Question: An odalisque is a sex slave? What does the word mean?
Its a corruption of a Turkish word. Odalisque slavery was a feature of the Ottoman culture in old Turkey, before the modern era. Odalisques served the Sultanate and other Turkish nobility. They were female sexual slaves. They were not work slaves. They were spared from kitchen duties and other labour and devoted to the provision of beauty and pleasure. Code d' Odalisque takes that basic idea, that basic style of slavery, and reworks it for modern hardcore adult play. It is a code governing slaves and slaveowners, the slaves being odalisques. Females, preserved from labour, devoted to sexual service. And in this they are captives. They are kept as captives to provide sexual pleasure to their Keeper. They are bonded to their Keeper who keeps them for sexual service.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Question: Are odalisques always female?
Question: Are odalisques always female?
Yes. By definition an odalisque is female. And Code d' Odalisque is designed to be male dom/fem sub and therefore heterosexual. This is because the models upon which it is based were heterosexual, and because the people who developed Code d' Odalisque wanted to use it for their play, and they were heterosexual. There is nothing stopping someone from rewriting the codes for same-sex play or for male submissive play. But in its standard form Code d' Ode is heterosexual and male dom/fem sub. That is the default position. Historically, odalisques were women and they served men. In the first instance, Code d' Odalisque follows that model.
Yes. By definition an odalisque is female. And Code d' Odalisque is designed to be male dom/fem sub and therefore heterosexual. This is because the models upon which it is based were heterosexual, and because the people who developed Code d' Odalisque wanted to use it for their play, and they were heterosexual. There is nothing stopping someone from rewriting the codes for same-sex play or for male submissive play. But in its standard form Code d' Ode is heterosexual and male dom/fem sub. That is the default position. Historically, odalisques were women and they served men. In the first instance, Code d' Odalisque follows that model.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Question: Slaves and Marriage
Question: What is the relationship between odalisque slavery under Code d'Odalisque and marriage?
Answer: The Code does not give specific direction on the ethical issues arising from odalisque slavery and marriage vows. It does, however, state the following:
1.19.- Limitations of marriage
Marriage does not encompass the whole of human sexuality. Even in the most traditional of societies there are extra-marital institutions of sexual expression. The cockslave is one of these.
And it says
1.25.- An adjunct to marriage
In the more advanced slavekeeping cultures sexual slavery is a developed and regulated institution that ornaments a civilized society, is a healthy adjunct to marriage, and the cockslave is esteemed as the most special of slaves.
So odalisque slavery in general is to be viewed as "a healthy adjunct to marriage" and it is admitted that the institution of marriage is limited in its capascity to "encompass the whole of human sexuality". In this sense the institution of the odalisque is inherently "extra marital".
We can understand this by realising that the cockslave is an alternative to the whore. Prostitution exists precisely because "Marriage does not encompass the whole of human sexuality." All societies offer modes of sexual expression beyond the confines of marriage and family. Prostitution is the most common of these. Odalisque slavery is also to be understood as one of these and so plays a social role not disimiliar to prostitution. It is an alternative to prostitution.
Imagine, if you will, a society that attempts to minimize or eliminate prostitution, i.e. sexual hire service. Instead, it has the institution of cockslave. Wealthy men keep cockslaves who they generously share with other men. This provides a similar social function to prostitution.
Note this article:
1.21.- Whoredom
Sexual slavery is better than whoredom. The whole tenor of this Code is opposed to prostitution in all its forms.
The Code is anti-prostitution. It offers odalisque slavery as an alternative to sexual hire service.
But "extra-marital" does not mean that men should keep odalisques behind their wives' back. That would be unethical, dishonourable and very impractical anyway,
although there is nothing in the Code to forbid it except that the deceit and abuse of trust involved would not be a "healthy adjunct" and it arguably violates the spirit of "consent". Apart from what it says about the character of the man, it is improper to place an odalisque in such a tricky position.
Instead, "extra-marital" here means arrangements among single people or above and beyond marriage where all parties are fully apprised and fully consenting.
A married man may keep an odalisque by his wife's permission. Let us suppose they have been married 25 years, their children have grown up, they are wealthy and affluent but no longer enjoy sex together. She's more interested in golf but he's horny as hell. Rather than have him roaming night clubs or frequenting whorehouses, a wife in such a situation might allow her husband to acquire a cockslave to own and enjoy, his erotic "hobby".
