A Cartwheel of Contradictions: Who Is Harley Quinn? Part Three "Her Middle Name is Welcome"
Third in the long-ago begun series of meta essays exploring the persona and psyche of Harley Quinn!
A Cartwheel of Contradictions: Who Is Harley Quinn?
Part Three: Her Middle Name is Welcome
Co-Authored by:
lovedatjoker
zhinxy
itllcometome
There is one recurring factor common to Harley's working and personal relationships: she's rarely ever in charge.
That's not to say Harley is incapable of leading or of planning and scheming. When the pressure is on, when she has the impetus and the motivation, Harley can plot, scheme and follow-through with the best of them. Consider, for example, her get-out-of-town plan in Harley's Holiday, her diamond heist in Harley & Ivy or how she subtly tugs strings and directs action in Harlequinade.
But Harley's natural inclination is to be directed.
In her most prominent role as the Joker's girlfriend, henchwench and obsessed former doctor, Harley is most visible as a woman in an abusive relationship, her sanity the price she has paid for love. The undesirable aspects of this relationship are often conflated with Harley's inherently submissive nature, leading to criticism of both as though they are the same. Some fans feel it is in Harley's best interests as a character to become independent and march to the beat of her own drum.
But there's the rub: She already does!
This narrative of achieving self-actualisation through “independence” conflates a naturally submissive personality with a state of victimhood. In a society that very rightly associates female servitude with heteropatriarchal control, it is difficult to acknowledge and recognise agency to select submissiveness as the most natural form of self-expression. From some philosophical and political quarters, there is even the argument that such an agency cannot truly exist as it is shaped and formed within the context of a heteropatriarchal culture from birth; that women are groomed to conform to this role and must consciously break free of it in order to live fully realised lives.
A similar narrative informs the criticism of Harley's relationship with the Joker: she cannot truly be consenting to be submissive to him as he groomed her for such a role during her stint as his doctor in Arkham Asylum.
This concept is often referred to as “false-consciousness” and is utilised aggressively wherever people want to limit the perceived agency of a particular demographic in order to create victims that then need rescuing.
Such a position has sometimes noble intention, but is more often than not corrupted along the way in order to exert further control over the subjects. Whilst it is most definitely vital to comprehend how social context can contribute to shaping us, often unconsciously, so that we must undergo a process of recognition and deconstruction, arguing that individuals lack absolute self-awareness and the freedom to choose is not only prescriptive, it's patronising as hell.
The fact of the matter is that Harley has a naturally submissive personality and a desire to serve and be told how to direct her energies that remains constant across the significant relationships she maintains (few as they are). Harley's nature as the perennial number two has been discussed previously in the essay, The Loneliest Number, but how this desired role relates to her sexuality is also significant. As an active and aware submissive, Harley is one of the only examples of her kind in Western comic books.
Now, the argument against that may be that depicting a woman in a subservient role to a man within comic books is not exactly different or radical; but actually harkens back to the old-fashioned gender roles of the Golden Age. And if Harley were not a willing submissive and her dynamic with the Joker was not based in conscious kink traditions, this would be undeniable.
However, Harley's embodiment of her role is active, consenting and enthusiastic.
As was discussed in the essay, Not A Doormat... Is She?, the trope of “strong, female characters” has itself become a cliché these days, limiting the scope that female characters are permitted to operate within and presenting a cookie-cutter format to offer a veneer of 'complexity' that requires little true consideration and development. It quickly falls apart upon analysis and critique, leaving a lot to be desired in terms of delivering satisfying characterisation beyond the most shallow “girl power” model.
In skilled hands such characters can become rich, rounded out and compelling (Batwoman as handled by Greg Rucka, for example) just as in unskilled hands already excellent characters can become boring, cliché and hackneyed (the Joker is often a victim of this) but it remains true that there is often a facsimile that is drawn upon that places women in an eternally dominant or resisting position.
The truth is that many women in the world desire a submissive role, not simply as a way of life but as an erotic component of that life. Human sexuality is diverse and varied and being social animals we have traditionally organised ourselves within power structures. It is common that people have natural inclinations towards dominance or submission exclusively, or towards both dependent on circumstances.
It should be noted that a woman who finds herself fulfilled by submission does not ask for less rights within the world - submisson is individualistic not social; the right to vote, reproductive control, to work and pursue education, to name a few of the objectives prioritised by feminism, are not necessarily rejected. Indeed, they often play an integral role in a female submissive's life. A submissive does not see herself as unequal in the world at large; but within her relationship with her Dominant she positions herself as under their command.
The dialogue that frequently surrounds Harley and perceptions of her character and the way in which she operates both adopts and reinforces existing negative attitudes towards submissive personalities that are misguided, if well-intentioned.
