What happens if you only get your external urinary spinchter removed?

[Squeaky Bearsies]

I was wondering do you guys think this talk about having to remove the prostate for urinary incontinence surgery is really necessary? I just can't help thinking this is just another bs tactic. I remember when my mom had to get her one ovary removed, the weirdo doctors tried to talk to her into full hysterectomy when it was unnecessary. It's sorta like Angeline Jolie cutting her breast off before she even had cancer. I mean hell with that logic I guess because I might get testicle cancer i should just remove my balls now lol. So anyway I really don't trust doctors. Luckily she told them to piss off and she never had any problems keeping her other ovary and saved her being on hormones the rest of her life....Also I think why Reddys surgery was so radical is because he wanted  complete incontinence and to dribble all the time...which I don't really care to have anyway. I just want some kind of incontinence to wear diapers medically so if I do get found out I can honestly say it's medical not sexual. 

Also does anyone know if I get my external urinary spinchter removed will that affect my ability to hold cum? Like because my wife and I have really good long sex and I've trained myself to hold my ejaculations back for an hour or more. Sorry if that is tmi.... If the external spinchter is removed will it make it harder to stop cumming or any sexual issues? Anyone here only have their external spinchter removed or injured it and what kind of incontinence do you have as the result? I also feel this would be cheaper and maybe that's why most doctors don't want to offer it.

[Squeaky Bearsies]

This what I got when I asked if it was necessary to remove the prostate if only removing external urinary spinchter? 

[BrownBobby]

I don't know what to tell you at this point - if you're truly this obsessed over the idea of doing absolutely nothing that could, in any way, affect your sexual function in even the most marginal ways...then I'd highly advise stopping trying to make this goal happen.  I *did* have exactly what you said done first.  And it did almost nothing.  And that's not uncommon - there's about a 1 in 3 chance that only removing the external sphincter does nothing, and a 1 in 3 chance that function reverts to normal shortly thereafter anyway.  If you want to hope you're one of the lucky 1 in 3 *and* you can find a doctor to do it, then by all means, go for it. 

This will be the last reply I type to you about this, not because I want to stop the conversation, but because I sense there is really no path forward here.  You seem to have made you your mind very definitively about what you want - and that's fine!  But that also means accepting what the consequences of wanting that are.  I wish you all the best in trying to find some solution here - but I suspect there won't be a satisfying one.

[superabsorbantpolymer]

To be fair, different people might have different goals with regards to incontinence. If a partial surgery made me require a man pad or pull up, that would be appealing (although total incontinence like Bobby and reddy have is also very cool!). 

[BrownBobby]

@superabsorbantpolymer - That's the thing - it didn't quite end up like that either.  But I strongly suspect that's because there isn't a lot of research into "how do we purposely make continent people less continent?"

[Squeaky Bearsies]

What do you mean "it almost did nothing"? If there was any incontinence I'd be satisfied even if it was a few drops a day. Id just finish the process in 24/7 diapers if I wanted more incontinence. I feel like you think I'm attacking you on your decision to get your prostate removed. Im totally respectful to others choices but that is not what I want. And I'm not a fan of black/white thinking and simpleton responses like ALL or NOTHING. There are grey areas Bobby. So what's this snotty attitude of others wanting to preserve their sexual functions? Are you bitter because deep down you wish you had been more careful? It's really big deal to me and be a nightmare if it happened to me. I found it very unlikely that removing the external spinchter would do nothing....you were just unsatisfied with it because you want to dribble all the time which is fine. And in Reddy's case the only reason he thought it wasn't working because the stricture was not addressed immediately. And even he regretted going back. Did you read the part in my post that I pointed out what the doctors wanted do with my mom that was unnecessary? Is that some how kooky talk for you? Do you think ALL doctors are not greedy or have ill intentions?

5 hours ago, superabsorbantpolymer said:

To be fair, different people might have different goals with regards to incontinence. If a partial surgery made me require a man pad or pull up, that would be appealing (although total incontinence like Bobby and reddy have is also very cool!). 

Do you know if the external urinary spinchter controls holding back ejaculations?

