EA Forums

I have read a few replies to articles on here where alot of men would be quite happy to not have balls as long as penis still functioned ok . Is this common amongst all men or just ones with a castration interest?

I dont like balls personally and think they look very ugly and spoil the nice appearance of the penis and would love to be rid of mine.

NO ! The vast majority of normal men regard their balls as their most precious possession. Rightly so, for not only do they make it possible to reproduce, but they provide expensive testosterone free of charge.

Make the slightest threatening gesture toward a man's balls, and what does he do ? He puts both hands over them to protect them. They are the "family jewels" and there is nothing which most normal men fear more than their loss.

Bagoas (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:33 pm NO ! The vast majority of normal men regard their balls as their most precious possession. Rightly so, for not only do they make it possible to reproduce, but they provide expensive testosterone free of charge.

Make the slightest threatening gesture toward a man's balls, and what does he do ? He puts both hands over them to protect them. They are the "family jewels" and there is nothing which most normal men fear more than their loss.

Neighbor keeps referring to his as the family jewels. I keep telling him I know of a good bankruptcy lawyer....

Bagoas (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:33 pm NO ! The vast majority of normal men regard their balls as their most precious possession. Rightly so, for not only do they make it possible to reproduce, but they provide expensive testosterone free of charge.

Make the slightest threatening gesture toward a man's balls, and what does he do ? He puts both hands over them to protect them. They are the "family jewels" and there is nothing which most normal men fear more than their loss.

That is why i said if the penis and everything still worked as normal would they still want the ugly ballz resembling a used tbag

One of the facets that facinates me about humans is our incredible variety on nearly any scale that we can conceive. "Would men prefer to be without their balls?" The range runs from those who would rather DIE than lose them to those who would almost prefer to die than keep them.

We know that there are men who DO choose to die, rather than lose their testicles. It's a choice faced every day by advanced prostate cancer patients and many do choose to die years earlier than they otherwise likely would.

We know from posts by members of the Eunuch Archive that there are men who are willing to go to great (and sometimes very dangerous) lengths to lose their testicles. The medical record shows that some HAVE died in the attempt.

Most of us fit somewhere on the scale between those polar extremes. As for myself, I'm very happy to have mine intact and fully functioning. I enjoy the effects of the T that they produce. However, if there were ever a medical necessity to remove them, I wouldn't hesitate for even 30 seconds....

If "everything still worked" as you said -- that is, if I were still able to have my own kids (ie: body still produced sperm), still able to get erections normally, my body still produced testosterone, ect... If I could still do all of that without balls, then yes I'd definitely go for that!

It would be tremendously convenient to have just a penis down there with no balls, so long as NO functionality was lost.

However since that is, at present, an absolute impossibily... I am in the same mindset as Bagoas mentioned up above. Protect them and guard them because they are very important.

I agree with most of u and understand men would not want rid of their precious balls if it affected sexual performance and maleness.I was just curios after reading many sites where women especially profess their disgust at our testicles and many wish we didnt have to have them and in some way they could be made redundant and removed.Then I found alot of men thought the same whether this was to placate these same women as seems the norm nowadays,I mean men have lost their ballz theoretically as the march towars a matriarchal society carries on at a faster speed.

I am also curios as to how straight men view other mens bodies?

"

Mininuts (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:30 pm I dont like balls personally and think they look very ugly and spoil the nice appearance of the penis and would love to be rid of mine.

"

I find hairless testicles to be quite delectable. But hairy ones are just ewww.. ack. Genital hairlessness is a big plus.

i would say yes.

i dont like balls, they look ugly. i have a "castration desire",especially when i have sex or abuse.

my sex fantacy or sex imagine is i lose my balls and penis.

Perhaps my personal view:

My remaining ball is not my central point of my live and I can imagine to live without it. But I am also convinced that women generally hate or disgust balls and the man who are the owner of these "jewels". And most of the women are indifferent to eunuchs, in some cases they will make some jokes about them.

Just sing up high sometimes (if you are a male) and see if folks don't look at your crotch.

As far as what they look like..Who cares..I have seen uglier humans in a local supermarket.

Tanglong,they had hair on their back....imagine that, and they were naked.

