Layers of Leather

This article was downloaded by: [ ]On: 05 December 2011, At: 22:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of HomosexualityPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

Layers of LeatherChad M. Mosher MCoun a , Heidi M. Levitt PhD b &Eric Manley MEd aa Counseling Psychology program, University ofMemphis, USAb University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

Available online: 17 Oct 2008

To cite this article: Chad M. Mosher MCoun, Heidi M. Levitt PhD & Eric Manley MEd(2006): Layers of Leather, Journal of Homosexuality, 51:3, 93-123

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n03_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n03_06

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Layers of Leather:The Identity Formation of Leathermen

as a Process of TransformingMeanings of Masculinity

Chad M. Mosher, MCounHeidi M. Levitt, PhD

Eric Manley, MEd

The University of Memphis

ABSTRACT. Leathermen form a gay male subculture that eroticizesleather dress and symbols. This investigation examined the relationshipof participants’ leather identity to their gender and sexual identities. Inaddition, the participants described their process of leather identity de-velopment, and its meanings and purposes. Six self-identified leather-men participated in semi-structured interviews that were subjected to agrounded-theory analysis. The analysis suggested that leathermen de-velop a unique form of masculinity, integrating care and vulnerabilitywith an aesthetic of heightened masculine appearance. Flexible inter-actional scripts allow for gendered signs to be enacted, designating a so-cial status that is not recognized by the mainstream gay community.Findings are discussed in relation to previous research on gay male

Chad M. Mosher, MCoun, and Eric Manley, MEd, are both doctoral candidates inthe Counseling Psychology program at The University of Memphis. Heidi M. Levitt,PhD, is Assistant Professor at The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Correspondence may be addressed: Dr. Heidi Levitt, Department of Psychology,Memphis, TN 38152 (E-mail: [email protected]).

The authors would like to thank the participants of this study for their contributionto sexuality research.

Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 51(3) 2006Available online at http://jh.haworthpress.com

© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J082v51n03_06 93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

masculinity, gay community, sexual identity formation, and internalizedhomophobia. doi:10.1300/J082v51n03_06 [Article copies available for a feefrom The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:<[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Leather, sexuality, masculinity, gender, gay, sadomas-ochism, subculture, qualitative, grounded-theory, identity

LAYERS OF LEATHER:A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

OF THE IDENTITY OF LEATHERMEN

Leatherfolk can take a conscious and active role in continuing theunfinished sexual revolution, but we may need a period of inwardsearch and growth. We may need to form a new leather under-ground, which should not be confused with the old gay closet. Thisis already happening in response to the loss and restrictions ofcommercial leatherspaces in cities such as New York, Chicago,and San Francisco. We should be inward enough to refocus ourspirit and sexuality, but not so ingrown that outsiders can never be-come insiders. Otherwise we’ll end up with plenty of privacy andno public world at all. (Tucker, 1991, p. 12-13)

Studies of sexuality often treat gay culture as a homogeneous group,failing to address differences between different gay subcultures (e.g.,Damon, 2000). The diversity of gender expressions within the gay malepopulation is just beginning to be explored within the psychological lit-erature (e.g., Manley, Levitt, & Mosher, 2003; Broido, 2000; Taywa-ditep, 2001). This manuscript explores the distinction made betweensex and gender in which “sex” refers to a biological construct signifyingone’s male- or female-ness, and “gender” has traditionally referred to aconstruct composed of socially assigned qualities that signify one’sfemininity or masculinity (Unger & Crawford, 1993). To date, this re-search on the experience of gender among gay men has tended to focuson gender role conflict (Simonsen, Blazina, & Watkins, 2000), explor-ing whether gay men are conflicted about their gender due to theheterosexist stereotype that being gay is in opposition to being mascu-line.

94 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

Gender roles can be defined as sets of behaviors, attitudes, and per-sonality traits that a given culture during a period of time designates asmasculine or feminine or as appropriate for male or female social roles(Ruble & Martin, 1998). Gender-role conflict has been defined as “apsychological state in which gender roles have negative consequencesor impact on a person or others. The ultimate outcome of this kind ofconflict is the restriction of the person’s ability to actualize their humanpotential or the restriction of someone else’s potential” (O’Neil, 1981,p. 203). Two empirical studies have examined the psychological conse-quences of gender-role conflict among gay men (Ervin, 2003; Simonsen,Blazina, & Watkins, 2000). Simonsen and his colleagues associatedgender role conflict with anxiety, anger, and depression. Conversely,lower gender role conflict and lower levels of internalized homophobiawere found to be predictive of overall psychological well-being for gaymen (Ervin, 2003).

In addition to this research, however, the authors of the presentmanuscript contend that it is equally important to understand the mean-ings that gender holds within gay cultures and the influence of theseevolving understandings. Making this same point, Peacock et al. (2001)charged that psychologists often fail to recognize the degree to whichthe sexual behaviors of gay men are rooted within gay subcultures andin doing so fail to understand the meanings that are constituted by thisbehavior. One such marginalized subculture, leathermen, has been leftout of the psychological literature on sexuality and masculinity almostentirely. After World War II, leathermen organizations have been influ-encing gay culture both politically and socially , yet misunderstandingsof this subculture abound within heterosexual and homosexual media(see Ridinger, 2002, for an historical account of this subculture’s devel-opment).

Leathermen subculture. Peacock et al. (2001) describe leathermen asa subgroup of gay men who eroticize leather garb or symbols, and whotogether form a leather social network or community and practicingleathersex. Although studies have not tallied the prevalence of leather-men within the gay community, repeatedly the community is describedas holding a marginalized status within the larger gay culture (Peacocket al., 2001; Ridinger, 2002; Tucker, 1991).

Leishout (1995) documented the sexual behaviors of leathermen inthe Netherlands. His descriptive account conceptualized their activitiesas outside of the norms of the gay culture within Holland, for instance,meeting at public rest areas along the highways of Holland. He attributedthese aberrations, largely to their marginalized status, yet made little

Mosher, Levitt, and Manley 95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

mention of the way the leathermen themselves constructed their identitywithin the larger gay community or the ways this identity might influ-ence their nonsexual experiences. Nevertheless, his work gave voice toa previously underrepresented subgroup within the gay community.

In an ethnographic study conducted in Stockholm’s leather commu-nity, Graham and Litt (1998) found that while leathermen identified asgay, their leather identities were marginalized from both the gay cultureand the larger Swedish culture. Their data were collected in the one gayleather club in that city. The authors described how the leather club re-lated to the larger gay culture in Sweden, particularly with respect toerotic interactions and the creation of erotic bodies. Specifically, theleather club created their own gathering places, such as bars and meet-ings spaces, within which the leathermen could express and attract theirunique forms of eroticism. Such gathering places were separate fromother gay male organizations and meeting spaces, which marginalizedand isolated the leathermen. According to Graham and Litt (1998), theleathermen expressed their sexuality and erotic values with a unique setof codes and rules; the specifics were not necessarily documentedwithin their study. Both the creation of eroticism and the formation of aclub separate from other gay organizations contributed to the club mem-bers’ leather identities. To date, however, we are unaware of any empir-ical research focused on North American leathermen and the process oftheir identification as leathermen.

Sexuality and identity. Reviews of the psychological literature onsexual identity development have suggested that much of it is basedupon either an essentialist or constructionist foundation (Broido, 2000;Mosher, 2001). From both theoretical bases, the sexual identity forma-tion process has been thought to include stages in which individualscompare their own sexuality with external norms and practices. Al-though early models of identity formation placed the coming-out pro-cess at the apex of the experience (e.g., Cass, 1982; Troiden, 1988),subsequent models have suggested that coming-out is an ongoing pro-cess, and that additional social factors influence the identity formationprocess (see Carrion & Lock, 1997; Mosher, 2001).

