by Randi M. Kemmler

Note: The upper flag is the Leather Pride flag. The flag underneath is the leatherboy/boi pride flag.

What I recognized in reading my writing is how different I was before I understood my own identity. With the guidance of heteronormative American culture, I saw my biology as the all-encompassing answer in how to live. I only understood identity as being “good” if all of my pieces, internal and external, matched what society told me was “right” for a girl. Lacking the vocabulary to discuss differences between sex, gender, and sexual orientation, I spent the first thirty-six years of my life fighting to fit into images of female that were never going to be who I am.

Examining this list and the work I am pursuing in feminist theory and social justice pedagogy, I see just how detrimental external factors can be in individual development. All of the parts of me that had always been categorized as “wrong” or “bad,” leading me to believe that I was unable to be a decent human being, were the parts that other people determined based on “white, male, heterosexual, middle-class, college-educated” language that has formed the foundation of American culture. My search to become “ok” with my looks, my clothing choices, my physical desires, my everything- in effect, all of what makes me my own unique person- led me to a path I could never have imagined, and yet it is only with hindsight that where I am makes perfect sense. It is this moment of my personal life combined with this moment in my educational process that has led me to examine how mainstream social thought that is unable to keep pace with contemporary feminist and queer theories complicates the positive growth and self-identity of biological females who simply do not fit within standard categories of sexual orientation or gender roles, and as a result of mainstream shortcomings, greater effort must be made to incorporate sub-subculture narrative history as a way of legitimizing this experience.

An important part of identity is voice. Voice does not necessarily mean having the physical ability to speak (although it might mean that as the first step in the claiming of one’s voice). Villaverde (2000) offers an explanation of voice as a process where critical thinking about different ideas, emotions, and experiences is utilized to create and produce a collective knowledge. Since there usually are social ramifications to being vocal about non-mainstream identity, as feminist theorists it is important to recognize and support efforts so that subcultures and sub-subcultures continue to find acceptance in the heteronormative community.

I would like to take a moment to talk about culture and subculture. Heteronormative American culture is generally understood to be the values, beliefs, language, etc of white, heterosexual, middle-class, college-educated men. The way I view the first subculture is the tier that is comprised of race, ability, “conforming gender (women),” and gay/lesbian folk (if they fit the “accepted” definition of the terms). In other words, this subculture is comprised of the traditional “second-class citizens” that have some laws (though not necessarily enforced or respected) recognizing their right to not be white, heterosexual men. A sub-subculture would then be those who are further alienated due to additional perceived “wrongness” based on heteronormative ideas. Examples of those who do not fit nicely into the subculture would be bisexual, transgender, non-monogamous relationships, and physical non-conformists (such as cross-dressers, hairstyle, & clothing choice).

Wittig (1992) offers an additional perspective on the idea of sub-subcultures. If a woman is defined by certain socially agreed upon characteristics then when those characteristics are rejected by an individual there is confusion in how society ought to respond to the person, as well as how the person defines themselves within society. For example, a “butch lesbian” embraces attributes that are assigned to men, but maintains biological status as woman. Does the butch lesbian seek to be a man? Or does the butch lesbian seek to be something society has yet to comprehend? Either way, the challenge to societal norms puts forth the idea that there is more to gender identity than man and woman or not-man and not-woman. The implication here is that the either/or way of thought is not sufficient, but because American society operates primarily in this way, those who do not fit either/or are yet further marginalized. An examination of the history of feminist theory is useful for critical thought in the creation of the sub-subculture system as well as how to create new discourse in feminist theory to address the needs of the sub-subculture.

