Isekai Meikyuu de Harem o - Vol. 3 Ch. 13 - Party 1

[Xangam]

I believe(actually I am almost 100% sure) that in the novel it was stated that the slave can choose if she is okay with being a sex slave or not(this affects her price, but also likeability for some customers), raping a slave that said NO to being a sex slave would mean breach of contract and law. The slaves are protected by a set of laws, they still have some rights(at least in the MC's current universe).

 

[Inuzuka]

Read the webnovel if you're that worried. Author made it clear that Roxanne was consenting (even if the manga artist did not) and that slavery in this universe cannot be used to order the slave to have sex (or become a thief or murder a noble) .

Later the MC gets a total of 5 slaves, only the final slave

Spoiler

a fallen noble elf,

toes the line of consent when

Spoiler

Roxanne forces her to sleep with the MC and the MC turns a blind eye. She's only reluctant the first night and still manages to enjoy it, she was more concerned about losing her virginity than the idea of having sex with the MC.

The slave traders divide their female slaves into those willing to become sex slaves and those who aren't willing when presenting them to a buyer, since trying to order a slave to have sex when they're not willing (or trying to get around the rules by ordering the slave to stand still/ not react and then forcing themselves on slave) would result in losing them as a slave (and therefore wasting their money).

Also, as Xangam mentioned, slaves are protected by the law. Owners are required to pay their slave's taxes and provide food, clothes and shelter otherwise the ownership of the slaves will be revoked.

 

[criver]

@Xangam:
If this is true, was there a reason presented why a slave would voluntarily agree to be a sex slave? It doesn't seem like this is beneficial for the slave in any way. It seems beneficial only for the merchants, for the slave this amounts to agreeing to get raped by a random person.
Based on your words agreeing to be a sex slave means that if you get raped that's all fine and dandy. I don't think anybody would agree to that voluntarily. The rights you're talking about seem awfully similar to the "laws" that the merchant briefed our MC about, which seemed to be a formality rather than something with substance.
Maybe you can clarify this also @Inuzuka

 

[Xangam]

@criver Taken from the WN:

"It comes down to the market price, if it’s a young woman there isn’t much difference in work performed, even if one is a sex slave. If you request the same work, the price becomes the same. So a young female who is not a sex slave does the same work as a sex slave. If you go by combat ability, and ability to work, then men & women are the same. 120,000 nars is the price of an adult male in the prime of his life. But a young woman could be more than double this because the price goes up drastically depending on her looks."

Long story short, if the slave is a good looking young female that agrees to be a sex slave it drastically increases her price, thus increasing her chances to be sold to a powerful and rich person = better quality of life, work environment, life conditions and dungeon survivability. Some slaves are even freed and made into Concubines etc.

 

[criver]

@Xangam: What makes you think that because somebody pays more he'll treat his slaves better? Was this implied in the novel? I would argue it's the opposite, since he's rich enough, he can always buy a new one. There seems to be a lapse in logic there. A person that uses the slave to earn his bread is a lot more likely to treat his investment more carefully. But then again he'll probably opt for a male.
Also the author must have smoked some of that good stuff to come up with this: " If you go by combat ability, and ability to work, then men & women are the same."

 

[littleoni]

@criver

Also the author must have smoked some of that good stuff to come up with this: " If you go by combat ability, and ability to work, then men & women are the same."

It's lost in translation, but there is a twist to phrase. It's implied as "Men and women with the same stats are the same". Remember this is a video game world, your strenght is a number, so is your endurance. Things that would biologically be different from men to women, and cause physical differences in appearance, can be equal; and still the appearance would be different. For example, the MC has gotten a lot stronger since the beginning but he is not burlier.

 

[phil777]

@criver

Also the author must have smoked some of that good stuff to come up with this: " If you go by combat ability, and ability to work, then men & women are the same."

Seriously? I'm pretty sure that muscular mass aside, men & women can be pretty combat capable and capable of working in the same areas. =/ It's all a question of training. Women may however be more proficient with agility-based training than men in a "real" setting, but that does not make them any less deadly than them. =/

 

[criver]

@littleoni: I always forget about the video game loophole, thanks for reminding me. I would still assume that stat progression would be affected by gender, I believe there is a reason why mostly men are fighters and workers in that video game world.

