When I first read Imaginative Sex I certainly assigned the values to it as you've described. However, after re-reading it a few times over the years, and like any form of stimulus from any kind of art (however good, bad or mediocre), the way we respond to it differs over time and so did mine.
There certainly is no Madonna-Whore *complex* here as in his fiction. Unlike the FW and the kajira of Gor, he recognises the two are not mutually exclusive as you stated. In fact there is very little discussed core patterns of emotion and behavior related to either men or women (he clearly recognises indivduality and the immense capacity for variables in both sexes) and consistently uses the word *human being*, not *male* or *female*.
."...in every human being there are certain sadistic elements and certain masochistic elements. They differ in amount and degree among human beings but they exist in all."
Equality.
"These are games in which the woman, all of her, her mind, her imagination, her body, is fully and necessarily the equal of her male partner. If she is passive, if she does not understand, if she is puzzled, if she does not join fully, the games are impossible. Her ideas, her inventions, her imaginations are as needful and as important as those of the man."
(Note - He does differentiate between passive and submissive)
As Norman obviously has a leaning towards male dominance sexually, the 53 scenarios are of course in the main concerned with that - however, this is only described as fantasy, not something that happens outside of the bedroom as in the Gor environment. It is not a Real Life or, if you prefer, an *Earth* mentality. He is quite clear to convey its simply RP and fantasy. There are no whips and chains, it is pure drama, imagination and pretending. An almost cathartic experience to deal with our subconscious desires. Is it supposed to be an introduction to some kind of RL M/s mentality and way of life? I think not.
The molding of reality, I believe, is an increased intimacy not necessarily related to some kind of natural order (which is a whole other topic). Back in 1974 any kind of BDSM was quite a new concept to the masses - the introduction of the VHS made sexual material much more available to everybody. We now have pensioners clamoring for the latest Mr Grey book. It's no longer the kink it once was. It's mainstream. Having M/s pretend fun games in the bedroom (regardless of which sex is M or s) is routine for people that have never heard of Gor or Norman or Natural Order. It always was there of course, but it's no longer in the closet it once was. People ARE having imaginative sex, and that's a good thing - its not gender-centric , and its regardless of who is dominant or submissive.
In summary, this.
“Life is too short and too precious to waste it living out someone else’s values. We must find our own.”
― John Norman, Imaginative Sex
Not your Masters, your husbands, your male partners, your Dom.... your own.
(I'll come back to the Telnarian question.. I'm off to RP)