The Fool on the Hill: On the Semiotics of the Collar

I was talking about my lover (who I'll refer to as Tac, although that isn't her name) to a friend the other day, and my friend said to me "oh, the girl who wears the collar." It rocked me, and it led to some introspection.

Since the major breakdown I had in 2009, when I decided to acknowledge and embrace my sadism, every woman I've had sex with — every lover — has worn a collar. She's worn a collar because I, in my arrogance, have put it on her. And if she refused to wear it? Then we didn't continue as lovers.

My friend had certainly met several of my lovers wearing collars over the years. Whenever she'd met me with one of my lovers, that lover will almost certainly have been collared. So when my friend said "the girl who wears the collar," the use of the definite article was part of what was interesting. But the use of the "wears a collar" part felt bad.

Tac is becoming a much more central part of my life; will probably become a much more committed relationship than I've had for many years. She will, I hope, become part of my community. Friends with my friends. They need to accept her for herself, see her as she chooses to be seen. She isn't and cannot be just my fashion accessory.

So, the collar: what does it mean, and why has it become so important to me? And what to I do about it now?

The collar in history: slaves

The concept of a collar in BDSM relationships is linked to, in part derived from, the concept of a slave collar. Were slave collars actually used in slave-owning cultures? Well yes, they were. Metal (usually iron) collars occur in Roman-period archaeology, broadly across the whole extent of the empire, often explicitly engraved to make it clear that they are slave collars. But they're not sufficiently common to suggest that it was normal for a slave to wear one. Similarly iron slave collars exist from pre civil-war United States, but again they're not common enough to suggest that they can have been ubiquitous. In both cases it was exceptional slaves who were collared; and there's a suggestion, in both cases, that it was slaves with a history of escaping.

Most of the collars found from the Roman period were not designed to be removed, ever. They were welded or rivetted shut. Slave merchants moving slaves from place to place historically have used metal collars which were locked around the neck of the slave as a temporary thing, usually to attach chains, but again how common these were and how frequently they were used I don't know. There were two such collars chained to the wall of the Tollbooth in Kirkcudbright within my lifetime, but these had historically held criminals, not slaves. In any case, these temporary, removable collars are a different and more instrumental thing than the permanent slave collar of our imagination.

All of the historical collars of which I'm aware were metal; and usually workaday metal, not highly decorated, although often with inscriptions. There are three decorated collars recovered in Ireland from the 6th/7th century, but it's not certain that these are slave collars. The Roman slave collars which do exist are typically from the late Roman period and it is suggested that they may have been adopted by Christian slave owners(!) who considered the more common practice of branding inhumane.

The collar in history: dogs

I'm not aware of leather collars being used on actual slaves at any period in history, but that may simply be that a short leather strap is not immediately recognisable as a collar, and that a collar intended for a slave is not easily distinguishable from a collar intended for a large dog. Certainly leather collars have been used on dogs since very ancient history, and are still commonly used on dogs. Indeed, one of the collars I've used to collar my lovers was bought in a pet shop.

Pet play — and specifically puppy play — does occur in BDSM, and a person who identifies as or role-plays as a puppy will probably wear a collar. Identifying, and treating, a person as a dog is certainly as demeaning as, possibly more demeaning than, treating them as a slave. But just as BDSM practitioners who identify as slaves enter into that role voluntarily, so do those who identify as pets.

The BDSM collar as a thing-in-itself

So although the idea of a BDSM collar is certainly influenced by (possibly ill-informed) understanding of slave collars, and is possibly influenced by dog collars, nevertheless a BDSM collar is now a recognisable sub category of its own. It is typically leather, although it may be metal, either chain or solid. It is often, but not usually, shaped for the human neck. It is almost always removable, although it may require a key. Collars worn temporarily for play are usually very sturdy, and often have multiple attachment points for leashes and other bonds; collars worn permanently as signifiers of a relationship are usually more delicate at least in appearance.

By contrast to historical slave collars, the BDSM collar is almost always well finished with consideration of aesthetics; by contrast to a dog collar, also, a BDSM collar is usually better finished and has more attention paid to comfort.

The collar as a practical item

The practical purpose of a collar is control. It's easy to grab a person by their collar, and, held by the collar, people are less likely to fight and struggle than if held by, say, a wrist; people are quite aware of the vulnerability of their necks. But, if a person has even reasonably long hair, it's easy to grab them by the hair, too, and that has similar effect. What the collar is usually designed to offer that hair doesn't offer is a secure attachment point for leashes, chains, or other bonds. For me, having a woman chained to my bed is an enormously important factor in my sexual enjoyment of her — to the extent of being a sexual fetish in the technical sense of that term.

To be used as a sex-intensifier, a collar need only be used during sex. But, if it's understood that its primary purpose is as a sex-intensifier, then putting a collar on a person signals to her that they are being prepared for sex, so, even if it is not their fetish, as they becomes accustomed to this, putting it on them will increase their sexual arousal. So, within the context of an active sexual relationship, and especially if the dominant likes to have extempory sex on a whim, keeping a partner collared while you are together has positive sexual function.

