By David Futrelle
Incels have a lot of thoughts about slavery. When they’re not fantasizing about enslaving women, or comparing their own plight to slavery, they sometimes ponder the history of slavery in the real world.
In general, their thoughts on this subject are not restrained by any actual knowledge, so their imaginations are free to wander. Consider, for example, this post on the Incels.is forum form last fall, in which a fellow calling himself ControlledInsanity asserted that enslaved women have historically had it extremely easy, living lives of happy idleness interrupted only by a few mostly pleasurable moments of sex.
Slavery itself accentuates the inherent value of each gender.
Enslaved men —> physical labor
Enslaved women —> sex
I cannot trick myself into believing that being forced to work hard manual labor is in any way “equal” to being kept to dispense periodic pleasure. Easy mode is not even a meme to me anymore, foids really actually do have a lower difficulty setting aura that follows them through life. All of their greatest successes and all of their greatest hardships are padded by special treatment.
Would anyone on this forum ever object to being a sex slave?
Naturally, a commenter quickly stepped up to praise Mr. Insanity’s post as “high IQ,.” Another congratulated him for his original insight:
i never thought it like that, hell even in ancient times foid slaves had it easy…fuck…..
To be a sex slave you have to be normie tier at least.
Still another contrasted the life of “a man slave” trapped in a life of “torturing labour” to the
female version … forced to lend her body couple of minutes a day to experience rough copulation and maybe orgasm with her owner.
One suggested that many men would kill to lead a life in which they were raped on a daily basis.
Truly wtf is it that what females consider a tortured existence would actually be a godsend for many men?
“Being a sex slave wouldn’t be bad,” added someone called Blue Squirtle.
but [foids] make … it seem worse, how is being a slave for sex as bad as labor? At least sex doesn’t result in getting whipped and beaten it the job isn’t done right.
Uh, I’m pretty sure it did, but never mind.
Still, not all of the commenters agreed that slavery had been a paradise of strawberries and rape for enslaved women. A commenter called JovanD, for example, was pretty sure that female slaves had to work, too.
Are you even aware how much slaves cost back in the day?
I highly doubt slave owner would have them sit around and do nothing but have sex…
Others suggested that being raped by a “big ugly man” on a daily basis might not actually be all that much fun for enslaved women — or men.
“You know that women really don’t want to fuck ugly, sweaty guys, right?” asked INeed4000Bucks.
That’s why chads don’t need sex slaves. I’m pretty sure the only sex those fat guys would have if they weren’t powerful men is through rape or with no one at all.
Well, to be fair, plenty of women do happily fuck ugly, sweaty guys. But no woman wants to be raped, no matter who is doing the raping.
Mr. Insanity clarified that what he meant by sexual slavery for men involved being sexily enslaved by women, not men.
I get what you’re saying but that isn’t a direct analog. Enslaved women are forced to fuck men, generally not forced to fuck women. I know that in reality, male sex slaves would also be taking dick but, for illustrative purposes, my analogy assumes the male sex slaves equivalent would be forced to fuck women.
And what man wouldn’t like that?
“I think most men wouldn’t mind being raped by women at all,” chirped someone called Frankenstein’s M, who has evidently never spoken to any man who actually has been raped.
For his part, Mr. Insanity was simply incredulous that anyone could possibly think that “fucking somebody you’re not attracted to = forced backbreaking labor.”
I have no words left at this point, so here’s a gif that, while wildly overused, pretty much nails my reaction right now better than anything else out there.
I’m going to go lie down for a while.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
The most important difference between “African slavery” & slavery in other times, was that it was TOTALITY racially based.
Slaves in other times came from defeated enemies, or the poor selling themselves or their children into servitude – often they were from the same race as their owners.
“African slaves” were black Africans. To rationalize enslaving people based on their race, especially in countries like England & America that were beginning to awaken to the concept of individual human rights, required the diminishment of the humanity of that race.
It required defining who a “black” person was and denying human rights to anyone so defined. (A son sired on a white woman inherits your property; a son sired on a black woman becomes a slave.)
The whole ugly 400 year history of racism in the U.S. is rooted in the need to claim that the race of “black Africans” merited their enslavement.
