As to the "erect" factor, most of the guys that I know that use kynodesme' tend to slip out of the knot when erect. But the upward pull of the foreskin can resemble an erection to an extent and yet not the same.
I do have a friend that goes hiking with me on occasion who was born with virtually no nut sack and his testes ride up inside of him. He seems to enjoy the kynodesme and does look so good when wearing one as one only sees his drawn up penis and "vacant" space underneath. I would be curious if the "missing" guys would go for this. In most of the situations that I have been involving nudism, there is an unstated and general consensus that gawking and deliberate exhibitionism is not welcome. It's not so much flaunting what one has (or doesn't have) as much as enjoying the freedom. Being small in the equipment down there, I used to be self conscious about being seen nude and yet now realize that most naturists really don't care.
Snakie
In reply to your comment about "tight constriction". Yes, that is a real possibility IF one is not aware of the sensations "down there". One feels pain when constricted and if paying attention, and notice the pain, one can loosen up the tie. I find that one of the keys is tying a loose knot that makes for even pressure all the way around as "granny knots" and the like can cause uneven tension and constriction. As I "tugged" for several years in foreskin restoration, the feeling (and danger) of constriction is one that I am well familiar with.
As to the "erect" factor, most of the guys that I know that use kynodesme' tend to slip out of the knot when erect. But the upward pull of the foreskin can resemble an erection to an extent and yet not the same.
I do have a friend that goes hiking with me on occasion who was born with virtually no nut sack and his testes ride up inside of him. He seems to enjoy the kynodesme and does look so good when wearing one as one only sees his drawn up penis and "vacant" space underneath. I would be curious if the "missing" guys would go for this. In most of the situations that I have been involving nudism, there is an unstated and general consensus that gawking and deliberate exhibitionism is not welcome. It's not so much flaunting what one has (or doesn't have) as much as enjoying the freedom. Being small in the equipment down there, I used to be self conscious about being seen nude and yet now realize that most naturists really don't care.
Snakie