In December 1996 a woman named Amanda auctioned and sold herself as a slave. This made me think a bit about the consequences (mostly benefits it seems to me) of slaves selling themselves. Since I was one of the unsuccessful bidders for Amanda, and so was to some extent involved, I would like to offer my thoughts to the newsgroup.
This is not meant to be a discussion of whether Amanda did the "right thing" in selling herself, or if she did it the "right way." In fact, there are many different ways she could have done it. Some people think that she foolishly risked selling herself to someone who might horribly abuse her. Well, I cannot deny that was a possibility, but it seems to me that almost everyone who participates in this newsgroup is reasonably honorable and conscientious in pursuing their dominance/submission issues. So, the risks might not be as great as some perceive. Still, she clearly could have structured her sale in ways which provided guarantees that her needs would be met. As I said, I am not here to discuss these "how to" alternatives, but rather to discuss the effects of the real exchange of a slave for cash.
It seems to me that actually there are very powerful reasons why the cash purchase of a slave is beneficial. We talk about the "power exchange" involved in a slave submtting to a Master. (Due to language considerations I am not going to try to be perfectly gender-neutral, so simply assume that everything I say applies equally well to participants of either sex.) We also say that "money is power," and use this to refer quite properly to the effect that money has in our lives. Quite simply, a slave selling itself is thus linking two very powerful elements together to create a more powerful form of submission.
It is for this reason -- an enhanced power exchange -- that it seems to me that any D/S relationship can be enhanced by the exchange of cash for title to the slave. Let us look a little more closely at what this entails.
First, is the concept of TRUE COMMITMENT. By asking for money and promising "full title," the slave is much more involved in guaranteeing its performance. Exhanging itself for cash should leave a visceral feeling of loss of something real. It is not just a promise to submit, or a statement of "belonging" to someone -- it far more, and the slave should feel this in its gut. The actual "title transfer" can be enhanced by signing real, notarized documents in addition to the transfer of funds. (See ADDENDUM). In short, a "financially real" and "quasi-legal" sale can be constructed, which greatly adds to the reality of the commitment by the slave.
Second, is the concept of THE SLAVE'S MONEY VALUE. The slave is given the interesting opportunity to express its value using the money from the sale. The money could be given to a family member to start a business, spent on parents' needs, given to charity, invested in an annuity (over 30-40 years even $5K to $10K would give a nice little retirement income), converted into jewelry, or whatever. The only stipulation would seem to be that anything the slave brought with them to their owner would require the owner's prior approval and a guarantee of the asset's preservation. The opportunity to convert itself into a physical asset thus makes tangible the process of "selling itself" to an owner. As long as the slave is "owned property," it will be able to look at the object (goods or services) which it bought with its sale and think, "That is what I gave up myself for," or "That object is what I am worth." I cannot emphasize enough the emotional impact that something like this might entail -- being able to view oneself as equivalent to real property -- on being submissive towards one's owner.
Third, is the concept of ENGAGING IN A TRUE TRANSACTION. The amount of money should not be trivial; it must really mean something to both buyer and seller. The slave must gain a financial value apart from whatever other emotional, physical, or sexual values the slave possesses. The fact that real money is being spent on acquiring the slave adds greatly to the feeling of ownership of the slave. This is just human nature. The slave thus is more highly valued because of the financial sacrifice of acquiring it, and is seen by the owner to be a "real" asset, and this feeling will always be part of how the slave is viewed.
Fourth, is the concept of MAXIMIZING VALUE RECEIVED. Because of the true financial value of the slave, the owner in the back of his mind always will consider the question of value received. Because of a natural human propensity for an owner to extract value out of his purchase, it could quite easily translate into the owner being more exacting in using his slave, wanting higher levels of performance, or simply feeling he has more of a "right" to expect what he wants from the slave. The owner might also find it easier to deal with the slave as "owned property" rather than just "promisory property" (that is, the "I promise I belong to you" slave). In short, this could enhance the dominant/submissive roles of the couple.
Fifth, is the concept of A RECOVERABLE INVESTMENT. As purchased and "owned property" a slave and owner always realize that there is a financial burden associated with the slave. Unlike a "promisory property" (which involves no financial transaction), the slave and owner cannot just walk away from each other. The owner has a real, financial stake in the slave, and if the relationship terminates, the owner will likely want his investment back. Thus, on one hand it may be more difficult to get rid of an undesired slave (because of the investment return criterion), on the other hand it may be easier to physically resell the slave (because free and clear title is clearly lodged with the owner and the slave has promised to serve whoever has its ownership documents). This interesting sword cuts two ways. On one hand neither partner will likely wish to invoke a resale, but on the other it hangs like a sword of Damocles over the relationship, promising swift retribution if the slave does not serve its owner well.
