Effects of Castration, chapt. 2a

[JesusA (imported)]

Effects of Castration on Men and Women: Accidental, Voluntary and Involuntary Castration; Eunuchism and History – Medical Treatment and Aspects

II. EUNUCHS – CASTRATED MEN

Eunuchs – castrated men – have often been said to be “men who are not men.” This is not altogether true. Nor can the eunuch always be called a castrated man. When castration is performed upon the small male child, that child, though he live to a ripe old age, never actually becomes a man. On the other hand, males castrated after they were fully developed men, have married and have been known to have regular coitus.

Even normal males are part male and part female. This is the natural status. It has been well stated, however, that: “The eunuch is neither he, she nor it, but possesses some of the traits of all three.”

At one time in history men became religiously fanatical and, devoting themselves wholly to their religions, either castrated themselves or had the castration operation performed by someone else. It is perhaps because of this practice that the ribald saying, “There are three sexes – men, women and the clergy,” originated.

Mythology is rich in legends. These legends are interesting. Men and women of today who are in high positions label the ancient mythologies as what they are – mythologies. These same men and women label their own mythologies of today as realities. Mythologies of the present day are so labeled by a precious few. A few centuries hence these mythologies will be correctly labeled. The Babylonian legend of the Descent of Ishtar sheds interesting light upon ancient eunuchism.

Indeed, the Descent of Ishtar is regarded by many as one of mankind’s oldest stories. Ishtar was the goddess of love. This is tantamount to: The goddess of sexual activity. Ishtar descended below – that is to say – into the hollowness of the earth. In her descent she passed through numerous doors, giving up a garment at each door. She was originally depicted as wearing and dancing with seven veils. After passing through the last door we can well imagine her nudeness. She was thus lost from sight and there followed a period on earth when there was neither love nor loving. There were no sexual relations between men and women. It is even written in the legend that: “The bull did not approach the cow.” Even man of antiquity howled when his sources of supply were taken from him.

The gods held a council. There were many gods in those ancient days. The number seems to have been greatly reduced and seems rather aptly expressed in that saying to Thomas Jefferson: “The incomprehensible jargon of trinitarian arithmetic that three is one and one are three.” The council admitted that life was fast disappearing from the face of the earth and that something must be done. Ishtar must be brought back to the face of the earth. But who could bring her back? Could a female of the species be trusted to do this? Would a female be powerful enough to withstand the hardships of the journey? Could one or more females even succeed? And after all, should a female be sent on such a mission? Would this not be an affront to the goddess – herself, quite naturally a female?

Would it be proper conduct to send a virile male? What of the demeanor of these two – the beautiful goddess, and a virile male, especially with the goddess in the nude, on the return journey? No. This would never do. And so, the castrated a male – created the eunuch. The eunuch, as a messenger and guide, descended into the hollow of the earth, and, unperturbed by the charms of the beautiful goddess in the nude – the great mother of sexual passion – led her back to the light of the earth’s surface, to restore eroticism and reproduction to humanity.

Quite naturally we regard the legend with amusement and we are perfectly assured within ourselves that no goddess ever descended into the “hollow” of the earth. At some time in history it was inevitable that some reason must be given for this particular kind of man’s inhumanity to man.

As we move along the historical scale into biblical history we find that the making of eunuchs was quite popular – even with the holy men of the Bible.

During the days of unbridled savagery when biblical history was in the making it was the practice or custom of victors in war to bring home, as trophies, the sexual organs of the defeated enemy. History presupposes some sort of civilization back in those days when God condescended to appear in person on earth and to talk with the creature called mere man. But the savage custom of cutting away the sexual organs of the defeated enemy and displaying these severed organs as trophies of victory was less humane than the practice among the aboriginal Americans of using the scalps of the vanquished in the same manner and history does not credit the average American Indian with having been civilized when discovered by Columbus. Even today the American Indian is regarded as having been without civilization in the 15th century regardless of the actual historical knowledge of the high state of civilization attained by the Incas, Aztecs, and others, ages before the time of Columbus.

Old King David, called a holy man of God, broke into biblical lore as a great victor when he carried home, to one of his brides, and at her request, the severed sexual organs of an enemy. David, Solomon, et al., the et al. including the leading men of Bible times, had created for themselves many eunuchs so that these eunuchs might be trusted to attend the harems of the mighty men of holy days. It was supposed that the eunuchs were sexless creatures and incapable of treading with heavy foot upon the virgin soils and spoils of their masters. But eunuchs were, and often are, capable of having sexual intercourse.

Some of the Chinese and other Oriental men of wealth, owners of eunuchs and harems, did discover, in time, that their wives and eunuchs were not to be trusted too far. They discovered that the eunuchs were having intercourse with the many wives of their masters entrusted to their supposed sexless care. They promptly invented a remedy. The caused the penises of the eunuchs to be amputated. The operation of choice (not the choice of the eunuchs, you may rest assured) was the cautery. A red hot or white hot iron or knife was used for severing the male organ against “the belly.”