I don't mind a hairy back, but a hairy sack.. Ack. heh.. Dunno, I have weird tastes. I also find underarm hair attractive - for what reason I have no idea. Yao.

twaddler (imported) wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:33 am I don't mind a hairy back, but a hairy sack.. Ack. heh.. Dunno, I have weird tastes. I also find underarm hair attractive - for what reason I have no idea. Yao.

yea i love underarm hair and love it to be thick and dark.Love it in the summer when u get to spy guys underarms.Yes hairy genitals are revolting

i agree with Tanglog, hairless is bliss! if we could just put them up in our bod, life would be simpler.

Surely if we pushed our testicles up inside and then sewed the sac so there was no room for them to drop back that would keep them inside permanent

If I had known before puberty that the balls were responsible for all of the undesirable male changes and that those changes would be prevented if the balls didn't exist, I would have tried to find a way to loose them.

Yes I think alot of people,men and women would agree with u.There are rather more downsides to maleness than positives.Love the pic and if that doesnt convince men we look better without then nothin will,lol

Agree that most normal men, as Bagoas says, would be horrifed to lose their testicles, the "batteries" of maleness which both cause and maintain manliness and they are literally family jewels.

I wonder, though, if the question were posed to normal guys, if you could castrate other guys, would you? Probably something they wouldn't have normally thought of, but something tells me the answer woud be yes, since males are so competitive, constantly trying to defeat one another in mating rituals, wars, sports games, etc.

Those of us who get gripped with this desire to have our balls removed, though, sometimes are asked to translate into words, in our own minds, and in stories, what this experience is, and knowing the only solution is their removal, might be tempted to say we hate them or they are ugly, etc., but personally, I don't relate to any of that.

Those who castrate, whether in stories or in reality, though, have to have some kind or "resentment" towards testicles, or they would not be removing them. This board has become so paranoid about involving itself openly with "cutters" that those who would like to do it to others usually just lurk and never post that desire other than in their profiles.

The expression of a desire is not illegal and cannot have a site shut down unless perhaps even the fantasies involve minor children, but the constant posting of those who want it done with silence of those who would like to do it throws this whole site constantly out of lopsided balance.

No wonder people "lurk" here and never post. They've been driven off, in a sense, by some permanent posters who are strangely anti-castration, always spinning back to it's dangerous, impossible, can't be done, while other sites openly advocate presently for the legalisation of marijuana, castrations of sex offenders, etc.

If the site wants to protect itself by constantly implying it's all fantasy, than at the very least I'm now reinviting those who have the fantasy of castrating back, openly posting here just as those who freely express their desire to be castrated do.

Come on back lurker castrators.

I think most straight guys would willingly castrate other men as so often happens in wars.Men dont view other mens privates as something nice to look at and generally think any other but their own is repulsive.It as you say would also be about reducing competition in the mating game and I also think they would also target gay men for this treatment as most straight men are deep down scared of homosexuality.

I dont know why people would not post their fantasy of castrating men as thats what it is ,a fantasy.

It's common knowledge for my male friends and family that I have had, and to some extent still do, problems with unusual tenderness and pain in my testicles/cords. It ALWAYS evokes a sense of shock and utter panic when the subject of corrective surgery, even shy of castration, is brought up. Just the idea of going in a severing some nerves sends the male-folk clutching their "tricky-bits" and squirming, if not running away from the conversation. (Got that new phrase from an Australian TV show the other day. I rather like it.)

I've never posed the question of whether it would be OK to have an alternative build, say, with no dangling bits out there. It's pretty much a moot point though. Men are used to what they have, and it's difficult for the average male, I think, the wrap his mind around the concept of a redesign to the works.

Then again, we're probably not all "average males" here either. But just because we can comprehend it, doesn't mean we could easily explain nor "sell" it.

The same revulsion and fear comes up with the boys, also. All of 'mine' have been educated about regularly checking for swellings, pains, lumps, anything out of the ordinary. The idea of something going wrong down there is an often discussed subject, as most boys past the age of 8 or so begin to become fixated upon their goodies down there. We also have this discussion regularly at ballgames, where the use of a cup is often mandatory. Teenage boys and most of the pre-teens are seemingly just as appalled by the idea of testicular injury/surgery/cancer as their older counterparts are.