@phil777: Muscle mass and combat ability have a strong correlation, this is the exact reason why there are weight classes in fighting related sports. Not only that, if you just look at the statistics (and physiological differences) you can figure out very fast that males are better on average in terms of physical ability (including sports and combat). It's also not all a question of training, there is a strong genetic factor at play, training only serves to realize the person's genetic potential. I am not aware of any studies suggesting that women are better at agility-related training either, if you know of such please link them. I don't even know why am arguing about this, I think that it is fairly obvious.

 

[littleoni]

@criver
And about what you said about female slaves voluntarily becoming sex slaves, and the advantages of that ... Well, I will point out that our author here is really good. I'm damn serious, this guy is almost a genius in world and character building.
Look at this this way: It's not that they become sex slaves voluntarily, is that they chose to add it to their possible career since they know it will happen anyway. They are slaves, they have no choice in the matter. If they list it as one of their possible occupations they may end up with a master who is intrested in them from that standpoint, and not as workforce or warriors. And as a master, if you buy a slave as a sex slave you are intrested in her staying beautiful, so you are not going to expose her to manual labor or danger. There is always the case of landing on a pervert who is into sadism or something like that, but then again it's unavoidable. Very often the slave masters in fantasy are portrayed like that as if it was the general rule. The author shows his knowledge of worldbuilding here by implying it's not that usual for that to happen. A master like that would consume a lot of slaves quickly, forcing him to buy more. That would be expensive, so he would have to be rich. And there are never many rich people in society. And a master who is not rich and thus has invested a tangible portion of his fortune into a slave will not be that inclined to damage her. Still, in a fit of rage or lust they may, but it's less likely.
If they were to list they are against it, the likelihood of landing on a pervert increases: all the customers who would want to buy a warrior or worker will still buy them, anyone who wants a sex slave for "normal" pleasure and does not want to deal with subjugating a rebelling slave who is listed as a warrior will not, and perverts who may actually enjoy the subjugation will. And even when bought as warriors or workers they may be subjected to occasional sexual use since they are slaves after all.
The fact that both the girl and the MC understood this shows the author really thinks the worldbuilding through. It's not an excuse to squeeze hentai in, it makes sense in the narrative. And again, the fact that the MC does not go whiteknighting and refusing to push her down is another show of good character building: the MC is human, he is a good natured person, but he is human and inherently egoistical. Maybe if the girl had shown clear opposition to the idea or to him he would not have done it (but even if she hadn't fallen for him he would still have done it, as long as she does not strongly oppose the idea).
And sorry for another edit, and a giantic wall of text, but there is also this (here it will be mostly speculation, but let's go wild):

I would still assume that stat progression would be affected by gender, I believe there is a reason why mostly men are fighters and workers in that video game world.

In our world, gender would not affect your proficiency as a teacher, nurse or waiter, right? And yet those jobs are mostly taken by females (well, school teachers. College is different). A female is naturally more agreable to the sight for both males and females, that's why a restaurant will prefer taking in a waitress over a waiter. Also, the female voice is naturally perceived as soothing by the kids, etc. All of these have nothing to do with any of the stats the game uses, except maybe "charisma". So the situation would be the same: unless her stats are off the charts, a woman would prefer to do a job more suited for her traits. Men are naturally more aggressive and protective. Again, this has nothing to do with stats. So they would chose not to give dangerous or exhausting jobs to women.

 

[criver]

@littleoni:
If the author was indeed a "genius" he would not be stuck writing light novels and web novels that cater to the lowest common denominator. He would be writing actual novels. So let's not put him in a league outside of his own.
"They know it will happen anyways"? Are you implying that they'll get raped anyways (which I would tend to agree, however other people have presented the LN/WN info differently)? Both @Xangam and @Inuzuka seem to be of a different opinion regarding this matter. I haven't read the LN/WN so I cannot comment on this.
There's another thing I don't get. You say that choosing to be a sex slave increases the chances of being bought for "normal" pleasure, I am not sure what you're basing this on.
I would argue that adhering to some kind of moral standards and principles, and having a shred of empathy is not white knighting. The MC is not a good natured person from what we've seen so far, unless you consider sociopaths and psychopaths to be good people. He doesn't seem to care if he kills others, and doesn't seem to feel any empathy towards others either. Seems like a typical self-serving character that was given power, and we are in the process of seeing how power corrupts. I would also argue that based on his thoughts from the earlier chapters, he planned to have his way regardless of whether she would be opposed to it.

