What is a slave?
by Brian on Sep.22, 2009, under slavery
Here it is, a post 4 years in the making. No, make that 35 years. I have a feeling that everything I’ve seen, done, and become in my life will inform this post in some way. I admit that the idea of committing this to written form is terrifying. Not because people may think I’m wrong or foolish, but because I know that as much as anything that I have done in the past 4 years this will become a part of the identity I am building in pais.
My views and definitions of what makes a slave are constantly evolving, and I know that isn’t about to stop. However I was rightfully and dutifully called out today on dodging this question for a long time now, and so I will give it my best shot. I hope that this will be the first of many such posts so that I can go back and see how the changes evolve.
So what is a slave? We are all at least a little conversant with the traditional definition of slavery. I like Wikipedia’s take on it:
Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages)
I’m a bit less thrilled with their definition of sexual slavery:
Sexual slavery is the organized coercion of unwilling people into different sexual practices. Sexual slavery may include single-owner sexual slavery, ritual slavery sometimes associated with traditional religious practices, slavery for primarily non-sexual purposes where sex is common, or forced prostitution.
I don’t believe that it need be organized to be sexual slavery, but I digress. The key component of traditional slavery is that it involves the coercion of unwilling people. These slaves at no time consented to this.
Naturally when pais asks me what a slave is she is not referring to traditional/historical slavery. I believe that what she’s really asking is some combination of “What do you expect from me?”, “How do you perceive the my role in our relationship?”, and “As Your slave, what should my identity be?”. I suppose to answer that I must first decide in what ways she is a slave.
I did not purchase, inherit, or in any legal way come into possession of her. She chose to become mine after getting to know me and deciding that granting authority to me was a safe and reasonable thing to do. So, easily enough we have eliminated the possibility that she is a traditional/historical slave. In all other ways, however, she does meet that definition.
So, we have narrowed down the scope of the question to consensual slavery. It seems to me that the definition of consensual slavery must match that of traditional slavery- she can be forced to work, coerced when necessary, and could potentially be held against her will. All of these things she agreed to, and some she had to be absolutely assured of before she would consent to be collared. Still, those are only things that can happen to a slave. What of the slaves themselves? The definition rightly leaves out any concept of what a “good” slave is, as such a value judgment is solely the province of their owner.
Hm. I’m wandering again, which undoubtedly means I’m still avoiding the question. Luckily we’re almost to the meat of the issue. What do I think of when I imagine a “good” consensual slave, and how does that play in to what pais means when she asks what a slave is?
For me a consensual slave is an objectified servant. The extent of objectification can vary widely, but I think the objectification is the essential difference between slave and servant. I also think that the concept of this objectification is what causes people, at a gut level, to reject the terms “master” and “slave” as descriptive of their relationships. I’ve recently struggled with this myself as pais is more than a consensual slave to me, I am in love with her. As such I identify her as a pet as well as a slave and have recently taken to calling her a “pup slave”. This has been invaluable to me in keeping the roles clear and maintaining that level of objectification.
I suppose the next logical question is what is the different between a “pup slave” and a “consensual slave”? Well, for me a pup slave is a consensual slave. Just one whose identity is a pet instead of inanimate chattel (by most definitions pets are chattel, so I suppose this is really a sub-set). Pets tend to get more affection, tenderness, and love than household or personal objects, and that is just how I like it. As to how this ties into what pais is really asking, I suppose it breaks down like this:
“What do you expect from me?”
I expect service, loyalty, obedience, affection, flexibility, and the kind of worship a pup gives their owner.
“How do you perceive the my role in our relationship?”
“As Your slave, what should my identity be?”I see you as a treasured, beloved, useful working animal. Often times I still see a lot more than that, but I think that is the ideal, primary role. Of course I need more than that right now, and your ability to fulfill all of the roles I need is not only critical to us being able to live together right now, but also a very necessary part of our path toward a deeper M/s dynamic.
Of course this has all gotten very specific to my relationship with pais. I feel another post brewing about how I feel about non-pais slaves. A long time from now I may even feel qualified to speak to slavery in general, who knows?
