September 5, 2025 • 64 mins
What exactly is the "Old Guard" in leather culture? It's a question that sparks heated debates, reverent whispers, and sometimes bitter divisions within our community. This episode cuts through the mythology to reveal surprising truths about leather history and traditions.
Dr. Ty, clinical sexologist and leather title holder, joins Edge to share groundbreaking research from his dissertation defining the Old Guard. Rather than simply referring to the original leathermen of the 1950s, the term has evolved to describe a style of play centered on "obedience, structure and protocol." Most surprisingly, Dr. Ty's research reveals there was never a singular "way" of Old Guard practice—different cities developed different traditions long before national leather organizations formed.
The conversation challenges common assumptions about mentorship in leather communities. Despite the perception that Old Guard practitioners had formal mentoring structures, Dr. Ty's research found no statistical difference between how Old Guard and New Guard approached mentoring. This finding has inspired his work developing a more accessible mentoring program, addressing a critical gap for newcomers seeking guidance.
We also explore the often-conflated relationship between leather and kink identities, title holding traditions, and practical resources for those seeking knowledge. Dr. Ty shares details about his Kinky Book Club, which provides a non-sexual space for exploring leather history through literature and other media.
The episode concludes with an all-Texas edition of Ask Edge, featuring questions about advice for younger selves and the challenges of properly vetting title holders in today's community. Whether you're a leather veteran or just curious about these traditions, this conversation offers fresh perspectives on how we understand our shared history and build a more inclusive future.
Useful links:
Ask Edge! Go to https://www.speakpipe.com/LTHREDGE to leave ask a question or leave feedback. Find Edge's other content on Instagram and Twitter. Also visit his archive of educational videos, Tchick-Tchick.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Let's talk, old Guard , that you are an adult.
Welcome to Full Cow, a podcastabout leather, kink and BDSM.
(00:41):
My name is Edge my pronouns arehe, him, and I'm your host, and
we're going to be talking aboutthe old guard, and in some ways
, this is another episode thatreturns to a previous episode,
because the very first episodeof this podcast, Origins, talked
about the old guard, but it isa topic that is perennial, which
(01:04):
is another way of saying wecan't get away from it, and so I
am bringing my good friend andleather person and title holder
and sexologist, dr Tai, to justhave a conversation about the
Old Guard, based in part on hisacademic research on Old Guard,
new Guard and mentoringstructures academic research on
(01:27):
old guard, new guard andmentoring structures.
Then we have an all-Texasedition of Ask Edge.
I have two questions from twofriends and they will be adding
to the conversation as I answertheir questions and, if I have
some time at the end I mightgive you some personal updates.
But our focus today is to reallydive into the old guard.
I know people always want tohear about it, always want to
learn about it, always talkabout it.
So let's go.
(01:48):
I am so thrilled to have myfriend Dr Tai with us.
Dr Tai, welcome to Full Cow.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Thank you so much.
I've listened for a long timeand I'm a fan of this podcast
and of you and I'm reallyhonored and excited to be here
with you.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Oh my God, I'm a fan of you too.
That's great.
So can you start by telling usyour pronouns and how you
identify in the community?
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Yeah, dr Tai he him.
And in the community I am achameleon.
I go where my passion, my love,my desires take me.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
I love that.
So we're here to talk about theold guard, and I understand
that in your dissertationresearch you actually created a
sort of official definition oracademic definition of the old
guard, so maybe we could startthere the old guard, so maybe we
could start there.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Yeah, I, um, I was floating around with with trying
to figure out what I wanted toto do my dissertation on, and,
uh, I wanted to focus on what Ithought was going to be helpful
for the community, and one ofthe things that I know is is a
big, large, divisive wedge inour community is the old guard
new guard debate.
But as I started to do myresearch, there's a lot of like
(03:08):
anecdotal writing about it.
There's a lot of conversationabout it naming the old guard
new guard, but I couldn't findan actual definition, and so my
dissertation is the definitivedefinition of what the old guard
new guard is.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Definitive by definition, because it's
defining it right, yes, sorryfor the redundancy.
No, I love it and your phd isin leatherology or a clinical
sexology is the phd.
Yeah, even better so how didyou end up creating a definition
?
What is the definition?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
yeah, so my, my, my.
The dissertation is thedefinition.
Yeah, so my the dissertation isthe Old Guard versus New Guard
an exploration of the impact ofmentoring in the gay men's
leather BDSM community.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
So the definition of Old Guard and I have one for the
New Guard too, but this episodeis on the Old Guard.
So the Old Guard is a term,title and sometimes
self-identification of asubculture within the
traditionally gay male leathercommunity who are intellectually
and or sexually attracted to atype of role playing that is
(04:12):
rooted in dominant andsubmissive roles, often includes
BDSM and strongly resemblesmaterialistic themes of
obedience, structure andprotocol.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
That definition sounds a lot just like
Leatherman.
So what makes the old guard oldguard to you, or what did you
discover in the course of yourresearch that makes it old guard
?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Yeah, so I mean this is a larger conversation.
I think that one of the thingsthat we struggle with in the
community is that how we viewthe old guard has evolved over
time.
I think in the old days the oldguard uh like when it was first
used this term was in referenceto older folks in the community
, and I think that that's how weuse the term in the vernacular
(05:05):
right.
How most people talk about oldguard or the OG right Is the
original folks, the folks thatstarted this thing.
But as we've progressed, thecharacteristics of the old guard
have evolved beyond that.
