Why did the eunuchs chop off their penises along with their testicles? Wouldn’t this be overkill?? I mean, if the testes are gone, there is no possibility of erection, so they could be considered ‘safe’ even if they still had penises???
Is it possible that these men did this procedure because they were some sort of transvestites?
Thanks.
wag ahead…
If you were a lord that was hung like a mouse would you want your servents sporting something that would be better used on a lion? Eunucchs were ones who attended to multi wives this way you remove all competition. Also are you absolutly that removal of the testicals means no chance of errection? - I can tell you removal of the penise means no chance.
I’m not convinced at all that no testicles=no erection…
Any volonteer for an experiment?
The adrenal glands also produce testosterone, so the absence of testicles does not guarantee the absence of erections. In fact, in most cases, erectile capacity is preserved. Solution: Cut off the schlong, cut off the possibility to get an erection.
Yeah, it looks like I was wrong about the possibility of erections. I found this-
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2096.html
“Studies have also been done that show with increased stimulation, a castrated man can actually get an erection, have sex, and orgasm (although he won’t have any sperm in his ejaculate, which would be minimal in volume).”
Also, the practice was not universal, IIRC, in some cultures the practice was total emasculation, but in others only castration – the latter being apparently surgically safer, in the sense of survivability. My reference on that, though, is elsewhere right now…
I"m surprised to hear that coming from Columbia University. Sperm and spermatic fluid makes up very little of the ejaculate, most coming from the prostate and the seminal vesicles. It (castration) shouldn’t have an appreciable effect on the volume - I’ve had a vasectomy and, while not as drastic as total removal, it didn’t effect the volume much at all.
I think that they just worded it in a confusing way, plnnr. I think the ‘minimal in volume’ part refers to the sperm, not to the ejaculate.
I wonder how many eunuchs underwent the procedure voluntarily, Surreal? I’d wager that most eunuchs throughout history were not given any choice one way or the other.
Well, since this is (hopefully) an ancient practice, it could be that they just didn’t know. A thorough understanding of anatomy is not that recent a development.
I don’t know about the full history, but the many of Chinese eunuchs volunteered for the job-
http://www.chineseabroad.com/naomi/community/sites/30/page4.html
“While some of the eunuchs are prisoners from war and are castrated to serve the emperor, many of the eunuchs volunteered themselves to be mutilated and to become servants. The reason behind this is because of the family poverty that forced them into the palace.”
They got their testicles and penises cut off (they had to sit in a chair with a hole in it while someone pulled their junk through the hole and chopped everything off). I can’t imagine how anyone could volunteer for THAT no matter how poor they were.
Check out Extraordinary Endings Of Everything And Everybody.
By Panatti.
There’s a large section on castration, emasculation and eunuchs. According to the book, eunuchs can have erections. Some women preferred eunuchs as there was no possibility of pregnancy. Panatti makes some references to the sex life of the great castrato Velluti. Most people assumed that his lack of testes made it impossible for him to have sex. In reality, he had enough groupies to keep the Stones happy.
Panatti has since written a book entirely on sex, pornography, birth control and related matters. While this might contain more information on castration, I don’t own a copy.