I kept thinking about how quickly we can look at something unfamiliar and decide that discomfort must mean something is wrong.

A lot of people forget that gay male leather culture has its own history, language, codes, and ideas about masculinity, sexuality, power, and belonging. Much of its imagery comes from queer people reclaiming symbols of authority, uniforms, boots, police and military aesthetics, cowboys, and other forms of masculinity, then reshaping them on their own terms.

For many queer people who lived under criminalization, surveillance, and social exclusion, leather offered more than an aesthetic. It created a way to turn stigmatized forms of masculinity, authority, and desire into sources of pleasure, solidarity, and self definition. That history helps explain the culture’s intensity, but it also brings us to the harder question: who does it welcome, who does it marginalize, and how does it handle power and harm?

A uniform or dominant posture can suggest authority, submission, eroticism, theater, or politics depending on who is wearing it, who is looking, and what is happening between them. That ambiguity is part of the language. It does not, however, make every use of that language harmless or beyond criticism.

Tom of Finland is perhaps the clearest example. His leather clad, impossibly built men, often cops, sailors, and bikers, helped shape gay male visual culture for decades.

Today, someone might look at those drawings and see only the policing. But that overlooks the men who were looking at them in the 1950s and 60s, many living under sodomy laws, surveillance, and blackmail. The fantasy was not simply about authority. It was about taking an image of authority and making it belong to queer men.

That history matters, but it cannot become a shield against accountability.

When an image is called “problematic,” the conversation can end before it begins. A better question is: what does this image mean in this room, between these people, under these conditions?

A police uniform in a leather bar is not the same thing as one worn by an actual officer. A D/s scene between consenting adults is not coercion. Playing with symbols of authority is not necessarily an endorsement of authority.

Queer communities have often taken symbols that once carried power over them and remade them into something they could control. From the outside, that can look jarring. Sometimes it can feel uncomfortable from the inside too. But discomfort alone does not prove harm.

We encounter this in D/s relationships. The power exchange is intentional and theatrical, but it works because it is chosen. Submission does not mean being powerless. It requires communication, boundaries, trust, and the ability to stop. Dominance is not an entitlement to control someone. It is a role two people agree to inhabit.

There are limits, too. Nazi symbolism, fascist imagery, and symbols tied directly to genocide and political terror carry a weight that does not disappear because they appear in a sexual scene. Calling everything reclamation is too easy, and sometimes simply untrue. Reclaiming a symbol does not erase its history.

But neither should discomfort erase the history of queer people deliberately taking symbols of power and turning them on their heads.

Why an image emerged, what it means now, and whether a particular use causes harm are different questions. We need to be able to ask all three. The goal is not a culture where nobody flinches. It is a culture where we can talk honestly about why we do.

Consent sits underneath all of this, not because leather needs to look respectable, but because it separates chosen power from imposed power.

It is the difference between a role and a violation, fantasy and coercion, giving someone control and having it taken from you. It also raises bigger questions about who feels represented, who feels welcome, and whose history we are borrowing.

Queer history has never been tidy. Earlier generations borrowed from the straight world, created codes, reinvented masculinity, and made spaces where shame did not get the last word. Leather grew from that messiness, including its uncomfortable parts. Understanding that history does not mean celebrating everything in it. It means knowing what we are reclaiming and why.

Leather communities can honor their traditions while asking who has been excluded, whose safety has been neglected, and which forms of power are being eroticized or reproduced. They can preserve intensity, ambiguity, and sexual freedom while making room for clearer consent practices, broader participation, and more honest conversations about harm.

Leather does not need to be sanitized to be understood, and it should not be romanticized to be defended. It needs to be understood on its own terms and held accountable in the present

The conversation worth having is about power, consent, and context. Why can the same image feel liberating to one person and threatening to another? Where does fantasy end and oppression begin? What separates reclaiming a symbol from glorifying what it once represented?

Leather does not have to disown its history to move forward. It needs to understand it well enough to keep reshaping it. And honestly, that feels pretty queer to me: taking what we were handed, deciding what belongs to us, and making something new.

It happened somewhere during my freshman year of college. I was still figuring out my left from right, what it meant to be gay, and I was craving attention that only another man could give. I was also starting to understand that there were places where men went to look at other men, and that looking, in those rooms, often lead to sex. This was a different time, when bars were for fucking, before apps put sex only a swipe away.

I had been to other bars, Mira Bar being the least intimidating. But I never got hit on, even way back then. To the beats of Sandstorm and glow sticks, I was apparently too intimidating. The Eagle however spoke a different dialect entirely. I knew this because I would pass the Eagle in Boston, with it’s imposing eagle over the door when I was in high school, half terrified and partly turned on. Those were the men I aspired to emulate- an unbridled masculinity clad in big boots and leather.

Upon entering the Providence Eagle, a bar sat to my right, a pool table straight ahead, and in one corner, a barber chair caught under a spotlight. (Why the fuck was there a barber chair? - oh that’s why!) Along the far wall, a doorway led to what was supposedly a dance floor. Supposedly. The room itself was small, dark, wet with heat, thick with beer and sweat and leather and sex. The DJ worked under strobes that broke the crowd into snapshots: boots, denim, thick arms, mustaches, men standing with their legs apart, the stance itself was an offer.

Part of me thought, this is home. Another part thought, what the hell am I doing here? It was the closest I’d come to walking straight into a fantasy, and I was completely unequipped for it. Showing up in J.Crew shorts and a Brown University baseball cap, not yet aware that my whole outfit read as “outsider” in a room fluent in leather. I didn’t know the dress code. I didn’t know much of anything. And I was too stupid to observe that a black T-shirt, jeans and Doc Martens went a lot further that my highly curated preppy drag. More intimidating, I was surrounded by men who seemed to know exactly who they were, and I very much did not.

Sundays were gentler. Quieter, less crowded, less like a test I hadn’t studied for. I could sit at the bar and just watch. And every Sunday, there was this man.

I still see him with strange clarity, the tightest Levi’s I’d ever laid eyes on riding up his ass and displaying a bulge that seemed impossible, black boots, a belt buckle the size of a Frisbee. Sometimes clad in chaps, and always wearing a too tight leather shirt or a denim vest over a leather jacket. His mustache heavy over his lip, hands that looked like they’d never done anything gently. He looked like he’d walked directly out of a fantasy built specifically to unnerve me.

He never smiled. He just looked, and there was something devastating in it, nothing like the casual once-over of someone deciding if you’re cute. This was the look of a man who had already decided. His eyes moved over me slowly, without apology. I wanted him to stop looking. I wanted him to never stop. And, I would go every Sunday, just to see him there.

One Sunday he bought me a drink. The bartender set the shot down and the whole room seemed to already know something I didn’t. I drank it. He came over.

“You’re cute,” he said. His voice was artificially deep, but still intoxicating. Then his hand was behind my neck, and he leaned in as I turned my head. His mouth caught the corner of mine, grazing my cheek. So awkward. He just looked at me, “nice hat,” he said. That was the whole conversation, then he walked away.

I thought to myself how I fucked up. Here was this guy who’d been circling for weeks and I turn away when he goes to kiss me. I bought another shot of Jäger (don’t judge me) and followed him into the back room. I don’t know if I was drunk, horny, lonely, or scared, or some tangle of all four, but I walked over to him. He was leaning against the chain link that covered the concrete wall, the music pounding, the lights strobing, the whole room feeling briefly outside of ordinary time.

He looked at me. “What do you want, boy?”

The word landed harder than I expected. Boy? At 6’5” I was a lot of things, but boy? I didn’t know if I was supposed to laugh, or say sir, or say daddy, or just leave. What I wanted him to do was take me home, adopt me, fashion me into this version of masculinity, and obviously make love to me. Instead I averted my eyes whispering “I’m sorry, can I kiss you?”

Something shifted in his face. He pushed off the wall. Suddenly he was close and I was pinned lightly against the fence. “I wanna fuck you!’ he said. I was paralyzed. Then he kissed me, and there was nothing tentative in it. Hard, hungry, unlike anything I’d felt before. All the uncertainty I’d carried into that bar collapsed into pure sensation, leather, sweat, my hands buried in a pelt of chest hair.

Before I knew it, his leather clad forearm was across my chest. His tongue deeper down my throat. His eyes black with laser focus. I could feel the heat, the pulsation, and hands grabbing at me, as mine grabbed at him. Weeks of this flirty dance had lead to this moment.

Almost instinctively, I dropped to my knees. I unbuckled his belt buckle, and out flopped this sausage of a cock. He was not particularly hard, but it was huge. It smelled of leather, sweat and piss, and I put it in my mouth as fast as I could. The room went black, and it felt like just him and me, even though I knew eyes were on us. I lapped and sucked like an obedient puppy- hoping he would cum and then it would be over. At some point, he pulled me up and turned me... my face now against the chain link fence- one hand up my shirt, his other pulling down my pants. His knee forcefully pushing between my legs, spreading me open. He knelt and licked my hole- then came up, and kissed the back of my neck. I could smell my ass on his face, as he asked “want it boy?”

