Examining Consensual Master/slave Relationships

Examining Consensual Master/slave Relationships,

or Deconstructing Servitude

Stuart Norman

We want Master/slave relationships because they are risky and empowering, as is SM, and give us the potential of greater rewards and failures and the opportunity to know ourselves so that we can live our lives to the fullest. They offer the possibility of a far greater intimacy and bonding than the majority of conventional relationships, but they can also be a way of hiding ourselves in roles, in denial and defensiveness and stuck in dysfunctional emotional ruts. The apparent inequality and power dynamic of these relationships is intense, a living on the edge of human interaction that can magnify emotional problems, but also give them an airing and a situation to work them out. It is the crucible of desire.

This is a community of the heart. The primary motivations of Masters and slaves are not the societal norms of success in business and career or of raising children, but of an individual desire to fulfill an emotional or spiritual need that takes precedence over conventional roles. We step out into the unknown. Both the Master and the slave serve something higher, if nothing else than an ideal, whatever it is, it is greater than the person, but embodied in the Master. The fundamental requirements are dedication to the ideal, commitment to the relationship, mutual respect, trust and self-discipline. It is also a fluid community - slaves may become Masters, sometimes Masters decide that they need to become slaves or either may decide to become independent and seek conventional relationships. While a person can be a master of a field of knowledge without attachment, however, if one desires to be a Master or slave, can one really be a Master without a slave or one be a slave without a Master? Each needs the other to be whole. Yet there are so many different and sometimes conflicting desires that it is difficult to match them up.

Because of the consensuality and its apparent conflict with the power dynamic, the psyches of Master/slave relationships are delicate, but can also be a fount of strength. Other than from the small subculture, there is little social pressure or support for Master/slave relationships. It's difficult to make them work and hold them together for several years unless both Master and slave are committed to it beyond their immediate desires and are emotionally mature. In old relationships, Master and slave have worn a bit of the rough edges off of both, made some compromises and are comfortable with the power dynamic and themselves. They have given each other room to grow and allowed the relationship to evolve.

Assuming that most of us want happy and healthy Master/slave relationships, then how can we define dysfunctional from healthy Master/slave relationships among the many styles of behavior and use this knowledge to make them better and to identify those in the community who may be having problems?

Traditionally, SM tops and bottoms have far more internal limitations on their exercise of power and submission than Masters and slaves. They want each other to fulfill their desires, but they are independent and equal, and the dominant/submissive relationship is usually temporary, confined to SM scenes. Not all tops are Masters nor are all bottoms submissives. Dominants and submissives respond to each other in different and subtle ways than do tops and bottoms. The Master/slave relationship is usually a top/bottom one to a greater degree, but with some special qualities, most notably, permanence and service that goes far beyond the sexual and sensual. These are mentoring relationships that attempt to live some of the Old Garde ideals from the early days of leather/SM. While the Master/slave relationship must be considered real to a high degree for it to work, there are elements of fantasy. The point is to make fantasy real and live it.

Modern consensual slavery and SM are conceptualized from a masochistic point of view, rather than economic or the Sadean, libertine position in which anyone who could gain power over another by any means had the right to do it. People are not enslaved, only those who freely wish to submit and serve become slaves. We recognize respect, commitment, trust and self-imposed limits. It is done for mutual pleasure, even spiritual fulfillment. This is the legacy of Leopold von Sacher Masoch, the nineteenth century writer of erotica from whose name the term "masochism", was coined. Neither are most tops and bottoms or Masters and slaves really sadistic or masochistic in psychological terms, for these are pathological states of mind and create dysfunctional relationships, abuse and victimhood. If we're not really slave owners, slaves, persecutors or victims,then what are we? We are people who either need to control and lead others or submit to and serve others, but with an intent of pleasure and good will. Sex and intimacy are often the motivations that drive consensual slavery, not economic utility. The terms, "Master" and "slave", are a fantasy convenience and are roles that may help us to achieve our goals of mastering or submitting. To stroke our egos and convince ourselves that the situation is real is a good reason we want to think of ourselves as Masters or slaves. It becomes real because we think it and behave as if it is so.