In understanding Harley's nature as a submissive, some separation between the active Dominant/submissive dynamic she has with the Joker and the very real abusive aspect must be drawn. This is not done to undermine the abuse but to explore the other aspects of their relationship that get minimised in order to emphasise the abuse. Recognising and naming the abusiveness is an important element of discussing this relationship, but in the process it is often utilised to dismiss or deny the mutuality and consensual erotic components.
It is also utilised to deny Harley's own nature and preferences.
Being a submissive is not a character flaw. Conflated as it has become with female subservience under patriarchy, it has become second nature to view submissiveness as an undesirable state any woman would reject if only she were properly educated and informed - the assumption being, of course, that there is no possible way any submissive woman could already be educated and informed.
Such logic is highly flawed and ultimately condescending. Women choose submissive roles outside of heterosexual relationships, and this is evidenced in Harley's own relationship with Poison Ivy with whom she has a dynamic that is startlingly similar to that which she shares with the Joker.
Women can also be fully actualised beings with complex and independent lives who enjoy taking the submisisve role in their romantic relationships with men. And even if a woman does not have a university degree or a high-powered job and still chooses to interact in a submissive fashion with her partner, to claim she is labouring under false consciousness is to diminish both her experience of her own life and herself as a person.
Kinkphobia is surely an intrinsic element to this attitude. Joker and Harley's dynamics clearly reflect real life Dominant/submissive relationships, in which many people willingly and actively participate. It is a contemporary conviction that these compulsions very natural to humans are undesirable and must be eradicated, regardless of the fulfillment and satisfaction someone may feel in their role.
Interestingly, it is once again a heteropatriarchal construct that villifies kink practices, characterising them as abnormal and an indication of deviance because they diverge from the sanctioned model of 'penis-in-vagina for the purposes of reproduction'. Even in our sex-soaked society, this mode of sex still permeates cultural consciousness and gender bias is demonstrated in the characterisation of promiscuous male sexual behaviour as normal and validating and promiscuous female sexual behaviour as degrading and disgusting. This is yet another reason why, although heteropatriarchal society still deems women inferior and in subservience, kink practices are abhorred: female submissives have ownership over what they are doing and participate in these activities for their own gratification and for purposes other than pregnancy.
The particular human conceit that seeks to place us far above the behaviour of animals also works to deride the enjoyment of inflicting or receiving pain; it has been historically considered to be a psychological disorder to engage in this behaviour, regardless of the consensuality, care and calculatedness with which it is undertaken, unlike examples of abuse and violence.
The intersection between kinkphobia as directed by heteronormativity and sexist gender roles as critiqued by feminism is therefore an intriguing and complicated one that is not easily unravelled but that absolutely dictates the analysis of Harley Quinn as a character from many corners.
Harley, of course, had both a university degree and a high-powered job. Whilst she attained these in dubious manner and for questionable motives, she definitely embodied the qualities considered necessary to 'independence'. Was her undoing by the Joker then a sinister narrative retaliation against female empowerment - a metaphoric re-establishment of the 'natural order of things' as defined by patriarchy? Certainly some have said so, and in a world where sexism and misogyny are still very much prevalent it is understandable as to why.
But as discussed in previous work, Harley's transformation into insanity was actually the event that set her free, eliminated her boundaries and the expectations of a rigidly defined life and enabled her personal liberation. A similar theme is explored in the film Secretary, where the discovery and identification of her submissive nature allows the lead character to find personal fulfillment and happiness.
It is, of course, relevant to point out that that Dominant/submissive relationship has no abusive qualities, although those opposed to kink practices would say it is inherently abusive due to the inability to detach such a relationship model from sexist social constructs. At any rate it is certainly true that, unless carefully monitored by those participating, consensual kinky relationships can sometimes become abusive and an example of this can definitely be seen between Joker and Harley.
However, this reality does not change the fact that Harley's naturally submissive nature positions itself automatically with relation to the Joker's dominant one.
In support of the validity of this nature, an assessment of the gendered behaviour between Joker and Harley is offered:
Whilst a misogynistic culture has ensured violence against women is often interwoven with our very perceptions of women, abuse is not a gender-exclusive issue.
The elements that create an abuser are varied. They can range from experiences of abuse to mental illness to witnessing and internalising as normal abusive behaviour. Victims of abuse can fall across the gender spectrum and be of all ages. Making the abuse between Joker and Harley all about their genders as male and female is ultimately trivialising as well as distracting. It's a smokescreen over deeper exploration and understanding of both characters.
The Joker exists entirely apart from and outside of society; he perceives it in all its hypocrisy and false constructs. He would understand systems of misogyny and how they have created a culture that tolerates abuse against women. Detached from a human life, he is exempt from experiences of internalising these misogynies and consequently enacting them.
At the same time he is a sick and violent person who, because he is so outside of humanity, does not understand how to interact and engage with others, not least because he considers no human worthy of that sort of respect. So when he engages in abusive behaviour, it is never a gendered issue. He is abusive because he is the Joker, not because he is a man in a relationship with a woman.