I heard him spit onto his fingers. Thick, they pressed against my hole... I knew what was happening. I thought to myself, is this how I’m gonna lose my virginity? Face pressed against a chain ling fence? And yet I arched my back to meet his prodding. I could feel him rubbing the head of his dick on my ass. I could feel it hardening. He spit again. I arched my back more. He coaxed. He pushed in... the head, then more. More spit, then stabbing pain, as he wrapped his hand around my mouth.

I couldn’t scream, but wanted to scream. It hurt as he worked his cock in. And yet, I didn’t want him to stop. I wanted it in me. I needed him. I had lusted after him for what felt like eternity- and I had something to prove. In that moment, that reckoning, I suppose I was finally becoming, as my abusive conservative family had foretold- a faggot.

At some point my body adjusted, my hips met his thrusts- his hand on my hip, the other at my shoulder, pumping away at me. Fucking me to the remixed sounds of It’s Not Right, But It’s Okay by Whitney Houston. He leaned in, I could feel the sweat, the heat... “on you or in you”, he said. Paralyzed with fear. On me or in me? WTF! I knew the answer was on me. I didn’t know this man. What if I got some STD? What if he gave me AIDS? Fuck- he repeated on you or in you his voice quickening. My mind knew to stop, but my body pushed back almost feral. "Cum in me, Daddy. Please cum in me!’ I blurted out. And he did. So deep, deeper than I thought anyone could ever possibly be. It felt like his cock was gonna push through my belly button.

He pulled out, and pulled up my pants- cum leaking. He fixed himself, and looked at me. A flood of emotions rushed over me. I wanted him to kiss me, rescue me, be my Daddy. For a split second, tell me he loved me. I’m sure my desperation showed on my face. He simply called me a good boy, said, “Thank you” and he walked away.

The room returned all at once.

For a few seconds, I wasn’t a freshman in a Brown cap who didn’t understand the dress code. I wasn’t the outsider trying to decode the room. I was simply there, raw and shaken and newly aware that desire could feel like obliteration, like surrender, like being pulled across a line you had been circling for months.

The music kept going. The lights kept flashing. Men were still dancing; others were disappearing deeper into the dark to repeat what I had just done with casual vacancy. And I realized I had finally crossed the threshold I’d been standing in front of since I was sixteen lurking near my hometown Eagle back in Boston.

Epilogue

After that night, I stopped going to the Eagle. Maybe it was shame. Maybe guilt, embarrassment, or simply the realization that I had wandered into something I wasn’t ready to understand. For years, I resisted the urge to lean further into the world the Eagle had briefly opened for me. I resisted the idea that promiscuity could be a kind of rite of passage, that anonymous sex could be liberating rather than merely dangerous, that desire itself might be something a gay man was allowed to claim without apology.

Instead, I doubled down on everything that made desire easier to hide.

Every so often, though, I wondered about him. Did he know he was my first? Was I just another notch on that enormous belt buckle? Did he remember me at all?

People might say it was sad that my virginity wasn’t given in a bed covered with satin sheets and roses, surrounded by candles, tenderness, and romance. Others might say I was taken advantage of, too young and drunk to consent.

Yet I would not change it. That night at the Eagle gave me a name for something I had been carrying long before I had the language for it: the part of myself that wanted to be seen, wanted to surrender, and wanted to be wanted.

Maybe it is the history behind it, or the smell, or the weight it carries when it sits on a man’s shoulders like armor. Maybe it is the way leather has spent decades absorbing masculine rebellion, brotherhood, and hard won freedom into its grain. Whatever the reason, the moment a man puts it on, some people believe they’ve been handed a permission slip, that they can now say anything to him, want anything from him, and call it flattery.

But someone’s presentation, regardless of how erotic or sexually charged, is not the same as consent to engage in kink.

When I walk into a community space in leather, or post a photograph of myself in it, I am not issuing an invitation. I am presenting something true about myself, a set of values, a lineage of belonging, a way of moving through the world I’ve chosen deliberately, often at real cost. Leather can be erotic, and I won’t pretend otherwise. But erotic does not mean available. A striking aesthetic is not an open door. Visibility is not access, no matter how badly someone wants those two things to collapse into one.

Leather has always carried more weight than a sexual signal, and that history matters. In motorcycle culture, it became shorthand for independence, risk, and a loyalty deeper than blood. In the postwar gay world, it became one of the first vocabularies through which men could recognize each other without speaking, building chosen families in cities that demanded their invisibility. The leather bar, the vest worn like a second skin, the boots broken in over years, all of it let men find one another inside a culture that preferred they stay hidden.

That history is why leather can hold erotic charge without being reducible to it. For some men it’s a kink, a switch that flips something on. For others, a lifestyle woven into daily identity. For others, fashion, heritage, or simply the material in which they feel most themselves. Many carry all of those meanings at once, layered and inseparable.

I think a lot of this comes down to distance, and to what happens to people when they stop practicing intimacy in person.

There was a time when getting close to another man meant showing up somewhere, reading a room, learning to sense what someone wanted through the small, unglamorous work of actual conversation. That process built in friction, and friction is where restraint lives. Screens have removed almost all of it. A man can now look at a photograph for three seconds and message a total stranger with a request that once would have taken months of trust to even bring up.

That collapse of distance has a way of turning other people's inner worlds into something owed to us. I hear from men constantly who post a single picture in leather and within minutes are fielding messages that have nothing to do with what they actually posted. Someone wants to talk about diapers. Someone wants to be walked like a pup. Someone wants to negotiate an age play dynamic, or a feeding kink, or a scene involving control and humiliation that the man in the photo never signaled any interest in at all. None of those desires are shameful in themselves. Kink is wide and human and often beautiful. But somewhere along the way, the ease of typing a message convinced people that their specific want is owed to a specific audience, and that the audience is whoever happened to catch their eye that day.

A profile is not a form you fill out consenting to be someone’s outlet. A photograph of a man in leather is not an invitation to describe your diaper fantasy, your primal scene, your daddy dynamic, or anything else that lives in your head before you have asked whether it’s welcome in his. The apps have made it so easy to skip that question that a lot of men have simply stopped asking it.

You are allowed to have your fantasy in full. You are not entitled to place it onto a person who never agreed to hold it.

Desire and entitlement are not the same animal, though they get mistaken for each other constantly online. Desire can be hot and immediate, almost involuntary, the kind of thing that moves through the body before thought catches up. You can look at a man in leather and feel something surge through you unbidden. That feeling is yours. Claim it, let it burn. But before it turns outward, before it moves from felt to acted upon, there has to be a pause. Inside that pause lives the only thing that actually matters.

Consent. Not implied, not imagined, not manufactured out of a man’s clothing, his photographs, or his reputation. Actual consent, offered by someone genuinely asked and genuinely free to say no.

Consent means asking plainly and listening to the answer without flinching. It means accepting no as a complete sentence, not an opening bid to negotiate down. It means holding this: a man can be deeply, unmistakably sexual and still maintain boundaries that aren’t up for debate. He can live openly in leather, wear his desire on the outside, and still decide with total authority who gets access to that part of him.

There is nothing lesser about asking first. If anything, there’s something profoundly masculine in restraint, in knowing the difference between wanting a thing and taking it, in standing close enough to feel the heat off another man’s body and still recognizing that his body, his attention, and his desire belong to him alone until he chooses otherwise. Leather can be provocative and still not be an offer. It can carry the scent of sweat, smoke, machinery, rebellion, and sex all at once without becoming a blank check anyone else is entitled to cash. That refusal to be reduced is exactly what gives it power.

So look at the man in leather if the sight moves you. Take in the image, feel whatever rises in you. Desire is nothing to be ashamed of. But remember, before you act on any of it, that the man wearing the leather is a full person before he is anyone’s fantasy.

My leather may tell you something true about who I am. It does not tell you what you’re entitled to do with me, or to me. My leather is expression. My leather is history. My leather is community, built by men who fought to have any community at all. My leather may, at times, be kink.

But my leather is never consent.

You learned which parks turned into something else after sunset, which corners held their breath past midnight, which bars carried a charge in the air the moment you walked in. You learned to read a glance held one second too long, a body angled just slightly toward you, a stranger who slowed his pace so you’d catch up. A whole grammar of wanting, spoken without a single word.

Cruising was never only about sex. It was a way of moving through the world with every sense turned up.

Much of its power came from not knowing. You couldn’t type in exactly what you wanted and watch it appear on a screen. You had to stay alert, read the room, and risk getting it wrong. Sometimes nothing happened. Sometimes the ache of almost was the whole point- the walk home more alive than the encounter would have been.

That world had real danger in it. Loneliness. Shame. The threat of violence, always somewhere close. But underneath the risk was something undeniably alive: desire that hadn’t yet been flattened into a profile, a man who was still a mystery until he wasn’t.

Then the phone changed the choreography.

