4

[Dept of PMM Castle Life]

Sissy maids, human furniture, ponygirls and boys, and such like, although they are not literally preparing for intercourse, I would regard as being "sexual situations." There is no reason for human beings to submit to such other than that it titillates them, or to please someone whom such titillates. Thus, even though these are extreme examples of submission, they are submission, not slavery, because for the most part they are being done for the submissive's gratification and at their whim. In that sense, almost all submissives could be said to be "topping from the bottom," in that fundamentally itâs about what they want, not what the dominant wants. Iâm not denigrating this: a fair exchange between parties with mutually compatible wants is a joyous thing, and not to be dismissed out of hand. But it is simply not the same thing as slavery. Although, on the other side, in a modern society since slavery is unenforceable unless youâre a father who canât make his child support/alimony payments, even slaves do get that one choice, whether or not to be slaves. But all the rest is gone.
The following is a long quote from a message posted on the Gorean Public Boards by Marcus_of_Ar in response to a message posted by neema{Thar}. It is an eloquent reply to an eloquent post and I am pleased to share it with you. (Bold Italics indicate the actual quote.)
You have defined, in a few simple words, the difference between what might be called BDSM submission and the totality of Gorean slavery.
You said, and I quote:
"It is choosing to give up your choice...surrendering instead of submission."
"Surrender, rather than submission." Four simple words which I have sought for the last three years, but which have eluded me. Finally, a way to explain the mindset of the Gorean slave in a way which can be easily understood and which makes total sense.
The submissive submits. The kajira surrenders.
Let us look at those two words, according to Webster:
submit: To yield, as something, in surrender, compliance, or obedience; to refer or present for the decision or approval of another or others.
surrender: to yield to the power of another or relinquish possession of; to abandon; to give or deliver up upon compulsion or demand; to give up or yield to another's supremacy or power.
She who submits merely yields something, during the time she is compelled to yield it. She merely complies. She refers or presents herself for the decision or approval of others. But she does not abandon her control... she does not surrender her power; she simply submits herself, and her actions, for approval.
She who surrenders yields completely to the supremacy of the Master's power over her. She gives or delivers upon compulsion or command. She abandons herself totally to the control of another. She relinquishes all right to resist.
With my slaves, I do think of them as submissive all the time. They are submissive all the time. This does not lessen their worth, but in fact raises it. I think much more highly of them than I do of most people. They know what they want, they don't try to lie about it to themselves, and they do it well.
Slaves are slaves because that is what they are. Whatever the arrangement between master and slave, slaves are slaves all the time. They are never "equal" to the master. (No two human beings are "equal" at anything, but that's another argument.) In some things, my slave is superior to me: she has a lovely singing voice, she's a wonderful cook, and she's much, much better at "Snood" than I am. ("Snood" is a video game like a combination of Space Invaders and Tetris.) We are both just human beings. But she accepts, to the bottom of her toes, that she wishes to submit herself to me.
Her opinion is important to me: she's very intelligent, well educated, and has a different approach to problems than I do. Only a fool wastes talent, and I don't waste time with stupid slaves. But my word is her law, in the end. I don't think she's "less" than I am. There's no comparison, no way to MAKE a comparison, as to whose "worth" is the greater. But we are DIFFERENT. Fundamentally, profoundly different. In this case, the master is different from the slave. In the words of Imnak, "Only one can be first."
I'm sure many, many people try to be equals in relationships. I'm even willing to admit that there might be some people who make a go of it without killing each other. But I have never seen a happier, more compatible couple than we are - and the more she embraces her slavery, the happier she gets. The only ones I've seen that were close were - you guessed it - other master/slave relationships. I even mind me, and I know this is purely anecdotal, of one couple who decided to give UP a more pronounced D/s, if not M/s relationship in favor of being more vanilla. Now they have a nice house in the western suburbs, nice kids, and she told me the other day that they haven't had sex in a year. They just radiate unhappiness. It's painful to be around. But hey, they got what they wanted.
Don't fight your nature. If you are a slave, find a master who deserves you. Good slaves are hard to find. But don't try to compartmentalize yourself. It never works well, and ulcers are no fun, take it from me. (Before someone says, "If you're so wise, what's with your ulcer," in this case, it's a congentital genetic condtion. *smile*)
That was the end of the first exchange, and then she wrote back with some additonal comments.
From what I remember you were explaining that the key difference between a sub and a slave is that the slave remains slave all the time where as a sub is a sub on her/his own terms. I thought that the difference was that the slave would go further (would accept more from her master) than the sub, there was in my mind no limit in time.