[BrownBobby]

You know what? If you want to see what me actually attacking looks like, I'm happy to oblige. I was trying very much to avoid such things, but if you need to see it to know the difference between what I said and that, far be it from me to stop you...

1 hour ago, Squeaky Bearsies said:

What do you mean "it almost did nothing"? If there was any incontinence I'd be satisfied even if it was a few drops a day.

I found it very unlikely that removing the external spinchter would do nothing....you were just unsatisfied with it because you want to dribble all the time which is fine.

It wasn't this - wow, what a surprise!  When I said "almost nothing," I wasn't exaggerating.  The only effect was that, once I started peeing, I couldn't stop it.  I had full control of when I peed, I had zero dribbling outside of that.  And in three months, even that reverted to normal.  I welcome you to actually look at the scientific literature for external urethral sphincterotomies - that's the term you're looking for, and you'll need to do more than just looking at the first two Google results to get at the data, but those rates I quote come from meta-studies of tracking the procedures over five-to-ten year time spans.  About 30% of the time, nothing happens - not even what I got.  About another 30-40% of the time, *something* happens, similar to what I had, but it goes away quickly.  And in the last 20-30%, you get an effect that usually goes away within five years.  The urinary system is excellent at repairing itself from such damage - which makes sense, given how important it is for the majority of people to not piss themselves.  It's why I discourage people from seeing it as a panacea. I did too, before I did a bunch of research and got one myself.  And the person least surprised by my lack of results was the urologist who did the procedure on me.

1 hour ago, Squeaky Bearsies said:

I feel like you think I'm attacking you on your decision to get your prostate removed. Im totally respectful to others choices but that is not what I want.  And I'm not a fan of black/white thinking and simpleton responses like ALL or NOTHING

It's really big deal to me and be a nightmare if it happened to me.

I know it's not what you want.  I get it.  This is, in fact, the very crux of my point.  If this is your guiding principle for seeking incontinence using surgical interventions, it's going to be a problem.  It's really that simple.  Any procedure that could cause incontinence has this as a side effect right out of the gate, *including* sphincterotomies.  If this is your hard line that can't be crossed, I'd highly recommend finding other methods that don't involve physical or surgical interventions.  Maybe options exist here, but I've yet to find any that I'd consider safe or sane.  But I'm *always* happy to be proven wrong, if you can find evidence to support it.  Not theories or google searches - evidence.

1 hour ago, Squeaky Bearsies said:

There are grey areas Bobby. So what's this snotty attitude of others wanting to preserve their sexual functions? Are you bitter because deep down you wish you had been more careful?

I could speak to this, but I'd likely swear, and I'd rather not.  Let's just say it's hilarious to me that you blame me of attacking, and not only personally attack me, but make wildly accusatory assumptions of my motivations.  I'd claim it would be a sign that you are almost certainly not in the right mental headspace to be considering such things, but unlike you, I know I don't know enough about someone I've only met on an internet forum to make such a claim.  So I'll instead say it impugns the character of your writing and makes me wonder if there is more at play here.

1 hour ago, Squeaky Bearsies said:

And in Reddy's case the only reason he thought it wasn't working because the stricture was not addressed immediately. And even he regretted going back.

Reddy's story is his to tell, and I know more than a lot of others about the details. I will only say that there is more in play with Reddy's account than the radical oversimplification that you present here.

1 hour ago, Squeaky Bearsies said:

Did you read the part in my post that I pointed out what the doctors wanted do with my mom that was unnecessary? Is that some how kooky talk for you? Do you think ALL doctors are not greedy or have ill intentions?

I did!  It's also, unfortunately, irrelevant. Are there bad doctors out there? Of course there are.  But overcorrecting so hard the other way, and assuming you can't trust anything that any doctor says because you default to the idea that they're greedy or have ill intentions, is just as unhelpful.  That's where doing research is useful - actual research, looking at the same studies that the doctor are, finding multiple sources to validate your claims, and using the knowledge others can give you to try to find a path forward.