We're no longer talking aboutold players like people that
have been in the community for along time, and has nothing to
do with age, but it has more todo with how we like our play,
(05:27):
how we like to engage in thecommunity.
So really it's a point ofnegotiation, just like we would
negotiate anything else in ourscenes in our play.
So in contrast and this was abig piece of the struggle of
defining the new guard which isthere's nothing out there, it's
always in contrast of what it'snot compared to the old guard.
So the difference in thedefinitions is old guard,
(05:52):
specifically, is around themesof obedience, structure and
protocol and there's a rigiditythat comes with that.
That was one of the commonterms that was used.
In contrast, the new guard ismuch more about social
progression, inclusion, fluidityand self-expression.
It is less about protocol andstructure.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
All of this is quite fascinating to me because I was
sort of around when we made upthis term New Guard.
I remember it from the late1900s, shall we say.
The late 1900s, shall we say,and my sense of it was that it
was a reaction to the totalunstructuredness of the
community in attempt to kind ofbe more old guard in a new way.
(06:35):
So it's interesting that thishas evolved even more to be a
much younger, fresher, sociallyprogressive term, because my
memory is that is not how itmanifested.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Did you find any of that?
That's what I was saying.
It's progressed over time, likehow we first used the term old
guard was much more abouttradition and values and like
this is the way it's been.
So this is the way we mustcontinue our traditions, and
it's moved more away fromtradition per se se and more
into the structure of how welike our play.
So originally, as you're saying, when the term first kind of
(07:10):
came out, it was much more aboutthe tradition and the way that
things have been.
But it's progressed as manythings do I'm also.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
I'm kind of surprised , like the other, really
defining feature of the oldguard.
For me is this notion ofexclusivity Very much a closed
circle, very much have to knowsomeone and be vetted by them
before you're introduced intothe community and I'm wondering
why that didn't make its wayinto the definition or if it had
some role in your research.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
It did.
It just wasn't one of the mainthemes that arose.
I did a qualitative analysis inmy research and it was a theme.
It just wasn't one of the majorthemes and so when I was
actually making the definition,I didn't want to include
outliers as part of the actualdefinition.
(08:00):
But it was relevant.
It did come up many, many timesand people did reference that
sort of thing.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
um, but again, it wasn't, it wasn't one of the
main themes actually I love thatyou kind of separated it out,
because that exclusivity wasless about.
This is our sacred knowledgeand we must guard it, and more.
We're living in 1950s americaand if the wrong people find out
we're all going to get killed,right.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
So yeah, so I don't know that it was structurally
part of self-identity so much assafety yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Yeah, yeah, it was a root.
I mean, we were very and todaywe call it gatekeeping, right,
and there's an aspect of that,especially back then, we didn't
want to gatekeep, we did want tokeep the people that weren't
part of the community out of itas a way of protecting ourselves
, because it very much was lifeand death at times.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Yeah, I'm really glad that you're focusing on that
and that what looks likegatekeeping in the old guard was
really survival skill.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
And that's a piece that I think is really important
when we talk about just keepingthings in context, is the
intention of why things were theway they were.
Evolve, and our community has.
Our society has evolved in thepast 50 years, and it's
important that our definitionsalso evolve with it.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
So now I want you to kind of chameleonize and be not
just Dr Ty leatherologist, butalso Dr Ty Leatherman.
I see a lot of people online invarious contexts claiming to be
quote unquote old guard, and inmy mind there's no unbroken
chain, like the HIV pandemicbroke a lot of things, but also
the sort of opening up of thecommunity in the early 70s.
So when I see people who areold guard, I become immediately
(09:54):
suspicious.
And what's your take on that interms of legitimacy?
Let's start there withlegitimacy.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
Right, and so it depends.
Again, how are we operationallydefining old guard?
Are we talking about the OGfolks and does that mean that
you were raised as a leatherperson from the OG people?
Or does that mean that you inlike, you're the newer version
of the old guard term?
Is it just means you, you wereraised in a place of high
protocol and structure andtradition and like?
(10:25):
Are those your values?
So it really depends.
I would start with askingquestions of like.
When you say old guard, whatdoes that mean to you?
Because it's going to bedifferent.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
It is going to be different and I'm giving you
credit for legitimizing thosepeople because I look at them
with a great deal of suspicion.
I don't know what you'retalking about, but I look at
them with a great deal ofsuspicion.
I don't really talk about it,but I look at them with a great
deal of suspicion.
So part of, I think, why Ibecome so suspicious is a lot of
them adhere to these protocolsthat they claim are part of the
(11:00):
originals.
But from my knowledge of peoplewho were actually in the
originals, but from my knowledgeof people who were actually in
the originals, are not originaland there was a book that came
out that I won't call out byname but that really
manufactured a lot of historyaround protocols.
So can you dig a little bitinto the complication of people
(11:23):
who are calling themselves oldguard and is it legitimate for
them to be like no, this is anold guard tradition because you
know they are affirming it?
I mean, go into that a littlebit.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Yeah, I think part of the struggle that we've had of
our history being passed downverbally is that there's not
been research, no one'sdocumented our history that well
except from personal anecdotesand personal stories, is that?
It's just that it's a personalstory.
And when anyone starts togeneralize to the larger
(11:56):
community it's reallyproblematic.
And even if we do it today,it's problematic because our
individual story cannot begeneralized and this was the
problem of overgeneralization.
So this person, whatever bookthat was I don't know exactly
which book you're referring tomay have in fact been his lived
experience.
I don't know him, I can't speakto that.
(12:17):
That might have been his livedexperience, but the problem is
he generalizes and said this isthe way it was in the community.
