EA Forums

Actually there is no real right or wrong as it is subjective. However...

1) If a wife/partner comes on here looking for information about castration for their partner shouldn't we try and get as much information about the situation as possible? Currently there are two different threads from two wives with very different purposes in coming here for information. In both cases people seemed to immediately jump to the "try chemical castration" option first. IMHO I believe we should talk to them and educate them to the effects of castration. What it will mean for their husbands physically and mentally. The very last thing before real castration should be a chemical trial. That shouldn't be the starting point though.

2) I also think we should be primarily supportive of the member who is posting here. In the cases above it would be the two ladies who posted here looking for help and information. They are the members here and should be our primary focus. In the one case the husband CLEARLY needs mental health services for depression, possibly severe depression. In the other case we should do all we can to help her understand what whould happen to her husband. Would he be the same person afterwards as before? If he changes a lot, can she deal with the new him? Or does she love the person he is now enough to not risk it.

3) This site has always been about educated people about castration. That seems to have fallen off some in the haste to promote chemical castration trials to anyone who asks about the subject of castration. We need to take a step back and find out more about newbie members. Why do they want it, offer alternatives as Splitdik and houseservant have done in the http://www.eunuch.org/forums/showthread ... castration thread. Whether it is a person looking to get castrated or their spouses the last step should be chemical castration, then if it goes well physical. There should be a lot of learning and educating before that. Maybe the online pharmacies making it so easy is a detriment as it becomes a quick-fix.

4) If and when suggesting chemical castration, I think it would also be wise to mention how long on average it will take to wear off if the person stops taking it. Depo Provera for instance being injected and released slowly over time will have a longer life in the body than a daily pill. If someone goes into a deep depression it would be good for them to know how long until the T comes back and they can hopefully pull out of it.

Thanks for reading....it just really been bothering me lately and I needed to get this out...

Wolf-Pup

I don't think you are wrong at all. This is one of the best and most informative sites on the internet, not just for Eunuchs or transsexuals, but for any one single topic. Information is hard to come by on subjects that people do not like to discuss for whatever reason. I agree that first and foremost we should be concerned with getting the member information. It's not wrong to suggest that there is a process that leads to having a happy and healthy life and it's not wrong to tell people. Rushing into things without understanding is not the way to learn. Every step should be from the position of having made informed decisions. I do not support the position of "try it, you'll like it". Hormones are very serious business and can not only kill you outright, but have life long consequences both physically and emotionally.

I know that there is a sense of urgency, I remember when I had that urgency to do something now, just to feel I was doing something. I am glad that by coming here people were frank and honest and did not seem to have any agenda other than helping me make an informed decision. Happy outcomes happen when people make informed decisions. That minimizes bad decisions that can make things worse instead of better. We here at the Archive should never have an agenda, but instead offer information and personal experience. Never should we advise anyone to take hormones, except under a doctors supervision. Which is not to say we should be judgmental about those who do chose to self medicate. But rather to help others understand how serious and how dangerous messing with hormones on one's own, can be.

I see it like this:

1) Collect information

2) Seek therapy to make sure there is no underlying psychological or medical condition

3) Consult with others who are like minded about their experiences

4) Make sure one understands the consequences of the actions they are seeking, including loss of important relationships as well as stereotypical judgments of others.

5) Trial period on hormones and/or living as desired gender.

6) Reflection on ones actions and coming out of the closet issues.

7) Make changes in ones life necessary accommodate new reality.

8) Surgery to make changes permanent.

