This month brought to mind one of the questions that I find my self pondering now and again. Which leather is it anyway? We talk about leather-thegear, and we talk about leather-the community, and the two are not always in sync with one another.
Why this month? Because I had the pleasure of participating in one and coproducing another rubber event. On two adjacent weekends, the Hotlanta Rubber Group and West Coast Rubber offered the Mister Southeast Rubber/Hotlanta Rubberman in Atlanta and the West Coast Rubber weekend in Los Angeles. If you haven't tried playing in rubber, you really ought to. It's one of the sexiest things you can wear, and whatever your body type, it will only make you look better, and feel better. Whether you like tight gear, or loose, there is rubber gear that will fit you the way you want your sextire to fit. It is just simply hot hot hot!
Do I sound like a rubberman to you? It's funny, at each of the contests I have run for Mr. Regiment, Los Angeles Leather, and American Leatherman, I was asked effectively the same question: "Are you a leatherman or a rubberman?" This is the source of the questions I asked above. Why must I be either? If the leather community is defined by what we wear and that requires leather gear, are people who wear denim included or excluded? It's interesting how people will talk about inclusiveness in the leather community until they meet someone who wears a different fetish.As it happens, I am involved in organizations that gear themselves toward no less than five different fetishes/kinks: leather, bondage, bdsm, rubber, uniforms. Am I not a Leatherman because I have these various interests? Then why ask me if I am one at a contest. It's also interesting that we have many who define Leather as including these various kinks, but then gasp if you should express them in the context of a leather contest. Can International Mister Leather ONLY wear leather? Can American Leatherman never wear a uniform?
It's particularly interesting that we seem, as a community to make exceptions for uniforms, and not perceive them as less Leathery than leather, yet, should someone wear a rubber uniform in a leather contest, he or she is immediately disregarded as not being appropriately attired.
My personal opinion is that we shouldn't be talking about the 'leather' community. It has too many constraints which inhibit its reasonable use. It is often perceived as referring only to gay men, frequently not including women in the process. It often excludes those who have other gear fetish pleasures. And, it often creates a wall between those who are BDSM players from those who are simply into gear sex.
This is why I created OpenKink with no specific reference to leather or any other kind of gear or specific type of activity. Kink generally does not have a close association with sexual orientation, and it embraces gear and play together and separately.
Is a bar a leather bar if all the patrons are in jeans and t-shirts? Is a man a leatherman if he never wears leather but throws the wickedest whip west of Wyoming?
Think about it...
Alex - I agree with you on so many levels on this. I think we loose people when we only refer to it as leather. I try to use "leather" and "kink" interchangeably. While much of the groups and things started as Leather or even more specifically motorcycles today we are a Kink Community that must encompass leather, rubber, pups, bdsm, uniforms..... This community needs to be inclusive men, women, trans, gay, bi, straight.... At the same time we all need to realize that we need our own space and it is not bad to say this is a "gay men's event" or a "men's" event or....
ReplyDeleteThese kinks are not about being politically correct as that will kill them.
Hey Sean - Exactly my point... I don't want us to water down the kinks that we have by trying to be all inclusive in everything that we do. We just need to remember the power that words have and choose our terminology carefully. When we have a glaring ambiguity like the way we use the word leather, we, on the one hand undervalue the participation in the 'leather community' by non-leather wearing kinksters, and on the other hand, devalue the sexiness of leather as a fetish by giving it a more generic, neutral meaning.
ReplyDeleteGreat points, guys. I think you have to 'define your definition' from the context it is being asked in. As much as we love inclusiveness and the desire to have all kinky people feel comfortable, no matter how small their specific community might be, we have to also realize that specific kink communities will still on occasion want to affiliate with their own. However you don't want to ostracize those kinksters on the fringe, the 'pan-kinkuals', or those that are 'kink-positive' but not participating. They are important to any specific community as well. You certainly have to choose your terminology carefully, Alex.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I've heard again and again that leather is 'losing members' because it is so rigid in the definition of what a leatherman (or person) is. I always thought this was why rubber was so more inclusive -- simply because it hadn't really been yet defined what a rubberman (or person) is and the opportunities were still completely fluid. However I've discovered that it's simply in the context of the person who is asking...no two leathermen will give you a textbook definition of what a leatherman is because it means something different to each of them. I haven't met a leatherman yet who would not interact with a guy because they weren't wearing leather. Maybe they're out there but I haven't met them yet. I mean, how could you be so limiting in your own perspective, especially being a kinkster? Especially in this day and age when anything goes?