33

[Dept of PMM Castle Life]

Slaves come in all varieties on Gor, from slaves who were once Scribes or Physicians, and still perform those sorts of services, to labor chains, made up of enslaved men who do heavy work such as roadbuilding, to personal slaves. Most slaves on Gor are women, although most women on Gor are not slaves. Except for special cases like the city of Tharna, or where a city has just fallen in war, the normal ratio is one in forty or fifty women enslaved.
Slave females are expected to use all of their abilities to please their masters. Since one of the most pleasurable things a man and woman can do together is have sex, slaves are used often for sexual purposes. On Gor, a woman subjected to sexual use as a slave is not permitted to hold back or inhibit herself in any way. Surprisingly to the Terran, but not to the Gorean, the slave female finds that she cannot help but respond deeply and powerfully to the use of a master: her biological tendency to submission, when allowed to manifest itself, rewards her with extraordinary pleasure in sexual use and sexual drives far beyond what the free woman can experience. Gorean slave girls have been known to break their own bones on the bars of their cages trying to touch a man when they have been secured for a long time.
Given the above, there is a rich tradition of formal and informal slave training techniques. A Pleasure Slave, a slave whose primary purpose is to give pleasure to men, will have been taught advanced sexual technique, of course, but that is just the beginning. She will also have been taught to prepare and serve exquisite foods, to arrange flowers, the care and maintenance of the household, how to dress, how to walk, how to speak, and how to hold intelligent conversations with men. Most Pleasure Slaves can play one or more musical instruments and know several formal dances. In effect, they are like Japanese Geisha or ancient Greek hetarai. Their education is quite rigorous and at great expense to their owner/trainer. Girls who don’t learn well and quickly are punished; girls who do learn their lessons well may be rewarded (with candies or pastries, or trips to see various events, and so forth).
A discussion of the basics of the behavior of kajirae:
Dress
Kajirae are clad as their master decrees. Of course, the body must be protected from the elements: the kajirae of the Inuit wear heavy furs when outdoors just as free persons do. However, it is typical for a kajira to wear as close to nothing as she can reasonably wear so that her master may take pleasure in her beauty. Tower slaves, the slaves of women or slaves who are not typically expected to be physically appealing, still wear attractive clothes. (Tower slaves are similar to chatelaines, although she is by no means exempt from sexual usage.) And it is well known to Goreans that sometimes what a man cannot see is more interesting than what he can: if a style of dress which is more concealing makes a slave interesting or enticing, she may dress that way if the master permits.
In most cities, it is the law that a slave must wear some sort of token which she cannot remove. Typically this is a steel collar. In the North, the collar is usually a flat strap of iron around the neck, either hinged and locked, or hammered around the girl’s throat by a skilled Metal Worker. In the south, the round or Turian collar, consisting of a round rod bent into a circle and hinged and locked, is used. Bracelets and anklets of steel are also common. Belly chains may also be used, especially in the case of "lure girls" who can have no outward appearance of slavery.
Slaves on Gor are also typically branded. The most common brand is the Gorean letter "kef," which resembles a lower-case cursive "k." The brand is typically an inch to an inch and a half high, on the outer left thigh, although it might be almost anywhere and be almost anything. The brand is considered indelible proof of slavery and any woman who is branded, even if dressed in the Robes of Concealment, had best be prepared to prove that she is free or face immediate reduction to slavery and seizure by the State.
Even the strictest of lifestyle Goreans freely admit that the method of branding used in the Chronicles WOULD NOT WORK to produce a legible brand on human flesh and would in fact be extremely dangerous. Branding as described in the Chronicles should never be performed on a human being. Only a trained and experienced Iron Master should brand a human being.
On a side note, it is traditional for slaves who are not virgins, when held by slavers, to be clad in red silk. (Free women on Gor never wear silk: it is considered scandalous.) Virgins are clad in white silk. Therefore, it is common slang to speak of a woman who has been used by a man as a "red-silk" and a virgin as a "white-silk." It is also common for slaves in some taverns in some cities to wear yellow silk, and there is a certain connotation that yellow silk indicates a tavern slave in those places. However, a master may dress his slave as he pleases, and if she looks good in white, he may dress her in white, and if his Tower Slave looks good in yellow, he may dress her in yellow, and no one would think twice about it. There are no other fixed meanings for colors or styles of silk, although many cities have a standard livery for slaves of the State.