___
 

I truly do hope you find what you're looking for.  I just suspect you're going to be in for a long, rough road on your current path.  But as I said before, I'm not going to try to dissuade you from it - not that I suspect I could anyway.  Good luck, truly.

[Squeaky Bearsies]

30 minutes ago, BrownBobby said:

You know what? If you want to see what me actually attacking looks like, I'm happy to oblige. I was trying very much to avoid such things, but if you need to see it to know the difference between what I said and that, far be it from me to stop you...

It wasn't this - wow, what a surprise!  When I said "almost nothing," I wasn't exaggerating.  The only effect was that, once I started peeing, I couldn't stop it.  I had full control of when I peed, I had zero dribbling outside of that.  And in three months, even that reverted to normal.  I welcome you to actually look at the scientific literature for external urethral sphincterotomies - that's the term you're looking for, and you'll need to do more than just looking at the first two Google results to get at the data, but those rates I quote come from meta-studies of tracking the procedures over five-to-ten year time spans.  About 30% of the time, nothing happens - not even what I got.  About another 30-40% of the time, *something* happens, similar to what I had, but it goes away quickly.  And in the last 20-30%, you get an effect that usually goes away within five years.  The urinary system is excellent at repairing itself from such damage - which makes sense, given how important it is for the majority of people to not piss themselves.  It's why I discourage people from seeing it as a panacea. I did too, before I did a bunch of research and got one myself.  And the person least surprised by my lack of results was the urologist who did the procedure on me.

I know it's not what you want.  I get it.  This is, in fact, the very crux of my point.  If this is your guiding principle for seeking incontinence using surgical interventions, it's going to be a problem.  It's really that simple.  Any procedure that could cause incontinence has this as a side effect right out of the gate, *including* sphincterotomies.  If this is your hard line that can't be crossed, I'd highly recommend finding other methods that don't involve physical or surgical interventions.  Maybe options exist here, but I've yet to find any that I'd consider safe or sane.  But I'm *always* happy to be proven wrong, if you can find evidence to support it.  Not theories or google searches - evidence.

I could speak to this, but I'd likely swear, and I'd rather not.  Let's just say it's hilarious to me that you blame me of attacking, and not only personally attack me, but make wildly accusatory assumptions of my motivations.  I'd claim it would be a sign that you are almost certainly not in the right mental headspace to be considering such things, but unlike you, I know I don't know enough about someone I've only met on an internet forum to make such a claim.  So I'll instead say it impugns the character of your writing and makes me wonder if there is more at play here.

Reddy's story is his to tell, and I know more than a lot of others about the details. I will only say that there is more in play with Reddy's account than the radical oversimplification that you present here.

I did!  It's also, unfortunately, irrelevant. Are there bad doctors out there? Of course there are.  But overcorrecting so hard the other way, and assuming you can't trust anything that any doctor says because you default to the idea that they're greedy or have ill intentions, is just as unhelpful.  That's where doing research is useful - actual research, looking at the same studies that the doctor are, finding multiple sources to validate your claims, and using the knowledge others can give you to try to find a path forward.

___
 

I truly do hope you find what you're looking for.  I just suspect you're going to be in for a long, rough road on your current path.  But as I said before, I'm not going to try to dissuade you from it - not that I suspect I could anyway.  Good luck, truly.

This has not been the first encounter with you. Cathdiap called you out 6 months ago for your snootiness. I don't wish to start drama on here either. You just rub me the wrong way. And feel your a hypocrite alluding that I have some kind of mental problem obsessing over the same thing you did before you got the surgery. I had no problem talking to Reddy. I am very concerned with the current environment in the medical field especially the corruption and greed. Like the covid 19 gene therapy maiming and killing millions. Agendas wanting to sterilize people and get people to hate healthy sex. Especially that you and Reddy went to a "transgender clinic" where I suspect that could of been their agenda. Maybe, maybe not but it's a possibility. Not really any point of getting into it with you because by your tone you don't seem like an open minded person. Or still think some of the proven conspiracies are kooky. And yes my mother's story was relevant because it's an example of SOME doctors bsing people to remove more organs than is necessary for MONEY and some cases sterilization agendas. Like spading people like dogs. And the fact the Rockefellers took over the medical industry in the early 1900s is a big concern to me. Especially their perversion of medicine. Another topic you probably think is kooky but has a crap load of evidence people like you probably ignore...

