EA Forums

I believe I've been called to be a eunuch. In the bible it is considered an honor to be one, especially if you do it yourself. I've done much of the research already and am quite informed about the risks. I'm at such a point in my life where I feel I can do without my genitals, both testicles and penis.

My goal is to have no genitals and have almost full body hair removal as well. Sort of a true child of God look. I'm fairly spiritual if you haven't guessed already.

Although I will remain in the gender identity of a male; I would like to get the estrogen therapy and grow some small breasts as well and maybe even on some occasions to wear some womens clothing like maybe a skirt.

Maybe this is just a touch of a intersex trait. I don't really want to pass as a women.

The trick is getting it done.

I don't doubt your reasons or your research. And it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that one can not have a life without genitals. As a practical matter I know several people who have attempted or done autocastration. The results have been uniformly unhappy. Professional intervention has been needed every time. Near death (avoided by only the slimmest of margins) has even been a result. Therefore, I would urge you NOT to try any such measures by yourself. Be very careful, you can not realize your ambitions if you do not survive. --FLO--

Uncle Flo (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:34 am I don't doubt your reasons or your research. And it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that one can not have a life without genitals. As a practical matter I know several people who have attempted or done autocastration. The results have been uniformly unhappy. Professional intervention has been needed every time. Near death (avoided by only the slimmest of margins) has even been a result. Therefore, I would urge you NOT to try any such measures by yourself. Be very careful, you can not realize your ambitions if you do not survive. --FLO--

Uncle Flo makes a good point. Removal of the penis is definitely not a DIY operation. There are many large blood vessels involved - you risk bleeding to death.

Google "Origen" for an example of a religious person's self-castration. However, I'd have to make a counter argument that the admonition in the Bible to "be fruitful and multiply" would be impossible if you became an eunuch. Just because you hate your genitals doesn't mean that God does too.

Actually, I think "be fruitful and multiply" was in reality a sort of commission to help bring about the end times. The four horseman is a sign of overpopulation when they show up. That is how it has worked in the past with more local settings. Just my opinion of course.

And no, I won't be removing anything just all by myself.

Kangan (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:58 am Just because you hate your genitals doesn't mean that God does too.

Beautifully put.

Sometimes it is very difficult to discern between God and a fetish.

And I mean no disrespect to either you or God by that comment.

We humans are extremely complicated beigns. I personally see nothing wrong with personal beliefs, fixations, or fetishes.

My only objections come when any of the above harm oneself or others.

If you want to be genderless -- by all means please pursue it, but with throughtful care.

The Bible too, is complicated. On one hand it encourages fruitful multiplication (ironic in m,y case, because I am a fruit -- which has thus far impeded multiplication -- just can't seem to get pregnant, dammit!).

On another hand, it admonishes "If your eye offends you, pluck it out."

In this case 'offend' means 'to cause one to sin.'

So .... if thine genitals causeth thee to sin -- then pluck them off.

But safely, please .......

Welcome to the Boards, or the zoo, Genderless.

How you interpret God, or lack thereof, is up to YOU, and no one else.

If HE works for you, whoever HE is, then by all means, have at it.

Do what you must to be happy in this life - but do do it wisely and safely and hang around.

The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" was delivered to the first living creatures on an UNINHABITED planet. There should have been a "sunset clause" as it is obvious that unlimited reproduction is physically impossible on a planet of finite size, and, obviously, highly undesirable long before all of the habitable surface area is saturated with organisms.

Well said. We will probably never attain zero population growth. Our minds are on sex way too much.

Matthew 19:12 states that "...there be those who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake." This statement is made without comment, favourable or unfavourable. The following sentence: "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." has nothing to do with there being those who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. It refers to an earlier discussion of the desirability of marriage.

Bagoas (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:00 pm The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" was delivered to the first living creatures on an UNINHABITED planet. There should have been a "sunset clause" as it is obvious that unlimited reproduction is physically impossible on a planet of finite size, and, obviously, highly undesirable long before all of the habitable surface area is saturated with organisms.

Tell that to the Mormons and the Catholics.... doh. Oops - forgot about the "Right to Life" idiots....

Dear Genderless,

Happy to hear you expect to be on estrogen therapy after castration is achieved. I expected to be a non-HRT eunuch but life without hormones is hard. Our bodies run best with some sort of hormones in them, so I've chosen estrogen.

Have you considered the possibility that you are transgendered, and that that is the reason for your cross-gender desires?

Terry/Terri

Naw, I'm too male for that. I'm more eccentric extreme.

genderless (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:16 am Naw, I'm too male for that. I'm more eccentric extreme.

I'm all for the smooth look. But if you are truly male, why would you want to lose your penis? I don't know about you, but I prefer to pee standing up.

