IE: Internal Enslavement?

[lark sparrow]

Another article I found thought-provoking for discussion, comment or opinion.

From: http://www.enslavement.org.uk/iefaq.html (Note: This site also has an online slave registry which seems silly to me personally, but this particular concept was interesting.)
----------------------------------------

What is Internal Enslavement?

Internal Enslavement ("IE") is a collection of ideas about how to take possession of a slave, in a consensual context (ie where the submissive to be enslaved consents at the start of the process.)

Is this like BDSM?

IE has grown out of the Master/slave subculture, which is part of the Dominance and submission aspect of BDSM by definition. However, there are a lot of differences between a relationship that is pursuing Enslavement, and most BDSM relationships or scenes: in particular, the Master has to shoulder a lot more responsibility than a Top does in a BDSM scene lasting an hour or two.

How new is all this?

Many people in the M/s subculture have been using the ideas of IE for years. We make no claim that IE is an original discovery: all we're doing is describing it and trying to put it on firm theoretical foundations.

How are you defining "slave" then?

One of the key concepts of IE is the literal slave: this is just the everyday definition of "slave" that everyone grows up with, and it doesn't include the roleplay slaves you sometimes meet elsewhere in BDSM. For example, this is from the definition of "slave" in the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: "One who is the property of, and entirely subject to another person, whether by capture, purchase or birth; a servant completely divested of freedom and personal rights." When we say "slave", we mean literal slave, defined in this way.

Can't people just decide for themselves what they are?

No one is stopping people in other types of relationship calling themselves anything they like. However, if they're not literal slaves then we do not see how they can reasonably claim to be such (rather than making perfectly accurate statements that they like to be treated as a slave, to serve as a slave, to roleplay life as a slave or whatever other aspect of the idea of slavery they enjoy.)

But how can you claim that literal slavery is possible?

The Enslavement Hypothesis is that there are submissives who have an overwhelming need to be possessed by a dominant. Given the right environment, the submissive can be coaxed out from behind the protective walls she has built during her life and made to expose all of her Self to her Master. Among other things this requires that he creates an environment which is emotionally safe and in which her underlying character will be accepted, probably for the first time in her life. During this process, the bond between the submissive and her Master becomes sufficiently strong than she can no longer break it herself, and she has then been enslaved.

So it's all done by the submissive?

Not at all: the process of enslavement involves a huge amount of work by the Master and an ongoing effort to hold her in slavery. To do this, he needs to achieve a deep understanding of her emotions (including her emotional history) and her view of what is happening in the relationship. Armed with this information, he is able to maintain an environment she cannot get herself out of (partly because he continually adjusts it so that he remains in control.) This is sometimes called Psychological or Emotional Bondage.

Emotional bondage? Is that like emotional blackmail?

Definitely not. Some dominants try to use forms of emotional blackmail to obtain the obedience of submissives and to persuade them to stay in the relationship. This involves playing on the submissive's self doubts, guilt and fears (especially the fear of being alone.) These dominants use this kind of ploy: "If you were a true submisssive you would do it"; "I wonder why I waste my time with you when you do this"; and worst of all "Do you want to keep my collar or not?" By presenting the relationship as a confrontation, they force the submissive into a defensive position which guards her Self. All of these push the submissive into maintaining and even heightening her protective walls so she can keep the dominant out.

So how does the Master get this deep understanding of the slave?

By observation and more importantly by getting the slave to talk about her internal process and then listening. Since it's essential for the Master to tear down the protective walls the slave has built during her lifetime, it's not sufficient to instruct her to report everything important and then just wait: he has to "go in" and examine what is actually going on inside her head in response to the environment he is creating.

That sounds almost like counselling?

Yes, they both have a lot in common (infact, one of the role pairs of IE is Counsellor / client.) It's important that the Master doesn't coach the slave into giving the kinds of answers he wants when he is examining her thoughts and feelings - a technique shared with counselling. For example, if the slave is having difficulty accepting one of her Master's decisions, then it's essential that she be made to disclose this, so that he can resolve her feelings and then work on whatever is preventing her internal acceptance of his decision (in addition to just her external obedience to it.)

