First, thanks to those of you who like reading this and asked for more. It's surprising but gratifying.
I haven't updated anything in a long time because I have a boy collared in another state, and I'm spending most of my free time talking to him. I think rather highly of him, and hope I'll get to put the spurs to him in person sometime in the next few months. Cross your fingers.
In our talks, one thing that's come up is the asymmetrical nature of the master/slave relationship. On the surface, and to outsiders, it looks completely one-sided: the master gets what he wants and the slave provides it. Those of us in the community know it's a lot more complicated. The slave finds what he needs in service, just as the master finds what he needs in ownership. Some people cannot imagine finding satisfaction in service, be it sexual, religious, community, or otherwise. It's their world that's smaller for that lack of understanding, not mine.
There can be no master without a slave, no dominance without submission. But that's not balance by itself. As noted previously, the relationship is still unequal. The slave has to tell the master everything, but the master can only tell the slave what he needs to know. The master makes choices for both of them. The slave obeys, the master directs. Even if both find satisfaction in that service, the master still has far more power.
But some master/slave relationships last longer than some marriages. So where's the balance? What is it that most people aren't seeing in this asymmetric relationship?
I think it's the slave's consent.
Start by imagining a simple weeknight session. Sure, once the slave is bound, the master can do anything he wants with the slave within the agreed-upon limits. But nothing forces the slave to go have the session in the first place, or return for another one.
Yes, I have a boy collared right now, and I'm thrilled. But he can take that collar off if he chooses and end it, and I know it. Not only can I not do anything about it if he does, I shouldn't be able to do anything about it. When he puts himself in my hands, I have total control—but only he can choose to let that happen.
There's the hidden symmetry. Not only can a sub walk away at any time when he's not serving, I would argue that he must walk away if he knows the situation is wrong for him. Within the rules of our community, a sub/slave can't leave in the middle of a session, and therefore must be prepared for what comes during that session. And while I can understand a boy's reluctance to walk away from a master, he must also realize and accept that if a relationship or situation is wrong for him, he must walk away.
For every slave who's frustrated at not being allowed to cum, or at being collared, or bound, or worked over, there's a master who's frustrated that the boy he wants won't come back, or come back often enough, or move past a few limits the master wants him to drop. There's the symmetry: the master is in control during service, but the slave controls himself the rest of the time.
This obviously changes somewhat in long-term ownership contracts, but by that time, the master and slave have come to know each other well enough for the slave to know he belongs with the master. That's just another reason that contracts shouldn't be entered lightly, nor should they be too restrictive, nor (I would argue) last too long at first. If a first-time boy signs a contract for longer than six months, he's being too optimistic. It can always be extended at the end, but if he wants it shortened, he may be shit out of luck.
(All of this ignores the fact that true inescapable slavery is unconstitutional in the USA, by the way. I'm talking about consensual relationships. Master/slave contracts in this context may be about property rights, income, assets, and the like: a boy may sign a contract obliging him to service for a given period of time and assigning his assets and income to his master during that period. Legally, the sub can walk away any time he chooses, because otherwise would be kidnapping, but that won't necessarily untangle the property contracts or assets. That's the point of modern slave contracts—not to enforce captivity, but to state intentions and to discourage slaves from walking away on a whim because a particular session became too difficult.)
Masters have the power to do anything to a slave within the agreed-upon limits, but that doesn't mean that everything the Master can imagine is a good idea. Similarly, slaves can walk away any time they want, but that doesn't mean leaving at the first difficult is a good idea. It's a lot more balanced than most people think. If you don't believe it, ask all the masters seeking slaves why they don't own one already.