Hypatia’s daughter,
Indeed, I’ve only seen a few examples of how black slaves were discussed in terms of early US slave industry, but it certainly seems the word “slave” was not generally used. Instead, black people were seemingly always referred to as a racial category, as if their unfree status was a natural. unspoken and assumed part of their biological status. Kinda like a “dog” is assumed to be someone’s pet.
Though I don’t think a son sired outside of marriage would inherit anything back then, regardless of race?
@Lumipuna
Yeah, a bastard child would have to be legitimized to inherit anything, and even then there would have to be no legitimate children.
@Rabid Rabbit
An attested will could override that though, at any time in US law. Jefferson (frex) could perfectly well have left his children by Sally Hemmings both their freedom and an inheritance, had he chosen so to do. Later on it was illegal to do that sort of thing in much of the South, for fairly obvious reasons.
@Dalillama
Fair enough. I’m much more familiar with historical British/European law.
I’m constantly impressed by the level of historical and legal geekery we have represented here… hence I’d like to ask something for my fanfic writing purposes.
This relates to medieval Norman nobility inheritance rules (specifically in Italy ca. 1100). I understand that the whole estate would be normally inherited by the eldest brother (or in absence of sons, a daughter) and then by his heir.
Suppose you’re the only child (a daughter) of an older brother, who died before his own father, so he never owned the estate? I understand then the younger brother (your uncle) would be the heir, and then his children.
On the other hand, what if your father briefly outlived his father (and possibly there’s some uncertainty about this)? Then you’d be an underaged heiress, guarded by your mother and stepfather, waiting to grow up and marry, so your husband could run the estate, which until then is guarded by your uncle.
Now, suppose you’ve grown up far away with your stepfather (who has another heir for his own estate). How likely it is that your uncle would/could have taken over your estate over the years? What if your mother and stepfather initially agreed to this takeover, but now they/you/your husband want to dispute it afterwards? What would be legal, and what would be practically plausible?
(sorry for going off topic)
@ Lumipuna
I can’t answer for Italy back then, but in the Mediaeval world, being an inconvenient aristocratic niece or nephew wasn’t always a guarantee of long term survival prospects, legal issues notwithstanding. English and Anglo -French kings Athelstan (or possibly his father Edward the Elder,) John and Richard III are all known or suspected to have had a hand in the disappearance or untimely deaths of nieces or nephews who had a better claim on the throne, or could at least muddy that king’s own claim.
@Lumipuna
Norman inheritance rules would only apply far to the north of the Italian Peninsula at that time. Also, there wasn’t any such place as Italy in 1100. There was the Serene Republic of Venice, the Superb Republic of Genoa, the Margraviate of Tuscany, the Kingdom of Lombardy, the Papal statea, and a dozen vestpocket principalities trying to stay independent of any of them. Inheritance rules could vary quite a lot.
@NiOg, Tater Aficionado
Yes, I’ve already ranted on how bad media treats sexual slavery in my previous comment here, but you are 100% right in the Conan movie glorifying slavery. I found it particularly disconcerting that TVtropes lists a scene where he’s given a woman and leads her to bed, instead of assaulting her on the spot, is seen considered “heartwarming” by the person writing that article.
And I’m not surprised that they left out the part where historically, gladiators were pimped out between fights and Conan most likely would have been at serious risk of being forced to sleep with a skeevy rich man, because while this part of “historical accuracy” is treated as practically mandatory for female fantasy heroes, putting heroic men that male audience members are suppose to project themselves on in sexually vulnerable positions would make most of them uncomfortable, and making male audience members go through that in a story just meant to be a cool adventure is just wrong.
Seriously, I hate this double standard.
@Dalillama:
Given the dates Lumipuna provided, this would be during the Norman conquest of Sicily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_southern_Italy
@Lumipuna:
To a large extent, I think events would depend on the uncle’s temperament, not to mention the stepfather’s. Questions the scenario raises for me: Why is the heiress living so far away, when keeping her around the estate would make everyone remember she’s the heir? Why did the stepfather choose the uncle to take care of the estate until the heiress’ majority instead of taking it into his own care? Maybe he and the mother were just in love, but the automatic assumption is that part of the mother’s attractiveness was access to her dower and the possibility of milking the daughter’s estate before marrying her off to some member of his own family.
