Within the consensual ‘SM’ and ‘Fetish’-subculture specific patterns of style developed, a dress code that influenced also the market-place of mainstream fashion. Leather, PVC, rubber and latex (‘Skin Two’) have at least a threefold function. They create a unified impression for others, (in order to) support the wearers self-image and thirdly besides an aesthetical function, they also can serve to advertise the wearers interests.
The ‘SM’-dyke community used to employ the pocket/hankie codes that were developed by their gay counterparts but this feature of the Scene seems to have declined.
Pat: I say I’m not interested in dress code but I always wear a leather-
vest and combat-trousers or a pair of jeans. Always wear my boots, so it’s obvious that I’m kind of SM-person. My leather-vest has got all kinds of pins on it, different leather-clubs, so it’s obvious that to anybody who’s been around for a while that I’m into SM.
Andrea: But you don’t represent to be a ‘bottom’ in a certain way? Pat: And I do because I wear the keys and the chain on the right hand
side, which is a code for being a ‘bottom’. So, and a black hanky. You know the hanky-code. So, I wear all that on the right which means ‘bottom’.
Andrea: So, that’s already quite safe, so that people won’t put you in the
wrong position?
Pat: Yeah. So, I’m walking about, you know, advertising: ‘This is a bot-
tom.’ And so when people, so people will know, and so if people are looking at me, in a way, you know, like they are attracted to me or they’re interested in me, then I’m pretty confident that that person
9780230_522107_04_cha03.indd 110
is not a bottom. Because why would they be interested in a ‘bottom’ if they are a ‘bottom’. So, I’m already doing a bit of advertising, so I guess I don’t have to worry about their clothes because I’m already advertising. (Interview-file 1: 16)
This may be representative of the impact of the general shift of meaning, representation and rules within the ‘SM-scene’, which will be discussed later in this chapter, on the individual, Pat does not find the dresscode important as the ‘player’ and his/her skills are more relevant to her.
Pat: I’m not fond of dress-codes because I’d rather just, you know, I
don’t want to go to a place where I have to be dressed up. I want to go to a place where I can be with other Sadomasochists and maybe play. To me it makes, it means nothing what someone is wearing. They could be wearing a jeans and a T-shirt or a flowery dress for all I care, you know.
Andrea: It depends on the person and how they play?
Pat: Yeah, it’s the mental connection not about fetishizing clothing.
Although, you know, I love leather you know, and if someone is wearing full leather then that’s a turn-on. That’s nice. But if it’s a perfect stranger wearing full leather that’s not of much interest. I’m not too keen on the dress-codes and I’m not really too keen on the club-scene. (Interview-file 1: 13)
For Bette dressing up is not particularly important or exciting, she stated: “..., I’ve always done it without. I only dress up when I have to, when I go to a club, interestingly enough. I think, I actually feel quite strongly about it from my own point of view. I think if you can’t do something like dominate somebody without sort of dressing up in high-heel-boots and things, then in a way you’re not that dominant anyhow. You ought to be able to do it in a dress. You notice I’m not in leather-gear now. I think there can be a sort of kinky turn-on but if you’re really into that sort of mental thing then it shouldn’t really be necessary” (Interview-file 4: 10).
‘Dressing up’ can in many cases function within the consensual ‘SM’- scenario on a symbolic level as the ‘dress code’ as well as the tools for the actual acting out of a ‘scene’ and helping the practitioners to define and maintain their roles. The role of ‘top’, ‘Master’, etc. entails the control of the ‘bottom’ which on the symbolical level is underlined by for example, leath- er-gear and the wearing of whips and/or devices of restraint. The ‘bottom’, ‘sub’, etc. usually wears comparatively less and is often already restrained in one way or the other (e.g. chastity-belt or being led on a leash) in order to symbolically express devotion and submission which becomes further enhanced through the varying acts of humiliation that often introduce a ‘scene’. For Clive Barker, the director of ‘Hellraiser’: “Dressing in furs,
9780230_522107_04_cha03.indd 111
dressing in leather, dressing in tattoos, dressing in metal, is halfway to transforming the body” (Barker in Woodward 1993: 25).