Elizabeth

Some of it is simply harm reduction. Ideally this question should be approached calmly, rationally with careful research. Many of the people who show up here have no interest in rushing slowly. They're hellbent on grabbing a meat cleaver and a shoelace and whacking it off. For them, taking a step back to a chemical castration trial may be the difference between life and death.

for example se

Wolf-Pup (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:13 pm e http://www.eunuch.org/forums/showthread.php?226

07-Help-Castrating-Myself

Transward

transward (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:33 pm Some of it is simply harm reduction. Ideally this question should be approached calmly, rationally with careful research. Many of the people who show up here have no interest in rushing slowly. They're hellbent on grabbing a meat cleaver and a shoelace and whacking it off. For them, taking a step back to a chemical castration trial may be the difference between life and death.

for example se

Wolf-Pup (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:13 pm e http://www.eunuch.org/forums/showthread.php?226

07-Help-Castrating-Myself

Transward

I agree with that. What got to me is two posts written by wives who are being told to just do chemical. In one case that was absolutely the worst possible advice, and in the other it wasn't clear if she knew what the real effects would be. Certainly if someone show up here holding a knife to his scrotum pushing him to chemical is wise. It just shouldn't be the default position to any post looking for information. Especially to wives of men who may or may not know what that could do to their marriage. Castration as we know does a hell of a lot more than just libido reduction to a man.

I worry that the more/most senior members should be weighing in on some of these posts. I mean if someone posts that they want to be a woman, the first thing is not to send them to inhouse for hormones.

do u wonder who are the ones here who seem calm and rational, who may very well appear on tomorrow's news dead? The ones who make a lot of noise get saved, those suffering quietly fall thru the cracks and then one day you don't see them on the forums anymore.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:33 am do u wonder who are the ones here who seem calm and rational, who may very well appear on tomorrow's news dead? The ones who make a lot of noise get saved, those suffering quietly fall thru the cracks and then one day you don't see them on the forums anymore.

It is quite hard to tell the fakes from the people in genuine need of help. I try and take each person for what they post and respond accordingly. Right now there are three active threads started by wives of partners interested in the subject for very different reasons. I suspect a couple of them may be bogus, but don't respond from that mindset. I also don't understand telling a woman right off the bat to get her husband to try chemical castration. It seems far more important to me that she understands all the ramifications of that course of action.

I hope this forum could help all those who come here. We need to be thoughtful and measured in our responses to new posters whatever their reason for being here. Try and learn what is going on with why they are here, and advise accordingly. Not just jump to the various methods of chemical castration, alcohol injections or Doctor Arnkoff. Every person/situation is different.

The problem I have with people who are "fakes" is simply that I have never met one; what is fake to one person is, to another, a very significant issue that is poorly understood, and the poor understanding is what leads to the notion of "fake."

There are those who believe that people tell lies. I have a contrasting view. The telling of lies is actually impossible. However, when a person is prevented (through imposed coercion, terror, or other form of damaging threat) from telling in words of subjectively-experienced harmful experiences, and the harmful experiences are so harmful as not telling of them is impossible, telling without words will occur. There is a name for that, "acting out."

Given sufficient prevention of telling in words and sufficiently harmful experiences being told, what may appear to be the telling of lies is actually the truthful telling of the harm experienced.

There is harm that is mandated by cultural traditions which define the actual harm as not actual harm; it is this deception which, I find, far more than all else, generates the deception that telling lies is actually possible.

Consider, long ago (surely, no one would do anything like this in this post-modern era) a parent who is beating a child as punishment for breaking some rule, and consider the parent saying to the child being beaten (I absolutely oppose beating children of any age), "This hurts me more than it hurts you."

Of course, the child finds what the parent says to be absurd. Only, the parent who is beating a child because, as a child, the parent was similarly beaten, is telling a vividly terrible truth in saying, "This hurts me more than it hurts you."

Whaaaaattt???

It works like this. The parent who was beaten as a child and who has become a parent beating a child is put into very painful flashbacks of being beaten, somewhere inside, remembers regarding being told by a parent, "This hurts me more than it hurts you," remembers thinking that being told that was being told nonsense, and yet finds. as a parent, being able to find no alternative to child beating. The parent has the remembered (flashback) pain, the pain of remembering what was said being nonsense, the pain of having no alternative to saying nonsense, and the pain of inflicting pain on a child, all of which combined pain is more pain than the child being beaten experiences while being beaten.

