|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Contract Slavery - A Point / CounterPoint by Lion|Heart and Mirasha |
||
|
Point: By Lion|Heart
On Contract Slavery - There are many on-line-isms which litter the on-line venues of Gor, some are natural outgrowths of the technical aspect of the medium itself, while others are consequences of the Net's ability to spread ideas, both good and bad, with astounding rapidity throughout the world. Both concepts and misconceptions, understandings and misunderstandings, spread like wildfire until a short time later, they are so prevalent in only a few months that they have become entrenched features of the cyberscape, and from there, enter the minds of men and women through thier computer monitors. They have become a part of the on-line Gorean paradigm, right or wrong, and as new people come on-board, they are taken for granted as being 'right', or 'the way it should be', and the need for further thought and consideration is seldom applied. One of those concepts which paints the cyberscape with it's tints is the interesting idea that a woman, once a slave, is always a slave. The concept is handy, and simplifies on-line interactions, as well creating a constant source of contention, the opportunity for furtive anguish to some, the opportunity for righteous indignation for others. It is a concept which is conspicuously counter to the basic philosophy of the Gorean novels, but that is rarely understood because so few have read all of the books or if they have, placed them in full context. Instead, in the way of the insidious reinforcement capable in the cyberspace medium of multiple reinforcement, they learn the idea from many sources. From chats to web-sites to message boards, it is part of thier interactive paradigm. The pejorative term for those who violate this on-line paradigm is 'switch', and it does not originate from the writings of John Norman. That alone should have sent up a red flag to the inquirer, and further investigation as to where this term comes from. It comes from the Bondage/Discipline/Sado-Masochism venue, BDSM. In BDSM, a switch is someone who 'switches' between the roles of dominance and submission, and BDSM-oriented folks consider that to be normal, 'alright'. In Gorean thought, however, it is seen to demonstrate an inability to find one's basic nature, either dominant or submissive, and so becomes a vice and a weakness. The fallacy is that while Gorean thought includes some BDSM elements, it is not BDSM based. The earliest explorers of the on-line Gorean venue came from the BDSM venues, however, and with them they brought thier BDSM baggage and injected it into thier conceptions and formulations of Gor. Thier BDSM paradigms merged, quietly and almost seamlessly into the Gorean cyberscape, and set the foundation for after-comers to build upon as givens. That most of the after-comers also arrived from BDSM backgrounds made these contaminations to Gorean thought seem quite natural and rational. But they are not accurate, according to the philosophy which comes to us through the Gor novels by John Norman. In every woman there is something of the Free Companion and something of the slave girl. - Priest Kings of Gor, page 205 The Goreans claim that in each woman there is a free companion, proud and beautiful, worthy and noble, and in each, too, a slave girl. The companion seeks for her companion; the slave girl for her Master. It is further said, that on the couch, the Gorean girl, whether slave or free, who has had the experience, who has tried all loves, begs for a Master. - Hunters of Gor, page 102 Slavery is cultural for Goreans. They know it is something a woman can be. - Explorers of Gor, page 107 The books are very clear that being a Free Woman or a slave is not an absolute, but rather both social states in a fantasy setting, and internal archtypes which exist as potentials within all women. The Free Woman typifies an independance that is yet still both dependant on men, and subserviant to the will of men, an essentially submissive nature that is permitted to choose whom and when to be submissive to. The slave, on the other hand, is fully submissive all the time, to all men, and acts from the motivation of a deep and abiding love, totally devoted to a man. In the books, if a Free Woman oversteps her bounds and attempts to dominate men, she is put in her place, at thier feet or chained to the foot of the bed for the night, as a reminder. In extreme cases, it can easily result in enslavement. The books do not, either through direct philosophical commentary or through parable example, advocate that Free Women should dominate the Free Men of Gor, or behave in the fashion of the BDSM Domme. They are not the same, the Free Woman and the Domme, and the BDSM concept of the switch who moves between dominant and submissive is not applicable to Gorean thought. John Norman gave us a philosophy set in a fantasy melieu, often tightly intertwined into a fantasy culture, and