Note this article:
1.22. - Promiscuity
Sexual slavery is better than promiscuity.
Or, indeed, a horny middle-aged couple might acquire a cockslave for their private use, rather like a very expensive sex toy to be enjoyed by them both, as a means of enhancing their marriage.
Most commonly, though, "extra-marital" will mean that a wife will adopt the role of cockslave part-time additional to her role as wife. Couples do this to bring a new level of intensity into their relationship and to explore fantasies together. Cockslave and wife are quite different roles though, so such an arrangement is not ideal. The boundary where marriage ends and cockslave begins needs to be negotiated and worked out through the device of occlusion/sojourn.
It is not desirable for a woman to have to be cook, cleaner, mother, worker, wife AND cockslave.
Obviously, no ethical questions and fewer practical questions arise when a single man (Slavekeeper) owns a non-married cockslave. That is the simplest arrangement. But the Code permits a range of possibilities, admitting that marriage is not a one-size-fits-all solution to the quest for human erotic fulfilment.
Answer: The Code does not give specific direction on the ethical issues arising from odalisque slavery and marriage vows. It does, however, state the following:
1.19.- Limitations of marriage
Marriage does not encompass the whole of human sexuality. Even in the most traditional of societies there are extra-marital institutions of sexual expression. The cockslave is one of these.
And it says
1.25.- An adjunct to marriage
In the more advanced slavekeeping cultures sexual slavery is a developed and regulated institution that ornaments a civilized society, is a healthy adjunct to marriage, and the cockslave is esteemed as the most special of slaves.
So odalisque slavery in general is to be viewed as "a healthy adjunct to marriage" and it is admitted that the institution of marriage is limited in its capascity to "encompass the whole of human sexuality". In this sense the institution of the odalisque is inherently "extra marital".
We can understand this by realising that the cockslave is an alternative to the whore. Prostitution exists precisely because "Marriage does not encompass the whole of human sexuality." All societies offer modes of sexual expression beyond the confines of marriage and family. Prostitution is the most common of these. Odalisque slavery is also to be understood as one of these and so plays a social role not disimiliar to prostitution. It is an alternative to prostitution.
Imagine, if you will, a society that attempts to minimize or eliminate prostitution, i.e. sexual hire service. Instead, it has the institution of cockslave. Wealthy men keep cockslaves who they generously share with other men. This provides a similar social function to prostitution.
Note this article:
1.21.- Whoredom
Sexual slavery is better than whoredom. The whole tenor of this Code is opposed to prostitution in all its forms.
The Code is anti-prostitution. It offers odalisque slavery as an alternative to sexual hire service.
But "extra-marital" does not mean that men should keep odalisques behind their wives' back. That would be unethical, dishonourable and very impractical anyway,
although there is nothing in the Code to forbid it except that the deceit and abuse of trust involved would not be a "healthy adjunct" and it arguably violates the spirit of "consent". Apart from what it says about the character of the man, it is improper to place an odalisque in such a tricky position.
Instead, "extra-marital" here means arrangements among single people or above and beyond marriage where all parties are fully apprised and fully consenting.
A married man may keep an odalisque by his wife's permission. Let us suppose they have been married 25 years, their children have grown up, they are wealthy and affluent but no longer enjoy sex together. She's more interested in golf but he's horny as hell. Rather than have him roaming night clubs or frequenting whorehouses, a wife in such a situation might allow her husband to acquire a cockslave to own and enjoy, his erotic "hobby".
Note this article:
1.22. - Promiscuity
Sexual slavery is better than promiscuity.
Or, indeed, a horny middle-aged couple might acquire a cockslave for their private use, rather like a very expensive sex toy to be enjoyed by them both, as a means of enhancing their marriage.
Most commonly, though, "extra-marital" will mean that a wife will adopt the role of cockslave part-time additional to her role as wife. Couples do this to bring a new level of intensity into their relationship and to explore fantasies together. Cockslave and wife are quite different roles though, so such an arrangement is not ideal. The boundary where marriage ends and cockslave begins needs to be negotiated and worked out through the device of occlusion/sojourn.
It is not desirable for a woman to have to be cook, cleaner, mother, worker, wife AND cockslave.