Sixth, is the concept of TRUE DEPENDENCY. A purchased slave is ultimately more dependent on its owner than a promisory slave. It should be pointed out that a cash sale is something which only a truly committed submissive would likely pursue. Thus, it is entirely possible that a purchased slave could be resold against its desires. Although most D/S couples actually under the skin are more comfortable being committed to each other -- as couples generally tend to be -- when a commitment is made to truly sell oneself the promise is generally expected to be kept. No one can predict how relationships turn out in the end, and so in some sense the idea that we have control is basically an illusion. It's just that a purchased slave realizes more than most how fragile is its hold on the certainty around it. Thus, in the final analysis, the purchased slave is more dependent upon its owner (and its own performance in pleasing its owner) than a promisory slave can ever be.
Finally, is the concept of FINALITY. A slave selling itself is indeed "crossing the Rubicon." It is a final act of transcendence, breaking with the past and wholly going forward to the future. It possesses great symbolic power, and links owner and owned in a "real-life conspiracy" which necessarily changes both their lives.
It appears to me that the cash purchase of a slave generally speaking will add significantly to the D/S aspects of the relationship. Exactly how the sale is done (a general auction, a "closed" auction, or a sale to an existing Master or Mistress), for how much and in what manner of payment, and what terms and conditions will be applied to the sale are matters that the slave should basically determine for itself and negotiate with its buyer. After all, the slave is making a commitment which it will be expected to honor, and so the sale must truly reflect what the slave needs and what it can deliver. The slave can then go to its true owner in a very real sense reborn. Indeed, a "true slave" should have a "true owner," and this is the best way I can think of to define "true ownership" of a slave.
Thus, this concept has its greatest impact when two conditions hold. First, the slave is thrilled by the idea of being truly owned, and uses its sale as a way to achieve that. Second, the owner financially feels the purchase to be a significant expenditure. A millionaire spending $7000 to purchase a slave will view the purchase totally differently from most of us because the cost means too little to him, and the more meaningful the expenditure, the more valuable the slave becomes. Both aspects linked together provide a synergy to the relationship.
Of course, the above thoughts are wholly mine, and other people might have different perspectives. If there are other purchased slaves and/or owners of such who would like to add their comments to this, I am sure that some of us would find it worthwile to learn from their experiences. Also, it might be interesting if any slaves looking for Masters added their perspectives. It would be nice if this idea were beneficial to more people than just me.
The task of documenting the sale in a "legal" fashion is also intriguing. Basically what would be required would be three documents which would be notarized. (Of course, the sale of one human being to another is not legally enforceable.) The three documents are (1) a "performance contract" which is to guarantee continuing requirements which are part of the terms of the sale, (2) a full power of attorney, which is to give the owner the ability to legally act for the slave, and (3) a bill of sale which identifies the object being sold, the owner, and the terms of sale. All of these documents can be legally executed and notarized, and as written documents they will provide the "legal constitution" guiding the relationship.
Note: The following comments were contributed by Master Mark and his slave Amanda. I am posting the comments for them.
Master Robert contacted me recently regarding his thesis that the sale of a slave for a real financial sum greatly enhances the dominant-submissive relationship. As many of you are aware, I was fortunate to win the auction for the slave Amanda this past December. Being one of the few individuals that Master Robert has come in contact with that has actually purchased a slave, he felt that my comments and thoughts on the subject matter would be qualified and enlightening. In deference to him, I have wriiten some of my initial observations in the following paragraphs. I hope that those of you who are active in the BDSM lifestyle will take the time to read Master Robert's thoughts and place them into practice.
On the whole, I have to believe that many of the observations and statements made by Master Robert are quite truthful. Of course, one must place the disclaimer that no two dominant-submissive relationships are identical, and therefore actual results will vary by individual. However, taken as a whole, the philospohy that actual financial compenstation should be involved in the initial slave pledge/sale/claiming holds up very well.
Personally, I have practiced BDSM for the last 10 years of my life. During that time I have had dominant-submissive relationships on many scales including two 24/7 slaves. I currently am in the process of training Amanda to fulfill the void left by my last full time submissive.
