Does the sexual thoughts change or not? Does it go away? Wondering?
I’m a pedophile and i’m trying to see to castrate myself so what to see if anyone has done it and what their experiences are?
Well, @Chie and other users will prolly tell you this is an incredibly inhumane thing to do to yourself (yes, even just chemical) and try to talk you out of it. So…
As for the potential effects:
Chemical or surgical castration is practiced in many countries for people convicted of sex crimes as a prerequisite for their release from prison. The castration may be voluntary or mandated. The assumption is that it prevents future crimes. Reports are available from American and European countries for over 80 years (chemical for circa 30).[85] The effectiveness and ethics of this treatment are heavily debated.
A temporary “chemical castration” has been studied and developed as a preventive measure and punishment for several repeated sex crimes, such as rape or other sexually related violence.[86][87] Where homosexuality has been criminalised or treated as a mental illness, chemical castration has been used on gay men, as in the case of Alan Turing.[88]
In modern times, the Czech Republic practices surgical castration of convicted sex offenders. According to the reports compiled by Council of Europe, a human-rights forum, the central European country physically castrated at least 94 prisoners in the 10 years up to April 2008. The Czech Republic defends this procedure as voluntary and effective.[89] According to Dr. Martin Hollý, director of the Psychiatric Hospital Bohnice in Prague, none of the nearly 100 sex offenders who had been physically castrated had committed further offences.[90] One serial offender stated that being castrated was the “best decision” he ever made: “On the one hand you have to protect the potential victims and on the other hand I wanted to be protected from myself, I wanted to live like a normal person.”[91] Don Grubin, a professor at Newcastle University’s Institute of Neuroscience who also runs a chemical castration program backed by the UK’s Ministry of Justice, was initially opposed to physical castration. After visiting the Czech Republic, however, he agreed that some form of castration might be of benefit to some sex offenders.[91][92]
In 2020, the Pakistani-controlled section of Kashmir passed a bill allowing for convicted child sex abusers to be chemically or surgically castrated.[93]
In 2020, a motion calling for surgical castration of convicted rapists was defeated in the Nigerian House of Representatives.[94] However, there remains support for the policy.[95][96]
In 2024, Louisiana became the first U.S. state to allow judges to impose castration on sex offenders.[97] Previously, in several states, convicted offenders could choose castration, including where it was a prerequisite for parole. However, should the person choose to remain in prison, they would not be forced to be castrated.[98]
Criticism
Some criminologists argue that the reported lower recidivism rates in castrated male sex offenders compared to non-castrated ones does not conclusively prove that it is a biological effect of castration, but might be explained by other factors. One suggested factor from game theory is that men who are willing to accept castration to get a shorter prison sentence are those who value freedom from prison higher than men who are not willing to pay the price for freedom in the form of their testicles. This hypothesis could explain their apparent lower recidivism as a result of working harder to conceal the evidence for their crimes, and argue that their parole is a danger of releasing offenders who only hide their crimes more efficiently and are not any less likely to commit new crimes. These criminologists also argue that police investigators treating castrated men as less likely to reoffend than non-castrated men may cause an investigation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy.[99][100]
Castration stops the progression of male pattern baldness. However, hair regrowth – if it occurs at all – may be limited to hair that was lost shortly before castration.[128]
A study of 81 historical eunuchs in Korea’s royal court found a 14- to 19-year increase in lifespan compared to intact men of similar socioeconomic background; these eunuchs had a centenarian rate of over 3%.[130]
In the case of chemical castration, ongoing regular injections of anti-androgens are required. Chemical castration does not actually remove the testicles or ovaries of the subject,[131] nor is it a form of sterilization.[132]
With the advent of chemical castration, physical castration in humans has been widely superseded,[133] though some have undergone the procedure voluntarily.[134]
Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body,[1] chemical castration does not remove organs and is not a form of sterilization.[2]
Chemical castration is generally reversible when treatment is discontinued,[3] although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). In men, chemical castration reduces sex drive and the capacity for sexual arousal, side effects of some drugs may include depression, suicidal ideation, hot flashes, anemia, infertility, increase in body fat and higher risks of cardiovascular diseases and osteoporosis. In women, chemical castration acts by decreasing testosterone levels in order to lower their sex drive, side effects include the deflation of breast glands, expansion of the size of the nipple and shrinking of bone mass.
In some jurisdictions, chemical castration has been used to reduce the libido of sexual offenders.[4] The effectiveness of chemical castration in decreasing recidivism among sex offenders is controversial.