Behavior and Deportment
Kajirae always and at all times must maintain a pleasing and respectful demeanor. Unlike the Terran submissive, there are no safe words, no exceptions for non "scene" interactions. A kajira who is not pleasing will be disciplined in any way the master deems fit, from a harsh word to a severe beating.
Slaves kneel in the presence of the free. Slaves in the presence of free men kneel with their legs apart, hands palm up on their thighs, backs straight, heads up but eyes lowered. This is the position known as nadu or the position of the Pleasure Slave. Slaves in the presence of free women kneel the same way, but keep their knees together. This is sometimes referred to as the position of the Tower Slave. Free women on Gor also kneel, but they keep their legs tightly together and their hands palms down. Men on Gor typically sit cross-legged. Chairs are very rare on Gor, usually used only by men in a position of authority such as judges or Ubars, and are not thought to be very comfortable.
Slaves refer to all free men as "master" and all free women as "mistress." There are no exceptions. Slaves do not address the free by name without permission and even then usually only when specifically ordered to do so. This rule is much less universal than the former and some men like to hear their names on the lips of a slave girl. However, a wise slave girl addressing a free person she did not know would not use their name unless and until bidden, under any circumstances, lest she find too late that the free person in question did not care for it.
Discipline
Typcially, once a slave becomes accustomed to her lot, she requires little discipline – because Gorean men are not afraid to administer it. Traditionally the Gorean slave is disciplined with the five-bladed Gorean slave whip, a wide-bladed flogger. Although this can be used to administer great pain, it does not permanently injure or mark the slave, thereby decreasing her value. Although discipline is usually administered by the master, it is the right and privilege of any free person to discipline any slave for being displeasing, unless the owner’s wishes are made clear that the slave not be disciplined. This is actually thought to be very polite, as disciplining a displeasing slave increases the value of the slave for the owner.
Although Goreans do not administer suffering for suffering’s sake, it is common to occasionally discipline a slave girl simply to remind her that she is subject to discipline. She would be told this, of course, as the discipline was administered, or it would not have its desired effect, instead simply making the slave fearful of random punishments. This forceful reminder of the fact that she is owned sometimes arouses strong feelings of submission, and hence sexual desire, in slave girls. As one character puts it: "It is not the whip, which hurts, that arouses us. Rather, it is the knowledge that we are subject to the whip. We are owned. We are slave."
Sexual Usage
Slaves are subject to sexual usage at any time, in any way the master desires. Given the rarity of disease on Gor and the efficacy of Gorean contraception, this is often. Gorean slaves experience a fantastic blooming of their capacity, desire, and need for sex when they embrace their submissive natures. Gorean men, once exposed to slave sex, will not tolerate anything less from a slave, and require enthusiasm and responsiveness.
If a man does not have his own slave, typically he will go to a Paga tavern or similar establishment where liquor is served. The slaves who serve the liquor, usually a fiery liquid known as Paga which is brewed from grain and served hot, are available for the use of the customer when he buys a drink. To attract customers, tavern owners will have several attractive slaves, one or more of which is usually also a dancer, and a place for slave dance, with musicians and such. Dancers typically cost extra and are not included with the drinks. The taverns have small alcoves where a man can take a slave and use her before returning to the floor for more drink. In such Paga taverns, the price of the drink includes the use of a girl for the remainder of the evening, if the patron so desires.
If a man cannot afford even a Paga tavern, he can take his chances on the street. Slaves called Coin Girls, with locked strongboxes, walk in certain neighborhoods during certain times of the evening. To use one, the man deposits a tiny coin, which entitles him to one usage of the girl. Or he can simply try to find an unescorted slave girl walking the streets: unless she is wearing an iron (chastity) belt, or otherwise protected, a slave must submit to any man who orders her. Given the voracious sexual appetites of slave girls, it is not hard to find one who is temporarily available and slip her into an alley or doorway for a brief encounter. Detaining her overlong, however, is stealing, as her master is entitled to her use and availability.
