The vast majority of people are NOT responsible. The vast majority of people are selfish (and growing more so in this capitalist world) and only appear to be responsibile because the penalties for irresponsibility are too high for them. You only have to look at the number of people who willingly break the speeding laws, or who drive whilst talking on the phone, or who smoke around their children, or who keep guns in their homes despite proven advice to the contrary, or who simply cant be bothered to recycle, or who drive gas-hungry cars despite the fact it's killing the planet, to see that most people place their personal comforts way ahead of the safety of the rest of society.

Freedom of speech is always touted as a right by those who place their personal liberties ahead of responsibility to society. Just as the freedom to bear arms is so jealously guarded by those who place their desire to own them ahead of society's need not to be flooded with guns.

The truth of the matter is this: there is a small sector of society that WILL emulate or attempt to emulate behaviours disseminated through the media, movies or web sites. It may only be a minute percentage - 1 in 100 million say, but if your kids are the ones maimed by that one, then the statistics will matter little to you.

Anyone who argues that behaviour described via these media DOES NOT have an influence only needs to look at the spread of American movie language and culture, as spread by movies and TV to see evidence to the contrary.

Your right to read - my right to write - what about the kids right not to be tortured? Are our rights more important than theirs, and do we have the right to make that choice on their behalf, or even take that chance? I say not.

pyxiii (imported) wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:34 pm Freedom of speech is always touted as a right by those who place their personal liberties ahead of responsibility to society. Just as the freedom to bear arms is so jealously guarded by those who place their desire to own them ahead of society's need not to be flooded with guns.

The truth of the matter is this: there is a small sector of society that WILL emulate or attempt to emulate behaviours disseminated through the media, movies or web sites. It may only be a minute percentage - 1 in 100 million say, but if your kids are the ones maimed by that one, then the statistics will matter little to you.

Anyone who argues that behaviour described via these media DOES NOT have an influence only needs to look at the spread of American movie language and culture, as spread by movies and TV to see evidence to the contrary.

Your right to read - my right to write - what about the kids right not to be tortured? Are our rights more important than theirs, and do we have the right to make that choice on their behalf, or even take that chance? I say not.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it would stifle all creative expression. pyxii, as all other authors, should determine his own standards. Perhaps, he's chosen a good one-not to write about doing harm to kids. I would certainly be opposed to anyone's advocating harm to a kid; but I'll have to come down on the side that's against censorship

Slammr (imported) wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:00 pm . As I've said before, if an author t

akes into consideration all possible reader reactions to his work, he would have to stop writing. Literature wouldn't exist. Instruction manuals would be the only reading material available.

I have to agree with Slammr,

As repugnant as this sort of literature is to society, it is at this site on the Internet and therefore it is in it's place.

I remember that Steven King pulled one of his novels about a child going to school with a gun and killing students.

He wrote this story long before such a deed actually happened.

That was his decision, not society's decision.

The author should decide.

A-1

Historically, boys have been, and are, castrated for many reasons. I wonder if this discussion might not be better continued as a discussion of when juvenile castration might be appropriate. I believe we must all accept that it does happen. Society accepts it; indeed, some secretly clamor for it.

Should it happen if the child is in danger of death or grave illness if he should keep his testicles? Are there 16 year old survivors of testicular cancer? Why do you think they are still alive?

Should it happen if the teenager is convicted of rape or incest?

Should it happen if the boy has a beautiful voice- and the sacrifice of his testicles would be a gift to God?

Should it happen if the teenager proves to be a child molester?

Should it happen if the boy is beautiful and desirable for sexual purposes?

Should it happen if a boy is convicted of murder? Perhaps Pittman in South Carolina, the 'Zoloft Killer' should lose his ability to procreate as an alternative to 30 years of prison?

Should it happen if the teenager should desire it for personal reasons?