[cathdiap]

Why is it so hard to control emotions when we disagree or don’t understand each other?

@Squeaky Bearsies If your sexual health and performance are so important to you, why would you even consider surgery when you know it damages tissues involved in erections and ejaculation?

I understand your distrust of the medical profession. But why would you seek help from those same medical professionals for a non-medical problem?

I think your desire to become incontinent stems from a psychological issue. You only want to wear diapers around people if you can honestly tell them you are incontinent. Two questions come to mind:

1) Who would have the nerve to ask you something if they saw your diaper? Most people would think you were incontinent. But even if they suspected you were an AB/DL (and you are, even after surgery), they would never ask you about it. Both of these reasons for wearing a diaper are disgusting to hear for regular people. So why would they ask questions?

2) Would you really feel more honest about wearing diapers in public if you knew that you only needed them because of your choice to have a voluntary surgery that was solely driven by your fetish? You would only be truly honest if you answered that you had yourself made incontinent because you liked being dependent on diapers. I suspect you would not give an answer like that.

Regarding your concern about holding your semen in after surgery: From looking at pictures of the male urinary tract anatomy, I think that only the external sphincter can block the sperm. If that sphincter is removed, you probably won't be able to hold it in.

I understand that you want the best of both worlds, but our creator chose to weave urine flow and ejaculation into one system. Losing control over the flow of urine will somehow affect ejaculation. It is what it is.

[BrownBobby]

4 hours ago, cathdiap said:

Why is it so hard to control emotions when we disagree or don’t understand each other?

This is, I think, at the root of the original question in this topic. You did an better job than I laying out why the desire to leak something out of our genitals and the desire to have perfect control of what comes out of that same place are at odds with each other, and how there may be a much more pervasive desire at play here - the absolution of guilt.

But that's not what they want to hear. And when someone tells them it, they start getting...less than coherent in response.

Both urologists who operated on me asked the same question, as they consulted me on whether or not to get the surgery, even the external sphincterotomy: "If you leaked urine but couldn't get hard or orgasm again, would you be okay?" For me, the answer was yes. I think I suspect the OP's answer here, even if it might affect how they'd get what they want.

[cathdiap]

1 hour ago, BrownBobby said:

Both urologists who operated on me asked the same question, as they consulted me on whether or not to get the surgery, even the external sphincterotomy: "If you leaked urine but couldn't get hard or orgasm again, would you be okay?" For me, the answer was yes

I wouldn't mind either. Those morning erections are killing me when my leaking penis has to keep pointing down in my diaper. Also my horrible experience with my unfaithful wife made me decide 20 years ago that women would never be a part of my life again.

So now my penis only has to perform well in peeing uncontrollably in my diaper and stay soft in the morning 🤣

May I ask why you would not mind if the operation had led to ED?

[BrownBobby]

12 minutes ago, cathdiap said:

May I ask why you would not mind if the operation had led to ED?

A totally fair question, and one you phrased perfectly. I admit some fascination at the idea of no longer getting hard, but I didn't want to be impotent as a result of surgery. But like all operations, it was about measuring risks versus rewards. If I couldn't get hard but was incontinent, would that be, on the whole, better?

For me, the answer was simple. There would be many ways to explore my sexuality besides an erection. But I had exhausted so many other options for being incontinent. And I ended up being right - the fulfillment of incontinence in my life is better than any momentary climax. But I was lucky - I get to have both still.

[jeremy12312]

3 hours ago, BrownBobby said:

But that's not what they want to hear. And when someone tells them it, they start getting...less than coherent in response.

Welcome to the modern era. There's more information available at people's fingertips than ever before and almost none of it is rooted in research or truth.  So people pick what they want to believe or what reinforces what they already believed, and boom.  Their "alternate truths" are just as valid to them as the actual truth.

