Male & Female Eunuchs?

[zippystripe_ (imported)]

Hello! I'm new here. I joined because I am a very curious person and also because of an art-related project I'm doing that involves Eunuchs. I'm not sure where to put this, so sorry if it's in the wrong place!

I have a few questions about Eunuchs. A lot of the topics on here are heavily focussed on male eunuchs, but I'm wondering if female eunuchs exist? I'm sure that they must do, but I can't find anything out about them. I've asked numerous medically-trained people and it's true that if you have your gonads removed as a child (testes or ovaries), you will not mature sexually unless you have hormone treatments- though you won't be able to have children. I've read about some examples of this- the Castrati, for example, and other ancient cases of castration. But in the female context, I can only find stuff on female genital cutting that still takes place in Africa and nothing on actual spaying of girls.

It's not a kink of mine or anything, but I am trying to research this subject and it's very hard to find stuff out about the female side of it. Obviously women get hysterectomies and such when they get older but I was wondering if anyone knew anything about female Eunuchs (if that's even the right name for them).

Cheers!

[JesusA (imported)]

You’ve asked a very difficult question. There is quite a bit of historical data about the removal of testicles, but very little about the removal of ovaries.

The practice of male castration began before the invention of writing. Writing gradually developed (from mnemonic devices of various sorts) in about the 7th millennium BCE and was well developed by the 3rd millennium BCE. The domestication of dogs, goats and sheep began as early as the 9,000 BCE.

The castration of domestic animals was well established before there was a written system to record it. Archaeologists think that many of the animal remains that they have excavated from the first human settled villages are of castrated sheep and goats.

The earliest recorded systematic castration of humans was about 2,100 BCE and, from the writings available, was clearly based on the animal example. The first human eunuchs were referred to by the same term that had, by then, been long been used for castrated equids (domesticated asses and onagers).

These earliest recorded eunuchs were to sons of slave women, castrated before puberty. They were quickly found to be useful in many occupations, and within the next few centuries important families were castrating younger sons to ensure their future success.

The death rate from prepubertal castration before antiseptics was low enough – though it ranged from about 5 or 6% in 19th century China to as high as 90% in parts of Africa. Testicles were perceived as easily accessible and their function was well understood from prehistoric times.

Ovaries, on the other hand, are well hidden, difficult of access, and their function was not understood until far later. While I haven’t had time for a rigorous search, I haven’t found any reference to the removal of ovaries until the 1st millennium CE – 3,000 years after the first recorded systematic castration of humans and at least 7 or 8,000 years after the earliest castration of domestic animals.

Until modern medicine, the practice was always rare as the effects are not nearly so dramatic as is the removal of testicles. For both animals and humans, fertile females were generally desirable, while totally sterile males had many uses.

*****

Your profile indicates that you are Female-to-Male. The second Eunuch Archive survey had five responses from FtM individuals who concluded that, without testicles, they could better identify as eunuch, than as male, even though they presented publicly as male.

At 18, you still have plenty of time to work out exactly where you fit most comfortably.

Your brain says that you are male; you were assigned female at birth (and your family and early friends probably still see you that way). You have a range of possibilities from retaining outward female presentation and knowing you are really male, to going through extensive hormonal and surgical procedures to reform your body to match your mind. There are many positions between these two extremes. You will need to carefully consider what is best for you, and you alone.

.

[Cainanite (imported)]

Interestingly, I just read an article about this subject... kind of.

The family of a severely mentally disabled child (daughter 9 years old) successfully petitioned their physicians to have some radical surgeries done to their child. (This happened in 2004, but I only just found out about it)

The girl was first given a complete hysterectomy, which included the ovaries, and breast tissue. This was to stop her going into puberty. They then started her on an extreme regimen of estrogen, to overload her pituitary glands and stunt her growth.

Doctors debated the ethical nature of the surgeries, and concluded that, as the child grew, her family would be able to care for her, less and less. A larger invalid, being more difficult to care for than a child sized one. As her family was eager to continue caring for her, they agreed to the alterations.

The article did not explain the nature of the girl's handicap, but implied the child was a near vegetable. It did make me wonder however, if the doctors are beginning to alter children to suit the parent's desires and whims. If this practice becomes accepted in a wider context, where would the physicians draw the line?

