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.

The veil is controversial, of course. In July, I wrote a blog post about the tensions in France over its recent burqa ban, and of Belphegor, the mysterious anti-hero of literature, film and television whose impenetrable disguise allowed her to stalk the corridors of the Louvre at night and evade capture by the authorities.

Paris now has its own 21st Century Belphagor. Princess Hijab is the anonymous graffiti artist who has painted veils onto fashion posters around the Paris Metro.

“The veil has many hidden meanings,” she tells Angelique Chrisafis in today’s Guardian. “It can be as profane as it is sacred, consumerist and sanctimonious. From Arabic Gothicism to the condition of man. The interpretations are numerous and of course it carries great symbolism on race, sexuality and real and imagined geography.”

Click here to see some of Princess Hijab’s work and click here for the interview.

Coinciding with the ALA (American Library Association) “Banned Books Week”, a group of Miami librarians paid an extremely educational visit to the World Erotic Art Museum. The Examiner explains:

“…this is exactly the type of facility that librarians should visit, says Ellen Book, president of the Dade County Library Association.

“Whenever books, music, DVDs or art is banned or challenged in a library, it is the librarians who become involved, so we need to learn all we can,” said Book, who is the librarian association’s president

Which is why Book and her colleagues were in Miami Beach last Friday, listening raptly as Naomi Wilzig, owner of the museum, which is known popularly as  WEAM, filled them in on the controversial history of erotic art, along with her five-year struggle to publicly show it.

“I went to Las Vegas, to New York City and to St. Petersburg, Fla., but I was turned away. In New York, there was a space available on the top of a 20-story building, but I was turned down because they told me that someone visiting the first floor might object,” Wilzig said.

Even after winning approval from the City of Miami Beach for her current Washington Avenue location, landlord after landlord refused to rent to her. Finally, she found the museum’s current roomy second-floor location, but she has to battle to get even a small part of the foot traffic she would ordinarily reap if WEAM were housed on the ground floor, she said.

During the tour, Wilzig told the group of some of the controversies involved in some of the pieces, which range from ancient times to today. She also showed the librarians her 250-volume research library…”

Full article here.

Find out more about the World Erotic Art Museum here.