A probably equally valid approach. However, I prefer the "on whose terms?" distinction because I know subs who, when in sub mode, will literally do ANYTHING they are told, and I know slaves who won't. Technically, a slave can't say no. However, I suspect that if, say, I told my slave to walk into a room with a hundred dirty yucky people and told her to give them all tongue baths, or something, I'd be looking for a new slave. This is Earth, after all, and it's not like you can just kill them for refusing. Likewise, the only true "pain sluts" (as in, "hurt me as hard as you want and I'll still like it") I have ever met were both subs, not slaves.
From what you said, I seem to be more sub than slave because I need to be treated as equal outside sexual situations ; however I have not found out yet how far I could go as a sub. I have not found my limits. I find it hard to talk about that to my partner because I don't believe he would like to go in this direction and I suspect than he could try being the sub himself.
You cannot cannot cannot make someone something they are not! I myself am a "mellow" master. I don't make her hop, skip and jump to my every whim, though if I told her to you better believe she would. I've tried being more militant. Not for me. If he has it in him to be a dominant, that's one thing. If he doesn't, you can't put it in there. Likewise, if you are a slave, you are. If you're not, you're not. (Won't get into "all women are slaves, all men are masters" argument, worthy as it is.) If you're a switch, be happy with it. Lots of people are looking for whatever you are. Don't try to make yourself something you're not.
Gor and Tradtional BDSM
This is some material which originally was exchanged on the ChicagoGor mailing list.
Like the rest of the site, this is a work in progress and will change over time. Here's how to figure out the development:
Words in italics are the words of the original poster.
Words in bold are my original responses.
Words in plain text are expansions on the original text.
Greetings to all, most respectfully.
----Quick question--
finch will try to keep away from my rambling as per Master Pantheus' board, but am thinking of a specific new thing to write about: pain, and aversion, in the Gorean collar vs. 'ordinary' BDSM slavery. By this, finch means that she's noticed a clear difference in the use of pain as something to AVOID in the Gorean collar, versus pain-as-play in the BDSM relationship, which of course ascribes a new sensual meaning to pain. finch calls this an 'inversion' of the pain/pleasure principle, something that she feels is a hallmark of masochism and common to BDSM master-slave relationships.
finch believes it is useful to finch to learn pain as an aversive force, for she *believed* that this re-inversion, is more 'natural' and ultimately, more psychologically beneficial than masochistic activities. However, Master enjoys sometimes, seeing His girl squirm.. something that many Goreans may be able to admit to. [Right? Or?]
First, there's a question of a rather uncomfortable reductio ad absurdum, ie.:
The Gorean Master may do as He pleases with His slave.
However, if He chooses to 'play' with His slave with conventional BDSM activities, He is not Gorean.
However, the Gorean Master may do as He pleases with His slave.
?? So where does this Gorean aversion come from, that discourages more mundane pleasures such as these? for "Goreans do not play". What does that really *mean*? Does it mean, 'play at relationships and roles'? For certainly that is true.
Secondly, she begs to ask a more important psychological question to my sisters, who may be experiencing the same thing: are you comfortable of your understanding of the meaning of pain in new contexts? Is there a new meaning to pain to you that is uniquely 'Gorean', and so, how? What if you 'play' with pain - what does it mean to withstand it - does it please Him? What lessons does He think it teaches you? Need pain be didactic in order to be meaningful? This one has not yet met a Gorean masochist, who is proud of withstanding certain amounts of pain - for what is the meaning of that?
Slaves, Attraction, and Desire
This is some material which originally was exchanged on the Gorean Public Forum.
Like the rest of the site, this is a work in progress and will change over time. Here's how to figure out the development:
Words in italics are the words of the original poster, in this case one khiaa.
Words in bold are my original responses.
Words in plain text are expansions on the original text.
A girl has only been on Gor for two months, and she begs forgiveness if she seems to be ignorant on this matter.
Nevertheless, a girl is in doubt about how honest she should be on Gor. A girl usually knows what the Masters want to hear. A girl also knows that she does not always feel that way. So a girl chose to respond to a Master's question of whether or not a girl was attracted to Him with a no. A girl was punished for this, and she does not whine, as there does not have to be a reason for punishment. But a girl was also told that she answered wrongly. That a girl should have told that she was attracted to the Master, because she is slave.
Is it then expected of a girl always to say what the Masters wants to hear and not what she feels? A girl suspects this depends on the individual Master, but is curious what others do and think.
one wishes you well,
khiia
Now there is an interesting question. In the books, it's quite clear, what a slave thinks of a man is of little relevance: she had better do her best to be pleasing regardless. Doreen has this conversation with her owner in "Dancer" and it occurs a few other times, I think. Be he fat, dirty, gross, uncouth, brutal, or even *shudder* a poor typist, she had better give every indication that he is rocking her world.