In Third World Feminism, Sandoval (1991) offers a concise history the hegemonic model of feminism in the United States. Using the works of several authors, Sandoval defines the phases of feminist taxonomy. Phase one, or feminine consciousness, is the time in history when women are more cognizant and beginning to write about cultural achievements of women in order to prove equality of female culture to male culture. It is also a time where women were focused heavily on minimizing difference between the sexes and sought out the common denominator(s) of both sexes. Phase one generally did not challenge existing cultural concepts, but rather sought to humanize women. Sandoval summarizes this phase as “women are the same as men.” (p. 9)

In the second phase, the rejection phase, women reject male-defined culture and actively illustrate the differences between men and women. In this phase women are victims of male-dominated society because their inherent differences have been overlooked. Phase two seeks to remedy the overall quality of a woman’s life by seeking out the history and foundation of women prior to the phase one writers. This phase is focused on understanding the historical challenges and conditions that women faced, and creating culture defined as defined by Marxist theory to provide women a more accurate picture of their place in the world. This phase focuses on women’s differences from men and how those differences require a society that was not entrenched in male-dominated values. Sandoval summarizes this phase as “women are different from men.” (p. 9)

Phase three, the female phase, takes a drastic turn from the first two by simply refusing to self-define based on the concepts of male culture or men in general. This phase examines women as individuals with a unique essence from men, providing a new set of experiences, and where men are now perceived as “other” in the dichotomy. Phase three recognizes that men and women may have different world experiences, and in fact, this phase posits that women may have a different culture altogether from men. Sandoval summarizes this phase as “women are superior to men.” (p. 9)

Another part of feminist history to be examined is the language that has been in use for almost half a century to understand that nature of men and women. There are four “isms” as defined by Grosz (1995): essentialism, biologism, naturalism, and universalism. Historically, these terms have provided the foundation for understanding cultural values as well as offering guidelines for the development of heteronormative and feminist theories. Because this terminology has been integral information of theory, it is important to understand the language in order to be aware of and challenge educational hegemony prevalent in the United States.

Grosz (1995) defines essentialism as “the belief that those characteristics defined as women’s essence are shared in common by all women at all times” and references the idea that women have a fixed essence based on their “natural characteristics.” (p. 2) The implication of essentialism is that a woman cannot act in a way that is contrary to her nature. The problem with essentialism, in my opinion, is that when a woman acts in a way that is dictated by her nature, but contrary to the social definitions of what it means to be a woman, we are perpetuating the cultural mandate that “deviation from the perceived norm is bad.”

Biologism is a part of essentialism that mainly focuses on women as defined by their physical being only. According to Grosz (1995), biologism is a theory that is often used to limit what women can do. This theory asserts that the biological differences of women imply a lack of social ability and is then used to create limits on what women may participate in culturally. Because this theory perpetuates the idea that women are always weaker than men, sweeping generalizations might be made to imply that all women must always be emotionally and physically weaker than all men all the time.

Naturalism is a part of biologism, but draws on theology in addition to biology in order to ascertain the role of women. Naturalism justifies biologism through the use of “God-given attributes that are not explicable or observable simply in biological terms.” (Grosz, p. 3) This theory espouses social position as a function of biology, again perpetuating hegemonic principles that men are superior to women.

Universalism is primarily focused on what attributes all women have in common. This theory may encompass the teachings of essentialism, biologism, and naturalism, but goes beyond the physical to include social understanding of women’s roles. Universalism seeks to define the function of women across cultures and find the qualities of sameness that are applicable to all women. (Grosz, 1995)

The problem with the phases and “isms” as presented by Sandoval (1991) and Grosz (1995) is that there is the pervasiveness of an “us/them” dichotomy used to think about and understand gender roles in society. Returning to the concept of the sub-subculture, the language of “one or other” is not always able to encompass the actuality of female identity. An additional result of the either/or culture is that to not be one or the other implies a choice to rebel against that which is deemed good and right. If a person then is viewed as choosing an unacceptable alternative, there is actual or perceived fear of alienation, rejection, exclusion, and confusion by potentially everyone- including immediate family.