Little attention has been paid, however, to identity formation withingay subcultures. The anecdotal literature suggests that a variety of pro-cesses may be at work. Tucker (1991) described a “second coming”process, whereby gay and lesbian leatherfolk come out first as non-heterosexual, and then later as a leatherfolk. For him, this identity pro-cess was linear, though both his sexual and leatherman identities wererooted in the same early childhood experiences. In contrast, Thompson


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

(1995) considered leathersex and the practice of sadomasochism(S/M)within leathersex to be a form of spiritual transformation brought aboutby the assumption of new physical and erotic expressions. Althoughboth anecdotes suggest that leatherfolk experience a transformativeprocess via their interest and engagement in leather sexuality, empiricalresearch has been needed to further explore influence of this subcultureon sexual identity formation.

Gay male masculinity. Pleck (1982) described gender roles as socialconstructions created from and reinforced by the social expectationscommunicated by parents, peers, teachers, social institutions, and themedia. Regardless of their sexuality, not all men can achieve the mascu-line standards within their culture, despite their biological status as“male” (Mintz & O’Neil, 1990). Herek (1986) posited that the constructof heterosexual masculinity refers to success, toughness, aggressive-ness, independence, and dominance, and does not include that which isfeminine or homosexual. From this perspective, gay male masculinityhas been defined by what it is not rather than what it is and gay men aredenied access to masculinity by definition. These exclusive gender rolesare thought to have assumed hegemonic force that discounts gay men’smasculinity and male identity (Hopcke, 1991).

In leatherfolk cultures, symbols of leather accentuate hypermas-culine forms of sexuality (Hopcke, 1991; Tucker, 1991). For instance,masculine features, such as large muscles and male genitals, often areemphasized and eroticized via leather. This eroticization of particularsymbols of masculinity might be expected to lead to specific subculturalunderstandings of gender. Still, the meanings of these gender enact-ments have not been explored, nor has their relationship to gender-roleconflict.

S/M and leathersex. Most of the psychological literature on sadomas-ochism explores its evolution from early childhood, typically from apsychodynamic perspective (e.g., Stolorow, 1975). Historically, mas-ochism has been understood as fundamentally a female condition. The-orists such as Freud (1928) and Kraft-Ebbing (1963) understood normalfemale sexuality as inherently masochistic, as it was thought to be pas-sive and welcoming of painful experience. Although much time haspassed since theorists such as Horney (1924) and Reik (1941) began at-tempts to shift the etiological understanding from developmental neuro-sis to the social attitudes that define female sexuality, today masochismis still linked with psychopathology and associated with the female gen-der (see Caplan, 1987 for a discussion of the dangers of the proposedpersonality disorder by this name).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

Sex researchers have found as well that masochism appears only insocieties that are extremely complex and heavily reliant upon symbolism.Prior to the eighteenth century there is little evidence of masochism, al-though there are records of homosexuality, prostitution, masturbation,adultery, transvestism, coprophilia, and beastiality. Gebhard (1966)proposed that masochism develops within cultural environments thatcontain dominance relationships whose dynamics begin to infiltrateall spheres of life, including the sexual sphere, producing masochisticrelations. Other theorists tie the development of an individualistic selfto masochistic desire (Baumeister, 1989; Baumeister & Butler, 1997).“Historical evidence suggests that sexual masochism proliferated whenWestern Culture became highly individualistic. This could mean thatcultural emphasis on the autonomous, individual self increased the bur-densome pressure of selfhood, leading to greater desires to escape fromself masochistically” (Baumeister, 1988, pp. 29-55). Although this bodyof work emphasizes the social construction of selfhood and masochisticdesire, it does so without reference to specific gay subcultural forcesthat might be at play.

Although sex within the leather community is not only constituted ofsadomasochistic practices, they are strongly associated with this com-munity. Jungian analyst Hopcke (1991) posited that S/M appealed tosome gay men because it allowed for a “right-of-passage” into mascu-linity and into manhood. He wrote that gay men use S/M to help themreintegrate into a disenfranchised body. Although he thought all menwere alienated from their bodies by social pressures to be masculine,gay men suffered additional alienation and physical separation due tosocietal homophobia. It has remained to be studied why and how certainsets of sexual behaviors are classified under the rubric “leathersex,”however, and certain cultural meanings are ascribed to these behaviors.

Study Objectives

The primary purpose of this study was to learn about the meaning thata leather identity held for self-identified gay leathermen. Within the ex-amination of the leather identity, a secondary goal of this study was toexplore the ways gender was conceptualized within this group. Finally,this study sought to give voice to an underrepresented subculture withinthe gay community and perhaps clarify misperceptions about leathermen,and their identity, sexuality, and gender roles.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

METHOD

Participants

The research team consisted of the three authors, each of them whoare interested in understanding the dynamics within gay and lesbiansubcultures, and who are gay- or lesbian- identified themselves. All par-ticipants lived in Memphis, Tennessee at the time of the interview, al-though many had experienced being leathermen in other cities as well.Criteria for inclusion included identification as a leatherman and as agay man. Participants reported their age, occupation, ethnicity, and sex-ual identity demographics (see Table 1). The final subject pool includedvariation in age, occupation, and sexual and leather identification. Di-versity is desirable within qualitative research, as it allows for the devel-opment of a model encompassing a broader range of experiences (seePatton, 1990 on maximum variation sampling). Despite efforts to re-cruit non-Caucasian leathermen, the final group of interviewees is Cauca-sian, reflecting a general lack of diversity within the leather community inMemphis.

Procedure

Participant recruitment. The participants were recruited throughseveral techniques. Local leather organizations were contacted viae-mail and mail, and announcements were made at club meetings. A“snowballing” method was used, in that participants referred other par-ticipants to the study. Local gay, lesbian, and bisexual community orga-nizations were contacted via mail, and were asked to post or distributeadvertisements for the research study. This study also was advertised onpersonal, local leatherman web pages on the Internet. The participants


TABLE 1. Demographic Information (N = 6)

Demographic Information Range Mean

Age 28-61 44.33

Strength of identification with leatherman identity 6-10 8

Age that I came out to myself as gay 11-47 24

Age that I came out to myself as leatherman 21-47 32.33

Importance of being a leatherman (Scale 1-10, 10 = Very important) 4-10 7.66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

were drawn from the local communities within Memphis, which is amid-sized city that has an active gay community, but one that tends to bemore closeted than in more metropolitan cities. Social gatherings andmeetings tend to occur within a designated bar that also caters to thegeneral gay community. Members of the leather community participatein leather events held in other cities and are connected to the nationalleather movement, however, and this broader context may be expectedto influence their experience of their identities in addition to the localcontext. Participants were offered $20 for their time.

Interviewing. Interviews were conducted either on campus or at anagreed upon location, and were approximately 90 minutes in duration.Interviews were tape-recorded with the informed consent of the partici-pant. All interviews were conducted by the senior author, who wastrained in qualitative interviewing technique and took care to avoidbiasing participants’ responses.

The main question of the interview was: “What does being a leather-man mean to you?” Prompts were used, as necessary, to ask participantsto clarify the identification process, reactions from the heterosexualworld, relationships among leathermen, their sexuality as leathermen,and their understanding of leatherman masculinity.

Grounde-theory. The analysis was conducted using a grounded-theory approach. Within this inductive method, credibility is estab-lished largely through the rigor of induction (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).It is an inductive approach, named for its ability to develop theory“grounded” in the reports under investigation. This initial form ofgrounded-theory was selected for use (as opposed to Strauss & Corbin,1990), on the basis of Rennie’s (2000) argument that it is the most co-herent approach philosophically. Memos were kept throughout the re-search process. These memos served to help investigators be aware oftheir assumptions and limit the impact of biases, to keep record of pro-cedural decisions, and to record theoretical ideas for discussion withinthe research team.

