Fem-ing Cypher space. (a troll)

[Andrea Chen]

a friend asked me to post this for "her".
-ac-

::Unfinished paper:: from ::spring '96::;

when a significant number of the "frat-ees"
though the "coeds" looked on a certain Ms. Bobbitt has
a role model and said so publicly.

My own impression was that this was "projection" on the
part of some "men". Most women found the thing amusing
for about thirty seconds at a time. The individuals
who obsessed about it; were men, today; their
spiritual descendants infest groups such as
alt.feminism

Now it appears that Internet has demonstrated a
behavior predicted by Freud as likely. In addition to
castration anxiety, the internet now has a group
devoted to castration desire ("desire" is often a
"defence mechanism" of the pyche, one deals with
ovwhelming fear by channeling it in an "enticement
channel").

There is a group called alt.eunuchs.questions which
appears to be composed of males who want to make the
"ultimate sacrifice" (in public!).

As a woman, this gives me a thirty second chuckle.
Then I think of women I knew who were obsessed with
rape fantasy. We are not talking apparent male
"emotional victims" and even if it is a troll by the
"doctress gang", it still represents real social pain
acutely visible in big city "personals".

As a "classical feminist", I believe that the
functional purpose of a "fema-centric" point of view is
to provide another perspective (bincoular vision?) with
which to undo the pain of both sexes.

I also believe that this group provides a base for a
purer "feminist discussion". Those who bother to read
the tagged on article will note that I use a sexual
fetish to touch on other subjects. I think as a matter
of courtesy, women should sometimes mention the
subject that the group is about.

One possible use of such a group is "control through
structure" The "free net" is based on the assumption
that none should have final moderation power. But in
places like alt.feminism this leads to "noise
pollution".

Men should be free to take part in feminist groups.
But a useful "bug remover" would be the right of
"feminists" (male and female) to point out that the
purpose of this group is "pre-op". This potential
threat should keep the "frat boys" off and hopefully
allow the two sexes to engage in some mature
conversation.

And now without further adue, I break taboo.

Sighted this day of the ::nativity, 1996::

"Aeunt" Sigmeunda,

"the only freunda you can treusta".

::Warning! Brief commercialization of Internet::

You want it I got it. You want it I got it. You want
it today, I had it yesterday. You want it yesterday, I
had it last week. Good deals. You want it, I got
it. Reasonable rates. You wanted it when you were a
kid. My mother had it, you should have gone to her.
Cutrate candy do. We got everything, crystal gazing,
taro throwing, exotic merchandise.

Best price in town! Its free (for now)

- The cat lady -

::End Commercialization Warning::

::Another Warning:: My opinion on any or all of the
following contents may have changed in the last few
seasons.

::DOCTRESS KIBA::

::THE MALE EUNUCH::
(title based on a famous sixties book)

The furor over the Bobbitt incident set off a
realization within my brain. In years of diverse
reading, I have come across hundreds of referances to
castration. Like many bunches of misc facts, some have
remained availible to my logic.

Yet I have not seen much attempt to organize the issue
systematically or to treat it as an important aspect of
history. Although I am not a scholar and am pulling my
facts from memory, I have decided to give it a try.

::ORGANIZATION OF THIS WORK::

I have divided my work into two parts

<-1-> <:BACKGROUND:> Tries to fit the peculiar
institution of castration into the context of
established western history.

<-2-> <:MODERN REALITIES:> Discusses castration
today both as a physical act and as a symbol in the
dialogue between the sexes.

For the convenience of those who need to classify this
paper within some database or are looking for specific
pieces of information, I put a brief index in the
beginning.

Most readers can skim over this.

Most word processors will allow you to "mark" the text
within the brackets < >. You can then "search" for it.

--0-- ::INDEX::

::ALAN TURING:: <-1.1.4->

::BYZANTINE:: <-1.3.4.2->

::CHRISTIANITY:: <-1.4.2->

::DOCTORS:: <-1.1.2-> <-1.1.5-> <-2.1.2.5->

::ED RICKETTS:: <-2.1.2.2.1->

::"FEMINIZATION":: <-1.3.1-> <-1.4.1-> <-2.1.2.5.1->

::FREUD:: <-2.2.3->

::MATRIARCHY:: <-1.3.2.2->

::NAZI:: <-1.1.1-> <-2.1.1.1->

::PATRIARCHY::

::POWER::

::RAPE::

::REVOLUTION::

::SLAVERY::

::"TRANSEXUAL"::

::WAR::

--1-- ::BACKGROUND::

--1.1-- ::RECENT HISTORY::

--1.1.1-- ::HITLERS GERMANY:: When the Nazis
sterilized hundreds of thousands of Jews, "mental
defectives" and other groups in the thirties and
forties , they were not giving all the males
vasectomies.