Obviously, no ethical questions and fewer practical questions arise when a single man (Slavekeeper) owns a non-married cockslave. That is the simplest arrangement. But the Code permits a range of possibilities, admitting that marriage is not a one-size-fits-all solution to the quest for human erotic fulfilment.
Question: Must an odalisque be shared?
Question: Is it essential that a Slavekeeper shares his slave with other men? Can an odalisque be dedicated to only one man in a monogamous relationship?
Answer: Many couples prefer a one-on-one relationship, with slave dedicated to Master in an exclusive relationship. It is perfectly possible to adapt Code d' Odalisque to such an arrangement. Many married couples who role play Code d' Ode are in monogamous relationships. It is not essential that a Slavekeeper shares his slave with other men. But sharing is, all the same, the default position. Slavekeepers are expected to be generous both to and with their slaves. Generosity is promoted as a major virtue in Slavekeepers. Ideally, Slavekeepers will share their odalisque with selected friends and guests – but no, it is not compulsory and it will depend upon the contractual arrangements made between Master and slave. The Code assumes that men who own odalisques are a privileged minority. They are very fortunate men. They are lucky enough, and wealthy enough, to own their own cockslave. In the ethical framework implicit in the Code such men should acknowledge their good fortune and generously share their good fortune with other men. It is mean-spirited to want to keep an odalisque all to oneself.
The natural instinct of a Slavekeeper is to share his slave with men who are not so fortunate. In an ideal world Slavekeepers will protect and nurture their cockslaves, and enjoy them, but they will also allow friends and guests to enjoy her as well in a spirit of generosity so that cockslaves provide a valuable service beyond their immediate duty to their Keeper. In today's world, however, many people prefer exclusive one-on-one arrangements. The Code can be easily adapted to this so that Master and slave explore sexual slave play between themselves to the exclusion of others like in a traditional marriage. Some slaves prefer this and don't want to be shared around, and some Keepers prefer this and want a slave all to themselves. That's fine, but the default position is more open – the Code encourages sharing, networking, friendships, and promotes a 'Code culture' that is inherently social.
Another consideration is that – in fact – very few men are up to making proper use of a cockslave all on their own. A cockslave has the right to be used, to be put to her proper use. Few men are able to make extensive use of a cockslave all on their own. Can you give a cockslave hours of sexual service on a regular basis? Some men can, and many men think they can, but usually you will find that one man will under-employ a cockslave, and that the best way to give her extensive use is to share her with guests.
Answer: Many couples prefer a one-on-one relationship, with slave dedicated to Master in an exclusive relationship. It is perfectly possible to adapt Code d' Odalisque to such an arrangement. Many married couples who role play Code d' Ode are in monogamous relationships. It is not essential that a Slavekeeper shares his slave with other men. But sharing is, all the same, the default position. Slavekeepers are expected to be generous both to and with their slaves. Generosity is promoted as a major virtue in Slavekeepers. Ideally, Slavekeepers will share their odalisque with selected friends and guests – but no, it is not compulsory and it will depend upon the contractual arrangements made between Master and slave. The Code assumes that men who own odalisques are a privileged minority. They are very fortunate men. They are lucky enough, and wealthy enough, to own their own cockslave. In the ethical framework implicit in the Code such men should acknowledge their good fortune and generously share their good fortune with other men. It is mean-spirited to want to keep an odalisque all to oneself.
The natural instinct of a Slavekeeper is to share his slave with men who are not so fortunate. In an ideal world Slavekeepers will protect and nurture their cockslaves, and enjoy them, but they will also allow friends and guests to enjoy her as well in a spirit of generosity so that cockslaves provide a valuable service beyond their immediate duty to their Keeper. In today's world, however, many people prefer exclusive one-on-one arrangements. The Code can be easily adapted to this so that Master and slave explore sexual slave play between themselves to the exclusion of others like in a traditional marriage. Some slaves prefer this and don't want to be shared around, and some Keepers prefer this and want a slave all to themselves. That's fine, but the default position is more open – the Code encourages sharing, networking, friendships, and promotes a 'Code culture' that is inherently social.
Another consideration is that – in fact – very few men are up to making proper use of a cockslave all on their own. A cockslave has the right to be used, to be put to her proper use. Few men are able to make extensive use of a cockslave all on their own. Can you give a cockslave hours of sexual service on a regular basis? Some men can, and many men think they can, but usually you will find that one man will under-employ a cockslave, and that the best way to give her extensive use is to share her with guests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)