Putting a Dominatrix in Her Place: The Representation and Regulation of Female Dom/Male Sub Sexuality

Abstract

Le pre´sent article adopte une perspective interdisciplinaire pour analyser le traitement, en droit et au cine´ma, des dominatrices professionnelles et des hommes soumis. Nous soutenons que les discours cine´matographiques et juridiques, bien que formellement distincts, sont de fait fonctionnellement semblables dans leurs faç ons de discipliner cet arrangement sexuel. L'analyse juridique de´construit la de´cision R. v. Bedford qui a effectivement criminaliseć ertaines formes de services professionnels a`caracte`re dominateur, en rapport avec des films populaires re´cents qui repre´sentent des dominatrices ainsi que les hommes dans leurs vies. Ce projet de de´construction de´montre que les domaines juridiques et cine´matographiques repre´sentent tous deux la domination fe´minine comme un moment de « proble`mes dans les genres » qu'il faut endiguer et dans la mesure du possible, rectifier par l'autorite´masculine. Nous postulons que cette analyse comparative offre une perspective microcosmique pour de´celer comment se maintiennent et s'imposent les prescriptions de dominance masculine et de soumission fe´minine en droit et au cine´ma, re´ve´lant ainsi un moment de convergence de l'ide´ologie sexuelle dans ses discours diffe´rents. En conclusion, nous proposons que de tels efforts de re´glementation des rapports de sexe trahissent ultimement et involontairement le de´sir de l'autre sexuel, tout en ouvrant des espaces pour permettre des identifications et des subjectivite´s contre-he´ge´moniques.This article takes an interdisciplinary perspective to examine the treatment of professional dominatrices (doms) and male submissives (subs) in law and film. I argue that while the cinematic and legal discourses are formally distinct, they are functionally similar in the ways they discipline this sexual arrangement. The legal analysis deconstructs the case of R. v. Bedford, which effectively criminalized some forms of professional dominant services, in relation to recent popular films that represent female doms and the men in their lives. This deconstructive project demonstrates that both legal and cinematic fields view female dominance as a moment of ''gender trouble'' that needs to be contained, and, if possible, rectified, by masculine authority. I posit that this comparative analysis offers a microcosmic perspective on how the gender prescription of male dominance and female submissiveness is sustained and imposed in law and film, representing a moment of converging sexual ideology in these disparate discourses. I conclude with a suggestion that such efforts of gender regulation CJWL/RFD

Female-to-male to mistress: A layered account of layered performances

“…Although many professionals do not offer sexual intercourse in sessions, some do, and commercial BDSM regularly involves other sexual acts including erotic touching, oral sex, manual stimulation, and penetration with sex toys. Second, whereas literature on professional BDSM has consistently focused on women (Khan, 2009; Lindemann, 2012; Sisson and Moser, 2005; Wilson, 2005), whose identified genders do not vary within and outside work even if their enactments of femininity/masculinity do, this article engages the complexities of navigating trans(masculine) identity in the field. Third, investigations of performativity in sex work, including professional BDSM, overwhelmingly focus on laborers’ interactions with clients (Bernstein, 2007; Brooks, 2010; Lindemann, 2012; McClintock, 1993; Smith, 2016), in which they are often expected to be enacting a temporary persona that aligns with clients’ desires.…”

“…Yet this is not to say that these scholars proposed professional BDSM as an antidote to patriarchy or heteronormativity. Khan (2009) argued that, owing to challenges to traditional gendered power structures, women dominatrices were regarded as deviants who must be “put in their place” by dominant men (whether love interests in films, or judges in criminal court). Lindemann (2012) and McClintock (1993) both demonstrated that normative ideals of feminine beauty, along with conventional markers of feminine subservience and masculine aggression, pervaded commercial sessions.…”

“…Two gaps in the literature are particularly important for this article. First, scholars have overwhelmingly focused on cisgender women professionals (Khan, 2009; McClintock, 1993; Pinsky and Levey, 2015). Wilson (2005) explicitly defined “dominatrix” as “a woman who, normally for financial purposes, participates in forms of sexually charged role-play with a fetishistic or sadomasochistic backdrop” (2005: 32).…”

“…Among those who view sex work as inherently deviant or harmful, sexual violence may also be invoked as a causal explanation (Bernstein, 2007; Khan, 2009). The argument suggests that individuals, or women specifically, who pursue sex work are “damaged” or driven by traumatic experiences.…”

“…Prior investigations of professional BDSM have focused on cisgender women laborers (Khan, 2009; Lindemann, 2012; McClintock, 1993; Pinsky and Levey, 2015; Sisson and Moser, 2005; Wilson, 2005). This work has offered tremendous insights into the gender dynamics of these women’s paid dominance over cisgender men, including the paradoxical tendency for this practice to both challenge and reinforce gender norms.…”