Doesn't that involve the slave being disrespectful, even rude?

It often involves "disrespectful" comments and even outbursts in the short term, but buys the Master genuine (rather than just superficial) respect in the long term. Every disobedient thought and rebellious feeling is another portion of the slave that he does not truly possess. IE is a method for taking possession of the whole slave over time.

You mentioned role pairs?

A useful way of thinking about an Enslavement relationship is in terms of roles: these are different ways of interacting, which nevertheless, all share the fundamental reality of Master and slave: the three we talk about are Master/servant, Teacher/student and Counsellor/client. The different roles reflect different degrees of formality and explicit discipline: for example, a client is being asked to describe her feelings freely, but a student is being taught the best way to perform a task, and a servant aims to serve perfectly and without detailed supervision.

What about safewords?

The "safeword" is an ambiguous concept - they're sometimes signals rather than words and they are used to mean everything from a veto like "Stop - I want to go home" to the mere passing of information like "I'm being physically harmed by what's happening". Leaving aside the various dangers associated with relying on them for information, a safeword which is a veto is contrary to the kind of literal slavery that IE aims for.

Don't people need timeouts in any long term relationship?

Some do, some don't. The submissives described by the Enslavement Hypothesis need to be under their Master's authority all the time, but this isn't to say that they should be following detailed commands and living under continuous direct supervision all the time: in a relationship which nurtures the slave and promotes her growth as a valuable piece of property, it is necessary that she have times to express her creativity, to spend time with family and friends and even just to rest. These needs are not incompatible with her overwhelming need to be owned.

Why is it called Internal Enslavement?

When a submissive is internally enslaved, she has internalised her slavery. Furthermore, the process of enslavement takes place within, even if her external, physical environment contributes to it. For this reason we make a distinction between Internal Enslavement and the External "Slave Training" schemes you often read about - approaches which concentrate on the form of slavery (speaking respectfully, assumming numbered "slave positions", acting in a "slavelike" manner) rather than on ownership which is the substance of slavery.

Isn't this dangerous? Isn't this like brainwashing?

IE leaves a submissive very vulnerable to her Master, and for this reason, submissives need to be extremely cautious when pursuing this kind of relationship. We feel that publicising these ideas will help submissives who need slavery (by helping them to see through time wasting dominants, emotional blackmailers etc) and that almost no abusive dominants will have the patience and the empathy to apply Internal Enslavement in a convincing way for any length of time.

This is immoral. Slavery is evil!

Making someone a slave without their consent, abusively denying their needs and preventing them from growing as an individual is both evil and fundamentally contradictory to the IE approach. IE is based on consensual non-consent.

Isn't consensual non-consent a contradiction in terms?

Not really, since it means giving legally valid consent to start the process of enslavement, in the knowledge that the process will remove the ability to withdraw consent in the future. Outside of military recruitment, Western societies tend not to acknowledge the possibility of handing over your personal freedoms to someone else, but this is ethically what we're talking about.

It all sounds wonderful, but is it really for me?

It may well not be for you. We notice a lot of people attracted to the honesty of M/s relationships, who don't really need a relationship based on ownership. Our advice is that if you just want it rather than actually needing it, then look for something else. There is also a tendency for some people to see becoming a Master or a slave as admission to the elite of BDSM, and pursue it as a status symbol, rather than because it is right for them. Again, if you think this might apply to you, then we urge caution.
-------------------------------------


Do you think this is too extreme personally, or generally? Would it ever be a long-term goal you'd consider in a BDSM relationship? Any points in particular you agree or disagree with?

 

[lark sparrow]

double post

.

 

[lark sparrow]

Ok.... another POV

From: http://www.bornslaves.com/slavedevel.html
-----------------------------------

There are several conditions that have to have been accepted to develop as a slave:



1. YOU MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO END YOUR DEVELOPMENT.

A slave can't burn any bridges to start his slave development. Burned bridges remove options from a slave's life. The challenge of becoming slave is one of finding, then learning through experience that you have found the best possible options. Destroying other options undermine, and probably remove, the possibility of discovering the best possible option.

