RE: Code d' Odalisque (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

leadership527 -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 9:40:53 AM)

quote:

Seababy said:
This just comes across as someones elaborate, pompous wank fantasy.
Try second life they will lap it up.

Boy, I think this is pretty much totally unfair. Let's remember that I'm about as far from the "ritual and dogma" camp as you can get. But I'm well aware that other people find codified rituals and rules to be highly fulfilling. In fact, our best friends are much like this. I don't think of them as being "stupid". I think of them as having a rich fantasy life wrapped in and throughout their dynamic. In some ways, I envy the additional texture it adds to their relationship.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 9:51:04 AM)

I think you miss the point that all literary criticism comes with preconceptions. This is merely one set of those preconceptions, it isn't unique. Hence it is always best to respond to literary criticism with argument, not assertion



Musicmystery -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 9:55:43 AM)

Naw...I simply prefer to look at a work for what is actually there, not what it can be twisted into.



Gentlemanjohn9 -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 9:56:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

I think you miss the point that all literary criticism comes with preconceptions. This is merely one set of those preconceptions, it isn't unique. Hence it is always best to respond to literary criticism with argument, not assertion


Respectfully, LillyoftheValley, I will pass on ALL literary criticism. Not at all my world of discourse.



CarrieO -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 9:59:38 AM)

Taken from  http://www.theottomans.org/english/family/harem3.asp :

"Odalisques were not usually presented to the Sultan. Those that were of extraordinary beauty and talent, were seen as potential concubines, and trained accordingly."

and from http://www.travellinkturkey.com/ottoman_harem.html :

"The word, odalisque comes from oda (chamber), and odalisque means "chambermaid". Odalisques were at the very bottom of the harem hierarchy and were not yet concubines, however, there was always a possibility that one day they could become one. They never served directly to Sultan himself, but rather served as chambermaids to concubines, wives, and other important royalties of harem."

I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a Turkish friend of mine on the concept and practice of harems.  He was quick to correct my western use of the term odalisque.  "They weren't the Sultan's sex slaves, but slaves to the women of the harem."  There was a very serious hierarchy within the Turkish harem and a woman had to work her way up the ranks in order to be allowed the pleasure of servicing the Sultan.

quote:

Instead - and this is something I like - it is based in *European fantasies* abnut odalisque slavery. I like it as a creative thing. I like the Victoriana theme and how it is both contemporary/hardcore and circa 1895. I'm attracted to it aesthetically because it is sort of "steampunk" if you know what I mean.


I understand it's attraction in that context. As a form of fantasy lifestyle I see how it could be fun to role-play or take various ideas and incorporate them into your relationship.  To each his/her own!
Op, if you're interested in exploring the historical  view of harems, I would suggest  the book Harem: Behind the veil by Alev Lytle Croutier and Dreams of Trespass by Fatima Mernissi.



barelynangel -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 10:04:37 AM)

I hate to say it but its a no no to indicate on this website ad many others - even within Gor people get all squiggy -- when sex is the motivation for the slavery. This always amuses me. My favorite are the questions like well how do the bills get paid, how does all the housework get done etc --- its like the simple answer is never good enough or is MORE appauling to people -- umm you hire help or he pays the bills, or the slave doesn't worry about it cause somehow the Man figures it all out.

Sex slavery has and still is very much a focused concentration -- unfortunately in our society its an appauling concept becuase god forbid what kind of doormat, unintelligent, and all kinds of fun presumption stuff stated of these women, (sorta like housewives are now adays). I could easily see how being a sex slave of a Man could easily take up al day every day. However, i also know there is a lot more about sex than simply the act of fucking.

I don't think MOST people understand what really goes into living your life to giving a concept of sexual pleasure to men. Its a life i would love to live, but then again, i am not looking to live the NORMAL (society defined) life. Butthe other concept is many MEN don't know how to KEEP women like this and they don't understand THEIIR responsibility in creating the environment wherein she lives simply for his pleasure. Many men have a very equality mentality and women shouldn't be seen as sex objects.

