BDSM,Dress,and Consumption: Women's Meaning Construction Through Embodiment,Bodies in Motion,and Sensations

Bondage, discipline/domination, submission/sadism, and masochism (BDSM, BD, or SM) is a subcultural group where individuals participate in consensual sexual practices and behaviors involving dominants (doms), submissives (subs), and power-exchange relationships also known as power play which involves giving up or taking control. These relationships also sometimes center around spirituality, therapy, healing needs, and a desire for community connection and leisure activity (Sprott & Hadcock, 2017). BDSM participants usually share their limits and desires for the various interactions and use safe words to create consensual agreement (Beres & MacDonald, 2015). The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical manual removed BDSM as a disorder as of 2013, yet the lifestyle continues to be stigmatized, marginalized, and misunderstood (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Damm et al., 2018). Despite these negative perceptions, about 36% of the United States population participates in some form of BDSM (Eveleth, 2014). As BDSM scholarship grew in the 1990s and 2000s, scholars agreed that BDSM is consensual and not a form of abuse, it is not a pathological condition, and it is a complex, socially-constructed phenomenon in need of scholarly research (Dunkley & Brotto, 2020). The BDSM community is often highly dependent on the aesthetic and visual impacts of their fashioned bodies within BDSM spaces as they engage in various fantasy power play (Winge, 2013); what they wear including dress, accessories, and sex-toy objects are components of the $30 billion-dollar sextech industry (Yaroshenko, 2018), which reflects the robust BDSM population, and their dress consumption practices. Based on our review of literature, few scholars have discussed in-depth, the tensions surrounding identity negotiations through dress practices of women in the BDSM community and how these women engage with both agency and control (Entwistle, 2000) of their BDSM aesthetics, experiences, and dressed fleshy body. While drawing upon various theoretical concepts, we examined women’s BDSM subcultural identities and how they negotiate and construct meanings through dress over time and in different spaces. Here dress refers to objects worn on or around the body, body modifications, one’s overall appearance, and the five senses (sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch) as linked to dress and the body (Eicher, 2020). This research is significant because it has potential for theoretical, market, and societal implications.

Subcultural Identity, Fetishism, BDSM, and Dress

The terms fetish and kink are sometimes used interchangeably with BDSM, while other times people place BDSM as a subcategory under fetish and/or kink. Fetishist, kink, and BDSM subcultural groups have a sexual attraction or affinity towards an object and/or body parts (Klinger, 2018). Meanings and associations with fetishes have evolved and frequently involve power dynamics (Steele, 1996), which is often at the core of BDSM. Some earlier feminist theorists believed SM is the epitome of violence, misogyny, and sexism against women (Dworkin, 1974; Griffin, 1982); however, more recently feminist scholars and participants within the subculture have reported sentiments of empowerment through the engagement with kink practices (Califia, 1994; Connolly, 2006; O’Donnell, 1999). Due to the hegemonic patriarchal society, women are sometimes challenged to become sexually liberated individuals, especially if their sexual behaviors and desires are deemed deviant. Rebellion against these patriarchal and hegemonic expectations enables women agency over their bodies and sexuality (Califia, 1994). O’Donnell (1999) reported that women who consumed fetish dress (or dress worn to embody BDSM, fetish, and/or kink experiences and identities) often experienced sexual empowerment. The women reported a heightened self-perception as sexy, desirable, and confident. They also felt positive feelings of self-control over their sexuality.

Fetishists use dress to empower themselves and enhance their sexual pleasure. Wearing or viewing specific materials including leather, rubber, or silk has been used as arousal sources and heightens senses such as smell and touch (Califia, 1994). Fetish dress simultaneously attracts attention to erogenous zones of the body while also restricting access to them and many fetishists are drawn to both the object being fetishized and its associated body part (Steele, 1996). Lunning (2013) reported that BDSM participants use dress to transfer the practitioners from a scene into fantasy within complex settings including dungeons and prisons where sexual narratives are acted out in a theatrical style. Researchers have described the various materials, garments, and colors worn by BDSM participants; they have often used soft material such as velvet, silk, and fur in addition to harder materials such as leather, rubber, and latex (Steele, 1996). Leather has often been associated with radical sex and sadomasochistic associations (Steele, 1996), and it has provided wearers with a sense of power (Califia, 1994). Rubber panties and sheets are commonly used within the BDSM subculture (Steele, 1996) and latex is closely linked to leather in its second skin-like fit (Califia, 1994). Brownie (2017) discussed use of zippers and Velcro to signal sexual availability and as an audible signifier of undressing in BDSM scenes; these sounds become a part of the overall experience.

