Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
— by votary votary
 This work, extracted and translated from the pages of is a piece of mind-blowing insight, or an example of over the top misandry, depending upon one's point of view.  I'll leave it to the reader to decide, but I include it here because like it or not, author d'Arbrant has the 'balls' to explore spaces of the mind's interior levels which others do not even dare to follow!

The dominant Femme, owner of one or more slaves, has too often a restricted vision of the psychology of the males who serve Her. She has the tendency to view her slave as an object, a domestic robot bare of sensation or psychology. This is an error. Certainly, the enslaved male is a rudimentary form, part human, part animal. Some will choose the carrot, some the stick with which to educate it, some a technique for training a circus horse, others a type of reflex conditioning like Pavlovs’ dogs.


This is perfectly appropriate. Still, it’s thought system merits a bit of analysis, however brief. The submissive male must learn to interiorize the tastes and thoughts of his Maitresse, both in it’s imagination and in real time, so that it is always aware of Her sensations. This psycho-sensory movement it makes towards a Feminine ideal beyond it’s understanding serves to reinforce it’s progressive renunciation of cognitive independence, which becomes replaced by a longing to know Her will, and a happiness to execute it well.

This hybrid state-part human, part animal is often uncomfortable for the slave. It’s spirit always tends towards sensations out of reach to it, through this close psychic contact with the Superior Femmes, and it’s Maitresse in particular; the daily work it carries out for Her and it’s silent adoration doubtless help it live it’s natural inferiority and servile destiny, but alas, it cannot forget it’s genetic uselessness. For this reason, sometimes driven by the Maitresse, sometimes by personal inclination, the slave undergoes a process of reification which is far from harmful, for itself or for it’s Maitresse.


In this ‘commodification’ of the male, we see three stages.

The first step. The subject enters the place to which it will be chained(literally or figuratively), the home of it’s Maitresse, and now itself, whose walls form the limit to it’s world, which becomes now entirely domestic in nature. It is responsible for the cleaning and organization of all that is contained there. It’s identification with the space in which it is placed, in it which is sometimes chained permanently is a step in the process of commodification of the male subject.


The second step. The male develops an obscurely utilitarian sensibility, identifying perhaps much more with the furnishings than with the Superior Femmes who it lives to serve. Due to mistreatment, or being ignored by them, it’s acute intrinsic awareness of natural inferiority to those it serves causes it to easily accept (and even appreciate the early days of its’ enslavement!) being used extensively just like any other piece of furniture belonging to its Owners. These pieces of furniture, which are ultimately his main companions, can also become rivals. A good subject used as a footstool by a woman will remain at least as stable as an ordinary wooden stool. It would be offended to see her preferred companion be a product of the plant world! Conversely, it is proud to be able, unlike his colleague portmanteau, to advance and receive clothes such as a rain coat and/or hat suspended on its’ outstretched arms or head. Little by little, this fixture identity for the male must take precedence over all other functions; for example, to no longer believe he is a slave washing clothes for his mistress but rather, a washing machine perfected in use by this or another Womyn knowing how to make it function correctly.


Finally, driven by it’s fetishism, the slave is often envious and jealous of the clothes or the underwear of his mistress, especially when forbidden any direct contact with the divine body of Woman. During the hand washing of a bra or panties, or during careful ironing a dress, the male subject imagines this lovely linen glued the skin of his mistress, constantly brushing her body and forms, absorbing its perfume. It also comes to appreciate the choice that Womyn can make in choosing a closet as a place of storage for their slave. The upper shelves of the closet are reserved for clothes, underwear or shoes of his Mistress, the lower level assigned to the male for his periods of rest or when its presence is undesirable in the residence. Slowly but inevitably, the subject is submitted to its’ ‘objectification and becomes something useful. The process of commodification is completed.


A “thinking” subject, to be sure, but all the same object, the male becomes very quickly “objectified” and treated just like the rest of the possessions of his Mistress. Everything becomes clearer in the Female/male (or Mistress/ slave, it is the same) rapport. A place for everything and everything in it’s place, says popular wisdom. Women will be keen to drill this maxim into the brain of their slave, while making it clear that it is indeed truly become a thing, her thing, that it must stay forever in its’ place , leaving the Women’s place for Women alone.

A translation from the original French.