Nice work on the new stuff, Croiteag. You seem to be having fun with the world created in The Stepfather, which is kewl; it was one of my last favorites to be posted to the board. You are spending a bit more time showing us the after-effects, which is nice. Your fiction world in the story (found here; http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/A/ea_113853another_.htm) is definitely quite sexual... would there be a sub-class of eunuch boys that do not engage in sex at all? So many possibilities in this world....

Also it was fun to read your story about Coccopolis (cute name!) http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/B/ea_141314the_ball.htm .

You obviously put in a lot of effort in these stories.... thank you!

Thank you. You dont seem to have been confused by my confusion of the names of the characters of the last Coccopolis story. I tried to post a corrected vesion but it did not go up. That is a warning I guess to double check before posting a story. Croiteag

I neglected to answer your question about a class of eunuchs who do not engage in sex. From what I know of the evidence of antiquity, eunuchs were generally very active sexually as bottoms for intact males. They could also form relations with women. The intention of some masters might have been to make them sexless, but I dont imagine that was very successful. Anyway, I dont think human beings without sex would lead very interesting lives and hence they would be very sterile subjects for fiction.

I had another thought on the sexless question. I think that the basic function of sexual intimacy is not reproduction but togetherness, it is necessary to bind people together. Without sex, no society. A nonsexual person would be a nonsocial person, and hence would have no connection to other people and therefore not be a subject for fiction.

Eromenos (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:34 am A nonsexual person would be a nonsocial person, and hence would have no connection to other people and therefore not be a subject for fiction.

A simple look about you would challenge this argument as false. Sexuality is not requisite to intimacy and a connection to others. The position argues essentially that sexual intimacy is the only kind that has social validity or value, and thus all others are to be devalued. This debases the social and personal value of all intimacy.

Intimacy in all its forms is always subject to literary effort and in itself has validity.

Interesting direction to the thread .

There have actually been very interesting stories written here about enunuchs that are utterly disinterested in sex, per se, who are still very loving and sensual, therein laying the interest. Check out "Peace and Quiet" by Pueros, a very sensuously if 'terrifyingly' written story (most would, of course, be horrified by such a society, while I would have killed to have been sent there as an orphan).

Anyway, your preferences are your preferences, and I love reading your stories . Keep it up!! Also liked your brand-new one, too, which had some great ideas in it. Thanks for the new chapter/story!

link ----> http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/D/ea_95947the_defl.htm

Actually, I dont view sexuality in a narrow way. Freud taught us getter. In general, physical attraction and physical intimacy are sexual, whether genital or not. For the same reason, it is hard to imagine completely sexless individuals. But of course in society sex can be sublimated.