One passage in the Bible is spoken of by G. Mason Williams, writing in the magazine Sexology (New York), as being avowedly difficult to understand. Doubtless Williams (who does some good writing) failed to remember that the passage could be regarded as just another of the common biblical incongruities. The passage referred to by Author Williams reads: “There are those who are eunuchs from their mother’s womb, and there are those who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Williams explained that many religious thinkers, brooding on this, mutilated themselves as did the famous scholar Origen.

It seems strange that the mind of a scientific writer should almost completely miss the significant point. The eunuch being a man whose testicles have been removed, could not be a eunuch from his mother’s womb. The biblical writers were ignorant of the condition known as cryptorchidism – the condition in which the testicles fail to descend but are retained either in the inguinal canal or in the abdomen. [I have yet to read any theologian who interpretes “eunuchs from their mother’s wombs” as refering to cryptorchidism, but it makes far more sense than most theological interpretations. It would strongly reinforce the minority view that Jesus really did mean literal castration for true Christians. Maybe the Skoptzy were right! Try this on your Fundamentalist friends. – JA]

When it is considered that eunuchs (castrated men) have been the husbands of healthy and passionate women, it is not surprising that the wife of Potiphar, chief of the eunuchs of Pharaoh, sought to seduce Joseph. If pictures are to be given even fanciful credence, both Potiphar’s wife and Joseph were healthy, well-sexed persons. Joseph (not a eunuch), so the story goes, landed in prison because he refused to be seduced by the sexually competent wife of the chief of eunuchs. Is it to be marvelled at that someone originated the saying: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”?

The spread of eunuchism was from Babylon and Egypt to the Roman Empire and all of the great kingdoms of the East. The Emperor Domitian is credited with having issued an imperial edict prohibiting the practice of castration. History records that the favorite youth of Domitian was Earinus – a eunuch.

(continued as Chapt. 2, pt. 1)

[Sac_mec (imported)]

"

II. EUNUCHS – CASTRATED MEN

Eunuchs – castrated men – have often been said to be “men who are not men.” This is not altogether true. Nor can the eunuch always be called a castrated man. When castration is performed upon the small male child, that child, though he live to a ripe old age, never actually becomes a man. On the other hand, males castrated after they were fully developed men, have married and have been known to have regular coitus.

Even normal males are part male and part female. This is the natural status. It has been well stated, however, that: The eunuch is neither he, she nor it, but possesses some of the traits of all three “The eunuch is neither he, she nor it, but possesses some of the traits of all three.”

"

Jesus, rarely have I read such a succinct and true statement about eunuch life (and that includes Chemical Eunuchs) as the above paragraph.

Being in this chosen state one's perceptions and views, thoughts and "world view" all are brought to a different, softer, inclusive focus. Aggression is lost.

Having the traits of all 3 has many different aspects.

1) We are still male and therefore unlike women don't have periods; but we know all about hot flashes!

2) Because testosterone is not blocking our mental outlook we can see with such amazing clarity certain insights. For example, Intuition is, I believe, a rare male phenomenomen - for virile men, sexual urges block such a vision,

but my own sense of intuition, considered a female characteristic, has grown greatly.

3) As an adult male who had never, ever had any sexual relations with a woman, it has to be said that males can be aware of both their bodily changes and become aware to a huge extent on the "life outside their gender"

I call it male +; others of you would call it male _. Patterns of thought change. One can think about "gender" with fresh insight.

4) Your earliest paragraph ignores gay interest here, and for some gay men

it has to be said that interest in this subject at least equates that of men who aren't. One great aspect of the asexuality a eunuch can feel is that within the electronic world of "chat" here, that many strong and deep friendships are made between men with low or no testosterone that go deep and beyond sexual orientation. There is a level of trust and security

between men which can surpass previous pre-conceptions both ways.

5) Losing male vigour is a choice not ever to be entered lightly and I would ask readers to read the thread on "what age you ought to be" before considering,initial chemical treatment. I agree with the thread that excepting transexuals, this is an issue for maturer men.

6) Your very interesting post above covers alot of historical ground but

ignores gay historical perspectives - for example one British gay King lost his life at the hands of a red hot poker (Sorry for forgetting, whom - I know someone will remind me his name).

7) Society in general is arranged around male and female issues being segregated right down to nursery room clothes for boys and girls.

As a child I had to do woodwork, metalwork and Technical Drawing subjects.

I loathed and hated all and was forbidden to do Cookery.

Women can now become priests, boys can cook, girls can play rugby

Are these good signs of the movement towards a more generous, open and inclusive society? Or are the ingrained views so deeply ingrained?

There is a danger I am going off subject in point 7, so I'll wrap up with just the thought that am I being sensitive in the reference to "normal men"?

I do trust this isn't a suppressed homophobic dig - gays being pansies etc

Enjoy my avatar!