The senior author segmented the interviews into “meaning units,” orunits of text each of which contained one main idea (see Giorgi, 1970).All meaning units were assigned a label summarizing their content. Allmeaning units were compared with one another to develop categoriesbased upon commonalities, using the process of constant comparison(see Glaser & Strauss, 1967). After initial categories were composed,those categories were compared with one another in turn, and higher-order categories were created that represented commonalities betweeninitial categories. Then these higher-order categories were compared


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

with one another, and in this fashion, a hierarchical structure of catego-ries was created.

Within grounded-theory method, “saturation” occurs when the addi-tion of new data does not lead to the creation of new categories. At thispoint, the hierarchy is considered complete and data collection is halted.In the present study, saturation was reached after the sixth transcriptwas entered. New categories did not emerge during analysis of the sixthtranscript, which indicated that the analysis had reached saturation andwas thorough.

Credibility Checks

This study included three forms of credibility checks, which gave theresearchers the opportunity to assess the accuracy of their analysis. Allparticipants were asked at the conclusion of the interview a set of ques-tions to check the thoroughness of the interview procedure. Specifi-cally, participants were asked “if anything wasn’t asked” that theinterviewee thought was important in understanding what it meant to bea leatherman. They were also encouraged to comment on their experienceof the interview, the interviewers’ style, and whether there were any re-strictions on what they disclosed due to the researcher’s non-leathermanidentity. This procedure allowed the interviewer to learn any informa-tion that might have been held back or missed so as to include it in theanalysis. Overall, the participants reported feeling comfortable in theinterview process and thought the interview was thorough.

Second, the primary investigator met regularly for a period of oneyear with a research team to discuss the categories being generated.Consensus of findings is one way to establish credibility in qualitativeresearch as it suggests that interpretations are upheld by a number of dif-ferent people. In the case of conflict, the interpretations of the senior au-thor were prioritized, as is coherent with the hermeneutic analyticapproach utilized (see Rennie, 2000), as he had both the lived-experi-ence of the interviews and the experience of attending leather meetingsand events as part of this research. The other authors offered sugges-tions on interpretations based upon their readings of the data and posedquestions based upon their own experience researching other gay sub-cultures (e.g., Levitt, Gerrish & Hiestand, 2003; Levitt & Hiestand,2004; Levitt & Horne, 2002; Manley, Levitt & Mosher, 2003) and thesecond author acted as the methods advisor for the project.

Finally, in order to provide a further check on the resulting hierarchy,feedback from the participants of the study was sought after the comple-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

tion of the analysis. The results were summarized and the participantswere asked to read the summary and assess it by responding to a seriesof questions. Two interviewees returned these questionnaires. Whenasked if they thought the summary of findings accurately reflected thetypes of experiences discussed in the interview, both respondents re-ported “7” (very much) on a 7-point Likert scale. When asked if theythought the summaries contained contradictory information, both re-spondents circled “1” (Not at all).

Two other participants gave verbal feedback to the primary inves-tigator about the analysis after reading the summary. Similarly, thisverbal feedback suggested that the participants strongly endorsed thefindings. One wished to stress that leather people were also engaged inthe non-leather gay community and the second wanted to stress thatsome leathermen may find more support within leather communities inlarger cities than in their local leather group. They all thought the sum-mary captured their experiences and they did not find any finding con-tradictory.

RESULTS

From the six interviews, 398 meaning units emerged. These meaningunits were arranged according to common themes and meanings, whichresulted in 19 “categories.” These categories were grouped, in turn, intosix “clusters.” A core category, that emerged from the analysis of theseclusters, formed the apex of the hierarchy (see Table 2). In this section,these clusters will be described in turn, followed by a description of thecore category.

Leather as a Vehicle for Communicating Sexual Roles and as aMeans of Sexual Efficiency. For many of the participants, finding a part-ner was thought to be easier as a leatherman than as a gay man, becauseleathermen were “up front” about their sexuality. Leather pieces, suchas leather vests and chaps, and symbols, such as colored handkerchiefsand handcuffs, helped the leathermen attract partners with compatiblesexual interests by signifying their desires. Some participants thoughtleather facilitated discussion with non-leather gay men as well, as theyexpressed intrigue about leather culture and initiated conversations onleather roles and sexual practices.

For some of the participants, wearing leather garb served as a way toinitiate sexual fantasies. Sexual persona, such as “Daddy” or “Boy,”had meanings specific to this subculture and were most commonly


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

TA

BLE

2.T

heE

ndor

sem

ento

fClu

ster

san

dC

ateg

orie

s

Clu

ster

Titl

eE

ndor

sem

ent*

Cat

egor

yT

itle*

End

orse

men

t

Leat

her

asa

vehi

cle

for

com

mun

icat

ing

sexu

alro

les

and

asa

mea

nsof

sexu

alef

ficie

ncy

6W

earin

gsy

mbo

lsin

dica

tes

my

sexu

alro

le3

Leat

her

help

sm

eco

mm

unic

ate

my

iden

tity

and

my

sexu

alde

sire

s3

Mar

gina

lity

inbo

thco

mm

uniti

esal

low

sfo

rfr

eedo

mfr

omco

nven

tion

and

grea

ter

self-

dete

rmin

atio

n4

Fee

ling

free

from

both

gay

and

hete

rose

xual

conv

entio

ns2

Leat

her

unifi

esm

ym

ascu

linity

and

my

sexu

ality

4

Fre

edom

toch

oose

my

expr

essi

ons

ofm

ascu

linity

and

sexu

alro

les

3

Fle

xibl

ein

volv

emen

twith

inth

ele

athe

rco

mm

unity

2

Fin

ding

apl

ace

atth

ega

yta

ble:

Bel

ongi

ngto

abr

othe

rhoo

dpr

ovid

esse

lf-co

nfid

ence

and

ase

nse

ofva

lue

4A

ccep

tanc

efr

omot

her

leat

herm

enin

crea

ses

my

self-

conf

iden

ce3

Fin

ding

mut

uali

nter

ests

and

valu

esam

ong

othe

rle

athe

rmen

6

Bel

ongi

ngto

anin

terc

onne

cted

netw

ork

brot

herh

ood

6

Acc

eptin

got

hers

beca

use

Iam

acce

pted

4Le

athe

rman

com

mun

ityce

lebr

ates

inte

rper

sona

lcl

osen

ess

betw

een

men

:E

mph

asiz

ing

trus

tand

loya

lty

4Le

athe

rco

mm

unity

prov

ides

apr

otoc

olfo

rco

mm

unic

atio

nbe

twee

nle

athe

rmen

3

Leat

her

netw

ork

enco

urag

esin

terp

erso

nalb

ondi

ngan

dsu

ppor

tbe

twee

nle

athe

rmen

4

103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

TA

BLE

2(c

ontin

ued)

Clu

ster

Titl

eE

ndor

sem

ent*

Cat

egor

yT

itle*

End

orse

men

t

Nur

tura

nce

and

vuln

erab

ility

mad

esa

feth

roug

hex

chan

ging

pow

erin

scrip

ted

sexu

alro

les

3E

xcha

ngin

gpo

wer

and

cont

roli

nle

athe

rse

xual

ity2

Mas

culin

ityan

dnu

rtur

ance

betw

een

men

expr

esse

dth

roug

hle

athe

rid

entit

y3

Tru

stan

dvu

lner

abili

tyas

aner

otic

and

sexu

alle

athe

rex

perie

nce

2

Leat

her

isa

sym

bolo

fmy

tran

sfor

mat

ion

into

man

hood

:int

egra

ting

mas

culin

ityin

tom

yga

yid

entit

y5

Leat

her

isa

way

tobe

mas

culin

ean

dga

y5

Leat

her

role

sar

ean

expr

essi

onof

mas

culin

ity4

Sho

win

gm

yto

ugh

appe

aran

cein

leat

her

2

Sym

bolo

ftra

nsfo

rmat

ion

into

man

hood

:fe

elin

gpr

oud

tobe

mal

e3

*The

num

ber

ofpa

rtic

ipan

tsou

tofs

ixw

hoco

ntrib

uted

toth

iscl

uste

ror

cate

gory

.