Once in a while, this fact will be clearly written,
but for the most part the euphenism "sterilization" is
used and readers skim over it. They do not see the
magnitude of the crime.

Neither (apparently) did most contemporaries of the
Nazis. One finds relatively little recorded outrage.
One possible reason is that the rest of the western
world may have been doing the same thing though in a
less systematic and blatantly racist way.

--1.1.2-- ::MIDDLE AMERICA:: In the same period that
the Nazis were laying the base for their genocide, a
doctor in Kansas discovered the relationship between
male hormones and baldness. The discovery was set in
motion by the visit of an identical twin of a patient
in a mental hospital. The visitor was totally bald.
The patient had a full head of hair.

The reason was that in Kansas, male mental patients
were routinely castrated to help keep them docile.
When the doctor looked closer, he noticed that all
these patients had their hair. Voila !

--1.1.3-- ::THE GOOD OLD DAYS:: Extrapolating from
this, one must assume that if this practice was used in
Kansas, it was used in many other states and countries
as well. When one thinks of the 19th century stress
on eugenics and the ease of the operation, it is
probable that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions
of males had their testicles removed. I have read at
least one claim that the some Victorian doctors used
the operation to discourage masturbation which was
thought to cause all sorts of terrible things.

--1.1.4-- ::IN COMPUTER HISTORY:: A more recent example
of how lightly male sexuality was taken is the case of
Alan Turing one of the pioneers of computer science.
After WWII an English court convicted him of
homosexuality and sentenced him to several years of
chemical castration. This was one of the reasons he
latter committed suicide.

--1.1.5-- :IMPORTANT LESSONS.

While we are all aware of eunuchs in mideastern harems
and the small number of castrati once used in European
choirs, there is little awareness of the widespread
use of "sterilization" and what it meant in recent
western history. One should note that this ignorance
applies to women as well as men. (And still does if
the number of unnecessary hypersectomies are as high as
some claim). There is self censorship going on.

We are not as civilized as we like to think. It is
possibly for people to ignore mass atrocity. A linked
example would be the shoddy tratment of European
"witches". Only recently has it come to be comonly
recognized that these terrorist activities, took many
thousands of lives.

This social movement acted to force women out of
traditional crafts such as medicine. If women had
retained their traditional role then the mass
castration of the Victorian social Darwinist era might
not have occured. Furthermore modern medicine might
not have had to "rediscover" many traditional remedies
and drawing blood might not have remained the "cure" of
choice for centuries.

Men should note that these "understandable mistakes" in
the development of science cost many, many lives.

They should also note that it was not castrating
feminists, but castrating male "medical authorities"
who have the biggest "ball score".

Feminists should remember (and drive the point home to
others) that men as will as women are victims of sexual
war.

--1.2-- ::CASTRATION IN WARFARE::

I have talked to Vietnamese who told me that during
their 1,000 year war with China (spanning roughly the
first millenium), that the Chinese took the women and
castrated the men. I even seen several similar
accounts in other sections of the world.

If one looks at early warfare genocide is common. The
bible has several places where God commands the Hebrews
to capture cities and kill everyone except virgin
women. The Romans destroyed the city state (nation and
people) of Carthage. Genghis Khan routinely gave
cities the options of surrendering or being put to the
sword. I suspect if we had a more detailed record of
history we would uncover hundreds, perhaps thousands of
cases of mass castration when the males of an army or
city were spared and sold into slavery.

Castration has been a part of aggression in many
cultures. Some sacrificial victims of the Aztecs
(drawn from conquered tribes) were castrated. The act
was part of being "drawn and quartered" in England. In
the terrorism of the black in the south and the pograms
against Jews in mideastern Europe, castrating the
males and then forcing them to watch the rape of the
females was almost routine.

Castration occured in the ethnic strife that
accompanied the division of India and Pakistan. Latin
American death squads often include it as part of the
slow death they prescribe for victims. Both the Viet
Cong and the South Vietnamese police were accused of
doing it. Somali warriors once routinely performed it
on their traditional enemies the Ethiopians. The list
goes on and on.