Sometimes I think there is a nagging fear that because these relationships are consensual that we are playing a fantasy, that it isn't real, that something is lacking. Masters don't feel completely in control; slaves don't feel enslaved; ownership isn't real. Some of us may not want that. For others it is a source of frustration. Yet we have created a fantasy technique defined as "non-consensual consensuality". Usually a blanket consent is given up front by the slave for a wide range of options that the Master may decide to use. Specific actions aren't made clear or scripted, perhaps because both Master and slave want some uncertainty. A slave may need the excitement of not knowing what will happen to him. Certainly, this is a way to make the slave feel that he is controlled and the Master knows that He has an almost carte blanche freedom to act and experiment.

Masters and slaves come in all types, while there is a loose tradition within our subculture defining these relationships, each relationship is unique. Some Masters are very strict and dominating, others relaxed and almost passive, while slaves may be groveling lackeys or strong and proud servants. Some Masters accept control because it is given, others attempt to take control and sometimes succeed. Some slaves give up freely, others want to resist up to a point so that they feel taken when the Master asserts control. Some Masters want to consider themselves slave owners, but this does not have to mean that they will be abusive and cruel. They want the assurance that they have power and are in control. Some slaves would like to be owned, to know that they are unfree, perhaps to be kept as prisoners. Is this healthy? It can be if both fully realize what they are doing and understand the consequences and have no hidden agendas, especially from themselves. These relationships are often founded on the desire to fulfill a role and on shared values, but as in other kinds of healthy relationships they must be based in mutual respect and trust, however, trustworthiness and respect must be earned or proven - they are not a given. These relationships may be considered unequal or equal ones. Both types can work, depending on the psyches of the participants. It is a matter of style. It would appear that our Master/slave relationships are in reality both serving and fulfilling the desires and pleasure of each other. We must not judge these types of relationships if they are consensual and fulfill the desires of both Master and slave.

Despite the popular imagination of how Master/slave relationships are constructed and that a slave has no limits, there must be limits to the Master's control over His slave. For the slave, total surrender may not be possible or even desirable, but if it is it may take a long time. This submission is never a selfless act, if selflessness is even possible. A slave cannot completely give up his ego and be useful to his Master; he can only learn to master his ego. For the Master, His control is contingent on the slave's desire and commitment and His ability to lead. Some Masters insist on a signed contract, detailing each other's obligations, others rely on the word as bond. The most important point is that the slave is always free to leave. Slaves want to be used, not abused. No consensual Master/slave relationship should be based in fear and intimidation. Society demands that the Master must not maim or kill His slave, even if His slave is willing to make that ultimate sacrifice. Most Master/slave relationships allow the slave more limits to the Master's control, although these are usually negotiated in the beginning of a relationship, and after that the appearance is that the Master is fully in control. Sometimes control has to be gained gradually. A good Master is sensitive to the needs and limitations of His slave and will push in a reasonable manner to expand the slave's limits. It is the Master's responsibility to help the slave fulfill his potential as slave and human being. The Master also should expect His slave to fulfill his promises to serve and has the right to administer corrective punishment should the slave refuse or slack off. Over time, the slave may decide that he wishes to submit more of himself to the Master's control. If the slave gives up his rights and responsibilities to a Master, then the Master must take on those responsibilities. A vacuum must not be left. The slave's health and well-being depends on the good will and the self-discipline of the Master - that the Master highly values His "property" and would not allow it to come to harm, whether under His own hand or that of any other.

Master/slave relationships needn't be deadly serious. A healthy sense of humor is vital to maintaining the relationship.

Masters and slaves should be able to support each other when in need, such as physical illness, and this behavior need not conflict with expected roles. The Master who is able to show his vulnerability to his slave is a stronger man than one who cannot.

Recently, on a mailing list devoted to Master/slave topics, a thread about Masters and slaves needing each other caused much interesting and heated discussion. Some thought that need, either mutual or from the slave, was a poor excuse for a relationship because of co-dependency that was equated with weakness. One Master wanted a strong, independent slave who was willing to give all to Him. This is OK, even admirable. But this Master also perceived other types of Master/slave relationships to be invalid because of co-dependency. Co-dependency can indeed be a problem when it reduces a person's self-confidence and independence, but aren't most relationships, whether Master/slave or conventional vanilla, based in need? Why else would we seek others with whom to bond? If one were very independent why would he wish to be a slave?

