EA Forums

A quick, but none the less complex question I feel. The word Eunuch is synonymous with surgical castration. It's not so widely used in associated with chemical castration however. Is a chemically castrated man still classified as a Eunuch?

Sure. Working balls make the man. Non working or missing balls castrate a man into a eunuch. Non working or missing balls both have the same emasculating and neutering affects on a man s body and mind. The surgically castrated have that greater visual impact that shrunken balls can t match.

geldwish (imported) wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 4:43 pm A quick, but none the less complex question I feel. The word Eunuch is synonymous with surgical castration. It's not so widely used in associated with chemical castration however. Is a chemically castrated man still classified as a Eunuch?

Maybe we could say those on chemical castration are Diet Eunuchs lol. Just kidding.

You are an eunuch if you feel like one. I personally don't feel like an eunuch, even if I don't have my male parts anymore. The term eunuch is too much linked to things like harem guards and other things I personally can't identify with. So for me it's simple, even though I am nullified, I am still me and nothing else.

I always thought eunuch was someone castrated before puberty

T van Keel wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 9:09 pm You are an eunuch if you feel like one. I personally don't feel like an eunuch, even if I don't have my male parts anymore. The term eunuch is too much linked to things like harem guards and other things I personally can't identify with. So for me it's simple, even though I am nullified, I am still me and nothing else.

I kind of agree with you. Although I am technically a eunuch, I don't feel like the word is an accurate one for me. A "castrated male" seems more appropriate.

Who/what is a "EUNUCH"?

The medical definition would be that a eunuch is anyone who was born with testicles, whose testicles have been removed, destroyed in place, or made non-functioning. There is question about those very rare persons who are anorchic - whose testicles simply disappeared for unknown reasons after they were born. Their bodies formed with all of the other male parts and clearly had functioning testicles in utero. Most had testicles at their "well baby" check-ups, but their testicles disappeared before the age of puberty.

Age of castration (removal or destruction of testicles) is not part of the definition. Historically, eunuchs have been created at various ages.

We don't know about the earliest eunuchs in Sumer, but a guess from surviving records is sometime around the age of puberty. In the Assyrian Empire, the preferred age of castration for locally produced eunuchs was infancy. Their testicles were crushed into disappearance when they were only a few months old. For the imported eunuchs, they could be as old as early puberty and they were surgically castrated. (For the Assyrians, the locally produced eunuchs included some of the sons of the king, as well as sons of the nobility. The king had a great many wives and generally produced over 100 children. Only a few males were left intact to contend for the throne. The rest became part of the administrative eunuch bureaucracy.)

The Chinese, at least in the Qing Dynasty, preferred eunuchs castrated before puberty to serve the women of the palace, and those castrated in early puberty (15 to 20 or so) to work on the grounds as gardeners, cooks, etc.

The Byzantine Empire was staffed by eunuchs mostly castrated before puberty, sometimes by their parents in poor rural areas seeking to provide sons with better employment opportunities. Some eunuchs, though, seem to have started as slaves. For example, Narses was an Armenian, castrated as a boy. He rose in the court hierarchy and was the general who lead the army that defeated the Goths and saved Rome for the empire in 554 AD. (Armenians and Georgians were preferred eunuchs as late as the 1800s in Persia and the royal court seems to have hundreds of them as late as the 1860s. African eunuchs were much more expensive and less common than European or Central Asian ones in Persia.)

The Italian castrati were, of course, castrated before their voices changed. This could be quite young or, since the age of puberty was older then, as late as 14 or 15, or even older. For example, Atto Melani, one of seven brothers born in Pistoia, was castrated at 10 or 11, as were four of his younger brothers. Their castrations were all arranged and paid for by the local cathedral. We have lots of records of castrati castrated at ages from 5 to 16.

For the Moslem world, the early caliphate was administered in Greek before there was even an Arabic vocabulary to run a large bureaucratic state. The central government was staffed by thousands of eunuchs who were literate in Greek. Literate eunuchs were largely supplied by slave raids on Christian churches and monasteries and the age of castration could be as late as their 40s or so, although younger, already literate, boys were preferred, when available. In later periods, eunuchs were almost always castrated before puberty and African eunuchs gradually came to replace those sourced from Europe, India, or Central Asia. (Not included in high school history texts is what Venice was selling to the East in return for the gold and spices that they imported. Much of it was European slaves, including young girls and castrated boys. An 840 AD treaty between Venice and the Holy Roman Empire included a provision that the Venetians would no longer castrate German boys for sale UNLESS they were already slaves when they arrived in Venetian territory. The Vikings supplied eunuchs from slave raids in both the British Isles and the Slavic lands to the east.)