From what I read in this archive, most (there are a few exceptions) stories involving minors deal with one or more of these circumstances. All of these are very real, and as relevant to today's society as they were 300 years ago. Any of these reasons might be held as being wrong according to your particular beliefs, but I'm sure that there are many people in the world who would support any single reason as sufficient to deprive a boy of his testicles or a man of his future.

Tom Fletcher has, of course, asked some very important questions, though questions that I don’t think that American society is ready to discuss rationally. All of them have been approached at some point on the Archive and, even here, it’s very difficult to keep the discussion rational. Emotions get far too high with any one of these.

That doesn’t mean that the questions shouldn’t be discussed, just that extreme caution needs to be used. Even to have asked them would be seen as dangerous by some in society.

Tom is right that boys (and men) have been castrated in many societies around the world for a variety of reasons. This has happened historically, and is certainly still happening today. Some of it is accepted in American society – partly by not considering that it IS castration – and some would be nearly universally condemned. (I would prefer to say “universally” without any qualifier, but I suspect that someone could be found who would not condemn it.) Some reasons for castration would have been accepted only a few years ago, but would now be generally condemned. Some that are not currently accepted may be so in the future. Other societies may make different choices. It’s an incredibly complex subject area to discuss.

Tom’s first example, that of medical necessity, is generally accepted as a valid reason for castration at any age, though many would simply never put it in the category of “castration”, even though that’s what it certainly is. Approximately 7,000 boys and young men lose one testicle to testicular cancer each year in the United States. About ten percent of them loose both. By any definition this should be called “castration”. Most are between the ages of 14 and 25, though there are a few younger and a few older.

This is treated as a medical condition. Prostheses are generally inserted immediately and HRT begun. Testicular cancer is not testosterone dependent, as is prostate cancer. The boys look cosmetically intact and, with HRT, can function exactly as any male who still has his testicles, except for fertility. A high enough percentage of men who have both testicles are infertile that they are in no way exceptional.

There are also, fortunately rare, accidents where a boy might loose one or both testicles. There are other diseases where a testicle might need to be removed. “Idiopathic precocious puberty” may require a testicle to be removed as early as age 4 or 5 because of a benign tumor causing an incredibly early puberty – with a great many other problems then coming into play. There are rare cases where one or both testicles simply fail to develop properly.

Most of those who lack one or both testicles for any of these medical reasons would not consider themselves to be eunuchs or to have been castrated. Somehow medical necessity puts them psychologically into a different category.

For the most part, this castration of boys and young men for reasons of medical necessity is culturally acceptable because it is not defined as “castration” by most people, even though that is what it is.

Remember that the most effective treatment for early and mid stage prostate cancer is surgical castration – both for cost and for maximum life expectancy. The main reason for the development of the many alternative treatments is that so many men would rather die than be castrated. Last year the province of British Columbia debated whether or not to offer surgical castration as the ONLY health insurance covered treatment for prostate cancer. They decided against, and continue to pay for less effective and far more costly treatments.

And, this is the least controversial of Tom Fletcher’s questions.

All of the other questions that he raises have been discussed at length in a number of threads on the Archive over the years. I will try to find time to raise some new issues concerning them on this thread over the next week, or so. In the meantime, here are links to two earlier threads that discuss some of them:

castrating minors ( http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4339)

Evangelical Church of the Lambs of Christ ( http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4348)

pyxiii (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:50 pm Several other authors and myself have been discussing this by mail, and I've come to the conclusion that cathartic though my writing may be to me, there is a real danger that my words may serve as a how-to manual for others to harm kids.

It's like suicide survivor web rings that drive other vulnerable people to suicide in the name of overcoming the loss of a family member. Is it right for me to cause harm in the interests of personal therapy? I think most definitely not.

You'll see no further stories from me here, and I believe a few of the other talented authors here have expressed their intention to follow a similar resolve.

Freedom of speech is one of man's most precious liberties, and I feel that it can only exist so long as one exercises it responsibly. My regrets for any damage that my warped mind has already caused.