[JesusA (imported)]

Sac mec,

You raise some very interesting points here. I need to think about them for a while before attempting a proper response. In the meantime, though, I think it's useful to put the article into context. Remember that it was published in 1947. It is also (except for a few segments) written at about an 8th grade reading level. This was written for laymen, not for professionals in the medical field.

I wonder who was expected to buy and read the pamphlet. What were they expected to do with the information? In chapter 4, the author clearly says that he thinks that anyone seeking voluntary castration ought to be able to find a surgeon willing to perform it with no dificulty. Was that really true in 1947?

Now, I've added a couple more questions for speculation.

Jesus

[Sac_mec (imported)]

Jesus, What an interesting point. I wonder how many copies were read/sold and what feedback it had? I've been thinking about my initial reply also,

which is written entirely from the perspective of the early 21st Century and after all the struggles, set-backs and advances of the past 50 odd years.

Maybe it is much more appropriate that you note my generalised views above for your own, informed work on the EA - especially since I refer to the Chatroom. I have to admit I went straight to the meat of Chapter 2a without reading Chapter 1 (naughty me) but I now found it even more amazing that such an accurate and informed opening paragraph was written at that time.

Of course alot of material on Sexual Politics was written by Hirschfield and others even earlier; pre-war. I don't actually think the author's use of "normal" referred to sexual orientation, it was used in a wider sense.

I thank you for enabling us to read this original material, I will read it now with the mindset of that historical period, which is important.

If one compares a subject such as detective fiction written at that same, the 1940's, maybe a novel by say Agatha Christie - who wrote fine detective fiction against contemporary detective authors such as John Grisham or James Patterson, you will appreciate just how far our specific values on "empires", "class", "sexual politics" and "race" have changed. Of course it

could be argued that it is just the veneer that has altered. The lesson I pick up from this though is that I must read a document from the perspective of it's period and not wholly from our own. From my first "dip" into this piece

I was amazed and moved to respond. I look forward one day to reading your perspectives and repeat my invitation to be helpful if I can be.

[Slammr (imported)]

6) Your very interesting post above covers alot of historical ground but

ignores gay historical perspectives - for example one British gay King lost his life at the hands of a red hot poker (Sorry for forgetting, whom - I know someone will remind me his name).

Actually, it was Edward II, the son of Edward I (Longshanks). Both were portrayed, although somewhat inaccurately, in the movie "Bravehart."

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon31.html

[Sac_mec (imported)]

Thank you Slammr for bringing me up to scratch on monarch's history over here; it isn't my strongest point and I was taught history from a more modern perspective, learning about architecture, town design. the role of the medieval guilds etc.. which was much more interesting than learning, parrot fashion, who was King or Queen when!

Jesus, your original post here is extremely interesting and deserves to be up on the Boards again. It's some time since you first wrote it. From a scholarly perspective from both the point of the original publication and more importantly from your own thoughts, having given it time, do you have more to add to the thread today?

[C van D (imported)]

I'm astonished that this topic rumbles on, and the opening message that eunuchs can't have children if intercourse takes place several months after castration. This seems to be stating the obvious.

Where am I coming from, you may ask

Aged 11 I took a cricket-ball full in the groin. Though at that age I didn't have a lot "down there", the result was that "they" swelled up alarmingly and I was admitted to a private clinic.

It was touch-and-go whether I developed blood poisoning and if I did, there was no question: "they" would have to come out. The Doctor warned me that "if you have the operation, you won't ever be able to marry or have children". My mother said "You will always be a plump little boy, your voice will never deepen, but we'll love you all the same".

In the event the swelling subsided and I have all the bits I was born with.

C van D (author of the Simon series)

[JesusA (imported)]

What I find most interesting about the short pamphlet that is reproduced here is not its content. Almost everyone who spends even a short bit of time on the Archive knows the content (and knows where some of the errors are here). First among the items of interest is the simple publication information:

Effects of Castration on Men and Women: Accidental, Voluntary and Involuntary Castration; Eunuchism and History

- Medical Treatment and Aspects, By D.O. Cauldwell, M.D., Sc.D. (Girard, KS: Haldeman-Julius Publications, 1947), 32pp.

This was published nearly 60 years ago in a long-running series of pamphlets covering a wide variety of topics in health and religion. This is number 536.

This inexpensive little pamphlet was published in an edition large enough that it is still readily available in used book stores. It is of a size and original cost such that the vast majority were probably simply discarded after being read. That there are still so many available is fascinating. How many must have been printed? Why did people preserve them? It's difficult to find other pamphlets from the series.

But, what I find most interesting is that the pamphlet is carefully written at a reading level such that an average 13 or 14 year old of the time could read it with full understanding. The pamphlet is aimed at adult readers, not children, but at also at lay readers, not specialists.

I find the context far more interesting than the content.

There are links to all of the chapters from chapter one, which is posted at Introduction (http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=124).