More than you wanted to know....

Great answer ! Who knew so many european males were gelded for slaves in foreign lands.

Jesus in what cases they left the dicks?

CircItaly (imported) wrote: Sat May 23, 2020 6:53 am Jesus in what cases they left the dicks?

In most cases only the balls of slaves or defeated soldiers in Roman times were cut off because cutting off dicks bled more and resulted in more deaths than castrations alone.

In China they used to take dicks too. Always wondered why

There were various reasons for castration and the production of eunuchs, sometimes separate and sometimes overlapping. The first eunuchs that we know of from history were in Sumer. They were the sons of slave weaving women and were castrated on analogy with castrated donkeys. They were expected to be hard-working and easier to control. They would be less likely to fight and were not needed as breeding stock (which was a role taken by the slave owners and overseers). Their first occupation was hauling barges on the canals alongside the castrated donkeys. The Sumerian word for "eunuch" is the same as that for a castrated donkey. The first eunuchs were draft animals.

It was soon recognized that castration produced important personality changes. While they could still be aggressive, eunuchs were not reactively aggressive, but rather they could (and did) carefully plan any aggressive actions before carefully and effectively carrying them out. Eunuchs were found to have better focus on tasks, better planning skills, and the ability to work together in groups more effectively than intact males. This led very soon to boys being castrated as preparation for administrative and some military roles. Not only did they function well as government bureaucrats, but also as military commanders—calmly and effectively directing troops. While intact males were better spear carriers and swordsmen (because of reactive aggression), eunuchs were better archers (massed groups of coordinating archers). Eunuchs were better chariot drivers of the two- and three-person chariots of the early period. They could calmly plan where best to head, while intact swordsmen on the back did the fighting.

The government of the Abbasid Caliphate under al-Muqtadir (ruled 908-932 AD) was run by about 4000 well-educated Greek-speaking eunuchs, many of them sourced through Venice or from the Vikings. (Dublin was the largest slave port in the world in the period and many slaves, including many eunuchs, came from the areas surrounding the Irish Sea. There were about 7000 additional eunuchs doing manual labor and/or guarding the women in the palace/administrative complex of al-Muqtadir.) When Saladin defeated the Fatamid dynasty in Egypt in 1171, he found that the only intact males in the entire palace complex of over 12,000 people were the Fatamid caliph and his immediate family.

On the military side, there were a large number of eunuch commanders that are known from kingdoms and empires stretching across Africa and Eurasia from the Atlantic to the Pacific. For eunuchs serving directly as fighting men, Saladin's army provides the best details that I've found. An 1181 account of his army stated that over half of his fighting force were eunuchs, about half African and about half European in origin. That would mean about 4000 European Moslem eunuchs fought against the European Christian Crusaders for control of the Holy Land. There were over 4000 eunuch cavalrymen in the army of the West African empire of Songhai in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Songhai Empire was defeated by a Moroccan army under the command of the Spanish eunuch Judar Pasha.

Castration to preserve the treble voice also began early. There are records of choruses of over 100 eunuchs as praise singers to the Sumerian gods. The Italian castrati were part of a long, though broken, history. They probably descended from the eunuch choirs in Byzantine churches and cathedrals, rather than directly from Sumer. There were also eunuch choristers in China and Korea.

Castration as a punishment also began early. Quite early in the ancient Near East castration became a punishment for rape and other serious sexual crimes. Unlike the other castration in the time and place, where boys had only their testicles removed or destroyed to prepare them for various adult roles, judicial castration seems to have focused on the penis—the offending body part. Since it was punishment for a serious crime, survival was not important. The first recorded castration in China was of defeated soldiers—penis and testicles. In ancient Egyptian warfare, the defeated were counted by a tally of severed penises that were collected after battle. Both the living and dead of the defeated had their penises severed for the count.