It is known that uncontrolled war typically leads to
the rape of women and often of men. While less common
than rape, castration is not an infrequent result of
fierce violence. It is the "fate worse than death" for
men and it is practiced when intense rage is
uncontrolled.

--1.3-- ::CASTRATION IN SOCIAL STRUCTURES::

--1.3.1-- ::PRIMAL BIRTH ?::

In early explorations to some south sea islands, many
sailors were unpleasantly surprised (and perhaps a few
pleasantly surprised) to find that the "women", they
were sleeping with were males with atrophied testicles
and their penises tied between their legs. It seems
that at a young age certain boys were moved to the
womens lodge where a process of "feminization" occured.

In some respects oceania societies are unique. The
limited space forced birth control which consisted of
killing most infant females. Boys were used to replace
them and provide sexual relief for the majority of
unmarried young men. However I have heard claims of
similar behaviors occuring in other societies usually
someplace in the far past.

One claim is that in some cultures, young males who
failed to pass their initiation into manhood were
castrated and moved into the womans quarters. I have
not heard of this behavior being proven by observation
of actual cultures. However many cultures do have ways
of allowing men to "act out" womenhood and even to live
the role on a daily basis.

--1.3.2-- ::OTHER POSSIBLE ORIGINS::

--1.3.2.1-- ::EXTREME PATRIARCHIAL::
There is also the mythology of Freud in which the old
master claimed that a few males dominated the sexual
favors of the females and literally castrated the rival
males. He hypothesized a great rebellion which led to
civilization and a sort of tribal memory (and fear of
castration) which is inbuilt into young boys.

It is now generally agreed that Freud was more of a
poet than a historian. We know of no society that ever
operated on that extreme a pattern. But biology does.

In certain primates, young sexually mature males are
allowed to live with the "harems" of the "alpha males".
To gain the right, they mentally castrate themselves.
They do not exhibit sexual excitement when living among
females in heat.

--1.3.2.2-- ::EXTREME MATRIARCHIAL::

One reoccuring theme is that castration was a tool of
female dominance. For example when the hero of Homers
Odessey approaches Circe he is warned that she will try
to take his "cods" and make him her slave. In some
"primitive" cultures males fear menstrual blood for
(among other reasons) its power to enslave the male.
One can vaguely imagine a man forced to consume the
menstrual blood of a large group of females being
"altered" by the estrogen within.

The idea of a female dominated society someplace in the
past or in some island off the coast (still believed by
some Koreans) is common around the world. But whether
it actually ever occured is uncertain. The only true
matriarchy I have ever heard of was on the island of
Sumatra and this did not seem to involve the oppression
of men, but rather a leadership role for women within
fairly traditional economic roles. Except for the sex
of the ruling "elders" it is similar to surrounding
cultures.

However if a marriarchy did exist, one must accept the
possibitily that it employed harsh and cruel methods.

--1.3.2.3-- ::SEXUAL REVOLUTION::

It is possible (as some feminists claim) that
castration was at first a ploy by men to take over
roles reserved for women.

In the early days of human society it is likely that
female "gatherers" were a far more important source of
food than male "hunters". The fact that caring for
children made them likely to have been pioneers in the
sedentary tasks of craft, the things which made
civilization possible. Although we do not know of any
matriarchy we know of many cultures that used a
"matrilineal" line of descent and inheritance. The
best known of these is the Hebrews. It was only
recently that westernized Jews started to take their
fathers family name rather than the mothers.

In "primitive" societies, there are often womens
lodges and other sources of real power. In medieval
Europe, many tasks and tools were reserved for women.
What we call civilization and progress has been in
part, a movement by men (with reorganization) of
domains that once belonged to women. It can be argued
that castrated males moved into female roles such as
priestess and set the stage for male domination.

Another possibility is that castrated males served as
the first working model for the objectification of
women.

Numerous other possibilities exist. Although we are
sure that ancient Babylon and other cultures mutilated
males we are not sure of the full nature of these
peoples roles within the culture. The issue is muddled
by lack of written records. All that is left is
folklore and speculation.

--1.3.3-- ::ONE POSSIBLE REASON::

What is clear is that many societies have castrated
their own. It is not something which is used just to
destroy and humiliate the "others", but a tool for
regulating society.

