A general outline of my consensual slavery society

[HasturLeGuin]

Why make this post?
Writing has slowed a little bit and it usually picks up when I know people are interested. Give my outline a read and let me know what you think! I'm happy to answer any worldbuilding questions you may have.

The Story
So, I've got this ongoing erotic fiction project loosely called "Dispatches."

It centers around the adventures of National Geographic journalist Alan Merrick as he spends a year at the slave brothel of Master Hastur LeGuin. The brothel is located in the town of Carlo in the country of Nova Insula. There, Alan experiences a society where consensual BDSM slavery is practiced openly and is an essential part of the culture.

Over the course of the year, he gets to know (and also gets to know) the twenty-one slaves at the brothel. Not all are sex slaves. They do all have unique personalities, histories, and relationship dynamics with each other. Hijinks, drama, heartbreak, fights, laughs, sex all ensue. This of it as Downton Abbey meets Superstore meet the Upper Floor.

He also gets to meet some of the friends of Hastur LeGuin and see other lifestyles in the community.

I may post another character guide some other time.

The world and the system

Nova Insula is a small archipelago about the size of Ireland that was founded ~100 years ago as a haven for people considered outside of the sexual norm. It became an insular society that values free and open expression within its bounds but otherwise is not particularly well liked by or trusting of outsiders. The biggest unique feature of this country is their system of consensual slavery.

This is slavery in basically a supercharged, fantasy version of BDSM TPE relationships. There are still rules and legal rights. Slaves are bought, sold, owned, used, inherited, etc. all voluntarily.

Slaves have all regular human rights agreed upon in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (provided you make an exception in articles 4 and 5 for actions agreed upon legally by both parties)

For more specific things, it would be a monumental writing task and honestly ruin what I'm trying to create to concoct a gigantic legal system regulating spankings and orgasm denial. Therefore, in all Owner/slave relationships there exists a document called a "True Will". Think of this as a standardized, legally binding, BDSM contract. In this world, if a person owns a slave they must yearly sit down as equals and hammer out the details of what is allowed and not allowed in their arrangement. Think of it like tax season.

It works like this. Let's say somebody purchases a slave (this could be done through a government entity, an auction house, Owner to Owner, or the slave selling themselves with any number of business arrangement and different people collecting that profit). The sale would not be complete if the person who was the slave did not agree to it. Say they really didn't like the vibe of the potential Owner, or the Owner said "Hey, I'm buying someone to tend to my pigs and cows" and the slave in question really just wants to totter around in a maid uniform, serve tea, and have sex. There would be no sale, and the contract would be off. But assuming both parties agree to it they would sit down and iron out a "True Will".

Let's say the slave really likes spanking. This would be outlined in the True Will. Let's say they don't like it but are okay with it being used as punishment. That is written into the document. Now let's say that is a hard limit, that goes into the document and the slave has grounds to take the Owner to court for abuse if they cross that line.

The world of Nova Insula is fluid with slaves leaving from time to time. If the list of typical human, non-blood relationships is "Romantic partners, Boss/Employee, Friend/Friend" then Owner/slave is just another in the list. Sometimes, they may "break up" or otherwise move on, chasing a job or following a love interest. An Owner may pass away or sell a slave due to financial reasons.

We'll talk families later but let's say a slave decides to start a family but isn't married to their Owners. It would be proper and expected for that slave to leave the employ of their Owner and raise their family. They would often remain a close family friend and may even be considered part of the extended family.

The government has a system where a slave can live for a one-month break on the government dime before putting themselves up for auction. While slaves are represented in government there is a generally paternalistic attitude towards them societally. They may also sell themselves to an auction house with particular connections in a certain industry.

Culture
Consensual Slavery is baked into all adult life. It takes on as many different flavors as does real world alternative sex practices and power dynamics. If you can think of it and it's legal/ethical, you can find it here.

A quick note on families, nothing sexual is allowed in the presence of children. There is also a strong social taboo against household slaves serving minors in any way. This is to avoid entitlement and feelings of superiority before a child is old enough to learn the intricacies of that lifestyle.