It is very common to bind slave girls for various purposes, primarily to prevent their escape or theft. However, it is also common to use them while in bondage and any number of clever ties are in use to facilitate this. Being bound and helpless increases a slave girl’s feelings of submission and therefore makes her even more responsive to the touch of men.
Gorean men take great delight in pulling the maximum possible sexual response out of a slave girl. The logic is as follows:
I. Slaves have an innate desire to be pleasing and to submit.
II. If their attempts to be pleasing are rewarded with pleasure, they will then try even harder to be pleasing, so as to increase their positive rewards.
III. Therefore, the more pleasure a girl feels, the more pleasing she will try to be, and the greater the pleasure she will give to the master.
The more she feels herself mastered, the more she will be a slave. The more a slave she is, the more the man will desire to master her. The man and the woman are therefore directly reinforcing each other and accepting and encouraging their biological tendencies for the benefit of both.
Homosexuality and Gorean Slavery
Homosexuality is very rare on Gor – or at least it is not much discussed in the Chronicles. While slaves may be physically affectionate with each other, often embracing or kissing, this is a sign of friendship or sympathy, not sexual attraction. In all the books there are no examples of female homosexuality. However, it is not unheard of for a master to use two slaves at once (there is an extended menage a trois in Kajira and another in Mauraders.) And, as slaves must do as is pleasing to masters, if a master orders two slaves to interact erotically, interact erotically they will.
There is a very strongly implied homosexual relationship between Milo the actor, who is a slave, and his master in Magicians. However, this is not treated with disgust so much as bemused tolerance, or incomprehension, by those who know of it. Goreans do much as they wish, and are not fond of people interfering in their private affairs: if two men (or two women) had a sexual relationship, it would not be looked upon as a sin or an offense, simply as odd to the point of incomprehensibility. Because Goreans live much more in touch with nature, and sexuality is treated so openly in their culture, a Gorean would argue that the reason homosexuality is so rare is that nature does not select for homosexuality, and so real biologically-based homosexual desires are uncommon. If one is truly homosexual, under the Gorean philosophy of self-honesty, one should not try to repress it, or ignore it, any more than one should try to repress heterosexual desires.
However, Norman, and by extension Goreans, comes down very firmly on the nurture side of the nature versus nurture debate regarding the origins of homosexuality. In his book Imaginative Sex, Norman does state that all men have some level of homosexual desire (and, by extension, so do all women.) But it can be seen from his writing that it is his opinion that persons who are strongly homosexual are so because they were raised in the sexually repressed and confused society of modern Western culture.
A note from the Author:
As a product of modern Western culture, I enjoy many things that they do not have on Gor, such as the Internet and flush toilets. I do not consider homosexuality either unGorean or unnatural: it can be observed in many species other than man, who presumably do not have the Catholic church, Boy Scout camp, or sorority sleepovers to confuse the sexual nature of the animal. A homosexual relationship between equals, or even between a mentor and a protégé such as was sometimes practiced in ancient Greece for military purposes, I find largely irrelevant to the question of whether one can be Gorean.
I do, that being said, agree with Norman in that I think that the vast majority of homosexual behavior is not biologically motivated, but the product of post-natal environmental conditioning and inconsistency. Our society’s obsession with sexuality, and its constant conflicting messagse of "sex is everything" and "sex is wicked," produces a great number of problems from mild guilt complexes to sexual psychoses. I am not amazed to see a Jeffrey Dahmer or a Ted Bundy: I am amazed not to see one on every block. Such conditioning, after a certain point, is irreversible: I do not think I can "cure" a person of homosexuality any more than I can cure them of being a Baptist. Given sufficient resources, I could program anyone to do anything I wanted, but I would have to break them mentally first, and they would probably become permanently psychotic. The cure would be worse than the disease, which harms no one.