Elimination of a breeding population was another reason for castration. When the Chinese put down rebellions, they sometimes executed the entire adult male population and castrated all of the boys. The goal was elimination of the population. (The women and girls were given to the victorious troops.) Other times they just executed the leaders of the revolt and castrated all of their children. This was done as late as the 1870s with a rebellion in the western provinces. The Persians had the same policy for ending some rebellions—execute all adult males and castrate all boys. We know of at least three such incidents where the Persians put down rebellions in Greek-speaking areas of the empire, including the city of Pergamon, whose revolt was defeated by Persia in 362 BC. All of the girls, women, and boys who survived castration were deported to the east and replaced by new settlers. We don't have records of the Persians doing this other than in the Greek-speaking areas, but they probably used the technique widely.

Removal from contention for rule was another use for castration. As early as some of the early Middle Eastern empires where the ruler maintained a large harem of women for his exclusive use, there would be far too many sons who might contend to rule after his death. This could mean intense warfare and the destruction of the empire. I wrote of this above where 50, or so, of the sons of an Assyrian king might be castrated to serve in the palace administration. Defeat of a rival kingdom might mean castration of all sons of the former ruler. The Byzantines occasionally castrated sons of defeated Emperors to end a dynasty. For example, Saint Ignatius was the younger son of emperor Michael I and he was castrated when his father was overthrown in 813 AD. (His older brother was also castrated.)

Castration to aid chastity was another reason. Many early Christians believed that complete celibacy was ideal and that castration would aid them in that goal. The First Canon of the Council of Niceae (325 AD) prohibited those who had self-castrated to preserve chastity from becoming bishops of the Christian church. It was necessary because there were so many doing so. And so many continued to do so even after Council. There were even monasteries exclusively for eunuch monks in the Byzantine Empire. There was even one small sect of Christians in the early church that believed that ALL true Christian males should be castrated. There are reports that they kidnapped boys to castrate and convert to their sect. The Skoptsy sect of the Russian Orthodox Church (flourished 1721 to 1956?) thought that all true Christians should be castrated. The sect grew to at least 300,000 members. They adopted a great many orphan boys to join their faith.

I've already written about castration for eugenic purposes above. Our best information about the physiology and health of prepubertal eunuchs comes from study of hundreds who were castrated in institutions in the state of Kansas from the 1890s to the 1950s.

What most people today think of if they think of eunuchs is their role as guardians of someone else's women. This was one of their roles from a very early period, although certainly not the only role. Nor even the most important role in many times and places. For most of history, it was only sterility that was important for the guardians of women. The ruler (or other important or wealthy person) wanted to be certain of paternity. Since those castrated before puberty were often (usually?) able to get an erection, they were able to provide pleasure for the women, but not produce children. It was only to prevent their women from gaining any pleasure from the eunuchs that their penises were removed. (They ignored the role of fingers, tongues, lips.) This happened early in China for most (but definitely not all) court eunuchs. (We know that some castrated before puberty retained their penis.)

Moslems spread the practice of nullification widely with the spread of the Islamic states and empires. There are early Arab writings condemning the Byzantines for only removing the testicles of their eunuchs. They would still be able to enjoy sexual activity if they still had a penis. They could corrupt the women of the harem and that was unacceptable.

Not all eunuchs in Moslem areas had their penis removed. There are contemporary reports of the women of the Qajar Persian royal harem in the 1860s enjoying sexual activity with harem eunuchs who retained their penis. (Martial (1st century AD) wrote of Roman matrons who preferred sex with eunuchs. Italian castrati were pursued by women seeking safe sex.)

There were even a few places where adult eunuchs supervised harems of young eunuchs who were maintained for the sexual pleasure of the powerful.

The eunuchs of history performed many roles, most of which seem to be forgotten today.

I'd love to have your library I'm trying to understand what was done to me and how it effected eunuchs down through history. I'm having trouble finding anything about eunuchs other than the studies done of the members of this site and prostate cancer patients.

Jesus, what a comprehensive and enlightening answer to the question. A fascinating read. With regard to the specific question, the most pertinent point is that your definition of a eunuch includes the case where the testicles have been made non-functioning. Chemical castration injections such as Lupron block the production of LHRH which results in the testicles producing less or zero testosterone, and consequently make them non-functioning. It stands to reason then, as cutnballs2ox implies, both surgically castrated and chemically castrated men are technically eunuchs.