On males
When used on males, these drugs can reduce sex drive, sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis, respectively. Males may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males); full development is less common unless chemical castration is combined with feminizing oestrogen therapy.[5]
Some drugs, such as medroxyprogesterone acetate, cyproterone acetate and LHRH agonists can decrease serum testosterone and estradiol in the body, thus impairing the metabolism of glucose and lipid. These drugs can also cause depression, hot flashes, infertility and anemia, aside from cardiovascular diseases and osteoporosis. The risk of side effects caused by chemical castration drugs can increase depending on the length of time under which they are administered.[6] A 2004 study in which eleven men were chemically castrated ended with one committing suicide after one year of treatment;[7] in another 2020 study, increases in suicidal ideations was reported by 8% of its treatment group, which led to the hospitalization of two of the 25 subjects who had been administered degarelix.[8][9]
On females
When used on females, the effects are similar, though there is little research about chemically lowering female’s sex drive or female-specific anaphrodisiacs, since most research focuses on the opposite, but anti-androgenic hormone regimens would lower testosterone in females which can impact sex drive or sexual response.[10][11][12] These drugs also deflate the breast glands and expand the size of the nipple. Also seen is a sudden shrinking in bone mass and discoloration of the lips,[13][14] reduced body hair,[15] and muscle mass.[16]
The first use of chemical castration occurred in 1944, when diethylstilbestrol was used with the purpose of lowering men’s testosterone.[17] The antipsychotic agent benperidol was sometimes used to decrease sexual urges in people who displayed what was thought of as inappropriate sexual behavior, and as likewise given by depot injection, though benperidol does not affect testosterone and is therefore not a castration agent. Chemical castration was often seen as an easier alternative to life imprisonment or the death penalty because it allowed the release of the convicted.[18]
In 1981, in an experiment by Pierre Gagné, 48 males with long-standing histories of sexually deviant behaviour were given medroxyprogesterone acetate for as long as 12 months. Forty of those subjects were recorded as having diminished desires for deviant sexual behaviour, as well as less frequent sexual fantasies and greater control over sexual urges. The research recorded a continuation of this improved behaviour after the administration of the drug had ended, with no evidence of adverse side effects, and so recommended medroxyprogesterone acetate along with counselling as a successful method of treatment for serial sex offenders.[19]
Leuprolide acetate is an LHRH agonist that is most commonly used in chemical castration today.[20] This drug has been observed as having higher rates of success in reducing abnormal sexual urges and fantasies, but is often reserved for those offenders who are at a high risk of reoffending due to the drug’s intense effects.[21]
Psychotherapy has also recently been used in conjunction with chemical castration in order to maximize and prolong the beneficial results.[22] Schober et al. reported in 2005 that when cognitive behavioral therapy combined with leuprolide acetetate was compared to cognitive behavioral therapy alone, the combination therapy produced a much more significant reduction of pedophilic fantasies and urges as well as masturbation.[23] Chemical castration therapy reduces an individual’s libido which then makes some offenders more responsive to the introduction of psychotherapy.[24] This combination therapy is most often utilized in those who are at a high risk of offending.[22]
Offering criminals the option of chemical castration for a reduction in sentence is an example of compulsory sterilization[25] as it can leave a subject sterile if they are required to continue treatment for more than 3 years.[6]
Scientific critique
Some criminologists argue that the appearance of a lower recidivism rate in male sex offenders who take chemical castration treatment than in those who do not can be explained by factors other than biological effects of the medication. One hypothesis is that men who accept the negative effects of hormonal treatment in exchange for shorter prison sentence are distinct in that they value freedom from incarceration higher than men who rather stay in prison for a longer time than face the side effects of chemical castration. These criminologists explain apparently lower recidivism as an artifact of men who accept chemical castration being more engaged in hiding the evidence for reoffending, and that paroling such offenders constitute a risk of releasing criminals who commit as many new crimes as others but are better at hiding it. These criminologists also argue that police investigators treating castrated men as less likely to reoffend than non-castrated men may cause an investigation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy, and that men who sell some of their prescribed medicines on the black market for drugs get a hidden income that improves their ability to afford measures to hide recidivism that is not available to men without such prescriptions.[26][27][28]
Some neurologists acknowledge that testosterone plays a role in sexual arousal but consider that reducing sex drive will likely not reduce inappropriate sex behaviour. These researchers argue that since a weaker internal signal in the brain means a higher requirement for external stimulation to create a feedback loop that tires the brain circuits out as in orgasm and lead to satisfaction, a reduction of the internal stimulation from hormones would make the required external stimulation stronger and also more specific, as weaker signals involve narrower ranges of other brain functions in their loops. These scientists therefore argue that the biological (as opposed to sociological) effect of reduced testosterone is to make it more difficult and not easier to use masturbation without pornography or other socially acceptable substitutes to manage remaining sex drive in a former offender, and that many community persons (both male and female) find that a lower initial arousal makes it more difficult to orgasm by masturbation without pornography or with non-preferred stimulation.[29][30]