Similarly, while it is certainly possible that due to genetic aberration or environmental impact in the formative years, a woman could have biological tendencies towards dominance, or a man towards submission, the overwhelming majority of such behaviors are not "natural," but the result of exposure to unnatural behaviors and social mores. And again, once a certain maturity is reached, these psychological imprints are irreversible: for all intents and purposes a mature woman who thinks she is dominant, is dominant, and likewise a submissive man. And if they’re happy, that’s fine. But Goreans will not accept such behavior as natural and do not find it appealing, and if the homosexual and Femdom/malesub community wishes to have others tolerate its beliefs and behaviors, it must, in turn tolerate the beliefs and behaviors of others. Such behavior will never be accepted by Goreans, but tolerance is an attainable goal.
Further Reading: The Morality of Slavery
Now that we are familiar with Gorean philosophy and Gorean slavery, we can see that to Goreans slavery is an inherently moral act. As Goreans do not accept a morality imposed by religious belief, it is necessary to logically analyze the problem. The best tool for logically examining moral systems without falling back on the argument to divine command is Immanuel Kant’s immortal Categorical Imperative, which the reader is urged to study. However, a full examination of the Categorical Imperative is outside the scope of this writing, so it will simply be stated:
The Categorical Imperative:
"Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
The question of the morality of slavery is raised. The qualifying question is:
"What maxim are you acting on?"
Most people don't know why they do what they do, by and large. They just do it because that's what they've always done. The classic example of the Unexamined Life. Above, it was demonstrated that the fundamental moral principle of Gorean philosophy is self-honesty. This can be stated as a maxim as follows:
"People should be what they are."
Some people don't believe that slavery is a natural condition or that there are natural slaves. Therefore, they cannot morally impose slavery on another under any circumstances if one applies the Categorical Imperative, because they want something different for themselves (being free) than they would have others experience (being a slave.)
Now, if one applies Gorean philosophy - which is really just Terran philosophy with more legs, Aristotle claimed that most people were slaves in their hearts three thousand years ago - to this problem, one obtains a different answer. If a Gorean imposes slavery on a person because they believe that people should be what they are, they are acting consistently. Their maxim becomes, "People should be treated as they are." If you are a slave, they treat you as a slave. If you are free, they treat you as a free person. They are in accord with the Categorical Imperative.
The secondary question then becomes, "Who decides?" That is, who decides what you will be treated as? That's the tough part and the part which distinguishes historical slavery from "modern," D/s or Gorean consensual slavery... or is it? A summary of Aristotle's position on slaves:
"The family, which is chronologically prior to the state, involves a series of relations between husband and wife, parent and child, master and slave. Aristotle regards the slave as a piece of live property having no existence except in relation to his master. Slavery is a natural institution because there is a ruling and a subject class among people related to each other as soul to body;
however, we must distinguish between those who are slaves by nature, and those who have become slaves merely by war and conquest."
Aha!!! We must distinguish! And now, Aristotle, meet Kant. Kant, Aristotle. And gentlemen, meet Dr. Lange. (I'm sure Dr. Lange is already VERY well acquainted with you.) IF we apply Aristotle's distinction, that of the natural slave from the legal slave (one can be either or both but they can be distinguished,) and stipulate that there are natural slaves (this is the weak point in the argument: some people don't accept this to be true. The rest is unassailable.) then the Categorical Imperative, Gorean Edition, tells us that if our maxim is:
"Treat others not as you would be treated, but as their essential natures demand."
then the whole thing falls neatly into place. The Gorean is not disregarding the universal in imposing slavery on some, not on others, and in not expecting it for himself. They are simply recognizing that the universe in general, and society in particular, are made up of non-homogenous elements which have distinctive and non-consistent features. By being realistic about the nature of those disparate elements, their interaction with the world is as logically consistent, moral, and realistic as it is possible to be.
A note from the author:
My personal contribution to the thing is that I think that the person should get to decide. (Hence my opposition to enforced slavery save as punishment for crime.) I feel that a person's potential is maximized if they know themselves and make their own decisions regarding their own essential natures. This requires serious examination of a person's essential nature, which most people never do in their whole lives. My opinion, based on observation of the physical world both personal and academic, is that women are very likely to be "natural" slaves, and men are less likely. Therefore I am in basic agreement with that aspect of Gorean philosophy, and can say that I am morally reconciled with the idea of slavery as practiced by myself.