For example, Mom and Dad might own Billy, and Billy serves them food, but Jacob, the son, is expected to serve himself. Billy might help Jacob with his math homework because he's a nice guy who is good at math, but Jacob absolutely cannot order Billy to do anything. As Jacob gets into high school, he'll learn more about Nova Insula and have some of the blanks filled in. By then, he will probably have a pretty solid familiarity anyway. This is NOT something I ever plan on exploring in this world, but I see it as an answer to a necessary question.

People enter into this world fully when they turn eighteen. I've played around with the timeline of this but here's where I am currently. People take two gap years, one as an apprentice Owner and one as an apprentice slave. Basically, job shadowing. They at the end of that period the world is their oyster. They can go to college for whatever they desire, some colleges are slave focused, and others are Owner focused. But you can have a major along with learning the basics of slavery or dominance. Kind of like a religious college where you get a regular education but there are also religion focused classes.

Why is my main location a brothel?
Because then the household feels like a college frat movie but with BDSM?
The real, in-universe reason is that slaveholding is expensive and not for everyone. Some people choose to visit the brothel for a specialized experience, the go rarely as a treat, they may rent out a large room as a celebration for something. The brothel where the main story takes place also serves as a bit of a community center with parties, cabaret nights, nightclub type-activities, and even educational and artistic expositions.

What is the final product?
I don't know! I've kind of just been doing this for fun for a while now. I'd love to eventually make a book that covers Alan's year at the brothel but with his own magazine articles interspersed. I also have most of a rulebook created in PDF form that I will eventually post. It's specific to the brothel where the characters live.

What are your influences?
The Upper Floor by Kink.com. That project has been a huge inspiration for me for a very long time. I always thought they nailed it with the idea of BDSM where the slaves were actually having a great time (relatively speaking) it made so much more sense to me.

Restrained Elegance and Ariel Anderssen. There's a lovely series of videos that that studio has done that feature a slave hotel or something like that? I don't have access to the videos currently but it has a lot of personality.

Sunstone by Stjepan Šejić is a truly beautiful piece of literature that is erotic but puts its characters first. Read it for free on deviantart or buy the volumes of the physical book from many different booksellers.

The Marketplace Series by Lara Antinou is fairly close to what I'm going for. It's a little more "secret society-y" but still very good. Absolutely worth a read.

The Stevensons (or other work) by Erensich is great but a word of warning to anyone who is particularly attracted to the egalitarian nature of my writing. Erensich's stuff is NOT egalitarian. The part that makes it so fun for me though is that his worldbuilding is great and very thorough. There is definitely some influence in that in Nova Insula.

 

[HasturLeGuin]

I figured this post may be more suited to this forum. Feel free to remove if not allowed.

 

[AlinaX]

Surely a key component of slavery is the non-consensual nature. I guess you could build a society around the voluntary, temporary, partial surrender of certain human rights. Slaves would still have some human rights, and could state preferences, but they shouldn't have any expectation that this will be respected.

 

[HasturLeGuin]

Surely a key component of slavery is the non-consensual nature. I guess you could build a society around the voluntary, temporary, partial surrender of certain human rights. Slaves would still have some human rights, and could state preferences, but they shouldn't have any expectation that this will be respected.

What you describe is basically what I've made. People enter into a contract called a "True Will" document which is basically a BDSM contract like you would see in more hard core real-world relationships.
My goal was to make this fantasy make as much sense as I could so I had to have a mechanism to prevent actual abuse, hence the True Will. Basically this literary universe answers the question "What if TPE was society wide?"

 

[filthytrancendence]

It's a cool idea. It intersects with some of my personal bugbears, so I thought I'd throw out some food for thought.

The entire idea is chafing a bit against the framework of making it make sense within a legal/conceptual framework that is similar to existing power structures. As you said, it would be a monumental and frankly silly task to create a legal framework. And there's something there. These people would not bother with that shit. It's missing the entire point. They've seceded from proper society for a reason, not to replicate it.

I'm saying think about going deeper. Discarding even more of the norms. To me, this is the perfect scenario to explore a more truly anarchist society (personal bugbear alert). It's awkward and a little confusing to call it consensual slavery in the first place. Maybe that's the genre tag you use to attract readers, but in-universe, come up with a new word. Because then you have free reign to define that word. The thing about liberal (by which I mean the strain of capitalist democracy practiced in recent history) law is that it is built around property. So 'consensual slavery' is an irreconcilable problem for the entire framework, and it would absolutely come down on the slavery side every time. Because that is what it exists to do (mediate property deputes).