There is a common misunderstanding that accepting the best option in life can be the result of having no other options. When there is no other option, whatever you are doing feels like a "have to", something imperative, something against your will. You can't make the most serious decision in your life when you feel obligated to only one direction. Choosing the best direction has to include multiple alternatives which aren't chosen.

The fantasy of being kidnaped and forced against your will to become slave illustrates this common misunderstanding. Receiving slave development is an opportunity. If you are forced to undergo the opportunity, then it remains someone else's fault, you can resist like a spoiled brat all the way through the process, and end up with someone you can blame when it doesn't work out.

That is a common way to go through life. We often try to repeat the patterns that we have experienced, and then exercised throughout our life. That which we fear the most, is our strongest prayer. If we fear betrayal, then we subconsciously do everything possible to set up a betrayal so that we can feel that we were right about our fears and doubts.

The exercise of anyone else's will against you, is the greatest excuse that could ever be found for not taking responsibility for our lives. "It was all the dominant's fault", we want to declare. Leaving us free to say "I told you so." and to feel good about ourselves while we refuse every option that the Universe offers us.

Every day, a slave in development has to feel that he could easily leave the development process. There has to be financial, social, and other alternatives that are constantly available during every day of the growth.
----------------------------------
(excerpt from WHAT IS SLAVE DEVELOPMENT LIKE?)

The first example is from mainly a male Dominant/Master-female submissive/slave (straight) perspective, while the second example comes from a web site focused mainly on male Dominant/Master-male submissive/slave (gay) - so there may be some cultural ideals/values that also play into the differing theories as a whole. For instance the author of the above also states that a slave should NOT live with their owner, should have absolutely no financial ties, no marriage, etc.

Beyond any definition of "true" slavery, as these ideas are about submission as well... the politics of control, and power. Anyone?

 

[artful]

lark,...

I agree 100% with BOTH messages you have posted. The content was well presented.

 

[lark sparrow]

Re: lark,...

I agree 100% with BOTH messages you have posted. The content was well presented.

Thanks Art (for breaking the silence lol). I find both very compelling in their own way as well.

IE is well-presented and I like the idea of internalizing your submission, though it's a bit "edgey" with the nonconsensual consent.

I also wondered if this is, in a sense, simply a more extreme, open formalization of what happens in many long-term relationships - the options are there, but we may not be as aware due to time and commitment invested. Which can lead to Peace and/or stagnation.

The difference being the manipulation of the submissive's will until it is not entirely her own - kind of a scary concept to me, as consent seems something that is reaffirmed daily in numerous ways, an informed choice - not something given once, forever standing in all situations and regards, and impossible to break free of if needed.

Still likes voluntarily, consciously submitting, with the option to leave if absolutely necessary, but I can see how very long term, IE may become a natural state in a M/s relationship.

The second author also spoke very well of remaining in that option aware state, though choosing obedience, through out one's growth and commitment as a slave.

 

[SexyChele]

It makes for interesting reading, lark. However, I believe WriterDom expressed it here on the forum some time ago when he stated that any of the "Master/slave" stuff is simply and purely.....roleplay.

Slaves are owned - hence, they are slaves. They have no rights, no privledges. You say the author states that the "slave" should have no financial ties to his/her "Master". Huh??? A slave would need to be dependent on the generosity of their "Master".

And true slavery is illegal in the United States.

Always a nice fantasy, true "Master/slave" can never in its truest form exist in real life.

 

[lark sparrow]

It makes for interesting reading, lark. However, I believe WriterDom expressed it here on the forum some time ago when he stated that any of the "Master/slave" stuff is simply and purely.....roleplay.

Slaves are owned - hence, they are slaves. They have no rights, no privledges. You say the author states that the "slave" should have no financial ties to his/her "Master". Huh??? A slave would need to be dependent on the generosity of their "Master".

And true slavery is illegal in the United States.

Always a nice fantasy, true "Master/slave" can never in its truest form exist in real life.

Thanks for your input, SexyChele.

