20 MARCH, 2007
Vows of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience
I was reading on Jack Rinella's website last night his thoughts on Mastery - of course slavery. He was saying that he thought that the slave has no rights whatsoever in this authoritarian lifestyle, and although I agree with much of what he says, I think that what makes the relationship is the interplay between the two parties. The Master and slave relationship can be likened to that of the novice in the monastery, where the ideals of poverty, chastity and obedience are practised for the greater glory of god and the edification of the monk.
Comparing the monk to the slave, both serve their Master with equal humility and devotion. Each exists solely to please his Master and Masters, like the god of the monks, must be sure to treat their slaves as well and with humanity, compassion and kindness.
Yesterday I posted My take on a slave contract which I'd found on the web somewhere some time ago. I do believe that yes, the slave must have some opt-outs, generally relating to his safety. I think that the sensible and true Master must be aware of the welfare of the slave, even to the point of placing the slave's assets into a trust fund or some interest-bearing account (the Premium Bonds would be nice, especially if the slave wins) because the slave has placed its trust in the Master.
Like monks, I do not think that full-time slaves should have access to a bank account. I think it is right and proper that the Master owns and manages these assets for the duration of the contract very much in the same way that the Superior manages the assets of the monastery - always having the best interests of his slave at heart. Control of the wealth in a relationship is to control the relationship, and in the Master/slave relationship it makes the slavery tangible. Masters should allow slaves pocket-money to take care of the mundane expenses that occur in everyone's daily life, especially if the slave is being sent out to work for its keep.
I am firmly of the opinion that slaves need to be kept occupied, and having the slave toiling in the vanilla environment at its occupation is very good for both parties - it provides the Master with additional income to fund the expenditure of keeping a slave, and it provides the slave with an "ordinary" life which it can leave to return to the safety and security of the Household. It also ensures that the slave is kept on its toes because it has to care for its Master as well as earn its keep, so it is better able to appreciate the kindnesses of the Master when he so chooses. A self-sufficient slave is a happy slave, but the earnings of the slave are the earnings of the Master, and in so doing the slave practises the poverty that is so prized by the Religious.
In much the same way as the Trappists, for example, a slave must be denied the use of its own communications because its independent contact with the larger world outside the Household can undermine the bonds of ownership and devotion to the cause. slaves' freedom of communication should be carefully monitored and controlled by the Master until a sufficient level of trust has been built up between the two at which point the slave ought to be trusted to remain true to its chosen path. It is right that slaves contact their family and friends, but it is wrong for them to seek an alternative social life outside the Household, except with the permission of the Master. Observing a vow of silence is as effective as practising chastity in that it teaches slaves the value of silence and equally the value of speech.
slaves also make the decision to remain in chastity when agreeing to a contract with a Master - after all, his holes, cock and balls no longer belong to him but to his Owner in the same way that the monk sacrifices the pleasures of the flesh to be closer to his god. The slave must therefore forgo any unauthorised stimulation of the sexual organs completely. It is for this reason that I think a slave should be kept in chastity at all times when not in use. It makes him appreciate and perform very well during those intimate moments serving his Master sexually - whether or not he is permitted to orgasm.
Now there are those who might balk at the prospect of giving up so much personal freedom in this day and age, but for a realistic experience of slavery there is no other option. I have drawn parallels with the good brothers who do the same in the ecclesiastic environment, for as shown, just as they take vows of poverty, obedience and chastity, so too does the full-time slave when it agrees to serve its Master.
Such vows, unlike the monk, tend to last for a limited time only so they are not nearly as onerous. I would argue that they are equally spiritually uplifting, though.
Posts
