RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=-

RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Apocalypso -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/28/2009 5:23:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact No, Bita, it's not a Leatherman's board. However, like it or, we're part of those who frequent these boards, just like anyone else. Our ways do work for us. Otherwise, we'd be doing something else. I agree with LadyPact. Not all threads interest everyone. And you get it with kink-specific threads all the time. But nobody goes round claiming that this "isn't a breathplay board". Seriously, if you aren't interested in the leather lifestyle in any way, do what I do with threads I don't care about. Ignore them and find something that interests me. Speaking personally, I'm not leather and I have no intention of becoming so. But it still interests me, both theoretically and historically. And, from what I can see, not one of the 'exclusionary elitist' leather people has told me my lack of involvement means I shouldn't be allowed to talk about it. It's the 'inclusive open' people that don't think I should be able to discuss a BDSM related topic that interests me. Funny, no?

slaveboyforyou -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/29/2009 10:17:05 AM)
quote: Funny, no? I'll tell you what's funny.....it's grown adults forming up into cliches or clubs and acting like teenagers. When I hear someone into a certain kink ranting about "posers," I want to smack them. I mean for fuck's sake, are you still in the 9th grade? It's a kink, it's not physics. There is no right or wrong way to do it, I don't give a fuck what people call themselves. When someone starts these occasional rants about what "leather" is, I just roll my eyes. You know what leather is? It's the skin of an animal, generally a mammal.

ResidentSadist -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/30/2009 12:06:31 AM)
Thanks for expounding. While every subculture has its minor regional variance, there is always a unifying commonality that bound it together to identify it as a separate ‘sub’group . . . or it wouldn’t be a ‘sub’culture in the first place. I meant for the generalizations I used to apply to the point of the OP about “Dom/sub/etc” verses plain old “kinksters” or “swingers” that enjoy some “leather sex”. The point being that someone who enjoys sex (w/leather) doesn’t have try to fit into a relationship role position and immerse themselves in the leather lifestyle to enjoy their passion. There is plenty of room in this BDSM forum for honest posts about kinky sex with leather, latex or etc. When those posts turn into leather lifestyle advice from swingers posing as Doms/subs etc, then perhaps a heads up for the troll bait newcomers interested in the spirit of the leather lifestyle is in order. quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso 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...

ResidentSadist -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/30/2009 12:21:03 AM)
Without specific details of what they are into, there is a pretty good chance they are just plain old kinky! With 106 paraphilias and most “aberrant” sexual passions being accepted as kink, the kink community is a pretty big umbrella. You can be dominant w/o being a lifestyle Dom. You can be submissive w/o being a lifestyle sub. Which was the whole point of the OP. You can like leather sex without having to be in the leather sex community or lifestyle. quote: ORIGINAL: Whiplashsmile4 Question? What if somebody ain't Leather and ain't a Swinger? Where does that leave them in the framework of things?

petmonkey -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/30/2009 1:01:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist 106 paraphilias quote: Thank you for this link.

ResidentSadist -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/30/2009 1:14:43 AM)
This list is ever changing and we are losing major paraphilias quickly. Homosexuality is gone and now sadism and masochism drop from the list. I guess as a sadist, Im not kinky anymore! I didn't count the ones in that link but this one has all 106 for sure. http://residentsadist.com/rsdraft/bdsm-kink-list.html quote: ORIGINAL: petmonkey quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist 106 paraphilias quote: Thank you for this link.

petmonkey -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/30/2009 1:42:43 AM)
mumbles, "So that's what it's called . . ."

allthatjaz -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/30/2009 2:55:27 AM)
I don't get this 'leather stuff' but then I am English and the 'leather families' in the UK tend to be Americans that have come over here to liberate us! I think the spanking fraternity in the UK tend to come (especially the men) the old boys private school but the BDSM as far as I am aware from historical readings came from the invasion of the Romans. Looks we have been at it a long time!

MsMillgrove -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/30/2009 4:28:34 AM)
Hoping i am clear on eveything now... It is officially ok for me to be a lifestyle dominant, and I can use a leather flogger. But I cannot say that I am in the leather lifestyle because I am not part of a group which uses the proper protocols, rituals, recognizes a hierarchy and knows the history and traditions of "United States Leather". I hope this is true because I don't sign notes "yours in leather", tho I receive them and I also don't wear a uniform, because the only organization around here that wears uniforms restricts the ranks to gay men. Altho I am matriarch to my family and have protocols, rituals and our own traditions, and I've researched about the Old Guard, we don't call ourselves "leather"... so I assume we are conforming correctly to the official proclamations of the OP. Would have liked the original post more if it had been about distinguishing differences between tops/bottoms or fetish players and those who chose a d/s lifestyle.

BitaTruble -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/30/2009 5:35:11 AM)
quote: No, Bita, it's not a Leatherman's board. However, like it or, we're part of those who frequent these boards, just like anyone else. Our ways do work for us. Otherwise, we'd be doing something else. Eric does actually have a point. One of the first lines that some will tend to use when trying to coerce others into thinking they have more knowledge or experience than they really do is to start proclaiming that they are leather or old guard trained. Naive or uneducated people eat this up. They become an easy score, and are forgotten in no time. Granted, there are people in the leather community who do this as well, but more often, it's a case of someone that nobody in the actual leather community has never heard of. It's just a line some people use to get laid. I won't speak for Eric, but it tends to tick Me off. Himself earned his cover a long time ago, LadyPact, and we've been involved in the leather community for several years. UPEX was my idea, my baby and the documentation for the UPEX organization I founded along with Himself, Chris and a few others is part of the Leather Archives and I started it because I have a leather mindset and am living a leather lifestyle, so far be it for me to discourage or disparage anyone from the life I love so well. I was just pointing out that 'this' site is not that narrow. Nothing more, nothing less. As for the naive or uneducated eating up the bullshit.. well, in my opinion, they taste best with ketchup but some weird folks like mayo or mustard, so it's all good. ::chuckles:: If it's in their blood, they'll figure it out. Nothing wrong with a little trial by fire. MMV

Andalusite -> RE: -=Leather sex does not mean “leather lifestyle”=- (7/30/2009 8:02:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Maybe we could term it the same way as some folks have with poly. The example being that there's a difference between poly and poly fuckery. The same could be said for leather lifestyle and leather fuckery. Personally, I don't see "poly fuckery" as polyamory at all, more of just another term for some form of consensual non-monogamy/open relationships. I'd be rather offended if someone tried to insist I was practising "leather fuckery" because I didn't meet their idea of D/s or M/s or whatever. When I was looking, I was open to an egalitarian kinky relationship (as a top, bottom or switch, involving S/M and bondage) or a D/s or M/s relationship, on either side of the whip, depending on how I connected with the other person. In general, I don't consider myself particularly "lifestyle" oriented, but I haven't had a vanilla relationship since I was 20, and have no intention of doing so. BDSM is important to me, but the specific way it is expressed within the relationship is not. ResidentSadist, I have no interest whatsoever in swinging, and don't consider it to be directly related to kink (there are some swingers who are also kinky, and a lot more who aren't). I'm not into casual sex, whether or not it's kinky.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02