So, when someone shows up here in the role of an "internet troll," what the person posts is likely to be a very indirectly told form of truth, and may be so indirect as to be undecipherable and incomprehensible to the person posting as to anyone else who reads such a post.

Alas. "troll postings" can be very, very destructive to "Internet communities" like this one.

So, I leave to the administrators to decide who does or does not "belong" here, and what posts are properly deleted or allowed to stay.

And I do not assume that anyone here is actually dishonest, though I have often observed that being truthful, and/or being truthfully understood, can be astonishingly difficult at times.

On reading through this thread one more time, something caught my attention, the first sentence of the initial post, to wit:

Wolf-Pup (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:13 pm Actually there is no real right or wrong as it is subjective.

If that statement really is right, then it is not subjective, because it would be an objective fact that

Wolf-Pup (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:13 pm there is no real right or wrong as it is subjective;

and the statement contradicts itself.

Why, why, did I study philosophy as a college student; why did I take a philosophy class in formal logic?

Why, why, why, did I learn to design digital logic circuits that actually worked; as doing that required that I understand formal logic way beyond what I learned in that philosophy logic class...

But each person's point of view shades their perceptions. My wanting to tread cautiously with newcomers to the site may be vastly different than another senior member's approach. To ourselves what we think is the right course of action to help the newbie may seem completely wrong to the other person.

Some people may think jumping into a chemical castration trial is the best thing to do in all situations, I would think that is wrong. However who is to say for certain as we aren't doctors. I'm more interested in learning as much about the person as possible before suggesting methods. If it is a woman/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/man asking in terms of another person, then it is even more crucial to find out all we can about the situation they are in, and proceed accordingly.

I think by telling someone to go chemical first there is the implied suggesting that it would be to go to a doctor for the shot/pill, and in doing so that doctor would recommend a councilor of some sort.

We have a thread with information on how to inject your balls with acids to kill them, the warnings in that first post have not slowed it down.

I guess from my point of view, a person or persons will do what they want to achieve their goals.

If you want to be castrated or your spouse wants you to be, see a doctor, have him/her do the job, its an operation, surgery, this is not something to screw with.

Do it right, take castration on a test drive, do chemical castration first.

Will this advice be taken, I take you back to the longest running thread on this site.

WARNING - People die doing this, even in the best of conditions.

How is that for a disclaimer?

River

In the absence of a family history of people dying from cancer that became terminal before it produced any symptoms (my situation), methinks that the use of possibly-reversible chemical castration may be wise and appropriate.

In the absence of forms of inner gender conflict that push a person toward suicidality or other personal/biological issues which make chemical castration more likely to be life-endangering than simple bilateral orchiectomy, methinks that the use of possibly-reversible chemical castration may be wise and appropriate.

Were I, in my licensed capacity as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, to deem anything actually and objectively wrong, it would be using measures of central tendency based frequentist statistical methodologies for determining what is best for every person.

I am autistic, and I have that form of autism which has always, since I was born, if not also before i was born, effectively shielded me from internalizing the social conventions of deception and dishonesty that are the essential, shattering, brain-traumatizing essence of the infant-child transition and/or the infant-child discontinuity (a discontinuity because it results in some form of amnesia for pre-discontinuity life experiences).

Yes, "essential... essence" is redundant, and is purposefully so.

No one has ever been able to teach me to be ashamed of any aspect of my life, though I experience the affective condition named "shame," as best I can observe, about as intensely as anyone else does.

No one has ever been able to teach me to believe that I, or anyone, or anything, can ever actually be guilty with respect to any behavior, conduct, action, outcome, or any other aspect of existence; I find guilt to be a purely delusional human social evolution blunder which has always been unavoidable when it happens.

No one has ever been able to teach me to believe that "it would have been better" had some event which actually happened actually happened differently than it actually happened.

Put me on a jury in a trial in the U.S.A., and I will always find everyone perfectly innocent, regardless of whatever testimony is presented in court, doing so because I actually understand how and why guilt is merely a tragically addictive, socially ruinous, falsehood in the form of a hateful delusion.