Now fucking can arrive before you’ve left the couch. Faces load in a grid. Distance becomes a number next to a name. Attraction becomes a thumb flicking left, then right. The old question- who’s out there tonight? has been replaced by a colder one: who’s free right now? That’s a real convenience. It might also be an erotic loss.

Cruising asked gay men to find each other without a clear map of what they were looking for. A look across a crowded room could hold more heat than an entire scroll of photos. You might end up with someone outside your usual type, outside the filters, outside the polished self you’d curated for an app— pulled instead toward whoever actually stood in front of you, breathing the same air.

I remember the first time.

Seventeen, wandering Filene’s Basement in Boston’s Downtown Crossing while my mother shopped somewhere above me. A man across the underwear rack, likely in his 30’s wearing khakis, a brown leather bomber, a Red Sox cap pulled low. He was looking at me in a way no one had looked at me before, and I felt it before I understood it.

Then he was next to me, one hand on a growing bulge, the other grazing mine while reaching for underwear. Eye contact made. The heat and electricity of it. I walked away, equal parts terrified and turned on. He followed me. Wherever I went in the store, there he was and I wanted him there.

I ducked into a fitting room to catch my breath, to make it stop. It didn’t stop. Within minutes the curtain moved and he was standing in front of me, and the room went very small. I had never been that close to another man — close enough to feel the heat coming off him, close enough that his breathing became a sound I could feel in my chest. Instinctively I fell to my knees, hat backwards and unzipped his pants. His cock seemed huge, his bush a wild mess of curls. He took the back of my head and before I realized he was skull fucking me. His cock felt so right in my mouth, getting harder and harder. It lasted only minutes, soon his load, thick and salty, was down my throat. “Good boy,” he said, zipped up and left.

That was the first time. It wasn’t the last.

What followed was a kind of hunger I didn’t have language for yet, the bathrooms at Copley, the back aisles of a bookstore, anywhere near 8th & Fenway. In college it was the back room at the Providence Eagle (where I was also fucked for the first time - face pressed against chain link, bight red lights- a Daddy tearing me open to the primal beats of 90s house music.) The hillside behind a mall, a wooded trail at India Point Park, you name it, I chased it for two or so years without asking myself why. Maybe it was the risk. Maybe it was being wanted with that kind of urgency, no names required.

The old grounds; the parks, the piers, the back rooms, the bars with no name on the door were rough, imperfect places. But they were places. They demanded something of you before they’d give anything back: patience, nerve, a willingness to be read as easily as you were reading someone else.

Now we know so much before we’ve even met. Maybe that’s why losing analog cruising feels like more than nostalgia. What disappeared wasn’t just a way of finding sex. It was a specific texture of gay desire — anonymous, charged, half-accidental, held in that narrow space between fantasy and whoever was about to turn the corner.

The mystery was the point. Not knowing was the seduction.

I think about that man in the leather jacket sometimes, not with longing exactly, but with a kind of wonder at how young I was, how little I understood, and how completely that world could still find me anyway. It felt so wrong, but also like coming home to a place I’d never been. It also felt like something I couldn’t have explained to anyone who loved me. Both were true at once. That was the whole shape of it, the right and wrong, tangled together so tightly you couldn’t have pulled them apart if you tried.

Maybe the thing worth reclaiming isn’t cruising itself. It’s the nerve to wander again, to walk out the door without knowing exactly who, or what, is waiting.

The more I step into my most authentic and dominant self, the more the question of why I’m not someone’s Sir, Alpha, or Daddy seems to disappoint some men. Not because they know me, or have any real reason to think we’d be compatible, but because hearing “I don’t have a boy” often gets translated as an opening. A vacancy. An opportunity. Somewhere along the way, the Dom/sub dynamic picked up this weird recruitment model, often one where submissive men are expected to line up and present themselves.

Plenty of men have shown interest. Interest is easy. Authority is harder. The question was never whether I could find some guy willing to call me Sir. The question is whether I’ve given a particular man an actual reason to give me that title. Those are not the same question.

As presentism has shifted the protocols of old, I now see a lot of dominant men demanding submission in exchange for a collar, with that collar treated as just the latest adornment to add to the harness and bar vest.

I learned, back when AIDS still gripped our community, that the boy chooses the Sir. That’s usually the part that makes some men squirm a little.

I think we’ve forgotten that a submissive man isn’t handing over his judgment when he enters a power exchange. If anything, he’s using a ridiculous amount of it. He’s deciding who earns his trust. He’s deciding whose judgment he’s actually going to listen to. He’s deciding which pieces of his autonomy he’s willing to hand over, and under what conditions. That’s not passivity. That’s selection. And if you don’t get that, you’re probably not ready to hold authority over anyone.

A man doesn’t become my boy because he wants the job. He becomes my boy because, over time, he decides I should hold that power and I have an interest in holding it. That takes earned authority, trust, and commitment.

Dominance isn’t a credential you hand yourself. You don’t establish it by putting “Sir” in your bio. It’s not the ability to bark increasingly theatrical commands at a stranger. And it is absolutely not the expectation that someone should obey you just because you announced you’re dominant. Honestly, nothing grinds my gears more than a top demanding authority he hasn’t earned yet. There’s something almost funny about a guy who’s known you for twelve minutes explaining to you what your boundaries should be. No. That’s not dominance. That’s entitlement wearing leather.

Authority is relational. It exists between people, not inside a title. You can call yourself Sir all day long, and sure, that tells everyone something about how you see yourself. But that recognition gets earned, and you don’t earn it by performing. You earn it through consistency, judgment, restraint, keeping your word, by showing you actually know the difference between confidence and arrogance, between leadership and control, between possession as something two people negotiate versus possession as an excuse to treat someone like an object. Anyone can demand obedience. The interesting man is the one who makes you want to give it. That takes time. It takes trust. And trust has this annoying property: you can’t demand it without damaging it in the same breath.

This is probably why so many people get the collar wrong. They treat it as the thing that creates authority.

I see it as the receipt for authority that already exists. The collar isn’t the start of the relationship. It’s proof of everything that already happened. By the time a collar actually means something, there’s already been a mountain of invisible work behind it: conversations, negotiations, disappointments, promises kept and promises tested, boundaries respected, judgment observed, vulnerabilities shown and handled the right way. The slow discovery that this particular man can be trusted with a little more than he could yesterday. Then a little more. Then, maybe, a lot more.

That’s how power actually grows between two people who are paying attention. Not through some big declaration, but through accumulation, one small thing at a time. Trust compounds. So does distrust.

Eventually, if things are right, the collar turns into something pretty different from the usual Dom-fantasy version of it. It’s not the Dom claiming the boy. It’s the boy saying, I choose you. And that’s exactly why it carries weight. A collar handed over because someone felt pressured, or cornered, or flattered, or just swept up in the mythology of D/s — that doesn’t interest me much. A collar given because someone watched me closely and decided I was actually worth trusting? That’s different. That’s earned. And earned authority just feels better than the kind someone assumes for himself.

There’s another part of this people don’t love hearing. If the boy can never say no, he isn’t choosing you. If he can’t negotiate the terms, he isn’t choosing you. If he has to accept whatever you decide to do because “that’s what submission means,” then congratulations — you haven’t built a power exchange; you’ve built a hierarchy where only one person gets to write the rules. That’s not sophisticated. That’s just unilateralism with nicer accessories.

Real power exchange is more interesting than that, because both people actually hold power, even if they’re not using it in the same way. The Sir might hold authority. The boy holds the authority to grant it. That distinction never goes away. It’s the whole foundation everything else sits on. The boy can say, “I choose you.” And just as importantly, he can say, “I don’t.” That second sentence is what makes the first one mean anything at all.

Which brings me back to why I don’t have a boy right now. I’m not trying to fill a role. I’m not collecting applications. I’m not interested in forcing a D/s relationship into existence just because I like the aesthetics — the leather, the titles, the collars, the ritual of it all. I’m waiting for the right guy. Someone who gets that a boy isn’t a prop for his Dom identity. Who gets that submission isn’t the same as stupidity. Who understands that asking for authority and earning it are two completely different things. Someone who can actually handle being evaluated. Who understands that maybe the first real test of his dominance is whether he can hear “not yet” without treating it like an insult.

Because here’s the irony: the men most desperate to be obeyed are usually the least interesting men to obey. Real authority doesn’t have to beg to be recognized. It just creates the kind of conditions where recognition becomes inevitable.

So no, I don’t have a boy. And honestly, I’m fine with that. I’d rather have no boy than the wrong one. I’d rather wait for a man who chooses me than settle for one who just wants the position.

The collar can wait. When it comes — if it comes — I want it to actually mean something. Not “I found someone willing to submit.” Not “I finally got the fantasy I wanted.” Something much bigger than that: I looked at you. I measured you. I trusted you. And I chose you.

That’s the moment a collar stops being just leather. That’s when it becomes authority. And that’s when a Sir has actually earned the right to be called one.

The name came from labels, the kind society is always eager to hand out. I fit the bear box. I’m broad, bearded, heavily tattooed, and yes, what’s between my legs is thicker than average. ThickBearInk practically writes itself. People have come up to me, and addressed me by that name. It’s flattering.