There is the divider of semantics, as well as literal and personal meanings. Whether someone can or can't be a slave is not that important - to each their own - but I do find the concepts interesting and pertinent to the topics of control and power exchange in BDSM.

Obviously these people do believe that BDSM slavery (whatever that means to them) is alive and well, and from the depth of thought and exploration it's something they care about deeply, and practice. I suppose it could be said that BDSM as a whole is all roleplaying as well. There are as many levels of control/power exchnage, as there are perspectives/opinions.

Thanks for adding another one, truly!

 

[Pure]

Very interesting posting and reference, LS.

These IE folks seem quite sophisticated, if a little arrogant. Obviously they know some psychology. The idea of consensually giving up the right not to consent (i.e. to resist) is interesting; Can one make an agreement that precludes any further agreements that differ?

The example they cite is the military. You enlist volutarily, unless drafted. Once in, it's for a term, say 4 years. In that time, if you break discipline, you're punished. You can't say, "I'm leaving," or "I don't want it." I haven't heard much of this in bdsm forums; generally the view seems to be that at every instant the sub has a 'right' to opt out.. Do you like this idea? It sounds fine except, you then deny 'her' the right to make a 'term' agreement.

It's a variation of the old question, "Can you enter into slavery" or "Can you give yourself into indentured servitude for a period of x years?" Which modern folk answer 'no' to both, but then the military is an exception. Almost all people before 1800 thought that the answers were 'yes'.



Just some thoughts.

 

[lark sparrow]

Very interesting posting and reference, LS.

These IE folks seem quite sophisticated, if a little arrogant. Obviously they know some psychology. The idea of consensually giving up the right not to consent (i.e. to resist) is interesting; Can one make an agreement that precludes any further agreements that differ?

The example they cite is the military. You enlist volutarily, unless drafted. Once in, it's for a term, say 4 years. In that time, if you break discipline, you're punished. You can't say, "I'm leaving," or "I don't want it." I haven't heard much of this in bdsm forums; generally the view seems to be that at every instant the sub has a 'right' to opt out.. Do you like this idea? It sounds fine except, you then deny 'her' the right to make a 'term' agreement.

It's a variation of the old question, "Can you enter into slavery" or "Can you give yourself into indentured servitude for a period of x years?" Which modern folk answer 'no' to both, but then the military is an exception. Almost all people before 1800 thought that the answers were 'yes'.



Just some thoughts.

Thanks for adding your thoughts, Pure.

I don't know if you looked at the site any further, but yes, it seems to play heavily into psychology. It's also covered all of the usual bases of concern and welfare, but goes even further than an expectation/enforcement of obedience - but encouraging an actual inability in the slave to psychologically or emotionally remove themselves from the "enslavement" in time.

I'm not sure if I like or dislike the idea - I like the focus on internal submission and communication - I'm not sure how keen I am personally on the idea of being so enslaved that I am no longer in control of mind or emotions long-term. If both parties are content in this arrangement, then I suppose all is good. I'd like my relationship with the Domme I belong to as seamless and intimate as possible, but this concept is a bit frightening.

It's premised on need, genuine care for the individual and initial consent of the submissive, and I suppose this would be the ultimate enslavement, but it seems extreme. Smacking a bit of brainwashing, without malice or force, but actual desire on the submissives part. If one "lost" themselves that deeply in a non-kinky relationship, I think we might conclude it was definitely bordering on unhealthy? The military is a good example and data point to weigh against this assumption.

The "true" slave issue, as a term or definition, is largely personal. I tend to work on the basis that we all know US history-based slavery is illegal and/or immoral and that consent/desire is a given within the context of BDSM. To me, it's simply another measure of submission, control and the depth of a power exchange... or simply a title.

I suppose, in part it made me wonder, because as a submissive I am "trained" in an on-going process and I do become to internalize those expectations, and act on them "naturally" - how far can or should it go? Is there a point when it does become unhealthy? It's probably largely individual, and that's what I was curious about and why I presented it here. On the other hand this happens in all types of relationships less formally and without ritual - is it as extreme as it sounds?