Ridiculous?

I will rejoice if anyone can actually demonstrate that guilt is other than a delusion. I will rejoice if anyone can actually demonstrate that it is actually possible to make an actually avoidable mistake. I will rejoice if anyone can actually demonstrate that adversarial jurisprudence is in any way whatsoever, actually just.

What would it take for such an actual demonstration to occur?

First of all, actually demonstrate the actual making of an actual mistake. (Please note that I find no hint of any definition of mistake in which a mistake can be made with fully-informed deliberate intent, since mistake and fully-informed deliberate intent are mutually exclusive, and, therefore, purely dichotomous, constructs.) Next, having actually demonstrated the mistake being made and having been made, demonstrate that it was actually avoidable by demonstrating that it actually did not happen after demonstrating that it actually did happen.

The belief that avoidable mistakes happen was, I find, named "time confusion" by Erik H. Erikson and was named "imprisonment of the mind" by neurologist Robert C.Scaer.

I observe that believing in guilt as other than a tragically addictive and destructive delusion imprisons the mind of anyone and everyone so believing in some form of a prison of hatred of the actual, directly-observable process of existence itself.

In these days, conception appears to me to be a lethal event. If death is to be prevented, life must first be prevented.

I further observe that life is made of death as death is made of life, and life and death are one and the same. To fear death, as to seek death, is to fear life, and I cannot be taught to do that.

For being so profoundly autistic as to be incapable of being taught and/or learning to fear life, my personal innermost gratitude plausibly transcends all infinitudes of infinities.

For me, doing chemical castration prior to my bilateral orchiectomy would have been a form of suicide attempt, given my understanding, since tragically and profoundly validated by my brother's terminal cancer experience, of my familial cancer risk predicament and its optimal, surgical minimization.

So, I leave to conscience of the individual person the choices of how to live, as I have never encountered, nor been able to imagine, any better way of making choices.

Wolf-Pup (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:39 pm But each person's point of view shades their perceptions. My wanting to tread cautiously with newcomers to the site may be vastly different than another senior member's approach. To ourselves what we think is the right course of action to help the newbie may seem completely wrong to the other person.

Some people may think jumping into a chemical castration trial is the best thing to do in all situations, I would think that is wrong. However who is to say for certain as we aren't doctors. I'm more interested in learning as much about the person as possible before suggesting methods. If it is a woman/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/man asking in terms of another person, then it is even more crucial to find out all we can about the situation they are in, and proceed accordingly.

While "we are not doctors" is a reasonable surmise, I am a real doctor, though I am not a licensed physician nor licensed surgeon. I have a piece of portable wallpaper on which is printed, "Doctor of Philosophy in Bioengineering"...

The word, "doctor" is a Latin word, meaning "teacher," and is closely associated with the Latin verb, "docere," or, in English, the verb, "to teach."

I deem it an unconscionable atrocity for physicians to act as mere medical technologist automatons (diagnostic manual jockeys?) who conformally map clinical signs onto pharmaceutical industry profits, while concurrently claiming to be actual doctors.

In much the same manner, I deem it an unconscionable atrocity for legislators, lawyers, and judges to concoct a system of laws which they coercively impose on others while themselves being incapable of knowing or understanding the law they coercively impose on others. The present system of adversarial law and jurisprudence in the U.S.A. is a cartel of interlocking directorates of deceptions compounded by deceptions compounded by deceptions, and has been so throughout the whole of word-form-recorded human history which I have yet been able to find.

I find no fault with people who have succumbed to shatteringly deceptive coercion into becoming shattered and deceptive as their only alternative to one or another form of suicide.

Suicide has been calling out to me, for essentially the whole of my life, "Let me in!"

And my reply has, so far, always been, "No, but thanks for the invitation, which I respectfully decline."

Was it Bob Dylan who put it, "Whoever is not busy being born is busy dying."?

