Most of the historical punishments you could think of are today considered modern fetishes. Some of that can be contributed to sadism, but it seems like even more can be considered pure contrary open-mindedness. They can, therefore they do. Slavery, Crossdressing, Chastity, Bondage, domestic discipline, beating (& subcategories), humiliation, castration, bloodletting, crushing... Please, tell me if I'm scaring you. We are a very strange society, though we try to hide it.

We are a society of individuals rather than a society as a whole. Most of the things we want, our motivations, are out of self interest rather than for our family, our friends, our community, our nation. There's nothing wrong with that; if people can become happy as individuals then they should. I don't believe we should lose sight of the whole, but we shouldn't be sacrificing ourselves for it. We are not ants.
Why does this matter? No, this is not a post about fetish, the Marquis de Sade, or the "cult" of individuality -- neither the jeans or the ideology. Our society is built in a way that the weakest of us; economically, socially, physically and mentally, suffer. We've seen poverty and crime rise where lack of education, lack of opportunity and lack of ambition thrive. Sociology tells us that even on a global scale, our society isn't built to allow everyone to thrive, some will always suffer and die, some painfully. We are an Omelasian(1) society, that requires we mistreat the weak in order to maintain our standard of living.
As I was driving to class the other day I started considering these things. There are people that live their day to day lives as willing slaves, did you know? In the United States, today, willingly and in many cases happily (2). Now, legally binding slavery is impossible; they still have their rights, they simply choose not to use them. Legally binding slavery would be absolutely unethical and it would cause so many problems we'd most likely collapse from the loss of moral integrity-- because absolute power for no matter how short a time creates absolute cruelty and lack of common sense (3).
However... If people can sell embryo's, virginity, if we pay for adoption services and the medicine we need to survive, if people believe it's all right to pay for the exchange of services (commonly called jobs), and people agree to marry and beget children for the sake of money, what about indentured labor?
Some might say we already have that. Many careers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, sign contracts that obligate them to work for a term of service. What about taking it a step further?
Imagine a distant, futuristic world where the higher echelons of our society were to contractualize all their servants, taking responsibility for them, taking on a system of patronage for artists, writers, musicians to live in their homes. We could have skipped over the next Mozart because he never had an opportunity to learn.
In Japan, companies often take responsibility for their workers; they're likely to hire the sons of their male employees because it's considered beneficial to aid their families and it inspires mutual loyalty. We have colleges and governments that take on writers in residence for years at a time.
But these things are considered extreme privileges, modern vanity, reserved for the most vogue figures of the time. An unknown writer will never become a poet laureate, and they probably shouldn't be...however people taking an interest in youth outside of their own family, church groups and community is considered strange; you'd think they were warped, pedophiles even. And if you tried to employ a homeless person of the street? They'd think you were trying to perform some strange science experiment on them and bury them in your backyard. Because most people don't believe that there's such a thing as good for goodness sake.
It's not expected. So a proposal: consensual, legally binding service in exchange for monetary compensation. Some people are incapable of functioning, so if they have worthwhile traits that could be put to good use, the upper echelon's could purchase them -- with their express agreement to a strict contract, so that both parties could benefit. This could possibly reduce crime and poverty.
You probably think I just spouted a bunch of BS; we already have that, or that's an idealistic view of things, or that's nothing spectacular. What if I were to say consensual slavery? Indentured servant? Live in whore? Houseboy? Sounds sort of victorian doesn't it? But why do some of those terms sound less savory? Is it the sex, the implication of the young being "used"? Lack of choice?

And yet....We hear stories all the time about the young housewife wanting the younger poolboy...