Shrugs, it's only a perspective, something to ponder if it intrigues.

 

[Pure]

Hi LS,

Interesting thoughts. I did visit the site and look at the 'essays' section. I thought I might add a couple points, and respond to one of yours:

The IE folks say two kinds of things (I quote)

View 1:

Not really, since it means giving legally valid consent to start the process of enslavement, in the knowledge that the process will remove the ability to withdraw consent in the future. Outside of military recruitment, Western societies tend not to acknowledge the possibility of handing over your personal freedoms to someone else, but this is ethically what we're talking about.

View 2
1. YOU MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO END YOUR DEVELOPMENT.

A slave can't burn any bridges to start his slave development. Burned bridges remove options from a slave's life. The challenge of becoming slave is one of finding, then learning through experience that you have found the best possible options. Destroying other options undermine, and probably remove, the possibility of discovering the best possible option

Every day, a slave in development has to feel that he could easily leave the development process. There has to be financial, social, and other alternatives that are constantly available during every day of the growth. //[end]

My response:
I'm not sure they are consistent; maybe they're unsure. It's also possible to reconcile by saying that during 'development' there is freedom and awarenes of alternatives; after that, not, and no ability to choose otherwise.

You seem uncomfortable, since of course that makes one think of brainwashing and cults.


Lark Sparrow said,
"I'm not sure if I like or dislike the idea - I like the focus on internal submission and communication - I'm not sure how keen I am personally on the idea of being so enslaved that I am no longer in control of mind or emotions long-term. If both parties are content in this arrangement, then I suppose all is good. I'd like my relationship with the Domme I belong to as seamless and intimate as possible, but this concept is a bit frightening.

"It's premised on need, genuine care for the individual and initial consent of the submissive, and I suppose this would be the ultimate enslavement, but it seems extreme. Smacking a bit of brainwashing, without malice or force, but actual desire on the submissives part. If one "lost" themselves that deeply in a non-kinky relationship, I think we might conclude it was definitely bordering on unhealthy? The military is a good example and data point to weigh against this assumption." //
=====

Well the issue of 'healthy' is a tricky one. To continue the military analogy, is it healthy if someone makes a career out of a low- level army job--like sergeant? Mightn't that be someone's 'true calling'?

Every all encompassing relationship has the problem you mention; cutting off a view of, and maybe a capacity for alternatives. Consider, for instance E.B. Browning a few years into her relationship with RB. There is a paradox is that,

1) We applaud 'total' envelopment in a deep relationship. (Many say they want it). It seems a sign of strength that EBB does NOT, each day say, "Hmm, sex was a little boring last night. I wonder if I can do better than this wimpy RB. I saw the sexiest guy, the other day." Don't we applaud a 'saint' who's so deep into his/her mission that alternative cease to exist--say a Jean D'Arc.? Don't you thrill to the old romance stories where the lover, left on 'her' own, simply pines, wastes away, when the grand relationship ends?

2) But that reminds us of cults, and we like to think, "Keep your options open" Don't be totally enveloped in anything. THAT is strength. You should 'land on your feet' is your dom/me tosses you or disappears. Same for any lover. Health, according to this view is always to have a foot on firm territory; your own bank account and shrink in case your partner gets 'ideas'-- or maybe just dies.

I'd like to hear further thoughts on this. No interesting problem has a simple solution, in the 'game' of life.

 

[lark sparrow]

We could have had this conversation in PM...

Oops, sorry if I didn't make it clear!

View I is from the IE site, whereas View II is from an entirely unrelated website and 'school of thought' in 'slave development'.

View I tends towards much interdependency, even straight forward dependency, and as we agreed much psychology.

And view II took the stance that not only should a slave always have options, but they should not live with their owner, they should not be dependent financially, etc.

Perhaps the difference between having a 24/7, M/s, live-in relationship that may also be romantic, and having a much more service-oriented and formal relationship with a slave. I think there are a couple of examples that lend themselves to these differing viewpoints in small ways on this board.

