Rose's Thorns.

OraclePollon​(sub female){NotYours} - Though I get it. I often wonder of this is not very microPatriarchial in nature. No women even involved in BDSM. Just another boys club deciding what submissives... and females... want.

Of course I agree with time. I often don't think you need to pretend to be a submissive to be a Dom. Instead learn how to gain perspective without being forced to walk in their shoes. When you force someone to walk the submissive line, that seems to me to only bring around resentment, pity, or negativity that comes from negative energy going into it.

Just a thought of course. Like all things, it had its purpose.

rosethorn​(sub female) - Thanks Oracle. It would be interesting to see if there is a lesbian history of this too. Im not sure.
The time this was created only men served in the military, no woman. So i think it was a little by default.

I think it opened up around the 50s/60s. But outside of the military service community, i think it was open to most, but was often found in the gay community areas by default.

There are many Doms who are curious what it is like for a sub and choose to give submission a go so they can experience it and it better inform there practice. There was a time this was normal and no one was considered 'less' Dom by doing it. It creates a lot of respect for the vulnerability it requires. And of course by choice, it was like if someone did rope training. Was another piece of leather someone could choose to learn, but most choose to. (Thinking after military opening up time)

When i say in the military, it was almost a code of conduct thing. It wasn't acceptible to be gay at that point in time and was a way of ensuring safety, trust and respect in each other. Thankfully that's no longer the case.

If there are any historians out there your input would be appreciated. Im thinking of post military but still it was still leather.

Thanks.

Max Heathen​(other male) - Just curious here but is there submission training that starts out as a dominant?

Madame Eire​(dom female) - Wonder why the statement is always the Dominant must be a submissive before they can be a Dominant to fully understand what the submissive goes through, why is it never a sub must be a Dominant first in order to better understand what it is like for the Dominant as they Dominate. It is of benefit for both sides to understand the position of the other, but this can be done without either side having to practice the opposite position first. From experience I have found either side is highly capable of "breaking" the other, there are poorly trained/educated Dominants just as there are poorly trained/educated submissives. When issues arise it is not always due to the fault of the Dominant, submissives can be equally at fault. I have to disagree that to be a good Dominant or even a Dominant one does not have to be a submissive first, if you are a resonsible individual who takes the time to learn, train and educate yourself, along side engaging in best practice then having to be a submissive in order to be a Dominant is moot.

simplylaura​(sub female){djinni} - Oooh Leather. One of my favorite things to talk about. I'm a member of my local Leather community and actually hold an office in the Denver boys of Leather (a group of self-defined Leather boys. I identify as a boi- a butch female submissive and count these people of all genders as my brothers). In the past Leather was primarily gay men and then lesbians because it was how we stayed safe and had filthy sex. One thing we talk about is kind of the "myth" of the Leather scene. People hearken back to it as the Old Guard because we tend to look at history through rose colored glasses. As Wakko said, this came out of necessity, not necessarily out of desire. Sure there are houses that start with dominants on the bottom who work their way up, but there is truly no right way to do Leather. Much of the structure that people see as Leather comes ouf of the book The Leatherman's Handbook, by Larry Townsend. He basically defined the structure of his Leather house and many people have used it to define the structure of their houses.

To address the patriarchal nature of Leather, I disagree. And that is as a dyed in the wool radical leftist feminist. It may look that way from the outside and there are men who may uphold ideals that make it that way (there are for sure misogynist and transphobic gay men), but true (and I use the word "true" with extreme caution) Leather people are extremely open. Like I said, I'm a cisgender woman and hold a ranking position in a Leather club, and know that to be the case in most Leather clubs. There are some groups that are both misogynist and transphobic, however events like International Mr. Leather have had multiple transgender winners (and these dudes are fucking HOT). International Ms. Leather hasn't had any trans winners to this point, that I'm aware of, but it's honestly a struggle to find woman competitors. Apparently the men prefer to show off much more, lol.

Colorado has a very mixed Leather scene, and we are lucky for that. There are lots of female Leather dominants, heads of households, etc. Denver's Leather bar is also very woman and trans friendly, which has not always been the case. In short, by all means seek out your Leather community and join! I think people tend to view the Leather community as kind of a monolith full of structure and protocols and rules, but really we're a bunch of perverts who like filthy sex and cow hide.

OraclePollon​(sub female){NotYours} - I find it contradicting when you call it "radical leftist" but then admit that it does exist. Only to then show your bias by saying "It hasn't happened to me"

Otherwise, I do agree with your points and you have a ton of great info on the subject. Thank you.

rosethorn​(sub female) - Really interesting reading all of your points of view and input, thank you xx