Would you like to see a return to the use of castrated Eunuch's to act as our political officials?

Explanation: Eunuch (court official) [wiki]

A eunuch ( /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: Ευνούχος) is a person born male most commonly castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. (Less commonly, in translations of ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent or celibate.)

Castration was typically carried out on the soon-to-be eunuch without his consent in order that he might perform a specific social function; this was common in many societies. The earliest records for intentional castration to produce eunuchs are from the Sumerian city of Lagash in the 21st century BC.[1][2] Over the millennia since, they have performed a wide variety of functions in many different cultures: courtiers or equivalent domestics, treble singers, religious specialists, government officials, military commanders, and guardians of women or harem servants.

Why they were required to be castrated ....

Etymology and originsThe English word eunuch is from the Greek eune ("bed") and ekhein ("to keep"), effectively "bed keeper".

Eunuchs would probably be servants or slaves who, because of their function, had been castrated, usually in order to make them reliable servants of a royal court where physical access to the ruler could wield great influence. Seemingly lowly domestic functions—such as making the ruler's bed, bathing him, cutting his hair, carrying him in his litter, or even relaying messages—could in theory give a eunuch "the ruler's ear" and impart de facto power on the formally humble but trusted servant. Similar instances are reflected in the humble origins and etymology of many high offices (e.g., chancellor originally denoted a servant guarding the entrance to an official's study). Eunuchs supposedly did not generally have loyalties to the military, the aristocracy, nor to a family of their own (having neither offspring nor in-laws, at the very least), and were thus seen as more trustworthy and less interested in establishing a private 'dynasty'. Because their condition usually lowered their social status, they could also be easily replaced or killed without repercussion. In cultures that had both harems and eunuchs, eunuchs were sometimes used as harem servants (compare the female odalisque) or seraglio guards.[citation needed]

In Latin, the words eunuchus, spado, and castratus were used to denote eunuchs.[3]

Personal Disclosure: Yes I would like to see the implimentation of the dehormonalization of government!

What do my fellow members have to say in regards to the question posed by this threads title and in light of the wiki information I provided for your brainy consumption?

If it would keep out the Pedophiles - you bet.
But only if 'Term Limits' are also established.

peace

Great . . . nutless and gutless . . . we'll have to change our name to the United States of France.

Second line.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


As long as we have women like Bachmann and Palin who exhibit a blood-thirsty foreign policy, I cannot be convinced that immoral ambition is the result of having a penis.

We don't have to cut anyone's balls off(yet), but I would like to see alleged public servants actually SERVE the public instead of corporations and their own wallets.

How about this? If you seek to become an elected official, and you betray the people, you should be castrated.

For the Pelosi's of the world, we'll have to find another form of punishment.

reply to post by Cuervo


Explanation: I agree but lets not make this a gender issue!

Tubes can be tied and Ovaries can be removed!

Personal Disclosure: So now that I have clarified that this isnt about gender and that its about position and power etc. would you like to see a return to the use of castrated Eunuch's to act as our political officials?

reply to post by illuminatislave


Explanation: St*rred!

Personal Disclosure: I agree as carte blanche doing that to kids at a young age and way before they have been given the chance to prove themselves worthy is a disgusting proposition and I am glad to see it excluded quickly from further discussion by this marvelous solution to that conundrum! Well done!

reply to post by GoalPoster


At leat the French government fears its people. In the U.K. and U.S. it's the other way round.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Would i like to see castrated eunuchs act as political officials ??

No...but i can think of a few political officials i would like see castrated..

Cosmic..

Originally posted by GoalPoster
Great . . . nutless and gutless . . . we'll have to change our name to the United States of France.

Second line.

hahaha...

I loved the french twist.

I kinda thought they were already that way.

They don't act like real men anyway....

Originally posted by GoalPoster
Great . . . nutless and gutless . . . we'll have to change our name to the United States of France.

Second line.

Exactly, because everybody knows that France won't stand up to corporations like Monsanto, advocate for human rights of their own people and not allow them to be subjugated by sexist religious dogma, and they don't have the guts to insist on keeping their people healthy with a premier health care plan.

Wait a second, that's us. My mistake.

reply to post by Cosmic4life

No...but i can think of a few political officials i would like see castrated..

I agree with that statement.
It' would be very hard to make things worse at this point.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Explanation: I agree but lets not make this a gender issue!

Tubes can be tied and Ovaries can be removed!

Personal Disclosure: So now that I have clarified that this isnt about gender and that its about position and power etc. would you like to see a return to the use of castrated Eunuch's to act as our political officials?

But it very much is a gender issue. There is no reason to "castrate" or de-gender a woman as her hormones and genitalia do not cause problems in leadership. However, testosterone and male genitalia are often regarded as driving forces behind many of the world's evils (and I partially agree). Male sexuality is a large component to the acquisition mindset and can be considered a root cause to greed, malevolence, and general aggression.

My point was that, since we see examples of that same male-driven evil ambition in many women in politics, we cannot assume that castration of male members (read that in a couple of ways, if you like) of government would solve anything.

Why do you think you need testicles to rape or assault someone?

Actually, why would you think that someone who has been assaulted in a most profound way would not be primed to commit crimes ... afterall, they've already made a profound sacrifice, doing bad things to others would just seem fair.

Silliness.

With the ability to log on a vote why do we need politicians today?
Get rid of the parasites altogether.

Originally posted by VforVendettea
With the ability to log on a vote why do we need politicians today?
Get rid of the parasites altogether.

Because I don't like you well enough to live in a system of Electoral Fascism so that you can social experimenter with my life.

Originally posted by WilburMercer
reply to post by GoalPoster

 

At leat the French government fears its people. In the U.K. and U.S. it's the other way round.

touche!

Seems redundant to me. Looking at the mess we're in right now, the lack of abillity to make tough decisions, the refusal of the elected to take any risks in the face of their personal political careers....

how many of them have balls to cut off in the first place? Seems like we need politicians who let them swing freely like the USA used to possess rather than further emasculating what is already highly effeminate.

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by GoalPoster
Great . . . nutless and gutless . . . we'll have to change our name to the United States of France.

Second line.

Exactly, because everybody knows that France won't stand up to corporations like Monsanto, advocate for human rights of their own people and not allow them to be subjugated by sexist religious dogma, and they don't have the guts to insist on keeping their people healthy with a premier health care plan.

Wait a second, that's us. My mistake.

good points!