THE MALE SLAVE : ANIMAL, VEGETAL OR MINERAL ? 

The dominant Women, owners of one or more slaves, often have a too summary vision of the psychology of the males which serve them. They have tendency (but it is a very normal reaction as soon as one starts to take the practice of the submission of the males) to compare their slave to an object, with a domestic robot stripped of feelings or psychology. It is an error. Admittedly, subjected male have a very rudimentary psychology which compares it more with an animal than with a human being. One educates him as an ass with carrot and the stick, other trains him like the rider trains up her circus horse, other still makes he acts by conditioned reflex like the dogs of Pavlov... This is perfectly exact. However its system of thought deserves all the same some analysis, therefore short and brief is it. The submissive has to interiorize his Mistress's tastes and ideas while he tries at the maximum to approach it by permanent imagination, and in real time, of her feelings of superior Woman of which he naturally cannot get the least idea. This psycho-sensory improvement beyond to which the submale has to be permanently compelled to go towards the female ideal (to which he cannot of course step claim) can also be transcended in a progressive cognitive renouncement. 

His hybrid state, semi-human semi-animal, is often uncomfortable for the slave. His spirit always tended towards the unknown feelings and out of its attack which test the superior Women, and his Mistress in particular, work which it daily carries out for her and the worship that it dedicates to him in silence, undoubtedly helps him to live his natural inferiority and his servile destiny but, alas, cannot be enough to make him forget him deep generic uselessness. It is for that that, often under the impulse of a a little psychological Mistress but sometimes by some personal impulse, engages the slave into a true process of reification which is very far from being detrimental, as well for him even as a fortiori for his Mistress. 

There are, seems to us it, three great steps in this interesting "thingification" of the male. 
The first is, to a certain extent, a "wall-step". The submale enters a house or an apartment to which it will be rivetted (with the illustrated direction, but also often with the literal meaning). He belongs to the residence of his Mistress as much as to herself. His horizon of life (which became by primarily domestic nature) is limited by the walls of her house and one of the principal tasks that he has to perform is to take care of the cleanliness and the arrangement of all that is locked up between these walls. His first identification with real space in which he is located, sometimes to which he is definitively connected *, is a first step in the process of reification of subjected male. 

The second stage is a "movable-step". The male attached to a place, and whose principal function is to take care of the maintenance of this one and what it contains, sometimes because in the way of which it is maltreated or simply been unaware of by the female population that it must be useful or, very often as, thanks to an acute and intrinsic conscience of his natural inferiority, feels obscurely as it is from a utilitarian point of view and psychologically much nearer to the pieces of furniture of the house than of the Women, far too superior to him, who live there regularly. Moreover, he accepts very easily (even appreciates from the first days of his enslavment !) to be used lengthily like any of the other pieces of furniture of its Mistress (stool, standard lamp, table, davit, etc, the movable possibilities of a male are innumerable...). These other pieces of furniture, which are ultimately his principal companions, can become also its rivals. A subjected good used as footrest by a Woman will have in heart to remain at least as stable as a vulgar wood stool. He would be upset to see his Mistress preferring his vegetable made companion than himself ! Conversely, he will be proud of being able, contrary to his fellow-member coat rack, to advance until that which will have suspended, for example, her rainwears and her cap with its tended arms or on his head. Little by little, this movable function of the male must take the step on all its other more animal functions until, for example, not believe more that he is a slave washing the linen of his Mistress but indeed a washing machine improved in the course of use by this one or another Woman knowing to make it function. 

Lastly, his fetishism helping him, the slave is often put to envy or be jealous of the clothing or the underclothing of his Mistress, especially when this one prohibits to him any direct contact with its divine body of Woman. During the washing with the hand of a support-throat or breeches, or during the meticulous sharpening of a dress, the submale will imagine this pretty linen stuck to the skin of its Mistress, unceasingly coming very close to her body and her forms, impregnating itself with her perfume and her intimate odor, all prohibited pleasures for him. Then he will appreciate very much more the choice a Woman can make to choose a wall cupboard like adequate place for putting up her slave. Higher stages of this wall cupboard being reserved to his Mistress' clothing, underclothing or shoes, the lowerstage affected to the male during his periods of rest or when his presence is undesirable in the residential parts of the Women. Slowly but ineluctably, the submale objectivises himself and becomes a useful thing. The process of reification is accomplished. 

A " thinking " object, certainly, but object all the same, the male very quickly gains with being " thingified", and being compared to the remainder of her Mistress' trousseau. Here everything gains in clearness with these Womyn/male (or Mistres/slave, which returns to same) relations. A place for each thing and each thing in its place, known as popular wisdom. The dominant Woman will choose to penetrate this maxim in what is used as brain by his slave, while making him well understand that it indeed became really a thing, her thing, and that it must remain definitively in his place of thing, to let live the Women in their place of Women.

* In the entirely gynarchized future world that we do wish, why not give the statute of "wall-dependant" to certain male slaves who could be yielded, in the real transactions of particular with particular, at the same time as the housing to which it affected and would be rivetted, like the sink, the bath-tub or the throne of the toilets? This measurement would have the advantage of having a slave always perfectly with the current of maintenance necessary to all the parts of housing in the course of transfer. Certain apartments could even take a certain real value thanks to the male which would be fixed there.