Anzaldúa (2008) offers frank discussion of how culture is made by men, and how she recognized at an early age that there is a steep price for being different, but that the payout in the long run is ultimately worth it. Men have the power, men make the rules and laws, men are the head of the family. A woman, in the Mestiza culture, is a nun or a whore, is a wife or a prostitute and is the subservient tool men use in order to disseminate the rules they create. She expresses her confusion about role responsibilities when recalling how the mothers would tell their children in one moment that she would never allow them to be mistreated by anyone but in the next moment they were being told to do as the men said and this training in modes of duality created an either/or mentality that resulted in the same heteronormative thinking prevalent elsewhere- simply that if you were not conforming to all parts of your assigned role in society, you were a deviant.

Anzaldúa creates a picture of the moment a person becomes aware of the limitations of either/or theory and functionality. Wittig (1992) names this moment is defined consciousness of oppression. “Consciousness of oppression is not only a reaction to (fight against) oppression. It is also the whole conceptual reevaluation of the social world, its whole reorganization with new concepts, from the point of view of oppression.” (p. 18) Members of sub-subcultures experience the world in such a way that requires a re-examination of socially accepted norms because not to do so potentially creates a reality where their very life might only be understood as “not normal,” “wrong,” or “bad.” Those individuals who have not come to understand their identity as a part of a sub-subculture may find themselves in a constant state of searching for who they are, feeling disconnected to society, depressed, or any other of a number of negative attitudes about self-worth.

Another way to discuss the perceptions of sub-subculture members is through the concept of disidentification. Muñoz (1999) looks at disidentification as a strategy that is employed when a person does not see themselves reflected as a part of the mainstream consciousness. As a result, members of the non-majority parts of society learn how to effectively operate within the social norms in order to make system changes from within. In the process, cultural hegemony is challenged and transformed. An example of how this works would be having students call a teacher by their first name, or asking “why?” in order to encourage discourse on topics and themes often taken for granted by the normative majority.

In the search for identity, how does one understand who they are as a part of a sub-subculture if the recognized means of discussion do not generally offer sufficient language? How do we have a conversation about people who operate beyond the plane of either/or in such a way as to be accessible to a society hegemonically programmed to operate in binaries? Muñoz (1999) offers the language of fiction as a possibility of the production of self. “The ‘real self’ who comes into being through fiction is not the self who produces fiction but is instead produced by fiction. Binaries finally begin to falter and fiction becomes the real…[which] then becomes a contested field of self-production.” (p. 20) Thus, personal stories and experience must not be discounted as legitimate knowledge in the construction of sub-subculture history, experience, and identity.

Scott (1991) looks at how knowledge, language, and experience work together to allow historians to create a framework in order to do history. Scott supports personal experience as a vital part to uncovering the stories of the past but recognizes the need for critical examination of the lenses that people have when recalling their own histories. Additionally, Scott emphasizes that historians must also be aware of their own lenses when critically analyzing experiential accounts. In order to explore history and get a better framework of those pieces that are outside of the “norm” historians need to be able to see history as the narrator of the story sees it. When historians are able to begin to understand the different constructs of the experiences of the narrator, then history, as presented by heteronormative standards, is better able to be critically challenged by those members of sub-subcultures. Quoting Spivak, Scott (1991) supports narratives as “legitimate discourse” because history creates the “social and structural positions of people…and these terms define a collective identity with potential political…effects” [while] literature provides people an opportunity to pull apart the process that creates the various identities. (p. 791)

“Women who are into leather constitute a sub-community within a subculture. For that reason–and more likely, because of its innate macho nature–the contributions of women to the leather community have long been overlooked. For most, images of muscle-bound leathermen dominate the social dialogue and the image of who’s into leather–and who’s not…we are responsible for collecting and honoring our own histories…we are the ones who need to do it.” (Erbentraut, 2010)

It is important to recognize that there is a good deal of respected male-generated literature in the Leather community. The need to create a space for women in Leather in no way diminishes the contributions of male authors. Rather, this is about broadening the resources of Leather History to include those people who are not as widely represented. Women in Leather History is about opening a book or logging on to a website and seeing people who look like me. Isn’t this the foundation of so much of minority history- the demand to be respected and treated with dignity within the greater society, the knowledge that there are others who are similar in beliefs and values and in way of life? So how then do we create a space for the sub-subculture to document their stories? In a white, male-dominated society, alternative sexuality writing on GLBT topics tends to be considered more “legitimate” than those writings which delve into the sub-subculture of BDSM.¹ As a result, personal narratives as discussed by Muñoz and Scott must be considered as “legitimate” in the foundation of women’s Leather History.

