Thus, because Mary Prince was sponsored by the British Anti-Slavery Society, she was hindered from depicting any sexual situation (including being molested by her master) that could be interpreted as morally corrupt (Prince 4). This demand was unrealistic, since the exploitation of female slaves was a standard practice for most masters. Prince's experience was undoubtedly the same. It is believed that she was molested by at least one, if not all three, of the masters she served as an adult (4). The requirement that her text appear to the contrary complicates her story, but does not discredit its value. .
Prince, the first British black woman to escape slavery, wrote an intelligent account containing the standard slave narrative conventions. Torn from her family at age twelve, she details her daily duties and terrors without exaggeration. Of harvesting, washing, nursing her mistress's children, cooking, tending farm animals and other miscellaneous "work - work - work!- (73) she so plainly speaks that it seems unbelievable. Her world is indeed a horrific place - breaking a jar gets her tied to a ladder and flogged; letting a cow loose earns her "a severe blow- in the back that leaves permanent damage (68-9). Through it all, she tells her story in such earnest that modern readers can almost hear abolitionists and colonialists of Prince's time gasping, "It wasn't that bad, was it?- The former slave mocks this naivete by remaining understated and without bitterness. "Oh the Buckra people who keep slaves think that black people are like cattle, without natural affection,"" she laments. "But my heart tells me it is far otherwise- (71). A strain is soon put on this simple dignity by the ambiguities of her sexuality in the narrative.
As with the other criteria for her writing, Prince complies with Pringle's demands for an image of Christ-like piety. No sexual assaults are blatantly mentioned, though surely they took place.