Slave girls in the books also seem to have little trouble accomplishing this. Why? Because these are *Gorean Men* they are dealing with. Not only will they not tolerate less, but the physical is much less important. The whole premise of the books in this regard is that women want to be mastered, Gorean men for the most part *are* masters, so by definition most Gorean men are the type that slave girls will be attracted to. Sort as if a playful deity had suddenly started making all those Cosmo polls come true, and all the women who claimed to want "intelligence and a sense of humor" over looks actually STARTED wanting that. Fabio would suddenly be dateless and Drew Carey would have to beat women off with a stick.
There's a wrinkle here, though. Slave girls are attracted to MASTERS. Most Earth men are not masters. Most men on the Internet are not masters, even the ones who play in Gor channels and chatrooms. Therefore, slaves are simply not attracted to them. Recall Lana's disgust with Jason Marshall at the beginning of "Fighting Slave." He was a large, intelligent, and handsome man. She found him utterly repugnant, slave that she was, and she wasn't shy about saying so. So we see that while slaves are required to be pleasing, and are much less discriminating in many ways than Earth women are, there is ONE area where they cannot HELP but be discriminating, and that is the one area where most men on Earth and on the 'net in particular fall short.
To answer your original question (thought I forgot, didn't you?) I'd say you were correct. On average, it probably goes a little easier on a slave girl if she's honest as opposed to flattering. I never punish slave girls for telling the truth, but I can be very vicious if I catch them lying. I think most masters would agree on this point, so even if you don't win every time, being truthful is the odds-on play. Besides the fact that slaves are *supposed* to be truthful - I'm appealing to both your self-interest and your moral standards, a win/win combination.
A girl humbly thanks you for your reply and insight, Master. This one is ignorant when concerning the ways of Gor and even more as to the books of Gor, as a girl has only been able to read little. A girl believes that she has learned more about "attraction" by your reply than in the short time she has been on Gor. It seems there is a lot more to Gor than a girl thought.
This one also thank you for your advice, Master, to be honest and will follow that together with her sis tessa's to be pleasing at the same time.
A girl is wondering now again, due to her little knowledge of Gor, about your words regarding a slave's attraction to the Masters of Gor.
A girl finds it difficult to understand that she should be attracted to all the Masters. She is indeed attracted to be Mastered - by any Free Man or Woman - and wants to do her outmost to please any Free Person while serving. However, this one can not change her feelings that she is more attracted to some Masters than others. Not physically, but more their personality or Mastering.
If a girl may ask, Master, should one then strive for seing all Masters as equal in her attraction as she does in her serve? A girl is not sure she can change her feelings. Does that mean she is not meant for Gor then?
To answer both your questions: Of course not.
What you are saying is that you have personal preferences. So do I. So does everybody. There's nothing wrong with those. If a big hunky Rarius does more for your little libido than a slightly overweight Scribe, that's perfectly understandable.
What is important is trying to be equally PLEASING to men... not holding back any of your talents or attractions because the man in question is not your ideal of masculine beauty. For instance, a tavern girl who held back from a fat greasy Merchant, say, in favor of a more attractive Rarius, would be whipped severely if I was running the tavern, as odds are that the Merchant has more money, and the purpose of a tavern girl (and, by extension, a tavern) is to extract money from the customers.
I have heard time and again from slave girls that as they spend more time *being* slaves, they respond more and more to dominant men (in both "cyberspace" and "meatspace.") In some ways they learn to get past the looks and instead look for what is really important to them, a master.
When you get right down to it, you can't make anybody do anything. You can make them very, very sorry they didn't or wouldn't, but that's about it. I do not insist that my slaves love me or find me the world's most ravishing man. That's not my problem or my concern. I do not define myself or structure my ego around what slaves think of me. What I *do* insist is that they strive to please me, and to be pleasing to other free persons, and if they don't, they are going to wish they had.
All I require of them in this regard is that they not compare masters to other masters out loud, as I find it disrespectful. They are certainly going to have opinions, and taking the time to remove even that is more than I want to do, not to mention what it would do to their spirits. I commend to you the same course of action.
The paradoxical nature of what is usually called "consensual slavery," "total power exchange," or any number of other less savory titles fascinates me. In real life, I am an extremely dominant person. I'm not pushy or demanding: I don't associate these traits with dominance, but rather with rudeness or insecurity. I am always polite as I can manage and I have a wonderful if rather strange sense of humor, in my opinion.