Further Reading: Understanding The Behavior of Gorean Slaves
Gorean slaves are expected to act in certain ways, some of which have roots in the books, some of which don't. These are conventions which have been adopted over time by both online and offline communities of Goreans. The major aspects of these are:
The use of third person speech.
Slaves occasionally speak in the third person in the Gor books. They do this to emphasize that they are not "persons:" they do not own themselves. They are property. They are, philosophically as well as literally, "things." Many "real life" slaves, when forced to speak in the third person, have a visible reaction to this forceful reminder of their status. Many find it cumbersome as a full-time thing, and do not insist on its use at all times. Girls who have to interact with non-Goreans are at a decided disadvantage switching back and forth because of the conflict in their speech patterns. Its use when decreed, or when the slave wishes to demonstrate her slavery, is sufficient. There is more to showing need than bellying and lifting one's hindquarters, and subtle signs are no less valid than overt ones.
Online, where one can and should think about everything one says, as most people don't type anything like as fast as they can talk, it is less stilting to the girl's speech, it slows her down less, and it serves as a visual reminder of her slavery when she is denied the thousand physical demonstrations (movement, tone of voice, expression) that a real-life slave girl may manifest. As it is harmless, and serves a worthwhile purpose, it is to be encouraged, although it should not be mandatory, as it requires a certain degree of literary ability to use it non-monotonously. While Goreans do insist that slave girls use their gifts to the fullest, it is not logical to hold them responsible for gifts they do not have.
The use of non-capitalized nicks/handles/etc. online
This, plain and simple, is an indicator. You can't see people online. You can't listen to their tones. You don't know if they're wearing a collar, silks, the tunic of a Rarius, you don't know anything of the thousand and one visual and audio cues that people normally give off which tell you about them. Now while it is true that men at times dressed slaves in the Robes to take them to song-dramas and such, by and large it was both customary and required by law that slaves be clearly visible as such. How can that be done online? By requiring slaves, and no one else, to lower-case references to themselves. Think of it as a "virtual" brand and/or collar, or bondage strings, or whatever is appropriate to the cultural milieu. The visible manifestation of slavery on Gor could be something as subtle as how a woman wore her hair, or something as overt as a black iron collar hammered onto her throat. Online, it is the lower-case reference. (And to some extent the use of third-person speech. See above.) Some slaves online will also "collar," or put into brackets, the capitallized initial of her master’s name (or the name he uses). Curly braces {} or squared [ ] are of no real difference, although some slaves have suggested that {D} signifies a "virtual" relationship and [D] signifies a real-time (rt) one.
If the slave has some valid reason for concealing her slavery, then this does not apply. But if the slave is online, and wishes to act as a slave, then she will act as is held appropriate in the Gorean cultural milieu, which is that she will lower-case references to yourself and she will probably speak in the third person.
The addressing of free men as "Master."
Slaves must address people somehow. If they were not to use "master" or "mistress," what else could they use "Sir" Sir is used in the Gor books exclusively by free women to free men. Sir is a BDSM convention, not a Gorean one. Likewise any other titles like "Lord," etc. On Gor all slaves address all free men as "Master," except bond-maids who address free men as "my Jarl," its cultural equivalent. Any slave who does not is subject to immediate and severe discipline.
May the slave address a man by his name No. Not only does the preceding paragraph apply, but the name is the most intimate and valuable possession a person possesses. That a slave, an animal, would be allowed to use it as pleased her is ridiculous and intolerable. If the free person in question does not mind, all is well. She is using their possessions just as she might use her master's plates to serve dinner on. If she misuses the plates, she will be punished - and if she misuses a person's name, likewise. But unless and until the slave is told by a free person, "You may use my name," she should assume that they would consider this unacceptable. Using the name to indicate is perfectly acceptable:
"I belong to Dreamer." or in an online chatroom "(to Dreamer) Greetings, Master."
but NOT –
"Greetings, Dreamer" or even "Greetings, Master Dreamer."