As for your edit: Do they really need many teachers/nurses? Considering the level of development of that world, I would assume not. You should also factor in the fact (as mentioned in the manga) that one can amass more wealth by doing more combat related and even shady stuff. Yet you see the majority of workers/fighters being male, which would be an analogy to our world's middle ages. If everybody was equal in terms of stats, you wouldn't expect this to be so. It could be bad writing, or it's possible that actually stats do depend on gender, similarly to the genetic and physiological differences between genders in the real world.

 

[littleoni]

@criver
Kamachi Kazuma is, indeed, a genius. Yet he is writing LN. Also this guy is too bold for his own good, like when they fired the guy who made the Haruhi Suzumiya anime script (he had very good ideas, but they were so good they went overboard). The sole idea of portraying a MC who intends to use slavery for self satisfaction in a "kid's" novel is insane, it's not too strange for this guy to receive quite harsh criticism.

Are you implying that they'll get raped anyways ?

Well, the slave trader says it up front, there is no much inference to do.

You say that choosing to be a sex slave increases the chances of being bought for "normal" pleasure, I am not sure what you're basing this on.

Imagine you in the customer's shoes. You come to a slave trader for a sex slave. You intend to give her the "regular" use, just enjoing carnal pleasure. If you are offered any who has already agreed to fullfill that position, you will be more inclined to buy her. If the slave refuses to be a sex slave, you will have to "retrain" her, put her in her place, abuse her, maybe even force her. We are assuming you are a normal person. For us, civilized world citizens 2018, the idea of buying a slave is by itself abnormal, but assume it's normal. You don't enjoy making others suffer, you don't intend to inflict pain to anyone. You just want someone to help you with nightly pleasure. You will buy the slave that will be the least problematic. If there is one who has already accepted her fate and is not opposed to it at all, you will be more than happy to buy her, and you will have no reason to mistreat her.
Now imagine you are a pervert in the same situation. The pervert enjoys making others suffer. He will intentionally pick a slave who opposes the idea so that he can "punish" her for disobeying.
Again, we are asuming that the chance of landing on a pervert is the same as landing on the CEO of a company while greeting a random stranger at it's gates.
And about the MC ... He has morals. He is capable of murder because he is facing people capable of murder. He is coldblooded, a bit too much. But he is good natured. Not in a traditional sense of helping everyone, but in a more humanistic sense: helping everyone as long as it's also beneficial to him. When considering the purchase of Roxanne one of the reasons he lists is the possibility of someone else purchasing her. You can see it as possesiveness, but if you go back to the panels, you see he is concerned she could land on a bad master. He also makes sure she is comfortable before doing anything.

 

[criver]

@littleoni:
He may be a genius, however based on the works he has produced (I've watched/read adaptations of those) he doesn't strike me as a writing genius. If you compare his "novels" to actual world acclaimed ones the difference is tremendous. Maybe you know something I don't which makes him a genius in your eyes, idk.
Actually the idea of portraying a selfish MC in a wish-fulfillment setting in a "kid's" novel isn't insane, it's a good business model. He knows what his audience likes, and delivers.
Thanks for clarifying the part about choosing to be a sex slave vs choosing not to. Since my original idea was that it pretty much didn't matter and in either case a slave can get raped by its owner. However, both @Xangam and @Inuzuka had a different statement. I am going to assume you are correct just for the current argument.
I am fairly certain that you're speculating a bit too much who sickos would choose more on average as a slave. Your arguments relies entirely on your idea of what a "pervert" is supposed to be and do. And your idea about this seems to be fairly naive and stereotypical. Additionally slaves most likely cannot really get to your conclusion either, simply because they do not have the information you have. So let's say that you're right for argument's sake: that sickos pick more non-sex slaves than sex slaves on average. There's no way for most slaves to figure this out, so when they are offered the choice to get raped or not to, they would chose the second option. The whole sex slaves vs non-sex salves seems to be redundant either way, since based on your statement you can do the same things to both. Feels like it was added just so that there's some sort of justification for the MC to own a slave that's "fine" with him raping her.
The main motives why the MC purchased his slave were sexual. He can list however many other reasons he wants to appease his conscience and rationalize the whole thing, the fact remains what the main reason is (it was emphasized numerous times too). Sure, he is concerned that the property that he wants, may be taken by another. And while I agree that he "made sure that she is comfortable" (if that can count as a foreplay at all), that looked more like him acting nicely because he knew he was going to get what he wants. I bet you you would have seen his true character had she tried to refuse him in any way. I can't agree that he has morals, at least not by any common moral standards. He's in the same bucket as rapists, hitmen, and human traffickers, so unless you consider those to have "morals", then no he doesn't have morals.