104

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

described roles in these interviews, although they did not always struc-ture the leathermen’s relationships or sexual encounters. These types ofroles signified the power relationships desired within sexual interac-tions by consenting adults and did not represent biological relation-ships, but instead communicated a desire for a dominant or submissivesexual role. “Master” and “Slave” personas were also described, thoughthe interviewees openly acknowledged that such roles were adoptedfrom sadomasochistic sexuality and were not as grounded in leathersexas “Daddy” and “Boy” were. “It is all about the connection that happensbetween . . . older men and younger men, even if the one of them is pre-tending to be older or younger” (Interviewee 04). In these fantasies, thepersona adopted signified different levels of power and cast men inroles where they then could enact the bridging of these differences bybeing drawn together by their strong sexual attraction and connection.

Although all leathermen were described as portraying a “tough” atti-tude, some of the characteristics the participants used to differentiate thetwo roles were physical appearance and age, attitude, and experience.For example, leathermen who were physically larger, older, had moresexual experiences, or sadomasochistic expertise typically would adopta “Daddy” role. Conversely, “Boys” would adopt a submissive sexualrole. This role-playing allowed participants to meet other leathermenwho shared compatible sexual interests, to discuss these interests and,eventually, to find sexual partners.

Additionally, members of the leather community utilized protocolsfor communication that could facilitate sexual or romantic interactionsas needed. For example, some leathermen talked about the “Old Guard,”referring to formal, hierarchical relationships between dominant andsubmissive leathermen; reminiscent of the early formation of gay leatherclubs out of the motorbike clubs after World War II. These formalizedrules allow leathermen to recognize and respect each other’s close ro-mantic or sexual relationships.

There is what you might say a protocol within the leather commu-nity as to what is done and what should be done. I have studied alot of the Old Guard stuff. . . . One of the things is if you, if a personshows up with a collar then that person you do not mess with, be-cause they have been collared by another master. . . . And a lot of[uninformed] people put a collar on and go walking out around andthen try to pick up somebody. And in the Old Guard leather that isnot done. It is one of these things that if you, if they are collaredand they are with someone and if you want to do anything with


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

them, you have to go to them [their Master] and ask permission todo anything. (Interviewee 06)

These protocols scripted power within sexual roles so as to accentuatehierarchical, dominant-submissive relationships and helped the leather-men comfortably maintain sexual roles and initiate new contacts withother men.

Wearing leather and appearing tough was important because it at-tracted other leathermen and differentiated their sexuality from tradi-tional gay male sexuality (i.e., “vanilla sex”). Furthermore, it wasconsidered to be a sensual experience.

It’s the smell of leather, the feel of leather, the feel on your skin,the feel of leather anywhere, it’s just something that when you putit on it just feels good. . . . It’s very erotic. And ah, a lot of peopleget that way. . . . But I enjoy it, it is one of those things that justfeels good. (Interviewee 06)

Their leather garb was integral to their leather identity. It displayedtheir commitment to the community, as it not only identified their de-sires and roles to one another, but also placed them on the fringes of gayculture by broadly signaling their affiliation with the subculture. Thetwo respondents who provided written feedback had divergent viewsabout this cluster. When asked “In your experience, has leather been avehicle for communicating sexual roles and a means of efficiently se-lecting sexual partners?” One leatherman responded with a 6 on a7-point scale; the other with a “1” (“Not at all”). The respondent whoendorsed this category with a “1,” was unusual as he tended not to havesexual connections with other leathermen and so his partners were un-able to read or utilize the cues given by his leather dress. This feedbackemphasizes how the meaning of leather symbols may not extend outsideof the leather community. The two respondents who gave verbal feed-back strongly endorsed this cluster.

Marginality in Both Communities Allows for Freedom from Conven-tion and Greater Self-Determination. The leather community repeatedlywas described as outside the norms of both gay and the heterosexualcultures. “[Because] gay leathermen have always been known to kind ofbuck the gay tradition. That, um, we don’t fit in the mold. A lot of peo-ple don’t want us in gay pride, or don’t want us to be visible. . . . So, weare not bound by any conventions at all, except our own. . . .” (Inter-viewee 01). Despite functioning outside both gay and heterosexual cul-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

tural norms, the leathermen community established their own norms.Their marginality, therefore, was thought to lead to norms of toleranceand mutual acceptance within the leather community.

Being a leatherman informed their sexual and gender identities byproviding self-assurance. “It (leather identity) is a grounding place. It isa place where, that I draw from. Ok. If I am placed in some sort of con-frontational situation or, um, [it is] just a general way of looking atthings in life” (Interviewee 02). Being a leatherman was described as away of integrating sexuality within participants’ sense of self.

A leatherman is a whole lot more than [sex], a leatherman is reallywho I am and it informs who, all of who I am, just like being gay is.But it [a gay identity] is not all of who I am. . . . Being a leathermaninforms all the rest of me, being gay informs all the rest of me, butwithout it [a leather identity] all the rest would be meaningless.(Interviewee 01)

Being a leatherman gave interviewees a way to be a gay man that felt co-herent, a self-determination that informed their ways they functionedwithin different identities, allowing them a sense of strength and se-curity.

Still, their dual identities could cause some tension at times. Someleathermen indicated that on one hand they were gay men, and on theother they also belonged to a marginalized group of gay men. “The ca-maraderie that you find in the leather community, because we are a mi-nority amongst a minority, um, I really, really find very, very strong. . . .There’s a whole network there. You go on a leather run [a social event]and you will see a lot of the same old faces, and few new faces. Andwhen they come, you know, it’s ‘Welcome, brother!’ ” (Interviewee02). The marginalization fortified the leather groups as these men sup-ported one another through multiple layers of stigmatization.

Leather communities provided a place where they could find inter-personal validation, and develop a sense of acceptance.

People like to feel welcome in society, but a lot of times we [as gayleathermen] are not. To find yourself a pocket full of people in acertain section of town is nice, again I guess because gay commu-nities everywhere are [either] polarized in two directions or not in-terested in leather. It’s nice . . . to see people walking around inleather. (Interviewee 04)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

The open leather community norms allowed some leathermen to feelfree to express their sexual and personal roles in and out of the leathercommunity. For instance, one leatherman stated that he enjoyed theflexibility of choosing his level of participation at leather events withoutpressure, selecting whatever dress style or partner he wanted at thattime-conforming to group expectations or not. This freedom was expe-rienced as different from both gay and heterosexual conventions.

On the feedback questionnaire, the leathermen were asked “Doesyour leather identity unify other identities so you are free to express andchoose roles?” Both respondents who completed the feedback formprovided the same rating of a 6 (on a scale of 1-7), indicating strong en-dorsement and two other respondents gave strong verbal consent.

Finding a Place at the Gay Table: Belonging to a Brotherhood Pro-vides Self-Confidence and a Sense of Value. Although they felt part ofboth communities, some leathermen described how their leather iden-tity differentiated them from the larger gay community. “It (being aleatherman) gives me a greater sense of my identity as opposed to being‘Joe Vanilla’ (an anonymous gay man) . . .” (Interviewee 05). Threeparticipants asserted that their self-confidence increased because oftheir unconditional acceptance into the leather community–somethingthey did not experience when they were in the general gay community.Two participants described how shy and awkward they had felt in socialsituations with gay men before they identified as leathermen. Anotherinterviewee echoed these sentiments,

[My] being a leatherman helped me to be more comfortable in ex-pressing myself and become a little bit more outgoing, and as a re-sult I think I am a lot more outgoing in the real world, in thestraight world. And I think I’m a whole lot less prone to really carewhat people say, because I’ve come of age [through the leatheridentification process], I am a man, whether straight society–whether it’s by their conventions or not. (Interviewee 01)

Being embraced and accepted into the leather community provided apositive context within which the leathermen could accept both theirsexual and leather identities, which in turn increased positive self-con-cepts and self-acceptance.