Scholars have often documented the dominatrix corset as an example of fetishized dress (Lunning, 2013; Steele, 1996). Steele (1996) explained that the dominatrix or master, individuals holding authority in the power-exchange relationship, are typically fully clothed while the role of submissive, bottom, or masochist (individuals relinquishing authority in a power-exchange relationship) are often stripped naked or wearing clothing that reveals the breasts, buttocks, and genitals (Steele, 1996). High heels are also fetishized; the heels place the body in a position of tension, turn the contours of the legs, and adjusts the hip and buttocks movement (Steele, 1996). McCormick (2018) reported that BDSM participants in South Africa used a variety of signs, symbols, and clothing during scenes which hold different meanings among the practitioners.

Dress used in BDSM is often sought after for physical constriction and to develop a character (Lunning, 2013). Use of constricting garments or accessories such as skinsuits, thigh-high boots, stockings, gags, masks, gloves, and bondage straps result in heightened sensory experiences of pressure and rubbing allowing for sexual arousal and help the wearer to reach orgasm (Lunning, 2013). Garments are also used to portray an alternative identity. For example, BDSM practitioners may dress in a skinsuit with exaggerated feminine features. The dominatrix is a common character role within BDSM and spans a wide range of subcultural fantasies and desires. The dominatrix often evolves into new roles based upon the dominatrix and submissive relationship. New roles are often entrenched in women’s stereotypical role as the nurturer with positions such as the governess, nurse, nun, maid, countess, and babysitter (Lunning, 2013).

Control and pain are also central themes related to dress worn in BDSM scenes. For example, dominants often wear spiked high heels to step on their submissives for sexual arousal. These acts place the dominant in the controlling position. Sensory deprivation masks are sometimes worn by the submissive participant for arousal. The mask relegates them to a lower position without an identity and often feature penetrative mechanisms such as a whole for the mouth while sometimes depriving the wearer of other senses such as sight (Lunning, 2013).

Theoretical Considerations

To date, there are few in-depth studies examining the lived experiences of women in BDSM and their related dress practices. In our work, we sought to explore how women who participate in BDSM negotiate their subcultural identities through dress within the spatial-temporalities of their everyday life and BDSM contexts. We provide the opportunity for women within the BDSM community to write their own narrative and we shed light on a community of women that have often experienced stigma. Understanding women’s experiences and needs offers important implications to society about women’s sex-positive desires and could offer business implications to the $30 billion dollar BDSM product industry (Yaroshenko, 2018). Because theoretical lenses each have limitations, we drew upon numerous concepts and past literature to inform our research questions and to interpret the possibilities of our findings.

We drew upon symbolic interactionism and dramaturgy as a metaphor because they are useful when interpreting how individuals construct meaning about their identity and dress practices through internal interpretative processes and through interactions with others and with surrounding objects (Goffman, 1959). Newer developments in symbolic interactionism provide a lens to think through ambivalence and ambiguity in meaning construction within the free-market capitalist system (Kaiser et al., 1995). That is, Kaiser et al. (1995) theorized that while we construct and negotiate meaning by engaging with feelings of ambivalence, individuals do this within the constraints of the appearance modifying commodities available or not available in the marketplace. Individuals may accept and reject these commodities available in the market for varying reasons and engage in meaning-making through bricolage or DIY aesthetics.