..................

janekane (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:13 pm . So, when someone shows up here in the role of an "internet troll," what the person posts is likely to be a very indirectly told form of truth, and may be so indirect as to be undecipherable and incomprehensible to the person posting as to anyone else who reads such a post.

Alas. "troll postings" can be very, very destructive to "Internet communities" like this one.

So, I leave to the administrators to decide who does or does not "belong" here, and what posts are properly deleted or allowed to stay.

And I do not assume that anyone here is actually dishonest, though I have often observed that being truthful, and/or being truthfully understood, can be astonishingly difficult at times.

I like your view and presentation. However, nobody (administrators included) really knows what/who is fake. The administrators frequently act based on their bias; the only thing which makes them different is that they have the power to decide what is acceptable to them.

janekane (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:20 pm On reading through this thread one more time, something caught my attention, the first sentence of the initial post, to wit:

If that statement really is right, then it is not subjective, because it would be an objective fact that

Wolf-Pup (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:13 pm there

janekane (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:20 pm is no real right or wrong as it is subjective;

and the statement contradicts itself.

Why, why, did I study philosophy as a college student; why did I take a philosophy class in formal logic?

Why, why, why, did I learn to design digital logic circuits that actually worked; as doing that required that I understand formal logic way

beyond what I learned in that philosophy logic class...

I would think your Psychology degree would make you much more interested with the fact that he started the sentence with "Actually".

Elizabeth

Mac (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:10 am I like your view and presentation. However, nobody (administrators included) really knows what/who is fake. The administrators frequently act based on their bias; the only thing which makes them different is that they have the power to decide what is acceptable to them.

Yeah, that's what you say.

I think that they know what they are doing, and that they do it well. I.P. numbers tell a lot...

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:20 am I would think your Psychology degree would make you much more interested with the fact that he started the sentence with "Actually".

Elizabeth

Oh, dear!

Actually, my bachelor's degree and doctorate are in bioengineering, and the doctoral thesis was an engineering approach to one of the plausibly-most-intransigent of identified psychology problems; to do the thesis work, and to get my committee to approve my dissertation, I needed to demonstrate understanding of scientific psychology at way beyond the usual level needed for a psychology doctorate.

And, as is easily observed, I actually began the prior sentence with "Actually,".

I did so the better to actually illustrate the possibility that the realm of right and wrong may actually be an objective, and not merely a subjective, realm. Actually!

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:27 am Yeah, that's what you say.

I think that they know what they are doing, and that they do it well. I.P. numbers tell a lot...

Actually, I have provided the Archive Administrators with my "legal name," my Professional Engineer license number, my address, and access to my dissertation, which, if one knows where to look, is actually posted on the Internet. And I know that I.P. addresses, which are readily available to the Administrators, can be very informative regarding who is pretending and who is not. To further make clear to the Administrators that I am not "playing tricks" here, I went to the 2011 MoM. I plan, circumstances permitting, to be at the 2012 MoM, and would welcome meeting anyone and everyone who comes to it.

While I have no plan to ever post on the Archive other than with the name, "janekane," this is the one and only place where I have ever used, or ever plan to use, it. I do so out of respect for people who may experience occupational and/or social disadvantage were their "legal name" made public with respect to their Archive activities.

i hate to be a party pooper, but before id go to any length to provide alot of info i would make sure somehow that the wife is a real female. there has been alot of fantasy players just getting off listening to people here with no intentions of castration. just fantasy

Rooster17 (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:12 pm i hate to be a party pooper, but before id go to any length to provide alot of info i would make sure somehow that the wife is a real female. there has been alot of fantasy players just getting off listening to people here with no intentions of castration. just fantasy

Yes there many fantasy players, and there are also too many which would try to fabricate anything to shut the down the eunuch.org.

There many medical effects of chemical castration which may not be fully revisable, and varies greatly individually and in all cases is a length of use issue. Trying out chemical castration has some risks of sterility and hypogonadism. As long as all parties understand the risks before hand, what is the problem.

_g

hmm. bioengineering. I wonder if that could ever give people animal traits.