There is some disagreement whether love should enter into a Master/slave relationship. If it is to last and grow, I fail to see how love cannot be an important part of it. I think this reticence over love between Master and slave is because of a fear that love would muddle the power dynamic and soften the relationship. This need not happen because love should foster the desires of both to give more of what the other wants. Some slaves want to adore and love their Masters, even if the Master doesn't return it. Some Masters want a slave to love and expect the slave to return it. Others want the power dynamic to be distant and strict.

Masters and slaves aren't perfect. They make mistakes, get angry, say the wrong things, become sad. The Master/slave relationship can provide a situation for abuse if the Master takes out his frustrations on His slave. There are legitimate reasons for either to be angry at the other, but the special position of power may cause the Master to easily dish it out and the slave to take it because he has agreed that punishment is the right of the Master. A Master who cannot apologize to His slave when he has committed a wrong because He fears that His mastery of the slave will be threatened, has an ego problem. A slave may be afraid to express his anger because he feels it is disrespectful or failure to live up to the Master's desires or fears punishment. How can Masters and slaves deal with anger in healthy ways? Time outs, wherein Master and slave can talk freely about the relationship and other interests or problems are a good plan. The ability to talk out problems in a reasonable manner, rather than acting immediately on anger, and to forgive and get on with life is also paramount.

Behavior modification is often used in Master/slave relationships, especially in the initial training period. Masters have used techniques such as hypnosis, third-degree interrogations and even some forms of brainwashing to break their slaves to their will. Should slaves be broken? This is an issue that should be understood and accepted or rejected at the beginning of a Master/slave relationship. Prospective slaves usually understand that some of their behavior will be modified to suit the Master. Most slaves agree to follow a written set of rules from the onset of the relationship. Some slaves want to be broken, probably for the experience or to demonstrate their submission to their Master. It is the degree of alteration that we need to question. It could be the violation of a mind, leading to serious psychological problems or it may be nothing more serious than the breaking down and rebuilding of the personality that happens in intensive therapy or military boot camps. Is it even possible that a Master can or should want to change a slave's fundamental beliefs, opinions and personality? This is an area where Masters should have supervised training and experience before they attempt any deep intrusions into their slave's minds.

Punishment for infractions is one form of altering behavior, but the criteria for infractions should be known to the slave prior to punishment and he should understand his violation. Punishment probably should take the form of some denial of pleasure or privilege to the slave or some task of sheer drudgery. SM is another potentially very powerful behavior modification technique because it can be used to alter consciousness - it can be cathartic and therapeutic - but it shouldn't be used as punishment because it is usually considered a pleasure and positive need, although some Masters have been known to use very intense and brutal SM techniques to break and/or punish their slaves. It is probably through SM that most of the behavior modification - trust building, intense intimacy and bonding - is accomplished in Master/slave relationships. Better that positive reinforcement be used rather than negative.

There is some valid argument whether Masters and slaves can ever completely understand the psyches of the other. Masters don't have slave hearts, slaves don't have Master's hearts, but they may have once had. Without that internal motivation there can be no self-examination to understand the need and desire of the other. Yet each fits the other like the piece of a puzzle to make a whole. Novice Masters and slaves may sometimes need the advice and support of their own kind to work out problems rather than from Master to slave.

Considerations for Masters

A conundrum exists in our conception that Masters take control and slaves give and submit, but unlike real slavery, submission is not coerced, it is given freely. Then, do Masters need to be aggressive and powerful people? Not necessarily. Obviously, they should know what they want and capable of exerting their will toward the slave. But why should a Master need to exert a lot of energy to control a slave if the slave freely submits? The Master only need offer direction of the slave's desires and use the slave to His pleasure and allow him to serve. Isn't this giving pleasure to the slave just as the slave gives pleasure to his Master? Only if a master feels the need or pleasure to act in a domineering manner or that the slave needs this behavior to enforce his submission should a Master behave aggressively.