always shown through the positive and negetive values attached to the episodes of his stories, parable-like, illustrating that which is advocated and that which is not. In those 25 books, it is not uncommon for a woman to go from Free Woman status to slave status and back to Free Woman again. Indeed, the books say that it is not at all uncommon. There is no marriage, as we know it, on Gor, but there is the institute of the Free Companionship, which is its nearest correspondent. Surprisingly enough, a woman who is bought from her parents, for tarns or gold, is regarded as a Free Companion, even though she may not have been consulted in the transaction. More commendably, a free woman may herself, of her own free will, agree to be such a companion. And it is not unusual for a master to free one of his slave girls in order that she may share the full privileges of a Free Companionship. One may have, at a given time, an indefinite number of slaves, but only one Free Companion. Such relationships are not entered into lightly, and they are normally sundered only by death. - Outlaw of Gor, page 54 The nature of the archtype of the slave is not the same as the usual meaning of the word 'slave' in English usage. It is not simply a woman who is in chains, but rather, a woman who's very essence is one of love and devotion to her man. Her thoughts are not of herself first, but of him, in all ways and at all times. She is freed from any extraneous concerns or responsibilities so that she may pursue that need within her in a totalistic fashion, as a way of living her actual life. It is for that reason that, as shown in book 5, Assassins of Gor, the slave who is bred is not permitted to so much as hold her newborn baby, it being taken away before she can even hear it's first outcry of life. Another aspect, or archtype, within a woman is that of the Mother, and a woman cannot be absolutely devoted to both her child and her Master at the same time. A woman who is at a Master's feet, about to serve his drink, cannot help but be terribly distracted and distraught if she hears, in the next room, a crashing noise and the sound of her baby weeping. The aspect of the Mother is no less valid within women than is the slave, or kajira, or the Free Woman, but they are not the same, and Goreans in the books understood this clearly. The female slave, in her excitement and beauty, is an embodiment of sensuality, love, and service - Vagabonds of Gor, page 260 The love of a slave girl is the deepest and most profound love that any woman can give a man. Love makes a woman a man's slave, and the wholeness of that love requires that she be, in truth, his slave. With nothing less can she be fully, and institutionally, content. - Magicians of Gor, page 31 A love slave is still a slave, you see, and perhaps more a slave than any other. She is held in her bondage by the strongest of all bonds, that of love. - Mercenaries of Gor, page 318 The slave makes no bargains; she does not desire small demands to be placed upon her; she does not ask for ease; she asks nothing; she gives all; she seeks to love and selflessly serve. - Blood Brothers of Gor, page 139 The slave's sexuality is imbedded in an entire matrix of obedience, love and service. In her heart these things are inextricably, and delicately and beautifully intertwined. - Guardsmen of Gor, page 209 In the course of the pursuit of the ideal of the kajira, sometimes these basic understands are lost in the shuffle of the frenetic cyberspace pace, and all too freely intermingled with the taint of the BDSM paradigm, where the usage and discipline of a submissive is a common public spectacle and source of primary entertainment by the BDSM community. This undermines the comprehension of the value of the kajira, who is not the same as the BDSM submissive, but something considerably more. The most fundamental property prized by Goreans in women is their need for love, and their capacity for love. That is the kind of woman a man wants, ultimately, one who is helplessly and totally love's captive, in his collar. - Mercenaries of Gor, page 322 These are not new concepts, they are fundimental human nature, as John Norman is so fond of pointing out again and again, until it becomes simpler to skip over what seems dedundant, until the point fades into the background of static and is rarely examined closely. These are values, values placed upon human females and they are not dependant on culture or environment. They can be found not only in the Gor novels, but in real life, in every culture and in every epoch. The majority of men have always valued this love and devotion to him, from his woman. Valued it so much that they are willing to kill for it, and if need be, die for it. Swords are often drawn on Gor over women, and particularly over women. Women are prizes, perfections and treasures. It is no wonder than men will fight over them with such ferocity. - Renegades of Gor, page 297 One of the fantasy mechanisms which