Also informing our work is the concept of intersectionality, which refers to power dynamics within multiple identities that people negotiate (Crenshaw, 1991). That is, we assume that some identities cannot be analyzed separately as individuals are continuously engaging with their various subject positions and we cannot ignore these interconnected identities in relation to race, body size, sexuality, socio-economic status, and other subject positions. We focused on BDSM subcultural identities, yet also considered how other identity intersections influenced their BDSM experiences, focusing specifically on the entangled oppressive systems.

Given that these BDSM experiences are highly engrained in a particular space (e.g., scenes) and the continuation of time (e.g., the duration of the scene and then the movement of how these ideologies expand beyond the scene), we also drew upon spatial-temporal reasoning. We consider the concept of space or the “dynamic simultaneity, constantly disconnected by new arrivals, constantly waiting to be determined” (Massey, 2005, p. 107). Within this constant connection and disconnection is this element of time where there are a “multiplicity of trajectories” and an element of “chaos” (p. 111).

Fashion studies scholar Eicher (2020) theorized that the five senses are an important component of dress in different spaces building upon her seminal research in identity and dress in the 20^th century. She purported that visual cues are significant in studying dress and are often the most comment elements analyzed, yet the other senses, sound, taste, touch, and smell, must also be considered in relation to the proximity of different spaces. She argued senses are an integral component of meaning making and thus we consider this perspective in our work.

Research Questions

The following questions guided our scholarship: How do women who participate in BDSM practices negotiate their subcultural identities through dress?; how do they construct meanings for their dress through different spatial-temporal dynamics?; how do interactions shape meanings for their dress?; how do they navigate stigmatization and agency through their dress?; and how do their other subject positions including salient historically marginalized (e.g., queer, fat, person of color, lower socio-economic status) and privileged identities (e.g., white, thin, upper class) influence their dress and related experiences?

Method

After approval from the Institutional Review Board, we conducted semi-structured in-depth wardrobe interviews (averaged 90 min) with 19 participants (referred to in the manuscript as P1, P2, etc.), which were video and audio recorded (Woodward, 2007). The interviews all took place over video chat in 2020. To be eligible for the study, individuals had to a) self-identify as a woman (including transgender [trans], cisgender [cis], and non-binary people); b) currently and for at least the past year self-identify as an active BDSM community member; c) be 18 years of age or older; and d) have lived mostly in the United States for the past 10 years. We recruited participants via social media and by word-of-mouth.

We asked about 37 questions about their demographics and BDSM identity and dress. For example, we asked “how do you express your BDSM identity in your clothing or appearance?” “do you feel like the different roles you have in regard to your BDSM identity influence what you wear in your BDSM experiences?” “do your BDSM partner(s) influence what, how, or when you wear different styles?” and “what kinds of meanings do these different garments that represent your BDSM identity hold for you?” The interview schedule was informed by existing literature on BDSM subculture (Steele, 1996; Winge, 2013), symbolic interactionism (Goffman, 1959; Kaiser et al., 1995), intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1991), and spatial-temporal processes (Massey, 2005). During the interviews, participants were by their closets so they could show different objects, which were used to elicit memories and rich responses. During the interview we used probing techniques such as “tell me more about that?” to increase validity. We also summarized their responses after each question to ensure that we had understood their response. At the end of the interview, we also asked if there was anything else that was important for us to know that we had not yet asked. Following the interview, they sent images of the objects they discussed ranging from very few up to 96 images. We concluded data collection after saturation of the data were reached (Creswell, 2014).

We transcribed each interview verbatim and analyzed both the transcripts and the photographs with the NVivo program (Creswell, 2014). We used the constant comparison method and used the open, axial, and selective coding process. The first author took the lead in analysis and the second author assisted in continual debriefing throughout the process and assisted in checking intercoder agreement. During open coding, the first author carefully analyzed all data to extract all initial possible codes. In this stage, chunks of data were reviewed, which included phrases, sentences, paragraphs, or larger passages and assigned codes; all codes were recorded with a corresponding code definition. Then the first author moved into axial coding and examined the existing codes to connect them together to create broader themes and subthemes. Finally, during the selective coding process, the first author continually reviewed all of the data to condense codes and broader themes from the open and axial processes into larger core themes. The entire process was cyclical and there was a continual shift back and forth between the data, codes, broader themes, and core themes. We checked intercoder agreement on 20% of the data by dividing the total number of agreements by the total number of codes; this resulted in an acceptable agreement (96%). Disagreements were negotiated and reconciled between the authors (Neuman, 2011). After the codebook was finalized and disagreements were reconciled, we re-coded all of the data using the updated codebook.