It is also worthy of note that there has never been any real evidence of gender disparagement in Joker's treatment of Harley. Never has he said such things as “shut up and look pretty” or “I shouldn't have sent a woman to do a man's job”. He has never even called her a “bitch”. He has, however, frequently entrusted her with tasks he clearly considers his male henches to be incapable of. And his verbal abuse of her is not gender-specific: “Moron”, “nincompoop”, “twit”.
On the other hand, when he is being appreciative of her, her femaleness is valued. Then she is a “clever little minx”.
None of this is presented in order to justify the abuse; it is still inexcusable behaviour that must be acknowledged. However it does deconstruct the idea that sexism or misogyny are the root cause of it which further relates to understanding and validating the nature of submissive women and Harley as one of them.
The criticism of women enacting erotically submissive roles involves a prescription and dictating of female sexuality to individual or abstract standards that is uneasily related to the prevalent societal attitude that female sexuality in all its forms is something that has to be controlled and limited. This is the antithesis of sex-positive and feminist ambition and should be avoided. Ultimately, women must be trusted with the idea they are intelligent, aware and perceptive enough to identify their own desires and experiment with them (including making their own mistakes).
Being submissive does not automatically equal being degraded; in fact many submissives find a great deal of empowerment within submission. This is due to choice. Active submission is a consensual and informed choice. Surrendering oneself to the control of another is, for a submissive, an exhilarating, affirming and empowering deed because it is one that is chosen. It is not demanded or imposed. A Dominant has power largely in part because a submissive permits them too. And that, in itself, is an act of power. When you consider how proactive Harley's descent into madness was - her initiative of donning a costume and breaking her Puddin' out of jail, incontrovertibly severing her new life from her old - and how at even that point she was clearly seeing herself in service to him although she was the one directing the action, it becomes clear how Harley exercised her own power to obtain what she wanted and that her position of service to the Joker was one she willingly secured, rather than was forced into.
Like most submissives, though, she wants to serve on her own terms! Compatibiltity is a factor in Dominant/submissive relationships. There are different preferred dynamics and activities that do not always complement each other. Being a submissive is not just being subservient to anyone and everyone just because they might be bossy or fancy themselves as Dominant.
Mutual attraction is still a factor and complementary desires are very much a necessity. Joker and Harley's compatibility was ascertained in the sessions they shared and further established once they took up together in official capacity as Clown Prince and Henchwench. A submissive selects her Dominant as carefully and with as much discrimination as a bride selects her wedding dress. Whilst Harley shifts easily into second-banana role with just about anyone, it is apparent that it often fails to fulfill her, expressed in her inactivity, boredom, rebellion and eventual abandonment - with subsequent return to the Joker, with whom she finds constant excitement and stimulation in the manner particular to her desires.
Her agency in choosing the Joker as her Dominant should not be ignored or disregarded. She understands what works for her and pursues that.
Within the animated universe, Harley did eventually secure submission on her own terms. She got what she wanted, the way she wanted it. Not without Joker kicking and screaming all the way, but in the end she succeeded. This progression has been previously discussed in the Relationship Evolution essay - over time, the Joker rolled over, to a degree. He accepted her intrinsic value to his life and her determination to remain in it. He allowed for her to push him into actually engaging within the relationship - the manifestation of them as a family unit with traditions, pet names, home bases, “babies” and the assumption of a future together. This eventual acquiesence under Harley's persistence reflects the way submissives may exert power in their relationships - a practice known as “topping from the bottom”. Sometimes the Dominant is a knowing participant in this and it is part of the game - and sometimes they are truly unaware of it. The latter obviously indicates how submissives may manipulate within their seemingly-passive roles whilst the former demonstrates the give-and-take inherent to these types of relationships, rejecting the supposition that they are static or rigidly confined.
Another peculiarity of masochistic submissives is the processing and perception of pain. What is tolerable or even revelled in within erotic practice is contrasted again what is unpleasant and unwanted outside of it. Take, for example, Harley's hatred of getting needles with her remark that “you'd think after living with Mistah J I'd be used to a little pain”. Masochism is not the enjoyment and welcoming of all pain indiscriminately; it is often associated with particular experiences, formats and relationships.
Likewise, her comment in an issue of The Batman Adventures vol 2 that she “ain't felt this bad since Mistah J made [her] wear the Pinata suit!” identifies a blasé acceptance of pain as a factor in her life.
Although it must always be assumed that when Harley or Joker refer to violence between them that consensual activity runs concurrent to actual abuse (because whilst it is not always clear every time which it is they are referring to, the distinction has been made on a couple of occasions and the difference remarked upon in a couple of examples by outside witnesses), the easy flippancy with which Harley refers to such examples is indicative that some aspects of it, at least, are normal and acceptable to her.