Norman creates in the Gor novels is the legal and acceptible provision for a Free Woman to experience what it is like to give of herself wholly and completely, and without reservation, concern, or responsibility, being totally devoted to her man. This mechanism is fully consistant with the philosophical understanding of the natural psychology of the multiple aspects which exist within all full-spectrum women. "Do Masters ever love thier slaves?" she asked. "Often," I said. Indeed, a female slave is the easiest of all women to love; too, of course, she is the most natural of all women to love; these things have to do with the equations of nature, in particular, those of dominance and submission. To a man a female slave is a dream come true. A free woman, understandably, cannot begin to compete with the female slave for a man's love. That is perhaps another reason why free women so hate thier vulnerable, imbonded sisters. If a free woman would assure herself her her man's love she could not do better than, in effect, become his slave. She can beg of him, if she senses in herself the true bondage of love, an enslavement ceremony, in which she proclaims herself, and becomes, his slave. In their most secret and intimate relations thereafter she lives and loves as his slave. If a woman fears to do this, she may, on an experimental basis, resort to a limited self-contracting, in which her documents will contain stated termination dates. Thus, by her own free will, she becomes a slave for a specific period, ranging usually from an evening to a year. The woman enters into this arrangement freely; she cannot, of course, withdraw from it the same way. The reason for this is clear. As soon as the words are spoken, or her signature is placed on the pertainent document, or documents, she is no longer a free person. She is then only a slave, an animal, no longer with any legal powers whatsoever. She is, then, until the completion of the contractual period, until the expiration date of the arrangement, totally subject to the will of her Master. - Blood Brothers of Gor, page 101 To fail to deal with and encompass the full nature of the woman is not only a disservice to her, but a failure to have the entire woman, and therefore, an incomplete mastery on the part of the man. It should be understood that the Gorean novels by John Norman are the definitive source material for what might constitute the Gorean philosophy. That is not subject to debate. It is not the same as the limited understandings and paradigms that filter through from BDSM venues or D/s venues, and those who are striving to learn the Gorean philosophy are well advised to check thier precepts, when in doubt, with the books themselves. There are no contradictions, only faulty premises. I wish you well, and a Happy New Year Always,
Counter-Point by Mirasha Slave in Private, Free Companion in Public? By Mirasha Upon inquiring into the subject, I was duly informed that it is perfectly acceptable for a man to enslave his companion in the privacy of their own home, and yet leave her as a free woman and companion when in the company of others, in public. I was shown this quote, when I asked further questions. It managed quite adroitly to bemuse me. It’s not the first time in the books we’ve had conflicting statements or explanations, but this one most assuredly got my attention. 18:101 "Do Masters ever love their slaves?" she asked. "Often," I said. Indeed, a female slave is the easiest of all women to love; too, of course, she is the most natural of all women to love; these things have to do with the equations of nature, in particular, those of dominance and submission. To a man a female slave is a dream come true. A free woman, understandably, cannot begin to compete with the female slave for a man's love. That is perhaps another reason why free women so hate their vulnerable, imbonded sisters. If a free woman would assure herself of her man's love she could not do better than, in effect, become his slave. She can beg of him, if she senses in herself the true bondage of love, an enslavement ceremony, in which she proclaims herself, and becomes, his slave. In their most secret and intimate relations thereafter she lives and loves as his slave. If a woman fears to do this, she may, on an experimental basis, resort to a limited self-contracting, in which her documents will contain stated termination dates. Thus, by her own free will, she becomes a slave for a specific period, ranging usually from an evening to a year. The woman enters into this arrangement freely; she cannot, of course, withdraw from it the same way. The reason for this is clear. As soon as the words are spoken, or her signature is placed on the pertinent document, or documents, she is no longer a free person. She is then only a slave, an animal, no longer with any legal powers whatsoever. She is, then, until the completion of the contractual period, until the expiration date of the arrangement, totally subject to