Results

The 19 participant ages ranged from 22 to 45 (average = 34). Most participants (n = 17, 89%) identified as cisgender (cis) women, while a few identified as transgender (trans) women (n = 2, 11%). Most of the participants identified as white (n = 11, 61%), followed by Black (n = 3, 17%), mixed race (n = 2, 11%), Hispanic (n = 1, 5.5%), and Native American (n = 1, 5.5%). The women’s participation in the BDSM community ranged from one to 28 years (average = 14). When referring to each participant, we indicate in parentheses their BDSM role, race, pronouns, gender (cis or trans), and sexuality.

Discussion

The women of varying backgrounds in our research expressed how they actively engaged in the BDSM community, strongly identified as fetishists, and reported sentiments of empowerment in these processes. Some feminist theorists have polarizing opinions around BDSM; for example, some theorists consider it to be the antithesis of feminism, embodying violence, misogyny, and sexism against women due to the different roles and interactions they may engage with (Butler, 1982; Dworkin, 1974; Griffin, 1982). However, more recent feminist scholars such as Califia (1994) defended BDSM, highlighting how these activities can be reclaimed by women, a source of empowerment, and a way to take control over their bodies and sexuality. The women in our study actively rejected society’s patriarchal and hegemonic expectations, and while reclaiming their sexualities, bodies, and voices, also worked to reject stigmas about the BDSM lifestyle, dress, experiences, desires, and assumed gender-role hierarchies. That is, women can and do act as doms. However, the gender hierarchy permeated the spaces where our participants engaged in as there was more opportunity for men versus women to embody a dom position. The women in sub, dom, and switch roles in our research desired sex, control, power, attention, and control over the way their body appears, what parts of their body appear, how their bodies move, and who can be involved in all of these processes.

Similar to many other subcultural groups (Arnold, 2001; Barnard, 1996; McCormick, 2018; Steele, 1996; Winge, 2013), women in the BDSM community negotiated their BDSM identities and kink preferences through varying dress and appearance practices. There was an intricate connection between the physical fleshy body and dress as described by Entwistle (2000). However, in our research, the importance of the body and dress, the body in motion or the still body, and the five senses (sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, sight) (Eicher, 2020) were significant in how these women constructed meanings for themselves, in interactions with others, and for the objects around their bodies. That is, the act of being paddled on the fleshy butt and the resulting jiggle and smacking sound created meaning between the partner dynamics during BDSM scenes. These acts resulted in important body-dress-senses-motion-time meaning making as the scenes unfolded.

Negotiations of these meanings for dress occurred in what Kaiser (2012) described as the process of self-presentation, an ongoing process of displaying continual developments of identity within social contexts. Individual’s awareness and monitoring of the self sometimes results in different expressions when moving into public and private spaces (Goffman, 1959). From a dramaturgical perspective, the private sphere (backstage) may be utilized to fulfill a fantasy (Eicher, 1981), whereas the public self (front stage) is more likely to consider the judgement and perceptions of others (Kaiser, 2012). In many ways, since BDSM participants were engaging in these dress practices within scenes that spanned both the private and the public spheres where they may or may not be influenced by societal expectations, in part, allowed for adoption of alternative subcultural lifestyles that are stigmatized (Eicher et al., 2008). These women engaged in exhibitionist behaviors often reserved for private spheres, but felt empowered to sometimes exhibit in public. Therefore, the participants engaged in so-called deviant behaviors in private and public spaces though these fantasy dress practices. Some of these behaviors and practices only translated into public spaces in subtle ways.

