Ask Giles: Is a Female Led Relationship is the submissive truly serving, or is it a trade?

In Ancient Rome, she'd still have to manage
her slave: give him orders, discipline him,
keep him in his place.

On Chastity Mansion, somebody asked: "Is it serving or is it a trade?"

I think it's quite common for dominant women to hide behind the idea of a trade for a long time before taking ownership of the FLR. However, it's only a trade in that all relationships are an implicit trade.

Our desire to serve comes from our submissive orientation. It's not some higher calling. So what we really want is particular role in a relationship.

The baseline proposition is then: "Let me be your slave and you can enjoy things unavailable in a normal relationship."

Ah, but kinky "slaves" require particular treatment! Isn't that a trade?

No because, if this were some dystopia - or Ancient Rome! - where a woman could simply purchase a personal slave, she'd still have to manage him: give him orders, discipline him, keep him in his place. There'd also be protocol so his presence didn't feel intrusive.

As long as the particular treatment  makes sense - has no over the top extras - then it's no more a trade than, say, adopting a dog and then having to feed, house and train it.

You could argue that, since he can get bored and pull the plug at any time, she will always feel as if it's a trade. However, from the start, he usually has more to lose than her. He's literally trapped by his own orientation. Over time, the roles just start to feel real and normal.

So though the mistress/slave relationship implies mutual obligations, I don't think it's an actual trade by any common meaning of the word. It certainly doesn't feel like one!

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)