One possible reason for the use of castration is the
relative value of the sexes.

--1.3.3.1-- ::VALUE OF WOMEN::
Feminists make a valid point in showing that women have
often been treated as chattel and livestock, but they
miss an important point. As a thing a woman has value.
There is usually a place (however miserable) for her.
There is often a shortage because some men want many
wives, wealthy women want domestic helpers and a large
number of women die in childbirth. Historically every
woman has been at the least a valued commodity.

--1.3.3.2-- ::VALUE OF MEN::
There is a less clearcut role for "surplus males".
They are in fact a threat. They are expendable. Even
today the number of homeless males far exceeds the
number of homeless females. During the late 19th
century, there were millions of men "on the road" or
"riding the rails". Vagrancy laws were used to arrest
these individuals after which they were often put to
work building roads or in some other form of defacto
slave labor. Conditions were often cruel. It is said
that the earthworks of New Orleans contain the bodies
of thousands of men who collpsed while building them.
Of course nobody bothered to keep an accurate count.
Males are often cast off, while somebody can find a
use for most females.

By neutering males one can dispose of a potentially
dangerous force and turn them into a sort of property,
a third sex which is often the lowest. They are no
longer rivals. Like war, castration may be a way of
reducing excess male population. In a cruelly logical
way it may be more moral. At least the victims keep
their lives. Furthermore war has a nasty habit of
killing off loads of women and children as well as the
unneeded men.

--1.3.4-- ::RECORDED HISTORY::

--1.3.4.1-- ::THE WEST::
In the early stages of the Roman empire, castration was
mostly confined to the middle east which was an area
with a limited number of fertile valleys which had been
heavy populated for several millenium. In the latter
stages of the empire it became popular within Rome
itself. Some considered it one of the symptons of
decadence. This era was accompanied by a large and
increasingly disruptive male population. With the fall
of Rome, castration declined in Europe, though its
numbers might not be as low as we usually assume.

--1.3.4.2-- ::THE EAST::

The known historical height of castration was in
Byzantine, the Eastern half of the Roman empire.
It was common for a family to castrate at least one of
their sons so that he could serve in the bureaucracy.

The Byzantine Empire was in many respects an
aberration. But the role of eunuchs in ruling is not
unique. While castration long ago ceased to be common
in China, the royal family mantained "shaved" males
until its fall.

Eunuchs have served not only to serve and guard females
and/or as objects of homosexual lust, but as advisors
and defacto rulers. This has occured through most of
Asia, much of Africa and a part of Europe. It should
be noted that until roughly the 15th century these
areas included the most "advanced" cultures in the
world. Much of what we call western civilization was
built upon their discoveries.

--1.3.4.3-- ::BUREAUCRATIC ROLE OF THE CASTRATI::

The castrated male is (at least in theory) an
individual separated from family/clan (whose ties were
very strong until recently) and passions. His loyalty
will supposedly be to those he works for. He has
served as a counter to nobility and other established
interest groups. It may be that the eunuch pioneered
techniques and concepts which we now take for granted.
It may be that "uniques" were the only individuals able
to create a true "bureaucracy".

Castration was used to "alienate" individuals so that
they can be put into a slot like a machine part.

--1.4-- ::CASTRATION AND RELIGION::

Castration is not always an act forced on an unwilling
male. In many cases it has been voluntary. One reason
has been materialistic. Individuals have desexed
themselves to get the room, board and possible
influence that was given the role. Another reason has
been religious or philosophical impulse. There have
been two general trends.

--1.4.1-- ::FEMINIZATION:: The oldest of these has been
to unite with the female principle or goddess. Such
acts date back to prehistory and continued thorough the
first few centuries AD. In the Rome, followers of Isis
used to cut off their genitals and cast them into a
household which was then supposed to provide them with
female clothing.

There are many cases of eunuch priesthoods serving some
goddess and it is possible that mutilated men were
allowed to become temple priestesses by the aid of a
simple operation. Some shamans in "primitive" cultures
will assume a female role and it may be in some cases
they do a few things to make the role a little more
realistic.

--1.4.2 -- ::REJECTION OF FLESH:: A second reason that
men have emasculated themselves has been to free
themselves from carnal impulses. Sometimes this has
been primary a philosophical pursuit of rationality,
but it has often been associated with the Christian
religion. This was one of the reasons for mass
castration in the Byzantine empire and it continued up
to fairly recent time. In "The Idiot" Dosteovsky
mentions of caste of eunuchs and there are rumors that
the last czar of Russia may have actually joined such a
cult.