First, the money exchange provides meaning and value to the slave. All too often on the Internet and in real life, individuals professing to be dominant (so called "Masters") perform brash actions and speak incredibly degrading words to their submissives. Although it is possibly only my personal experience, it has been my observation that such repulsive bravado does not truly succeed in forming a healthy and mutually appealing BDSM relationship. Yes, these submissives crave to be humilated mentally and physically. Yes, these individuals achieve a heightened sense of pleasure from these abject submissions, but submission only truly becomes an aphrodisiac or addiction when the submissive feels they are letting you control their own perceived power. That is -- can true submission really exist if the individual truly believes that they are helpless to control their own situation. In my book subjugation and submission are extremely different instances. I often liken this situation (for lack of a better analogy) to a cornered dog. Take a dog and train it, feed it, justly disclipline it, and insure its happiness. That pet will follow you to the ends of the earth, sacrifice its life for you, perform any task you command, and willing submit itself to you as its master. Take the same dog and beat it unmercifully into a corner where feels powerless to preserve its life, and that dog will attack you. The same principles apply to submissives.
Those "Masters" who only see these individuals as something to subjugate sexually and berate mentally are perfoming a disservice to the proper building of the submissive relationship. However, by placing a dollar value on the submissive, the slave suddenly has more perceived value then just a sexual punching bag. In other words, the submissive's perceived value has increased in the marketplace. This leads to the submissive being contacted and purchased by a higher class of dominant. Generally, dominants that are willing to pay large sums of money for a submissive understand the power exchange and their restrictions as a Master. That is, it is very unlikely that a dominant paying several thousand dollars for a slave is going to abuse or harm their purchase. Liken it to buying a car. Give a kid a Mercedes and he'll drive it into a piece of junk. Make a child spend HIS money for a junk automobile and he will treat it like a Mercedes.
I bring all this up because like many of you I watched the Amanda Auction proceedings with great interest. From my own observations and further discussion with Amanda, it seems that the early stages of the auction were marred by individuals venting machismo frustrations or looking for a cheap thrill. This statement can be backed up by the large number of inane and childish early responses Amanda received, coupled with the fact that very few of these so called "Masters" failed to even place a bid. A majority of the sincere offers were placed by highly educated, very likeable, respectful but dominating 30 - 50 year old men. I have spent time discussing at length with Amanda her feelings regarding this matter. Her simple explanation was, "I could have given myself to the first person claiming to be a dominant, but I would not be able to ensure their intentions or validity. I might have been fucked and left, received training through an unqualified person, or been killed. The auction and price involved insured a select group of dominant individuals." It therefore is my feeling that placing a monetary value to a slave exchange ensures that the submissive receives the best chance of being secured by a dominant who will appreciate, respect, and develop the slave's gift of submission. It could be argued that there are many excellent dominants that cannot afford to pay the price for a true submissive. However, it seems that it is in the best interests of the submissive to ensure a select group of well qualified dominants before he/she selects a Master.
A second benefit that seems to stem from the financial obligations involves the slave's own mental state. Remember, my comments earlier regarding submission deriving from an individual giving up a perceived power. An exchange of money seems to heighten this sense of implied powerlessness. The submissive understands that fundamentally they have power. That is, if a submissive really chose to, they could stop performing and/or leave the BDSM relationship at any time. The exchange of money implies a worth to that power. In other words, the submissive's perception is that their body and mind, and its control, is a "real thing." Money is a finite item. By exchanging money at the inception of the slave's life, the submissive has traded one finite item for another. This deepens the submissive's sense of commitment with the willing expenditure of "real world power" for the submissive, and heightens their experiences. Although these statements do not singlely apply in Amanda's situation, they are a controlling factor in the pleasure she derives from her current situation. She feels owned, willingly exchanged for money, a concept that any individual who has bought an item they cherish can fully understand. In Amanda's own words: "I exchanged my body and soul for money. Mark owns me and controls me much like any clothes, stereos, or personal items I ever purchased for myself. I also know who will take care of me because he wanted me enough to buy me."
In conclusion, it has been my experience with Amanda and past slaves that the exchange of monetary funds for enslavement has only served as a benefit to all parties involved in the BDSM relationship. I apologize for the brevity and lack of rigor in parts of this paper, but I unfortunately have very little time right now for a well thought out and lengthy exposition. I hope some of these comments are beneficial, and I would be happy to provide further updates at a later date.
-- Master Mark