We don't use the word "eunuch" much any more, so perhaps it's not surprising to see the word being thrown around on some "conservative" sites as if it were an insult.
It's discouraging, though, because the word is not an insult; it's just a little more personal than we usually like public discourse to be. Like "virgin" or "gay" or "stating your pronouns," it gives Too Much Information. It means a man who is sterile, whether due to heredity, illness, initiation into some ancient religious cults, desire to be promoted to certain jobs in ancient feudal systems, or love and public spirit.
There are scholars who believe the biblical prophet Daniel was a eunuch. There are also scholars who believe the book of Daniel is a novel written to transmit some sort of coded message beyond the obvious "trust God and stay Jewish" message, and the prophet Daniel's fantastic adventures indicate that he was a symbol rather than a real person, but let's not get into that today. What the Bible tells us is that Daniel was selected for service to the king, and there's no record of his having a wife or child. That does not necessarily mean he was a eunuch. He might have been. Courtiers who were sterilized were usually the men appointed to guard the kings' wives and children. (It was accepted that a woman who was one of 500 legal "royal wives" was likely to amuse herself with a eunuch, but at least she wouldn't give birth to a child who looked like him.) That was the sort of thing that went on in feudal societies. The Bible does not mention Daniel's duties having anything to do with women and children. He was more of a piece of exotica, a foreigner brought in to give the king a connection to every possible "god." But some ancient kings demanded that all their courtiers be eunuchs anyway.
Because sterilization was associated with well paid positions, the Bible writers use "eunuch" as almost an honorific. It implied someone talented, influential, and very dedicated to his job.
The first non-Jewish Christian noted in the Bible was an influential eunuch at the court of the Candace of Ethiopia. "Candace" was a title, like "Pharaoh," used by a dynasty of ruling queens. Naturally these ladies' courtiers were eunuchs.
There were even Jewish men who had themselves sterilized "for the kingdom of God's sake," according to Matthew 19:12. Judaism has generally been pro-parenthood, but these men may have wanted to avoid temptations to sexual sin, or having more children than they could afford to rear. Jesus spoke of these men with respect and good will.
The celiac gene guarantees problem pregnancies or no pregnancies at all, so though the word sounded odd and oldfashioned, it didn't bother me a bit when one of the three men with whom I've had long-term relationships said, "I'm a eunuch--you know, like the prophet Daniel." A woman who felt that only a baby who'd formed inside her own body could be her baby might have been put off. I'd always wanted to adopt children I'd fostered and found congenial, so I thought this man's sterility was a plus point. Actually all three of those men were sterile. The one who claimed the biblical word "eunuch" had made that choice for a Christian reason--to spare his first wife from further pregnancies that were becoming increasingly dangerous to her.
Men who fear that sterility will destroy the greatest pleasure the poor slobs know have spoken and written scornfully of eunuchs, but Jesus, who knew the joys of work and worship, felt no need to do so. (And here I stand to testify that sterility does not affect a man's ability to share carnal pleasure with a woman, if that woman doesn't want babies.) In fact most men become postsexual sooner or later in life, and women who don't have a medical need for estrogen treatments reach a state of peace in which we can still love postsexual men as friends, if they are our friends.
The late gentleman known to cyberspace as my Significant Other was youthful and energetic when we met, driving out to meet me almost every day. He had black hair, smooth skin, a symmetrical face, and strong wiry muscles. He loved heavy labor. I suspected my late father might have liked him. Then he became one of the first few people in our part of the world to get Lyme Disease, was not properly diagnosed and treated in time, and the relationship became more a matter of phone calls. But I'd reached the age of liberation from hormone cycles, and he was a friend, and decent people don't "ghost" away when their friends develop tedious diseases. The last few times I saw him he was gaunt, with white hair and the lopsided "dropped" face some people with Lyme Disease get. He walked with a limp and forgot things that had happened between flares of the chronic disease. He gradually lost skills and abilities, even the ability to drive. It didn't make much difference. He was still a friend who could teach me things by working in synergy, and I still love that quality, in men or women, and always will.
Most long-term relationships are about loyalty more than passion. I don't say these things to condemn passion, which is one of God's great gifts to humankind, in its place. What I don't like is the idea that passion should be allowed to control human lives. We are meant to be the masters of all our passions. When passion helps couples bond, or produce the babies they want, it's a very good thing. When it beckons us towards doomed relationships with unsuitable people, it should be ground under our feet. Passion literally means suffering and, for religious people, that can mean a few years of suffering through unwanted celibacy, on account of our passion for following God's directions, until we come to the proper time and place to enjoy the lesser passion for sex.
Not that sexual passion can't be literally mind-blowing--brain scans show that it can shut down activity in the rational, logical, verbal parts of some women's brains--but it is still a lesser passion, because it depends on that ever-changing balance of hormones rather than on reason. It's great while it lasts but it doesn't last long. The creative passion we feel for the work we're meant to do lasts all through life. The spiritual passion we feel for God, we are told, lasts through eternity.
In today's world that spiritual passion is probably the primary reason why men choose to be eunuchs. Chemical pollution is probably the primary reason why men become not only eunuchs but "transgender," and many of them are obviously miserable about that. Those men are victims who inspire pity. But a man who has chosen to be sterile to protect his wife's health or avoid raising children in poverty has done something righteous, of which he can properly feel proud. The man who told me he was a eunuch was obviously not ashamed. Why would he be? His sterility was a star in his heavenly crown. He had given his first wife two beautiful children before deciding that was enough. He knew he was still attractive, still free to choose to remarry or not, and still able to satisfy anyone he did marry.
So when I see certain Republican writers calling left-wingers "eunuchs," I know their purpose is to use a metaphor for "unable to think of better ideas than these due to a kind of sterility of mind," which may be accurate, but I'm not favorably impressed. I think those Rs may actually be as clueless as the Ds are continually calling them.
No comments:
Post a Comment