The funny thing about labels is that sometimes they’re accurate without ever feeling entirely true.

I’ve never struggled with the bear community because I felt unwelcome. Quite the opposite. I know that I look like. I’ve met wonderful people, built friendships, and had some incredible experiences. Just recently I spent an afternoon at a massive bear pool party, joyful and carefree, exactly what it should have been. I laughed, flirted, kissed more than a few cute boys, and had an incredible time.

But enjoying a community and finding your identity within it aren’t always the same thing.

One of the running jokes between my husband and me is a simple question. Would you rather be the bear at a leather event, or the bear at a bear event? Every single time, my answer is the leather event.

That answer surprised me the first time I admitted it out loud. It isn’t because I don’t see the overlap. Plenty of men move comfortably between those worlds, and many never feel the need to distinguish them at all. But somewhere along the way, I realized I wasn’t searching for a category. I was searching for a feeling.

Sometimes the bear community feels more like a gathering of people who’ve been grouped together by a label the outside world created, and a convenient box that says we belong together. Leather, by contrast, feels like a brotherhood built around shared values, history, and intention.

Every community has its cliques, its politics, its personalities. No group is immune to that. But when I began building my leather identity, slowly collecting pieces, learning the history, applying to BLUF, and eventually receiving my BLUF number, it didn’t feel like I had bought a wardrobe. It felt like I had crossed a threshold, reached a milestone that meant something to me.

For many people, leather and kink are inseparable. They exist on the same map, and that’s completely valid. My own relationship is different. Leather intersects with my sexuality, but it doesn’t define it. I don’t need leather to be a dominant top. I don’t need leather to enjoy sadism. Those parts of me exist whether I’m wearing boots or loafers.

Leather isn’t permission for me to become someone else. It’s permission to stop pretending to be less of who I already am.

The uniform changes something internal. The moment I zip the boots, fasten the belt, or pull on the jacket, my posture changes. My breathing changes. I feel grounded. I feel safe. I feel masculine, not because leather gives me masculinity, but because it strips away the noise that keeps me from inhabiting it fully.

Most importantly, it makes me comfortable being seen. That’s the part I didn’t understand for a long time. Leather isn’t about hiding behind armor. It’s about choosing what you’re willing to reveal.

The confidence isn’t performative. It’s quiet. It’s the confidence to occupy space without apologizing for it, to return someone’s gaze instead of looking away, to be fully present in your own skin.

Identity is funny that way. We spend years trying to find the right label, assuming the label will tell us who we are. But the older I get, the more I think labels are only useful when they’re descriptive instead of prescriptive. They should help us find one another. They shouldn’t tell us how we’re supposed to exist.

Maybe that’s why I’ve slowly stopped thinking of myself primarily as a bear, even if everyone else still sees one. The label fits. It just doesn’t tell the whole story.

Leather tells more of it. Not because of the gear. Because of what it asks of me. To be intentional. To be accountable. To understand the history of the community I’m stepping into. To carry myself with purpose. To recognize that identity isn’t something you inherit. It’s something you cultivate.

The strongest communities aren’t built because everyone fits the same archetype. They’re built because people arrive fully as themselves. When we stop trying to squeeze ourselves into someone else’s definition of belonging, we make room for more honest connections, for communities where authenticity matters more than aesthetics and shared values matter more than shared labels.

Maybe that’s the real journey. Not from bear to leather. But from wearing a name because it fits, to embracing an identity because it finally feels like home.

But that understanding collapses quickly once you’ve lived inside a dynamic long enough to feel its weight, its texture, the way it breathes between bodies. Power is not owned; it is negotiated, revealed, and, at its most honest, earned. What we call dominance is less about taking than it is about being trusted to receive something that is, in truth, never fully given away. And underneath all of that, quieter and harder to admit, is the question most people are actually asking when they begin to explore kink: how do I know what I want, and how do I say it without shame?

When I was younger, I didn’t have language for my desire, only a pull toward intensity that I couldn’t explain.

I knew I wanted something more than what I was being offered something sharper, something that would cut through the constant noise of my own thinking and drop me fully into my body, but I didn’t yet know how to articulate that without feeling exposed or excessive. So when I met a daddy who asked me my limits, I gave the answer I thought would make me desirable, the answer that sounded open, easy, unburdened: “whatever you want.” At the time, it felt like confidence, like surrender, like proof that I wasn’t needy or complicated.

But it was neither honest nor informed. It was the absence of self-knowledge disguised as availability. When he hit me, harder than I was prepared for, harder than my body could metabolize, it wasn’t just the physical impact that landed. It was the realization that I had tried to bypass the vulnerable work of knowing and naming myself by offering a blank slate, and in doing so, I had handed over something I didn’t understand how to protect.

That moment didn’t immediately give me clarity, but it did begin to reorganize something. I started to notice how often my desire lived just beneath the surface of language, how I could feel it in my body long before I could say it out loud. The shame wasn’t just about what I wanted; it was about the act of wanting at all—about taking up space with it, about risking being seen as too much, too specific, too difficult to hold. Learning to lean into kink wasn’t a single turning point but a slow accumulation of moments where I chose to stay in contact with that desire instead of smoothing it over.

At first, the language was clumsy. It sounded like hesitation, like circling: I think I might like this, I’m curious about that, I don’t know how to say this but… It wasn’t confident, and it wasn’t clean, but it was real. And over time, that mattered more than getting it right.

Still, the real shift didn’t come from trying to better articulate my submission—it came when I stepped into dominance and felt, unmistakably, a current I could no longer deny.

There was something in me that wasn’t asking to be led, but to lead, to shape, to hold intensity for someone else in a way that required clarity, precision, and presence. In that role, I didn’t have the option of vagueness. I had to know what I was doing, why I was doing it, and how it was landing. I had to ask questions, listen closely, and respond in real time. And through that, something unexpected happened: the language I had struggled to find for myself began to take shape through the act of holding it for someone else.

Learning to lean into kink remained a gradual process, but stepping into the role of the dom made that process unavoidable. At first, the language was still clumsy. It sounded like hesitation, like circling: what are you curious about, how does this feel, do you want more or less? But over time, those questions began to mirror back onto me. I started to hear the same inquiries internally, to recognize that the clarity I was offering someone else was something I could also claim for myself.

I remember one moment, small and almost unremarkable from the outside, where that shift became undeniable. We were in the middle of a scene, and something in me wanted more—more pressure, more intensity—but the old instinct was still there, to stay quiet, to accept what was being given. Instead, I heard myself say it, plainly, without softening it into suggestion: “Harder. Stay there.” The words surprised me in their simplicity. There was no performance in them, no attempt to make them sound palatable or easy. Just direction. Just truth. And when it was met—not questioned, not resisted, just received—it landed differently in my body than anything before it. Not because it was intense, but because it was mine.

It wasn’t confident at first, and it wasn’t clean, but it was real. And gradually, that reality replaced the performance of being easy, replacing it with something far more grounded: the ability to name what I wanted, to hold it without apology, and to trust that it could be met.

That experience reshaped how I understood both submission and dominance. Submission, I realized, is not the relinquishing of power but its articulation. The submissive holds the architecture of the scene through their limits, their desires, and their willingness to remain present. What appears as surrender is actually a series of active choices: to stay, to open, to feel. The dominant, if they are skilled, does not override that power but works in relationship to it, facilitating an experience that is responsive rather than imposed. Dominance, then, is not about knowing everything in advance; it is about being attuned enough to adapt, to listen, and to move with what is being offered in real time.

I felt the weight of that responsibility most clearly the first time I was someone’s dom, especially knowing I was their first. There was a temptation to perform authority, to appear certain, but what mattered more was creating a space where they could discover themselves without fear of being pushed beyond what they could hold.

I paid close attention to the small things—the way their breath shifted, the moments of hesitation, the places where curiosity met resistance. And just as importantly, I asked. Not in a way that broke the scene, but in a way that reinforced it: checking in, inviting language, making it clear that their experience was shaping what we were doing together. What I came to understand is that empowered surrender doesn’t come from being taken; it comes from being supported in the act of letting go.

For many people, the hardest part is not the sensation, but the speaking. Porn makes desire look immediate and obvious, as if everyone already knows exactly what they want and how to ask for it.

But in real life, it’s slower, quieter, more uncertain. Learning to verbalize desire is less about finding the perfect words and more about staying in contact with what is true, even when it feels incomplete. It might sound like: I think I want you to be firmer with me, or I’m curious what it would feel like if you pushed me a little more, or even I don’t know exactly what I want, but I know I want to feel more. These are not declarations of certainty; they are openings. And the right dynamic meets those openings with attention, not expectation.

What I’ve come to understand is that power in kink is relational, not positional. It lives in the space between people, shaped by communication, by trust, and by the willingness to be seen clearly and to see clearly in return. The younger version of me thought power meant giving everything away, erasing limits in order to be chosen. The version of me now knows that real surrender is specific, intentional, and informed by a deepening relationship to my own desire. And in learning to name that desire—haltingly at first, and then with more clarity—I found that the shame began to loosen. Not because it disappeared entirely, but because it no longer had the final say. What replaced it was something steadier: the knowledge that what I want is not too much, and that saying it out loud is not a risk to be avoided, but the very thing that makes the experience real.