The most common ‘fetishes’ within the Scene are certainly leather (clothes as well as ‘toys’, boots, uniforms, stilettos, corsets, restraint-instruments like ropes), latex and chains, sometimes also shit and piss and the ‘play-tools’ themselves. Townsend suggested to use the term ‘situational fetishes’ in order to include abstractions that go beyond objects and listed: “...: bondage (regardless of its materials), humiliation, punishment, and possibly the act of submission itself. All these abstractions, like their physical counterparts, form the central focus of your fantasies or mine ... In fact, it is the actual use of most fetish items that form the core of the fantasy for us, not the object itself” (Townsend 1993: 87/88).
Andrea: How important would you say is the dress? Is it to make a bor-
derline between so-called reality and a ‘scene’?
Ella: I think dress, yes, I think it is. Because, I mean a lot of us like to live
fantasies. I mean this is a fantasy-thing, really, in any respect. And I think most of us like to dress according to our fantasy-situation. ... It doesn’t have to be leather, PVC or rubber in that sense of the word.
Andrea: They have to fit your fantasies?
Ella: They fit your fantasies. You know, you go looking for some-
thing, ... The dress is a very important part of the fantasy-side of things, getting the clothes on gets you into that role and also it is very nice. I mean, you know, to put your PVC, your leathers or rub- ber on it puts you into a certain frame of mind, when you’re setting out. I mean it is nice, to me it is important and also my partner is the same. (Interview-file E.: 6)
The detailed planning of consensual ‘SM’-play in order to be able to come closer to a desired fantasy and also to create a ‘mind-set’ by bodily attires contradicts the constructed ‘nature of sexual desire’ which is deployed by the discourses of ‘normalization’ (Chapter 2). “It is a paradox that while sexual relations are pre-eminently the object of social control in human societies sexual desire is often taken to be something beyond social organ- ization or rational control. The realm of the sexual is seen as par excellence the realm of the irrational, the anarchic-the realm of the senses” (Cowie in Segal and McIntosh 1992: 134).
Within the psychoanalytical tradition fantasy is understood as the ‘sta- ging of desire’ (Cowie) as well as the conscious/unconscious foundation of subjectivity whereby the emphasis is put on the fact that fantasy allows for contradiction. In fantasy thus the individual can occupy any role or position according to his/her choice. This point is crucial in reference to ‘moral’ feminists critique of consensual ‘SM’ which focuses on its symbol- ically overt discourses and representations of ‘gender’ (power)-relationships
9780230_522107_04_cha03.indd 112
instead of realizing the possibilities of identification that the fantasy at the core of the ‘scenes’ provides.
Military as well as medical ‘scenes’ have an attraction for many ‘players’ on the Scene. The relevance of military and medical roles and dress code derive their thrill from their assigned societal power positions.
Consensual ‘SM’-play functions through fantasy-play and thereby often leads to catharsis of emotional energy. “Fantasy, and especially public forms of fantasy-films, stories, plays, television-in the main replace childish play for adults. ... Fantasies are actualized, but remain ‘playacted’ and this is the recurrent defense made by those engaging in consenting sadomasochism as well as by the besuited businessmen who pay women to dress them up as schoolgirls, servants, etc.” (Cowie in Segal and McIntosh 1992: 149/150). For Anthony, masks have a particular attraction. He believes that because of our social roles that limit us to certain behaviours within defined situations, we constantly wear masks anyway. “I think people wearing physical masks or mental masks, you can hide behind any of them or not only for hiding, to protect as well. From whatever physical or mental. Masks are very interest- ing, and also for SM-sex, I like the idea of people dressing up for sex. That’s what fascinates me in SM, people dressing up, like in theatre, performing roles. ... You can play out certain kinds of fantasies around for example, cer- tain kinds of masks and hoods. Like bank robbers etc., you can have those kinds of ‘scenes’ as well” (Interview-file 3: 6).
The seeming ‘authenticity’ of the ‘scene’ thus helps to enact fantasies. “Pat Califia has argued that: The key word to understand S/M is fantasy. The roles, dialogue, fetish costumes, and sexual activity are part of a drama or ritual” (Cowie in Segal and McIntosh 1992: 149).