[Don Incognito]

23 hours ago, BrownBobby said:

@superabsorbantpolymer - That's the thing - it didn't quite end up like that either.  But I strongly suspect that's because there isn't a lot of research into "how do we purposely make continent people less continent?"

Theoretically, removing the valve that lets you decide when you're ready to pee should get the job done.

The problem, from what I've read here, is that the surgery is typically performed by going un through the urethra and cutting out muscle tissue, and somehow it's not possible to get the whole entire sphincter. Going in through the abdomen might get around that, but with a higher risk of infection and possibly other bad stuff, so even doctors willing to do incontinence surgery probably wouldn't do that.

[Squeaky Bearsies]

1 hour ago, Don Incognito said:

Theoretically, removing the valve that lets you decide when you're ready to pee should get the job done.

The problem, from what I've read here, is that the surgery is typically performed by going un through the urethra and cutting out muscle tissue, and somehow it's not possible to get the whole entire sphincter. Going in through the abdomen might get around that, but with a higher risk of infection and possibly other bad stuff, so even doctors willing to do incontinence surgery probably wouldn't do that.

I actually suggested that in another post I created 6 months ago that I'd rather them go through my bladder not my dick hole. Especially with relatively large surgical tools I could see that maybe damaging the nerves for erections. I might even prefer subpubic catheter because of the same reasons. And you can actually have sex with that type of catheters.The best advancement would be nano bots that laser the spinchter microscopically and could scan for the nerves that control erections to avoid cutting into them. Maybe very close to that tech. Also there is nerves that control your bladder inside the bladder itself and it branches off maybe easier to avoid doing surgery there.....my point was I don't think this is black/white.

And actually when I always fantasized about incontinence surgery I always got turned by having a scar on my abdomen reminding me of the bladder surgery. So yeah I'd rather take the risk of infection than messing my dick up. It kind of terrifies me sticking thing up my dick hole. I've got soap in just the tip and that was rather unpleasant so I can imagine the catheter would hurt big time....I researched the topic and some men preferred the subpubic catheter because of the same reasons.

8 hours ago, jeremy12312 said:

Welcome to the modern era. There's more information available at people's fingertips than ever before and almost none of it is rooted in research or truth.  So people pick what they want to believe or what reinforces what they already believed, and boom.  Their "alternate truths" are just as valid to them as the actual truth.

I read many studies and they did not cover all the grey areas...alt ways of doing surgery on the bladder rather than going up your dick hole. Possibly nano bots in the future making microscopic cuts and scanner to avoid cutting into other nerves, etc 

[Squeaky Bearsies]

Another concern I have his most doctors probably just mirroring a basic prosectomy. Which is for cancer not what we want. So some of their reasoning for taking things out might not be relevant in what I want. Lots of people get stuck in their ways if they comfortable with doing the same thing for a long time. Also how do we know some of these doctors think we're sick perverts and maybe have intentions of trying to teach us a lesson by taking away our sex drives as punishment. They do it with kids with sex change surgeries and that's really messed up. How do you know what they really think when their away from work? Again not saying ALL doctors but it could be the luck of the draw.

[Squeaky Bearsies]

23 hours ago, cathdiap said:

Why is it so hard to control emotions when we disagree or don’t understand each other?

@Squeaky Bearsies If your sexual health and performance are so important to you, why would you even consider surgery when you know it damages tissues involved in erections and ejaculation?

I understand your distrust of the medical profession. But why would you seek help from those same medical professionals for a non-medical problem?

I think your desire to become incontinent stems from a psychological issue. You only want to wear diapers around people if you can honestly tell them you are incontinent. Two questions come to mind:

1) Who would have the nerve to ask you something if they saw your diaper? Most people would think you were incontinent. But even if they suspected you were an AB/DL (and you are, even after surgery), they would never ask you about it. Both of these reasons for wearing a diaper are disgusting to hear for regular people. So why would they ask questions?

2) Would you really feel more honest about wearing diapers in public if you knew that you only needed them because of your choice to have a voluntary surgery that was solely driven by your fetish? You would only be truly honest if you answered that you had yourself made incontinent because you liked being dependent on diapers. I suspect you would not give an answer like that.