And I think that is the biggestflaw of that, is the
generalization of it.
You know, if he had just takenthe book and said this is my
story, this is my livedexperience and this is one way
of doing things that happened tome in this time period, it
would have been a differentthing than saying this is the
(12:38):
definitive book of how things,the way things were Like.
That's where we have someproblems.
And even to this day, when wegeneralize and say this is the
way I was raised, is the way itis the right way, and everything
else is wrong or problematic.
That's where we have someissues in the community.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
So, then, is it fair to say that, historically
speaking, we do not know the wayof the old guard?
And, in fact, what we know ofhistory is that there were a lot
of pockets in different citiesthat might've had different ways
of doing it.
That's scientific fact.
At this point right.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
There is.
No, the way it doesn't exist.
It did not exist Because, Imean, this predates the internet
, it predates our ability for LAto communicate with Chicago, to
communicate with New York,right, and when NLA first
started to form and it was thefirst time and we had, living in
(13:35):
Leather was the first kind oflike actual events where people
came in from a national level tocommunicate like, oh, you're
doing a hanky coat this way, wedo it this way, and it was the
first time where we started toactually see that there were
differences in how we wereshowing up in our kinks and in
our communities or in our play.
And so the comparison neverstarted until NLA started in the
(13:58):
70s, right.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
So- NLA is National Leather Association.
For my listeners Stars yes.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
And LA is National Leather Association.
For my listeners, yes, and thefirst conferences predating IML,
predating CLAW, predating anyof the other events, was Living
in Leather.
It was the first big event andit was completely mixed.
It was not just the gay men, itwas completely integrated.
It's only more recent thatwe've started to separate and
segregate out our community.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
And do you know when that conference started?
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Oh gosh, I don't know the date off the top of my head
, but I believe it was early 70s.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
We're going to call it early 70s.
It's a podcast.
A quick Google search will findthat yeah.
What I also love in the wayyou're talking about old guard
is, even though we're sort ofsaying no, there was no the way
to do it, you're also creatingspace for people to legitimize
themselves as old guard andsaying, no, this is my style of
play and this is what I carry asa tradition from people I've
(14:54):
learned or from sources I'vecovered right.
So it is entirely possible andlegitimate for people to call
themselves old guard, right.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Totally, yeah.
Yeah, it's, I mean.
I mean the one.
The place that we struggle themost in our community is when we
start to should on other peopleabout how they should do their
kink or their play.
We have no business tellingpeople how they should do
anything.
Right If that works for themand it's consensual and
everyone's involved in agreeingto it and it's not causing
permanent harm, that's agreedupon Like what is the problem?
(15:24):
Stop policing each other.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
So then, do you consider yourself old guard, or
how do you relate to yourunderstanding of old guard today
?
Speaker 2 (15:37):
I am way too much of a psychotherapist to be that
rigid therapist to um, to um, tobe that rigid, uh, my, my, my
being is far more expansive andprogressive and um, there there
is a healthy piece of me thathas OCD and I really enjoy
protocol at times, um, but Idon't, um, I don't.
(15:58):
It doesn't speak to me as akink, it speaks to me
intellectually and I enjoy theexercise of that and I enjoy
routine and protocol.
But I would not ascribe to that, I would not take on the
identity as old guard.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Yeah, I think that you know.
I feel like some people mightlook at me from the outside and
assume I'm old guard, becausethey're conflating a kind of
Tama Finland aesthetic withautomatically meaning old guard,
and that is also incorrect.
Am I right in saying that?
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Absolutely yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
That old guard is a style of play and
self-identification that comesalmost internally and should not
be universalized.
Awesome, Totally agree.
So where do you think?
What is the future of old guard?
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Honestly, I wish we would move away from the guard
system altogether Me too.
Can we just abandon it?
And actually I say that in mydissertation as sort of a call
to the community of asking tomove away from this language
because it is so divisive and wecan't agree on the definitions,
right?
So when we get really upsetwith each other and there is
(17:09):
these heated debates about whatwas, what wasn't, what is their
personal identification, so theyfeel righteous in identifying
with it and everything thatcomes with their identification.
So they assume everyone agreeswith that.
Because it's so problematic, itcontinues to serve as a wedge to
divide us rather than bring ustogether.
That we're all kinksters on aspectrum of how much we enjoy
(17:32):
protocol and rigidity in ourplay and it's something to
negotiate.
Just like are we going to haveprotective sex or not?
Like, do we want that?
Do we not want that?
And it's something that we cannegotiate.
And if someone likes highprotocol, then they're not going
to play with someone, a puppy,who doesn't like protocol at all
.
Right, like no, that's not agood fit and we're just not
going to be play partners andthat's okay.
(17:53):
You will find other people outthere who want that level of
protocol and it's just about anegotiation.
And it's dating, it's kinkydating.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Yeah, and I love that you're zeroing in on
divisiveness, because I thinkpart of what Old Guard has
become code for is real, like ifyou're Old Guard, you're a real
leather person, right, and ifyou're not, then you're not
(18:25):
Right, and I think that's partof the problematics.
You're pointing to that, if wesort of put a certain kind of
play on a pedestal, then otherkinds of play get delegitimized.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
yes, and and and you're touching on something
that's also really important todiscern out is that you know old
guard, new guard, the entireidentity around this is a system
that is specific to leatherfolks.
It's specific to, it is not,cannot be generalized to
kinksters, and those are twoseparate communities that are
overlapping.
There's a large piece thatoverlaps, but there's huge
(18:52):
pieces that don't, and theidentification of old guard, new
guard is specific to leather.