The leather community was described by the interviewees, whetheror not they belonged to a specific leather club, as though it formed afamily, a fraternity, or a brotherhood. This family extended across othercities, states, and countries. Participants explained how they could travel


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

to other locations and be embraced by other leathermen as if they were“brothers.” Feeling connected to a “web” or “network” of othersseemed to be an important aspect of the leather identity as it allowed fora sense of being connected to something larger and combated the localsense of marginality.

It appeared that the leather community offered an easier method ofinclusion because its signifiers of belongingness were clearer and avail-able to all prospective members. In contrast, signifiers were either lack-ing in the general gay community or they were rooted in values theyfound classist or superficial. “When I first came out into the gay com-munity, I felt as if I had to impress people, you know, like I had to be-come one of their clique and join in the rich crowd or something. After awhile I realized I did not really, um, fit in. It was like I did not really ex-ist as me, I had to be someone else. It was not easy to do that, either” (In-terviewee 03). The leather community seemed non-discriminatory andoffered a deeper-level of acceptance, as membership was open toanyone who expressed that set of desires.

A few interviewees described how the leather community valuedmen with similar sexual interests, rather than commonalities in socialstatus.

You can move around into those (sexual) areas a lot easier [than inthe mainstream gay community] because you know the stereotypeof a leatherman is that what they are into and into a lot of floggingsand into a lot of rough sex, if you want to get down to it that’s whatthey’re into, and so, . . . that’s what allows us into those areas andwhen we go on runs (leather social gatherings) we can meet otherswho may have the same thoughts the same ideas (about sex). (In-terviewee 06)

As status in the leather community was dependent upon sexual compati-bility, the values of the community were more egalitarian. Becoming adesired community member did not hinge upon social or economicbackground or physical beauty but different standards of attraction andaesthetics were formed.

Three interviewees described how certain expressions of sexualitywere appreciated more in the leather community. For instance, an apti-tude for sadomasochistic sex was valued within the leather communitybut not the larger gay community.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

[There are] talents in s/m [sadomasochistic sex] which go com-pletely overlooked in the gay world, but are really valued in theleather world. . . . And so that’s part of the richness of it that we allhave our little talents, and we can share our talents, and we canshare our talents and show each other how to be better at what wedo. (Interviewee 01)

An interest in leathersex and an ability to perform a variety of S/Mpractices safely while remaining true to their roles led to status withinthe community, allowing the men an acceptance that bolstered theirsense of self-confidence and self-acceptance. As the basis of accep-tance, their interest and ability to learn new skills, was intrinsic to them-selves, they felt more comfortable risking vulnerability with others.Leathermen learned to communicate with one another what they de-sired, leading to more attuned performances of sexuality.

“Leathersex” made sex make sense to me for one thing. I guess Ialways stumbled through it with other people (laughing). And Idon’t know it was like, “Oh this is what the big deal is!” And . . . itmade our sexual relationship a lot more a part of living life and notjust sex after a dinner date or something (laughing). . . . It was anintimacy thing. (Interviewee 04)

Thus, they came to value a sexuality that had unique meanings withinthe leather community, even though it might divide them from thelarger gay community.

The participants were asked to respond to three questions about thiscluster. When asked whether they felt a sense of belonging from theleather community (Brotherhood), the participant who was a member ofa local club responded with a 7 (“Very much”) on a 7-point scale. Theother participant, who was not a club member, responded with a 4(“Somewhat”). Both interviewees indicated a four when asked, “Doesbeing a leatherman provide a sense of purpose?” suggesting that it pro-vided a moderate sense of purpose. Both men responded with a 6 whenasked, “To you, does being a leatherman give you self-confidence?”The two participants who gave verbal feedback both endorsed thiscategory.

Leatherman Community Celebrates Interpersonal Closeness Be-tween Men: Emphasizing Trust and Loyalty. Several interviewees de-scribed situations in which they relied on the social and personalsupport of other leathermen in their own club, or in clubs in other states


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

to offer support. “There is an implied trust there [between sexual part-ners], and then that stretches out to your club brothers, and then thatstretches out to your area, your conference, however you want to put it”(Interviewee 02). This sense of loyalty meant that social, friendship,and sexual relationships between men were founded on a deep level oftrust that was celebrated and encouraged. Mutual allegiance was ex-pressed on both interpersonal and community levels for the leathermen,and worked to bolster interpersonal security between leatherfolk.

Being a member of a leather network or brotherhood meant thatothers would “take care of you” in times of need. At the time of the in-terviews, a local leather club had suffered homophobic vandalism re-sulting in extensive damage and the eventual loss of the property theyowned as a club. Regardless of their membership status, the leathermenin the community rallied together to make donations and engage infundraising and succeeded in rebuilding and refinancing the club. Infor-mal conversations with numerous leathermen from the community con-vinced the principle researcher that loyalty–taking care of others in thecommunity–was central for most, if not all, of the leathermen in thearea. This example is but one of the community efforts described. Otherefforts included charity fundraising, awards ceremonies for civic lead-ers in the area, and fundraising efforts for leather clubs outside of thestate or region.

The expectation and expression of devotion was at play in personaland intimate relationships as well. Even casual sexual relationshipswere based upon a set of rules that structured a display of care betweenmen.

Supposedly the Master, the Dad, whatever, has the dominance, thecontrol, whatever, but it is really the Boy or submissive one thatcontributes the affection. I guess that is part of the image, of beingloyal . . . and generous and giving. (Interviewee 05)

The script for leathersex often entailed a mock-testing and affirming ofaffection and desire between the men.

The exchange between power and vulnerability was as the basis ofthe erotic within leathersex, usually entailing alterations between dis-plays of hypermasculinity and nurturance. “There is a great deal of trust.The whole S/M thing is built on trust. If it’s not built on trust youhaven’t got anything to stand on. You will fall flat on your face” (Inter-viewee 02). This trust was central–both because of the physical dangersof S/M and the need for clear communication within a relationship. Par-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

ticipants tended to talk openly to secure it before initiating S/M, decid-ing upon limits and/or safe words that would indicate when a participantwanted any type of sexual act to stop. Not all leathermen, however,chose to engage in S/M.

Based on these interviews, the lines between leathersex and S/Mseemed somewhat blurry, however, and were described in subtle distinc-tions. Whereas leathersex could include S/M practices and shared com-mon sexual roles, like “Master” and “Slave” or “Daddy” and “Boy,” ittended to be less rough in its use of bondage or pain implementation. Incontrast, S/M did not necessarily include the eroticization of leather sym-bols that characterized leathersex. Also, the two identities were distinctand people who claimed one group may not experience a connection withthe other.

Most of the interviewees emphasized that establishing a trusting re-lationship with any sexual partner, regardless of the degree of casual-ness, was crucial. One interviewee stated:

[I] have to trust them, I mean before I will play [engage in sexualactivity] with anyone, and that is why a lot of people don’t [havesex with me], they get a little up tight because one thing I want is Ihave go to meet someone. We’ve got to sit down and we’ve got totalk, we’ve got to kinda get a little bit of mutual understanding anda consensus between the two of us. I won’t just get someone off theNet and say, you know, take their balls and put them in a vice andsqueeze them. I am not gonna do that. I am gonna have to knowthem a little bit more and they are gonna have to start feeling, theyare gonna have to feel that trust with me before we start anything.(Interviewee 06)

Similarly, other interviewees described how the initial process ofcommunication was an important precursor to the sexual experiences inwhich they engaged. One interviewee stated:

There has to be a lot of trust involved in leather sex . . . you have tocommunicate and really know what you are talking about. I guessin a lot of situations I didn’t really put that much thought intoit–just somebody you meet on the street and you are going to havesex, you can probably walk away knowing that it’s not going to beanything you can’t handle. But in leather sex you never know. Youhave to talk about it first. . . . [Stating] your limits and what you are


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

into and what you are not into. . . . After a while you learn to ask theright questions. (Interviewee 05)

Communication was important for establishing trust and preparing forS/M or leather sexual encounters. This sense of trust imbued all levelsof interaction, beginning at the personal encounter and extending to thecommunity at large.

