On to slavery
and murky waters filled with taboos and quarrels about definitions. A quick
google search on the difference between subs and slaves will yield loads
of results. The first ones my search yielded were people lamenting how
slavery is watered down with everyone calling themselves slaves. In relation to
such statements I can’t help but point to the fact, that any form of slavery
not watered down would involve involuntary capture, enslavement and trade of
human beings who would definitely not
be asked their consent.
In other words: considering slavery within a
BDSM-context in any sensible way must water down the term considerably. The
next solution might be a minimal understanding of consensual slavery as
something as close to the historical meaning of slavery as possible;
irrevocable ownership, but with the (initial) consent of the slave. One must
still respect that kink is a
marriage between fantasy and practical reality, so there will be compromise. Inevitably the disagreement on how much
you must compromise with the pure idea of slavery, what forms of slavery that are too compromised to be considered 'real', or too uncompromising to be considered consensual or responsible - even among those, with whom
I disagree, who want to ‘protect’ terms such as master and slave against being
watered down by those who are not hard core as they are.
Secondly,
slavery is an extremely charged word. It’s almost taboo, which makes it a great
attraction to some and revolts others. Some may have a fetish for slavery, they
may enjoy playing at it without making it their lifestyle. Others may see so
strong negative connotations with the term, they may be revolted by it even
though they may wish for something that others would consider lifestyle-slavery.
I don’t see why, if we see BDSM as a project of emancipation, something meant
to set people free to enjoy their kink, we should limit the ability to enjoy
slavery as a fetish or form of roleplay, just because some purists find that it
waters down their lifestyle. For that
reason I’d genuinely like to come up with a more neutral term that can capture
modern lifestyle slavery, so that we may free the word ‘slavery’ to be used by
those who like using it, and talk about the lifestyle in a way that’s not so
charged.
Some might argue
the term for it is TPE, total power exchange. If you go for the minimal
definition of slavery it is indeed a fairly precise solution. You might then
make the distinction TPE-slavery as a total transfer of power on the one hand
and fetish-slavery as playing with the slave role within a continuously
negotiated relationship (whether that’s 24/7, between regular partners or just
a scene). I believe, however, that TPE covers something more comprehensive than
lifestyle-slavery needs to be, in that it has to be a total exchange of power.
It becomes a quantitative definition: TPE is the point, where you control
everything, where there is nothing left to give up control over. I prefer a
qualitative definition; I see ownership and slavery as something inherently
different than ‘simply’ obeying the will of someone else.
In the minimal
definition above, the difference, other than the transfer of all power to the master, is the
irrevocability of slavery. This is something that pops up in my search as well.
It is pointed out that the submissive continuously chooses to submit; that
while the submission might be in an established relationship under established
rules it is still something you do because you want to submit – and that you
would stop the moment you do not. Slavery, in this understanding, is something
only chosen once. This leads those articles to point to those things, that make
submission a choice, as those that define submission as something different
than slavery. Slavery doesn’t have contracts with conditions in them, doesn’t
have limits, doesn’t have safe words etc.
because all of those are tools for the submissive to have the ultimate
control about what is allowed to happen. If this definition is accepted a lot
of people who are attracted to slavery will at most be fetish-slaves.
There is a qualitative difference between
submission and slavery in my opinion and I think that it does lie in how power
is transferred. For me the core, and fascination, of slavery is irrevocability.
That you are in a situation where you are no longer in a position to say no or
make demands about what is given. A submissive chooses to follow her dominant
every step of the way. It may well be that a person enjoys submission so much,
or has such a great need to serve, that she will go further in her submission,
than what she would actively have wanted for herself. It may well be that she
enjoys that she is ‘forced’ to do this or that (within her limits) because the
dominant wants it. But in both cases the submissive still chooses to follow,
because she enjoys the feeling of giving herself or of feeling forced. It may
also well be that the submissive may lose the ability to say ‘no’ because of
the intensity of the scene, subspace or an endorphin high that makes her ready
to do things in the heat of play, that are not otherwise ok with her. But in
those cases it’s still part of the deal that the dom will try to make contact
with the submissive, or that he remembers what she has agreed to, and that he
considers what she would agree to if she had the full use of her mental
capacities. As I see it the difference for a slave is that she is seeking a
situation where she no longer chooses; where there is no longer a choice for her,
where whatever is chosen for her is a given to her, something outside of her
power.