A comment from a member of the Chicago Gor list:
I think it is quite common in Silk & Steel to see "Greetings Master A. Greetings Master B. Greetings Master C." The alternative is (to A) greetings Master (to B) greetings Master (to C). I find this completely graceless and I think you should reconsider. The reasons you give for not doing so are sound but I think the practice of the thing is a big mess.
My Response:
This is how slaves are required to act in my presence in the Tavern of the Blades (or any other Gorean venue I might be in) and while it sounds like it would be messy it actually works quite well. It encourages inventiveness, too, as the girls usually find different ways to indicate to whom they are speaking.
Often - not always, but often - when someone says "It would be too hard/impractical/unreasonable to require the slaves to do "x," what they mean is "I'd feel unreasonable and silly asking a slave to behave that way, and besides, then I'd have to follow through on making her do it and I'd feel like a bad person." There ain't no sich critter. If it pleases me to have a slave speak in Pig Latin, enthay eshay illway eakspay inyay IgPay Atinlay. If she doesn't know I want her to speak in Pig Latin, or what Pig Latin is, it would be unreasonable of me to punish her for failing to do so. But once my requirements are clear, that's the end of the discussion. She will do it, or she will be punished, and then she will still do it.
On a side note, it's interesting that I sometimes see slaves being given an implied "choice:" "Do (x) or I will punish you." The slave can "choose" the punishment - by refusing to obey - and avoid obedience. This is intolerable. Punishments are not either/or. Punishments are to demonstrate that when a slave is displeasing, Bad Things happen. And then, the slave will be pleasing, or she will be punished again, and so on.
So not sir, not lord, not by name. That leaves master. There are three (related) arguments which are advanced as to why a slave would not address a free man not her owner as "master:"
"This is not Gor."
No, it is not. Even in circumstances where a certain amount of difference from society's norms (e.g. BDSM clubs) is to be expected, I do not require submissives/slaves to address me as "master" simply because I am a dominant male. Not because I do not "deserve" it, but because it is unreasonable to expect others in a neutral setting to conform to my conventions. If I find their behavior intolerable, I do not tolerate it. I leave. My right and my privilege.
Now, the catch. The above argument, while correct, is irrelevant - because the places under discussion are Gor. As close as it can be. The Silk and Steel is on Gor. The Tavern of the Blades is on Gor. The Gorean Forum is on Gor. And the Gorean Public Boards are on Gor. Online Gor. They are populated and/or patronized by those who wish to enter into a particular sort of consensual hallucination - that of a world called Gor. Coming into them and pointing out the fact that it is, in fact, a consensual hallucination is spiteful, rude, and pointless. If you don't like our dream, find another. The world is full of people and most of them, quite frankly, disagree with us, so it shouldn't be hard to find an environment which you like better. Don't bother trying to change ours, because we're happy with it.

Another thought from a member of Chicago Gor:
Regarding your assertion that alt.books.gor is a piece of Gor in the sense that the Silk & Steel is a part of Gor. I tend to treat it as an extension of rec.arts.sf.written. I see no reason why a woman shouldn't be able to comment on the books using 1st person & caps even if she is known to be sub or slave or makes a remark in passing about her master.
My Response:
Your opinion, you're entitled to it, and I won't even say you're wrong. My personal feeling is that this "well, a comment is okay" thing tends to encourage the "speaking as a slave" versus "speaking as a person" dichotomy. I don't like that at all because what that really means, nine times in ten, is "I want to say something that a slave shouldn't say so I'm going to say it in the guise of 'speaking my mind' or 'speaking OOC' or some such." In a broader sense, this is literary laziness. I have seen slaves tell masters they were wrong in a pleasing and respectful way. I've had a slave tell me to my face I was acting like an idiot (yes, it does happen *gasp*) in a pleasing and respectful manner. The thing can be done and it's not even that hard.
"I only call men master who've earned my respect."
An argument not without its merits in the BDSM world - which this ain't. This is Gor. Respect is irrelevant. I have to call judges "Your Honor" even when it is painfully obvious they have none. That is how that game is played. Slaves have to address free men as master. That is how this "game" is played. Don't like these rules For you, the only winning move is not to play.