Kangan (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:15 am I'm all for the smooth look. But if you are truly male, why would you want to lose your penis? I don't know about you, but I prefer to pee standing up.

"Too male for that" doesn't imply "truly male".

Kangan (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:58 am Just because you hate you

joydivision_27 (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:46 pm r genitals doesn't mean that God does too.

Beautifully put.

Sometimes it is very difficult to discern between God and a fetish.

And I mean no disrespect to either you or God by that comment.

We humans are extremely complicated beigns. I personally see nothing wrong with personal beliefs, fixations, or fetishes.

My only objections come when any of the above harm oneself or others.

If you want to be genderless -- by all means please pursue it, but with throughtful care.

The Bible too, is complicated. On one hand it encourages fruitful multiplication (ironic in m,y case, because I am a fruit -- which has thus far impeded multiplication -- just can't seem to get pregnant, dammit!).

On another hand, it admonishes "If your eye offends you, pluck it out."

In this case 'offend' means 'to cause one to sin.'

So .... if thine genitals causeth thee to s

in -- then pluck them off.

But safely, please .......

Whoa, there...

Sex as SIN?

...this is the GRAND LIE that old assholes who never got enough of it {SEX} in their lives and in their youth visit upon the young to control them. Also, you cannot have a young person getting more sex than an old person.

Unless of course, they are having it with an old person.

I have heard enough of this fucking horseshit in the last 45 years or so...

...but BEWARE. This attitude that I have just voiced basically CAUSED the AIDS epidemic of the 1980's which gave old bastards even MORE fuel for the fire...

HAve you seen the commercial on television of the young girl with HUGE herpes sores around her mouth? This is blamed on ORAL sex. It should have been blamed on a god-damned virus.

...see how fucked-up things are?

...still blaming the victim for the illness...

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:20 am Sex as SIN?

...this is the GRAND LIE that old assholes who never got enough of it {SEX} in their lives and in their youth visit upon the young to control them. Also, you cannot have a young person getting more sex than an old person.

Unless of course, they are having it with an old person.

I have heard enough of this fucking horseshit in the last 45 years or so...

...but BEWARE. This attitude that I have just voiced basically CAUSED the AIDS epidemic of the 1980's which gave old bastards even MORE fuel for the fire...

HAve you seen the commercial on television of the young girl with HUGE herpes sores around her mouth? This is blamed on ORAL sex. It should have been blamed on a god-damned virus.

...see how fucked-up things are?

...still blaming the victim for the illness...

Sexual ignorance promotes sexual disease.

I am not taking exception to your right to interpret the Bible in your own manner. Also, I am not taking exception to your right to make decisions regarding body modifications for whatever reason. However, interpretation of the Bible in order to support or justify actions in modern times presents some practical problems. The bible has been translated numerous times from various languages. Those translations were subject to many interpretations, modifications, variations and mistranslations over the centuries. A good analogy would be the child's game "Whisper Down the Lane." My point is that taking the Bible literally is generally not good idea.

I think I did mention I felt it was a calling, not just based on the bible. I'm not planning to build an ark any time soon either.

Kangan (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:15 am but I prefer to pee standing up....

* I prefer to sit down, but i have no intention of saying goodbyes to my part down there.......*

well in the bible all sex outside marriage is sinful, not sex itself......

I recently watched a documentary about the history and origins of the Bible. In one part of the program, they discussed the various translations of the original works. One of the most interesting things was the assertion by an "expert" that "marriage" did not exist in biblical times. He insists that any phrases such as "He took unto himself a wife." would really have been written as "He took unto himself a concubine."

I'm not a historical scholar, but I have read the code of Hammurabi (in translation, I'll admit, as my language skills doesn't extend to ancient akkadian...) to check the very issue of marriage laws in ancient societies.

Even allowing for mistranslation of the word marriage itself, there definitely was marriage in some form in ancient Babylonia. The law gives thorough regulations about how marriage was entered into, what kind of gift was appropriate to pay for the bride, under what circumstances the husband was allowed to choose concubines for himself and so forth.

It's far from marriage laws of today, but there's no doubt that it was marriage in most legal and traditional meanings of the word.

Since the jewish people - in the bible as well as with some external archaeological corroboration - traces its history back to Mesopotamia, it is higly unlikely that their legal tradition would differ so much as to not have a similar concept.

Kangan (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:15 am I'm all for the smooth look. But if you are truly male, why would you want to lose your penis? I don't know about you, but I prefer to pee standing up.

Where is the advantage in doing that?

Mac (imported) wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:21 am Where is the advantage in doing that?

You don't have to squat.

Mac (imported) wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:21 am Where is the advantage in doing that?

It's easier to write your name in the snow?

Mac (imported) wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:21 am Where is the advantage in doing that?

You don't have to squat.

I don't consider that to be an advantage, but it is different for everybody.