“The heterosexual, lesbian, and more recent “queer” and faerie leather communities descend from the gay male leather traditions…It isn’t that there haven’t been other influences, but that there has been one dominant model, one basic reality against which the rest are measured(Bean, 191)”
Leathermen, as a general term, refers to a community which was established in the in the 1940’s and 1950’s. This community has undergone significant change since its original inception as a hangover from the military. It began to expand in the 1960’s and 1970’s until with the renewal of the South of Market Area and AIDs the community declined. The leather that exists today is the result of the reunification and comradery of the fractured community that was hit by AIDs. Since the capital of leathermen has been San Francisco and that experience is both best documented and parallel to the experiences of leathermen elsewhere this paper will focus on the South of Market Area as an example for the leather experience throughout history.
While this paper’s focus is not on the definition of leathermen it would be amiss to offer no distinction of the term. Therefore for the purposes of this paper leather shall be defined as “a distinctive subgroup of male homosexuals that began to coalesce into coherent communities by the 1940s. . . The leather subculture is organized around sexual activities and erotic semiotics that distinguish it from the larger and more generalized gay male population. “Leather” serves as a marker for a kind of community, a collection of sexual practices, and a set of values and attitudes (Plummer, 183)”. This focuses less on the beliefs of Leather and more on the unity and history of the community.
The origins of Leather:
When servicemen abroad began returning to the United States they brought with them military customs and attitudes. While many men were comfortable returning to the traditional lifestyles others opted to create a unique environment this environment became leather. Many servicemen became used to “The strict orderliness of rank and respect, the intimate comraderie of men sharing life-threatening stress, the comfortable grasp of who was who discerned by what a man wore, and the explosive man-to-man sexuality that evolved in the absence of women who were safe o hump with(Bean, 192)”. These artifacts would not have developed except in the rigorous discipline of the military. The size and structure of the military allowed such artifacts to become customary and familiar. The structure that exists in the leather community is a direct result of the structures and discipline that have been passed down, originating from servicemen. As summarized by RED, “many returning servicemen brought with them to civilian life customs based on military social traditions (Ridinger, 3)”.
Whilst servicemen remain the primary influence on Leather the motorcycle clubs that were becoming popular added to this community. The aesthetics of the Leather image draw heavily from a motorcycle culture and its black leather. “contributing to the expansion of the leather community was the swift rise in popularity of the motorcycle and the proliferation of riding clubs for owners and enthusiasts (Ridinger, 3-4)”. Another author believes that this was an indirect result of servicemen returning home. He believes men translated their motorcycle use during the war to motorcycle clubs in the U.S. “Being assigned a motorcycle meant, if nothing else, a degree of autonomy that the jeep-driving soldiers didn’t know. . . And, if you were on a motorcycle, you had to wear leather protective clothing, whether at war or at home(Bean, 193)”. The Leather lifestyle was expressed by a certain aesthetic appearance. In addition to motorcycle leathers some Leathermen would wear their military uniforms out. As described by Green “Sometimes they wore (despite risky legal situations) their rank-defining uniforms, or depended on meeting up with other guys who knew what insignia they had earned a right to wear (Bean, 192)”. These two different dress codes create an interesting dynamic between the rigor expressed by military uniform and the leather commonly associated with rebellious tendencies. This parallels the Leather community in that while the community held strict internal rules the Leather community was a rebellion of mainstream society and the typical stereotype of effeminate gay men.
As men developed the Leather lifestyle they sought a forum of social intercourse and interaction. As a result Leather bars and clubs began to spring up in increasing frequency. This process is described by Schmidt, “The late 1940s and early 1950s were a formative period, when such me began to congregate with increasing frequency and in greater numbers through private parties and informal networks. These networks achieved a new level of institutional coherence by the mid-1950s with the emergence of leather bars and gay motorcycle clubs (Schmidt, 67)”. These bars gave Leathermen a forum in which to express themselves and their sexuality. Many of these bars sprang up in the San Francisco district of South of Market. The area was originally filled with “wholesalers, warehouses, and service businesses … a working class residential population traditionally occupied the smaller side streets and alleys. . . Its convenient proximity to the major downtown area its comparatively low land values, and its reputation as a slum made South of Market the logical candidate for a massive influx of real estate capital (Levine, 106)”. This prime position would later become problematic as city official tried to “revive” the area. This pushed out the populations which were already residing there. However during the 1950s South of Market remained a darker side of the city. The day oriented nature of the business there and the off beat residents allowed the Leather community to thrive as they received relative privacy. Since there were few destinations for the average mainstream person they had no reason to visit the area at night when the Leather bars were in swing. This environment allowed Leathermen to claim a physical space along with an identity.
