Who Does the Cooking?

A common question that arises in discussions of contemporary odalisque slavery is, 'So who does the cooking?' As soon as gentlemen are apprised of the fact that an odalisque is an exclusively erotic servant and not a domestic maid - her duties are confined to the bedroom - they begin to ask 'Then who does the chores?' Surely, if a man is sufficiently well-to-do to own his own female slave he might reasonably expect that she will tend on him and keep house? And surely she will be doing to the cooking and cleaning up the dishes? If not, then what is the point of owning a slave? 

The misunderstanding here concerns the word 'slave'. There are, in fact, several different kinds. Specifically, under Code d' Odalisque, there are two kinds: memlooks and odalisques. A memlook is an all-purpose slave. If a man owns a memlook he is free to have them tend on him in all respects, including in the kitchen. A memlook has no rights under the Code and can be made to do whatever their Master wants of them. An odalisque, on the other hand, is a specialised slave. She has been raised above the status of memlook and has a defined role - namely, she is kept for sex. Her role is erotic and aesthetic. She provides her owner with pleasure and fills his days with beauty. That is what an odalisque does by definition. And since she is kept for sex, she is kept from toil. She is not a work slave like a memlook. She is spared those duties in order to be able to devote herself entirely to the lusts of her Master. 

This means, therefore, that she is not a cook. She is not a kitchen slave. She has no domestic duties. And this therefore means that her Master must provide her food for her. He might also own a memlook in which case the memlook can cook and wash up, but otherwise he will have to do it. The Code, moreover, insists that an odalisque must be fed well. She has a right to the same standard of food that her Master enjoys. A memlook can be fed slops, but an odalisque deserves quality meals. It is the responsibility of the Slavekeeper under Code d' Odalisque to ensure that his odalisque is well fed and enjoys quality meals. 

But what if an odalisque enjoys cooking? some might ask. That is fine. In that case, her Master may permit her to cook, but as a luxury slave she is under no compulsion to do so. It is an insult to an odalisque to treat her as a memlook. But if she enjoys cooking and is perhaps highly skilled in cooking, then her Master may let her cook on occasion. However, in this she must be protected from the dangers of the kitchen. Her beauty - and the fineness of her skin and her nakedness - is valued. Cooks regularly suffer burns and cuts and other mishaps. An odalisque should be protected from such kitchen accidents if she is to be allowed to cook. 

In most cases, though, an odalisque has no business in the kitchen. Her domain is the bedroom. She keeps to her lodging - her odella, as it is called - and serves in her Master's playroom - his saray, as it is called. She is not required in the kitchen. Her Master will prepare food and will take it to her. This is an instance of the so-called "service paradox". Her owns her, and yet he must serve her by looking after her. Owning an odalisque carries a duty of care. She will serve his pleasures, but otherwise he must serve her daily needs. He is required to look after his slave. In most cases this means he will do the cooking. In return, he has an obedient slavewoman who is devoted to fulfilling his sexual pleasures. She is not a maid, not a domestic servant. This is where odalisque slavery is different, by definition, than ordinary all-purpose slavekeeping. If a man wants a cook, he needs a memlook. An odalisque is a different type of slave, spared from domestic toil in order to fully meet her Master's erotic needs.

It helps if a gentleman who owns an odalisque can holds his own in the kitchen. The gentleman Slavekeeper in Code d' Odalisque is not a barbarian. Odalisque slavekeeping is for gentlemen with sophistication. The well-rounded gentleman has more recipes in his repertoire than baked beans on toast.