But this leads
me to another important distinction, something pointed out by those who work
with the idea of ‘internal enslavement’: It may well be that a slave chooses to
give up all power over herself, but that choice is only binding in the extent
that she is bound to it. Since slavery (thankfully) has no legal validity in
our society, it is ultimately for the slave to make slavery valid. If it’s only
the master that considers the slavery valid, then his only power over her is
physical force, which (once again thankfully) is not legal in our society.
External slavery is thankfully a thing of the past. Internal enslavement, on
the other hand, is the idea of forging
chains, as strong as external enslavement, within the slave herself by
gradually training her to find anything but obedience impossible, installing obedience
deeply, that she loses the ability to take back the control she initially gave
up.
The slave may
very deeply have given herself to her master, and she may obey him perfectly,
and in a way very much like a slave. But she is only doing so, because she
wants the slavery so much that she’ll do most anything; she is bound by her own
wish for her slavery, not ultimately by anything holding her to her status. She
is continuously choosing her slavery, like a submissive would continuously
choose her submission (that is not to say, that the ideal that would hold her
to her slavery is not a very strong thing). Slavery, as something irrevocable,
then, is not something that can be achieved over night, but rather something that
builds on a very long process of instilling obedience until it becomes
ownership. In that understanding, where slavery is something where you not only
want inescapable ownership, but where
it has been achieved, I will dare to claim that there are extremely few
slaves or masters out there. But exactly because there is a qualitative
difference to what slaves want – in their wish to be owned, to have choice
taken away – I do not find it sufficient just to call those, who seek a condition
of slavery, submissives or fetishists. I do not think it is meaningful either
to believe that a slave will wake up from one day to the other and suddenly be
without the power to escape her master. It is a gradual process where for a
long while you want to lose control over what you give, and you keep on giving
it again and again until the point where it is not something you are giving any
longer, but where it is actually his – a given, so to speak.
In my
understanding to submit is to give because you enjoy giving and because you
choose to give to the one who is receiving or taking it. Slavery, in the D/s
context, is to give because you want to be a slave, want the ideal and,
gradually, because you no longer have that choice. It’s a way of submission
where you seek to work submission and dominance into the psyche of the slave.
The slave seeks to be owned, to lose her independence to one extent or another.
To reduce slavery to just being a very intense form of dominance and submission,
is to lose an important qualitative difference within the realm of dominance
and submission. On the other hand I see no reason to make quantitative criteria
for slavery. It might be that you enjoy slavery within certain spheres of your
life, like your sexuality or your life at home, but not within others; just
like D/s can involve all of your life or just a small space within it. As I see
slavery, what makes it different from submission is that you fundamentally
surrender, or seek to surrender, control of what you have given; that with time
it is something you could hardly take back or cannot take back at all.
For me there is
something very beautiful about giving without conditions. The fact that she entrusts
herself to me like that makes me give myself to the task of caring for her as
her master unconditionally as well. I believe in a slavery built on trust and
love, in reaching the point where we know each other so well that there is no
longer a choice for her, because she could no longer contemplate me wanting
something that is not good for both of us. I am not sure if that is irrevocable
slavery. I’m not sure such chains might survive if I were to betray her trust;
but I have no need to bind a girl in a way so as to give me power to abuse her.
I see great beauty in trust, but no beauty in trust being betrayed. I hope one
day I find a girl to trust me in that way, in the way that will also be a way
of giving herself to me, but that will only be because we can trust me to use
that power for what is best for both of us.