--1.4.3-- ::A COMMON THEME:: What both of these types
of case have in common is that a significant number of
men have felt the need to reject their male sexuality
and that this need has been so primal that they have
felt it to be religious, a way of getting closer to the
very essence of the spirit and universe.

--2-- ::MODERN REALITIES::

--2.1-- ::CASTRATION TODAY::

While some secret police and an occasional angry wife
engage in the act of castration, we tend to regard it
as a relic of more barbaric times. However the issue
is physically alive in at least two ways. These are:

<<CASTRATION AS PUNISHMENT>>

and <<CASTRATION AS PERCIEVED SELF LIBERATION>>.

--2.1.1-- ::CASTRATION AS PUNISHMENT::

During the recent Bobbitt incident many people (of both
sexes) expressed the belief that castration was a good
punishment for rape, though most of these felt it
should be done by a doctor. Given the current "get
tough on crime" attitude it is even possible that this
could become social policy. A few years ago a Texas
judge offered a convicted rapist the choice between
prison or an operation. The prisioner could not find
a willing doctor and the judge latter changed his mind.
However the impulse remains.

--2.1.1.1-- ::DANGERS:: Superficially this makes sense.
Reduction of male hormones can reduce sexual drives and
aggressive tendencies. However the reality is not so
clear. If one looks at the history books harem
eunuchs had a repuation of being spiteful and nasty.
An individual deprived of "what makes him a man" could
demonstrate a cruelity far beyond typical criminality.
It should be remembered that one of the things that may
have made Hitler was a missing testicle.

--2.1.1.2-- ::MORALITY:: There is also the problem of
decency. If we were to discover that (as some claim)
that a good rape makes a woman more docile and
cooperative would this justify its use on violent
female criminals ? A forced or coerced castration is a
severe violation of the person and something that (I do
not think) we can not justify under our present
standards of civilization.

--2.1.2--::CASTRATION AS PERCIEVED SELF LIBERATION::

The second way in which castration remains an issue is
as a matter of personal choice. Although we do not
call it castration, this is one of the things that a
male to female sex change operation involves. While I
favor an individuals right to control their sexuality,
I think there are a number of serious questions about
this practice.

--2.1.2.1-- ::PROBLEMS WITH STATUS QUO TRANSEXUALITY::

--2.1.2.1.1-- ::IRREVERSIBILITY:: Once the act is done
there is no way to return the male to return to what he
was. There are reports that many people who undergo
this process find that it does not bring them the
happiness that they expected.

--2.1.2.1.2-- ::LIMITED ACCESS:: The high cost and
the irreversibility of this operation limit the number
of individuals who can chose it. In addition they are
forced to go through a severe pychological screening
which includes many predetermined notions about what
behavior and attitudes they should exhibit. Only a
small fraction of the males who want to physically
shift their sexuality will have the opportunity.

--2.1.2.1.3-- ::STEREOTYPE MANTAINING::. The current
idea of sex change decides that a "man" should become a
"woman". He is given big breasts (which can not give
milk, but which may develop cancer) and he is supposed
to take on certain behaviors. In point of fact the
male lacks many formative features of most real women.
His childhood is different. He does not have menstrual
periods. And many of the transexuals I have seen can
not "pass". This does not mean that there are not many
elements of the feminine within his/her personality,
but there are other things as well. It seems to me
that if we are going to be carrying out this type of
experiment we should be searching for new possibilities
of sexual being. If we are going to play with nature,
we should not be bound by what went before.

--2.1.2.2-- ::A SOCIAL TREND::

I live in the S.F. area. Distributed through the
personal adds are all kinds of pleas from "male
lesbians", "goddess worshippers". "transexuals" and
others seeking some new form of relationship with
females. Many of them at least partially reject their
male sex. It seems to me that these individuals are
pursuing a wide variety or urges and needs. I sense a
great deal of pain and lonliness. I suspect in the
next decade the number of such indivduals will double
and perhaps double again. Some potential forces are
are:

--2.1.2.2.1-- ::FORCE1:: Ed Ricketts belief that
population and social stress may biologically trigger
nonreproductive sexual urges (eg. homosexuality, what I
am describing) in people.