An aspect of submission that is frequently forgotten is the strength it requires to perform. Handing oneself over to another's control is not in the least an easy feat; it requires trust, both in the other person and in self, willingness and awareness. Submissives are often characterised as weak and malleable personalities but this is belied in an example like Harley who exhibits great force of character, determined pursuit of her objectives and the repetition of her behaviour and nature even when other options are presented to her or she experiments with same.
Again, this self-evident fact of Harley's nature is something that is often argued against: there is the claim her submissiveness exists only in relationship to the Joker and only because in his accompanying role as her abuser he obliges this response from her.
But submission has become evident as her natural state as when she is separated from him she inevitably repeats the same roles and dynamics. Whilst some could argue Harley's submissive nature is a result of her madness, something that occurs in sane people isn't exclusively a symptom. There is weight to the argument that submission is a part of the Harley Quinn identity and not what Dr Harleen Quinzel was, but it is like arguing her back into a white coat behind a desk: its not relevant anymore.
It was Harley's own chosen actions that so decisively separated the two parts of her life; Joker groomed her with the likely intention of having someone on the inside to aid and abet his escapes and possible other favours, he did not incite her to break him out when she did. Whilst Harley could've maintained a double life as his doctor, she chose instead to out herself as insane, joining the ranks of the costumed crazies of Gotham City and altering the path of her life forever. In this manner, Harley actually set up the boundaries for herself, without being dictated to.
And with her turbulent madness, for one thing to manifest so often and uniformly it must be vital. Enough that it appears even when she's willed herself on the road to independence or vowed to be her own boss. Without fail she winds up in the same position. The result can and has been reproduced time and again. It isn't a dreadful thing or a pitfall of her relationship with the Joker as she recites the same script with whomever she's sharing the stage with and it does not always lead to her detriment. More often it lends itself to an opportune atmosphere and definite contentment, none so as evidently as when with the Joker - to whom she returns, again and again, even when other options are viable and characterised as more desirable.
Is it really so simple and superficial as this simply being the vicious cycle between abuser and abusee? Is it really so impossible to comprehend there is greater depth and nuance at work? Is it really giving credit to the character to decide that Harley, in all her complexity and richness, genuinely has no agency, is delusional about the mutuality of the relationship and cannot possibly enjoy its power-based dynamic? Even when her enjoyment of it has been clearly depicted and her nature as willing submissive amply demonstrated?
Indeed, is it not possible that not only did the commencement of her relationship with the Joker lead to her liberation from normalcy and conformity, but resulted in the awakening and realisation of her sexual and erotic desires?
Such an achievement would in itself be a powerful incentive and motivator in maintaining their relationship.
Ultimately, the forging and securing of a compatible Dominant/submissive relationship is fulflling and satisfying for those involved. It meets needs participants have in a validating and affirming fashion. Harley's consistent return to the Joker and how with each reunion she redefines the boundaries that little bit more whilst the D/s dynamic remains nonetheless intact exemplifies that the relationship is one she desires and enjoys. P
rior to meeting the Joker she had an ambition in life that actually excluded partnership. That he was the catalyst for her choosing another path speaks volumes for the strength of the attraction and passion they share, warped though it may be in other ways.
And when everything about her, even her name, is oriented around the Joker and the clown theme, the idea she could be fulfilled submitting to anyone else is untenable. Occasionally she gives it a red hot go, or tries for that much idolised 'independence', but it never works out and she becomes most vital, interesting, compelling and truthful to her own personality - the qualities that drew fans to her to begin with - when operating alongside the Joker. As submissives indicate loyalty through collars, tattoos and brands, so too does Harley in her particularly clown-themed garb. Whilst Harley may not be sexually faithful she's definitely emotionally monogamous. It's not limiting to want to serve when it's a vital part of who you are and the argument that it is itself seeks to limit expression. Service relationships around the world have vast intersections not just with sexuality and desire but with culture, context, family and politics. They are not without intrinsic value and significance.
Or without powerful erotic appeal. And the realisation of consensual sexuality and sexual fantasy is one that is not only significant to many people but one that can play an important role in self-determination and happiness.
As Joker and Harley's relationship has been depicted beyond the confines of a children's animated show, these consensual kink dynamics have been depicted in more and more obvious ways. Even within the show the writers found the means to communicate this element in subtext and it's a subtext that is instantly recognised and appreciated by those whose sexuality is similarly oriented in kink. It has even been remarked upon that the particular structure of the relationship appealed to kinky fans in their formative years, before they even had a language or framework within which to identify it.
In discussing Harley Quinn as a character and her relationship with the Joker, it is just as vital to recognise this genuine submissive identity as it is to acknowledge the abuse. Once again, Harley's very appeal as a character to her legion of fans lies in her relatability - and in her wholehearted embodiment of self as a willing and enthusiastic submissive, she fills a gap often missing from the ranks of comic book characters. Accepting this element of her nature does not cancel out the reality of the abuse she experiences with the Joker; it simply adds another aspect to this complex and captivating relationship and the character of Harley Quinn.
