RE: Old Guard? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message


masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/1/2007 11:00:17 PM)

some info i found
www.michaelholeman.com/Vanguard.html


We are here to discuss to what we refer as the Old Guard / New Guard.  But the history of BDSM is murky at best. But can be traced as far back 1000 BC. The Leather B&D Daddy/boy historically can be found long before the Romans and Greeks.  There are anecdotal reports of people willingly being bound or whipped as a prelude to, or substitute for, sex going back to the fourteenth century. BDSM-like behavior can be found in earlier cultures, such as the medieval flagellants. The physical ordeal rituals, of some Native American Societies, and it is a known fact that the Native American Shamans were gay/Bi-sexual.
1740 - Introduction of Black Leather and Chains in sex play, but only as a symbol of B&D and S&M in the dungeons of France and Germany, possibly other countries as well, but Jay and I only have second hand information on these two.

Pre 1914 - In America, Brown Leather was the norm, most likely due to our iconic images of the Cowboy vs. the Indians were stronger. Even though the bad guy dressed in black, we stuck to the brown.  
Some feel that BDSM can be traced back to gay male leather culture, which formalized itself out of the group of men who were soldiers returning home after World War II. (1939-1945).

The New Guard leather subculture is thought to have appeared around 1995 – 2000. However, there was a transition period between 1985 – 1995, where my peers and I would refer to the apparent changes as Old School and New Leather, which rejected the “rigid rules” and exclusion of women and heterosexuals of the Old Guard.

I choose these Dates carefully because in 1977 when I entered the Leather Scene my two mentors Master Jon and Master Mel felt that they were a part a of the New Guard breaking new ground. They received their training in the mid 1960’s as did my Daddy, Jay Hemphill. Master Jon’s training can be traced back four generations.




masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/1/2007 11:12:25 PM)

it must be the poppers, whippits and rum and coke, combined with the thumpty thump of drums and bass, along with urine over ice that has me confused here




Rover -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 8:59:36 AM)

I gotta tell you, Michael's essay is as whacked as you are.  Read it completely to savor the full context of someone who thinks that unnamed "Old Guard traditions" (you both reading from the same hymnal?) developed over centuries, and that the "Old Guard" are now frowned upon because they wear motorcylce leathers into bars.
 
If this is your idea of historical reference material, it's the functional equivalent of using Dr. Seuss as a source for the history of cats.  Interesting reading, but not of much value beyond entertainment purposes.
 
Without question, the most scholarly examination of the history of BDSM is Robert Bienvenue II's dissertation "The Development of Sadomasochism as a Cultural Style in the Twentieth-Century United States"  (http://www.americanfetish.net/sexresearch.us/Home.html).
 
It's a very informative read... you should try it sometime.
 
John




masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 9:14:46 AM)

I got the chance to talk to two fine sash bearers when my leather family was in New Orleans. The conversation turned to what they were going to do during their title year. One responded that he wanted to reach our to more leather folk of color, but was having trouble finding them. His friend echoed the sentiment. I couldn't help but inquire as to where each of them thought they might find more new converts to our lifestyle. The answers; leather clubs, bars and conferences. Were these two young men reaching out to "convert the saved"? I think so. Many of the organizations that are now represented in the leather/fetish family are echoing the same concerns." Where do we find our next leather generation". As leathermen and women of color, that question may be even more important. For too many years there was a noticed absence of non-white faces on the sexually liberated horizon. Although there are many, many more of us than there have ever been before (including clubs and information exchanges that address the needs of non-white leatherfolk) there are not enough new faces being seen. The sexually free leather adults of the 90's are a very different breed than what my generation was. When I came out into leather I was content to learn by the standards of the previous generation. Don't get me wrong, I am proud to be Old Guard. Their hands on mentoring taught me skills, history, pride and honor. But todays generation isn't playing by Old Guard rules. As a matter of fact, they are making up new rules as they go along. 20 Years ago you came out as a bottom or top under the tutoring eye of a mentor who awarded you your leather stripes. The roles were rigid and unquestioned. This generation says "I can be anything I want that feels good. Top, bottom, switch, bi-sexual, fetishist. Why pigeon hole myself. I want it all." And ALL often means things that we hadn't even thought of. We dinosaurs, (myself included on occasion) breathe deeply, and back away shaking our heard and wishing for the good old days. When we are asked to instruct, too often our knowledge comes with the condition of "my way or the highway". The result; less and less young leathermen are asking the questions that need to be asked about safety, skills, who they are, and where they came from. Worse, they are not becoming members of the institutions that have been the foundations of the leather lifestyle. The experiences we so jealously guarded have become main stream. The activities we only did at parties, our new generation is doing on the dance floor. Techniques once only practiced by an accomplished top are now being taught (?) in cyberspace and applied with only the knowledge that comes from books, magazines and chat rooms. There has to be some adjustment here. The previous generation has an obligation to pass on its knowledge, or those that follow will forever be reinventing the wheel. But if we keep insisting that those who come after us do it our way or not at all we too will become fossilized in the leather version of the Tarpits. I started this editorial off because I was worried about the next leather generation of color. Tell me readers, have the very people we seek been turned away from our clubs and contests because we are viewed as inflexible? Do those of us with knowledge and history to pass on (and that's damned near all of us with 7 or more years of experience) take our toys and go home because "We just don't understand THEM". Is it that the New Guard is right under our nose and we are too unyielding and self possessed to realize that these new kids really have some good ideas, they just need someone who will reach out and offer a little guidance. We dinosaurs have to realize that the New Guard is Here To Stay. We better realize it soon or there is a chance that "The Scene" as we know it WON'T BE.




masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 9:16:06 AM)

Always wear boots, butch ones, and preferably black.
Always wear a wide black leather belt plain, not fancy.
Never mix brown leather with black leather.
Never mix chrome or silver trim with gold or brass trim.
Long pants only, Levi's or leather, and no shorts.
Chaps indicate more commitment than Levi's, and leather pants more commitment than chaps, especially when worn consistently.
Leather jackets must have epaulets (bike riders excepted).
Head gear is reserved for Tops or experienced or heavy bottoms only.
Bottoms may not own collars unless a particular Top has allowed that bottom to be the custodian of the Top's collar. A bottom wearing a collar is a slave and belongs to the owner of the collar , who presumably has the keys. Other Tops are not to engage a collared bottom in conversation, but other bottoms may do so. Should such a relationship end, the collar must be returned to the Top.
Never touch the bill of a bike cap, including your own.
Never touch another man's cap ( or head gear) unless you are very intimate friends or lovers.
Keep studs and other decorations to a tasteful minimum unless they happen to be club insignia.
Never wear another man's leather unless he puts it on you.
Leather, other than boots and belt, must be "earned" through the achievement of successively challenging "scenes".
Wearing gloves is reserved for heavy players, glove fetishists or bike riders.
Always indicate SM preference, only with keys left or right.
If you are cruising seriously, wear the keys out; if not seriously, tuck them in a back pocket.
Always indicate strictly leather sex or "rough sex" interest by wearing no keys at all.
Those who "switch" are second class players and not to be taken as seriously because they haven't made their minds up. If you must switch, do so in another town.
"Full" leather is reserved for after 10:00 P.M. only and only with "our own kind".




masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 9:19:37 AM)

Protocol: By definition is “The strict adherence to proper etiquette.” 
By Sir Eric 



What's the difference between Leather and S/M? 

By definition leather is intended not to harm. To always stay in the limits of the submissive or gently push them, while S/M is played to the limit/desires of the Top. What we will be discussing here is the Leather lifestyle. 
  EGO!!! Get rid of it 

Perhaps the biggest thing that can hurt a Dominant (and a submissive) is the ego. If you have the mistaken impression that you know it all you are dead wrong. There is too much in this lifestyle to learn to know it all. The best Dominants, the ones that are held in the highest regard, speak with out ego, and are very, very approachable. This openness that you have when you lack in ego, makes you more ready to learn from all areas, and makes the flow of knowledge open up. This opening of the flow of knowledge will only benefit you as a lifestyler. 