The expansion of Leather:
“From the 1960s through the 1980s, the change was one of increasing organization and cohesion, lessening secrecy, and improving networks over ever-increasing geography (Bean, 194)”. Essentially the 1960s and 1970s were the expansion of the leather community through existing networks. This was an era more of cohesion and cementation than it was of evolving concepts. Although the nuances of Leather continued to evolve mildly the community’s ideals and values had already been created. Throughout this era refinements to Leather took place such as the origination of leather chaps,
“The Leathermaker claims to have been the originator of biker chaps, which were first made with a full length zipper on the inside of the leg. I can vouch for the fact that he DID make the first chaps with a zipper on the outside of the leg, because I ordered them from him in 1962, and I still have them. I remember that from those first orders and requests for new items, he began to design and make codpiece pants, hoods, masks and many other leather fetish items (Cuirmale)”.
This demonstrates the overall attitude of the time, in which, individuals would create aspects of the aesthetic that then spread and were adopted by the community. This occurred in the same way in which ideas would likely have been refined as individuals tested them out and experimented with this new community.
More Leather bars continued to open such as the Tool Box in 1962. This bar had vibrant but short popularity as it was pushed out of the spotlight in 1965 by Detour and On the Levee and then Febe’s in 1966(Schmidt)”.As leather bars became more prominent so did Leather in the eyes of mainstream America. In 1964 Life Magazine did a story on Leathermen and emphasized the Tool Box with a double page photographic spread of the interior (Schmidt). “The 14 page article "Homosexuality in America" also brought the leather subculture to the attention of isolated and closeted gays of which one reported he finally got to understand that the "S" or "M" badges people wore, didn't stand for "single" or "married"... (Cuirmale)”. This article brought attention to the community in both positive and negative ways as the article was severely biased it showed that the stereotype often presumed of gay men to be feminine was untrue or at least not universally true. This exposure also allowed the Leather community to further expand. “by the beginning of the 1970s the leather community had in place a framework of social forms used completely or in part in all cities of the United States where a coherent leather-identified gay community had emerged (red)”.
While Leather continued to expand across the United States its home in San Francisco began to be threatened. “redevelopment of the South of Market area had suddenly escalated in the late 1970s after Diane Feinstein’s friendly stance toward development was reflected in an unprecedented building boom and in a marked increase in the pace of ‘urban renewal’ South of Market. Leather bars in old Victorian houses were not suited to compete (Schmidt, 71)”.This occurred in part due o the prime location of the neighborhood and its reputation as a slum (as mentioned earlier). The land was simply undervalued on the market because of its lack of current standing socially. The redevelopment forced bars that had been protected by the slum reputation from standard market values to compete, which they were not able to due. This forced many of them to close.
“Long before AIDs was a factor, conversion to straighter, more respectable, more expensive bars and restaurants was well underway South of Market. AIDs enhanced changes already in progress (Levine, 121)”. Interesting though as the area changed it did not become safer in fact, as the author elaborates, “It is deeply ironic that contrary to stereotyped expectations, the displacement of those “threatening men in black motorcycle outfits” by a predominantly heterosexual street population has made the neighborhood considerably less safe than it used to be (Levine, 122)”. As the more respectable people migrated to the area the brought with them prejudices that caused the environment to be less open than it previously was. This is contradictory to what one might expect because the prejudice against those leather wearing men came from a lack of understanding that allowed mainstream society to propagate a negative image that was based on appearance rather than reality.
A community in crisis:
The AIDs crisis hit the gay and Leather communities in the 1980s and took with it many community leaders. This undermined the underlying social structure of Leather as well as the remaining bars and bathhouses that remained in South of Market. These factors caused a change in the community structure that has altered what Leather looks like as the community was forced to restructure and adapt in the face of crisis.
“An acrimonious campaign in the early 1980s to close San Francisco’s bathhouses and gay sex clubs disproportionately affected the South of Market area, as most of the local sex establishments were closed either by owner initiative or city action between 1983 and 1987… The combination of abrupt bathhouse closures and pre-existing damage from urban renewal were significant factors in the startling collapse of gay South of Market in the mid-1980s (Schmidt, 71)”.