Here's the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16473471/ns ... ks-debate/

This isn't the exact article I read, but it has most of the details.

[A-1 (imported)]

Hello! I'm new here. I joined because I am a very curious person and also because of an art-related project I'm doing that involves Eunuchs. I'm not sure where to put this, so sorry if it's in the wrong place!

I have a few questions about Eunuchs. A lot of the topics on here are heavily focussed on male eunuchs, but I'm wondering if female eunuchs exist? I'm sure that they must do, but I can't find anything out about them. I've asked numerous medically-trained people and it's true that if you have your gonads removed as a child (testes or ovaries), you will not mature sexually unless you have hormone treatments- though you won't be able to have children. I've read about some examples of this- the Castrati, for example, and other ancient cases of castration. But in the female context, I can only find stuff on female genital cutting that still takes place in Africa and nothing on actual spaying of girls.

It's not a kink of mine or anything, but I am trying to research this subject and it's very hard to find stuff out about the female side of it. Obviously women get hysterectomies and such when they get older but I was wondering if anyone knew anything about female Eunuchs (if th

at's even the right name for them).

Cheers!

You’ve asked a very difficult question. There is quite a bit of historical data about the removal of testicles, but very little about the removal of ovaries.

The practice of male castration began before the invention of writing. Writing gradually developed (from mnemonic devices of various sorts) in about the 7th millennium BCE and was well developed by the 3rd millennium BCE. The domestication of dogs, goats and sheep began as early as the 9,000 BCE.

The castration of domestic animals was well established before there was a written system to record it. Archaeologists think that many of the animal remains that they have excavated from the first human settled villages are of castrated sheep and goats.

The earliest recorded systematic castration of humans was about 2,100 BCE and, from the writings available, was clearly based on the animal example. The first human eunuchs were referred to by the same term that had, by then, been long been used for castrated equids (domesticated asses and onagers).

These earliest recorded eunuchs were to sons of slave women, castrated before puberty. They were quickly found to be useful in many occupations, and within the next few centuries important families were castrating younger sons to ensure their future success.

The death rate from prepubertal castration before antiseptics was low enough – though it ranged from about 5 or 6% in 19th century China to as high as 90% in parts of Africa. Testicles were perceived as easily accessible and their function was well understood from prehistoric times.

Ovaries, on the other hand, are well hidden, difficult of access, and their function was not understood until far later. While I haven’t had time for a rigorous search, I haven’t found any reference to the removal of ovaries until the 1st millennium CE – 3,000 years after the first recorded systematic castration of humans and at least 7 or 8,000 years after the earliest castration of domestic animals.

Until modern medicine, the practice was always rare as the effects are not nearly so dramatic as is the removal of testicles. For both animals and humans, fertile females were generally desirable, while totally sterile males had many uses.

*****

Your profile indicates that you are Female-to-Male. The second Eunuch Archive survey had five responses from FtM individuals who concluded that, without testicles, they could better identify as eunuch, than as male, even though they presented publicly as male.

At 18, you still have plenty of time to work out exactly where you fit most comfortably.

Your brain says that you are male; you were assigned female at birth (and your family and early friends probably still see you that way). You have a range of possibilities from retaining outward female presentation and knowing you are really male, to going through extensive hormonal and surgical procedures to reform your body to match your mind. There are many positions b

etween these two extremes. You will need t

o carefully consider what is best for you, and you alone.

.

Interestingly, I just read an article about this subject... kind of.

The family of a severely mentally disabled child (daughter 9 years old) successfully petitioned their physicians to have some radical surgeries done to their child. (This happened in 2004, but I only just found out about it)

The girl was first given a complete hysterectomy, which included the ovaries, and breast tissue. This was to stop her going into puberty. They then started her on an extreme regimen of estrogen, to overload her pituitary glands and stunt her growth.

Doctors debated the ethical nature of the surgeries, and concluded that, as the child grew, her family would be able to care for her, less and less. A larger invalid, being more difficult to care for than a child sized one. As her family was eager to continue caring for her, they agreed to the alterations.