Your framing device of nat geo journalists coming in is a perfect frame to have characters exposit about how their society works. I think you'd find that if you discard the concept of ownership more broadly, it would open up a lot more interesting dynamics to explore.

But I recognize that is very much my bullshit and isn't everyone's cup of tea. Just an idea.

 

[HasturLeGuin]

It's a cool idea. It intersects with some of my personal bugbears, so I thought I'd throw out some food for thought.

The entire idea is chafing a bit against the framework of making it make sense within a legal/conceptual framework that is similar to existing power structures. As you said, it would be a monumental and frankly silly task to create a legal framework. And there's something there. These people would not bother with that shit. It's missing the entire point. They've seceded from proper society for a reason, not to replicate it.

I'm saying think about going deeper. Discarding even more of the norms. To me, this is the perfect scenario to explore a more truly anarchist society (personal bugbear alert). It's awkward and a little confusing to call it consensual slavery in the first place. Maybe that's the genre tag you use to attract readers, but in-universe, come up with a new word. Because then you have free reign to define that word. The thing about liberal (by which I mean the strain of capitalist democracy practiced in recent history) law is that it is built around property. So 'consensual slavery' is an irreconcilable problem for the entire framework, and it would absolutely come down on the slavery side every time. Because that is what it exists to do (mediate property deputes).

Your framing device of nat geo journalists coming in is a perfect frame to have characters exposit about how their society works. I think you'd find that if you discard the concept of ownership more broadly, it would open up a lot more interesting dynamics to explore.

But I recognize that is very much my bullshit and isn't everyone's cup of tea. Just an idea.

Thank you for your feedback! I do want to mention that the legal framework does exist, I'm just not going to write it. And it's more about respecting saftey and people's general wishes.
I'm open to maybe using the terms Courtesan and Servant but erotic slavery is such a huge part of what I'm going for here I'm reticent to move away from it entirely. I see your point though and you aren't the first to raise it. Ownership in this society is a ritual that is similar to a marriage but within a slightly different context. (Though some owners and slaves do get married)

You mention anarchism and I think they are close to that. They are more libertarian socialists. In the sense of everybody should be taken care of but also leave me alone.

 

[filthytrancendence]

libertarian socialists

That is what I mean by anarchism. But most (north American) socialists have just given up on the word libertarian, because capitalists got their stink all over it so thoroughly.

I've thought about it more since I replied and I don't think I really articulated well what I was trying to get it.

I think what I'm hearing from you is that you want to explore a specific dynamic that just does not fit within the real-world conception of 'slave'. As in, you want to explore a world in which people can choose to surrender most of their agency willingly, and law and culture is respectful and supportive of this decision.

I'm saying, that idea is so counter-cultural you have to go very, very deep down the philosophical well to find a basis for this that is plausible. The concept of ownership itself is at odds with the dynamic you want to explore. The entire basis for this society would need to be built around absolute respect for individual agency.

And it doesn't make much sense to stop there, either. That's most of what I tried to say to begin with. If you cannot own a person, but you can still accept their obsequious service, does it make any sense to own anything? The current conception of a legal framework itself is pretty silly in this frame.

And the thing you're exploring is also a really fascinating exception to the general rule of anarchism. We're opposed to hierarchy, unless it can justify itself. So what do you do when somebody wants to voluntarily create a hierarchy with you at the top? Well, that's a pretty good justification. How do you avoid the pitfalls? How do you still respect their agency while also respecting their choice to surrender it? That's the really good shit, if you ask me. You dun found a real interesting dialectic.

So coming back up to the level of language, you are fighting against everyone's innate conception of the words 'owner' and 'slave' and even 'law'. Because all of those words have their roots in ideas antithetical to the heart of your concept. Kinda like Libertarian, ironically. I can fight against the general assumption that people have about that word, or I can just abandon it and use something else. There's pitfalls either way, which have been illustrated in this very conversation. My inclination is to give up on the stinky words and wade through the confusion of newly describing the new thing. Yours seems to be to dig in and try and reclaim them into something else. The problem with that is it's going to be very easy to be misunderstood, like another kind of gravity you're fighting. The problem with my approach is that it's unclear and murky and risks becoming an intellectual swamp nobody actually cares about.