--2.1.2.2.2-- ::FORCE2:: Greater openness which allows
people to actually express and carry out things that
would have remained hidden in more repressive times.

--2.1.2.2.3-- ::FORCE3:: A larger number of female
headed families which many pychologists and
sociologists claim are more likely to produce males
less comfortable with traditional roles.

--2.1.2.2.4-- ::THE CONTINUING TREND:: The result of
all this may be hundreds of thousands and possibly
millions of men who want to find some other form of
sexual being. Each of these individuals will be an
evolution of unique personal steps and decisions. It
will involve varying degrees of rebellion within
themselves. Some will reject all that is "masculine".
Others will be comfortable with the masculine, but
simply want to take a year or two on the other side.

One hopes that the majority of these people will be
able to fill their desires without changing their
bodies. However there are at least two reasons why
some may want to chose some sort of physical
transformation. One of these is as a tool of
experiment. The other is as a means of social
acceptance.

--2.1.2.3-- ::RATIONAL REASONS FOR SELF CASTRATION::

--2.1.2.3.1-- ::ONE:: Hormones are a mind altering
drug. They influence the personality. By reducing
ones natural hormones one makes a mental mechanism
(brain chemical environment) which is more like that of
the other sex. A few chemical triggers are lacking
and/or a few new triggers have been added. From this
it becomes possible to extend the queries on mind
altering drugs started by William James into an
entirely new domain.

It may be possible to "trouble shoot" the system to see
"where" various parts of the human mind exist. For
example somebody might postulate that the actions and
feeling of all "sexual instincts" (eg. "maternal"). It
is possible that these rather complex behaviors are
stored in the brain of both males and females. However
these instincts do not become a part of us unless
certain triggers set them off.

--2.1.2.3.2-- ::TWO:: Males who wish to be a "natural"
part of female groupings often find that heterosexual
desires and potentially erect penises often alter the
social environment. By making themselves "safer",
they may be able to fulfill roles which are not
possible otherwise. In theory some of these roles
could be invaluable. For example a rape victim may be
able to talk with a castrated male where she would not
deal with a "normal" one. The male might be able to
give certain insights and also "validation" which many
women seem to believe only if it is given by a male.

--2.1.2.4-- ::CASTRATION IN A HUMANE SOCIETY::

--2.1.2.4.1-- ::PROBABLY ALLOWABLE:: The prescription
of female hormones (primarily estrogen) will reduce
male sexual features and provide some female stimulus.
This process is largely reversible by discontinuing the
drug. Females can be given access to male hormones
(primarily testosterone).

--2.1.2.4.2-- ::POSSIBLY ALLOWABLE:: Removal of
testicles. This procedure is not reversible (and
therefore may not be advisible), but it can be
compensated for by a prescription of male hormones.
From a functional point of view the only absolute
result is 100% effective birth control. One can pump
more "manhood" into an individual than that individual
could ever naturally produce. It is also possible to
fill empty sacs with falsies that would look big on
Barney the dinasaur.

Testicle removal should not be implemented until the
possibilities of hormonal adjustment are fully
explored. I suspect it possible to adjust chemicals to
create a "pure neuter". As for those who wish to play
with sex shifting, their testicles can be symbolically
redefined as "external ovaries".

--2.1.2.4.3-- ::VERY QUESTIONABLE:: I think we should
seriously question any operation which would remove or
serious alter the penis. I find these equivalent to
the removal of the clitoris. This action removes a key
sensory area. It may be that we accept or shortening
or a change in the penis shaft.

However, reduction in size can be caused by changing
the hormone balance. Movement can be accomplished with
the use of silk scarves or a number of other harness
schemes combined with simple piercing . Aspiring
females can use this to shift their "big clit" into a
number of positions. Many "real women" would find this
a nice feature.

--2.1.2.5-- ::THE FUTURE::

Our present system of sexual alteration was developed
nearly forty years ago by male doctors working with a
certain type of "incurable male homosexuals" popularly
known as "queens". We will cut off most of their
external sexual organs, drill a hole between their
legs and stuff their chest with silicon falsies. They
have become "women", therefore their urges are
"normal".

This may be an ideal solution for many individuals, but
not for certainly not for all. If they look closely
into themselves, many men who consider themselves women
will find that they consider themselves to many other
types of sexual and nonsexual beings. They are not
"really women", they are not "really men". They are
both and many other things besides.