Whoa, Pyxiii that is commendable. It sounds like you really had an epiphany. I couldn't have said it better.

DocT

Slammr (imported) wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:24 pm The problem with this line of thinking is that it would stifle all creative expression. pyxii, as all other authors, should determine his own standards. Perhaps, he's chosen a good one-not to write about doing harm to kids. I would certainly be opposed to anyone's advocating harm to a kid; but I'll have to come down on the side that's against censorship

Slammr (imported) wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:24 pm 3200]
. As I've said before, if an author t

akes into consideration all possible reader reactions to his work, he would have to stop writing. Literature wouldn't exist. Instruction
[/quote]
manuals would be the only reading material available.

I believe in freedom of creative expression, but I identify with Pyxiii. I wouldn't want my creative expression to be used as an inspiration or as an instruction manual for someone who would violate a child. If I had something to work out, it's just an area of expression I would be willing to keep to my own hard disk. I have a lot of other ways to express myself. Having said that, I really believe I have been able to work some things out that have been lingering in my head since childhood because of what I've read on eunuch.org, so... okay, I'm confused. Here's what I mean: some people are safe with ideas and some people get turned on and go screw their kids. I wouldn't want to be the guy that turned them on.

But eunuch.org is a marketplace for ideas. Nice that those places still exist.

DocT

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:08 am Historically, boys have been, and are, castrated for many reasons. I wonder if this discussion might not be better continued as a discussion of when juvenile castration might be appropriate. I believe we must all accept that it does happen. Society accepts it; indeed, some secretly clamor for it.

As Jesus mentioned, we have had discussions similar to this in the past. See related links.

Does juvenile castration ever happen today? Yes it does. Jesus outlines this as well.

As far as Society accepting it, medical or accidental castration is not something parents are going to discuss openly at the dinner table with their friends, now is it?

“Well, Lois, let me tell you what happened in the ER after little Tommy and your Billy had that big bike crash last week…how’s Billy’s arm? Oh, and by the way, the bike chain cut Tommy’s balls off!” Somehow I don’t see this happening. Society, at least most of the male part of it, places a high value on “the precious”, if I may rip off Tolkein there for a moment.

DO SOME secretly clamor for it?

From our research here, we have learned that most of the castration fixations develop around the age of 10-11, sometimes earlier. But as you’ll see in the other threads, we’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that a child is not of the rational mind or educational level to decided if he should be castrated voluntarily or not.

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:08 am Should it happen if the child is in danger of death or grave illness if he should keep his testicles? Are there 16 year old survivors of testicular cancer? Why do you think they are still alive?

Again, medical necessity, and yes, testicular cancer can metastasize (spread) to other parts of the body. I recently saw a Spanish movie, Planta 4a (The 4th Floor) about some young boys in a cancer ward of a hospital and how they drive the staff insane with their crazy antics during long-term confinement. One of the boys, who has had a leg amputated, is sent home to die when they found out that they didn’t catch the cancer fast enough and that it spread. In one emotional scene, one of the younger boys cries when he tells of a dream that he had about making love on the beach with a beautiful woman. But in the dream, he still had both legs. It didn’t seem to matter that he didn’t want his leg cut off – he’s still alive because of it.

Take also, for example, one of my boy’s friends who was – last year – diagnosed with a heart disorder that went undetected in another of his friends. The other friend fell over dead at school in gym class. This boy is now denied everything that he loved most in life. No physical exertion. No sports. No gym. Special diet. Use of a wheelchair if he goes to the mall. All of this so that he can continue to live a life that he now hates. Much like the boy in the movie, he’s of the mind that he’d rather die on the football field than continue to get fat just sitting around and watching life go by. Like the boy in the movie, he didn’t want any of this. But if the mindset of the child is followed, then the child would be dead.