Leather journey’s for men and women have one thing in common. No two Leather-folk follow identical paths. There are, however, some generally agreed upon truths that can be applied to the Leather community as a whole. Twelve truths are succinctly listed by boy Vincent L. Andrews (2008) in the leatherboy Handbook, of which six are listed here: “1) Leather is a cultural lifestyle with rules and respected boundaries; 2) All Leatherpeople love and cry. They have emotions that are shared with each other just like any other cultural group; 3) The Leather community is made up of professional career people such as doctors and lawyers just as much as people who do not have such degrees or professions. One is no better than the other in our eyes or views; 4) Leather is beyond penetration. Meaning, it has nothing to do with intercourse; 5) There is a difference in between the gay and the straight leather dynamics and how their communities operate, and 6) The Leather community raises millions of dollars every year for a wide variety of charity needs across the nation and around the world.” (p. 45)

Within those generally agreed upon truths, however, there is a great variation in how Leather is “done” as a culture or as a community. Jack Rinella (1999) talks about this in his article examining The Myth of the Old Guard. He states: “Life is never as pre-calculated as “historians” want us to believe. Human culture grows by ebbs and flows, by trial and error, by ideas rejected as well as accepted. Groups have more or less formality, greater or lesser structure, few or many guidelines. In the long run, life, and hence living groups, are evolutionary, developing style and tradition, manners and mores, by what is seen as necessary, expedient, profitable, or convenient. That’s not to say that one “Master” won’t do it one way and another quite differently. One may line up “slave protocols” ad nauseam and the other may quite firmly demand that everything be loose and laid back.” So, if there is indeed such a varied way to exist within the Leather community, it makes sense that the personal narratives of those living within it be deemed important in the understanding of sub-subculture history.

A significant part of the Leather journey generally involves working with mentors or guides (I will use the term Top here simply to signify the one leading and will thus refer to the mentee as the bottom- simply meaning the one following at this moment) for specific tasks, general Leather knowledge, learning protocol styles, or any number of other agreed upon skills or skillsets. It is quite possible that the Top will have the bottom utilize journals as a part of the growth and learning process. “slaves/students sometimes want to know why I require journaling or other substantial writing from them (because I said so:). I have given several reasons because there are several (at least, and some yet undiscovered I’m sure). I know that writing/journaling can be breadcrumbs, markers, retrospect, and that actually having to go through the motions of writing forces one to think about and examine themselves in a different way. I can add to that list that it improves my Mastery. I am able to look back ten/eleven years at slave/student journals, and see what I could have been doing better or differently, and apply it now to any current situation.” (Mistress Khiki)

This type of self-narrative is extremely helpful to understanding the psychology of the process as well as for future Leatherfolk to connect to thought processes that may help them better understand their own journey. This is no different than slave narratives from American History, the stories of World War II Holocaust survivors, early feminist thought, or GLBT arguments for equality. Women in Leather is another piece- another narrative that needs a place in society. Women in Leather must have their own history recognized as a part of and yet separate from “mainstream” Leather history. “We are not all alike. If it weren’t such a taboo to discuss, we’d understand that better. The key to diversity is not cramming everyone into the same box. It is allowing everyone to pursue their own needs and their own liberation. Wisdom recognizes that those will not always be the same and that when you try to represent everyone, you soon cease to represent anyone.” (Davolt, p. 230)

In thinking about my own place in the Leather community, I find myself reflecting on the journey of a lifetime. I recall being in junior high school and begging my parents to send me to a military academy. I craved structure, guidance, discipline, and uniforms. I was tired of clothes being a popularity contest. My hairstyle was the least of my concerns, and make-up was never a part of my agenda. I wanted to be able to take pride in my appearance, to have a set of standards to live up to, and a system of measurement in place that would allow me to meet and hopefully exceed those standards. As I got older, through high school and on into the early 1990s, I found myself comfortable in my jeans with a tucked in shirt, simple web belt, and shorter haircut. Many of my friends and family did not understand the pride with which I wore my Domino’s Pizza uniform.