It should be noted that in the United States slavery is legally unenforceable under the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. It is similarly illegal in most Western countries and around the world, though it survives in some places and exists in many more under many unsavory names. The women I have enslaved *wanted* to be enslaved. They could walk out the door at any time and I would not lift a finger to stop them, under pain of very harsh criminal and civil penalties. Besides, why should I? Although many people don't want to hear it, there are lots of women (and men, though my tastes don't run that way) who would be overjoyed to similarly enslave themselves: extensive research on the 'net shows that potential slaves outnumber potential masters by many times. I like happy, joyous slaves, who delight in being pleasing. I have no time for rebellion, sullenness, or resentment. For me being a master is a refuge from the troubles of a very confusing world, and I have no desire to form whole new sets around a practice already deplored and villanized.
Intention, and Definitions
This agreement is a contract between (hereafter referred to as 'Master') and (hereafter referred to as 'slave'). It is intended to set out, in broad strokes, the terms and conditions under which Master and slave enter into a relationship that is purely and entirely consentual (sic), but outside the realm of what is considered considered 'normal' within society's normal boundaries. It is a living document, the agreement remaining in full force from the time of its inception until its termination (as outlined below). There is no duress understood, implied, or exerted upon either Master or slave, and both Master and slave have had the opportunity to look over this agreement and agree on any changes necessary. Thus, both parties are actively participating in the shape and form of this agreement, and by their signatures consent to govern their relationship within the boundaries outlined herein, with full understanding and acceptance of all implications expressed and implied.
Master does not intend to cause any harm, be it physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, or in any other conceivable realm, to slave, by means of this agreement. slave does not intend to cause any harm, be it physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, or in any other conceivable realm, to Master, by means of this agreement. This agreement is entered into in recognition of the deep connection which Master and slave share, and is intended to provide a concrete set of expectations and commitments between Master and slave. In recognition of real stresses in any relationship, the possibility of the relationship needing to be terminated is taken into account; thus, in the unfortunate possibility of a breakdown, this agreement also provides for a set of responsibilities for Master and slave that will allow for the relationship to be terminated with a minimum of rancor. Master and slave agree that where governed by law (money, property, tangible things, libel, slander, etc.), violations of the terms of this contract will be legally actionable. (A binding arbitration clause is included herein, to protect Master and slave both from costly and emotional court battles.)
2. Signature Validity
For purposes of this agreement, only an original signature by each of Master and slave shall be valid and binding for the contract and any addendums hereto. Specifically, powers of attorney are excluded from signing on behalf of either Master or slave. (This is for the possibility that slave may, at some point, assign Master power of attorney for any reason, slave wants to ensure that Master could not (if he wanted to, which is extremely unlikely in any case) agree to a modification on his behalf without consent.)
3. Agreement Term, Termination, Renewal
This contract shall be in effect from the later date of the signatures of Master and slave, and shall continue for a period of not more than six months following this date, for a "trial period". After a term of not less than five months (5/6 of the validity period), Master and slave will begin discussions as to whether to extend the trial period, to negotiate a permanent agreement, or to terminate the agreement (and thus, the relationship) without rancor. This 5-month limitation can be dropped at the agreement of both Master and slave, which agreement must be secured without duress.
If there is an extension to the trial period, it shall be noted in an addendum to this agreement, which Master and slave will both sign. If the agreement is terminated, it shall be noted in an addendum to this agreement, which Master and slave will both sign.
4. Intention of Form of Relationship
Master and slave, in recognition of the deep connection that they share, in recognition of Master's deep and abiding needs, and in recognition of slave's deep and abiding need to have an authority figure within his life, choose to enter into a full-time Dominant/submissive relationship as Master and his slave.
5. Rights and Responsibilities Common to Master and slave
Master and slave agree that within any relationship, each person has responsibilities to themselves and to each other. If one party has a responsibility to the other, the other party may consider it a "right" to expect that that responsibility shall be carried out.
a. Personal Responsibility for Actions, Reactions, and Emotional Reactions
Master and slave acknowledge that each brings into the relationship their past experiences, and their own values and personalities. Master and slave agree that personal responsibility is necessary and desirable within the relationship. Thus, Master and slave agree to be responsible for their own emotional reactions, to deal with their own issues without undue fuss, and if these issues cannot be resolved personally then to talk about these issues with each other -- but not assign blame for the issues or for causing the issues on each other. (Example: If Master says something that deeply hurts slave emotionally, and slave cannot resolve the internal issue alone, slave shall bring the matter up with Master and ask for assistance. Master shall not take responsibility for the emotional pain, but will take responsibility for saying what he said -- and will communicate with slave so that slave will feel supported in dealing with the emotional pain.)