Due to the AIDs panic city officials were trying to do anything possible to stop the spread of AIDs which was at the time not well understood. Since science had not caught up to figuring out the virus many speculations were made and without the refutation of hard science people’s biases were allowed to cloud what was intended to be objective policy. As explained by Blue, “Leathermen were already disdained … Thus they became easy symbols for danger. Moreover, since leathermen were often characterized as more “sexual” than others, it was easy to consider them more prone to exposure to a disease that appeared to be sexually transmitted (Levine, 112)”. In this way vague understanding of the virus were extrapolated into wider beliefs and judgments.
In addition to closing venues education was also a focus of the anti-AIDs campaign. “In general, the safe-sex campaigns were a sex-positive response to the illness [but] …Fisting was a glaring exception. Fisting was still listed as high-risk behavior in many safer-sex guidelines in the late 1980s, long after it had been eliminated as a serious candidate for AIDs transmission (Levine, 113)”. While the sex-positive focus of these campaigns probably had a positive impact the example of fisting demonstrates how these objective guides were not really object. Instead they integrated biases and factual material which makes it extremely difficult for readers to know where the truth really lies. Never the less, this sex-positive approach was likely a better idea than closing bathhouses because it informed people rather than pushing the practices underground. Simply because men couldn’t have sex in public bathhouses did not prevent them from doing it in private.
Despite the efforts of city officials and sex educators the results of AIDs was still devastating and many died as a result of the disease. “The loss of so many individuals created a crisis of leadership. Many positions of power and responsibility were suddenly vacated because of the wave of AIDs morality (Levine, 123)”. This came to change the structures of the Leather community.
The aftermath of the AIDs crisis:
The AIDs crisis caused a flux in the community as old structures had fallen with the sheer number of deaths. This forced the community to develop a new model for interaction and adapt to the changing times. These adaptations have come to create the community that exists today as well the division between “new’ and “old” leather as groups tried to retain old structures with minor modifications or completely redevelop. In either cases leather was altered by the crisis of AIDs, “Formerly the transmission of cultural norms and expectations was largely accomplished through interpersonal contact such as mentoring, friendship, and sexual liaisons. Now many of the experienced men who would have welcomed and educated newcomers are gone. Consequently, men currently coming into leather often get much of their education from books and classes (Levine, 124)”. There simply are not enough mentors left to accommodate the influx of people into leather and so even people who wish to practice “old” leather often learn in a way different and less personal than is traditional.
As for “new” leather it is to say the least controversial and relatively diverse and undefined. This is partially due to its nature of rebellion as individuals attempt to redefine leather into “new” leather in different ways reflective of their own personalities.
“For some men, the introduction of their own favored nonleather material (rubber, spandex, etc.) is all the rebellion it takes to feel they have become representatives of New Leather. Other say switching roles Top to /Bottom, or wearing neo-primitive tattoos, or sporting body jewelry does the trick. Still others say the hallmark of New Leather is that it accommodates long-haired boys, women, lesbians, heterosexuals, or transvestites, or all of the above (Bean, 194)”.
Because each definition represented of “new” leather is so unique it becomes difficult to define it as a category except in terms of its rebellion to “old” leather. While these two categories other leather differ in many regards they are both forms of the same sexuality that emerged I the 1950s.
Through time leather has been created by servicemen returning from war and motorcycle clubs. It has spread and refined itself before being faced with redevelopment of its territorial space and the AIDs virus. In the face of these challenges and undermining of its original institutional framework it has coped in two forms, defined by their reactions to the challenges. “Old” leather has mainly retained its characteristics but has attempted to deal with the loss of life by widening its teaching methods. Although most would mourn the loss of the older interpersonal structure. While “new” leather specifically defies itself in the context of rebellion to “old” leather. The leather community has been forced to change and evolve as it has faced challenges through time. It has refined itself since the original heydays of servicemen who longed for wartime artifices.
Bibliography:
Bean, Joseph W.. Leathersex: A Guide for the Curious Outsider and the Serious Player. San Francisco: Daedalus Publishing Company, 1994.
Cuirmale. "Gay Leather History; Leather as a Gay Fetish." Gay Leather Fetish History by Cuirmale, the Netherlands. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2010. .
Levine, Mp. In Changing Times - Gay Men and Lesbians Encounter HIV/AIDS (Paper). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1997. Print.
Plummer, Ken. Sexualities:Crit Concepts V3. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Ridinger, Robert B. Marks. "Things Visible and Invisible -- The Leather Archives and Museum." Journal of Homosexuality 43.1 (2002): 3-5. Informaworld.
Schmidt, Robert. Archaeologies of Sexuality. 1 ed. New York: Routledge, 2000.