What you see here stays here 

We all have lives out side of this lifestyle; some don’t want it to get out in general knowledge that they are into this kinky lifestyle. So you should never use names when talking about a scene. You can say, “I saw a scene where a person was suspended and flogged, it was beautiful!” You can’t say, “ I was at Harry’s house, and he and Tonya were scene-ding, she was being suspended and Harry flogged her.”
There are some gray areas, such as speaking of someone and their expertise with a particular skill. I would suggest that you recommend that the person either watch a scene or take the proper precautions to do a safe scene with them if they wish to play. This is best done with public dungeons and such. It is never wise to over qualify a person, and never, speak badly of them. Speaking poorly of a person will only look bad on you.



Protocol vs. Dominant style 
Protocol is a very odd thing; in essence it merely means “good manners!” But this is a world where it is ok to do seemingly horrible things to a person, and there are some awkward parts to the lifestyle where you would normally not know what to do, or what is proper. Protocol is merely a set of rules that help you navigate the proper ways of doing things in the lifestyle so that the least amount of feelings get hurt and as a Dominant you have a guideline as how to act. Your style may vary from what other Dominants may do. I allow my submissive to look into my eyes, but in “Old Guard” protocol it is stated that a submissive should never look the Dom in the eyes. It is acceptable to change some forms of protocol that affect only the interactions between you and the submissive, but not between you, and your submissive and the out side world. You can allow your submissive to speak to other Dominants without your permission, but as the submissive don’t get bent out of shape if a Dominant asks your Dom permission to speak to you.

The best reference to help you with this is a military etiquette book or a book on good manners book. (Lady D story) Keeping the idea of military etiquette when reading the military etiquette manual treat Dominants as Officers, and submissive as enlisted.



Where did it all start? 

Referring back to the previous statement that the military manual is a great reference. The beginnings started after World War 2. There was a surge of men who wanted to maintain the military style formalities, and protocol. Quite often they wore leather (biker leather) and utilized the etiquette of the military for formalities and proper rankings and honorific titles. There are actually ranks and status with both Dominants and submissive. this could be a entire website all to its self, s we will leave this as it stands. If you are old Guard (meaning being in the lifestyle longer that 20 years) and you would like to send me your rendition of the beings of the lifestyle and what it means to you, PLEASE DO. I am a very large fan of the lifestyle. not only will I post what you have to say, I assure you that I will more than likely send you e-mails asking you questions if you would allow it.. please e-mail me if you are of old guard and wish to share your knowledge. Title holders and ex-Title holders please send me your opinions and what the lifestyle means to you. 

Other people’s property: NEVER touch/talk to with out permission. (Never use a toy without permission) 

TOYS

If you are looking at a persons toys, resort back to what your parents used to say, “Look with your eyes, not your hands” if you desire to touch a toy… ASK!!! Be sure that it is ok to pick up a toy, some Dominants toys can quickly cross into the hundreds of dollars range and having a bunch of people pawing over them and picking them up is considered VERY rude. 

If you do pick up a persons toys, after receiving their permission, ask before you swing with it or use it on a person, especially if the toy is a present. When a person mentions that they just got the toy, or that they just received it as a gift, ask if it is ok to use it on someone. Traditionally when a person receives a new toy they want to be the first to use it, if they don’t, you should at the very least give them the common curiosity to ask.



Submissive

When a submissive is in strict protocol or service to a Dominant that means, traditionally, that they may not speak to anther without permission from the Dominant. As a Dominant you should always ask if you might speak to a submissive that is with another Dominant before speaking with them. These rules would especially apply if a submissive were on leash.



Flagging 

Left vs. right?? 

History of left versus right! 

There is a widespread convention among S&Mers that certain clothing accessories worn on the left indicate top, dominant or master/mistress, and worn on the right, bottom, submissive or slave. The origin of this convention is uncertain: a picturesque (but by no means proven) origin story goes back to the San Francisco Gold Rush of 1849, where women were so scarce that men had to take a woman's role at social dances, and used bandanas in left or right back pockets to indicate whether they were leading or following that night. 



Body Positioning 

Here is where I am not so much an expert but more so aware of what I have learned. from my previous experience. As I have mentioned the Dominant is in fact the first person to present to the public as an officer would in the military or a parent should. It is my understanding that the reason that the Dominant proceeds the submissive is for protective reasons as well as honorific. 

Protection: As the submissive is in service to the Dominant the Dominant is in service to the submissive. It is the Dominants responsibility to ensure the welfare and well being of the submissive. With that in mind it is believed that the submissive follows behind to be in the protection of the Dominant. 

