A question of rules
The article on the new leather organization DFW leatherboys (“Are you a good boy?’ Dallas Voice, July 13) was a nice inclusion. I find the Voice has a spotty history of including news on the Leather/BDSM/Fetish community.
That said, I really have to disagree with a statement David Downing, founder of the group, made. He made the broad pronouncement that “Daddies” and “boys” (of the adult leather kind) are rarely romantically involved.
Funny, I have been in the leather scene since the mid 1970’s and my boy was always my romantic partner as well. In fact, there used to be a joke about the difference between Master/slave and Daddy/boy (the answer is “hugs”!)
I understand that it’s tempting to try to make hard and fast rules for any minority, especially those who are involved in radical sexuality, but part of the joy of Leather is the lack of hard and fast rules. Beyond the mantra of “safe, sane and consensual,” I can think of very few rules that apply.
A “boy” is a “boy” when he identifies as one. A “Daddy” (a term I had lots of trouble with for myself until I realized it had no subtext regarding old age), is a “Daddy” when he identifies as one. “Masters” are masters when they have “slaves” or are generally considered by the community to be a “master” of something.
It’s all very fluid and it should be.
Protocol is indeed based on the basic military model, but there are no hard, fast rules about collars, etc., other than the ones any specific group chooses to make. I know “boys” who wear collars so people will know they are “boys.” My boy wears no collar at all; in our protocol, a collar is worn by a slave. Go figure?
I wish this group well and am always eager to see the spread of information. As a Leather/BDSM /fetish community member I welcome more involvement and diversity. My only problem is when someone tries to create rules for a subculture whose existence is based on breaking the rules set by society.
Know the risks of your activities, make sane choices and play consensually with willing adults. Beyond that, why limit ourselves?
Hardy Haberman
Dallas
A wake up call, not discrimination
I wanted to take a moment out and write a note about your recent article on cruising in public for sex (“Cruisers beware: Vice officers are watching,” Dallas Voice, July 13).
While I’m sure that attorney Roger Herrera meant well when he said, “The sure way to know that the person’s not a cop is, you’ve got to let them touch you first.” That may be sound advice in his mind. But when it comes down in court to a question of your word, or the officer’s, who do you think the court is going to believe?
A better bit of advice would be to keep it zipped up while you’re in public, no matter how safe you feel about the situation. Trust me, I’ve been busted twice for my behaviors, and it was a wake up call to me to stop my destrucitive behaviors. It was not some cop just trying to bust me because I’m gay.
Stuart Harris
Irving
We welcome letters from readers. Shorter letters are more likely to be printed, as are those that address only a single topic. On some weeks we receive more letters than we can print. In that case, we print a representative sample. Letters are subject to editing for length and clarity, but we attempt to maintain the writer’s substance and tone. Include your home address and a daytime phone number for verification. Send letters to the senior editor, preferably by e-mail (editor@dallasvoice.com). Letters also may be faxed (214-969-7271) or mailed (Dallas Voice, 4145 Travis St., Third Floor, Dallas, TX 72504).
This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition July 13, 2007