And probably there's a 3rd option I'm not thinking of, and maybe that's better. In any case, it's an interesting challenge I respect, and I'm curious how it turns out.

 

[HasturLeGuin]

That is what I mean by anarchism. But most (north American) socialists have just given up on the word libertarian, because capitalists got their stink all over it so thoroughly.

I've thought about it more since I replied and I don't think I really articulated well what I was trying to get it.

I think what I'm hearing from you is that you want to explore a specific dynamic that just does not fit within the real-world conception of 'slave'. As in, you want to explore a world in which people can choose to surrender most of their agency willingly, and law and culture is respectful and supportive of this decision.

I'm saying, that idea is so counter-cultural you have to go very, very deep down the philosophical well to find a basis for this that is plausible. The concept of ownership itself is at odds with the dynamic you want to explore. The entire basis for this society would need to be built around absolute respect for individual agency.

And it doesn't make much sense to stop there, either. That's most of what I tried to say to begin with. If you cannot own a person, but you can still accept their obsequious service, does it make any sense to own anything? The current conception of a legal framework itself is pretty silly in this frame.

And the thing you're exploring is also a really fascinating exception to the general rule of anarchism. We're opposed to hierarchy, unless it can justify itself. So what do you do when somebody wants to voluntarily create a hierarchy with you at the top? Well, that's a pretty good justification. How do you avoid the pitfalls? How do you still respect their agency while also respecting their choice to surrender it? That's the really good shit, if you ask me. You dun found a real interesting dialectic.

So coming back up to the level of language, you are fighting against everyone's innate conception of the words 'owner' and 'slave' and even 'law'. Because all of those words have their roots in ideas antithetical to the heart of your concept. Kinda like Libertarian, ironically. I can fight against the general assumption that people have about that word, or I can just abandon it and use something else. There's pitfalls either way, which have been illustrated in this very conversation. My inclination is to give up on the stinky words and wade through the confusion of newly describing the new thing. Yours seems to be to dig in and try and reclaim them into something else. The problem with that is it's going to be very easy to be misunderstood, like another kind of gravity you're fighting. The problem with my approach is that it's unclear and murky and risks becoming an intellectual swamp nobody actually cares about.

And probably there's a 3rd option I'm not thinking of, and maybe that's better. In any case, it's an interesting challenge I respect, and I'm curious how it turns out.

Wow thank you for all of this analysis. Truly. It means a great deal to me to have someone consider my erotic fiction with any degree of seriousness.

I like your term "reclaim" I think that may be the intellectual roots of this society. I haven't done a tremendous amount of work on the early Nova Insulan pioneers because then I have to fit them into real history and that requires a lot of research into both turn of the century sexuality as well as fringe/anarchist politics and social movements. It's research I would certainly be interested in but I would become like too-thin butter on toast pretty quick I think. I'll save those answers for later down the road.

However, broadly speaking I think the intellectual roots come down to people who were gung-ho into exploring sexulity and specifically (but not exclusively) power dynamics but also accepted early feminism, anti-racism, egalitarianism, and early early queer expression. This is what led them to begin to congregate and then eventually take the large step of leaving their home countries.

As for the relationship to actual historical slavery that is something my main character Alan struggles with as a window for the reader but so do the Nova Insulans. I'm going to quote a passage from a story I just polished and should be published here soon that discusses this. The "them" Alan refers to is a chastity belt that Amber, a slave maid, is currently locked in for punishment. This diversion references another slave of the house, an extremely well educated courtesan named Phoebe, who does not think highly of Alan because of what she knows of the outside world.

"“We don’t use them where I’m from,” he said matter-of-factly. “We don’t have slaves.”

“You keep saying that. Do you really mean it? No slaves at all?” she pressed. Alan felt the pricks of sweat all over his body. This was a bizarre issue to explain to a fellow adult.

“Well,” he said, “Some people live lives similar to yours, but it’s a very small minority. We had slaves once, still do in a lot of places, but it’s the…bad kind.”

“You mean….”

“They didn’t choose it.”