In growing up, as they all must do eventually, I have had “the talk” with 4 of our 5 boys here by now. I just finished it with the next-to-youngest last weekend. He did his first genital self exam (GSE). I explained what he was looking for and what to watch out for. I showed him pictures from valid sites on the Internet, and read some medical text to him. You can imagine the shock when he found out that “the precious” could go bad on him…it didn’t go over well at all. His response, much like the last one, was the same as his older brother’s and the eldest’s before him – “I’d rather die than have my balls cut off!” I would say it’s a safe bet that most boys – although not all, to be sure – think like this. At that age, I myself had other ideas. I can now say that I was a misinformed and delusional child at that time.

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:08 am Should it happen if the teenager is convicted of rape or incest?

This is another topic we have discussed, and there are several arguments both pro and con for it to be found online. Do a search on “castration sex offender criminal” and see what you get.

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:08 am Should it happen if the boy has a beautiful voice- and the sacrifice of his testicles would be a gift to God?

Historically, this went out at the end of the Castrati Era, which technically came at the beginning of the 20th century. The practice of minor castration for such was banned in 1878. Alessandro Moreschi – who can also be found on a CD on the Opal label at Amazon.com – was the last known castrato of the age. Even then, there were opponents to the practice since its inception. Historically, there have always been cultures castrating boys for various reasons. And there have always been opponents to it.

Of course, we also have the urban legend of Michael Jackson and the more recent one (although not as widely spread) about the boy-band Dreamstreet being on anti-puberty therapy of some kind. Boy acts, both in music and film, come and go. Were there a system in place to prolong their boyhood careers, who knows? I think that most of Society would not condone this, however, no matter how beautiful the boy or his works.

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:08 am Should it happen if the teenager proves to be a child molester?

Should it happen if a boy is convicted of murder? Perhaps Pittman in South Carolina, the 'Zoloft Killer' should lose his ability to procreate as an alternative to 30 years of prison?

Again, there are tons of arguments on the criminal aspect of castration. Known adult convicts have asked for it, and been taken to court to keep them from doing it. That seems a perfect example of Society right there.

And don’t even get me going on Pittman. Any ‘doctor’ that prescribes that kind of poison to a child should be locked up – not the kid.

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:08 am Should it happen if the teenager should desire it for personal reasons?

Let’s stop and think about how hard it is for an adult to find a doctor willing to do a non-medically-required castration. We have what, Dr. Kimmell? Before that, there was Spector? How many others advertise it? Even in the issue of chronic pain with threats of suicide if something is not done, all the doctor is going to do is prescribe pain pills. And once again, we go back to the issue of the child being the one to decide. Even in the instance of transgendered children, hardly anyone is going to listen to the child. Some of our Members here can probably attest to that one. This goes back to the age factor and education of the child. SRS, or even genital removal without SRS, cannot be undone. Can something like this be based on the pleas of the child? I personally don’t think so, but I’m also prepared if the little one here decides to put on a dress one day and play in the Mary Kay kit…sadly, we can assume that the rest of Society does not share my view on that one.

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:08 am Should it happen if the boy is beautiful and desirable for sexual purposes?

Given the definition of “boy” and the age associated with it, this is a moot question in that the “boy” would be considered forbidden fruit in most of the world, by law. Sex with minors, even sex between minors, is illegal in most areas.

It was considered important by the Romans and other cultures at one time, but then again, there were opponents. The author Juvenal satirized it, and the Emporer Domitian finally forbid it. One other Roman law that came into effect at the time was that no boy under the age of 7 could be castrated or prostituted. There is even a document letter surviving (I’ll try and find it) of a courtier of a wealthy lady in the Castrati Era who, in league with her retinue, tried hard to talk her little French page boy into being castrated. Reading between the lines, one can only wonder about his motivations. I’ll put it here under NONFICTION if I can find it again.

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:08 am From what I read in this archive, most (there are a few exceptions) stories involving minors deal with one or more of these circumstances. All of these are very real, and as relevant to today's society as they were 300 years ago.

Back the truck up for a moment.