My middle Godson, at age 13, declared that he'd rather die than have his "nuts cut on."

To date, I've only heard ONE of the boys, age almost 10 when he said it, say that he'd rather have his '"accessories" just snipped off and outta the way' (his own words) because all they do is get in his way and get hurt. You can imagine the look on my face, I'm sure. Fortunately, this one of my usual charges, as in, "Here, take my kid home with you for the day, bring him back when you're done with him."

Don't think WE didn't have a serious conversation about just why boys are built like boys are, and what the testicles begin to do around age 12, give or take a couple of years!

All joking aside, I really hope I was able to get the idea into his head that at age 10, he's probably going to WANT those "accessories" for later use. Given the looks and responses I got, though, I'm not so sure. This is one I'll be keeping a close eye on and having more serious chats with Mother as time passes. After all, he's approaching the statistical age where the castration ideology usually forms up.

So, no, I think is the answer for the bulk of the male population.

Well, I have such a fondness and appreciation for my balls, that I grew to resent my penis for partially obstructing my own, and others, view of them. Rather than have my penis removed, I decided on a large transcrotal piercing that I could pull my penis through, the desired effect being that my penis would extend out of the back of my scrotum, and the balls would be in full view. Didn't quite work out that way. Yes, I got the transcrotal, but there were bleeders, and a life-threatening situation developed. After hours of emergency sugery, I was left with a great deal of scar tissue and a right testicle that was attached to the scrotum. Two years later, I had a scrotal reconstruction. That freed the right testicle, and instead of a lot of scars all over my sac, I now have just one long one down the right side. So now, instead of having two balls that hang six inches, I have one (the left) that hangs six, and the right that hangs only three. My "reality" days are over, and I'm very happy to be satisfied with the fantasy.

"

Paolo wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:31 am I've never posed the question of whether it would be OK to have an alternative build, say, with no dangling bits out there. It's pretty much a moot point though. Men are used to what they have, and it's difficult for the average male, I think, the wrap his mind around the concept of a redesign to the works.

"

Your exactly right! I share the problem with my "bits" being a chronic pain problem and I think it was at least 3 months between my GPs suggestion of removal and my first "hummm... maybe she had a good idea?" My first reaction when it sunk in what she was really talking about was "JUMP OUT THE FRIGGING WINDOW NOW!!!"

Paolo wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:31 am It ALWAYS evokes a sense of shock and utter panic when the subject of corrective surgery, even shy of castration, is brought up.

Indeed, this is a terrible, terrible way of thinking. It is an arrogant, selfish way of thinking that is almost completely void of reason, to say little of empathy to those who suffer pain on an (almost) constant basis. That's one of the reasons why I feel that we need to get more involved in educating others. That castration is not THAT a big deal our self-worshipping macho society tries to make out of it; that lots of men and boys have been castrated in the past and, to quote (among others) Wassersug's concluding on one of his studies regarding historical considerations of eunuchdom: "Collectively, the historical accounts suggest that, given the right cultural setting and individual motivation, androgen deprivation may actually enhance rather than hinder both social and sexual performance. We conclude that eunuch history contradicts the presumption that androgen deprivation necessarily leads to social and sexual impotence. The capabilities and accomplishments of eunuchs in the past gives patients on ADT grounds for viewing themselves in a positive light, where they are neither socially impotent nor sexually chaste."

Furthermore, to deny someone the ability to get rid of their pain in a cheap and effective manner is a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath. However, since most doctors these days tend to swear by the Pharmacratic Oath instead, they do not sense any contradiction, apparently.

All of this is highly relevant, and we need to speak up on these issues. Our consciousness demands that we do no less.

Paolo wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:31 am My middle Godson, at age 13, declared that he'd rather die than have his "nuts cut on."

Which could be viewed in the light of a typical example of a copycat adoption of the views of our largely ball-cock-worshipping "culture". However,

Paolo wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:31 am To date, I've only heard ONE of the boys, age almost 10 when he said it, say that he'd rather have his '"accessories" just snipped off and outta the way' (his own words) because all they do is get in his way and get hurt.

Which is at least SOME news here. At his age, though, his position makes sense since his balls aren't doing much for him at the moment; they're just hanging there patiently waiting for their "turn" just a couple of years from now. Until then, anything they do is, in fact, just being "in the way".

