,jpeg/021/900/913/1280x720.c.jpg.v1643929860)
,jpeg/006/393/275/v2/320x180.206.jpg)
,jpeg/007/057/810/v2/320x180.209.jpg)
,jpeg/011/487/301/1280x720.1.jpg)
,jpeg/020/104/465/1280x720.5.jpg)
,jpeg/001/068/841/v2/320x180.201.jpg)
,jpeg/022/546/668/1280x720.c.jpg.v1663139376)
,jpeg/000/058/080/v2/320x180.203.jpg)
,jpeg/018/991/608/v2/320x180.245.jpg)
,jpeg/013/978/562/v2/320x180.201.jpg)
,jpeg/021/697/279/v2/320x180.209.jpg)
코멘트
146
Technically, when they removed the testicles, a genetic male becomes a Eunuch. But when the ball sack is split and a vagina-like hole is drilled, I would say a genetic man becomes an artificial Hermaphrodite. Even so, the chromosomes remain male XY and not female XX, so at least a surgically altered genetic male will not have ovaries or a uterus, and lacking testicles, is therefore sterile and cannot become pregnant without more artificial medical procedures. But the male precum will still taste like male ejaculate despite lacking sperm. The most interesting question is whether this constitutes gay sex? It can be argued either way, genetic arguments verses medical and social transformation arguments. I don't know that either view is correct because gay sex in the sense of same-same sex would require two originally biological males with the same medical surgical procedures having sex together. It is too much to think about for me when biological XX females are challenging enough to deal with. But different strokes for different folks, I'm not here to judge anyone.