It is not, cannot begeneralized to all kinksters.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I love that.
Can you expand on that a littlebit and help people understand
this differentiation betweenleather folk and kinksters?
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Yeah, leather is kink , but not all kink is leather.
Can you give us some examples?
(19:32):
It's like projecting Christianvalues onto a Muslim.
It's just not going to makesense to them, it doesn't apply,
and so we have to stopprojecting our values and
assuming that everyone in theentire kink scene ascribes to
leather values and the old guardand protocol and all that stuff
(19:53):
is a leather value.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
It is not a kinkster value.
Yeah, and another example ofthis sort of kinkster leather
divide I'm chatting with someoneright now on Instagram who
identifies as very dominant butdoesn't wear leather at all.
So this is just more general.
And I also know people who wearleather who are not kinky at
all.
They just like leather andthey'll take it off and fuck or
they'll fuck in their leather,but they don't do anything kinky
(20:15):
.
So I'm glad our conversationhas evolved this way to let
people know there are morepositions for them to stand.
Is it also fair, then, to saythat old guard is specifically a
leather man culture versus,like I don't know of any female.
I don't know that females werepart of the old guard
(20:35):
historically?
Speaker 2 (20:37):
I don't know that they weren part of the old guard
historically?
Speaker 1 (20:39):
I don't know that they weren't, oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Okay, I don't have any evidence either direction
around this.
I think we stereotypicallyassume gay men and that is the
narrow focus of my research.
I will admit that it was oneway an issue that arose.
Originally.
It was to the kink community ingeneral.
An issue that arose originally.
It was to the kink community ingeneral, but as I was being
(21:04):
advised by my dissertationcommittee, they encouraged me to
narrow my focus just to get thedissertation done.
So it is certainly.
I am in the process ofconverting the dissertation into
a book because I want thisinformation to be accessible and
right now a dissertation in anyrealm just sits on a shelf in
the library of my university andis not accessible.
People can't read this.
So I am in the process ofconverting it and I am going to
expand to include all kinksters.
(21:26):
That is my intention, but thedissertation itself is a narrow
focus to the gay men's leatherBDSM community.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
So you have no evidence either way.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
I have no evidence either way and I don't know that
it exists.
Again, we will get anecdotalinformation, but unless we do a
large-scale quantitative study,including non-male presenting
folks, then I don't know thatwe'll have that information, but
it's certainly something that Iwould love to do.
And I don't know that we'llhave that information, but it's
certainly something that I wouldlove to do.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah, alternatively, if you're a listener and you
know of women who were old guard, particularly historically, let
me know.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
That would be a really great episode In the new
definition of the way I'mpresenting this, because it's
just a level of protocol that welike to engage in.
I don't see there's any reasonwhy a female bodied or non male
bodied human would not engage inold guard, right?
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Oh yeah, I absolutely agree that if we think about it
in your liberating, enablingsense of a style of play, then
it's available to everyone.
I'm just also curious about thehistory, but really that's a
question about the history ofthe women's leather community,
which is another podcast episode.
Let me make a little bit of atransition.
You know you talked about howpart of Old Guard's appealing to
(22:44):
you because of your beautifulOCD-ness and that there are sort
of things that you do like aset of unwritten rules around my
cover and I was.
For example, I was once inanother city at a leather bar
and had my cover sitting on thetable because it was hot and
(23:05):
some guy came, picked it up andput it on his head and, like all
the leather folk I was with, wewere all kind of horrified,
right, Like that was clearlyGrass with pearls.
It was a very clutch of thepearls.
And it was a good revelation forme to be like, oh okay.
Well, that is clearly somethingI have taken from this notion
of old guard that that I've madea specialness in my cover.
(23:26):
Do you have similar thingswhere you find yourselves with
traditions that might be oldguardish, or is there parts of
old guard tradition that appealsto you?
Speaker 2 (23:36):
um, yeah, I mean there's.
There's some things that justways of working in acts of
submission, in everyday sort ofthing my protocol are really
subtle.
It's my boy always opening thedoor for me.
It is him getting.
I'll give him my credit cardand he'll get our drinks, or
he'll always step a step behindme, like one step behind.
He'll always step a step behindme like one step behind.
(23:58):
Like these sort of things arejust small things that I think
do stem from tradition and oldguard, sort of things that just
speak to me around levels ofsubmission that I think are
beautiful.
But some of those things aren'tgoing to speak to other people
and so it's very much a make ityours.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
It is a make it yours thing and it's also a kind of
for me.
I inherited things from mymentors that presumably they
inherited from somewhere else,that I think are possible to
trace back to the actualhistorical original old guard,
but that I wasn't aware of untilthey kind of get violated and
then I'm clutching my pearls.
So, and even like some of thethings you're talking about, the
(24:40):
sort of walk, the step behind,really I think harkens back to
the militaristic aspect of theold guard, if we think about
military protocol and where doofficers work and where do they
walk and where do people who arebelow them walk?
Yeah, any other thoughts on oldguard that you want to open up
here?
Speaker 2 (25:05):
I think it's important not to assume that
everyone shares our values.
Right, and I know I've kind oftalked about that before.
But in these types of examplesI think it's a learning
opportunity.
It's not a time to shame andblame and saying this is the way
, and you just don't touchsomeone else's cover, whether
it's a garrison cap or amaster's cut.
(25:28):
I mean there's a certain levelof just common courtesy, Don't
touch other people's shit.