 

[littleoni]

@criver
I can't argue about the MC right now. You may be 100% right, in which case most of what I said would be BS and the series would plummet to the depth of the author's self satisfaction. I will keep hope I'm right since it leads to a more intresting development on the long run.
And about the inculture of slaves ... Well, did Roxanne strike as unknowing of her fate? It will vary much case by case. It depends on the origin of the slave (slaves born into slavery will be more dilligent, slaves sold of for debt once they are of sensible age will have some common sense and won't act rashly, slaves captured by violent means will try to rebel if they were captured once of sensible age, etc), on the nature of their handler (the slaver presented to the MC, for example, cares enough about his merchandise to explain these kinds of things to them. Others may sell in bulk and explain nothing), there are a lot of variables.
In ancient Rome becoming a slave to a farmer sometimes was seen as salvation for a beggar. The slave got a roof over their head and at least he would not starve to death. Many slaves to moderately rich masters led a quite comfortable life: the ones taking care of the young, for example, and the lord's concubines. Also for us, civilized people in 2018, sex has a much deeper meaning. In medieval times it was normal for any woman working in an inn or tavern to sometimes sell her body to earn extra. And it's not like they were forced to do so in most cases, they just did because they could. This is what mean by worldbuilding, taking into account these kinds of details.
About the stereotypical pervert ... That is the kind of pervert the slave would want to avoid. Any other kind of pervert would just be a hard to please customer.

 

[criver]

@littleoni: I don't think the author will demonize the MC fully, even if it will make for a more interesting and more realistic story, simply because he'll piss off his audience. He'll most likely keep the masturbatory self-indulgence part of the whole thing, but will provide enough "excuses" for the MC's actions, so that the readers would still be able to "justify" his actions and relate to him, basically keeping the wish-fulfillment dream going. Obviously some realistic characterization would have to be sacrificed for that, but considering that this is the bread and butter of this manga, it probably seems like a good trade-off for the author.
I don't think we can say anything about Roxanne knowing about her fate, assuming something would be simply speculation, unless it's present in the LN/WN. This is precisely why it doesn't make sense why she would choose to be a sex slave rather than simply a slave. There's no motivation presented, which should be there, if the author is to avoid leaving plot holes.
Your ancient Rome analogy is once again simply speculation, you cannot assert that her becoming a slave was salvation for her. And in general one would assume this to not be the case. You do not need to be a slave to be able to work for somebody either, you'll just have the option to be treated like a human and not property.
For us civilized people in 2018 sex has anything but deep meaning (at least in the west). You can have however many one night stands you would like, you just have to go to the nearest bar/night club. In medieval times it was scandalous for a woman to not be a virgin for her marriage. Sure you had prostitutes and brothels, but you have the same nowadays, heck there's two brothels in the city I live in and people from France travel for sex tourism. The major difference is that in today's society rape is taken a lot more seriously (to the point where they're overdoing it with convicting men over false rape accusations). People are also a lot less sexually repressed. So no, sex doesn't really have a deeper meaning, it's a form of entertainment nowadays too. Love has a deeper meaning (and that's if you're being a romantic). I would argue that women in medieval times resorted to prostitution mostly when they didn't have any other options (you would have to refer to historical materials for this). Consider that food and commodities were a lot more scarce. It's actually nowadays that there are a lot more women and men that resort to prostitution with the dream of getting rich, and not necessarily out of necessity.
There are plenty of different kinds and varieties of perverts and sickos, you're trying to generalize all of those based on some preconceived idea as far as I can see. Pervert doesn't necessarily equal sadist, there are a lot of different and scarier kinds of perversion.

 

[orochijes]

leling @ all your moral concerns right now.

@phil777
If by "real setting" you mean our world, men outdo women in any physical activity that includes running, fighting, swimming, lifting, jumping, and any way you can whack, kick, or throw something. That covers just about everything in sport or combat. I think men and women can aim and balance about the same though. Only thing I'm not sure about is flexibility.

 

[starburst98]

@orochijes
women are indeed more flexible then men directly because they have less muscle mass. think of a really buff dude who's muscles are so big he can't touch his left shoulder with his right arm, then invert that, viola. is also helps that their hips have a different shape, turns out the shape that makes it easier to get a baby out also makes it easier to do a split.