A Cartwheel of Contradictions: Who Is Harley Quinn?
Part Three: Her Middle Name is Welcome
Co-Authored by:
lovedatjoker
zhinxy
itllcometome
There is one recurring factor common to Harley's working and personal relationships: she's rarely ever in charge.
That's not to say Harley is incapable of leading or of planning and scheming. When the pressure is on, when she has the impetus and the motivation, Harley can plot, scheme and follow-through with the best of them. Consider, for example, her get-out-of-town plan in Harley's Holiday, her diamond heist in Harley & Ivy or how she subtly tugs strings and directs action in Harlequinade.
But Harley's natural inclination is to be directed.
In her most prominent role as the Joker's girlfriend, henchwench and obsessed former doctor, Harley is most visible as a woman in an abusive relationship, her sanity the price she has paid for love. The undesirable aspects of this relationship are often conflated with Harley's inherently submissive nature, leading to criticism of both as though they are the same. Some fans feel it is in Harley's best interests as a character to become independent and march to the beat of her own drum.
But there's the rub: She already does!
This narrative of achieving self-actualisation through “independence” conflates a naturally submissive personality with a state of victimhood. In a society that very rightly associates female servitude with heteropatriarchal control, it is difficult to acknowledge and recognise agency to select submissiveness as the most natural form of self-expression. From some philosophical and political quarters, there is even the argument that such an agency cannot truly exist as it is shaped and formed within the context of a heteropatriarchal culture from birth; that women are groomed to conform to this role and must consciously break free of it in order to live fully realised lives.
A similar narrative informs the criticism of Harley's relationship with the Joker: she cannot truly be consenting to be submissive to him as he groomed her for such a role during her stint as his doctor in Arkham Asylum.
This concept is often referred to as “false-consciousness” and is utilised aggressively wherever people want to limit the perceived agency of a particular demographic in order to create victims that then need rescuing.
Such a position has sometimes noble intention, but is more often than not corrupted along the way in order to exert further control over the subjects. Whilst it is most definitely vital to comprehend how social context can contribute to shaping us, often unconsciously, so that we must undergo a process of recognition and deconstruction, arguing that individuals lack absolute self-awareness and the freedom to choose is not only prescriptive, it's patronising as hell.
The fact of the matter is that Harley has a naturally submissive personality and a desire to serve and be told how to direct her energies that remains constant across the significant relationships she maintains (few as they are). Harley's nature as the perennial number two has been discussed previously in the essay, The Loneliest Number, but how this desired role relates to her sexuality is also significant. As an active and aware submissive, Harley is one of the only examples of her kind in Western comic books.
Now, the argument against that may be that depicting a woman in a subservient role to a man within comic books is not exactly different or radical; but actually harkens back to the old-fashioned gender roles of the Golden Age. And if Harley were not a willing submissive and her dynamic with the Joker was not based in conscious kink traditions, this would be undeniable.
However, Harley's embodiment of her role is active, consenting and enthusiastic.
As was discussed in the essay, Not A Doormat... Is She?, the trope of “strong, female characters” has itself become a cliché these days, limiting the scope that female characters are permitted to operate within and presenting a cookie-cutter format to offer a veneer of 'complexity' that requires little true consideration and development. It quickly falls apart upon analysis and critique, leaving a lot to be desired in terms of delivering satisfying characterisation beyond the most shallow “girl power” model.
In skilled hands such characters can become rich, rounded out and compelling (Batwoman as handled by Greg Rucka, for example) just as in unskilled hands already excellent characters can become boring, cliché and hackneyed (the Joker is often a victim of this) but it remains true that there is often a facsimile that is drawn upon that places women in an eternally dominant or resisting position.
The truth is that many women in the world desire a submissive role, not simply as a way of life but as an erotic component of that life. Human sexuality is diverse and varied and being social animals we have traditionally organised ourselves within power structures. It is common that people have natural inclinations towards dominance or submission exclusively, or towards both dependent on circumstances.
It should be noted that a woman who finds herself fulfilled by submission does not ask for less rights within the world - submisson is individualistic not social; the right to vote, reproductive control, to work and pursue education, to name a few of the objectives prioritised by feminism, are not necessarily rejected. Indeed, they often play an integral role in a female submissive's life. A submissive does not see herself as unequal in the world at large; but within her relationship with her Dominant she positions herself as under their command.
The dialogue that frequently surrounds Harley and perceptions of her character and the way in which she operates both adopts and reinforces existing negative attitudes towards submissive personalities that are misguided, if well-intentioned.
In understanding Harley's nature as a submissive, some separation between the active Dominant/submissive dynamic she has with the Joker and the very real abusive aspect must be drawn. This is not done to undermine the abuse but to explore the other aspects of their relationship that get minimised in order to emphasise the abuse. Recognising and naming the abusiveness is an important element of discussing this relationship, but in the process it is often utilised to dismiss or deny the mutuality and consensual erotic components.