The article did not explain the nature of the girl's handicap, but implied the child was a near vegetable. It did make me wonder however, if the doctors are beginning to alter children to suit the parent's desires and whims. If this practice becomes accepted in a wider context, where would the physicians draw the line?

Here's the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16473471/ns ... _parenting

/t/surgery-stunt-girls-growth-sparks-debate/

This isn't the exact article I read, but it has most of the details.

Jesus,

I say this with the GREATEST respect for you... BUT...

PREFRONTAL LOBOTOMY RELATED TO SEX? (http://youhaveavoiceuseit.blogspot.com/ ... otomy.html)

...“At night she walked out into the dark streets looking for the light and life of the city… The family feared that she was going out into the streets to do what Kathleen called ‘the thing the priest says not to do.’… There was a dread fear of pregnancy, disease and disgrace.”...

Rosemary Kennedy was lobotomized for having the same sexual tendencies as John F Kennedy as his brother Bobby Kennedy. (http://electricsky.forumotion.co.uk/t12 ... te-on-bbc2)

DIRTY LAUNDRY? (http://marcys.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/ ... by-sister/)

...the circumstances of Rosemary Kennedy’s life were even more gut-wrenching than your normal heartbreaking tale of disability. Rosemary Kennedy’s story is enough to rip out the heart of the most hardened of creatures.

As a child Rosemary appeared to be somewhat slower than her siblings–but in a family where everyone had an IQ of 130, if hers was 90 or 100, she would appear slow. According to Wikipedia, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, a Dr. Brown, called Rosemary’s story “the biggest mental health cover-up in history.” It was the family’s treatment of Rosemary, he said, that led to her mental illness: “I think it’s likely she was somewhat slower than the others. Then she was treated as if she was retarded. Then it becomes reactive depression, including rages and loss of control.… she reacted to being treated as a lesser member of the family.”

At adolescence, Rosemary’s mood swings worsened. She did things like sneak out of the convent where she was being educated—behavior that is, in my world, in line with normal teenage rebellion. But Joseph Kennedy did not expect or tolerate rebellion, teenage or otherwise, so when a doctor friend suggested “a cutting edge procedure” to “help calm her mood swings that the family found difficult to handle,” Joseph Kennedy gave permission for the procedure. Rosemary Kennedy’s operation was only the 66th pre-frontal lobotomylobotomy in history. Instead of producing the hoped-for result, it reduced Rosemary to an infantile mentality. Her verbal skills became unintelligible babble. Her mother Rose, who may not even have known about the lobotomy until after the fact, was devastated, and considered it the first of the Kennedy family tragedies.

Dr. Walter Freeman, who performed the lobotomy, went on to do more than 3000 more before losing his medical license due to a patient’s death....

Story in the U.K. is revealing of the practitioner who did the lobotomy... (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 86688.html)

Joe Kennedy first took Rosemary to a Boston physician, who refused to recommend lobotomy. Next he conveyed her to neurologist Walter Freeman, America's strongest promoter of psychiatric surgery. The grandson of the first brain surgeon in the United States and a highly respected practitioner of his medical specialty, Freeman was appalled by the waste of human potential he saw in the mentally ill and the desperation he found among patients and their doctors.

Freeman often employed unorthodox methods: at various times he applied a carpenter's mallet and an ice pick in his operations - and he once lobotomised a recalcitrant patient in a motel room. He did not, however, advocate lobotomy for mental retardation, he performed it for debilitating tension and anxiety.

Whether Freeman observed strong emotional tension in Rosemary - or her persuasive father convinced the doctor that the tension was present - Freeman agreed that lobotomy was worth a try (his papers are silent on the question of Rosemary's treatment, and we may never really know why he and his neurosurgeon partner James Watts considered her a suitable patient).

Joe Kennedy approved the surgery without the knowledge of his wife, who was travelling abroad.

The lobotomy, an indisputable disaster, left the 23-year-old Rosemary inert and unable to speak more than a few words. Freeman had cut too deeply. She eventually regained the ability to walk but permanently lost the initiative and mental capabilities she needed to live with even partial independence.