From an individual's perspective, I completely agree with T van Keel and GordonGG's view that you are a eunuch if you feel like one, but my question really refers to how the wider world views us rather than how we view ourselves. Jesus's accounts highlight what a long and extensive history eunuchs and castration has had, and how it has been an integral part of civilization. Chemical castration on the other hand is a recent newcomer. As chemical castration becomes more prevalent, and language inevitably evolves, I wonder if the term eunuch will become as synonymous with chemical castration as it is with surgical castration.

I think many people think of the word eunuch as being a historical word and idea. A term that is not used in most modern cultures today. Also, today castrated men are more likely to not be openly known to be castrated or referred to as eunuchs than in past history and ancient cultures where eunuchs publically were known or held certain jobs that only castrated men held, like harem guards. Its more of a secret today of who is and is not castrated.

Also, many people resist or resent labels as being politically incorrect or too simplified. You can agree or disagree based on your own opinions. Some men like the word eunuch, and some don t. Gelding, steer, neutered, ox, and similar names can be used instead if people wish. Its just a matter of personal tastes. Those are way more likely to be used by people in agriculture and livestock who buy, sell, breed, and castrate livestock as part of their daily business. Whether livestock can breed or not affects its use and value to owners. Owners who often have a greater appreciation, interest in, and enjoyment of human castration than most other people do.

Medically, I m just guessing, but I doubt most drs and nurses would use the term eunuch today to describe a castrated man, chemically or surgically de balled. I m guessing they would write surgically castrated or chemically castrated in a eunuch s medical records and when talking to him directly or to other medical professionals. Like they do in our medical records saying circumcised or uncircumcised to document in our medical records whether we have our foreskins intact or not.

More and more prostate cancer men get chemically castrated now if they don t like the idea of being surgically castrated. The body affects of both forms of being castrated are similar. But some men apparently like the idea that they still have their balls in their sacks. Even if they are permanently turned off and shrunken up. If a man is chemically castrated for long enough, it becomes irreversably permanent and he experiences the same hot flashes and emasculating affects as a surgical castration. So it becomes just as irreversable as surgical castration over enough time.

Doctors don't offer surgical castration for prostate cancer patients now the preferred method is chemical castration. I know this because a personal friend has had his prostate removed and the cancer is back the doctor started him on chemical castration and it's working, when my friend asked to be surgically castrated the physician flayed him for asking and said that they don't do that anymore. The friend is being treated at the main campus of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio USA

I read somewhere that Veterens Admin hospitals still prefer doing surgical castrations for prostate cancer because it is so much faster, simplier, and costs less over time than monitoring and maintaining chemical castrations for whole lifetimes.

The surgical castration still has some big advantages if men are ok with losing their balls.

The hollowing out of the ball contents and leaving the outer shells of both testicles hanging attached as usual in the sack, the subcapsular ? castrations, are another option for men who want to keep their own hollowed out balls hanging in their sacks. They are still castrated by removing all of the working sperm and testosterone making contents inside of both of their testicles. But the empty outer ball shells still look like their original balls hanging in their bags.

The VA is an exception anything that they can save money on they do. I've heard of a case of a man who had subcapular orchiotomy and still had to much testosterone and died

Same here. Thats why I quit T.

It's a marvelous feeling no being on testosterone isn't it

I'm not sure what the appeal of a subscapular orchiectomy is for prostate cancer treatment instead of just removal of the nuts. If your castrated without testosterone, you probably won't feel much like showing ur balls to anyone anyway. I also wonder how they feel -- seems like they would feel squishy and soft if hollowed out like that. I guess there are some men out there that would prefer to see something in there ballsac even though they are castrated with no testosterone.

Yes it is. That's why I'm quitting testosterone injections. 16 days so far and looking forward to it quickly fading away.