It is also utilised to deny Harley's own nature and preferences.
Being a submissive is not a character flaw. Conflated as it has become with female subservience under patriarchy, it has become second nature to view submissiveness as an undesirable state any woman would reject if only she were properly educated and informed - the assumption being, of course, that there is no possible way any submissive woman could already be educated and informed.
Such logic is highly flawed and ultimately condescending. Women choose submissive roles outside of heterosexual relationships, and this is evidenced in Harley's own relationship with Poison Ivy with whom she has a dynamic that is startlingly similar to that which she shares with the Joker.
Women can also be fully actualised beings with complex and independent lives who enjoy taking the submisisve role in their romantic relationships with men. And even if a woman does not have a university degree or a high-powered job and still chooses to interact in a submissive fashion with her partner, to claim she is labouring under false consciousness is to diminish both her experience of her own life and herself as a person.
Kinkphobia is surely an intrinsic element to this attitude. Joker and Harley's dynamics clearly reflect real life Dominant/submissive relationships, in which many people willingly and actively participate. It is a contemporary conviction that these compulsions very natural to humans are undesirable and must be eradicated, regardless of the fulfillment and satisfaction someone may feel in their role.
Interestingly, it is once again a heteropatriarchal construct that villifies kink practices, characterising them as abnormal and an indication of deviance because they diverge from the sanctioned model of 'penis-in-vagina for the purposes of reproduction'. Even in our sex-soaked society, this mode of sex still permeates cultural consciousness and gender bias is demonstrated in the characterisation of promiscuous male sexual behaviour as normal and validating and promiscuous female sexual behaviour as degrading and disgusting. This is yet another reason why, although heteropatriarchal society still deems women inferior and in subservience, kink practices are abhorred: female submissives have ownership over what they are doing and participate in these activities for their own gratification and for purposes other than pregnancy.
The particular human conceit that seeks to place us far above the behaviour of animals also works to deride the enjoyment of inflicting or receiving pain; it has been historically considered to be a psychological disorder to engage in this behaviour, regardless of the consensuality, care and calculatedness with which it is undertaken, unlike examples of abuse and violence.
The intersection between kinkphobia as directed by heteronormativity and sexist gender roles as critiqued by feminism is therefore an intriguing and complicated one that is not easily unravelled but that absolutely dictates the analysis of Harley Quinn as a character from many corners.
Harley, of course, had both a university degree and a high-powered job. Whilst she attained these in dubious manner and for questionable motives, she definitely embodied the qualities considered necessary to 'independence'. Was her undoing by the Joker then a sinister narrative retaliation against female empowerment - a metaphoric re-establishment of the 'natural order of things' as defined by patriarchy? Certainly some have said so, and in a world where sexism and misogyny are still very much prevalent it is understandable as to why.
But as discussed in previous work, Harley's transformation into insanity was actually the event that set her free, eliminated her boundaries and the expectations of a rigidly defined life and enabled her personal liberation. A similar theme is explored in the film Secretary, where the discovery and identification of her submissive nature allows the lead character to find personal fulfillment and happiness.
It is, of course, relevant to point out that that Dominant/submissive relationship has no abusive qualities, although those opposed to kink practices would say it is inherently abusive due to the inability to detach such a relationship model from sexist social constructs. At any rate it is certainly true that, unless carefully monitored by those participating, consensual kinky relationships can sometimes become abusive and an example of this can definitely be seen between Joker and Harley.
However, this reality does not change the fact that Harley's naturally submissive nature positions itself automatically with relation to the Joker's dominant one.
In support of the validity of this nature, an assessment of the gendered behaviour between Joker and Harley is offered:
Whilst a misogynistic culture has ensured violence against women is often interwoven with our very perceptions of women, abuse is not a gender-exclusive issue.
The elements that create an abuser are varied. They can range from experiences of abuse to mental illness to witnessing and internalising as normal abusive behaviour. Victims of abuse can fall across the gender spectrum and be of all ages. Making the abuse between Joker and Harley all about their genders as male and female is ultimately trivialising as well as distracting. It's a smokescreen over deeper exploration and understanding of both characters.
The Joker exists entirely apart from and outside of society; he perceives it in all its hypocrisy and false constructs. He would understand systems of misogyny and how they have created a culture that tolerates abuse against women. Detached from a human life, he is exempt from experiences of internalising these misogynies and consequently enacting them.
At the same time he is a sick and violent person who, because he is so outside of humanity, does not understand how to interact and engage with others, not least because he considers no human worthy of that sort of respect. So when he engages in abusive behaviour, it is never a gendered issue. He is abusive because he is the Joker, not because he is a man in a relationship with a woman.