“….oh.” This shocked him because Phoebe, the courtesan who had been providing is decreasingly awkward morning wakeup, had told him about learning about historical slavery from the rest of the world at the Slave Academy. He had a theory that the knowledge of chattel slavery, the kind that didn't come with a mutually negotiated contract, was partially why Phoebe had seemed so cold to him. This consensual submission on Nova Insula was something altogether different than historical slavery. Phoebe had seemed to view the historical variety not just as society's original sin, but as a perversion of her culture’s own values. Alan made a mental note to probe deeper into the mind of the aloof courtesan who provided his morning wakeup service. As he turned his mind back to the slave in front of him, he guessed that Amber wasn’t a full academy slave, and he was sure she wasn’t an A+ student in school. He decided to move on."

To your comment about whether this negates owning anything at all, I don't think it does. The prospect of being a slave in this world is almost in the same realm of religiois service. The slaves at the main location brothel (Le Maison, as it's called in the story) have taken a pretty lax vow of poverty, they are allowed some money and can own some property within certain guidelines but they have also taken a pretty serious vow of obedience. Other Owners and slaves have different dynamics. A "Vow" in this context refers to something more esotetic than even a religous vow. Hell isn't awaiting someone if they break it but that trust is seen as secularly sacred. It's a promise. Think of it like the Collar is the "wedding ring" but the True Will document is the "prenup" and it's required by law.

In terms of property, everybody has a right to autonomy that can be signed away, according to a contract, at the person's pleasure. There are plenty of people who do this in our own world, some within the framework of kink, some within established cultural or religious norms, and some without anything formal at all. My world is based in BDSM because I think that provides the healthiest basis for people to engage in this kind of dynamic. It is fully an agreement between consenting adults and not adults and God or adults and other adults 2000 years ago in the desert with totally different contexts. In my real life I'm very against that. Of course it's also BDSM based because this is BDSM erotica and I have a servitude fetish, but that's a less intellectually stimulating discussion haha

I think, to avoid the intellectual swamp I just need to weave it into the narrative. Phoebe and Alan actually develop a romance throughout the story that is more than sexual. It comes from slowly unpacking what society is and being open to it. Phoebe has a skewed view because the very few people who come from the outside, Iqra Iblis who is escaping Islamic extremeism, Noelle Campbell who escaped being held as a sort of drug slave by an abusive dom, and Marcy, who was born here to Christian Fundamentalists who moved to Nova Insula because their sexual and gender norms were too conservative even for the Carolinas.
There is some exposure to older "outside media" but it's very sparse and considered a niche interest. This quasi spiritual view of D/s mechanics has established an intellectual hegemony.
Alan, comes from our "world" and is writing this piece partially to save his career and partially because there is a real story to be found in getting to the bottom of this elusive culture that is characterized as this bizarre hybrid of barbaric libertines, which they very much are not.

 

[kellyt1994]

So the True Will would be legally binding for the full year, no changing your mind?

How about the selling and inheriting? The slave has no veto power beyond the terms of the agreement?

I will definitely read. Honestly, there's a very good chance I would do it.

 

[HasturLeGuin]

So the True Will would be legally binding for the full year, no changing your mind?

How about the selling and inheriting? The slave has no veto power beyond the terms of the agreement?

I will definitely read. Honestly, there's a very good chance I would do it.

I think realistically there would have to be negotiation clauses within the True Will document and verbage to make certain there is an ethical "out" for most situations. Like say a slave injured themselves and therefore cannot submit to a prescribed punishment for health concerns. They may still have to submit some sort of punishment but their health and safety will not be put in jeopardy.

As for the buying and selling, the slave has a guranteed right of veto. That's the only way to keep it ethical. Now it may be that an Owner needs to get rid of a slave for some reason or another. In that case, if a sale cannot be done, they can be sold to the state as a sort of "halfway house" and the state will work to find the slave a new place of "employment" within their skills and wishes.

And thanks! I'm glad you are interested. I did just recently post a new story in this world.

 

[kiggs]

Not trying to be funny, but to me when i hear the term "consensual slavery", the first thing that pops into my head is marriage, especially arranged marriages. The central concept is duty. You show up, even on days you dont want to, coz thats the social contract.

 

[HasturLeGuin]

Not trying to be funny, but to me when i hear the term "consensual slavery", the first thing that pops into my head is marriage, especially arranged marriages. The central concept is duty. You show up, even on days you dont want to, coz thats the social contract.

Haha, the wild part is that some Owners and slaves do marry. So double the slavery I guess by some definitions.