There's another aspect of this question to take into account, which is that in the days before gay relationships were as widely accepted as they are now one way for a man to disguise a live-in lover was to refer to him as a servant. It's a tribute to the strength of many such relationships that they survived and thrived over a period of years. The author Beverly Nichols http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Nichols, who is all but forgotten these days, lived with his partner under the guise of master and servant for a very long time. I don't suppose he was the only one.
Oddly I've never seen any J/W stories using the premise that the boys were lovers first and that Jeeves being Bertie's valet was really just a way of hiding their true relationship.
Another good comparable of course is Wimsey/Bunter; Bunter was Peter's sergeant during the War and saved his life on at least one occasion, and probably helped put him back together afterwards. I never really saw them as a couple myself (Wimsey/Charles Parker worked better for me) but there's a lot of emphasis on Bunter's selfless devotion and at least until Harriet comes along Bunter is Peter's closest companion.
Going back to earlier generations, servants more or less expected to be importuned by their masters. It is only in comparatively recent times that people in the lower classes of society have considered that they had any rights over their own bodies; a mediaeval servant, for example, lived or died by the will of his lord. Although in some cases servants probably found the sexual attentions of their masters unwelcome, there must also have been plenty of instances in which they were both perfectly happy with the arrangement and stayed together without the world knowing a thing about it. By their very nature these things just don't come to public attention.
Just trying to say, I think, that the master/servant dynamic is infinitely complicated - as complicated, in fact, as any other dynamic - and whether or not there is a slash potential in any given one would have a lot to do with the personalities involved and the circumstances of their lives.
no subject
Oddly I've never seen any J/W stories using the premise that the boys were lovers first and that Jeeves being Bertie's valet was really just a way of hiding their true relationship.
Another good comparable of course is Wimsey/Bunter; Bunter was Peter's sergeant during the War and saved his life on at least one occasion, and probably helped put him back together afterwards. I never really saw them as a couple myself (Wimsey/Charles Parker worked better for me) but there's a lot of emphasis on Bunter's selfless devotion and at least until Harriet comes along Bunter is Peter's closest companion.
Going back to earlier generations, servants more or less expected to be importuned by their masters. It is only in comparatively recent times that people in the lower classes of society have considered that they had any rights over their own bodies; a mediaeval servant, for example, lived or died by the will of his lord. Although in some cases servants probably found the sexual attentions of their masters unwelcome, there must also have been plenty of instances in which they were both perfectly happy with the arrangement and stayed together without the world knowing a thing about it. By their very nature these things just don't come to public attention.
Just trying to say, I think, that the master/servant dynamic is infinitely complicated - as complicated, in fact, as any other dynamic - and whether or not there is a slash potential in any given one would have a lot to do with the personalities involved and the circumstances of their lives.