It is also worthy of note that there has never been any real evidence of gender disparagement in Joker's treatment of Harley. Never has he said such things as “shut up and look pretty” or “I shouldn't have sent a woman to do a man's job”. He has never even called her a “bitch”. He has, however, frequently entrusted her with tasks he clearly considers his male henches to be incapable of. And his verbal abuse of her is not gender-specific: “Moron”, “nincompoop”, “twit”.
On the other hand, when he is being appreciative of her, her femaleness is valued. Then she is a “clever little minx”.
None of this is presented in order to justify the abuse; it is still inexcusable behaviour that must be acknowledged. However it does deconstruct the idea that sexism or misogyny are the root cause of it which further relates to understanding and validating the nature of submissive women and Harley as one of them.
The criticism of women enacting erotically submissive roles involves a prescription and dictating of female sexuality to individual or abstract standards that is uneasily related to the prevalent societal attitude that female sexuality in all its forms is something that has to be controlled and limited. This is the antithesis of sex-positive and feminist ambition and should be avoided. Ultimately, women must be trusted with the idea they are intelligent, aware and perceptive enough to identify their own desires and experiment with them (including making their own mistakes).
Being submissive does not automatically equal being degraded; in fact many submissives find a great deal of empowerment within submission. This is due to choice. Active submission is a consensual and informed choice. Surrendering oneself to the control of another is, for a submissive, an exhilarating, affirming and empowering deed because it is one that is chosen. It is not demanded or imposed. A Dominant has power largely in part because a submissive permits them too. And that, in itself, is an act of power. When you consider how proactive Harley's descent into madness was - her initiative of donning a costume and breaking her Puddin' out of jail, incontrovertibly severing her new life from her old - and how at even that point she was clearly seeing herself in service to him although she was the one directing the action, it becomes clear how Harley exercised her own power to obtain what she wanted and that her position of service to the Joker was one she willingly secured, rather than was forced into.
Like most submissives, though, she wants to serve on her own terms! Compatibiltity is a factor in Dominant/submissive relationships. There are different preferred dynamics and activities that do not always complement each other. Being a submissive is not just being subservient to anyone and everyone just because they might be bossy or fancy themselves as Dominant.
Mutual attraction is still a factor and complementary desires are very much a necessity. Joker and Harley's compatibility was ascertained in the sessions they shared and further established once they took up together in official capacity as Clown Prince and Henchwench. A submissive selects her Dominant as carefully and with as much discrimination as a bride selects her wedding dress. Whilst Harley shifts easily into second-banana role with just about anyone, it is apparent that it often fails to fulfill her, expressed in her inactivity, boredom, rebellion and eventual abandonment - with subsequent return to the Joker, with whom she finds constant excitement and stimulation in the manner particular to her desires.
Her agency in choosing the Joker as her Dominant should not be ignored or disregarded. She understands what works for her and pursues that.
Within the animated universe, Harley did eventually secure submission on her own terms. She got what she wanted, the way she wanted it. Not without Joker kicking and screaming all the way, but in the end she succeeded. This progression has been previously discussed in the Relationship Evolution essay - over time, the Joker rolled over, to a degree. He accepted her intrinsic value to his life and her determination to remain in it. He allowed for her to push him into actually engaging within the relationship - the manifestation of them as a family unit with traditions, pet names, home bases, “babies” and the assumption of a future together. This eventual acquiesence under Harley's persistence reflects the way submissives may exert power in their relationships - a practice known as “topping from the bottom”. Sometimes the Dominant is a knowing participant in this and it is part of the game - and sometimes they are truly unaware of it. The latter obviously indicates how submissives may manipulate within their seemingly-passive roles whilst the former demonstrates the give-and-take inherent to these types of relationships, rejecting the supposition that they are static or rigidly confined.
Another peculiarity of masochistic submissives is the processing and perception of pain. What is tolerable or even revelled in within erotic practice is contrasted again what is unpleasant and unwanted outside of it. Take, for example, Harley's hatred of getting needles with her remark that “you'd think after living with Mistah J I'd be used to a little pain”. Masochism is not the enjoyment and welcoming of all pain indiscriminately; it is often associated with particular experiences, formats and relationships.
Likewise, her comment in an issue of The Batman Adventures vol 2 that she “ain't felt this bad since Mistah J made [her] wear the Pinata suit!” identifies a blasé acceptance of pain as a factor in her life.
Although it must always be assumed that when Harley or Joker refer to violence between them that consensual activity runs concurrent to actual abuse (because whilst it is not always clear every time which it is they are referring to, the distinction has been made on a couple of occasions and the difference remarked upon in a couple of examples by outside witnesses), the easy flippancy with which Harley refers to such examples is indicative that some aspects of it, at least, are normal and acceptable to her.