September 24th, 2009 on 9:02 pm
It would be a waste of time, terrified as i am, not to write from my heart though i will try to maintain a nominally dignified hold on my emotions. i have discovered this blog only very recently after having been directed here from a profile on Collarme.com. i have never felt respect and excitement manifest so quickly for another human as it has for You as corny as i pray that does not sound. i am expectant of nothing. i hope only to be able to learn as much as i can from You if only via this blog. Thank You.
January 17th, 2010 on 5:30 am
Hi both, Thanks for the guestbook comments. Drop us a line.
P & s
January 18th, 2010 on 1:16 pm
Hi Brian. I’m not clear on what objectification means to you or in this context. Personally, I find that most people tend to objectify those below them in a hierarchy. It’s really fucked up, but it happens everywhere, non-consensually, all the time. This is why, for example, most people do not know the names of the janitors in their office buildings. Or they get annoyed when the secretary fucks up and they don’t stop and think, “Huh. Maybe I should ask what’s wrong. Secretary seems to be having an off day.” No, they lodge a complaint with the secretary’s boss, instead. The secretary is a function, not a person, and so they need to be repaired or thrown out, not addressed as an individual with feelings, aspirations, a life outside of work, etc.
Clearly, I’m not against it if someone consents to being objectified . . . . but what I’m saying is that most “servants” are objectified, so I’m not clear on how objectification is the difference for you between a servant and a slave.
January 27th, 2010 on 3:19 pm
I probably had a good idea of what I meant when I wrote this, but that was long ago and my mind is a fickle place. I really need to make some posts here to include the many things that have changed my perspective since I wrote this.
In any event, it’s a fair question. I think there are different levels (or at least types) of objectification, and that there are significant differences between intentional, purposeful objectification and the kind of subconscious privilege-based objectification that you mentioned. Certainly when I was working as a janitor, warehouse worker, or call center drone there was a lot of being treated as a role instead of a person and it sucked, while being treated as property can be rewarding and sexually gratifying to some people so I don’t think a blanket assessment of “objectification = bad” can be made.
It seems to me that both intentional and subconscious objectification can extend in all directions on a hierarchy chain, or in places where there is no hierarchy at all. In short, I think of it as just another mental tool in the box. That said, I suppose the key differences are consent and how the tool is used. It is one thing to go into a job expecting to be treated like an adult human being and later find out that you have to raise your hand to go to the bathroom (and are allowed one 5 minute break per 10 hour shift to do that), and another to willingly enter into a lifestyle relationship where the title describing your role is essentially defined as “human property”.
Interestingly, my gut feeling is that the motivations are pretty similar for intentional and subconscious objectification. When a janitor is objectifying their great-grandboss (or vice-versa) it is likely to be some manner of perceived emotional self-defense. In an M/s relationship the M objectifying the s allows them to take a step back from the person and make the decision that is most valid for themselves/the relationship/the household/the mission or whatever is considered more important than the slave’s desires in the current situation. My experience is that that step back is what allows the M to stand in the face of whatever the s throws at them in terms of reactance, disagreement, resentment, etc. stick to their decision, and not get defensive or feel like a shit.
Or at least that was what I was thinking when I wrote this. As I’ve integrated my spiritual views into the dynamic over the last few months I’ve had a large scale tectonic shift in how I handle these things, and I can’t say that I necessarily believe that the above is necessary. I do still think that in most cases it’s how M/s relationships function, for better or worse, but I wouldn’t call it a necessary or defining characteristic any more.
My replacement mental tool is extreme compassion. When I make a decision that someone doesn’t like (a daily occurrence, at least), I try to feel deeply for them, to really get in their head and understand what they are feeling, and to still stick to my decision if I think it’s the right thing to do (either because the decision is sound or because dynamic needs reaffirmation)… or back down if I’m wrong. In a lot of ways this is harder, but I didn’t get into this lifestyle because it’s easy. I think that in some ways it’s easier, too, because people are feeling heard and understood even when they’re overruled. I suspect that my next post here will be more about this…
January 28th, 2010 on 12:00 am
I see what you mean about the objectification extending both ways on a hierarchy and how that can be emotional self-defense and how that can be useful in an M/s relationship. Thanks for explaining all of that!
I look forward to hearing how you’re replacing objectification with compassion, especially how this is different from “empathy.”