Nurturance and Vulnerability Made Safe Through ExchangingPower in Scripted Sexual Roles. Although nurturance was thought notto be coherent with traditional aspects of masculinity by most of the in-terviewees, it was identified as an important element of leathersex rela-tionships, and was described across community interactions as well.Nurturance between two leathermen on an individual level during sex-ual or intimate experiences was expressed through scripted sexual andgender roles. For instance, some leathermen described the performanceof power as a way to learn about their needs for nurturance and inde-pendence. “On my own, I am a top, a complete authority. But to him[former sexual partner], I am his Boy, I am his, he’s put it as a knightand his squire kind of thing. . . . And to some people I’m a masteralready, but in here, in my own mind, I am not quite there yet” (Inter-viewee 01). Sexual roles allowed individuals to explore different aspectsof themselves, enact different needs and inform their self-perception.

The roles within leathersex allowed for vulnerability because of thetrust built between partners.

A Boy can be vulnerable to a dominant person because of the trustinvolved. . . . But in a sense I have the control. I have the power tobe vulnerable or not. . . . You generally don’t think about vulnera-bility being right there with masculinity but it is. . . . And in thatone sense which is why I think that is how it is kind of differentfrom non-leather folks, or non-leather gay people. I don’t thinkthey experience it in quite the same way. (Interviewee 04)

An interdependence between partners was acknowledged, placing bothvulnerability and strength as corresponding qualities within both topand bottom roles. Just as submission was not understood as weakness,but rather as a way to demonstrate strength and commitment, the domi-nant position was understood as incorporating a dependency on thewillingness of the other. “It is all about masculine roles, even the sub-missive roles are masculine. . . . Like being a Boy or Slave or whateveryou want to call it . . . it is masculine” (Interviewee 04). An awareness of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

the vulnerability and strength in both roles was a vital part of being aleatherman. Roles within the leather community reconciled nurturanceand vulnerability with masculinity, securing the participants’ status asmen.

Leather Is a Symbol of My Transformation into Manhood: Integrat-ing Masculinity into My Gay Identity. Every participant made refer-ences to their masculinity in the interview and their understanding ofgay masculinity. Being gay and a leatherman meant being masculinewithin two social systems that both stereotype gay men as effeminate.Masculinity within the leather community appeared to be constructed inopposition to these understandings.

And I think that part of what, of why people are getting more intoleather is because as gay men . . . especially with my generationnot having been through any kind of war, [have] no kind of right ofpassage, I think that we’re all craving some kind of right of pas-sage, some kind of discipline, something to prove to ourselves andto others that we are real men, and especially as gay men . . . wheresociety tell us that we’re fags, or effeminate . . . our only free op-tions are to either [do] drag, kind of give into it, or to becomehyper-masculine, to say “No, I’m not this, you know, this kind ofthing.” Or to kind of balance it out, and kind try to get into leatherthat is masculine, or hone in on our male role models and try to um,you know, work through the fact that we haven’t been through anykind of passage. . . and, try to do it for ourselves, and I think what isso great about the leather scene is that there are [masculine] malerole models in that leather scene. (Interviewee 01)

The transformation to full masculine status often was symbolizedthrough the attainment of leather attire or equipment via successful pas-sage through sexual rites. One participant stated: “Earning your leather isa form of acceptance. You’ve proven yourself, and we want to includeyou in the group” (Interviewee 02). Leather had an emotional aspect to itssymbolism as well. “It’s almost a way of saying, ‘I survived a lot of shit inmy life. . . . And that I am proud of myself and I am a strong person,’ andthe whole thing about wearing leather and being coupled with that is away of almost showing that” (Interviewee 05). Leather served as a bannerof men’s strength and their transformation into being a gay “man.”

An idea that emerged throughout the interviews was that masculinityresulted from the acceptance of one’s sexual, gender, and social identi-ties. Being masculine for many meant “being myself” (Interviewee 04)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

or “not pretending to be something I am not” (Interviewee 03). Anotherinterviewee elucidated, “What is masculinity? It is, uh, being comfort-able with yourself. And I see or at least perceive . . . those that I do notconsider masculine, those that I consider effeminate, (as) not being intouch with themselves, and not knowing who they are . . .” (Inter-viewee 02). Living in a society that assumes that being gay means thatthey are not men and must be effeminate, the leathermen challengedthese assumptions by endorsing an essentialist concept of masculinity;that at least some gay men are intrinsically masculine because they wereborn men. A leather identity ensured that they appeared, acted, andrelated to one another as masculine gay men.

Their garb typically accentuated male sexual organs and physiqueand the protocols for interaction symbolized a respect for masculinityand hierarchy. These processes allowed leathermen to integrate mascu-linity into their gay sexuality–establishing a different way to be gen-dered as gay men. Leather appeared to symbolize gay masculinity, and,as masculinity can be read as a form of power in our culture, thiseroticization was consistent with the S/M sexual practices that focusedon displays of power and vulnerability. Traits characterized as femi-nine, such as affection and nurturance, were only displayed as expres-sions of loyalty and within a hypermasculinized context of dominationand submission.

Being leathermen also meant recognizing and enjoying their mascu-linity and sexual orientation in the company of other masculine men.References were made to the drag queen community: “Leather is mas-culine and gay while drag is feminine and gay. It’s (being a leatherman)a real masculine form of sexuality. I think the big things there, youknow, what leather offers people is that it’s definitely a masculine thing.To me, you know, it doesn’t belittle the effeminate end of things at all.It’s just a different end of the spectrum” (Interviewee 05). While somemen thought that drag sexuality was an inauthentic expression of gaysexuality, all thought it was just a different, equally authentic, expres-sion. It was common for the interviewees to refer to their leather garb as“leather drag,” and contrast leather drag with the more common “dragqueen” identity and garb within the gay male culture. Whereas leatherdrag was considered a masculine form of expression, drag queen wasconsidered on the feminine end of the gender spectrum.

The participants were asked to give feedback on whether leather isan expression of masculinity and pride in your self. Using a 7-pointLikert scale, one responded with a 7 and the other a 5, both indicatingagreement.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

Core Category

Being a leatherman bolsters self-acceptance by structuring perfor-mances of gay masculinity that entail processes of exploring and ex-changing power within sexuality and by providing the interpersonal andsocietal fortification of masculine and sexual Identities.

A core category was generated through the analysis of the clustersdescribed. The core idea identified was that the leather community usedsignifiers of heightened masculinity to fortify itself against sexist andheterosexist stigma from both heterosexual and gay cultures–that as gaymen they are effeminate and therefore weak. The performances of mas-culinity fell outside the boundary of typical gay sexual practices andmarginalized leathermen within gay community, allowing them to de-velop community norms that emphasized the acceptance of differencesand self-determination. This emphasis allowed for greater flexibilityin sexual experimentation, personal development, and self-acceptancethrough the process of personal exploration. As displays of masculinityreassured the participants of their gender, more feminine expressions ofcare and vulnerability could be incorporated into these relationships. Asolid basis of trust and loyalty allowed the men to create the inter-personal safety necessary for both the displays of strength and the ex-pressions of vulnerability–which were understood to coexist in bothdominant and submissive roles. Through the process of engaging inflexible sexual roles that affirmed both their gender and sexual orienta-tion in this context of interpersonal and community support, the leather-men reported great gains in their personal self-esteem.

The core category was created after written feedback was obtainedfrom the interviewees on the clusters. Feedback in the form of discus-sions with three of the interviewees indicated positive and strong en-dorsements of the core category. The three leathermen, particularly,endorsed the concept that their self-acceptance was achieved throughstructuring performances of gay masculinity, while simultaneously for-tifying their masculine and sexual identities despite multiple sites of op-pression and marginalization.