THE BLOG THAT DESCRIBES CIRCUMSTANCES>>> (http://mancholas.blogspot.com/2009/08/r ... nnedy.html)

......According to Dr. Bertram Brown, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, the fact that Rosemary could do arithmetic meant that her IQ was well above 75, the cutoff used by most states to define mental retardation for purposes of classifying school children. At the age of 9, Rosemary neatly and correctly multiplied and divided: 428x32=13696, for example.

“If she did division and multiplication, she was over an IQ of 75. She was not mentally retarded,” Dr. Brown, who is the author of a book and 10 papers dealing with mental retardation, told me for my book "The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded."

Joe Kennedy could not tolerate "losers"; he banned Rosemary from the house. He then consulted two surgeons in Washington who had become the leading proponents of prefrontal lobotomies. They agreed to operate on Rosemary.

While Dr. Walter J. Freeman supervised, Dr. James W. Watts did the surgery. In the only interview he ever gave on the subject, Dr. Watts described to me how he performed the lobotomy in the fall of 1941.

After Rosemary was mildly sedated, “We went through the top of the head,” Dr. Watts recalled. “I think she was awake. She had a mild tranquilizer. I made a surgical incision in the brain through the skull. It was near the front. It was on both sides. We just made a small incision, no more than an inch.”

The instrument Dr. Watts used looked like a butter knife. He swung it up and down to cut brain tissue.

As Dr. Watts cut, Dr. Freeman asked Rosemary questions. For example, he would ask her to recite the Lord’s Prayer or to sing "God Bless America" or to count backwards. As he cut, her pulse became more rapid, and her blood pressure rose.

“We made an estimate on how far to cut based on how she responded,” Dr. Watts said. “I would make the incisions, and Dr. Freeman would estimate how much to cut as she talked. He talked to her. He would say that's enough.”

When she began to become incoherent, they stopped.

Dr. Watts told me that in his opinion, Rosemary had suffered not from mental retardation but rather from a form of depression. At the age of 90, he could not recall with certainty what kind of depression she had. Then as now, the terminology of psychiatric illnesses was constantly changing.

“It may have been agitated depression,” Dr. Watts said, using a term then used to describe patients who seem overwrought or agitated. “You’re agitated, you’re shaky. You talk in an agitated way. All kinds of things go on in the eyes

Joe sent Rosemary to St. Coletta's School in Wisconsin, where she received custodial care. Within the family that posed as being so loyal, Rosemary had ceased to exist. Rose’s letters did not refer to her, and Eunice later said she had no idea where she was.

“Rosemary's name was never mentioned in the house,” Janet Des Rosiers Fontaine, Joe's mistress and secretary in later years, told me. “I knew she existed because I saw the family photographs in the attic. But her name was never mentioned. I think Mrs. Kennedy went every year to see her. I heard she did. As far as I know, Joe didn’t see her.”

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Rosemary ... 05127.html ...

MORE... (http://petticoatsandpistols.com/2009/10 ... ded-youth/)

THE BEST for last, but you are probably beginning to get the picture, here... (http://www.metaphoria.org/ac4t0508a.html)

...Horror masquerading as healing

In 1935, Antonio Moniz spawned one of the most savage, inhumane "medical procedures" in human history. He performed a type of psychosurgery which involved removing a portion of the frontal lobe of a patient's brain in an attempt to rid them of unwanted anxieties, neuroses, or psychoses. This notorious procedure, known as the lobotomy, usually resulted in impairment of the patient's sex drive, spontaneity, impulse control, and problem-solving capacity, leaving them a mere shadow of their former selves. Despite the high risks and extremely disturbing after-effects associated with the treatment, the US medical profession raced to embrace the lobotomy as a technique to treat patients with serious illnesses.

Dr. Walter Freeman invented and popularized the Tran orbital lobotomy, which involved placing an ice pick just above the patient's tear duct, driving it into the frontal lobe with a rubber mallet, and wiggling it around to decimate the frontal lobe of the brain. Hailed as inexpensive, simple and non-invasive, US care-givers performed over 40,000 lobotomies between 1936 and 1950. Freeman traversed the country (in his van which he called his "lobotomobile") shamelessly touting his procedure. His advocacy for the "ice pick lobotomy" as a "cure all" even led to its use to manage misbehavior in children. Rosemary Kennedy represents a classic high profile case of the abuse of this twisted form of treatment. Her father, Joe Kennedy, patriarch of the Kennedy clan, authorized a lobotomy for his 23 year old daughter in 1941 to "cure" her mild mental problems. The ice pick lobotomy left her profoundly retarded. For the innovation of this human butchery, Moniz won a Nobel Prize in 1949. Family members of lobotomy victims have lobbied the Nobel Foundation to revoke his award, but their pleas have fallen on deaf ears....