"I only call my owner 'master.'"
See A, B, and #7 below. Short version: Irrelevant. Address him as "my" master or come up with some other convention if you like - that's reasonable and I wouldn't dream of arguing with you. But if you are a slave in a sense all free persons are your masters and mistresses, and you must show respect and obedience to them all, or you are in for a world of hurt.
The addressing of free women as "Mistress."
Everything said above about the use of the name of a free person by a slave applies. Furthermore, free women have an even more dangerous attitude to slaves than dominance: hatred and jealousy. It is my considered opinion that even a woman free in her heart would simply have bad feelings towards most slaves. If she is not free, she envies them, terribly, and fears the visible reminder they present that she is like them, and someday might end up kneeling beside them. The conflict this creates inside her expresses itself, most often, as dislike.
If the woman is truly free, why would she have anything but disdain for women who were so weak as to not be able to overcome their baser natures And the lusts they incite in men, the beasts, endanger her as well, as she might be mistaken for one of them.
A really, really mature free woman might be able to adopt a more charitable approach towards slaves. But that's a pretty thin reed to pin one's hopes on. If one pins wrong, the wrath unleashed might be truly breathtaking in its ferocity. The slave would be wise to avoid such a risk, and use "Mistress" to free women, bidden or not.
The addressing of other slaves as "sister."
This is found in the books a few times. It probably originates from the term "chain sisters." As slaves are "daughters of the chain," and two girls with the same mother are sisters, they can be considered "chain sisters." My first response to hearing that girls are "chain sisters" is that they have the same owner, but that's not necessarily true. In any event, it's a harmless convention and, if not carried to the truly sickening nicey-nicey booboo level one occasionally sees, there's nothing wrong with it.
The adoption of pleasing and respectful forms of speech.
A simple one. It is the right, and the duty, of every free person to correct displeasing slaves. Slaves are property, animals. They have no right to get away with being displeasing and they are not owed any latitude, tact, or other social "grease" to lubricate them through rough spots. A slave who is not pleasing can, will, and should be disciplined by any and all free person who note the displeasing behavior.
It should be noted that while a certain insouciance or impertinence on the part of a slave, judiciously applied, can be allowed, and honest disagreement is never out of place, a slave may never be rude to a free person. Ever. For any reason. Even if the free person started it. This is a fundamental consequence of the fundamental difference between slaves and free persons. It's not all furs and cheap candies and painful but heated whippings. Slaves are to be pleasing. Period.
The owner's preferences and their relation to public behavior.
This, to my mind, is quite largely irrelevant. I cannot get away with being what other people consider excessively obnoxious because I am a free man (dominant male). I will quickly be ostracized (or worse) if I try. Why then should my slaves be allowed to be what other people consider obnoxious because I told them to be? In essence, it's the same argument. The fact that I am a free man (dominant male) does not excuse antisocial behavior on my part nor does it excuse antisocial behavior on the part of someone I force to manifest it. Gorean slaves address Gorean free men as master. Period, end of sentence, end of discussion. If a man does not want his slave to address any other man as master, he should keep her away from Gorean free men. Or, at the very least, away from men who do not understand his preference and who are not willing to honor it.
To form a crude analogy, my parents have a small dog who, according to my mother, has a "nervous stomach." In other words, it constantly excretes on the floor because my sister never bothered to properly housebreak it. If I am in their house, the most that is appropriate is for me to tell them, once, that the dog has made a mess. If they respond that they do not discipline the dog for such, it's their dog and their house and my only correct response is to smile and keep my yap shut. (It's absolutely amazing how often this is the only correct response to a situation and how often people fail to realize this.)
However, my parents don't take this dog with them to visit other people. Why Because they know a dog that pisses on the floor is not acceptable to most people and it would be extraordinarily rude to expect them to put up with it - despite their own lack of concern over the matter. Likewise, a master who allows his slave to metaphorically piss on the floor - by being displeasing to other masters - is at best thoughtlessly rude, and at worst an obnoxious remote-con"troll"ing jerk. Case closed.
Further Reading: Example of Gorean Slavery in a Terran Relationship