the will of her Master. In reality, why should a woman who is free be jealous of another who is embonded? We’re all women in this world together, and if any free woman or companion is unhappy about her status that is easily enough taken care of by going through the enslavement ceremony. I won’t go on, as this topic is another article all by itself. If a free woman would assure herself of her man's love she could not do better than, in effect, become his slave. She can beg of him, if she senses in herself the true bondage of love, an enslavement ceremony, in which she proclaims herself, and becomes, his slave. The enslavement ceremony is a rather basic thing, one we’re all familiar with. The woman kneels before the man she wishes to submit to, crosses her wrists before her, drops her head between her upraised arms and begs to be his slave. Her intent is simple, straightforward and unmistakable. In many places within the books, it states this last choice of hers is irrevocable, and the last decision a woman will make for herself. If the man was of the warrior caste, he had the choice of taking her as slave, or killing her, the thought there being it would be cruel to make her fend for herself as in begging the collar, she showed that she was incapable of such a thing. Far kinder to kill her outright rather than let her suffer should he choose not to collar her. If the man was of another caste, I infer that he could have told her to go away without losing honour or breaking his codes, but I know of no particular reference to such a circumstance off hand. In their most secret and intimate relations thereafter she lives and loves as his slave. However, I would question the last sentence there. Do they mean that even though she has gone through the enslavement ceremony, it is only in their private lives that she is slave, and not when in the public eye? When I asked on this, I was told that this is so. The woman is slave in private, and yet runs about in robes as a free woman when anyone beyond her companion is there. If a woman fears to do this, she may, on an experimental basis, resort to a limited self-contracting, in which her documents will contain stated termination dates. Thus, by her own free will, she becomes a slave for a specific period, ranging usually from an evening to a year. The woman enters into this arrangement freely; she cannot, of course, withdraw from it the same way. The reason for this is clear. As soon as the words are spoken, or her signature is placed on the pertinent document, or documents, she is no longer a free person. She is then only a slave, an animal, no longer with any legal powers whatsoever. She is, then, until the completion of the contractual period, until the expiration date of the arrangement, totally subject to the will of her Master. Here, though, is the crux of my confusion. On an experimental basis, a man will allow his companion to sign her rights away, and become a slave, but only for the time period she chooses to do such a thing for? Does not a slave give up all rights when they’re embonded? Why should he be required to release her at the end of the contract period? Companionship contracts are dissolved immediately upon the enslavement of either party, like other legal ties. Why should there be an exception here? I was told, what of the free companion who is "considering" begging enslavement, but is unsure of herself. Would this not work well as a trial basis for her? I had never heard of a "trial run" slavery, but I would think it to be a simple thing to enslave her, and if things did not work out, and he so chooses, he could release her once again, in such a case. My ultimate questions are myriad, beyond the few I’ve covered all ready. Would not this kind of behaviour be akin to courting the collar, just like any other time a woman behaves as a slave, with no legal change of status? Is there honour in the duplicity of having a woman in collar in private, and free in public? To quote a friend: "Being a kajira is not an absolute, it’s a state." I agree, there are free women, and slaves in all women to one degree or another. But, can she fulfill either role properly when that status shifts from one to the other on a daily basis? Would she truly be either, and could she be happy? My personal opinion is that no woman could truly be happy or whole in a state of constant fluctuation like that. I believe that a man is imminently capable of knowing his own mind, and what he wishes in his woman. Choice of her status, slave or companion, is ultimately his, as is her conduct in either role. Why would a man allow such a thing as this contract in the first place? Does it not infringe upon his right to have his mate as he wishes? Seems rather ridiculous to me. All companions are submissive to their man, period. You don't need a contract for that. If he wishes his woman to act in a certain way, she will. If he wants a slave, tis easily enough taken care of. Why then, the subterfuge?
Mirasha
|