Don't do that, but I think thatthere's a real learning
opportunity too, and for somepeople that maybe didn't have a
leather mentor or have someoneto talk about protocol, then
there's the opportunity then tohave that conversation and just
(25:49):
going hey, just raise someawareness.
Like that happened recently.
I was giving a talk and someoneused the term muggle to
describe a non-Kinkster.
Right, and there's not a rightnor wrong, but I think it's
important that we're aware ofthe context of words, and that
word stems from Harry Potter,which is RK Rowling's thing, and
(26:14):
there's a huge problematicaround our trans community and
JK Rawlings.
So a lot of the community isstarting to move away from using
anything associated with HarryPotter.
Like I didn't shame on them, Iwas like, hey, I don't know if
you know this or not, butthere's a context here that you
may be missing.
And now you are informed andyou can choose to use that word
or not, but do it with knowledge.
(26:34):
That's the important piece.
Right, and consent only worksif it's fully informed consent.
If we don't have all theinformation, we can't make an
informed decision.
If that touches me and I sharethat value, then I can do that.
But if I don't have theknowledge, then how am I
supposed to know if I actuallyhave that value or not?
Speaker 1 (26:52):
Yeah, and I want to now pivot to talking about
mentoring, which has cropped upa little bit in all the things
you've said, and certainly oneway to look at the old guard
system is that it was a rigorous, absolute mentorship system,
like you really were onlygetting in if you had a mentor.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Yes and no.
From my understanding of thehistory, yes and no.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
Well, let's talk about that.
Well, let's talk about that.
Historically, in the original,actual 1950s Old Guard, what
have you discovered in terms ofmentoring and how it happened or
didn't?
Speaker 2 (27:28):
It didn't Sucking.
It's one of the like what.
There was no statisticaldifference in our approach to
mentoring.
From the old guard to new guardresponses in my research no
difference at all.
But people were more likely toidentify that they had formal
mentoring as if they identifiedas old guard than if they
(27:50):
identified as new guard.
But how they actuallyapproached it, there was no
difference.
I think this is one of thosewhat's it called the mandala
effect or mandala yeah, wherethere's a cultural shared
misbelief about how somethinghappened, and I think that that
(28:10):
happens a lot in the old guard,new guard mythos of what was old
guard and what wasn't, and Ithink that book is a great
example that is presented asfact but it's not actually how
things happened and mentoring isone of those things.
Now, there were absolutelymentors and people that took
people under their wings andsirs taught their boys, but
(28:31):
they're teaching them their way.
Right, that is just their way,but that's exactly how it's done
today.
There's not an actualdifference in.
There was nothing structural,there was nothing formal around
that mentoring, which wasthrough.
This research is what sort ofinspired me to to move towards
launching an actual mentoringprogram.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Talk about that.
How's your mentoring programgoing?
What's the plan, what's thevision?
How can people who arelistening help participate, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
It's still infant stage.
I'm wanting to get the researchdone first, because the
research is the foundation.
I want to know where we've beenin order to know where we need
to go, networking withestablished mentoring programs
that already exist theLeatherman's Discussion Group,
onyx and House of Janice aregreat examples of that and I'm
(29:23):
in the process of connectingwith those folks to see about
those best practices.
But all of those areas arespecific.
They're not generallyaccessible.
I'm a white person and I can'taccess Onyx's mentoring program
right, so it is exclusive andI'm not knocking that at all,
I'm just white person and Ican't access Onyx's mentoring
program, right.
So it is exclusive and I'm notknocking that at all, I'm just
saying it's limiting.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Not everyone can access that, and so I'm wanting
to tap into that and make someof these best practices in our
overall community moreaccessible you suggesting out of
your research is that mentoringhas always occurred in some
(30:02):
form in the community, from thehistorical old guard through the
quote unquote, whatever thehell, it is new guard to today.
Is that your sense, that we area community that relies on some
sort of mentoring in some ways?
Speaker 2 (30:15):
I do, I absolutely do .
And the mentoring comes in manyfacets.
One is the social how tonavigate socially in our
community, whether it is at abar or in a dungeon, like
there's different rules that arenot posted somewhere.
Well, I guess they aresomewhere, but you'd have to
Google.
I'm really searching.
And again, it's going to bedifferent per dungeon, but
(30:35):
there's some general etiquettethat I think is just it's going
to be different per dungeon, butthere's some general etiquette
that I think is just it's commonknowledge but it's not actually
taught at times.
So, like how to navigate at thebar and navigating if some, how
to approach someone or notapproach someone there's just so
much that kind of goes into thehistory here that it's
important that we do mentorfolks along the way for that.
(30:55):
There's the literal skillbuilding around mentoring.
Right, if you're brand new tothe scene, you have no business
picking up a single tail period.
Right, you have no businesstouching that toy, at least with
the intention of touchinganother human with it.
And there's many aspects of kinkplay.
That is a I see it.
(31:16):
I use the analogy of gradschool, like I'm a therapist.
We go through and we do thetheory, we take all the classes
and everything before we eversit down in front of a client to
practice the art of therapy.
And then we get into practicum,then we actually start
practicing, but only after we'vedone a ton of research.
In theory, right, and I thinkkink should be the same way.
(31:38):
Pardon the should, but this ismy philosophy that we should do
a lot of our education withouttouching things.
And then we have an idea ofwhat we want to do and then we
start to explore with somementoring.
So those are the two, three andthen the last piece is our
history Again requires a littlebit of mentoring of people that
have either walked that walk ordone some research ideally a
(32:01):
little bit of both who can speakon those sort of things.