 

[littleoni]

Wall of text again. I sure don't know how to write a readable comment.
@criver
I might be wrong, but I kinda remember the slaver mentioning her agreeing. I'm too lazy right now to confirm it and it doesn't matter all that much, you might be right.
About the motivation ... I think I assumed it was obvious so I didn't mention it, at a later date I realized there is no evidence for the assumption and I was leaving part of the reasoning out, making it less understandable. As you said, when presented with the option of getting raped or not one would chose not to. But when presented with the option of having to do manual labor for life (or exposing yourself to mortal danger) or getting a bit raped you might actually evaluate both. We kinda assumed that no matter if sold as a sex slave or not the chances of being forced to have sex unwillingly were the same, this is not right. If a slave is sold as a non sex slave the chances of it happening are a lot lower, and if she clearly opposes the idea they are even lower (because we assume that the average customer would not purchase a slave he would have to retrain for her intended purpose), but in that case they will just be used as workforce or warriors. So if a slave can tolerate getting raped (like a prostitute does), she will just live a more comfortable life if she consents to it. If a slave doesn't, it's still in her best intrest not to sign up as a sex slave, even if it increases the chances of landing on a pervert. Having the posibility of using a non-sex slave for pleasure doesn't mean that every owner will actually do it. If they can afford it, they would prefer to get another slave for that. If they can't, they can still care enough about their cattle to know that forcing someone to do something they loathe will lower their overall performance on the long run.
And it does have a deeper meaning, just differently. Yeah, you are right about virginity before marriage (half right, actually. It varied a lot from region to region. The christian law was supposed to enforce it, but there were still a lot of places where it was not frowned upon to lose virginity upon engagement instead of upon marriage). But as you have said rape was not seen as that much of a crime. This has pragmatical origin, and in cases where the perpetrator was a local and the girl unmarried the punishment consisted of forced marriage (sounds ridiculous, right?). The reason is inheritance. A girl must remain pure before marriage (or engagement) so that her firstborn is actually of her husband. Where I want to arrive at is that for the woman, sex was a duty, it was expected of her, and it was seen as wrong if she didn't give it to her husband (she could, obviously, enjoy it. And the husband could take her feelings into consideration, we are not assuming all of humanity as heartless bastards. It's just that the feelings were not important for the social role of sex). For the man it was even more meaningless. With some exception, it was not even frowned upon a married man entering a brothel. Yet now sex without any kind of feelings is not seen as normal (with exceptions. There are still people who retort to prostitutes. But even then it's not well regarded by society). That's what I meant when I said sex had deeper meaning now. I suck at explaining, tho.
About Rome ... Most teachers for young nobles were slaves. When I say most I mean an overwhelming majority. The reason being that a full time teacher could not make sure he would earn enough money to survive (there's the chance of no one needing his services for a long time), so almost no one chose to become a teacher. A slave is supposed to be mantained by their owner, so they can dedicate themselves to the upbringing of the children (I'm not refering to the logic, rethoric, drama, etc teachers. Those were very highly regarded and had no trouble surviving. I mean more of a caretaker for the lord's children until they were 10~12 and started either military, political or artistic education).
And about perverts ... You are right, 100% right. But the dangerous kind are sadists. And with this I mean anyone who enjoys causing pain or doesn't care about causing pain to get enoyement. Take, for example, a pedophile. Yes, it's doubtlessly a pervert. He is so obviously wrong in his ways. And yet if he doesn't fulfill the conditions above, he will make sure not to make the girl suffer (for this the girl would have to be of semideveloped age (12~16) to meet both criteria: being a child and being able not to suffer), so he will not purchase a girl of that age group unless she is willing to consider that. It's a bit fourth dimmensional chess, because a girl of that age group will, half of the time, not have considered the posibility of it happening; or may be just too afraid, or disgusted; her willingness could be out of immaturity; and so on. There is also the possibility of such a customer not finding a willing slave and purchasing an unwilling one and forcing her, yet in that case he would fall into the cathegory of "doesn't care about causing pain" so he would be a sadist.

 

[criver]

@starburst98: I know that you're basing this on previous studies showing that there is a positive correlation between muscle strength and muscle stiffness and a negative correlation between stiffness and flexibility. However, more recent research suggests that there is actually no correlation between muscle strength and flexibility, the main factor being muscle optimal length: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209525461630014X
If you don't feel like reading the whole paper, here's the relevant part (you can find it in Section 5 Conclusion): "Hamstring muscle optimal lengths are positively correlated to hamstring flexibility across individuals. With the same flexibility score, females have shorter hamstring muscle optimal lengths compared with males. Hamstring muscle optimal lengths are not correlated to hamstring strength."