Although view II also takes a spiritual and whole approach:

"The decision has to have been made after you have determined that you are fully egotistically developed. You must know that you can be financially independent, can support yourself without anyone else's help. You have to have experienced putting together successful relationships. You need to know that you can maintain your relationships with and responsibilities to your genetic family. You have to be in the best health that you can be, and know that you can maintain your health. You have to have control of your life, your profession, your social needs and be able to maintain healthy friendships. Until you have it all, you don't have it to give away.

No one is ready to develop their destiny until after they know they are individually capable of taking care of everything but their spiritual completion. Even spiritually, a man preparing to accept his destiny has to be able to understand the spiritual world. There isn't any destiny to accept if you don't have a belief in a spiritual life, and have some understanding of how that might work. Destiny is a spiritual path. If there is no spiritual world, then there is no destiny. If there is no destiny, then slavery can't exist, because it is a form of destiny." http://www.bornslaves.com/slavedevel.html


I'd guess, at least in thought, most people are somewhere in the middle of these two examples, "true slave" opinions withstanding... but can't be sure. Perhaps this aspect has been covered to death, is too touchy with the topic of "slavery", or simply too much an exercise in mental masturbation. Maybe all three lol.

Yes, I agree, "healthy" can be tricky, particularly in regards to a "true calling." Which can appear rather extreme to the masses, but fulfilling for the unusual individual, and something we can all relate to just a little because in truth... yes, it's the stuff of which romance and legend can be made. Or in turn, fantasy, delusion, perhaps even sheer fanaticism.

Nods, nods.... the push and pull... having one's feet planted, in good health on the firm earth and/or "daring to stretch, dream and fly". Not necessarily at odds, though they can be. BDSM can easily lend itself to traverse much of this territory.

Interesting to think about the possibilities, exchange ideas, and in doing so gives me new data points to reflect on my submission and it's overall place in my life. Thanks for the indulgence, Pure! I think more thoughts could prove interesting as well... even if it's, shaddup already!

 

[artful]

This thread topic,...

...is so interesting to me personally. I just hafta touch bases on it again. The two POV'S presented, though different in their approach to a M/s developemental relationship.

I see each as a somewhat extreme. To me,...a melding of the two, would be what I would place as a goal in my relationship.

To be able to control a slave, to instruct, guide, and nurture their potential. To aid them in becoming the 'most' they could become, while being submissive to my wants, needs, and desires, would be the epitome of all relationships.

To have them accept my teachings, to trust me in areas where I may wish to give them insights, commands, instructions, etc. Is the top of the heap.

Would I want them *dependent* upon me for every little thing? No! Would I want them *dependent* upon me for every major decision? No!

I would counsel them, instruct, guide, nurture, command, order, etc., in ALL things that I chose to exert control over. To some,...this may appear to be unrealistic,...a goal that would never be attainable,...nonetheless,...it is what I seek.

To have a slave,...totally accept my Dominance,...to pick and choose among the various areas of developement I choose to spend my time on. To have that *total* submission,...would be a dream come true.

That is what I am pursueing with Dream,...this is my stated goal.

(JMHO),...but it's mine,...and I own it.

 

[lark sparrow]

Hi again, Art

The Domme I belong to also believes in consensual slavery within the context of BDSM, and defines it in simple terms, as another level/commitment, a furthering of the submission, control and power exchange. I also believe in it's possibilities and many expressions, so I hear you.

I would not really claim myself a slave at this time, lol, don't get me wrong, if she says I am Her slave, then I am - that is our intent. But in the sense, that it is my personal feeling (in regard to me only) that it would take much time (perhaps years) and live daily interaction (as in living together or very close) before I would attain what I imagine consensual "slavery" might feel like to me. I look forward to it, and see it as a continuing "journey".

I don't think either of these 'slave development' schemes entirely fit with Her/our goals, but there are aspects to both that I admire and/or question. I guess to me, it's not terribly important if I am labeled a submissive or slave in relation to Her, but it is necessary to believe in and strive for depth in our power exchange, extending beyond the bedroom and imagination, and into our hearts, minds and daily lives.

Thanks so much for adding your thoughts, and I'm really glad you also enjoyed the articles.