EA Forums

I'll start the list with ten reasons.

1. Less likely to spread STD's

2. Eunuch calm.

3. No need to wear an athletic supporter.

4. Fewer sexual assaults.

5. Fewer unwanted erections.

6. Improved hygiene.

7. Birth control.

8. Fellowship between eunuchs.

9. Easier to cross legs.

10. Longer life.

Does anyone want to add to this list?

Tim Gobin (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:21 pm I'll start the list with ten reasons.

1. Less likely to spread STD's

2. Eunuch calm.

3. No need to wear an athletic supporter.

4. Fewer sexual assaults.

5. Fewer unwanted erections.

6. Improved hygiene.

7. Birth control.

8. Fellowship between eunuchs.

9. Easier to cross legs.

10. Longer life.

Does anyone want to add to this list?

11. Purely aesthetically it looks more pleasant (ballet, gymnastics, etc.).

Comfort walking around and doing sporting activities without nuts getting squished all the time.

Aesthetics quite a few love the look of an empty or no sack down there.

Ability to regulate your libido through regulating type and quantity of hormones taken.

freeing up the female inside and having access to her thoughts without needing to become a woman.

Serious reduction of the risk of prostate cancer.

Perhaps Jesus will post his note about the idea that if all males were castrated by age 35 (no HRT) prostate cancer would be virtually eliminated.

No risk of testicular torsions/intermittent torsions...

magusuk89 (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:49 am No risk of testicular torsions/intermittent torsions...

Too bad they don't give eunuchs a discount on their health insurance premiums.

Paolo wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:46 am Serious reduction of the risk of prostate cancer.

Perhaps Jesus will post his note about the idea that if all males were castrated by age 35 (no HRT) prostate cancer would be virtually eliminated.

A few years ago I was discussing prostate cancer with a friend/colleague who is an adjunct professor of endocrinology in the Harvard medical school. He noted that castration by age 35 without hormone replacement would eliminate all prostate cancer. He's since amended that statement to MOST (or maybe even "nearly all") cases. There are now a few very rare cases of prostate cancer in the medical literature in boys as young as 13 (one case) and 15 (another one case). The gene BRCA2 seems to be a factor with it responsible for about four times the rate of PCa as is found in men without the gene. BRCA2 is the gene known to be a major contributor to a high incidence of breast cancer in women (and also in men). It's also been implicated in pancreatic cancer.

If you do not carry the BRCA2 gene, castration by age 35 would almost certainly prevent prostate cancer. It should greatly reduce the odds if you do carry the gene.

12. (Removed for Political Content).

13. (Removed for Political Content).

14. They're in the way all the time.

15. They serve no purpose anymore.

16. Once removed they make good bait when fishing.

Valery_V (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:30 pm 11. Purely aesthetically it looks more pleasant (ballet, gymnastics, etc.).

12. already impotent, tests are useless, therefore castration.

JesusA wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:11 am A few years ago I was discussing prostate cancer with a friend/colleague who is an adjunct professor of endocrinology in the Harvard medical school. He noted that castration by age 35 without hormone replacement would eliminate all prostate cancer. He's since amended that statement to MOST (or maybe even "nearly all") cases. There are now a few very rare cases of prostate cancer in the medical literature in boys as young as 13 (one case) and 15 (another one case). The gene BRCA2 seems to be a factor with it responsible for about four times the rate of PCa as is found in men without the gene. BRCA2 is the gene known to be a major contributor to a high incidence of breast cancer in women (and also in men). It's also been implicated in pancreatic cancer.

If you do not carry the BRCA2 gene, castration by age 35 would almost certainly prevent prostate cancer. It should greatly reduce the odds if you do carry the gene.

But does the benefit of no prostate cancer outweigh the negative medical side effects of castration without hrt?

Cseriess (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:48 am But does the benefit of no prostate cancer outweigh the negative medical side effects of castration without hrt?

Playing devil's advocate, there's a case to be made to say that being on HRT versus having T hardwired allows for greater adaptability if danger shows up ;]

One less thing to bribe politicians with.

Find the short story "On the Uses of Torture" by Piers Anthony.