|
Apocalypso -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/26/2009 2:28:55 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist
You said “monolithic grouping” and then spoke of regions. I specifically mentioned the “American leather subculture”. That seems region specific as compared to some branches of British BDSM with school boy roots. Can you expand on what you meant?
I'm specifically talking about the American leather subculture. On reflection, it's possible the term "regions" is Anglocentric. If so, I apologise. What I meant isn't that there are deviations along national lines. I'm saying that it's important to remember that, while there may be some commonalities and generalisations you can make about the American leather subculture as a whole, it's vital to remember that the accepted codes and practises within that depend on what specific part of the US you're talking about. Possibly by state, but also smaller geographical areas. Now, there's obviously some 'bleeding through' that took place between one area and another- sharing of values and practises etc. I'd see there as being two main reasons for that. The first would be that, as the vast bulk of the 'first wave' of leather were ex military that obviously gave them a common frame of reference to work within. The second would be, based on geographical factors as these differences were, crossover was relatively easy. People travel, after all.
As slight tangent, the latter factor strongly differentiates it from the British schoolboy experience you mention. That's actually far more dependent on the British class system than geography. So, I can honestly say I wouldn't know where to start there. Because the BDSMers in question are several socio-economic stratas above me, in terms of background. I only really know anything about those schools from reading Molesworth books. I don't think I've ever met anybody who went to the upper echelon of the private school system. Entirely different worlds from each other...
quote:
ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally
To be honest all we can ever know about is our own lives, our own relationships and how we decide to define them. This forum isn't exclusive to my knowledge, BDSM encapsulates kink therefore they/we/I are more than welcome to post as much or as little as they/we/I like. (sorry dunno whether I have been deemed worthy of posting here or not)
I think you're jumping the gun here. Wanting to preserve the leather lifestyle (which I suspect is where the OP is coming from) isn't the same as hostility to other groupings within BDSM. Actually, a lot of reasons for leather only events are very similar to the ones for U35 munches...
Sure, there's exclusion and arguably elitism from some leathermen. That's hardly one way though. It's also the case that there are far too many people who try to play down the development of leather on US BDSM. I hate to say it's motivated by homophobia, but I'm hardpressed to work out what else it could be. Equally, many, though not all, pansexual events aren't as inclusive as they claim from what people have told me. Bit of a whiff of "we need more bisexual chicks at our events" some of the time. And it's absolutely the case that gay men, and for that matter transfolk, are made subtly or unsubtly to feel unwelcome at some 'mainstream' BDSM events, whatever the official line. That doesn't necessarily justify responding in the same way. I feel it goes some way to explaining it however.
|
|
|
|
