|
ishyB -> RE: Sadism in Gor (7/9/2009 6:11:01 AM)
|
Greetings fairer,
Did you read the rest of both my posts?
Because I really don’t see anything that we disagree on.
I never said that obedience doesn’t provide its own reward.
I also provided the argument that it is very possible for a slave to serve a man’s sadistical tendencies by suffering for him, and this out of devotions and a longing for the reward of service, of being found pleasing instead of fear for disobedience.
In fact, I’ve said that I think it would be unlikely that a girl would serve a sadist out of anything but devotion…
When I said that slaves obey out of fear for the consequences, I never meant to imply that those consequences need to be strictly physical punishment. The reason why I avoided using the word punishment all together is because I didn’t want to make it all about physical pain, or even about the man taking ‘doing something to the girl’ to be able to apply consequences to her actions. I think for most slaves, by far the worse consequence is knowing that they have displeased their owner. They fear displeasing him, and while this fear obviously stems out of devotion for him, it is also something that he actively has to create by applying consequences to her actions (in other words, by BEING displeased if she disobeys him).
You say serving offers its own reward for you and I defiantly belief that it does. But serving by itself isn't enough to make somebody a slave.
Slavery is a relationship bound status; you are a slave TO something or somebody because you are kept to their standards.
If a girl serves a man out of nothing else but the reward of service by itself, without said man ever placing expectations on her, or without him every applying consequences she you failed to please him, then I would not consider her to be his slave; not even when her actions would be exactly the same as a slave’s actions would be. She would serve him out of her own self-determination, instead of out of his mastery of her. She would in fact be serving herself and her own will, instead of his will, even if she did please him in the process.
Even Free Men and Women serve some times out of their own choosing.
When Mistress asks Master to fix something for her, and he does it, he is providing a service for her.
I'm pretty sure that he will find said service to be rewarding for it's own sake, else I doubt he would have done it for her in the first place.
The reason why he is inclined to provide her with a service is because he loves her and likes to see her happy. Thus, in essence, he's taking enjoyment out of the fact that he's doing something to please her.
Sounds pretty familiar, does it not? Yet, I doubt that anybody on this planet would ever even think about calling my Master a slave just because he provided said service to Mistress.
So where lays the difference between the service a slave provides versus the service a free provides?
If Master would not want to provide a service to Mistress, he would not do it. He's free and exercises free choice in deciding when to serve other people's needs and when not to do so. He'll only provide services when he wants to; and his relationship with Mistress wouldn't be in danger should he would not want to help her out; because she knows that he is free and she has no right to expect or demand of him that he'd do something for her. All she can do is ask and let him make up his mind. If he refuses her, she will not have the same emotion of displeasure that a free has towards a displeasing slave. She might be a little annoyed at the most, but she will not really apply any consequences to the fact that Master refused to provide her with a service.
With a slave, even though she might derive the same rewarding feelings from helping out that a free does (or probably even more then a free does), it is still a matter that she has no choice about serving or not. She obeys and the reason she obeys is because she fears the consequences of disobeying. She doesn't necessarily fears being punished, but she fears displeasing him. She fears the application of his consequences to her disobedience.
Her relationship with her owner is a conditional one. It is based on the fact that she has value to him because of the service she provided.
If she would, for whatever reason, refuse to provide the service he demands, then she will face the consequences. In the beginning this may merely be a punishment in whatever form the owner chooses. But in the end, if she keeps refusing to serve his needs, he will just get rid of her. He'll judge her to be more trouble then she is worth.
Ever slave fears to be judged more trouble then she is worth.
I never meant to say that slavery and service doesn't provide its own special reward. And that sheer devotion to a man can't drive a girl to extremes of servitude.
I only mean to say that slavery is a one-sided conditional relationship. The owner sets the terms, and the slave fears not living up to those terms, because she know that if she does not live up to them, her days are numbered...
I wish you well,
ishy
|
|
|
|
