Releasing a slave

Donations of any size and regularity are always welcome to help offset the costs of maintaining this site.

May 2012

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31
______ Holidays ______
May 28 - Memorial Day

[Junea Demonia]

Thanks, I do understand things better, I sometimes forget.. that while for me it is unthinkable to be labeled as FW, it is simply the Gorean way.

I do not think a gorean woman - if she is goodlooking or smart enough - would be forced to stay free. I believe if a woman really is a slave through and through - she will end up as a slave again. All such a woman would have to do is look for the next slaver and beg him to keep her - or anyone for that matter. Beautiful, intelligent, submissive women in gorean society would have a much harder time staying out of a collar then staying in one.

[Kail Lefevre]

Right... its confusing.  Also, what if a slave's master gets killed, and has no beneficiaries.  Since she is now unowned, does this not make her free if she can manage to stay that way?

No, she is still property. I could be wrong about the order of beneficiaries but I believe it goes as follows:
Free Companion>Closest Male Relative>Closest Female Relative>City.

Yes, sorry sports fans, if you are one of the many people that think that city Kennels didn't really exist, they do. And if a slave has no one to claim her she goes to the city pens. How do I know there are city pens?

“I love you, Ho-Sorl,” she said. “And I will accept you as
my companion!”
Her face was radiant as she waited for him to unlock the
steel that encircled her throat.
“Companion?” asked Ho-Sorl.
“Of course, Companion,” said she, “you beast!” She spun
to face him.
Ho-Sorl looked puzzled.
“Surely,” she cried, “you have no intention of keeping me
as a slave!”
“That was my intention,” admitted Ho-Sorl.
552
“Beast!” she cried. “Beast!”
“Do you wish this slave?” asked Marlenus, from the throne.
“Let her submit to whomsoever she chooses,” yawned Ho-
Sorl.
“Very well, Wench,” said Marlenus, “choose your master—”
“Ubar!” she cried.
“Or be returned to the pens of state slaves.”
Phyllis looked at him.
“Choose!” ordered Marlenus.
Phyllis looked about herself in rage. Then, in fury, she
knelt before Ho-Sorl, head down, arms extended and crossed
at the wrists, as though for binding.
Seldom had I seen a woman so enraged.
“Well?” asked Ho-Sorl.
“The slave Phyllis submits to the Warrior Ho-Sorl,” she
shouted.
“Of Ar,” added Ho-Sorl.
“The slave Phyllis submits to the Warrior Ho-Sorl of Ar!”
shouted Phyllis.
Ho-Sorl said nothing.

I like how he uses the word state here, but that is a topic for another forum. There is another quote earlier in the same book that tells what happens in the state pens.

Nela had been a slave since the age of fourteen. To my
surprise she was a native of Ar. She had lived alone with her
father, who had gambled heavily on the races. He had died
and to satisfy his debts, no others coming forth to resolve
them, the daughter, as Gorean law commonly prescribes,
229
became state property; she was then, following the law, put
up for sale at public auction; the proceeds of her sale were
used, again following the mandate of the law, to liquidate as
equitably as possible the unsatisfied claims of creditors

The state pens, in the case of an unclaimed slave, would receive her and at auction it is the state coffers that would gain from the sale.

Never assume that some line of reasoning or events can free a slave. There is only two things that can free a slave:

1) She can run, running away is a risky choice as once you are out in the wild you might die, or get enslaved again by a passing man. If you are captured you might be killed. Escaping and making it to a group that will help you is slim at best.

2) Her rightful owner can free her.

Any thing else other then those two options will just see her to the collar of some one else. It was driven home to me in just the first 5 books, goreans thought commonly "Only a fool frees a slave" Tarl was a fool, but again, a topic for another forum.
There for I find it highly unlikely that gorean law would in any shape what so ever allow any flow of events to free a slave with out her owner doing it.

[Caranda Schreiner]

If a slave's owner dies without heirs then she will become property of the city:

This point in Gorean law is apparently motivated by the consideration that a slave always have some master. In the case of a master's death the slave, like other property, passes to the heirs, or, if there are no heirs, to the state.

(Dancer)

As the quote says a slave must have an owner.  Gorean law doesn't contemplate a situation where a slave can be left ownerless without being freed so ultimately the city will take ownership of any unclaimed slaves.  This is similar to the situation on Earth (at least in the Anglo-Saxon legal systems) where abandoned or unowned property will eventually revert to the state if nobody else claims it.

There are city pens where slaves belonging to the city are kept and where private slaves can be boarded for a fee e.g.

I hoped that we would have a good lunch. The food was better in the private pens, where we were trained, than in the public pens of Ko-ro-ba, areas of which were available for rent to passing slavers, where we were housed at night. In the public pens, state slaves are kept as well as the merchandise of slave caravans passing through the city. A master of the city, of course, who might be leaving the city temporarily, could also rent space in the public pens, to board his slaves there. Most masters, however, if inclined to board their slaves, would do so at the private pens, where the food and facilities were better.

(Captive)

[Caranda Schreiner]

I do not see any reason for Caranda to take a chill pill, I do not see nothing wrong in that she said, nor in her tone. And Im still glad to learn something I didnt know.

Caranda, Im French, and my dictionary gives me the same definitions for the verbs "to release" and "to free". What is the difference exactly?

Poisonous, this is a very good question and its hard to answer it without writing an essay.  The two verbs have a very similar meaning which generally is to remove some constraint or restriction from something.  However, in English there are situations where you would properly use "to free", many situations where you could use either and some situations where you would properly use "to release".   Short of listing these situations its difficult for me to come up with any concrete rule as to which is the better verb to use in any situation.

However, in the specific context of slavery there is a real difference between the words.  In this context people would usually use "to release" to refer to removing some physical constraint (i.e the slaves were released from their cells) while "to free" has the special meaning of removing not only a physical constraint but also to take the subject out of the legal status of slavery and restore their legal freedom to them (i.e. she was freed by her master and returned to her family).

The situation is further complicated because of the differences between BDSM attitudes to submissives and Gorean attitudes to slaves.  In BDSM somebody can be "released" from their relationship with their dominant but still remain as a submissive in relation to everyone else in the BDSM world.  In Gor a slave is either freed or not freed.  If they are freed they revert to being a free person.  There is no halfway situation in Gor where you can be a slave despite having no owner.

If people used "to release" in Gor intending it to have the same meaning as "to free" there wouldn't be any confusion.  The problem is that people use it in the BDSM sense, which is a sense that is meaningless in Gor, contrary to Gorean law and just creates confusion and bad roleplay.