Michael Andor Brodeur approaches contemporary gym culture not as a punchline or pathology, but as a meaning-making system. Rather than mocking men for their obsession with muscle, he asks a more generous and incisive question: What are men trying to build when they build their bodies? The answer, as Swole patiently reveals, is rarely just size.

At its heart, this is a book about masculinity under pressure. Brodeur situates the rise of modern fitness culture within broader economic, emotional, and cultural shifts—precarious work, delayed adulthood, fractured rites of passage, and the quiet disappearance of places where men once learned how to become men together. In that vacuum, the gym becomes a classroom, the barbell a teacher, and muscle a visible proxy for discipline, self-respect, and control.

What makes Swole especially effective is its refusal to sneer. Brodeur understands that lifting is not simply vanity or insecurity, though it can contain both. It is also ritual. It is repetition, submission to resistance, tracking progress over time, and learning humility through failure. These are ancient pedagogies, repackaged in neoprene and steel. For many men, the gym is one of the few remaining spaces where effort clearly correlates with outcome—and where growth is legible.

Brodeur writes with the eye of a cultural critic and the empathy of someone who has been inside the culture he describes. He explores bodybuilding forums, Instagram physiques, supplement economies, and locker-room mythologies without flattening them. The men in Swole are not caricatures; they are seekers. They are trying to become solid in a world that often offers men abstraction instead of initiation.

Importantly, the book does not romanticize muscle uncritically. Brodeur is attentive to the costs: injury, obsession, comparison, and the ways strength can slide into self-surveillance or shame. But even here, his tone remains curious rather than condemning. The problem is not that men want to be strong. The problem is that strength is often the only socially sanctioned language available to them for expressing care, devotion, or worth.

One of Swole’s quiet insights is that muscle is not merely about dominance—it is about visibility. To be muscular is to be seen as capable, to signal that one can endure effort and pain voluntarily. In a culture where men frequently feel interchangeable or disposable, the body becomes a résumé written in flesh. Brodeur treats this not as pathology, but as data.

Ultimately, Swole is a book about longing. Longing for form. For feedback. For elders, standards, and belonging. It reveals gym culture as a grassroots masculinity project—imperfect, commercialized, sometimes distorted, but rooted in a genuine desire to become trustworthy to oneself.

For readers interested in masculinity, embodiment, or contemporary ritual, Swole pairs well with books like Shop Class as Soulcraft—another meditation on why resistance, effort, and material reality still matter. Brodeur reminds us that when culture stops offering men meaningful ways to grow, they will invent their own. The barbell, it turns out, is one of the most eloquent inventions we have.

Swole is ultimately a compassionate, clear-eyed exploration of why muscle still matters—not because it makes men better than others, but because it gives many men a way to practice commitment, patience, and care in a world that rarely teaches those qualities explicitly.

The question stayed with me, but it shifted, moving away from the jacket, the boots, the visible surface, and toward something less easily named. What seemed to unsettle people was not the material, but what it signaled, and more specifically, what it seemed to suggest about power.

That word gets used constantly and almost never with precision. Most people imagine power as something imposed, something taken and held over another person, a simple hierarchy that places one body above another. When leather is called problematic, it is usually this version of power that people are responding to, even if they don’t say it directly.

But that understanding has never matched what I have experienced inside leather spaces. What leather asks of you—often before you have the language for it—is not whether you can take power, but whether you can recognize it as it begins to move between people, whether you can stay present to it, and whether you can hold it without slipping into performance or carelessness.

That awareness tends to arrive first in the body. There are moments that are easy to miss if you are not paying attention, when something shifts without announcement. Eye contact holds just long enough to become deliberate. A body adjusts in a way that is subtle but unmistakable. The space between two people changes, not because anything has happened yet, but because something might. That possibility has weight to it. It can be felt, and once it is felt, it becomes part of the interaction whether anyone names it or not. What is happening in those moments is not spectacle and not yet action, but a kind of negotiation that sits just beneath language while still being shaped by it.

This is where the older writing on leather culture becomes useful, not as a set of rules, but as a record of how people have tried to make sense of that experience.

When Larry Townsend wrote The Leatherman’s Handbook, he was not describing domination in the way people often imagine it now. What he was doing was outlining a way of being with other people inside these dynamics, and what stands out is how much of it centers on responsibility. The roles he describes—dominant, submissive, top, bottom—are not shortcuts to authority. They are positions that come with expectations, and those expectations are not abstract. They show up in how closely you are paying attention, in whether you notice the shift in someone’s breath, in whether you respond when something changes rather than pushing past it. Power, in that context, does not belong to one person. It exists between people, and because it exists there, it has to be managed, not displayed.

That becomes clearer when placed alongside the broader ways masculinity has been constructed, particularly in queer spaces. In Gay Macho: The Life and Death of the Homosexual Clone, Martin P. Levine and Michael Kimmel describe the emergence of the clone as a dominant aesthetic in the 1970s, a look that made masculinity immediately recognizable—boots, denim, a particular kind of body, a particular kind of presence. There is something powerful in that reclamation, in taking on a masculinity that had been denied, but there is also a narrowing that happens when masculinity becomes something that can be identified at a glance. Leather intersects with that moment historically, but it does something slightly different. It doesn’t fix masculinity into a single form. It opens it up into roles that are defined less by appearance and more by interaction. Dominance and submission, authority and service, control and surrender are not opposites so much as positions that depend on each other, and that dependence creates a kind of tension that is not just conceptual. It is felt in the pacing of an interaction, in the awareness that something is being chosen, moment by moment, by both people involved.

That tension is often where people get uncomfortable, because it is not loud or exaggerated in the way people expect. It is quieter than that. It shows up in pauses, in proximity, in the way attention narrows between two people who are aware of each other in a particular way. There is a kind of charge that can build without anything explicitly happening, a recognition that the interaction is no longer neutral. It is being shaped. It is being negotiated. And both people are participating in that, even if one of them appears, from the outside, to be in control. That is the part that is easy to miss if you are only looking at the surface.

Power, in this sense, is not about overriding another person. It is about staying in relationship with them closely enough that what unfolds between you remains responsive rather than fixed.

That shift—from thinking of power as something you take to understanding it as something you are responsible for in relation to another person—was not immediate for me, but it was significant. Before leather, I understood my own inclinations toward intensity and control, but they existed without much structure. They were internal, something I recognized in myself but had not yet fully worked out in practice. Leather did not create those inclinations, but it gave them context. It placed them within a framework that required me to think about how I showed up, not just what I wanted. It made me more aware of how my presence lands with someone else, how easily an interaction can shift, how important it is to notice that shift rather than ignore it. There is a kind of focus that can happen in those moments, where the outside world recedes slightly and what remains is the interaction itself—the distance between bodies, the awareness of another person’s response, the recognition that what is happening is not accidental but being shaped in real time.

Which is why the idea that leather is simply a costume has never felt quite right to me. The gear matters in the sense that it signals something, that it makes a role visible, but the signal only holds if it is supported by behavior. Without that, it collapses into something purely aesthetic. When the behavior aligns, though, the interaction changes. It becomes more deliberate, more precise, more alive in a way that is difficult to describe if you have not experienced it. And I suspect that is part of what people are reacting to when they say leather feels uncomfortable. They are sensing something that is not entirely legible to them, something that operates on a level that is both physical and relational, and without context, it is easy to misread that as something problematic rather than something unfamiliar.

So when I return to the original question now, it feels less like a question about leather and more like a question about whether we have learned how to engage power at all.

Leather does not create power, but it does make it visible.

It brings it into the body, into the space between people, into something that can be felt and responded to rather than ignored.

And once you have experienced it that way, it becomes harder not to notice how often power is used elsewhere without that same level of attention. That, more than anything, is what leather has taught me. Not how to dominate, but how to stay present to what is happening between myself and another person, and to recognize that whatever power exists in that space is something I am responsible for, not something I simply possess.

Around the same time, I had started posting more pictures of myself in leather again. It’s not that leather was new. For a long time I posted them regularly, but then my gainer side took over my social media presence, so people were genuinely surprised to see me again in full leather from head to toe.

In truth, leather community and culture come before bear culture and the gainer scene for me. I would much rather be the bear at a leather event than the bear at a bear event. I don’t know exactly why that is. I think, as a scene, the leather world is a language I understand, one with a history that has fascinated me for a long time.

But back to that question: Do you think leather is problematic? Alongside that came another familiar question: What are your thoughts on Old Guard versus New Guard?

My first instinctive answer was simple: I don’t find leather problematic. I find people problematic. There are people in every subculture, every scene, every community, kink or otherwise who bring their prejudices with them. There are people who are misogynistic, transphobic, exclusionary, or simply arrogant about what they think the culture should look like. That is not unique to leather. It’s human behavior that shows up everywhere. Leather itself is not the problem. The jacket is not the problem. The boots are not the problem.