Perhaps there might be arguments for the castration of adult males in certain positions of our Society, but I would argue that there is no valid reason to have a legal system in place for castration of minor boys today.

I can make five points –

Should B. be castrated if he gets his girlfriend pregnant? After all, it’s a crime to have sex <18.

Should J. be castrated because he’s not so bright and might have “ordinary” or “slow” offspring?

Should S. be castrated because he’s such a beautiful child and has every single aspect of the “hero” in a story here?

Should C. be castrated because testosterone is the LAST thing that the little hyper-psycho needs right now?

Should L. be castrated for the same reasons as J., also given the “bad” genetics he’s carrying?

Even if it were legal, I would hardly have it done to any of them. During the coming of age talk, the talk about why you have to wear a cup playing contact sports, etc., the boys’ reactions have all been the same. Much like their friend with the bad heart, they’d rather die than lose their balls.

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:08 am Any of these reasons might be held as being wrong according to your particular beliefs, but I'm sure that there are many people in the world who would support any single reason as sufficient to deprive a boy of his testicles or a man of his future.

Once again, I feel the need to point out that the Archive hosts FICTION. Not only as a bastion of free speech, but as a therapeutic tool as well. The need or want for castration of males at any age has come and gone throughout History in various cultures, and there have always been opponents of it. Right now, we have enough problems with just taking care of the “few” males out there that desire a non-medically indicated castration – and face it, folks, we ARE a “few”. We can hardly tackle the aspect of ‘eunuchs at large’ in modern Society.

Paolo has made some important comments and contributions to this thread. See also his comments on the thread "How to make a Cherub" (

JesusA (imported) wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2005 10:49 pm http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=

6778) which tie directly to what he has written here.

“How to make a Cherub” is another thread that ought to lead Archive members into thinking more carefully and more clearly about what these stories represent.

DocT (imported) wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:39 am I believe in freedom of creative expression, but I identify with Pyxiii. I wouldn't want my creative expression to be used as an inspiration or as an instruction manual for someone who would violate a child. If I had something to work out, it's just an area of expression I would be willing to keep to my own hard disk. I have a lot of other ways to express myself. Having said that, I really believe I have been able to work some things out that have been lingering in my head since childhood because of what I've read on eunuch.org, so... okay, I'm confused. Here's what I mean: some people are safe with ideas and some people get turned on and go screw their kids. I wouldn't want to be the guy that turned them on.

But eunuch.org is a marketplace for ideas. Nice that those places still exist.

DocT

I don't think that anyone would want something he'd written used as either an inspiration or an instruction manual for hurting a kid, but -- as I've said countless times before -- if every author took into account every possible reaction by every potential kook who might be reading what he wrote, literature would not exist.

pyxii has made a personal decision not to write such stories. I don't fault him at all for making such a decision. I might even decide not to write such stories myself, but if I do, it will be for my own personal reasons, not because I'm first taking

Slammr (imported) wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:24 pm into consideration all possible rea

ctions to my stories. If I have to do that, I might as well give up writing altogether.

Hinkley attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan after seeing the movie, Taxi Driver. After seeing Natural Born Killers, a couple went on a copycat crime spree. These are but two examples. Perhaps even some of Shakespeare's stories may have triggered violence.

Again, I'm not in anyway opposed to pyxii's decision not to write such stories, nor would I be opposed to any such decision by anyone else. I am strongly opposed, however, to the idea that such stories shouldn't be written because some kook out there might act on them. We CAN'T take that into consideration every time we write. If all authors did, LITERATURE would not exist.

I can't imagine Paolo allowing any story to be posted that actually advocated hurting a kid. I, too, would be opposed to allowing any such story. Some of the stories posted here about kids make me feel uncomfortable, but that's my personal reaction. I don't feel obligated to suggest that such stories no longer be posted.

I think that freedom of expression and other rights given us under the Constitution are more important than any individual -- even a kid. Thousands have given their lives in defense of the Constitution -- many for less admirable goals, but that's another discussion for another forum.