Views on the Evolution of "Leather"

Re: Your Views on the Evolution of "Leather" by Robert Guenther

(The following is a post by Mr. Guenther that we have been graciously given permission to reproduce. Links and references were not part of that post. Please bear that in mind as you read).

The discussions on whether "leather" is an appropriate term for what we do have been going on at least as long as I have been involved in the scene -- at least since the early 1970s, and probably longer. The people who oppose using "leather" usually take one or more of the following positions: they don't wear leather they don't find leather sexually interesting (it's not one of their fetishes) they don't ride a motorcycle And, in fact, the gay male BDSM community has always had a lot of participants who don't wear leather. And many (most?) straight BDSM practitioners don't wear leather either.



The discussions on whether "leather" is an appropriate term for what we do have been going on at least as long as I have been involved in the scene -- at least since the early 1970s, and probably longer.

The people who oppose using "leather" usually take one or more of the following positions: they don't wear leather they don't find leather sexually interesting (it's not one of their fetishes) they don't ride a motorcycle



And, in fact, the gay male BDSM community has always had a lot of participants who don't wear leather. And many (most?) straight BDSM practitioners don't wear leather either.






The association with leather comes from the motorcycle community (black leather) and the western/cowboy community (brown leather and, more recently brightly colored leathers).
http://www.cuirmale.nl/history/early.htm


Both were viewed as examples of rough, tough, masculine men in the 1950s and 1960s, which is probably what lead to the association of "leather" and "rough
sex."
By the 1970s, "leather" was a code word that could be used in public, mixed, non-sexual places to signal interest in "rough sex," including various forms of BDSM. (And only people who were in the know would understand the conversation if they overheard it.)


There were also code words for other forms of sexual activity that could be used in polite company and publications. I suspect very few people on this list would know what I mean when I say that I'm into French, Greek, and English cultures, but not Roman culture -- but that's how we phrased personal ads back in the 1970s.

http://www.cuirmale.nl/history/fetish.htm

In fact, many men into leather in the 1950s - 1970s didn't own much leather other than their belts and a pair of boots. (Leather clothing was expensive: adjusting for inflation a pair of leather pants in the 1970s cost the equivalent of $400 - $700 today.) Blue jeans (particularly button-fly Levi's) were the flagship article of clothing: they were worn by cowboys, farmers, blue-collar factory workers, and butch gay men (many of whom were doctors, lawyers, managers, and techies) on the prowl.


http://www.cuirmale.nl/history/meeting.htm



Since the 1970s, denim has become fashionable: since everyone wears it, wearing jeans is no longer an indicator of sexual tastes.

The growth in the leather scene since the 1970s has resulted in the fracturing of the community. The men interested in the cowboy/western milieu split off about 20 years ago to form the gay rodeo/line dancing/2-step/square dancing community. Although there's still a fair overlap in personnel with the leather community, most members of the country/western/rodeo community don't consider themselves leather. Only a few historians (myself and Joseph Bean to name two) still consider them part of the leather community.

http://www.cuirmale.nl/history/leatherbars.htm

(Vladislav Schwartz, a friend who died earlier this year once maintained that he got more and better BDSM activity at square dancing fly-ins than he got at leather events.)

Similarly, we now have gay motorcycle clubs (e.g., the various Rainbow Riders clubs) that do not consider themselves to be leather. And most of the heterosexual motorcycle clubs have never considered themselves leather.

http://www.cuirmale.nl/history/magazines.htm


Historically, there was little overlap in membership between the gay male motorcycle clubs of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s with the gay male BDSM groups. By the time I became active in the club scene (the late 1970s), the gay male motorcycle clubs in the northeast were BDSM-friendly, but BDSM (and other kinky behavior) was not their major focus. But they were both "leather."

As the community has grown, we have recognized and named various specialties: Daddy/boy, rubber, puppy play, slave/master, uniform enthusiasts. And, yes, leather fetishists: people who enjoy wearing leather, and seeing other people wear leather, but who don't enjoy the more painful or role-playing activities.

I have no objection to referring to the people interested in BDSM and other kinky behaviors as the kinky or BDSM community. But when you do that, you have to realize that you're building a fence and excluding a lot of gay men who have historically been considered part of the leather community.

And just what is kinky anyway? Is a man (or woman) who enjoys dressing in a French maid's outfit part of the kinky community? What about dressing like a cowboy or indian and playing "cowboys and indians"? Does kinky require bondage? Pain? Role-playing? No matter what definition you pick, you're basically saying "These activities are kinky -- and are part of the community, and those aren't."

As long as you don't take "leather" literally, it is a neutral, non-judgemental term. You're leather if you say you are. So far, I haven't heard of any replacement term that doesn't require lots of explication -- usually missing -- and which doesn't involve personal value judgements.

Bob Guenther Wed Oct 17, 2007