Part of the fantasy of wanting a slave is power, often expressed in sexual dominance. This is a reason why some Masters want inferior slaves, lacking ambition, who are incapable of challenging their authority and therefore seek out the young and inexperienced. For many Masters the ideal slave is then a hunky younger submissive, a boy toy or perhaps a man toy whose hot body can be used for the pleasure of the Master. Never mind if they have a mind. But what of a slave who has a well-trained mind and skills that he is willing to put fully into the service of a Master? Shouldn't a Master want a slave with more to offer than just a hot body? A slave who can offer both a good body and trained mind should be far more valuable. The motives of a Master wanting a weak slave are to be questioned. Wouldn't it be better that a strong, self-confident slave submitted to Him?

In the beginning of a relationship, so that both will know if the relationship can work, a Master should be willing to share some personal information about himself with a prospective slave. Masters may want to withhold some information to exercise power over the slave. However, a Master who will not reveal anything of himself to a slave may be hiding something and should be avoided. A Master should also expect the slave to reveal everything about himself, and if need be should know psychological techniques to get into the slave's head, to gain power over him. Shouldn't a Master want to know the slave's desires, hopes and fears rather than not caring and just using him? No Master wants just any slave, no matter how willing to serve, nor will a self-respecting slave accept just any Master. There is still a great deal of choice in forming these relationships, just as there is in other kinds of relationships. I fail to see how a consensual slave can come into a Master's home and fully submit without knowing that the Master is the right one for him. It would be a foolish decision led by an undisciplined desire, i.e., fantasy, and probably doomed to failure.

There are experienced Masters who have the capability of seeing into a prospective slave's heart and understand what needs to be done to encourage the slave to submit, especially if the prospective slave is unsure of his commitment to slavery or is perhaps living a fantasy. These Masters have learned one of the most important techniques of mastery, the ability to manipulate humans. On the surface, this behavior may appear to be coercive, however it isn't really; it is a way of firm mentoring and bringing out what is already there and letting it flower or demonstrating to the prospective slave his delusions. A novice slave should be kept on a short leash.

Some Masters are very hands-on, open, encouraging and even allow themselves to be vulnerable in the presence of their slaves, others are distant, demanding and harsh disciplinarians. None of these personalities are necessarily dysfunctional, most are a matter of style and preference, but some may be dysfunctional.

I often wonder if some of the more distant Masters have a difficult time opening themselves up emotionally to other people and forming equal relationships and so must seek a submissive to have any relationship. They want their slave to be only a slave, not a submissive lover or equal, to bolster their ego. I would have to call this behavior dysfunctional because such Masters must have significant insecurity issues. These Masters do not want to be seen as vulnerable at any time, yet they may be the most vulnerable. Is this a reason that some men become Masters?

We expect Masters to have strong, dominant or aggressive personalities. This expectation causes some Masters to have a hard time admitting, even to themselves, that their egos are fragile. The Master persona, having to hold up an image of constant control, is easily threatened. A swaggering, macho attitude may be a calculated role or it may be a personality based in insecurity that the bravado covers. However, there do exist truly self-confident Masters. The man who has a Master heart has a calm, natural authority and self-confidence that a slave heart can recognize.

In my estimation, the greatest attribute a Master must have is humility. Any form of spiritual mastership imparts humility as part of its discipline. He understands and accepts that He doesn't know it all and is constantly working to improve himself. A Master has mastered himself. A slave must master slavery.

The second most important quality a Master must have is a wicked sense of humor. And a Master should be able to laugh at himself for His foibles.

Masters should be capable of offering appreciation and gratitude to their slaves for exceptional service.

Wanting to be a top or bottom in sex and SM has little to do with having a Master heart or slave heart and living as a Master or slave. Some Masters like to bottom for the sensual experience, even to their slaves, and many slaves are accomplished tops. This does not have to break the Master/slave psyche if both are secure in their beings. A slave ordered to top his Master should do it with the same regard that he follows any command of the Master's.