Sex is still very much a bad word in our society and god forbid a Man want a woman available for him on a 24/7 basis to provide him with the sexual pleasure, he would be ostracized by most women in our society today as independence and being like a Man but being a woman is very much advocated, and lord any woman who wishes to exist in a man's life like that somehow must be dumb, or unintelligent or simply would lay around waiting to be fucked alll day -- how dare she not clean and cook and do all of the every day things MOST women don't. Umm cause she doesn't have too and most likely doesn't wan too either?

I always wanted to be trained in all of the ways of sexuality and sex to give constant sexual pleasure to the Man who owns me. I enjoy the concept of concubine or sex slave, and i always wanted to be a high ranking courtesan (grins, i aim high lol) When i was young i dreamed of bring pleasure to kings and men in power. I wish i still could lol and while i was owned for much of my 20's i didn't continue with same after my release and damnit i should have lol. I have very high expectations of Men who would own me.

angel




DesFIP -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 10:06:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

I am reminded of http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/Literary_Criticism/feminism/gaze.htm


Of all the bullshit to come out of academia, feminist literary criticism has got to be up there with the most shameful examples of abdicating any real scholarship in favor of cramming preconceptions into arbitrary constructs and being ridiculous enough to label the result critical thinking.

It is, to borrow Woody Allen's phrase, mental masturbation.




I disagree. Very few artists and authors are happy to stick their work in a closet at the end of the day, knowing no one will ever see it and it will be eventually thrown out in the gargage.

In some way the target audience is always in the mind of the creator, and as such tailored to the audience. So pictures of naked women in seductive poses weren't painted just to ripped up afterwards but to excite wealthy men sufficiently to buy the works.

Therefore it is valid to consider the audience and how the work was done in order to appeal to buyers. Taking pride in your work and also having an eye to the market can work together. Rembrandt and Rubens are examples of this.

Van Gogh who painted as much to exorcize his demons as for any other reason, is not.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 10:08:22 AM)

I agree DesFIP, said far more eloquently than I could.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 10:09:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gentlemanjohn9


Thanks for that info DC. Nice hobby. Then perhaps you agree that the notion of reviving such a mode of slavery in a consensual modern form is an intriguing and enticing one?


I think it could be very interesting, where it fits. It is a very specialized form of existence on both sides of the coin, and it may be challenging to find individuals willing to explore -- however, I think that, for those who are interested in such an exploration, it could be both fulfilling and fascinating to develop.

This is how -many- variations of servitude have developed -- we've looked back over our history of interaction, and have sought out opportunities to revive these in our living world... or we've taken cultures from the realm of fantasy and worked to recreate the ideals within our own framework, and I think this speaks well of the adaptability of the human state. I, myself, am an afficionada of the Victorianesque and Steampunk styles, and, frankly, have heard on many occasions that such a thing won't work, because there is no romance (aside from the romance of the period itself) and too much "service orientation" in what I prefer, but we've managed to make it work for quite a while, so it seems that just about anything is possible (and enjoyable) if people really interested in being a part of the practice are involved.

Dame Calla



Musicmystery -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 10:18:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

I am reminded of http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/Literary_Criticism/feminism/gaze.htm


Of all the bullshit to come out of academia, feminist literary criticism has got to be up there with the most shameful examples of abdicating any real scholarship in favor of cramming preconceptions into arbitrary constructs and being ridiculous enough to label the result critical thinking.

It is, to borrow Woody Allen's phrase, mental masturbation.




I disagree. Very few artists and authors are happy to stick their work in a closet at the end of the day, knowing no one will ever see it and it will be eventually thrown out in the gargage.

In some way the target audience is always in the mind of the creator, and as such tailored to the audience. So pictures of naked women in seductive poses weren't painted just to ripped up afterwards but to excite wealthy men sufficiently to buy the works.

