In his description of the female human being, as it exists upon Gor, Norman seems (whether he is aware of it or not) to adopt the prototypical aspects of the female "trinity": Maiden, Matron, and Hag, which have existed in Earth mythology since man first began to develop myths, to explore and examine the females of his world. In this particular case, the slave and the panther-girl assume the role of "the maiden"; the enlightened free woman (such as Lara and Verna, who eventually earn respect and are celebrated as partners and caregivers by the males they encounter) are "the matron," while the repressed and unenlightened free women whom Norman depicts take the role of "the hag," the female aspect which is alien to the males in her environment.

     I think Norman was attempting to explore femininity in a biologically correct environment when he deals with the females of Gor. I add that he never countermands his primary argument, which is that females, upon Gor, remain subject to the will of males, due to the fact of male physical superiority.

     It is also interesting to note that in his books, most Earth females are considered too weak and foolish to be anything other than slaves. He applies the same argument to Earth males, whom we are told are, with a few notable exceptions, too weak to achieve actual manhood upon Gor. In this he is castigating Earth society for allowing its inhabitants to grow too soft in an artificial environment.

     He does not spend a lot of time explaining certain pertinent aspects of the female Gorean experience, I note, one of them being the practice of motherhood.

     Then again, Norman has a pretty full plate already when it comes to explaining psychological motivations as they exist upon Gor. I suspect he has not dealt with the issue of biological motherhood and its ramifications because he is primarily interested in explaining the causal relationships between males and females in the Gorean environment.

     In a later book we are given some clues as to how the relationship between mothers and daughters exists in the Gorean environment, but again that is simply to depict how two such females react and interact when faced with the reality of male dominance. And in that instance, we are again assured that all such familial relations take a back seat to the reality of the male/female relationship as it exists upon Gor.

     Is it possible that John Norman, in his Gor series, rather than explaining to us the manner in women think and feel, is simply relating to us how he thinks they should think and feel?

     Of course he is. Or, rather, how he thinks they would think and feel in a Gorean environment, in accordance with his personal knowledge regarding psychology and sociology. Absolutely. In writing about females, and their drives and motivations, all Norman can do is portray them in a way which seems realistic to him, based upon his knowledge of how and why they behave a particular way.

     The Gorean society is what he uses to delve into these areas of psychological exploration. In any event, it seems he has hit the mark, at least partly, in his assertions; otherwise why would any female reader entertain his notion of their innermost thoughts, as depicted in the books, for an instant?

     The inborn loyalty to family/clan/tribe is present in the Gor books; its place is taken by loyalty to family/city/caste/culture. That is why the Gorean word for "stranger" and the Gorean word for "enemy" are the same word. Xenophobia is very much a part of Gorean culture, and that xenophobia is based upon the innate psychological need to defend the clan/tribe unit.

     Also, Norman does not ignore or disavow the inherent greed and selfishness in human nature; rather, Gorean culture accepts it and uses it. Gorean society is not a society of selfless, magnificently noble would-be martyrs for great causes; they are human beings, first and foremost, who understand their natural biological propensities and go with them. There is a psychological and biological drive to protect the weak and helpless, provided they are OF YOUR TRIBE. I think Norman hits this rather well in his celebration of warfare when it serves what he feels to be a just cause, or relates noble actions by those who fight in such a war.

     In the Ar/Cos land war, Tarl and a handful of men hold the river pier in Ar's Station against the encroaching Cosian mercenaries, theoretically sacrificing themselves to allow time for the helpless refugees of Ar's Station to board the boats and escape. Undeniable evidence of the inborn need to "do the right thing" and defend the weak and helpless.

     At the same time, Tarl will sneer at the weak and collar any wench who comes his way. He is part of the "strength over all" vs. "strength in service to all" dichotemy, therefore, as are most Goreans. In addition, the overiding maxim "the human race over all" takes precedence over any other such concern. He is true to his species first and foremost; then to his sex, in service to that species; then to himself; then to the needs of others. In that order. When he occasionally puts the needs of others before his own needs, he is celebrated for such a noble act, as is usual in human relations.

     Upon Gor, it is widely accepted to be a sign of weakness to display one's sentiments in regards to one's slave.

     This is because:

     1) She is a piece of property. Someone wrecks your car and you cry like a baby about it. Is this a sign of emotional strength and maturity?

     2) Gorean society generally discourages feelings for slaves, because otherwise the process of dehumanization which allows the slave-trade to exist would be undermined.

     3) For the slave to truly understand her position in Gorean society, she needs to be treated as precisely what she is. Coddling does not accomplish this.

     The Gorean man is compelled by his duty to his society to be strong, ruthless and masterful. If a Gorean male falls in love with his slave, he had better be able to keep that emotion hidden, lest she see it and manipulate it to serve her own agenda.

     Alternately, if the Master is unable to do so, he should free her and remove her from slave status, as happens several times in the books. Then he is drinking the wine of free companionship with a person, and not with what his society dictates is a nameless piece of property.

     Upon Gor, slaves are slaves are slaves. Free Men and Women are in an entirely separate class, and rightly so. In order for Gorean society to function correctly, this separation must be maintained.

     The Gorean Master is master of himself. He does not cave in to his emotions when it might be detrimental to his society, or to the training and instruction of his slaves. It is better, he feels, to keep the slaves guessing about his motives and feelings than it is to allow them access to his innermost feelings. In such a way, discipline can be maintained.

     Gorean Males are just human; but they tend to be incredibly strong-willed and bullheaded humans. They have been raised from birth to be so.

     Also, it bears mentioning that among free men and women, it is considered normal to display one's emotions openly. But even the free woman knows how important it is to keep certain of her feelings to herself; hence the veils.

     Should a slave be given a chance to redeem herself, after she has failed in some respect?

     That depends upon the nature of the failure in question.

     Should her past be wiped clean everytime she puts on a new collar?

     Sure. If her new Master is exceptionally stupid. If he is wise, he will remember what the slave is capable of, and see to it that she does not repeat her previous actions.

     Does one "way to go! good girl!" wipe away an entire list of past "no no's"? Nope. What it does is help balance the scale. Enough "way to go's" will eventually tilt the scale back in her favor.

     Can people change?

     Yes.

     DO people change?

     Only when they have to.

     Change is a painful (but almost always beneficial) process. Without change, anything, or anyone, will eventually stagnate. But precisely because it IS painful to change, few people actively seek to do so. They must either alter their views about what is best for them, or be forced through circumstances to change their ways. That is just how it works.

     The wise Master allows his property to prove itself worthy, but always beneath a watchful eye.

     As the old adage says, "Screw me once, shame on you! Screw me twice, shame on ME."

     Always good advice, especially if one seeks to emulate a Gorean mindset. Goreans are notoriously unforgiving when they have been assaulted, harmed, duped or manipulated.

     "No, I would not try to reform man by pretending that my wishes for him were the wishes of Priest-Kings, even though this might be effective for a time, for the wishes that reform man, that make him what he is capable of becoming, and has not yet become, must be his own and not those of another. If man rises, he can do so only on his own two feet."