Due to the stigmatization of BDSM lifestyles, participants often revealed and concealed their BDSM identity through every day non-BDSM dress within different spaces or wore discreet codes to connect with those in the know. Participants expressed revealing and concealing their BDSM identity through dress throughout different times and spaces. Some participants reported that certain BDSM garments were reserved for spaces with their partner(s). Participants also reported actively hiding or concealing their BDSM identity in public due to stigma, and sometimes wore mainstream clothing and makeup in order to fit in because of feeling unsafe and to avoid stigma from those outside of the community. Other participants reported being open about their BDSM identity in public and even wore subtle hints as “codes” to those in the know including collars, harness style bras on the outside of clothing, boots, and use of the triskelion (the BDSM symbol). Some participants expressed embracing their BDSM identity in public by wearing their garments, and educating others to fight against stigma, though the educational labor was sometimes exhausting. Participants with historically marginalized identities including trans women, fat women and women of color also had different experiences with revealing and concealing their BDSM identities because of the impact of stigma. Some reported feeling confident in revealing their salient identities as fat women or women of color in the community and showed their fatness or had a heightened attention to skin tone. Others concealed their salient identities because of the stigma and negative perceptions of these historically marginalized communities. Trans women struggled with their body image, were uncomfortable being naked, preferred to dress in layers to conceal trans identity indicators, and tried to convince others of their gender. Women of color, gender-pushing boundary women and fat women were criticized in the community as being weird or gross and sometimes overlooked completely. This process of revealing and concealing stigmatized identities through subtle codes extends past research on other subcultural groups using similar practices (Arnold, 2001; Lunning, 2013). The process of individuals with marginalized identities concealing and revealing their identities highlights the notion of intersectionality and the multiple and intersecting oppressed identities that they navigate (Crenshaw, 1991).

Similar to past research (Sprott & Hadcock, 2017), participants engaged in BDSM to feel a sense of community; specifically in our research they used dress to navigate these connections. They used BDSM styles to build meaning and navigate stigma in these interactions such as by satisfying partner preferences in wearing what this person fetishizes or thinks is sexy and arousing. The navigations of dress through social interactions reflect sentiments of ambivalence between participants’ individuality and social conformity (Kaiser et al., 1995). Through their face-to-face, social interactions, BDSM participants constantly negotiated meanings for themselves and others. The process of negotiation was continually emergent and reformulated based on societal perceptions, partners’ preferences, and self-reflection. Therefore, BDSM dress and meanings were constantly being constructed, deconstructed, and in flux (Kaiser et al., 1995). Fat women expressed ambivalence surrounding social conformity as they desired to “fit in” to the community aesthetics, yet they sometimes did not have aesthetics accessible in the market. Ambivalence was also expressed in relation to wanting to feel a sense of community, yet balancing stigmatized perceptions of BDSM identity at work or around family or friends outside of the community. This then resulted in the search for new aesthetics that could help work towards resolving some of these tensions.

Often times the power exchanges were visually evident through the dressed and undressed bodies. Steele (1996) said that dress is associated with power whereas nakedness expresses notions of vulnerability within a power exchange dynamic. These women used both dress and the visible body to relate with these power hierarchies. In our research, we expand the literature on how power and control were negotiated through dress, the body, and the body in motion within the BDSM lifestyle. During both every day non-BDSM spaces and BDSM scenes, participants used different negotiations of dress to maintain or relinquish power and control including controlling the gaze, controlling physical bodies of others, controlling emotions of others and being controlled by emotions, relegating to animal status, controlling movement, and relegating to a lower societal position.

Participants also used various garments to maintain power and control. Past scholars reported that corsets were one of the earliest fetishized garments only used by a dominatrix (Lunning, 2013; Steele, 1996). Our work builds on these scholars and highlights the nuance and variety of garments and styles used such as how doms, switches, and subs wore corsets, sheer clothing, crotchless and open garments. We also found that many different garment types were worn by varying roles including crotchless and open garments, and pieces that create a dichotomy in presentation of gender including button down and tailored shirts and ties. However, some of these garments were mostly worn by subs, for example, crotchless garments. Doms used whips, flogs, paddles, strap ons, and remote-control vibrators to control others’ physical bodies. Accessories including collars, leashes, clitoris clamps, and butt plugs with animal tails were used to relegate participants in our research to the sub position with little power to animal status. Restraints including chastity devices, ball gags, wrist and ankle cuffs, rope, and sensory deprivation hoods were used to control movement. Our participants discussed in-depth how wearing these garments and the act of the body moving or not, in relation to these dress objects and their partners, was central to the meaning making process.