Therefore it is valid to consider the audience and how the work was done in order to appeal to buyers. Taking pride in your work and also having an eye to the market can work together. Rembrandt and Rubens are examples of this.

Van Gogh who painted as much to exorcize his demons as for any other reason, is not.


This is a pretty bizarre view of literary criticism. You, instead, are speaking of marketing.

Now, analyzing a work, seeing the mastery and insight it brings to its observations about human nature, exploring the depths and implications and nuances of the themes--that's literary criticism.

Deciding what one thinks a priori and then reading a work and inventing how it really says something different is not. That's imagination. Fun, valid--but hardly literary criticism in any sense of scholarship.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 10:25:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


Now, analyzing a work, seeing the mastery and insight it brings to its observations about human nature, exploring the depths and implications and nuances of the themes--that's literary criticism.

Deciding what one thinks a priori and then reading a work and inventing how it really says something different is not. That's imagination. Fun, valid--but hardly literary criticism in any sense of scholarship.


I am failing to see a difference here I am afraid. Criticism is often grounded in theory and projection, so ideas about what the reviewer assumes the piece means, the fact that some may be held in higher regard is irrelevant. Exploring the depths and getting a theory that many may not agree with isn't suddenly more based in imagination than finding one that many may agree with. It is rare that there are absolutes,

And back to the Gaze, if it has no sense of scholarship I best get on the phone to my red brick Uni who gave me a first for using it as analysis of female depiction in the arts



Musicmystery -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 10:36:25 AM)

OK.

Suppose I am a "Treeist" theorist. I look at what literature says from a Treeist perspective. What about the trees in Faulkner? What's the Treeist importance of the woods in Macbeth? Or in Woolf? What's the significance of Treeism in literature--keeping in mind that I will analyze any and all literature for its Treeist message, intended or not by the author, whether there are trees or not in the works. This is what feminist, Freudian, Jungian literary theory do. They have their own ideas, and "find" it where they will. It's a game, not analysis, and adds not understanding to these works, but fantasy.

Contrast that with studying Joyce or Austin or Hemingway or Walker to explore the richness of themes the author presents--what Freshmen call the "hidden meanings" (though of course they aren't hidden at all, just momentarily beyond their immediate reading comprehension skills--which improve later).

The difference is understanding the author's work--the other is simply seeing one's own thoughts in everything one looks at, and that's hardly critical understanding.

Now, if I want to look carefully at the tree symbolism in Welty or Galsworthy, now we're on to something. Something real. Something significant.

On the other hand, if one is interested in studying people's reactions and perceptions, there's always psychology. Enjoy.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 10:39:43 AM)

Last derail here

What if the feminist theory or whatever actually does have basis? To say that it never does is in my view very short sighted. I agree some theorists will attempt to force their theory where it doesn't fit, but surely that is the theorist not the theory to blame?

Sorry I honestly wont take this any more in this tangent



Jeptha -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 10:42:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seababy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gentlemanjohn9

NOTES ON THE ODALISQUE’S LIFE by CM.

....A Keeper might also provide materials and support to encourage his slave to pursue a suitable pastime such as practising a musical instrument. Classical and feminine instruments - the violin or flute rather than the bass drum or tuba "tuba" that is comedy gold - are preferred...


This is for my pleasure, right?
Mine would be playing the tuba.



Musicmystery -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 10:43:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

What if the feminist theory or whatever actually does have basis? To say that it never does is in my view very short sighted. I agree some theorists will attempt to force their theory where it doesn't fit, but surely that is the theorist not the theory to blame?


Lily,

That's a big what-if. Obviously, some works ARE about feminism. That's like saying a broken clock is right twice a day.

When we strive to march out and impose our perceptions on all we see, however, we are either myopic in our thinking or suddenly omniscient.