How much should a master want to control his slave's life where it must interface with the larger society? For example, if the slave is called for jury duty the Master must allow him to serve. Will a Master demand that he work outside the home or will He keep him a virtual prisoner and provide for all his needs? Will the slave be given his own room? Will the Master require that the slave relinquish all earnings and property to Him or will the slave be allowed to own property and keep some money for personal use and how much? Will the Master make legal provisions for His slave in the event of His disability or death? Will the slave be required to have medical and life insurance? Will the slave be allowed the pursuit of personal interests? Will the slave be allowed involvement in organizations? Will the Master allow him to vote or tell him how to vote? Should a Master allow a slave to have outside friends and contact with family, and if so, how much? These are important decisions that may make or break a relationship and should be made clear at the trial phase of any Master/slave relationship.

Considerations for slaves

Slaves must have strong psyches. They usually have had to do a great deal of self-examination to know that submission must be their way of life. This builds self-confidence. Yet they consciously decide to make themselves vulnerable. Can we say the same of Masters, unless at one time they have also been slaves? Of some Masters this is clearly the case, of some few others I am not so sure. Yet most of us who are gay, especially those of us who practice SM, have had to do extensive self-examination to survive, accept ourselves, learn self-discipline and grow. I have seen Master/slave relationships where the slave is the stronger person and knows it, sometimes the Master knows it, too, yet the desire of the slave is to submit and serve the Master, therefore the relationship functions.

Most slaves want to see qualities in Masters that makes their submission worthwhile. They need Masters who have superiority and strength in some areas of life. These needs will differ from slave to slave. Because of the potential inequality of Master/slave relationships a slave may become closer to his Master than the Master to the slave because the Master must get into the head of His slave and know him more than the slave is allowed to know his Master.

Some slaves want only to serve a Master in any way that He pleases. Other's have specific needs. Some are even willing to give up their humanity and need to be treated as dogs or as pony boys, living as animals. For some pain pig slaves, pain through heavy SM is the only way they can be and want to be controlled.

It should be obvious that there are some men who want to be slaves as a denial of responsibility, lacking initiative, allowing the Master to decide everything and thus being cared for. This is also dysfunctional behavior because it is using the Master. There are also some slaves who want to submit because they believe that they are inferior beings and some Masters who believe they are superior to almost everyone and therefore have a right to own a slave, potentially leading to abuse. When this facade cracks, what then? Masters who prey on weakness to take a slave should be beneath scorn.

In the ancient tradition of chattel slavery, slaves often had superior knowledge, such as reading and writing, that the Master lacked but made use of, therefore a slave with talents and skills was a very valuable property. These superior slave talents didn't make the Master feel inferior; it was His right to own and make use of them and to take pride in ownership. We can still do this, today. Sometimes a slave would be proud to be owned by an important and kind Master. We must remember that in ancient times slavery was an accepted way of life and the rightness of it was rarely questioned. Few would want to be slaves, but it might be the luck of the draw, so one made the best of it, although many were abused; their lives short and brutal.

Unlike as in chattel slavery, ownership of a consensual slave is not total nor is his submission. The Master's power cannot be total. It is a matter of degree. Except in fantasy, the vast majority of us do not support or want to bring back chattel slavery, although we might wish to influence society to accept voluntary slavery and make provisions in law for protecting both Masters and slaves. At times there are rumors of involuntary servitude within the fringes of the leather/SM community. Some cases may be true, but these are rare and these captors obviously cannot be aboveboard because they are criminals. But most of us want slavery to be consensual; for how much sweeter must it be when it is freely given.

There are some Masters who appear to think that their slaves are real property. A probably apocryphal story describes a Master who made comment that he thought he should be able to use the law to forcibly bring back his runaway slave, citing what he thought was a slave or indentured servitude law still on the books. Is this stupidity, fantasy or what? If he was serious we should all be glad that his slave escaped and hope that this questionable excuse for a Master never found him or any other.

What of slaves who are bought and sold by Masters? While this is a rare practice and usually happens only with seasoned, committed slaves, there appears to be no choice in the matter for the slave, but we don't always know if there hasn't been discussion and agreement beforehand between Master and slave that this is acceptable. What are the standards here? A slave who can submit to any Master out of the desire to feel the Master's control is either an extraordinarily strong person or else they have been emotionally destroyed and weakened. And a Master who sells His slave may not care for him as a human being or has lost interest or may have become incapable of caring for the slave. Depending on the situation, it could be the ultimate act of asserting power over a slave or in the slave's best interest if he desires to continue in slavery when the Master can no longer care for him.