While individuals embodied and expressed numerous identities, one identity is often more salient than others, particularly for marginalized communities (Kaiser, 2012). Participants reported varied emotional experiences when revealing and concealing their historically marginalized identities through dress. While some participants felt a sense of agency, freedom, and empowerment in their BDSM experiences, these positive sentiments were often due to their privilege as white, thin, upper-class, stereotypically-attractive women. That is, women of color, gender-boundary pushing women, queer women, trans women, and fat women often faced multiple intersections (Crenshaw, 1991) of oppression when negotiating their identities in BDSM spaces. For example, the default strap-on skin tones were mostly available in light-skin tones. The strap-on harnesses were not available in sizes to fit the fat women’s thighs, hips, and stomachs, or if they were, they often did not function well while the body was in motion in the scene, an important component of meaning making in BDSM identity.

Conclusion

In our research, we critically examined how and why women who participate in BDSM negotiate their subcultural identities through dress and their related consumption practices. We explored how the women constructed meanings through dress, how their interactions shaped meaning construction, how they navigated stigma and agency, and how their historically marginalized identities also influenced their BDSM dress practices. The women participated in BDSM because they were seeking a sense of community, exploring their sense of self, and seeking sexual liberation through fantasy. Participants took control of their bodies throughout these processes and while they were sometimes hesitant to disclose participation, exposure to the BDSM community helped them feel empowered, sexy, and confident. The women used dress as a transformative experience where they embodied a role and character to act out the varied tensions intersecting with their identities. Through dress, they embraced and assumed their different BDSM roles, from sub to dom, or dom to sub, and the related embodied dress practices that were influenced by their partners, physical and social spaces, and intersecting identities. Women in the community dommed women, women dommed men, and men dommed women. As participants negotiated their roles and dressed their bodies, they often rejected and reclaimed hegemonic ideals of feminine beauty and the patriarchal system surrounding how women’s bodies can and should appear. These women challenged stereotypes about what women who participate in BDSM can look and act like and they embraced varied and nuanced styles.

Other interactions also created meaning. For example, the act and motion of when a paddle was swinging was meaningful, as the paddle hit, impact was made and the body responded physically and the mind emotionally, and meaning was shaped and created between partners in these various interactions between the individuals, the objects, and the objects and bodies in motions. In many ways, dress of BDSM participants is not only about the garment or accessory against the fleshy body, but the way the body moved and sounded in response to the dress objects, which contributed to the power and control dynamics between partners. The participants also created much meaning from the sensory experiences in relation to the garments. For example, participants wore latex or leather to increase their own pleasure and that of their partners. They also created meaning through the sound of the material against the body, other objects, or their partners. They also had heightened stimulation through the taste and smell of the materials. Throughout all of these processes, participants moved in and out of BDSM-specific spaces and their everyday lives and were continually revealing and concealing BDSM participation in varied ways due to stigma. For many of the queer participants, their BDSM participation was as another identity they often hid in addition to their queer identity which is not widely accepted by society.

We provided the BDSM women in this research space to write their own narrative about their lived experiences with dress, identity, BDSM, their bodies, their partner dynamics, and consumption. The women expressed agency in dress negotiations and with their interactions with others while the body was in motion and still with heightened attention to sensory experiences, what we term as embodiment-dress-movement-sensation. That is, interactions were of great importance to constructing meaning, yet these interactions centered on the notion of the two bodies moving away or towards one another and the sometimes resulting sounds, smells, and tastes. As these bodies moved, the sensation and senses also created meaning. It was in that physical and metaphorical movement where meaning was created between the partners, the dress objects, the materials, and the physical fleshy body.