Some studies have found that emasculation may cause a range of physiological changes, such as a shortened torso,[14] widened stomach and hips,[15] increased height, bowed legs,[14] and an elongated skull.[14] Additionally, emasculates typically have less or no facial and body hair,[16] increased fatty tissue or gynecomastia,[16] and a feminine fat pattern distribution.[17]
Bilateral orchiectomy causes infertility and greatly reduced testosterone levels. This can lead to side effects including loss of sexual interest, erectile dysfunction, hot flashes, breast enlargement (gynecomastia), weight gain, loss of muscle mass, and osteoporosis.[4] It has been discovered that some individuals with a history of prostate cancer who had bilateral orchiectomy had effects on their new bone production, resulting in increased risk of bone fractures due to testosterone deficiency after the procedure.[10]
Bilateral orchiectomy also reduces the use of exogenous medications for transgender women; the reduction in testosterone eliminates the need for testosterone-blocking medications and can contribute to feminizing features such as breast enlargement.[1][11][12]
Psychosocial effects
The loss of one or both testicles from orchiectomy can have severe implications in a male’s identity and self-image surrounding masculinity, such that it can lead to an individual having thoughts of hopelessness, inadequacy, and loss. Among testicular cancer survivors who have lost a testicle, there are feelings of shame and loss, which are more evident in young and single men than older and non-single men.[13] As many as one third of individuals who will undergo orchiectomy are not offered the option of having a testicular prosthesis. Data shows that simply offering testicular prosthesis to individuals undergoing orchiectomy is psychologically beneficial. While some individuals do not mind losing a testicle, studies have shown that there is a change in body image in testicular cancer survivors who have undergone orchiectomy and an improvement in body image in 50–60% of individuals who undergo testicular prosthesis placement. One year after testicular prosthesis placement, there are reports of increase in self-esteem and psychological well-being during sexual activity in a study that followed up on post-orchiectomy individuals including adolescents.[14] On the other hand, there is a current debate whether children undergoing orchiectomy should be offered testicular prosthesis to be inserted at the time of orchiectomy procedure.[5][15]
Put more simply but no less lengthy:
Prisons will give inmates a choice between being chemically castrated or kept in prison longer. I personally think this is, uh, an evil dilemma to offer somebody (fuck yourself up on regular injections or stay in a cell), so… 
Note that recommendations for chemical castration are reserved only for the most at-risk reoffenders, like serial rapists.
The jury’s still out wether castration is actually effective at preventing sex crimes, with many academics heavily criticizing those who claim as much. I fact, a common argument against chemical castration is that an ex-predator will mistakenly believe themselves to be “cured” and allow themselves to be put in situations where they could potentially offend again. Or, that chemical castration does NOT eliminate attractions (which is true, being castrated won’t stop you from being a pedophile), and so would only make a person need “harder stimulation” to achieve orgasm. This sexual frustration/desperation may result in a “self-fulfilling prophecy”, where the subject just abuses kids even harder than they did before…
There could also be investigation bias going on, with police automatically assuming castrated individuals are less likely to reoffend, and so don’t bother investigating them. The psychology behind the type of person who would willingly accept chemical castration has also been called into question. That such a person could simply be crazy/desperate enough to do whatever it takes to get free and resume committing sex crimes. That these perpetrators are aware of investigation bias and deliberately take advantage of it as a shield to deflect suspicion.
It is theorized that Alan Turing became deeply depressed upon being chemically castrated for his homosexuality and proceeded to commit suicide. Tho, note that we’ll never know for certain what actually caused Turing’s death (wether it really was caused by the chemical castration, or even if it was a suicide and not an accident). More on potential suicidal depression later:
Physical castration will obviously render you infertile. If you plan on having children of your own, better save some sperm to avoid screwing yourself later.
A couple potential benefits of castration include preventing male pattern baldness and increasing your overall lifespan by 15-20 years. IMO, not worth lopping off your genitalia.
Chemical castration is reversible but requires regular injections to keep going. Even then, permanent effects on your body chemistry can occur, such as with lower bone density (osteoporosis/increased bone fragmentation). Chemical castration will lower your sex drive/arousal/libido/etc., even with consenting partners. Potential side effects while on injections include depression, suicidal ideation (see: Alan Turing), hot flashes, infertility, increased body fat and higher risk of cardiovascular disease (weight gain), developed breasts (literal man boobs), decreased testosterone, impaired metabolism, anemia, reduced body/facial hair and muscle mass, shortening of the torso, widening of the stomach and hips, increased height, bowed legs, skull elongation, feelings of hopelessness and inadequacy and shame and loss and regret, negative body image/low self-esteem, etc. It can also result in stigmatization and social isolation from others.
Chemical castration of females has many of the same effects, with one notable inversion: lowering body fat/flattening of the chest. Also can result in increased nipple size and discoloring of the lips in females.
Castration alone is often deemed insufficient in reducing the desire to commit sex crime, and is frequently paired with mandatory therapy. But who’s to say that it’s not chiefly the therapy doing all the work and the castration is an unnecessary cruelty?
Ultimately, I fear that by accepting such a thing for yourself, you’re opening the door for others to come to the same conclusion as you and decide to also mutilate or drug themselves like this. Or, for professionals to look at voluntary cases like yours to justify doing this to people. Do what you want. I won’t stop you. But I don’t think this is either a smart or moral thing to do to yourself.
4 Likes