When something is broken in a community, it’s almost always because of the person wearing the gear, not the gear itself.

Another question that comes up frequently is the idea that leather culture is somehow exclusive to people who can afford a full kit or head-to-toe leather, polished boots, or who have earned a vest covered in patches. That idea has always struck me as gate-keeping and is historically inaccurate.

If we look back at the origins of leather culture, what we see is not luxury. We see a reclamation of working-class masculinity. Leather culture grows out of the post–World War II biker scene: boots, tight jeans, a thick black belt, a white T-shirt, maybe a motorcycle jacket or a bar vest with the patch of your club. The aesthetic was practical before it was ceremonial. It was rugged, masculine, and accessible to the men who were building the culture in the first place.

The more formalized uniforms of blues, breeches, military caps, Sam Browne belts, all come later. They overlap with the biker aesthetic and eventually become part of the visual vocabulary of leather, but they are not the origin point.

Some of the most iconic early images of leather culture show men in simple jeans and boots, standing at a bar, leaning against motorcycles, claiming space in a world that was not built for them.

Anyone can buy a leather vest. Anyone can order a harness online. That doesn’t make someone leather.

Being part of the leather community is about how you carry yourself inside that world. It’s about understanding that the culture comes with a history, with rituals, with a way of treating other people in the space. Leather has always carried an ethic with it. Respect for the people who came before you. Respect for mentors and elders. Respect for the dynamics people choose to inhabit with care and consent. Those values are part of the culture just as much as the boots or the jacket.

The gear can signal belonging, but the gear alone isn’t the thing. Leather, in its deepest sense, is an orientation toward the world.

It’s a way of inhabiting what is often labeled as masculinity: power, service, authority, with intention. For some people that expression becomes explicitly sexual through BDSM and kink. For others it remains more aesthetic or symbolic. You can be deeply into leather and not necessarily be someone who practices kink. For many people leather becomes a bridge into those practices, but it isn’t a requirement.

In my own life, kink came long before leather. Long before I owned a jacket or boots or anything that could remotely be called a “kit,” I already understood myself as a kinky person. Someone once said to me, half amused and half bewildered, “For someone who looks like they stepped out of a J.Crew catalog, you are the kinkiest, most sadistic person I know.”

They meant it as a joke, but there’s truth in it. So much of what we wear, leather included, is a kind of costume. Not in the sense that it’s fake, but in the sense that clothing allows us to step into a role. When you pull on boots and a vest, you step into an imagery and ritual that the community already recognizes. People of every gender, race, class can and do, step into that role.

But that lineage only has meaning if we remember where it came from.

The leather scene once occupied a very visible part of gay culture. In the decades before widespread social acceptance, leather bars and biker clubs were not niche corners of queer life—they were central gathering places where a certain kind of masculinity could be lived openly, even defiantly.

What people often refer to as the “Old Guard” emerges largely in the decades after World War II. Thousands of men returned from the war having lived in intensely homosocial environments structured by uniforms, rank, and ritual. They had experienced camaraderie, hierarchy, and embodied expressions of masculinity that were difficult to replicate in civilian life. Motorcycle clubs became one place where that energy found a home.

Outlaw biker aesthetics blended with the emerging networks of gay bars in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. Leather bars formed as places where men could express a form of masculinity that challenged the stereotypes imposed on gay men at the time.

The clothing became a visual language: boots, denim, leather jackets, bar vests, belts. These garments carried an outlaw symbolism that allowed queer men to reclaim power in a society that criminalized their sexuality. Wearing leather was not just about style—it was about signaling strength, danger, brotherhood, and belonging in a world that often denied queer men those identities.

Over time, leather culture developed more formal structures: mentorship, protocol, codes of conduct, and the rituals that people now associate with Old Guard traditions. But even then the culture was never as narrow as people sometimes imagine. Women were present. Trans people were present. Dominatrices were present. The mythology that leather was once exclusively the domain of cisgender men erases much of the complexity that has always existed inside the scene.

The so-called “New Guard” emerges in a different historical moment after the sexual revolution, after the devastation of the AIDS crisis, and in a world where queer communities have become more visible and more diverse. The language of consent becomes more explicit. The community becomes more intentional about inclusion. The leather scene expands to make space for more genders, more identities, and more ways of practicing power exchange.

At the same time, the leather scene itself seems less visible than it once was. Part of that is because the world has changed. Queer people now have more places to gather, more ways to express identity, and more forms of community than existed in earlier decades. The urgency that once concentrated queer life into bars and leather clubs has softened. AIDS, once the defining crisis of a generation, is now medically managed in ways that would have been unimaginable in the 1980s and early 1990s. As queer life has moved into the mainstream, some of the subcultures that once defined it have become less central in public view.

But fading from the center of visibility is not the same as disappearing.

Leather culture persists, sometimes quieter, sometimes more dispersed, but still very much alive. It continues in bars, in clubs, in mentorship relationships, in contests and gatherings, and in the rituals that people carry forward. It also continues to evolve, reflecting the realities of a different generation living in a different social landscape.

Some people talk about Old Guard and New Guard as if they are opposing forces, but I think that misses the point. Cultures survive because they evolve. The past gives the culture its foundation. The present gives it its vitality.

To participate in leather culture today means understanding both. It means knowing the history of the bars, the clubs, and the communities that existed when being openly queer carried real danger. It means recognizing the rituals and symbols that developed in that time. And it also means recognizing that culture is not meant to freeze in place.

The leather community that exists now is different, more diverse, and more complicated than it was fifty years ago. That isn’t a loss of tradition. It’s evidence that the culture is still alive.

And for me, that’s part of what remains so compelling about leather. When I put on boots, fasten a belt, and feel the weight of leather settle across my shoulders, something shifts in my posture. My stance changes. I feel connected to something larger than myself.

Not just an outfit. Not just a scene. A history. A community. A mindset.

Through violence, silence, abandonment. Through the tools some men use when they do not know what to do with a sensitive boy: shame him into compliance or ignore him into invisibility. Power, in those early lessons, was withdrawal. Control. The tightening of the jaw and the refusal to feel.

Those wounds are not mine alone. They circulate through culture like inheritance, in men who mistake domination for strength, institutions built on extraction, and the ways people learn to navigate hierarchy just to feel safe inside it. Patriarchy harms women. It also warps men, teaching everyone the grammar of rank without teaching what rank is for.

To survive that warping, I went looking for another teacher. I found her first in feminism, in women who gave me language for embodiment, autonomy, and the sacred feminine. That refuge saved my life. But somewhere along the way, I noticed something I was not proud of: I had become fluent at critiquing masculinity while losing track of what it meant to know it. I still lived in a male body. I still carried a masculine current, however queer its wiring. If masculinity was only wound, threat, and system, what could I do with the part of me it built?

That is when leather taught me something feminism alone could not.

Patriarchy does not just concentrate power upward. It isolates men, teaching them to see one another as competitors rather than witnesses. A man alone with his hardness has no one to set it down in front of. Leather brotherhood breaks that isolation. A circle of men who have stood together and been seen, not performed at, can rebuild what patriarchy severed.

You do not earn a brother’s respect by winning. You earn it by showing up again after being humbled. The men I trust most in leather spaces are not the hardest men in the room. They are the ones who have knelt, topped, failed a scene, and stayed afterward to talk rather than disappearing into shame. That is brotherhood as counter patriarchy: rank without cruelty, hierarchy without contempt.

Leather did not teach me to distrust power. It taught me to discipline it. In a scene, power is negotiated, named, agreed to, and revocable. A Master’s authority exists because the boy offers it and can withdraw it. Power is re earned through consent rather than seized and defended.

That undoes one of the central lies of patriarchal masculinity: that authority, once taken, must never be questioned. Take that structure outside the dungeon and it still holds. A father’s authority, a mentor’s, a leader’s: all of it works the same way, or curdles into the thing we are trying to escape. Rightful power kneels to reciprocity. Patriarchal power refuses to kneel.

Here is the distinction leather gave me: patriarchy gives men armor. Leather gives men protocol.

Armor keeps everything out: shame, grief, vulnerability. It is the jaw clenched shut for thirty years. Protocol creates a structure where vulnerability has somewhere safe to go.

A boy kneels not because he has been diminished, but because the position was built to hold him. A Master gives orders not simply to dominate, but because command, taken up with trust, gives honest form to one man’s desire to lead and another’s desire to submit. Remove the container and patriarchy leaves control without consent: domination wearing a work shirt.

To rewild masculinity is not to return to brutality or perform primal dominance. It is to strip away what patriarchy bolted on: constant control, suppressed grief, status anxiety, and let something older breathe.

I have watched that happen in leather ritual space: power exchanged consciously rather than assumed, strength expressed through containment rather than coercion, dominance existing only because surrender was freely offered and can be taken back. Imperfect. Human. But it is the clearest model I know of a masculinity that has not lost its force, only its cruelty.