DISCUSSION

This qualitative investigation identified central factors in the identifi-cation process of leathermen, documenting the worldview and experi-ences of these gay men who are underrepresented in the literature.Specifically, it illuminated processes through which gender and sexual


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

identities can be socially constructed. At the same time, it challengedassumptions that gay men are a homogeneous group with similarpsychological concerns.

The reader is cautioned when trying to generalize these results toother gay men. It should be emphasized that many gay men do not iden-tify as leathermen and many gay communities do not have leathergroups. Although many of the interviewees had resided in other cities,all interviewees in this study were affiliated somehow with the Mem-phis leather community, and, as was characteristic of this community,they were not racially diverse. Future research may wish to target amore diverse sample of leathermen in terms of racial and geographiccharacteristics to identify how well the present understanding of leatherexperience transfers across these contexts. Despite the limitations, thisstudy was the first to empirically document the identification process ofleathermen, and was based upon a rigorous inductive analysis of re-ported experiences; it incorporated three credibility checks and achievedsaturation, suggesting analytic thoroughness and coherence.

Coming-Out Twice: Transforming into a Gay Leatherman

It was apparent from both the interviews and the demographic surveythat the leathermen first experienced coming-out as a gay man (averageage = 24) and later as a leatherman (average age = 32). This second pro-cess of coming-out often was described as entailing a similar level ofanxiety, social acceptance concerns, and self-revelation as the initialprocess. An implication of their “coming-out twice” experience wasthat sexual identity development did not end with their initial coming-out process (cf. Cass, 1984), and often involved coming-out to friendsand family as gay, as a leatherman, and, at times, as a gay leatherman.

Their sexual identity formation was described as a continued process,confirming theoretical writings on multiple coming-out processes(Thompson, 1995; Tucker, 1991) and lending support to more complexidentity formation models (Carrion & Locke, 1997). Sexual identityformation models may need to become more complex to reflect the in-teraction between sexual orientation, preferred gender expression, andsexual practice preferences-such as leathersex, and S/M. Some work inthis area is beginning to explore the difficulties in coming-out with gayand lesbian subculture identities (see Hiestand & Levitt, 2003). Stereo-types about gay men, leathersex, and S/M confronted interviewees withmultiple sites of discrimination. These societal forces made the coming-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

out process challenging within both heterosexual and gay communities,and the leather communities were important at helping men find supportand self-acceptance in spite of their marginalization.

Constructing a Masculine Gay Sexuality:Layers of Leather and Layers of Meaning

In the face of their marginalization in heterosexual and gay commu-nities, the leathermen fortified themselves in their own community,gaining support that shielded the leathermen from sexist, homophobic,and leatherphobic sentiments. This support was experienced as helpingto offset internalized homophobia as well; that is, gay men or lesbians’incorporation of negative attitudes and beliefs about homosexuality,which stems from heterosexist societal values, into their own self-imageand identity (Wagner, Brondolo, & Rabkin, 1996; Williamson, 2000).Internalized homophobia can result in withdrawal from the gay commu-nity and is described as the antithesis of pride in ones’ sexual identity(Shidlo, 1994).

In addition to a dually marginalized status, according to Pleck’s(1982, 1995) constructionist framework, all men experience gender rolestrain when they attempt to live up to the socially constructed and unat-tainable standards of masculinity in their culture. Traditional descrip-tions of masculinity often entail toughness, power and dominance,competitiveness, and interpersonal distance between men. Similarly,gender-role conflict theory (e.g., O’Neil, 1981) posits that rigid adher-ence to gender roles could lead to hindrance of the actualization of hu-man potential and growth. Gay men have been hypothesized to beuniquely vulnerable to this conflict and those who have exhibited as-pects of gender-role conflict have been shown to experience aspects ofpsychological distress (Ervin, 2003; Simonson et al., 2000). In contrastto these expectations, however, the leathermen interviewed describedpride in their identities; they also comfortably integrated both mascu-line symbols and vulnerability into their sexual performance. The mendid not report discomfort from the pressure to appear hypermasculine orthe expression of vulnerability when within either submissive or domi-nant sexual roles.

There may be a number of ways in which the leather performance ofgender appears to protect the men against gender strain or conflict. First,instead of the violation of gender role norms leading to psychologicaldistress or social censure, the leather redefinition of masculinity wasone that incorporated both deliberate exaggeration and malleability. For


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

instance, the expectation and expression of hypermasculinity for leather-men was typically described as limited to gay contexts, or at least wasattenuated in public domains. Ironically, this enactment of gender cast itin terms of performance and play–allowing men to move smoothly be-tween displays of masculinity and power. The leathermen appeared touse their hypermasculine enactments to overcome stereotypes of femi-ninity that might challenge other gay men (see cluster 6)–a charge in oursexist culture that connotes a lack of power, assertion, and strength–andto develop gendered and gendering rituals in a reflexive and agenticfashion. This transformation of gender from a personal trait into a socialconstruct appeared to lead to a resistance against gender strain. Thisconsciously practiced display of gender was experienced, instead, as in-creasing the participants’ self-esteem.

Second, the leather performance of gender was dependent upon signsand enactments, some of which can be purchased, and others can belearned and are explicitly taught (see cluster 1). The accessibility ofgender signs and gendered communication rules distinguish the leathercommunity from both gay male and heterosexual communities, trans-forming gender into a skill-or as the leathermen called it “a talent” to belearned and performed. This externalizing of gender unmasks the myththat masculinity is an entirely intrinsic quality in which gay men are def-icit. In this way, leather culture incorporated resistances that could bol-ster members against homophobic and sexist internalizations.

Finally, the structure of dominant and submissive roles, based withina culture that prized loyalty and trust (see cluster 4), generated the safetyto adopt traditionally feminine qualities, such as vulnerability andnurturance (see cluster 5). The heightened masculinity inoculated themen against gender-role conflict as it helped them retain their genderidentities not only through the assertion of power in hypermasculine en-actments, but through the awareness that the assertion of power via gen-der itself is a façade that can be manipulated at will. The stance entaileda level of self-consciousness that may tend to be absent in the perfor-mance of heterosexual masculinity.

Leather masculinity entailed a resistance to what was perceived as afeminine gay male culture that was expressed in a process of eroticizinghypermasculinity. In a similar study on gay men who identify as “bears”(Manley, Levitt, & Mosher, 2003), heterosexual and gay gender con-structs were rejected as well. Instead bears were found to eroticize natu-ralistic images of mature male masculinity–beards, body hair, andoverweight appearances. Both bear and leather aesthetics can be under-stood as expressions of culturally valued traits and as a reconciliation of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

masculine and gay identities. Whereas the bears (Manley, Levitt, &Mosher, 2003) constructed fluid sexual and interpersonal roles that em-phasized intimacy and interpersonal acceptance, the leathermen con-structed hierarchical, sometimes formal sexual roles that emphasizedloyalty and interpersonal trust. Both sets of cultural norms challengedcharacterizations of gay men as “not-masculine,” and this commonalitymay explain the frequent joint-membership in the bear and leather com-munities. These communities both provided interpersonal supports thatsupplemented those provided by mainstream gay culture. As well, bearand leather membership also both signified pride in one’s gay sexualidentity. Further research is needed to develop a thorough understand-ing of how gender and sexuality interact across the many gay andlesbian communities that exist (e.g., Levitt, Gerrish, & Hiestand, 2003;Levitt & Hiestand, 2004).

The Threatening Construct of Leather Sexuality

It was important for some of the leathermen to stress the importanceof communication between sexual partners. The motto “Safe, Sane, andConsensual” was used by some of the leather groups to address themyth that all leathermen engage in risky, out-of-control sexual prac-tices. Healthy and functional leather sexuality was thought to be basedin leather and leather/masculine symbols and sexual roles, such asDaddy and Boy, could accentuate this masculinity by dramatizingdifferences in power.