Also for myself I dictate that at no time should the submissive be unable to put two fingers in my back pocket. The reason for this is specifically for crowds or walking on the street. I would never want my submissive to get separated from me and if there were a person to bother them I would become aware of it immediately!

Honor: The leading of the Dominant is a sing both symbolic and literal of the Dominants leadership of the relationship. The leading of the Dominant is also recommended when in strict protocol so that when meeting another Master/slave relationship you can introduce yourselves properly. 

Honorific titles (They should be given, not taken.) Refer to "Do's and Don'ts" 



Addressing a Dominant/Submissive. (Scene names) 

Lets remember that not all people are out. and when it comes to speaking with someone who wishes to keep there real name withheld please respect there wishes. When using such a name, though please also remember to not go and give yourself a title that you didn't earn!

Meeting in Public

You are in a business or vanilla environment, you see someone you had seen at a public dungeon or play party. What to do? Don't panic. If you have not already met this person in the vanilla world and aren't sure if they are out, you may wish to use phrases like these if you want to talk to them, "Pardon me you look like someone I know, have we met?" or "Do I know you." If they say "NO" then excuse yourself. If they say, "Yes" let them set the ground rules. If you are not "OUT" and you meet someone whom you have seen at a Dungeon or a play party, say, "I don't believe that we have met." this will tell them that you aren't out and don't want to be recognized. 



The types of people 

(Slave, submissive, bottom, brat) 

(Master, Dominant, top, Brat Dom) 

(Switch, Dominant switch, submissive switch) 


Lets keep this all in perspective, lets not go overboard with what we have heard or learned but rather study it and think about what you want to incorporate in to your relationship and what must be there (i.e.: speaking to others submissive, or touching their toys).
  Reprinted with permission of the author.  For more writings and information by Sir Eric, please visit His website at: Welcome to the Manor.

[Mod Note:  email address removed]





masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 9:25:38 AM)

pot/kettle


rover writes articles and belongs to leather groups,   hooray. write another essay

i have realtime/collared slaves... big difference

i apply things to daily life, he reports events he sees or reads about somewhere. rover is 3 years older than me and acts like and expert, calling out names, and abuse, yet in all his expertise, he cannot add to the thread but only degrade it. oldguard exists just as the masons do.

i am not old guard, or any guard, but to say it doesnt or didnt exist is just wrong




masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 9:33:09 AM)

seems like alot to read about for something that doesnt exist




masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 9:35:04 AM)

talk-action=??




masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 9:42:11 AM)

this thread is about old guard, not bdsm. 




happypervert -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 9:54:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover
 
Without question, the most scholarly examination of the history of BDSM is Robert Bienvenue II's dissertation "The Development of Sadomasochism as a Cultural Style in the Twentieth-Century United States"  (http://www.americanfetish.net/sexresearch.us/Home.html).

It's a very informative read... you should try it sometime.


Bah! Who needs a scholarly, informative read when you can become an "expert" by reading websites written by misinformed crackpots?




Rover -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 9:57:13 AM)

First of all, I recognize the Gayle Rubin and Guy Baldwin articles.  I've read them... and re-read them... on many occasions.  I've also read Jay Wiseman, Jack Rinella, Joseph Bean, Larry Townsend, the aforementioned Robert Bienvenue II, and a few others.  You're bringing nothing new to the table, other than a misinterpretation of what others have written.
 
Second, you're obviously not aware of the application of copyright laws as it pertains to reproducing other people's work.  We'll add that to the list of things you either do not know, or do not understand.  Don't be surprised if the Mods delete your posts for copyright infringement.
 
On to the substance of your posts (or lack thereof).  The only list of "traditions" you provided pertain to "appearance", such as the list from Guy Baldwin's article "The Old Guard: The History of Leather Traditions".  And since you chose selective portions of the article (which should be read in its entirety in order to fully understand it and the context in which it is written), allow me to quote the very next passage that appears following the list you provided:

quote:

 
Very  few men maintained  full compliance with all these rules all the time, and some, flatly refused to follow rules they personally objected to.  But, to be included one was expected to follow at least most of these rules most of the time. Also, confusingly, there was some variation in some of the rules depending on what city you happened to be in at the time.