@littleoni: I decided to go and re-read the relevant chapter in details. About your first comment about male vs female strength in that world: "in terms of fighting and working ability, men are the same as or better than women" - meaning that men are actually considered more physically capable. In the same chapter it's also made clear that it doesn't matter whether one is a sex-slave or not, as the outcome is the same. This may be a difference to the LN/WN but obviously this is the case in the manga. So it doesn't seem to be about choice anyways. Being a slave you would get raped if the master insists on it. Unless you're ready to run away or kill him and die with him.
"We kinda assumed that no matter if sold as a sex slave or not the chances of being forced to have sex unwillingly were the same, this is not right." - turns out this assumption is actually right, if you go to chapter 3.2 you can see that it doesn't matter. As a matter of fact no distinction is made between being a slave or sex-slave.
"Where I want to arrive at is that for the woman, sex was a duty, it was expected of her, and it was seen as wrong if she didn't give it to her husband." Things haven't changed - if you are in a relationship and you keep refusing your partner (regardless of whether you are a man or a woman) he/she will leave you. There are plenty of ruined relationships simply off the fact that the sex drive of the partners is not compatible.
"Yet now sex without any kind of feelings is not seen as normal." - I would argue that it is seen as pretty normal in non-sexually repressed societies. One night stands are pretty normal, friend with benefits are also seen as normal, porn actors and actresses are seen as normal - basically sleeping around is seen as normal. With the exception of certain ethnic groups and religious followers most people in a modern enough society are not sexually repressed and can differentiate between sex, love, and reproduction. That is not to say that sex with a partner you love is meaningless. It's just that sex isn't seen only as a means to reproduction nowadays, but also as entertainment. So I stand by my statement - sex does not have a deeper meaning.
Your Rome arguments don't seem to be historically accurate, maybe it's just me, but I've yet to find a source that claims that teachers would sell themselves into slavery. While there were slaves that were teachers I've yet to find a claim that they sold themselves into slavery on purpose.

 

[littleoni]

@criver

turns out this assumption is actually right, if you go to chapter 3.2 you can see that it doesn't matter. As a matter of fact no distinction is made between being a slave or sex-slave.

Yes and no. Yes by capacity: the master CAN do it. No by will: the master will be more willing not to do it as per explained above: if they can afford a dedicated sex slave, they will prefer to do so; if they can't, they may still chose not to rape their regular slave in order to not decrease her overall performance (a person will perform worse if they are afraid or hopeless). "More willing" doesn't mean he won't do it, but the chance is lower.

if you are in a relationship and you keep refusing your partner (regardless of whether you are a man or a woman) he/she will leave you.

You are aware that in medieval ages nor husband nor wife could just "leave" each other, right? Unless there was proof of a horrible crime, like for exable being a jew, divorce was unheard of. And we agreed that people didn't usually have sex before marriage or at least engagement, so yeah, there is that.

One night stands are pretty normal, friend with benefits are also seen as normal, porn actors and actresses are seen as normal - basically sleeping around is seen as normal.

Would you go for an one night stand you care nothing about? Now we are back to medieval ages: a lord stations a regiment of his army for temporary exercise in a village for about a week. The commander gives his men permission to pick random girls and almost rape them (the village was forced to provide "relief" for the soldiers. A woman could refuse, but if everyone refused the commander was entitled to collect a higher tax). If you go ahead and read historical narrative on the issue it was insane: soldiers often would not even care about the woman they picked. In fact, sometimes hags were preferred because it would be less troublesome to convince them. More often than not the man would not even remember the face of the woman after. I don't think current one night stands are like that.

but I've yet to find a source that claims that teachers would sell themselves into slavery

I didn't claim that, I failed to explain myself (you see, I'm not too good at it). They did not. If a person got high enough education to be a teacher without being a slave they wold be very highly recognized and would not lack means of living, because they would be academy teachers. It's the other way around: most noble homes would purchase already educated slaves in order to teach their young, so hired teachers found it hard to find an employer (if someone was wealthy enough to hire a teacher, they were wealthy enough to purchase a teacher slave).

 

[starburst98]

maybe you guys are forgetting magic is involved. as in, trying to rape a non-sex-slave breaks the spell and it lets them kill you.