In the past, I’ve rattled on about how fashion and BDSM have a lot in common. Clothes and the way they are marketed tap into our most basic notions of dominance and submission.

A recent study by New Mexico University examined the correlation between facial expression and perceived status, and why models for designer fashion houses are taught not to smile. Science journalist John Tierney set up a picture quiz on The New York Times website. Taking only the faces of models from advertisements, he invited readers to guess whether the smiling or frowning face in each pair represented the most expensive brand. As expected, the majority guessed that the high-end models were the ones who looked thoroughly pissed off, while the others were cheap and cheerful.

Professor Timothy Ketelaar of New Mexico University gave his own explanation for the results: “While we typically think of a smile as displaying our emotional state (happiness), it also appears that smiles convey information about the signaller status. Specifically, lower status individuals appear to smile more than higher status individuals. I suspect that this is due, in part, to the fact that there are several different types of smiles, including a true happiness smile and a true embarrassment smile. The latter smile, the embarrassment display, is often seen as an appeasement display in primates… I believe that the smiling faces of the models for the lower priced brands are simply conveying information regarding the social status of the brand image, rather than attempting to make customers feel better. Sometimes the advertiser must make a trade-off between advertising high status and presenting an emotionally positive image. Thus, the non-smiling faces of the higher status brands are not trying to make the consumer feel bad; they are simply attempting to display the signals that are associated with higher status. We liked Elvis even when he sneered at us from the stage because the contemptuous sneer is typically produced by individuals with higher status. Although we don’t generally like contemptuous individuals, most folks admire higher status individuals and want to be around them. Thus, the irony is that higher status brands are creating a positive image -– high status—by using a negative signal (lack of a smile).”

Dominatrices are not supposed to smile, for this very reason. It’s an unwritten rule. To appear superior to our minions, we must apparently appear to despise whatever it is we are doing, and whoever we are doing it to. It would be difficult to find a photo or video out there in cyberspace where the woman in power doesn’t look utterly miserable…

…Except, unfortunately, my own. I have never mastered the affected scowl. I smile. I laugh. I love what I do. If I give the impression of a crazed Cheshire Cat rather than a lofty depressive, then so be it. It’s not something I can control. I can’t live up to the stereotype. I’m a smiling sadist.

Anyway, to explore exactly why I fail at dominant facial expressions, click here for the article and quiz at the New York Times’ TierneyLab.