Jesus,

I have some VERY intuitive feelings about this particular story. It has some HORRIBLE control vibes to it and the picture of Rosemary Kennedy on those websites looks more like a pinup out of a Playboy Magazine than a 23 year old retarded woman.

Knowing the history of what may today be called the "Alpha Males" of the family and the beauty of this family member... well, you use YOUR imagination a bit and see what YOU see in YOUR mind's eye.

At AGE 23 NO person should be lobotomized, but especially not a beautiful young woman who may have held more family secrets that somebody wanted to be told. How many were lobotomized to the point where they were physically incapacitated?

YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK, DON'T YOU?

...otherwise, why did they not just sterilize her?

[zippystripe_ (imported)]

Cheers for all the info!

I know that I have a lot of options at this point (with regards to being ftm) but I have a lot of exploring to do still. I know that there's a lot I have to learn about myself before I make a decision. However I don't feel as desperate as I used to, but this could well change.

I also remember reading about the disabled girl who was spayed, which is very interesting, and in my opinion it probably was the ethical thing to do. I can understand the basics of their argument (mobility etc), and a result of her being too large to care for would probably include having her put in a home where she could become vulnerable to abuse and if the reproductive system is gone, there's at least no risk of pregnancy.

In relation to this, I heard somewhere that castration of servants to royalty was quite common in some royal houses, to stop kings and queens accidentally having children by them? Surely then this would entail having the King's female servants spayed? I don't know, perhaps this is something I should research further.

Thanks for all the help!

[Cainanite (imported)]

In relation to this, I heard somewhere that castration of servants to royalty was quite common in some royal houses, to stop kings and queens accidentally having children by them? Surely then this would entail having the King's female servants spayed? I don't know, perhaps this is something I should research further.

Thanks for all the help!

I think up until the twentieth century, rendering a girl sterile was too difficult, and not well understood. With a male, there is easy access, and it is relatively non-life threatening to accomplish. (the operative word being, relatively)

With females, all the important bits are deep inside the abdomen. Prior to the advent of modern medicine any injury to this area was most likely a death sentence. If someone wanted to go tinkering about in this area, they would probably kill the poor girl before they could remove her ovaries or womb.

I think in the case you're talking about, of royalty, there was a pretty nasty double standard. A king or prince was allowed to father as many bastards as he wanted. But a queen or princess was considered ruined if she gave birth to one illegitimate child. All the onus and responsibility was placed on the female. All the blame would fall to the female, and none to the male.

Therefore, as only females could be blamed for their sexual appetites, the only way to ensure no illegitimate offspring was to castrate any male she might have contact with, with the exception of her exalted husband. It was only natural for an intact male to succumb to his appetites, and was in fact expected, if he was left alone for any time with a female. Male castration was the only way to ensure no one got up to any funny business.

As to the women who served men, well if they got pregnant, that was their problem. She shouldn't have been so bold as to think she could exist, and the king wouldn't put a baby in her.

[devi (imported)]

Think of a eunuch as an adult child of varying age or sex. This does not always happen through medical intervention and often happens of it's very own accord. Nature doesn't always make "perfect" beings. What happens is the glands for whatever reason simply do not mature as they are supposed to do and leaves the individual as a "eunuch" of varying degree, some "older", some "younger" for the rest of their life. This is from both male births and female births. Generally it's more prevalent with male births and more noticeable too since we still continue to live in a macho society.

By the way unless something else is going on a eunuch will always continue to grow to adult size anyway and a small percentage may grow beyond that even. Facial dimensions will stay as a child to a varying degree. Bear in mind that women's faces also look younger as compared to a man. However we all age and wrinkle up at the same rate more or less. One may get to look younger than what they are throughout their life but life expectancy remains the same depending on heredity and circumstances.