So those are the three mainareas where I think mentoring is
absolutely necessary in ourcommunity.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
So if someone's listening to the podcast, they
are brand spanking new to thecommunity.
They don't have access to Onyx,they don't live in San
Francisco, so they can't do theLeatherman's Discussion Group.
You haven't started yourprogram yet.
It's still an infant.
(32:30):
Where would you suggest peoplego for some of this informal
knowledge, for any kind ofmentoring?
Are there strategies people canuse today to try to find their
way into the community?
Speaker 2 (32:39):
This is why I'm being called to launch this, because
I don't think it exists unlessyou know the resources.
The number one book that Irefer to folks that are just
baby interested in kinkaltogether is Lee Harrington's
book Playing Well with Others.
It's a beautiful 101introduction and Lee is
fantastic human being.
(32:59):
I love them.
It's just a great 101.
It talks about some of thisetiquette and what to expect in
a play space versus the bar,versus a big kink event Like.
It talks about some of theprotocols, some of the not
protocol, but the etiquette, thethings that are expected for
(33:19):
people to know and what youmight expect from those
situations, as well as just kindof setting expectations.
So it's a great resource forbaby kinksters getting into the
scene.
Check out Lee Harrington's bookplaying well with others.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Thank you for that.
I will include it in the shownotes and I actually didn't know
that resource.
You're mentoring me.
Yay.
I mean, ironically, I know Lee,but I didn't know about the
book.
The book I usually recommend isLeather Sex by Joseph Bean,
which again is also good at likea lot of the knowledge stuff.
And then I think I'm going tostart recommending the Leather
(33:56):
Man's Handbook, which is back inprint, not as a how-to, but it
is such a rich piece of ourhistory.
I don't know if you've read it.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Oh yeah, it was one of the first books that we read
in the Kinky Book Club.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
Oh, tell us about this Kinky Book Club you have.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Love to.
The Kinky Book Club is based onFacebook.
If you search KBC, Kinky has anexclamation so we can get
around algorithms.
So the Kinky Book Club Istarted I don't know a year and
change ago.
Um, and we we pick readings, uh, kind of Austin Abernathy, it
(34:35):
was Mr Fire Dancer 2024.
Uh, and I kind of got this babygoing and it's been going um
since last, since April lastyear, and uh, we we pick kink
related content.
Uh, it's mostly books, uh, halfmostly books.
We're doing an every other monthsort of thing, so every other
month is a book.
So we get two months toactually read a book, and then
(34:56):
the alternating month we'reconsuming other types of media,
whether it's an on guard salonepisode, or it is what's the
safe Word episode, or watchingthe Pamba Finland documentary or
whatever.
And then we have a guest on,and we've been very lucky that
every book that we've chosen ofauthors that are still alive
have joined us, including Lee,and we actually read Lee's book
(35:19):
and were playing with others,and so it's been really
fantastic building somecommunity of folks that are
actually thirsty for thisknowledge and to have
conversations around the content, around these things.
It's been really fantastic ofbuilding some community of folks
that are actually thirsty forthis knowledge and to have
conversations around the content, around these things.
It's been really amazing.
In such a short amount of timewe've actually grown to over
1,900 members internationally.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
How many are actually showing up?
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Not 1,900.
No, it's actually a tinyfraction of that.
It definitely lets me know thatthere's a lot of interest in it
.
But being able to actually showup and read a book is very
challenging and part of thereason why we edited when we
launched it it was a book everysingle month.
We read a book every singlemonth, which was very
(36:01):
challenging for everyone,including myself, so that's why
we moved to this every othermonth book sort of approach.
But we get 20 to 30 folkshaving a conversation every
single month, which is lovely,and invariably we'll have a
couple of international folkspop in, which has been pretty
cool and very humbling thatpeople are thirsty for this type
(36:21):
of content.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
Well, and what you're also indicating is that there's
another important pseudomentoring resource, which is the
Kinky Book Club, which can getyou to read these books that
include some of the unwrittenrules, some of the history, but
then also connect to kinkstersand leather people in a
not-sexual, not-pressured space.
So you are already doing apseudo-mentoring?
Speaker 2 (36:47):
no yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
Yeah, it's not unintentional but thank you
absolutely absolutely.
Oh god, where am I gonna goafter that?
Something else about the bookoh, the other reason I love that
you're doing a book club is Iknow so many of my followers on
the socials are nerds, likethere's a huge young gamer with
(37:09):
a Y community, you know,tabletop role playing game
community and those people oftenare readers.
They actually read books.
So I think it's great to givethem a kind of forum that allows
them to access knowledge in away that they may be tuned to do
it Well done.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
Yeah, I was just having this conversation with my
Texas folks literally yesterday.
There's the cross-sectionbetween kinksters and cosplay
and D&D folks and neurotypicalor atypical folks, neuro-spicy
folks.
There's a huge cross-sectionand overlap because a lot of
this is about fantasy and roleplay and an exploration right,
(37:48):
it's.
It's a headspace.
Right, we're able to get into aheadspace.
These are common denominatorsthrough them all.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
Yeah, yeah, you also mentioned in passing um your
title holding your miss are wereyou were mr well, I will
forever be Mr Texas Leather 2024.
What motivated you to pursuethe title?
How was your title year?
What did you learn?
(38:15):
What did you hate?
What did you love?
Tell us a little bit about that.
Speaker 2 (38:19):
That's a whole episode Barkley.
Speaker 1 (38:21):
I mean, I'm planning a title, whole episode, so we
might get back to that.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
But just you know, tell me a little bit.
