Talk:Emasculation

warriors/humiliation???

I moved this from the article to here. There is no context, and no references, nothing. It is meaningless as it stands.--24.85.68.231 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Historically, it has been reported that armies emasculated enemy warriors to humiliate them, to seize their power and to make it impossible for them to reproduce. Often foreskins, penises, scrotums or all were collected to count the dead after battles.

The reference is to the First Book of Samuel, where, to earn the hand of his daughter and become next in line for the throne, Saul assigns David the task of bringing him the foreskins of 100 Pharisees. Saul did not think they would be handed over on request, but he did not foresee that David would avail himself of his own private army to complete the task. Said foreskins were collected and duly counted out in front of the astonished Saul. Dave of Maryland (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably at least as much a way of ensuring that the people you are claiming to have killed are actually dead ... no way anyone's going to let you cut their junk off otherwise (and even if they do, they're not going to be alive much longer). 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Castration?

The Castration article is much better developed. Anniepoo (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Emasculation be split and merged into Masculinity and Castration. I think that the content in this article can easily be explained in the context of both the articles on Masculinity and Castration because it would likely remove ambiguity and supply the sources that Emasculation is lacking. Houdinipeter (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I second this merger. The definition being attempted here is for the word Demasculation - to take away the masculinity from (sex) and Emasculation deals more with gender and power and "procreative power" (like "fixing" a male animal, there is no loss of penis) Emasculation can be entirely mental. Demasculation is [usually] on a physical level. Maybe this is all Newspeak I have learned. Let's stick with castration and masculinity pages, and add all the fluff there including Emasculate, Demasculate, Unmasculate (obsolete), Unmasculine. In Judges 9:54 is a great example of Emasculation without castration. Abimelech fears that they will say a woman killed him (because it's true) and calls for his armor bearer to kill him quickly. I second the merger because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and even if it was, it would be an incorrect entry/usage of "emasculate" Wcichello (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Referencing

I think it would be more effective to change the referencing style to a Notes / References type arrangement, because at the moment there’s a bit of a jumble of shortened citations and full citations.

What do you guys think?

I’m not too sure how to go about adding a notes section though. Lorenchakerian (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issues in Hijra section?

Parts of the subheading on Hijra imply belief in certain religious/traditional beliefs (I am not very familiar, but the text does seem to be written that way). If no one objects I will reword some sentences. I5-X600K (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m very new to Wiki writing so I may be misunderstanding, but the emasculation process for many Hijra is inherently religious, at it confers upon them significant ritual/spiritual benefits. I definitely don’t object to the wording being changed if it’s not a NPOV, but just wanted to explain what I was trying to communicate :) Pineappleexpressbear (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Photos

I'm uncomfortable with having pictures without names. These people probably did not give consent to the pictures being used in such a way, or rather would not have given consent. 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:A835:70C1:5804:EBEC (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You've no way of knowing that, at this remove. Ravenswing 18:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)