Regarding your concern about holding your semen in after surgery: From looking at pictures of the male urinary tract anatomy, I think that only the external sphincter can block the sperm. If that sphincter is removed, you probably won't be able to hold it in.

I understand that you want the best of both worlds, but our creator chose to weave urine flow and ejaculation into one system. Losing control over the flow of urine will somehow affect ejaculation. It is what it is.

I was afraid of that regarding the external spinchter controlling ejaculations....But I'm not convinced their aren't alt ways to avoid messing you dick up...I feel id rather them make an incision in my bladder rather than sticking tools up my urethra that may be responsible for damaging the nerves for erections. And than there is talk about the pelvic area nerves where instead of cutting the sphincters you basically cut the nerve that goes to the brain to the bladder. Basically making you neurogenic incontinent. The question is does the whole bladder nerve also control erections or only part of it in where can you cut it without affecting the other functions. I've seen the pictures of the nerves and they branch off into the bladder. In theory I feel if you only cut where it branches you might not sever the main nerve that controls the other functions. Im a little freaked out about talk of nanobots but damn they could be helpful in what some want here.

@cathdiapIt's a shame the Rockefellers perverted the medical establishment in the early 1900s or id have more trust in the doctors today...

[Hannah YMS]

On 3/31/2025 at 9:43 PM, Squeaky Bearsies said:

Also how do we know some of these doctors think we're sick perverts and maybe have intentions of trying to teach us a lesson by taking away our sex drives as punishment. They do it with kids with sex change surgeries and that's really messed up.

I think you are being fed anti-transgender propaganda. Here's an article, which links a study, from Harvard, explaining that sex change operations performed on youth are next to non-existent. It is very rare for a young trans kid to get any kind of gender affirming surgeries.

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/gender-affirming-surgeries-rarely-performed-on-transgender-youth/ 

 

On 3/29/2025 at 11:53 PM, Squeaky Bearsies said:

I just want some kind of incontinence to wear diapers medically so if I do get found out I can honestly say it's medical not sexual.

On 3/30/2025 at 10:43 PM, Squeaky Bearsies said:

If there was any incontinence I'd be satisfied even if it was a few drops a day.

Luckily for you, there's a non-surgical solution for you that won't affect sexual function. You can achieve what you want by obtaining Post Void Dribble. That means you are unable to effectively stop urinating (a few drops to 10s of milliliters) shortly after urinating. There's some residual urine you end up leaking, even after thinking you got it all out. Good news is, this is easy to obtain, but it takes time.

All you have to do is start untraining like normal. Wear diapers 24/7, never hold it, always release and let go. After about 4-6 months or so, you'll have your Post Void Dribble, which satisfies the condition you mentioned above: "I'd be satisfied even if it was a few drops a day." Voila, uncontrollable urine loss and a need to always be diapered. I have Post Void Dribble myself and I either have to wear a diaper to stop leaking on me, or I have to face the fact that some urine lands in my pants. Win-win, right?

[BabyCoda]

On 5/2/2025 at 8:38 PM, Hannah YMS said:

All you have to do is start untraining like normal. Wear diapers 24/7, never hold it, always release and let go. After about 4-6 months or so, you'll have your Post Void Dribble, which satisfies the condition you mentioned above: "I'd be satisfied even if it was a few drops a day." Voila, uncontrollable urine loss and a need to always be diapered. I have Post Void Dribble myself and I either have to wear a diaper to stop leaking on me, or I have to face the fact that some urine lands in my pants. Win-win, right?

Can confirm that this method works. I don’t wear all the time, but I do wear to bed every night. I have started experiencing post-void dribble. It is not usually enough for me to justify wearing protection all the time (just a few dribbles that aren’t noticeable to anyone else) but it happens every time after I go pee. There are a few times where, if I don’t get my penis all the up over the elastic on my pants, that the dribble is more substantial. That usually only happens with a ln old pair of pjs I have where the elastic is so worn out that I have the drawstring tied pretty tight.