Legally, I don’t think the uncle would have a leg to stand on, as it would have been understood that he was only managing the estate, not inheriting it. But depending on how long it’s been since the father died, he may well have built up a power base, which would complicate matters more than a little. Especially since the Normans didn’t tend to be that fussed about legality. The heiress’ position would be extremely weakened if she wasn’t already married, and therefore able to call on the threat of military action. Unless you’re going to make her a warrior princess, of course. (Yes, there could be the stepfather’s men, but that would be read less as “Fighting for her rights” than “Fighting to conquer the place,” and probably legitimize the uncle more than anything.)
Even if the uncle was apparently willing to do the decent thing, it would be very wise on the stepfather and mother’s part to find some way to pay him off. Suggest to him that he go on crusade, look at how rich some people have managed to become in the Holy Land, we’ll even pay the costs. Find him a very rich bride.
Depending on how high in the nobility these people are, the church would probably also end up deeply involved. Especially in the presence of uncertainty about who died when, as you’d need witnesses willing to swear on their souls one way or the other.
None of which, I admit, is precise legal information, sorry. Maybe some studies of William the Conqueror’s youth would help? The fact he was a bastard means that historians must have looked into inheritance rules in some depth, and some of them may have considered how they applied to women.
Yeah, I meant the Norman duchy in southern Italy, whatever it was properly called.
(this is largely my headcanon for the original story)
The stepfather is the count of place A and wants to return there, after already having spent several years on the First Crusade, instead of guarding his stepdaughter’s county at place B in Italy. Later, they return to the vicinity of place B for reasons.
In the canon, it’s indeed a love marriage (which, as the author notes, is kinda anachronistic). They married on the crusade after her first husband’s death, probably assuming the old count of B was still alive back in Italy.
In the canon, the uncle is maternally inheriting a small barony that happens to be a vassal of county B. Though in my fanfic, maybe they actually let him de facto take over the county, but it’s not legally proper? Then again, he’s just a teenager at the time the crusade ends, and likely relies on his mother, who’s also a grandmother of the young heiress (it’s complicated).
In the canon, the old count of B has an archbishop in his town, who’d likely preside over his burial. His older son’s death in a battle in Palestine would be witnessed by various knights, some of whom return to Italy.
Addendum:
Sorry, I just realized normally they’d be related anyway, notwithstanding the peculiarities of this particular family tree.
@ Lumipuna
Doesn’t sound that far removed from the Anarchy, when Empress Matilda and King Stephen were contending for the thrones of England and Normandy, though they were first cousins rather than uncle and niece. Matilda was the designated heir of Henry I, King of England and Duke of Normandy, after her brother, the Crown Prince, died in a shipwreck.
I remember a story I was told by a Professor and Doctor of History who’s a family friend (I’m from the Caribbean), about a slave girl who was raped every night by the plantation owner. Every night she would try to escape, only to be recaptured by the handlers.
One night she escaped as usual, but ran into a platoon detachment from the British Regiment. By the time the handlers found her, she had been raped to death, much of her body, including her genitals, mutilated.
My blood boiled when I heard that story, as it boiled when I went to university myself and learned so much more about slavery, and as it boils right now after having read that unconscionable drivel from these Incel degenerates.
But not for Aristotle, who argued that some slaves at least merit slavery because of some essential slavishness of their nature.
You have to wonder whether he included Greeks from his city, Stagira, who were sold into slavery when Philip of Macedon – Aristotle’s employer – destroyed the place.
In British history, there’s a point where the question “who can be a slave?” shifts from a political to a religious to a racial question: basically from “did we beat you?” to “are you a Christian?” to “what skin colour do you have?”
With the last two questions, the guidance moved from “You can enslave Africans so long as you don’t convert them to Christianity” to “You must enslave Africans because that’s the only way to convert them to Christianity.”
@Rabid Rabbit, Kat:
Regarding ‘last survivor’… I haven’t read the article yet, but one thing I remember coming up was that when the trans-Atlantic slave trade was officially banned in 1807, the big American slave owners were actually all for banning the slave trade… because drying up the outside supply made the slave women they had more valuable.
Also, you can’t really ignore in all this the fact that a religion was literally created in the U.S. for pretty much the sole purpose of justifying slavery and making it still seem ‘Christian’. There’s a reason why Mark Twain was rather anti-religion in his books, up to and including Huck Finn’s famous line of ‘All right then, I’ll go to Hell’.