--2.1.2.5.1-- ::QUESTIONS ON THE MALE IMPULSE::

In reading certain adds and pieces of pornography, I
get the impression that some men think "feminization"
involves lounging in frilly panties and getting lots of
super sex. The real life of a woman is more likely to
be work, taking care of the kids, cleaning the house
and a twenty minute "screw" twice a week whether she
feels like it or not. The thing about "slaves" (sexual
or not) is that by defintion their actions are not
appreciated or valued.

I do not think that men are "sick" in pursuing these
images, but their "emerging sexualities" are poorly
formed and they are are often getting symbols confused
with realities. The sexual roles they are seeking will
be as complex as those of real world people, but like
many people they may not go beyond a few stock images.
This is far more understandable that of a forty year
old man still caught in "tough guy" notions, because
unlike him they usually have few real world models or
experiences to work with. None the less it is a
problem.

--2.1.2.5.2-- ::A WOMANLY RESPONSE::

Even women who enjoy and need male erections need to
recognize that an "impotent man" is less of a social
problem than a male who misuses his sexual capacity.
Unfortunatly, many women have accepted the "male
standards" of "sexual dysfunction". They believe that
a "real man" should want and be able to do certain
things. If not, they reject and sometimes mock him.
Many women do not hold these values, but their silence
convinces the male "pervert" that there is no place for
him.

--2.1.2.5.2.1-- ::A WAY OF VIEWING THESE MEN::

Men in conflict their sexuality are pioneers on a
dangerous and lonely road. They can get twisted and
wierd, but in a very fundamental sense they are doing
something that many women desire. They are trying to
redefine the nature of their manhood. Many men probaly
desire this as well, though their urges are not nearly
as strong as those few who are seeking out extremes.

It seems to me that women should develop some erotic
and social appreciation of these individuals. This
does not mean that want to have sex with them just like
enjoyment of the "hunk" down the street does not mean
they would hop into his bed. But they need to provide
cues and positive charges to men who dare experiment
with non traditional ways.

It is my impression that extreme fantasies are often
driven by "healthier" impulses which become extreme
because they have no outlet for real world expression.

Part of the problem may be the hesitation of many women
to openly take on roles and symbols of leadership and
power. Various pressures and customs (external and
internal) drive even succesful women to avoid behaviors
that might seem "unfeminine". This helps trap men who
desire selves that are "unmasculine".

--2.2-- ::ATTITUDES TOWARDS CASTRATION::

The recent Bobbitt incident aroused immense and
sustained discussion. Some "rational" people tried
to point out that this was simply one case of domestic
violence, but to little avail. The issue simmered and
sputtered, quite often as comedy.

--2.2.1-- ::MALE REACTION::

In reading "serious" articles, it seemed that the
accepted "truth" was drawn from the opinion of the
second surgeon in the case. It was his experience
that women found the issue intriguing and that men
found it awful.

In looking at "popular culture" I saw a very different
reality. Many men told cruel and awful jokes. For
example Herb Caen the patriarch of San Francisco,
voiced the opionion that Ms. Bobbitt would probaly be
convicted for .... LITTERING.

This type of reaction was not universal among males,
for example one of Mr. Caens friends took Mr. Bobbitt
to a sushi bar to help him cheer up. But it was
common and may have represented the attitude of the
majority of males.

--2.2.1.1-- ::POSSIBLE REASONS FOR MALE LAUGHTER::

--2.2.1.1.1--::SEXUAL POLITICS:: Historically, it
seems that males have been the main force in castrating
other males. There are advantages to eliminating
competitors and in the "real world" there are winners
and losers.

It is unlikely that many men felt these harsh emotions
(at least consciously). However there was a common
sense that Mr. Bobbitt was a jerky guy and quite
possibly a truly abusive husband. This type of
individual makes life more difficult for other men so
there may have been resentment.

This does not mean that men advocated castration, but
they may have felt that unlike a child run over in a
crosswalk by a drunk driver, Mr. Bobbitt had plenty of
warning signs. He was simply too busy watching
television. Many men may have had little sympathy.

--2.2.1.1.2-- ::INSECURITY:: Most people are a little
uncertain about their lives. There is often a perverse
pleasure in looking at the misfortunes of others. We
may laugh and sneer at the ridiculous quarrels of
others.