Several observations:
 
1.  The "traditions" you posted were voluntary and not enforced.  Folks adhered to what they personally enjoyed, and ignored the rest.  Much the same as folks do today.
 
2.  The "traditions" differed from place to place, and city to city.  There was no uniformity of "traditions", and therefore nothing that can be identifiable as uniquely "Old Guard".  They are the "traditions" of a single group, in a single city... just as exists today.
 
3.  The "traditions" you provided were exceptionally focused upon appearance, not behavior.  If you want to portray "Old Guard" as a style of dress, that would be a unique interpretation.
 
4.  You have done nothing to distinguish "Old Guard" from anything else (ie: each group engaged in the practices that they prefered without any unifying/universal code/practices/protocols which is exactly how things are done today).
 
5.  You are not the only person who is well read in this subject matter.
 
6.  You do not demonstrate a command of the subject matter itself,  an understanding of its meaning, nor its historical or contemporary implications.  Hence the copy and paste rather than a discussion.
 
7.  I cannot fathom that you have been "trained" by anyone, as you do not demonstrate a desire or ability to learn about topics for which you claim to have reverence.
 
8.  You get easily frustrated and angry.  Perhaps you might benefit from a quieter environment in which you do not encounter differing opinions, or contradictory evidence.
 
John




mnottertail -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 10:03:12 AM)

It is said that William Shakespeare stopped by a tavern on his way about and saw Bacon reading a magazine in the loo---

He commented wryly, Unfortunate he, who is unable to shite without a manual.

Ron

as an afterthought, this is a fast reply and a general comment,  and should it seem that I disagree in anywise with John, that is not the case.




ModeratorEleven -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 10:06:11 AM)

Please stop posting other authors' copyrighted works here.  If you want to reference them, feel free to use excerpts and post a link to the original content.

XI





OldBastardly1 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 10:34:44 AM)

Mod 11, thank you for catching my flame post. I do apologize. This was not the place for that. I did not intend to flame the poor, poor man, but I was overwhelmed with an emotional reaction to what was posted ( in great length ) and add uproarious laughter to the equation and my brain had a siezure that made my hands start typing, while bypassing my reasoning filters.
Again , sorry Mod 11.




Rover -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 12:12:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldBastardly1

Mod 11, thank you for catching my flame post. I do apologize. This was not the place for that. I did not intend to flame the poor, poor man, but I was overwhelmed with an emotional reaction to what was posted ( in great length ) and add uproarious laughter to the equation and my brain had a siezure that made my hands start typing, while bypassing my reasoning filters.
Again , sorry Mod 11.


Yeah, what he said.
 
John




Rover -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 12:20:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterlink65

seems like alot to read about for something that doesnt exist


I cannot believe that you have the mistaken opinion that I or anyone else have denied the existence of what are now referred to as "Old Guard".  That's not true in the least.
 
What I have taken issue with is your portrayal of "Old Guard traditions" as if they are some unified code of traditions/conduct/protocols/practices that are readily identifiable as "Old Guard.  The factual historical record clearly establishes that conduct/protocol/practices differed from group to group, city to city, region to region... just as is the case today. 
 
It is the internet that has created a unified code of traditions/conduct/practices/protocols that are inappropriately attributed to "Old Guard" and for which there is no historical foundation.
 
If you must persist in this conversation (and I suspect that you will), please disabuse yourself of the notion that any argument has been put forth denying the historical existence of folks we currently refer to as "Old Guard".
 
John




BitaTruble -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 8:03:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterlink65

I am proud to be Old Guard.


quote:

ORIGINAL: masterlink65

i am not old guard

 
 
::blinks:: Um, yeah. Okay. And you wonder why people are confused by you. Maybe you should stick to what you know instead of plagerizing the words of someone else then maybe folks won't be so confused by your postings.
 
 
Celeste





masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 8:50:05 PM)

where did i write i am proud to be old guard. i never said or wrote that. i may have done a copy/paste if that is what you read. but those words of i am proud to be old guard were never typed by me.




masterlink65 -> RE: Old Guard? (12/2/2007 8:53:01 PM)

if you read mod 11 post, i was using material i found online and copy/paste it on here, that may be were you had mistaken that from. i was just trying to pass along info on and from old guard.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875