My owner asks, what effect does the physical layout of the home have on enslavement? He suggests that people with slaves who do not leave the house (to go to work, for example) have many more opportunities to make the space work to further enslave them. He points out that Brutal Antipathy’s slave is apparently tethered with a chain to the house. (I personally have a difficult time picturing how this works unless it is a very small house. If it were me, I suspect that I would always be accidentally wrapping my chain around furniture and causing small disasters whenever I walked from the living room to the kitchen. Undoubtedly, his slave is a creature of grace unlike me.)

So, what matters when using physical space to control and enforce enslavement? Do propaganda-like signs make a difference? (e.g. “Master is mother. Master is father. Obey Master.”) I used to keep a small sign displaying my slave mantra where I meditated. I think it made a difference in my behavior since I always saw it when my mind was clear and centered.

Moon lives in a house of bells. In every room small hand-bells sit ostentatiously on desks, tables, and other furniture. She uses them to summon her slave when she wants something. I wonder how seeing these feminine little bells affects her slave. Do they remind him that he is at her beck and call at all times?

Tanos mentioned at one point that he organizes his household geographically so that there are areas that are off-limits to the girls (his study) and areas that are nominally theirs (their bedrooms). Communication rules vary in the different areas of the house. When one also notes that Tanos has his own dungeon cell, it is clear that he takes organizing and controlling his physical space very seriously. What effect do separate bedrooms have on M/s relationships?

Humans personalize the spaces that they inhabit. There is some evidence that the process of personalizing the space one inhabits creates a bond between the people and objects and also reinforces or creates the cultural frame that structures individual thoughts and behaviors. The act of personalizing space can also create a greater feeling of safety and security as well as a feeling of empowerment. In M/s relationships, the owner has the final say on what the slave can personalize (if anything) and how much can be done to change it. If the owner chooses not to allow the slave any say in how space is set up and designed, will this negatively affect enslavement by attacking the necessary base of safety and security necessary for these relationships? Or does this reinforce the dynamic by subsuming the slave’s personality within the owner’s desires?

Tanos once suggested to me that the virtual panopticon (having cameras in all areas so that slaves never truly feel themselves alone) might be an interesting way of creating the kind of emotional vulnerability that deepens enslavement. However, I do not know whether he ever did it or what effect it would have had if he did. Is this an effective strategy?