So it was an amazing experience.
The reason I wanted to run,both for Mr Texas and, hopefully
, to move on to IML which I wasable to do, and I was very
excited and humbled to make top20 and give my speech was this
exact thing I wanted to put outthe information about Old Guard,
new Guard and challenge some ofthese old myths that exist and
(38:49):
are problematic in our community, and that was the sole reason I
decided to run was to put thisinformation out there, because I
knew that that was going to befaster than me finishing my book
and getting that published, andso that was.
My platform was mentoring andeducation in our community.
So this was it.
So thanks for helping continueto highlight my platform.
Speaker 1 (39:11):
Yeah, absolutely.
And you know, I think,particularly historically, we
only had certain mechanisms forpeople to lead in the community
and porn was one of them,leading in a certain way,
aspirationally, in terms oflooks, um.
But title holding has alwaysbeen like historically, this
(39:34):
sort of mechanism for leadershipwhich maybe might be shifting.
I don't know, title holding iscomplicated now, would you say
it's complicated.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
yeah, I think we have a theory of um, an aspiration
of what title holding issupposed to be, but our actual
application and practice of thatis problematic and not always
in alignment with ouraspirations.
But that's life.
We always have our idealizedself and our actual self, which
don't always align.
But I think there's a movement,I think there's effort in that.
(40:05):
But I think there's a movement.
(40:27):
I think there's effort in that.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
I think there's a want for us to, for title
holders to be representatives ofthe best of us, right, and the
people that are actually outthere doing the work and
committed to trying to buildcommunity.
But sometimes it's not.
Sometimes it's a popularitycontest, sometimes it's the
hottest person.
It's not always about the work.
Yeah, and spoiler alert, you'regoing to be hearing again from
Dr Tai later in this episodebecause he did submit an Ask
Edge question.
In fact, we have a whole Texasedition of Ask Edge because
Austin also submitted a question.
Of course he did, so you allhave that to look forward to as
well.
So I just want to kind of makesure we wrap up with a single
(40:49):
message that people can takeaway.
And so what I've heard and youcan correct me or add to this is
the old guard.
First of all, when we talk aboutthe old guard, there is the
actual historical people livingin the 1950s old guard.
But, more importantly, as thecommunity has progressed, it's
become a style of play that isvery protocol, heavy, very
formal, very militaristic.
(41:10):
As a style of play, it isperfectly legitimate to call
yourself old guard and as partof that, you might have some
unbroken thread of tradition.
Maybe not, but it's importantto not universalize old guard in
any way, because there neverwas a universal old guard.
That part of the old guard wasmentoring, but so is part of the
(41:33):
new guard.
So, as part of the not guard,that mentoring has a role to
play throughout our communityand it manifests in many
different ways, sometimes moreformally, sometimes less
formally, but hopefully, as DrTai continues his crusade, there
will be a larger formalmentoring program emerging that
people can access.
In the meantime, there arebooks, there are resources like
(41:56):
the Kinky Book Club, which notonly is itself a resource, but
it's been pointing you todifferent resources like En
Garde and like what's the SafeWord and like what's the safe
word, and so to access mentoring, you have some avenues more are
coming and as you enter intothat mentoring you can make a
decision of whether or not youwant to be old guard and ideally
(42:17):
, eventually we will move awayfrom this whole notion of guards
completely.
Is that a good summary?
Speaker 2 (42:24):
That was beautiful.
What would you add?
What would you add?
Add a little something.
Speaker 1 (42:27):
Put some Dr Ty spice in that.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
It was very good.
I don't know that I would add.
I think you did a wonderful jobof kind of summar.
We've defined the guards and anurging, a call to action for
people to move into this place,of trying to negotiate protocol
(42:56):
instead of an identification,which is rigidity, and anytime
we pigeonhole ourselves intoanything, it limits us into that
box, and that's what a lot ofthe movement of society and
community is about is seeingthings more on a continuum
instead of a box.
But if you live the box, live inthe box, and that's what a lot
of the movement of society andcommunity is about is seeing
things more on a continuuminstead of a box, which but if
you live the box, live in thebox, that's perfectly okay.
But just allowing ourselves tobe the full range of a human and
(43:19):
being able to play around withthis and that's the whole point
of this, is why we call it playis to go in and have fun and
enjoy ourselves, and when welimit ourselves, sometimes it
limits our ability to play.
So yeah, if you don't mind, Iwould love to invite your
audience.
Like, if you are part of acommunity where you have a
(43:42):
mentoring program, I would loveto hear from y'all as part of I
do my research and build ourbest practices.
If you could reach out to me,instagram is probably the best
place for me, and my handle isDr Ty D-R-T-Y Leatherman, which
ironically spells DirtyLeatherman without the I Happy
accident.
Speaker 1 (44:04):
I'll put that link in the show notes so people can
just click on it.
Speaker 2 (44:07):
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that and becauseit really takes a village and I
think we need a place where wecan highlight and come together
and practice mentoring as acommunity, because I think it's
definitely needed.
Speaker 1 (44:21):
Yeah, I mean, given how important it is, it's really
shocking how few officialformal mentoring programs exist
in the community.
And I think you've named theones I know.
Plus, I didn't know aboutJanice, so that's one I guess
doesn't surprise me, but one Ididn't know.
But when we're looking at justthree mentoring programs period,
(44:44):
that's interesting.
So there might be smaller onesand hopefully they'll get in
touch with you.
Speaker 2 (44:50):
So that you can and I know there are.
I know that there are likelocalized ones, the people that
are a small group.