Although masochism has been described as an escape from day-to-day stressors tied to individualistic identity through sexual humiliationand pain (Baumeister, 1997; Baumeister & Butler, 1997), for leather-men masochism and submissive sexual roles were indicative of endur-ance and a transformation into gay manhood. Rather than an escapefrom the self (Baumeister, 1997), leathermen engaged in masochisticsexual acts to learn about their selves, to experiment with gender, and todevelop a sense of authenticity. Leathersex, therefore, functioned as atool of physical, emotional, and even spiritual self-awareness.

As a marginalized subcommunity within a marginalized community,leathermen constructed multilayered identities despite negative societalmessages about gender and sexuality. Leather identities were experi-enced as resulting from the men’s preferred sexual orientation, genderexpression, and sexual practices as well as their sense of affiliation andengagement with heterosexual, homosexual, and leather communities.Purchasing leather garb and leathersex equipment, in addition to negoti-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

ating stereotypes about leathermen within gay and heterosexual cul-tures, imply intentionality. Becoming a leatherman, being involved inleathersex and sadomasochism, explicitly or implicitly belonging to aleather community, and engaging in the discourses regarding genderand sexuality were intentional for the leathermen. Leathermen, there-fore, radically challenge the assumptions we have about sexuality andthe construction of gender within a social context by dramatizing thedivisions between physical sex, gender expression, and sexual orienta-tion, and by conceptualizing gender as having both essential and con-structed components. Most of the men interviewed held the positionthat, although for some gay men (i.e., drag queens) femininity is essen-tial, their own gender orientation as leathermen was masculine. Whilethey reclaimed and exaggerated the appearance of an essential mascu-linity, they also subverted it as this enactment unfolded in a context ofhomosexuality, which is thought to be irreconcilable with masculinityin our dominant culture, and a context of performance, which belies apurely essentialist understanding of masculine behavior. The leather-men in the interviews also described leatherphobic reactions to their ap-pearance, sexual practices, and identities as threatening and fear-based.Perhaps these layers of identity and leather sexuality are threatening asthey challenge assumptions of hegemonic masculinity just as theyheighten a masculine aesthetic.

REFERENCES

Baumeister, R. F. (1997). The enigmatic appeal of sexual masochism: Why peopledesire pain, bondage, and humiliation in sex. Journal of Social and ClinicalPsychology, 16, 133-150.

Baumeister, R. F., & Butler, J. L. (1997) Sexual masochism: Deviance without pathol-ogy. In D. R. Laws & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assess-ment, and treatment (pp. 225-239). New York: Guilford Press.

Broido, E. M. (2000). Constructing identity: The nature and meaning of lesbian, gay,and bisexual identities. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.),Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients(pp. 13-33). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Caplan, P. J. (1987). The myth of women’s masochism. In Mary Roth Walsh (Ed.), Thepsychology of women: Ongoing debates (78-96). New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Carrion, V. G, & Lock, J. (1997). The coming out process: Developmental stages ofsexual minority youth. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2, 369-677.

Damon, W. (2000). The relations of power and intimacy motives to genitoerotic role pref-erences in gay men: A pilot study. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 9, 15-30.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

Ervin, A. M. (2003). Male gender role conflict and internalized homonegativity: Theimpact on gay men’s psychological well-being. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,The University of Memphis.

Freud, S. (1928). Le probleme economique du masochisme/The economic problem ofmasochism. Revue Francaise de Psychanalyse, 2 (2).

Gebhard, P. (1966). Fetishm and Sadomasochism. In J. Masserman (Ed.), Science andpsychoanalysis: IX. Adolescence, dreams and training (pp. 71-80). New York:Grune & Stratton.

Giorgi, A. (1970). Psychology as a human science: A phenomenological approach.New York: Harper & Row.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of groundedtheory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies forqualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Glick, P., & Friske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differing hostileand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

Glick, P., & Friske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambiva-lent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119-135.

Glick, P. et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolentsexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775.

Hiestand, K & Levitt, H. (2003). Butch Identity Development: The formation of anauthentic Gender. Manuscript under review.

Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some physical consequences of the so-cial construction of gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563-577.

Hopcke, R. H. (1991). S/M and the psychology of gay male initiation: An archetypalperspective. In M. Thompson (Ed.), Leatherfolk: Radical sex, people, politics, andpractice (pp. 65-76). Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc.

Horney, K. (1924). On the genesis of the castration complex in women. Indian Journalof Psychology, 9, 50-65.

Kippax, S., & Smith, G. (2001). Anal intercourse and power in sex between men.Sexualities, 4, 413-434

Krafft-Ebing, R. (1963). Sadism and masochism. In A. Krich (Ed.) The sexual revolu-tion. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Levitt, H., Gerrish, E., & Hiestand, K. (2003). The misunderstood gender. Sex Roles,48, 99-113.

Levitt, H., & Hiestand, K. (2004). A quest for authenticity: Contemporary butchgender. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 50, 605-621.

Levitt, H. M. & Horne, S. G. (2002). Explorations of Lesbian-Queer Genders. Journalof Lesbian Studies, 6, 25-39.

Lieshout, M. van (1995). Leather nights in the woods: Homosexual encounters in aDutch highway rest area. Journal of Homosexuality, 29, 19-37.

Manley, E., Levitt, H., & Mosher, C. M. (2003). Understanding the Bear movement ingay male culture. Manuscript under review.

Mintz, L. B., & O’Neil, J. (1990). Gender roles, sex, and the process of psychotherapy:Many questions and few answers. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68,381-387.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

Mosher, C. M. (2001). The social implications of sexual identity formation and thecoming-out process: A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. TheFamily Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 9, 164-173.

O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear offemininity in men’s lives. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 203-210.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Peacock, B., Eyre, S. L., Quinn, S. C., & Kegles, S. (2001). Delineating differences:Sub-communities in the San Francisco gay community. Culture, Health, & Sexual-ity, 3, 183-201.

Pleck, J. (1982). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Pleck, J. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S.

Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11-32). New York: Basic Books.Reik, T. (1941). Masochism in modern man. Oxford, England: Farrar and Rinehart.Rennie, D. L. (2000). Grounded theory methodology as a methodological hermeneu-

tics: Reconciling realism and relativism. Theory and Psychology, 10, 481-501.Ridinger, R. B. M. Things visible and invisible: The leather archives and museum.

Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 1-9.Ruble, D. N. & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.)

& N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional,and personality development (5th ed., pp 933-1016). New York: Wiley.

Shidlo, A. (1994). Internalized homophobia: Conceptual and empirical issues in mea-surement. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.) Lesbian and Gay Psychology: The-ory, Research, and Clinical Applications (pp. 177-205). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Simonsen, G., Blazina, C., & Watkins, C. E. (2000). Gender role conflict and psycho-logical well-being among gay men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 85-89.

Stolorow, R. D. (1975). The narcissistic function of masochism (and sadism). Interna-tional Journal of Psychoanalysis, 56, 441-448.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-dures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Thompson, M. (1995). Gay soul: Finding the heart of gay spirit and nature. New York:Harper San Francisco.

Tucker, S. (1991). The hanged man. In M. Thompson (Ed.), Leatherfolk: Radical sex,people, politics, and practice (pp. 1-14). Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc.

Unger, R. K., & Crawford, M. (1993) ‘Commentary: Sex and gender: The troubled re-lationship between terms and concepts’, Psychological Science, 4, 122-124.

Wagner, G., Brondolo, E., & Rabkin, J. (1996). Internalized homophobia in a sampleof HIV+ gay men, and its relationship to psychological distress, coping, and illnessprogression. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 91-106.

Williamson, I. R. (2000). Internalized homophobia and health issues affecting lesbiansand gay men. Health Education Research, 15, 97-107.

doi:10.1300/J082v51n03_06


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 22:

14 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2011

Layers of Leather

Documents

Transcript of Layers of Leather