Slavery is not a sexual fantasy

A recent post by Saratoga reminded me that much of the attraction of slavery is not in itself sexual: it's a way of dodging the full complexities of adulthood, and the responsibilities of adult relationships - so much so that emotional fulfillment is the one thing the owner would certainly not get from it. In fantasy, and in historical reality, the owner doesn't notice the slave, or at least doesn't engage emotionally with him.

In bedroom play, the owner can enjoy some pampering and assisted masturbation. And longer daytime sessions offer her chore-free "me time". But for any longer; I think most women would get lonely.

In real slave owning cultures, the owners looked for emotional fulfillment to their friends and lovers - in my fantasies at least, all of them female...

...because, yes, sex does feature as part of the fantasy, whether watching my mistress go to it with her Sapphic lover, or providing a very personal service.

However, I do wonder whether much of the erotic charge of this odd sort of participant voyeurism is that it is an expression of the wider, non-sexual role...