Discretion

In a recent case brought to our attention, a man and his female "pet" - who he kept half-naked on a chain - were denied service in a store and have undertaken to pursue the matter in the courts and in the media. Newspaper reports feature an interview with the woman who explains that she is a "human pet" and a "slave", a role she loves and to which she has a right as a consenting adult. Her owner wants to take her out in public and expects that people will accept their lifestyle without judgment.

In other words, this couple have decided to get political about their lifestyle. They know that the idea of a "human pet" is confronting to ordinary "vanilla" people, but they are going to make a point of it and demand their right to life as they choose.

This attitude is understandable, but so too is the response of the "vanilla" public. The media are treating the couple as a freak show, and that indeed is how the vast majority of people see it. People who keep "human pets" are in a very small sub-culture, and the general public looks at it with horror and outrage. We might - and should - defend the rights of consenting adults to do as they please, but there is also a case for being realistic and to show some respect to the sensitivities of hardworking Mr and Mrs Average.

There is a line between private and public life. Properly speaking, consenting adults can do as they please in the privacy of their own homes. The state has no right to intrude. But conversely, there are public values and community standards, and what happens in private isn't necessarily okay in public. Some consenting adults like dressing up in diapers, for example. You might think its weird, but that is their right. It would be confronting, though, for these same people to go about in public wearing diapers.

The same applies to consensual slavery. The "vanilla" public hears the word "slavery" or the term "sex slave" and is in no mood to hear arguments about rights. There is a wall of hostility to the whole idea. When people hear the word "slavery" they ring the police.

From its beginnings, Code d' Odalisque has acknowledged this reality. The Code advises diplomacy and discretion. Players are not to discuss their lifestyle in an overt, public way. It is not to be made into a freak show. Odalisques are forbidden from discussing their slavery with strangers or in a public forum. It is the very nature of odalisque slave play - because it is slavery and because it is sexual - that it should happen behind closed doors, away from prying eyes, in order to avoid scandal, controversy and unwarranted police intrusion. In Code d' Ode, discretion is a virtue. We keep it private. We are not on a political crusade.