Looking back, I’m not sure I understood the pride either. But I have come to realize that each of those pieces of my youth was a part of me that simply is Leather. When I was instructed to read The Leatherboy Handbook, each page I read that discussed the life of a leatherboy, the attitudes, the uniform, the basic structure of what makes us tick…did I say “us?” You mean there are more people in this world who operate from the same basic principles as I? That was an amazing moment for me. In fact, I cried. I finally found out that I was not alone in my identity. I discovered a language to help me express what had eluded me for so long.

I also recall how my concept of family was very different from many other people. Having been adopted (into a less than stellar home-environment), I always had a feeling that family had nothing to do with where you were born or who happened to exist under the same roof as you growing up. Family was also not defined by a common last name, the blood that you shared, or the other people in that same bloodline. I decided early on that family was who I choose it to be. Never knowing that there were others who thought this way too, and frustrated by the years of trying to make other people understand that my thought process couldn’t be wrong just because it was different, imagine my surprise when I discovered an entire community with families consisting of a variety of people who choose and define their relationships with each other. Davolt says it well: “…the variety and diversity of SMBD relationships make a powerful statement to the world. Our contribution to humanity- straight, monogamists, polygamists, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgendered or questioning- is to forever redefine and expand the concept of family, who can form a human union and how much power church and state should have in those very personal decisions.” (p. 68)

In her article titled Next Generations and Leather History, Catherine Gross addresses the value of exploring history as well as the dangers of being too entrenched by history. Gross believes that history as a resource is valuable so long as it is utilized as an educational tool helping a person leading the life they so choose. History also serves a valuable purpose in helping people feel connected to something larger then themselves, and may also serve to provide people with thoughts and ideas that may help them make better decisions in the moment as well as assist people in forward movement.

According to Gross, a pitfall of being entrenched in history occurs when there is a glorification of the past and the people studying it become trapped in the present- afraid to move for fear of not upholding the “greatness” of those who came before. Another obstacle with Leather history is that there is a tendency to get swept into the fairytale of how “it” used to be done and that only by following a specific roadmap can one achieve a successful path in Leather. This is where the usefulness of personal narratives about individual journeys is helpful in understanding that there is no one right way to “do” Leather. It is all of these journeys that make the collective history meaningful and important- just as all of the journeys of those who explored America or sailed around the world each contributed their unique parts in the creation of world geography. It was not always exact, but each new piece provided useful and important information to the knowledge base.

I have been thinking a lot lately about the differences in generations of leatherfolk. There is much to do about the old guard[1] and an insistent interest in what was before what exists now. I think an interest in the past is healthy and intelligent. Careful study of history may allow us not to reinvent the wheel. Learning from those before us is an important part of our history that is without dispute how many people, past and present, have come to their current knowledgeable status.

At times, I hear people assert they wish to learn specific skill sets or more about “protocol.” It’s as simple as asking, how do you do it? How do you manage your relationship? Do I believe these aspects of relations were discussed by those before us? Certainly, however, I think teaching rarely happened in such a segmented manner. If you asked to learn, rarely would it take the form of just learning how to handle a whip or learning how to speak to a slave to exude power and surety. I believe teaching was more holistic in some groups.

This is part of the legacy of the old guard. It’s my belief that the old guard passed on standards and values to those they taught. I am not alone in this belief as Jack Rinella put forth in his Partners in Power book. Many of us have heard this story before– the belief in honor, respect, integrity, etc. I won’t debate if that was true or not. It’s my belief that there were people of good standing and ethics. There were also people who exhibited no integrity whatsoever. Time hasn’t changed leatherfolk in that aspect.