Divine masculinity, if the phrase still means anything, has to be accountable. Porous enough to grieve. Able to sit inside shame without becoming defensive.

It has to know that protection is not ownership. And it has to be willing to be ordinary: a Master who checks in after a scene, a brother who helps you move apartments, a man who cooks, listens, keeps his word, and holds his ground without needing an audience.

The divine masculine is not always thunder. Sometimes it is a hand on the back of your neck saying, I’ve got you, and I’m not going anywhere.

The fear is that if men give up patriarchal dominance, masculinity dissolves. Leather says otherwise. It never required abandoning hierarchy. It required making hierarchy answer to someone.

Maybe masculinity is not dying. Maybe it is finally being asked to earn its rank instead of inheriting it.

The men I respect most are not the loudest. They are the ones doing the interior work: examining entitlement, metabolizing anger rather than exporting it, sitting honestly with their fathers’ silence rather than repeating it. Not perfect masters of themselves. In training. That is the practice.

Maybe divine masculinity is not a fixed archetype handed down, but a disciplined relationship to power, tested inside real brotherhood and held accountable by consent.

Strength in service, not conquest. Desire acknowledged, not disowned. Presence that does not panic when someone starts to cry. Rewilding means refusing to confuse domination with depth. It means letting masculine force be fierce without cruelty, protective without possession, commanding without extraction.

Power is most alive when someone else has agreed to meet it.

Yes, masculinity can still be divine.

But only if it kneels first, and rises without the armor.

At a time when mainstream society, and often the medical and academic establishments, dismissed leather as deviant, Mains instead recognized it as a complex social world with its own rituals, ethics, aesthetics, and ways of creating meaning. More than forty years later, Urban Aboriginals remains one of the foundational texts of queer cultural history.

The book’s enduring importance lies not simply in its examination of leather sexuality, but in its insistence that leather is about far more than sex. Mains explores the psychological, spiritual, emotional, and physiological dimensions of BDSM and power exchange, arguing that these practices can foster trust, transformation, vulnerability, and altered states of consciousness. He invites readers to understand leather not as spectacle, but as a profound language through which many gay men negotiated identity, intimacy, masculinity, and belonging.

What distinguishes Urban Aboriginals from many studies of queer life is that Mains writes as both participant and observer. His work is deeply informed by lived experience, yet it is also intellectually ambitious. He draws connections between ritual, mythology, psychology, anthropology, and sexuality, placing the leather community within a broader human tradition of initiatory practices and communal bonds. Whether or not one accepts every conclusion, the book remains groundbreaking in its refusal to reduce leather to either clinical diagnosis or erotic entertainment.

Its greatest significance today, however, may be as an act of preservation.

Queer history has always been vulnerable to erasure. For generations, our stories were ignored, censored, destroyed, or simply never recorded. Entire communities disappeared before their histories could be documented, particularly during the AIDS epidemic, when countless lives, and the memories they carried, were lost. Books like Urban Aboriginals stand against that disappearance. They preserve not only practices and identities, but also ways of thinking, feeling, organizing, and caring for one another that might otherwise have vanished from the historical record.

This preservation matters because history is not merely retrospective. It is generative. Contemporary queer communities are often encouraged to imagine themselves as entirely new, yet many of the values celebrated today, including chosen family, negotiated consent, bodily autonomy, radical authenticity, and intentional community, were cultivated and refined within spaces like the leather community decades ago. Understanding that lineage deepens our appreciation of the present and reminds us that queer liberation has always been built collectively.

In an era when LGBTQ+ histories continue to face political attacks, book bans, and cultural sanitization, Urban Aboriginals takes on renewed urgency. It reminds us that preserving marginalized histories is itself a political act. To document communities that dominant culture sought to ignore is to affirm that their lives mattered, their ideas mattered, and their contributions deserve to be remembered.

Geoff Mains was, by all accounts, an intelligent, compassionate, and deeply thoughtful writer who cared profoundly about the community he chronicled. That care is evident on every page. His work does not romanticize leather culture, nor does it apologize for it. Instead, it approaches its subjects with curiosity, respect, and an abiding belief that marginalized people deserve to tell their own stories in their own voices.

Today, Urban Aboriginals should be read not only as a landmark exploration of leather culture, but also as an essential work of queer historical preservation. It reminds us that memory is an act of resistance. When we preserve the histories of our communities, not just their struggles, but also their joy, creativity, rituals, and relationships, we create a foundation upon which future generations can build.

The future of queer culture depends, in no small measure, on our willingness to remember. Geoff Mains understood that. More than four decades later, Urban Aboriginals continues to show us why.

I’ve been sitting with this question lately, noticing how easily we inherit stories about self-sufficiency and how rarely we pause to ask whether those stories were ever meant for us.

Most of us were raised on a quiet myth: that the strongest people are the ones who need the least, want the least, reveal the least. We were taught, sometimes explicitly, sometimes through the grain of the culture itself, that independence is a moral achievement, that stoicism is admirable, that any softening of the self is something to be apologized for later. We learn to hold our breath. We learn to hold our ground. We learn, in small but formative ways, to hold ourselves apart.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Subscribed

But what if that narrative was never designed for a full human life? What if the harder we cling to it, the smaller we become inside it?

Simone de Beauvoir once wrote, “One’s life has value so long as one attributes value to the life of others, by means of love, friendship, indignation and compassion.” I keep returning to that sentence because it names something most of us feel long before we claim it: intimacy—not romantic intimacy alone, but the intimacy of friendship, of presence, of shared meaning—is not an ornament to a life. It is the architecture of one. It gives shape, dimension, resonance. Without it, things get flat and brittle. With it, the world takes on depth.

What would it mean to lean into that idea with intention?

To seek intimacy not because we are lonely, but because we recognize it as a form of truth-telling. To let someone’s presence alter the texture of our day. To practice the small, unglamorous acts of closeness—listening well, staying curious, letting ourselves be known in ways that feel unvarnished and real.

It might look like loosening the internal posture that insists we must handle everything alone. It might look like letting friendship become a site of transformation rather than convenience. It might look like anger that arises not from ego but from indignation on behalf of someone we love. It might look like compassion that interrupts our habitual distance and asks us to show up differently.

It would certainly require courage. Intimacy always does. Not the courage of grand gestures, but the quieter courage of allowing ourselves to be shaped by someone else’s presence. To be influenced. To be softened. To admit that we do not, in fact, grow only by our own efforts.

This is the part of Beauvoir’s line that lingers for me: value is relational. A life becomes valuable not in isolation but through the ways it touches other lives—through the ways we allow ourselves to be moved, and to move others in return. We become, in part, through the people we let in. Through the connections we nurture. Through the tenderness we choose instead of the armor we’ve been taught to wear.

So I keep wondering: what if intimacy is not a deviation from strength, but its expression? What if the real work is not perfecting our independence, but learning to meet one another with presence, depth, and undisguised humanity?

Perhaps the question is not whether we need others. The question is how willing we are to let that need guide us toward a richer, more spacious way of living.

Maybe seeking intimacy is less about filling a gap and more about acknowledging a truth: we come alive in relation. We expand in companionship. We grow through contact. And when we allow ourselves that possibility, something inside us loosens. Something breathes. Something opens.

Permission granted.

It gave language to a community that had existed largely in the shadows. It offered a roadmap for men who had no mentors, no internet, and few opportunities to discover they were not alone. For many readers, it was not simply a handbook — it was a lifeline.

Today, more than fifty years after its original publication, The Leatherman’s Handbook deserves recognition not only as a foundational text of leather culture but as one of the most important primary documents in queer history. Like Geoff Mains’ Urban Aboriginals, Townsend’s work captures a moment in gay life before AIDS transformed the community forever. Together, these books preserve a culture that was vibrant, experimental, and unapologetically sexual — one too often neglected in histories seeking a more respectable version of the queer past.

Townsend approached leather with remarkable candor. He wrote neither as an academic nor as an activist, but as an experienced participant eager to share what he had learned. The result was practical, direct, and deeply affirming. At a time when homosexuality itself was still widely stigmatized, Townsend acknowledged an additional truth that many gay men struggled to express: some of us were not only homosexual, but also drawn to power exchange, bondage, dominance and submission, and sadomasochism. His message was simple but revolutionary — you are not alone.

Today, information is abundant. In the early 1970s, it was almost nonexistent. Books like The Leatherman’s Handbook connected isolated men across continents, creating community long before online forums and social media existed. For countless readers, Townsend’s words were the first confirmation that their desires were shared by others, and that those desires could be explored with confidence rather than shame.

The recent Golden Anniversary edition reminds us how dramatically the world changed after the original publication. Townsend’s later annotations, written in the shadow of AIDS, document the profound rupture the epidemic inflicted on leather culture. Reading the original text alongside his reflections is a poignant reminder that an entire generation’s assumptions about sexuality, freedom, and community had to be reconsidered almost overnight. The handbook became more than an introduction to leather — it became a historical record of a world that no longer existed in quite the same way.

