interesting article about castration

[erikboy (imported)]

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/section4.htm

On this page I will discuss how castration, which was initially a severe punishment reserved for serious sexual offenses, came to be used on innocent men and boys in order to make them like eunuchs, in other words, to make them not male, and thus accessible to male lust, and to make them physically incapable of doing what a eunuch would not want to do: impregnate a woman.

Throughout history men have displayed a natural human desire to have sex with other men, although being a passive partner was scorned under the popular value systems of almost all recorded Indo-European cultures, such as the Greek,112 Roman,113 Assyrian, Persian, and Germanic, and in some cases was punishable by law. But the ancient laws against male passive homosexuality, such as the Assyrian laws,114 the Levitical laws,115 and even some of the Byzantine Christian imperial laws,116 were silent about sexual acts in which the passive partner was impotent with women, i.e. a eunuch, and therefore generally perceived as not "male." As Aristotle phrased it, "the male is the one that has power to generate in another ... while the female is the one [that has power to generate] in itself."117 Since by nature a eunuch does neither, he is neither male nor female.118 This view of eunuchs being not male is widely attested.119

Readon here - http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/section4.htm

[Twinsenboy (imported)]

Thanks!

That was a nice little read.

I guess we can be happy such things aren't allowed anymore, for our own balls' sakes.. but it's such great reading material!

Just too bad there isn't a whole lot more! In the 1700s Italy alone thousands were gelded each and every year. You'd think there'd be more stuff.

Good thing we have the archive.

[devi (imported)]

I am a born-eunuch. I am not gay. I do not and have never seeked out for male sexual partners. There are many eunuchs that were born without the ability to procreate. Born-Eunuchs ARE NOT GAY just because they were born incapacitated to procreate. The article automatically assumes that "born-eunuchs" are gay rather than the usual definition: a person who was born without the capacity to procreate due to absent or defective testicles or equipment. Gays can procreate. I never could.

ARTICLE SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS POORLY RESEARCHED.

[JesusA (imported)]

It may be a fun read, but don't count on the article for accuracy. It's wrong from the very first line. The earliest eunuchs that we know of were slaves who were castrated in analogy to castrated draft animals. Animal castration began centuries before it was used on humans. The Sumerian word "amar-KUD" originally meant a castrated donkey and later became the word for "eunuch." The first known job that eunuchs did was hauling barges on the canals between cities in Sumer. Second was praise singers to the gods. All the rest came later.

The much feared Assyrian army had ranks of eunuch archers. Their source was not captured slaves, but younger sons of families who castrated them before puberty to provide them with a future career.

[devi (imported)]

But still there are many animals including humans that are born with some sort of medical eunuchism and there are various names for each of their conditions i.e. freemartins (f), born-steers (m), born-whethers, etc. Not everyone with a eunuchoid condition has to be made that way with the use of castration. They can actually be born that way and it may not even become apparent until late adolescence when they may be suffering from the same effects of middle age menopause or andropause. (This is due to the body being unable to produce the necessary hormones for continued adult development at a time when they should be having "raging hormones".) I am not at all opposed to being "gay" since I am often said to be that (I do have a feminine perogative side to me, you know) it's simply that when you have a physical medical condition being equated with a psychological manifestation then it becomes problematic. A man that is simply gay can still procreate with a woman or even send his sperm to a sperm bank if nothing else. Born-eunuchs however being sterile cannot do this.

[devi (imported)]

I did read a very good book (by far the best one so far) simply named "Eunuchs Castrati" however he never did make certain distinctions about eunuchism that I really think he should have. He didn't seem to take into account that people could actually just be born that way. So that throughout history there have been many eunuchs that were not castrated in any way. He never seems to explore the medical reasons why this would be unnecessary for some people. The abnormally small size or absence of the testicles would be an obvious way of recognition but he never delves into that. Also he doesn't see that a sterile person who would normally be useless to a social group could be tapped for other benefits for the group as a whole even though they themselves cannot have children to carry on the continuance of that group.

[JesusA (imported)]

I did read a very good book (by far the best one so far) simply named "Eunuchs Castrati" however he never did make certain distinctions about eunuchism that I really think he should have.

Eunuchs and Castrati: A Cultural History by Piotr Scholz is included in the Bibliography (http://www.eunuch.org/forums/showthread ... bliography).

[Paolo]

While Scholz's book is a decent read for information, it's clear that he's out of his depth a bit.

Still, I've found his statements accurate and he has clearly done his research. Shortly after this book, or either the title was changed, he was due to publish "The Emasculation of Eros" which I preordered from Amazon, paid for, and never got - and got no refund.