There is also some tendency to laugh at the
unspeakable, things which shock and strike at the
deeper menbranes of being. When Ms. Bobbitt did the
"chop heard round the world", she struck into the pyche
of men.

--2.2.1.2-- ::FEAR, LOATHING AND RAGE::

For most people, a lot of self identity is tied into
sexual organs. With men, this is often the penis.
So extreme is this self and socially imposed being,
that it is not uncommon for an impotent male to avoid
social and sensual contact with women. The belief is
that without this one attribute, the man "has nothing
to give", that he is "not a man".

Although the analogy is imperfect, the statement that
"castration is to men as rape is to women" has some
validity. Castration is a cruel and violent act which
violates and can destroy the identity of its victims.

Therefore it is to expected that many men will react to
a female castrater in the same way that many women will
react to a male rapist. It will be "emotional",
"hysterical" and "unreasonable". This expected
behavior was exhibited.

--2.2.1.2.1-- ::THE BOGEYWOMAN OF FEMINISM::

My admittedly incomplete survey of the Bobbit debate,
indicates that for many people, this incident of
(possibly dual) spouse abuse was associated with
"feminism".

Superficially this view is certainly false. In the
United States and Canada, there have probaly been less
than a dozen incidents of this nature in the last
generation. In Thailand (with less than a quarter of
the North American population), there have been
hundreds.

Thailand is not a "feminist country". Similarly there
was strong nationalist support for Ms. Bobbitt in her
homeland. This culminated in many men firing off
their weapons in celebration of the verdict. Yet some
Americans attributed this to a supposedly strong
"feminist" movement. A more likely explanation was
"home girl gets Yankee imperialist".

In contries with strong feminist forces, there is a
tendency to resolve sexual conflicts through peaceful
and political means. Since "feminist" is at least as
vague as "historian", there are certainly some self
declared "feminists" who fit mens worse dreams, just
as their are "historians" who serve as apologists for
Hitler.

Feminism is often a lightning rod for ancient (perhaps
guilt tinted) male fears of dark goddesses and vengeful
women along with some features unique to our culture.

--2.2.1.2.2 ::SOME TENDENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES::

This is not a condemnation of the United States. In
many issues, the country is clearly near the forefront
in equality of sexes (which may not say a whole lot for
the state of humanity). However there are several
somewhat unique tendencies which color our reactions.

--2.2.1.2.2.1-- ::HOW WE TURNED FREUD UPSIDE DOWN::

Freud was very clear on the formative behaviors of a
young male child. The kid was trying to make mom and
was naturally terrified that dad would cut it off.

I do not intend to defend Freud, but it is interesting
to note what the American medical establishment (whom
Freud hated, but could do nothing about since he was a
dying refugee) did in Freuds name.

First of all they lived up to the prude-ian impulses of
American culture and put child sexual impulses on the
back burner. Next they decided that while it was right
and proper that young boys be afraid of having it cut
off, they should not blame dear old dad. It was moms
fault.

Back in the fifties, before feminism reemerged as a
force in American life, the "castrating mother" and
"dominant female" who was destroying our children and
emasculating our husbands was a staple of the American
intellectual diet. In the last generation, these
fears have been focused specifically on feminism. On
the right wing the complaint is that they are
"destroying the family".

--2.2.1.2.2.2-- ::ATOMIZATION OF SELF::

The trend of modern industrial society seems to have
been to supplant things like "community" and "extended
family". The result often leaves an emptiness which is
noted from the Christian right to the far left.

While many people may not suffer from this
"alienation", there is no doubt that many do. They
replace it with things availible in mass culture.

One of these is "sexual freedom". For many males (and
not a few few females) who adapt an "anti
authoritarian" attitude, the ability to be good in bed
is a very, very important part of identity. Quite
simply if you take this (or the illusion of it) away,
you are attacking the "self" in a very big way.

Feminization has been regarded as a big trouble maker
(because along with many conservatives), many feminists
have questioned the attitudes which underly the "sexual
revolution" of the sixties. They have also pointed out
darker aspects of sex such as rape. From the utopian
"Playboy paradigm" this attitude is regarded as
castrating. Since some rather vocal feminists share
the national tendency towards "prude-ian-ism", they
find plenty of examples. The Bobbitt case seems to
justify their worse fears.

--2.2.2-- ::THE FEMALE REACTION::