An aspect of submission that is frequently forgotten is the strength it requires to perform. Handing oneself over to another's control is not in the least an easy feat; it requires trust, both in the other person and in self, willingness and awareness. Submissives are often characterised as weak and malleable personalities but this is belied in an example like Harley who exhibits great force of character, determined pursuit of her objectives and the repetition of her behaviour and nature even when other options are presented to her or she experiments with same.
Again, this self-evident fact of Harley's nature is something that is often argued against: there is the claim her submissiveness exists only in relationship to the Joker and only because in his accompanying role as her abuser he obliges this response from her.
But submission has become evident as her natural state as when she is separated from him she inevitably repeats the same roles and dynamics. Whilst some could argue Harley's submissive nature is a result of her madness, something that occurs in sane people isn't exclusively a symptom. There is weight to the argument that submission is a part of the Harley Quinn identity and not what Dr Harleen Quinzel was, but it is like arguing her back into a white coat behind a desk: its not relevant anymore.
It was Harley's own chosen actions that so decisively separated the two parts of her life; Joker groomed her with the likely intention of having someone on the inside to aid and abet his escapes and possible other favours, he did not incite her to break him out when she did. Whilst Harley could've maintained a double life as his doctor, she chose instead to out herself as insane, joining the ranks of the costumed crazies of Gotham City and altering the path of her life forever. In this manner, Harley actually set up the boundaries for herself, without being dictated to.
And with her turbulent madness, for one thing to manifest so often and uniformly it must be vital. Enough that it appears even when she's willed herself on the road to independence or vowed to be her own boss. Without fail she winds up in the same position. The result can and has been reproduced time and again. It isn't a dreadful thing or a pitfall of her relationship with the Joker as she recites the same script with whomever she's sharing the stage with and it does not always lead to her detriment. More often it lends itself to an opportune atmosphere and definite contentment, none so as evidently as when with the Joker - to whom she returns, again and again, even when other options are viable and characterised as more desirable.
Is it really so simple and superficial as this simply being the vicious cycle between abuser and abusee? Is it really so impossible to comprehend there is greater depth and nuance at work? Is it really giving credit to the character to decide that Harley, in all her complexity and richness, genuinely has no agency, is delusional about the mutuality of the relationship and cannot possibly enjoy its power-based dynamic? Even when her enjoyment of it has been clearly depicted and her nature as willing submissive amply demonstrated?
Indeed, is it not possible that not only did the commencement of her relationship with the Joker lead to her liberation from normalcy and conformity, but resulted in the awakening and realisation of her sexual and erotic desires?
Such an achievement would in itself be a powerful incentive and motivator in maintaining their relationship.
Ultimately, the forging and securing of a compatible Dominant/submissive relationship is fulflling and satisfying for those involved. It meets needs participants have in a validating and affirming fashion. Harley's consistent return to the Joker and how with each reunion she redefines the boundaries that little bit more whilst the D/s dynamic remains nonetheless intact exemplifies that the relationship is one she desires and enjoys. P
rior to meeting the Joker she had an ambition in life that actually excluded partnership. That he was the catalyst for her choosing another path speaks volumes for the strength of the attraction and passion they share, warped though it may be in other ways.
And when everything about her, even her name, is oriented around the Joker and the clown theme, the idea she could be fulfilled submitting to anyone else is untenable. Occasionally she gives it a red hot go, or tries for that much idolised 'independence', but it never works out and she becomes most vital, interesting, compelling and truthful to her own personality - the qualities that drew fans to her to begin with - when operating alongside the Joker. As submissives indicate loyalty through collars, tattoos and brands, so too does Harley in her particularly clown-themed garb. Whilst Harley may not be sexually faithful she's definitely emotionally monogamous. It's not limiting to want to serve when it's a vital part of who you are and the argument that it is itself seeks to limit expression. Service relationships around the world have vast intersections not just with sexuality and desire but with culture, context, family and politics. They are not without intrinsic value and significance.
Or without powerful erotic appeal. And the realisation of consensual sexuality and sexual fantasy is one that is not only significant to many people but one that can play an important role in self-determination and happiness.
As Joker and Harley's relationship has been depicted beyond the confines of a children's animated show, these consensual kink dynamics have been depicted in more and more obvious ways. Even within the show the writers found the means to communicate this element in subtext and it's a subtext that is instantly recognised and appreciated by those whose sexuality is similarly oriented in kink. It has even been remarked upon that the particular structure of the relationship appealed to kinky fans in their formative years, before they even had a language or framework within which to identify it.
In discussing Harley Quinn as a character and her relationship with the Joker, it is just as vital to recognise this genuine submissive identity as it is to acknowledge the abuse. Once again, Harley's very appeal as a character to her legion of fans lies in her relatability - and in her wholehearted embodiment of self as a willing and enthusiastic submissive, she fills a gap often missing from the ranks of comic book characters. Accepting this element of her nature does not cancel out the reality of the abuse she experiences with the Joker; it simply adds another aspect to this complex and captivating relationship and the character of Harley Quinn.