Freud and Jung are major contributors to world thought, no doubt, for example. But I don't go looking for it in all I read. I don't use the snowblower, useful as it is, to mow the lawn.

I'll give you an example outside of literature. Every so often another article comes along claiming men get more attention in the classroom than women. Right from the start we have a problem--more women than men attend college, and more women than men graduate. The articles never explore that. They instead claim male instructors ignore the female students. At the same time, several articles point out that men's attention is always drawn to the female. Which is it? And I can also tell you that in the classroom, female students are FAR more likely to participate than the men. It's a case of deciding what one thinks, then gathering only evidence to support it, then publishing. It's in no way a true study, which would (1) seek to find the truth, whatever it is, and then (2) seek to find WHY, not assume reasons, and (3) study the implications. That's scholarship. The rest is self-promotion. That it "could be" is speculation.



leadership527 -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 11:02:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally
What if the feminist theory or whatever actually does have basis? To say that it never does is in my view very short sighted. I agree some theorists will attempt to force their theory where it doesn't fit, but surely that is the theorist not the theory to blame?

That's OK.. I'll go ahead and derail it some more.. I'm kind of interested *chuckles*

Out of curiosity, what exactly feminist theory are we talking about here? The original theory was that women should have the same opportunities as men. I am SOOO way behind that. As a society, I would like to maximize the potential of all members -- a strategy which benefits the society as a whole.

Later, when it was consumed by the masses, it became a rallying cry for every real or imagined harm that ever came to any woman anywhere. Suddenly, a movement that was all about opportunity and choice became very restrictive in what opportunities and choices were considered "valid". It also became highly combative with men which I see as counter-productive for a species wherein half the members are male.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 11:07:04 AM)

I agree with everything you have written there Jeff, I think that the movement in some areas became very limiting, but of course that depends on the strain of feminism.

Anyways, I mentioned the Gaze theory in specific, related to something the OP mentioned about women being there to look nice, also because of the art that had previously been posted on the thread. Basically it discusses how women were represented in the media, as objects of consumption for men, to look nice. Some theorists took if further, that men were inherently afraid of women (one saying afraid of castration) therefore women had to be something to look at to be less threatening to them.

The quote you used, was trying to say that though specific theory may not fit into all, feminist analysis can be useful in many art forms as explainations of motivations, indeed Marylin was mentioned in this very thread.

(I am using the term media to mean everything, film, art, literature)

ETA I am trying to not turn this thread into an academic piece of criticism I really am.



Musicmystery -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 11:14:55 AM)

Hi Jeff,

It's feminism applied to reading literature. In short, it's about politics, not art.

Here's an overview.

Kinda like Jerry Falwell finding hidden homosexuality in Teletubbies.




leadership527 -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 11:25:16 AM)

Thanks for the clarification Lilly.

And thank you for that link Music. I'm not that far into academia that I would care what one member of the intelligentsia thinks about another member's thoughts. But still, it seems to me that in all of those erudite ponderings about the feminist implications of whatever, some of it has to be spot on, most of it partially right, and some of it the braying of barnyard animals. It can't all be ridiculous.

I'll go ahead though and peruse that link. I've sipped that 2nd cup of coffee now so I might be smart enough to tackle such a topic :)



Jeptha -> RE: Code d' Odalisque (8/22/2009 11:37:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
... It can't all be ridiculous...

I would agree with that hypothesis.

A lot of critical theory of whatever stripe presupposes that there are subconscious motivations (desires, fears, etc.) going on in what we do, what we find appealing, and so forth, and these motivators express themselves in various ways (e.t.a.; ways that we often don't intend), often in symbolism.

Psychoanalysis, or the idea that we have any subconscious motivation at all, is the first stepping stone in all that.

Most of us don't find that notion too radical these days.

But, interpreting symbolism can also become like interpreting ink blots: it can show what's going on in the interpreter's mind more than what is actually there in front of her/him.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875