But what does a generation who teaches the next generation offer when they are teaching personal standards and values? I believe they offer a path that sets the tone for the generation that comes after the generation they are teaching. They set the tone for the next generation of students to be taught well in a similar manner. I believe this happens because when you teach a generation about who they are, what they may be, and give them ethical standards to live by, you will give them a path to happiness through self-knowledge and personal compassion that reaches outward.

In teaching others, you create an atmosphere of gratitude. Gratitude is a giant giving force. It is a strong motivator. This motivator will enforce the desire to continue on the path taught, it will also lead that generation to teach the next generation. Those who are grateful for what they are given will pass such gratitude onto the next generation.

This feeling of gratitude is a cornerstone of knowing you owe a debt. The concept of debt for learning from those before you was most certainly a value for some of the old guard. It is one that is well warranted.

If the next generation focuses on learning implementation only and not learning standards and values the emotional impact of SM may be diminished.

By Catherine Gross (2004-2008)

[1] I use this term with the understanding that those before us certainly never used the term Old guard. This term was given to older generations to more clearly discern generational differences.

As someone who identifies as a new soul on the Old Guard path, I value the history that is already available. As a woman who identifies as a leatherboy (the female spelling for boy), I am excited to learn from the women in Leather who have come before me. As a female who challenges just about every aspect of heteronormative culture simply in my daily existence, I am hopeful that my story will one day be a part of the narrative history and will be useful to someone, somewhere, at some time, for something positive. Ms. Gross concludes her Leather History article with the following: “ Your obligation is to live beautifully now.  Your obligation is to set free the new and fresh ideas that come from your experience (or lack thereof) and boldly go where no sadomasochist has gone before.  I dare you.” To Ms. Gross I simply say- I accept.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, V. L. (2008). The Leatherboy Handbook. Las Vegas: The Nazca Plains Corporation.

Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.

Davolt, R. (2003). Painfully Obvious: An Irreverant and unauthorized manual for Leather/SM. Los Angeles: Daedalus.

Erbentraut, J. (2003-2010). The Women of Leather: Bringing a Sub-Subculture to Light. Retrieved Dec 3, 2010, from Edge: http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=102313

Gross, C. (1997 – 2009). Next Generations and Leather History. Retrieved Aug 8, 2010, from BDSM Classes: www.bdsmclasses.com/artnglh.php

Gross, C. (2004-2008). Passing on Debt. Retrieved Dec 7, 2010, from BDSM Classes: http://www.bdsmclasses.com/pod.php

Grosz, E. A. (1995). Sexual Difference and the Problem of Essentialism. Space, time, and perversion: essays on the politics of bodies . NY, USA: Routledge.

Khiki, M. (2010). Writing: In a Nut’s Shell. Retrieved dec 3, 2010, from Wicked Little Things: http://www.wickedlittlethings.com/Writing-InaNutsShell.html

Muñoz, J. E. (1999). Disidentifications: Queers of color and the performance of politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rinella, J. (1999). The Myth of the Old Guard. Retrieved dec 3, 2010, from Ambrosio’s BDSM Site: www.evilmonk.org/a/rinella.cfm

Sandoval, C. (1991, Spring). US Third World Feminism: The theory and method of oppositional consciousness in the postmodern world. Genders , 1-24.

Scott, J. W. (1991, Summer). The Evidence of Experience. Critical Inquiry , 17 . Chicago, IL, USA: The University of Chicago Press.

Villaverde, L. E. (2000). Feminist Pedagogy and Activism. In N. M. Rodriguez (Ed.), Dismantling White Privilege: pedagogy, politics, and whiteness. New York: P. Lang.

Wiseman, J. (n.d.). An Essay About “the Old Days”. Retrieved dec 3, 2010, from Ambrosio’s BDSM Site: www.evilmonk.org/a/wiseman11.cfm

Wittig, M. (1992). One is not born a woman. In M. Wittig, The Straight Mind and Other Essays. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.