The collar as a signifier of relationship style

Where one of a couple in an active sexual relationship wears a collar, it is a profound signifier of relationship style. It signifies an asymmetric relationship, a relationship involving some degree of dominance and submission. It signifies, explicitly, a BDSM relationship. Indeed, a relationship in which both partners wear collars, even though that does not signify dominance/submission, almost certainly does signify some degree of BDSM orientation. A collar worn in public signifies that at least one of the partners — and most probably, the one not wearing the collar — wants the relationship to be seen and acknowledged as a dominance/submission relationship.

What does a collar mean to me?

Let's start this by saying I haven't always made a fetish of collars. My interest in rope bondage goes back to pre-pubescent fantasies, but I don't recall being much aware of collars until well into adult life. I wrote a novel before 2004 set in a slave owning society, in which the female protagonist spends part of the plot as a slave, and, explicitly, wearing a collar. So I was at least already aware of the trope then, and probably already eroticised it then, although I don't remember that with any clarity. I didn't own a collar, or put one on a woman, until 2010. (Come to think of it, Tac was the first woman I ever collared). Since then, yes, collars have become enormously important to me.

Asking one's lover to wear a collar is outrageous. It is especially so in an egalitarian society; it is especially so among people who believe strongly in egalitarianism, as both Tac and I certainly do. Demanding it is still more outrageous. So why have I demanded it in the past, and will I — can I — continue to demand it in the future?

As we are discussing the shape our deepening relationship will take in the future, of course we've discussed whether it will continue to be at some level a dominance/submission relationship; and we're both clear that, if it continues to be sexual at all, at least in the context of sex it will be. Which is good from my point of view, because if Tac had been neutral on this, and especially if she'd been hesitant or unwilling, I wouldn't have pushed it. Because Tac is very important to me. But nevertheless dominance/submission does matter to me. It is a deep, a core, part of my sexuality.

So part of the value of the collar to me is, as I said, that for me, being able to chain my lover for sex is literally a fetish. And part of the value is that Tac, certainly, also responds to being restrained as a sex intensifier. But part of the value is, when I see a lover wearing my collar, I see her doing something outrageous — and doing it as a gift to me. That's especially so when she wears it in the presence of other people. I feel that as an enormous compliment, and an enormous confidence boost. More: I feel it as concrete evidence that I am loved.

And that last one is really a big deal for me.

So there's two key takeaways, for me, in this.

For me to require Tac to wear a collar during sex (not that she's ever resisted) is certainly positive to our relationship, because it will make our sex life better. Not instead of other toys and restraints. In addition to other toys and restraints. But the other toys and restraints can be much more driven by what she needs. In the context of sex, her wearing the collar is what I need. But the collar worn during sex must be effective as a constraint: it needs to be broad enough to be comfortable, and sturdy enough that it can't come off by accident.

Do I need Tac to wear a collar when we're not having sex? Well, strictly, no I don't. But there's a scale on this.

I really dislike a lover leaving my bed without waking me and telling me; and waking me either to ask me to remove her collar, or to ask for permission to remove her collar, has always worked well for me. So, collar when in my bed? I don't think I'll insist on this, but it feels quite important so I'll certainly ask for it. Collar when I'm in her bed? That's her territory so I feel it's her decision, but I'm clear I'd prefer it.

The problem with 'wearing a collar for sex' though, for people who enjoy impromptu and al fresco sex, as both Tac and I do, is we might have sex — we frequently have — when walking in the countryside. We might have sex — we occasionally have — while strolling in an urban park. We might have sex anywhere where the mood strikes and there's a wee bit cover available. And when that happens, I would like her to be wearing a collar. And a solution to that would be, that I carry it with me in my pocket all the time, and put it on her when the moment arrives; which would have the merit that it would be a potent act of symbolic foreplay in itself.

But I don't want Tac to be judged as "the girl who wears a collar" unless that's how she specifically wants to present herself. Don't get me wrong, it is something I deeply desire that she should, because the effect on me is profound. And there's more than this. I want Tac to be accepted by my friends as my partner — if that's how she chooses to present herself. I want her to be treated with respect. And a heavy leather collar — which it what I've always put on her up until now, without much discussion — may lead some people not to view her with respect.

Wearing a collar in the presence of other people is not something I want to demand. The whole emotional kick (for me) of a submissive wearing a collar is that it is a gift to their dominant. A gift that is required, that is demanded, is not a free gift; and so it cannot deliver the same emotional kick.

I had a couple of friends a generation older than me, now dead. She was an NHS surgeon, ultimately a very senior one. She wore a collar which appeared to be made of steel rod about 10mm in diameter. I do not know whether she could remove it, but I never saw her without it. In wearing it, she proved that it isn't impossible to wear a collar and command respect. Some people can certainly wear a collar and command respect. I'm sure Tac could. But I don't think a leather collar commands respect.

Other submisives I know wear permanent collars which are largely symbolic — something that both the submissive and the dominant acknowledge symbolises a collar, but which doesn't necessarily look like one. I think the minimum for me is that it should be small enough that it won't come off over the wearer's head, and sturdy enough that it won't break even in vigorous play.

So it would be entirely possible that there is a collar which Tac wears — because I require it — when we have sex, and a collar which she wears — because she chooses to — at (at least some) other times. It's entirely possible that these could be the same collar, in which case I think it needs to be more than just a pragmatic leather strap. For me, it cannot be a collar that locks. Her submission is voluntary, or it isn't submission.

I am not going to insist on this.

Tags: Repression, BDSM, Sexuality

Share on social media