By the time I recovered from complete nullification surgery (pain recovery that is) I was so relieved to be without the pain I didn't even notice feelings of testosterone or lack of for quite some time. My life (I was sailing on the high seas) pretty much continued as usual until after a year and a half or so. Perhaps that's just how long it took for the testosterone left in my body to finally run out. Can't really answer that since I'm not a medical professional nor did I have access to testing hormonal levels. But one thing I will say is that after that time I did begin to notice affects on my body from lack of hormonal production. The most notable of those were a diminishing of my stamina and energy levels as well as some strength. Since I was in need of those attributes to continue my high energy consumption with the rigors of sailing the boat and certainly did NOT have a desire to replace what I had taken extraordinary steps to eliminate I used estrogen intake in its place. Those attributes that had begun diminishing returned so I continued with the estrogen. It's safe to say looking back that I over did it. And in fact abused it to the point of what you see with me today. All I'm saying is you really should get medical advice on reducing and/or eliminating all hormone input. Make no mistake, I'm not complaining in any way over my personal results. Now some 26 years later I am very happy with who/what I am. Not sure if one would call me a eunuch or whatever. I am simply me and enjoying every moment of my life and the experiences it gives me.

JockItch (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:42 am I'm not sure what the appeal of a subscapular orchiectomy is for prostate cancer treatment instead of just removal of the nuts. If your castrated without testosterone, you probably won't feel much like showing ur balls to anyone anyway. I also wonder how they feel -- seems like they would feel squishy and soft if hollowed out like that. I guess there are some men out there that would prefer to see something in there ballsac even though they are castrated with no testosterone.

My guess is that you are right. The empty shells of balls likely are soft and flexible. Not firm and full to the touch. And you d think they would tend to collapse in over time and shrink up with nothing inside to maintain their full shape.

I m sure their desire is to remain looking like they still have balls in their sack in front of their friends, co workers, sons, brothers, and other males in locker rooms and showers. Even shrunken up and hollowed out, they can say that they still have their original balls hanging in the bags. They know its only cosmetics, and they probably pull up tight with no weight left inside them and their nut muscles used to holding more weight to get them to hang low. But its a good option for the men who fear losing their balls or having an empty scrotum.

Anyone playing with those hollow balls would get a shock discovering they are lightweight and hollow. Plus, you d think they might be prone to pain after the brutality of hollowing out both balls core contents and what that must do to the nerves left in the shell and nerves in the spermatic cords. Like live electric wires cut off and hanging exposed unless the dr cauterizes the hollow insides or the spermatic cords.

Begoneboy (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:36 am By the time I recovered from complete nullification surgery (pain recovery that is) I was so relieved to be without the pain I didn't even notice feelings of testosterone or lack of for quite some time. My life (I was sailing on the high seas) pretty much continued as usual until after a year and a half or so. Perhaps that's just how long it took for the testosterone left in my body to finally run out. Can't really answer that since I'm not a medical professional nor did I have access to testing hormonal levels. But one thing I will say is that after that time I did begin to notice affects on my body from lack of hormonal production. The most notable of those were a diminishing of my stamina and energy levels as well as some strength. Since I was in need of those attributes to continue my high energy consumption with the rigors of sailing the boat and certainly did NOT have a desire to replace what I had taken extraordinary steps to eliminate I used estrogen intake in its place. Those attributes that had begun diminishing returned so I continued with the estrogen. It's safe to say looking back that I over did it. And in fact abused it to the point of what you see with me today. All I'm saying is you really should get medical advice on reducing and/or eliminating all hormone input. Make no mistake, I'm not complaining in any way over my personal results. Now some 26 years later I am very happy with who/what I am. Not sure if one would call me a eunuch or whatever. I am simply me and enjoying every moment of my life and the experiences it gives me.

I m guessing your sailboat does not have many mirrors, and that traveling and living alone, you noticed your castration changes less than most other men would as they occurred ? Lots of bluewater sailors are nudists to save on laundry water needs and storage space. How was your physical and mental evolution after your castration ?

Well after 15 days of taking a daily 50mg androcur tablet my free testosterone via a saliva test is 20 pg/ml. The previous tests in the period between taking androcur have been in the 170 pg/ml range. Before ever trying androcur the levels were in the 200+ range, but they have never recovered to that since being recorded at 29 pg/ml in August 2018 after my first try of androcur in June

2018.

So am I officially a eunuch at the moment with 20 pg/ml? I am always a little unsure because I use saliva tests with pg/ml results rather than blood with ng/dl