Quite frankly, I've felt almost exactly the same way at his age. I had such a tremendous fear of being kicked in the nuts (partly because of the fear of excruciating pain, and partly because of the odd belief I had at the time that even a moderate punch in the area would make me permanently impotent!), that I had a tendency to avoid all of the imporant fights that could have given me status and help make an impression on the girls. What's worse, most of the boys had a deliberate tendency to aim at the groin area (those bastards!), which was all the reason I needed to keep out of this whole business and seek compromise, whenever possible (I still had to stand lots of fights, oddly enough - peace is hardwon, it seems!). All I can say is that, were I nutless, I would never hesitate kicking some bully's ass.

Paolo wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:31 am Don't think WE didn't have a serious conversation about just why boys are built like boys are, and what the testicles begin to do around age 12, give or take a couple of years!

To a certain extent, I think that it is a good thing that he is in a position of being able to recieve some information on this isssue, as long as it is not particularly biased. Personally, I wish that I had studied it at least at the age of 12, so that I could have achieved my goals even earlier.

Paolo wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:31 am All joking aside, I really hope I was able to get the idea into his head that at age 10, he's probably going to WANT those "accessories" for later use. Given the looks and responses I got, though, I'm not so sure. This is one I'll be keeping a close eye on and having more serious chats with Mother as time passes. After all, he's approaching the statistical age where the castration ideology usually forms up.

Just because a boy is saying that he doesn't mind being nutless simpy because he feels they are "in the way", is in no way an indication (even remotely) that he would be seriously considering castration in the upcoming years. In my personal experience, what you feel before puberty is not necessarily always evidence of anything in this regard. Generally, a good indication that the boy is serious could be a number of things, among others: 1. If he is a singer, a strong desire to retain his voice for professional purposes could persist for many years 2. Have expressed definite transgender behavior for at least a couple of years, with frequent remarks of disgust toward his genitals 3. Have attempted self-castration, for whatever reason (this is very rare before puberty since there is not yet enough hormones to facilitate signifcant distress, though I know of one person who attempted it at the age of 12, only to fulfill it later at the age of 30) 4. Most importantly, once the puberty arrives, expressing singificant, lasting distress about and revulsion to the changes experienced (the latter could be due to many things, from a general dislike of the disadvantages of puberty to transgender issues or the so-called "androgynous gender identity" state).

Paolo wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:31 am So, no, I think is the answer for the bulk of the male population.

I agree, but only because they haven't given much rational consideration to the issue. I mean, most of the men that I've talked to - including men with higher education - have displayed a surprising lack of knowledge on the issue of castration. The whole subject is so strikingly taboo and "better left alone", that most men don't even bother to learn the very basics of it, let alone being in a position to take an unbiased and informed stance on the matter.

Mac (imported) wrote: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:59 am If I had known before puberty that the balls were responsible for all of the undesirable male changes and that those changes would be prevented if the balls didn't exist, I would have tried to find a way to loose them.

Ditto!

Well, Mr T., and Paulo, I'm sorry you are both having lingering physical pain...and by the way, even though I would really undergo an actual castration for reasons not at all similar to yours, I have to say that not only as a teenager but even now I would regard a sudden blow to the testicles as just about the most sudden sickening blow/feeling most males could conceive of, and one only males experience,so also for that I don't agree with others who are suggesting this has anything to do with society or male ego or foolishg gender roles, anymore than I would think females having erotic beging-raped fantasies wouldn't actually be horrified to think of a jagged coke bottle suddenly injuring them, at any age.

So being protective and avoiding pain and servere injuryto one's body, 'down there' is just about the most normal thing I can think of and I certainly don't envision that when females get over their egos and fantasies and learned behaviors from society they are going to go for that broken coke bottle...

Sounds pretty normal to me, that anyone, male or female, gay, bi, straight, transwhatevered wincing at the idea of their faces actually going through a windshield are doing exactly the same thing as guys wincing at they idea of violent injury to the testicles, and no balls to most guys is anethma to most men which of course I understand.

An early reaction like that by a young male does not suggest one way or another any future reaction, one way or another, to becoming a eunuch.