Too often, queer history has been edited to make it more palatable to mainstream audiences. Like Victorian scholars who softened the erotic realities of classical Greece and Rome, some modern historians have emphasized the respectable while overlooking the communities whose sexual freedom most directly challenged conventional morality. Leather men, drag queens, sex workers, cruisers, and other sexual outlaws have frequently been relegated to the margins of their own history, despite their central role in shaping queer life.

Perhaps that is the greatest lesson of The Leatherman’s Handbook: preserving our history is itself an act of liberation. Sexual minorities have too often depended on outsiders to explain who they were. Townsend refused that role. He documented his own community from within, leaving behind a record of extraordinary value for those who came after him.

Paradise cannot be preserved unchanged. Communities evolve, generations pass, and cultures transform. What can endure is memory. By recording the leather community as it lived, loved, experimented, and imagined itself, Larry Townsend ensured that future generations would inherit not myths or sanitized legends, but the authentic voices of those who built one of the most influential subcultures in modern queer history.

It is a historical document that captures a pivotal moment in the evolution of modern gay identity. Written by a scholar who was also an active participant in the community he studied, the book offers a rare combination of academic rigor and lived experience. More than four decades after its publication, Gay Macho remains an essential text for understanding how masculinity became one of the defining forces in post-Stonewall gay culture.

Levine examines the emergence of the “gay clone,” a hypermasculine archetype that stood in sharp contrast to earlier stereotypes of homosexual men as effeminate, weak, or psychologically “inverted.” In the years following gay liberation, many men rejected these pathologizing narratives by embracing a form of masculinity that was unapologetically physical, sexual, and culturally recognizable. Leather jackets, flannel shirts, denim, mustaches, muscular bodies, and an unapologetic sexuality became symbols of both liberation and belonging.

Rather than dismissing this transformation as simple fashion, Levine asks what social purpose it served. He argues that the clone represented a collective reimagining of what it meant to be a gay man. Masculinity became a means of resisting stigma and claiming space within a society that had long denied gay men full manhood. At the same time, Levine remains critical of the culture’s excesses. His analysis acknowledges the ways in which hypermasculinity could reproduce many of the same hierarchies, exclusions, and expectations that feminism had already identified within heterosexual society.

That willingness to embrace complexity is what makes Gay Macho so valuable today. Levine neither celebrates nor condemns the clone phenomenon. Instead, he seeks to understand it as a product of its historical moment. His work reminds readers that identities are never static. They are shaped by political struggle, social conditions, and the ongoing negotiation between personal desire and collective belonging.

Perhaps the book’s greatest contribution lies in its timing. Levine documented this world just before the AIDS epidemic transformed gay life forever. His descriptions of discos, bathhouses, leather bars, friendships, and sexual networks preserve a community at the height of its cultural confidence, unaware that it was standing on the edge of unimaginable loss. In hindsight, these chapters have become more than sociology. They are invaluable historical testimony.

Levine’s later discussion of the AIDS epidemic is equally important. Rejecting moral panic and victim blaming, he examines HIV through both sociological and epidemiological lenses while refusing to pathologize the men whose lives were forever changed by the epidemic. His critique is directed not at homosexuality itself, but at cultural ideals of masculinity that could encourage risk-taking, emotional distance, and the pursuit of dominance. Whether readers agree with every aspect of his feminist analysis, it remains a thoughtful and provocative contribution to conversations that continue today.

Like the best works of queer scholarship, Gay Macho functions as an act of historical preservation. It records a community in transition, capturing the aspirations, contradictions, and cultural innovations of a generation that fundamentally reshaped gay identity. In an era when LGBTQ+ history is increasingly vulnerable to censorship and erasure, books like this remind us that our communities have never been monolithic. They have always contained debates about gender, sexuality, power, identity, and what liberation should look like.

Reading Gay Macho today offers more than an opportunity to revisit the past. It provides context for many of the conversations that continue to shape queer life, from body image and masculinity to sexual politics and community formation. By understanding where these ideas came from, we gain a clearer understanding of where we are today and where we might choose to go next.

Levine understood that documenting a culture is itself a political act. His work preserves a critical chapter of gay history, one that deserves to be remembered not simply for its style or sexuality, but for the questions it raised about identity, belonging, and the meaning of liberation. Those questions remain as relevant today as they were when Gay Macho was first published.

My sister flew to Texas to be with him before the end. She, too, urged me: “You should clear the air.” Eventually, during that time, a call came from his new wife, a woman I had never met. I didn’t answer. I had nothing to say to her. The casual vacancy in her voice as she said, “This is Mary-Chris, your stepmother. I know we’ve never met, but your daddy is not long for this world and would love to speak to you,” rang hollow.

Then he called himself. It was a rainy Tuesday—the kind of rain that seems endless, muffling the world in a gray cocoon. It was fitting, I thought, that the weather mirrored the heaviness I had carried for years. When the call came, I let it ring until the voicemail captured what I already knew would be his last attempt at redemption. I deleted the message without listening. And I have no regrets.

I grew up in the shadow of his rage. His words cut deeper than any weapon, slicing through my confidence and leaving behind scars that bled into adulthood.

The violence of his abuse made me question my value and taught me that love was conditional. He shunned me for not meeting his expectations, for daring to be myself in a world he sought to control. His violence was a thundercloud—ever-present and suffocating. By the time I escaped his grasp—him in handcuffs and me, at 16, with a fat lip and years of torture behind me—I had already mourned the loss of the father I deserved but never had.

In his final moments, he wanted forgiveness, and my forgiveness was expected. The endless gaslighting from everyone was palpable. It seemed that because my sister had forgave him, and my mother found a space to hear him out, I needed to also. Yet I was resolved- the answer was no.

Death has a way of making people fear what lies beyond. I knew his call wasn’t an apology; it was a plea for absolution, an attempt to wipe his conscience clean before the end. There were years when perhaps a conversation could have changed the course of our relationship, but by then, I wasn’t interested. Maybe he had changed—found sobriety, rediscovered his faith, or reconciled with his God—who knows? Maybe I had become a cold-hearted bitch, hardened by years of his abuse. But forgiveness is not something owed; it’s a gift, one I had no intention of giving.

Forgiveness requires more than a dying man’s fear or the last-minute grasp at redemption. It demands accountability, genuine remorse, and a willingness to change—none of which he ever offered me. What he wanted was a clean slate, a soothing of his conscience before the inevitable, while leaving me to carry the weight of what he’d done. I had spent years piecing myself back together, finding my value, and reclaiming my power. To offer forgiveness in that moment would have been to betray myself and all the work I had done to heal.

For years, I wrestled with society’s narrative that we must forgive those who wrong us to find peace. As queer people, we are told to honor our families, even when they have harmed us deeply. But peace doesn’t come from absolving abusers; it comes from reclaiming the power they took from us. My father’s death didn’t change the years of pain he inflicted or the self-doubt I fought to overcome. If anything, his final plea reinforced what I had come to understand: his remorse wasn’t for me; it was for himself. And I refused to sacrifice my hard-won healing for his comfort.

Mary Oliver once wrote, “Someone I loved once gave me a box full of darkness. It took me years to understand that this, too, was a gift.” My father’s abuse was my box of darkness.

For a long time, I carried it, heavy and unwieldy, mistaking its weight for something I had to bear. But in time, I realized the gift wasn’t the darkness itself, but the freedom to set it down. To refuse his call was to honor the work I had done to stand in my own power, to choose myself over the endless cycle of his harm.

As queer people, we are often forced to navigate a world that questions our very existence. Sometimes, the people who should protect us become our perpetrators. It is okay to walk away from them. We can mourn the loss of blood kin while understanding that true kinship lies in the families we choose for ourselves. Forgiveness isn’t the key to freedom; choosing ourselves is.

I don’t regret not taking the call. I mourned my father long before his body gave out, grieved the relationship we never had, and let go of the hope that he might become the man I needed him to be. His death was not a turning point for me; it was an echo of a story I had already closed.

Abuse teaches us to minimize our worth, to believe that we owe something to those who harm us. But we don’t owe them forgiveness, reconciliation, or absolution. What we owe is to ourselves: the courage to heal, the strength to say no, and the grace to live without regret. As a queer person, my father’s death wasn’t an ending for me; it was a confirmation that I had already moved on.

I write this essay to affirm for every queer person who stumbles upon it: choose yourself first.

Whether it’s in the hour of someone’s death or the moment you receive an invitation to a holiday gathering where your light is dimmed, remember that your worth is not determined by their acceptance or approval. You have the right to refuse spaces where you are diminished, and to walk away from relationships that cause harm. This is not selfishness—it is self-preservation. To choose yourself is to honor the life you’ve fought to create and the person you’ve worked to become.

Your power lies in the freedom to prioritize your well-being and to create spaces where you can shine fully and unapologetically. It lies in choosing family and community that celebrate your light, your identity, and your truth. You deserve to surround yourself with people who see you as whole and worthy, just as you are. To every queer person reading this: you are not required to shrink for the comfort of others. Stand tall, embrace your light, and know that true kinship is found in the love you choose for yourself.