Brutal Castrated men got laid in the 17th century

[wasted12years]

Castrato singers got laid in the 17th century. They could get a somewhat erection and fuck foids, not all but alot of them. They got to have sex with noblefoids and since they had no balls the noblefoids didn't have to worry about pregnancy. They were statusmaxxed and earned alot of money. Just let that sink in... Men with no balls got laid back then and here we are in modern times still living as incels...

 

[AutistSupremacist]

Wouldn't castration obliterate your sex drive?

 

[wasted12years]

Wouldn't castration obliterate your sex drive?

It did, but the castration were done in late childhood, when puberty already started to hit. So the later they were castrated the less the sex drive would be affected. Some tissue still remained in the testicles. They could still somewhat maintain an erection i guess.

 

[WastedPotential]

brutal. But IMO the dogpill is worse

 

[WeirdoDesperado]

Today's equivalent of this is chemical castration by SSRIs, lifelong inceldom and being bottom of the barrel with no money. Psychiatry is the modern eugenics in practice

 

[SewerGoat]

It did, but the castration were done in late childhood, when puberty already started to hit. So the later they were castrated the less the sex drive would be affected. Some tissue still remained in the testicles. They could still somewhat maintain an erection i guess.

Interesting. How would orgasm work after castration? I mean they can't come but can they then keep going and going as a consequence?

 

[wasted12years]

Interesting. How would orgasm work after castration? I mean they can't come but can they then keep going and going as a consequence?

Note sure how they would come tbh, since they had no balls. They would last longer though. They even made songs about it.

 

[Passion]

Interesting. How would orgasm work after castration? I mean they can't come but can they then keep going and going as a consequence?

I'll just go ahead and provide you with an answer from Google and hopefully that helps the conversation move along

"in the 17th century, eunuchs could still experience sexual arousal and orgasm, particularly if they were castrated after puberty. While eunuchs were surgically altered to remove their ability to procreate, many retained the necessary anatomy, specifically the prostate gland and often the penis, to experience sexual pleasure, even without the testicles that produce sperm and the majority of testosterone.

Here is a breakdown of sexual function for 17th-century eunuchs:

• Castration Type Matters: Many 17th-century eunuchs, including the Italian castrati singers, only had their testicles removed (orchiectomy) rather than the entire penis (penectomy). This allowed them to still achieve erections."

 

[Qech__]

the noblefoids didn't have to worry about pregnancy

bruh why would a nobleman let his property fuck a eunuch, that's a great way to decrease their marriage value for family alliances

 

[wasted12years]

bruh why would a nobleman let his property fuck a eunuch, that's a great way to decrease their marriage value for family alliances

The castrato singers were bigger than rockstars at the time.

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

I mean, they were their era's equivalent of effeminate boyband members, I'd be more surprised if they weren't getting laid if they could.

I'll just go ahead and provide you with an answer from Google and hopefully that helps the conversation move along

I see. Reminds me of when I was reading about Roman slavery, and some Redditors, for what it's worth, mentioned that not only do we have a lot of evidence that Roman women of course owned slaves, but that there are historians who speculate that there was a slave market specifically catering to elite women and selling them castrated men as sex slaves, since if they were castrated after puberty, they would still be able to maintain an erection, but couldn't impregnate them.

his property

Feminist oppression fantasy that's confused for reality way more often than it should be. Foids were never legally property in medieval and early modern Europe, and while maybe some poorfag foids would be treated like property, noblewomen would never be.

that's a great way to decrease their marriage value for family alliances

Probably, but much less than if they were having sex with men who could impregnate them. Nobles by and large weren't marrying for love, and as long as any potential husbands could be certain that all the children born to their wives would be theirs and nobody would have a chance to cuck them, I can imagine they wouldn't care much if the marriage was still beneficial.

 

[Qech__]

Probably, but much less than if they were having sex with men who could impregnate them. Nobles by and large weren't marrying for love, and as long as any potential husbands could be certain that all the children born to their wives would be theirs and nobody would have a chance to cuck them, I can imagine they wouldn't care much if the marriage was still beneficial.

Ewwwww, nobles were oofy doofies
If I were a noble I'd marry even a poor virgin girl for love

 

[Lonly ghost]

They were castrated when they were still a child.

The castration was probably forced on the child.
This is basically child abuse , genital mutilation, sexual abuse.

 

[wasted12years]

They were castrated when they were still a child.

The castration was probably forced on the child.
This is basically child abuse , genital mutilation, sexual abuse.

Look how tall they were, even if they had a somewhat infantile facial development: