I've considered the idea that there are two separate "Gorean slaveries"...one being the replication of the historical practice which existed here on Earth, and the other "pretended non-consensual slavery" which is, due to the limitations of our society, strictly consensual. Firstly (just to clear up the matter), the institution of slavery as described in the books is really no more harsh than its Earth counterpart. Greek slavery was, as I have asserted, not a constant parade of whippings and mutilations; but it WAS slavery, and any such system is ripe for human neglect and abuse. ALL slave owners were not brutal sadists, but undoubtedly SOME of them were. However it needs to be stated that we, who have grown up in a society which almost universally abhors the practice of human slavery, quite naturally have some misconceptions about the actual practices of such an institution: how they worked, why they existed, and why they were permitted to last for so long. In that respect, the word "slavery" has become a dirty word in our lexicon, despite the fact that the truth of the matter is probably much different than they way we envision it. Also I occasionally hear reference to Goreans "killing defenseless women" and am told that it is "a common occurance in the books." I once researched that very concept, poring over my Gor books for references to it. I found only one reference of a female slave actually dying in the books, the slave Sura of the House of Cernus, and the cause of her death was indisputably suicide. If there are other examples of slaves dying in the books, in which the death is actually described, I am unaware of them. So when one really LOOKS at it, the killing of slaves in the Gor books is something which Norman TELLS us occurs, though he never actually SHOWS us. So even Norman softened his slave-based society a bit for the benefit of the more squeamish readers. Though I suspect guilt, and the ramifications of that emotion, play a major part in how we define ourselves and practice our philosophies, I wonder if the practice of "consensual slavery," either "real" or "implied," is as susceptible to the cloying presence of guilt as one might think. I do think that the inborn sexuality of the human female is an incredibly powerful force, however, which has been suppressed via the emotion of guilt for a long time. Entire religions have been built around condemning promiscuous females, and historically the clergy has been nothing if not extremely misogynistic. Combined with the innate male jealousy and territorialism regarding the sexual habits of his chosen female, and the reactions which are thus inspired, it is no wonder that females express feelings of "freedom" when they are allowed to be sensual creatures who glory in their own unique sexuality. Guilt also plays a factor when a male attempts to overthrow a lifetime of conditioning and become precisely what his society forbids him to be: namely, powerful and proud of his masculinity, and willing to express that masculinity to the females around him. As to the concept of "two separate slaveries", I freely admit that that is precisely what seems to have developed in the Earth-bound Gorean community. The one "true Gorean slavery" which is embraced by general society in a very real and legally binding sense, versus the consensual replication of slavery, which strives to emulate, as closely as possible, the Gorean ideal as depicted in the Gor books. However I feel that the second practice must be evaluated in a matter of degrees. While it is true that "slavery" per se cannot exist in our western culture in a legal sense, still, if the practitioners approach it as if it WERE legally binding and dedicate themselves to maintaining as close a simulation as possible to the real McCoy, then the only thing missing would be the blessing of the state. Another factor is the reason that they choose to practice it. If they do so because it seems to them a great way to get their rocks off and have fun for a few hours, and feel they can turn it off at will since it actually has no bearing upon "who they really are," then I would say those people are kind of missing the point. Many of the people I have met who practice a consensual version of Gorean slavery in their lives are very, very serious about what they do. While the aspect of consensuality is a very real factor to them, once they have entered into the relationship they willingly disavow the option of invoking the "consensuality clause" as it were; in effect, they say that they have accepted their natures according to the Gorean example and that having done so they might as well be legally bound within a slave society, since to them, they ARE so bound in every way which matters. I have known several practioners of what we might call "vanilla BDSM" who have attained just that, as well as a fairly large number of practicing Goreans who have attained that level of Gorean interaction in their lives. It is certainly possible, though made difficult by the taboos of our Earthly social structure. What IRC attempted to do was to set a Gorean societal model in place on the Internet, through various media such as chat networks, which would act as a reinforcing social structure in place of the Earth-bound one which we are all a part of. In that type of melieu, the onus of behaving according to the dictates of Earth society would be removed, in a virtual setting which assured that the laws of Earth would not be broken. Through the application of imagination, and within the reinforcing social net of Gorean society, therefore, everyone could have a shot at emulating Gorean practices, trying them on and seeing how well they fit. In some places the experiment has worked rather well; a thriving Gorean collective was emplaced which allows those who seek to learn about Gorean practices and philosophy to actually attempt to practice it, in a virtual setting. In other places the experiment has failed miserably, and the entire thing has turned into a great big role playing game where people trade off personas and wreak virtual mayhem on one another in a setting which, to them, isn't "real" and has no validity in any sense of the word. Slavery CANNOT be slavery, as Webster defines it, without the support system of a society which accepts it. In that aspect, none of the consensual slavery which we see everyday on-line can be considered "real" slavery. However, if the only thing missing from the equation is the support of Earth law, and the parties who practice a consensual slavery do so in such a way that it is real and inviolable to them, then the simulation can and does have some validity. And if they are taking part in an on-line (off-line) artificial society which supports, accepts, and enforces the rules and valuations of a simulated slavery, then that pretty much completes the picture as far as societal support goes. It can certainly be done, if one wishes it badly enough and is extremely dedicated to it. Different people can practice it to different degrees, with varying levels of success and fulfillment. It is not that it cannot be done; it is simply that so many out there who try wind up doing it so badly, and so incompletely. If 99% of the voluntary slavery out there is incomplete and based upon pointless fantasy, minus any dedication or acceptance by those who practice it, then it only stands to reason that THAT is what the general external perception of that practice will be. The remaining 1 percent, however, will have achieved something of value which has changed them considerably, and have some inkling of what actually occurs to human beings within the purview of the practice of what we call historical slavery.