I know there's one in austinthat I didn't know existed and
uh, but I I just haven't beenable to connect with it,
especially the pan community, um, and our heterosexual side of
the community, like I don't havea lot of access to those
communities.
It's not my circles and myexperience is very much around
(45:11):
gay men, so there's just a lot Idon't know.
But those practices, thosearound mentoring and teaching,
like those are absolutely validand my hope, my wish, is for us
to be more integrated and to beable to share our best practices
as a community.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
Yeah, actually I have a boy in Phoenix who's a member
of the Phoenix Boys of Leatherand just recently got a mentee,
so a lot of these are also thenembedded in clubs or groups to
various degrees of formality.
So hopefully, if you know ofmentoring programs, you will
reach out, because I think DrTai's looking for best practices
but also to get as many voicesin this and as much in
(45:48):
engagement with the community aspossible.
Speaker 2 (45:50):
Absolutely yeah, thank you very much Awesome.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
Are you going to run for any other titles or are you
kind of done with that?
Speaker 2 (45:56):
Literally.
I was having a conversationwith Austin yesterday.
Austin from Houston, Austinfrom Houston, but has a Dallas
title.
Hi Austin, Cause I know he'lllisten to this.
We were just talking about that.
The drummer.
Drummer title is back in some,some capacity, and I don't know
(46:17):
exactly.
Speaker 1 (46:17):
International leather serve.
Boy is back.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
That is back as well.
Community boot black, oh youmean the drummer NA.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
Is that back again too?
Yes, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
Yeah, the actual drummer.
Drummer magazine title is back,so I don't know if it's an
international.
I don't know what that is, butit hit my radar yesterday so it
piqued my interest.
But, as of this point, I haveno plans to run for another
title.
I this, this mentoring thing,is going to be a massive
undertaking and I'm reallyexcited about that and, um I
(46:48):
it's going to take a lot ofenergy.
Speaker 1 (46:49):
So running for a title, I don't know, I don't
know I mean, besides all thepractical good you did in your
title year locally, I mean Ithink it also did boost gives
you the signal boost you needed.
Like you stood on the stage andtalked about mentoring and so I
think you had a good widebroadcast of what's going on and
that might've done enough foryou to then focus on the
(47:11):
mentoring and have people cometo you to enlist in that, I hope
, cause title holding is a lotof work.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
It is a lot of work, yeah, but it's a labor of love.
Like again, like the aspirationpiece of this.
I hope people run for titlesbecause they want to serve and
it is not and I see it that wayphilosophically it is not a
leadership role, it's a servicerole and I hope that that is why
people run for titles, becauseultimately, that's what I think
(47:39):
it's about is serving thecommunity.
Speaker 1 (47:41):
Yeah, if I have an episode on title holders, will
you come back?
Speaker 2 (47:44):
I would love to yeah.
Speaker 1 (47:52):
Awesome, I think.
For now, we're going to wrap itup.
Speaker 2 (47:55):
This has been a really fantastic conversation
about the old guard and I wantto thank Dr Tai for joining us
on Full Cow.
It's my pleasure.
Speaker 1 (47:59):
Thank you so much for having me, and now it's time
for Ask Edge, the segment whereI answer questions from all of
you.
If you would like to submit aquestion and please, please,
consider submitting one you canleave me a voicemail at
speakpipecom slash leatheredge,that's L-T-H-R-E-D-G-E or you
(48:20):
can email me at ask atfullkyleshow.
Both of those links areavailable in the show notes and
in this episode we have anall-Texas edition of Ask Edge
and, in fact, people who havebeen on the podcast before,
because I'm pretty surecertainly Austin, I believe, has
submitted a question before andDr Tai is in this very episode.
(48:44):
So our first question is fromAustin, from Houston.
Speaker 3 (48:49):
Hi Edge, this is Austin from Houston.
I'm glad that you've picked upseason four and you're doing it
in a way that is sustainable andhealthy for you.
I'm happy that it's here.
My question is what would youtell your younger self now,
let's say age 21.
What piece of advice, withtoday's wisdom, lived experience
(49:09):
and hindsight, what would youtell your younger self that you
really needed to hear?
Speaker 1 (49:14):
anything about my past, because I live in this
really amazing present where Ihave so many blessings.
It's crazy.
(49:34):
So on the one hand, I wouldn'twant to tell myself anything and
on the other hand, I also thinkthis question is very sort of
dripping with a kind ofnostalgia that I like to kind of
resist, because when youactually start aging and I'll be
55 at the end of October youfind all these cliches turn out
(49:57):
to be true and then the onlything you can do is repeat the
cliche, fully aware that you arerepeating a cliche.
That being said, let me engagewith this wonderful question
from Austin.
I think the biggest message Iwould have for my younger self
is slow down and enjoy thejourney.
(50:20):
Especially in my early twenties,I was hyper-fueled with
testosterone.
I was horny all the time and Iwas constantly seeking more,
more intensity, more scenes,more men, more, more, more, more
, more.
Now that may be related to thehunger of youth and the
testosterone fueling.
For me, it may also be relatedto my disease of addiction,
(50:43):
which was always craving moreanyway, which was always craving
more anyway.
But looking back at 55, I dofeel like I kind of rushed
through a lot of my journey, ornot rushed.
I was always so busy looking tothe next thing that I wanted
the next item of gear, the nextscene, the next fetish that I
(51:05):
don't know.
That I always appreciated rightwhere I was.
Gratitude is an importantpractice in my world now for my
mental and spiritual health, andI wish I had had those tools of
gratitude, because gratitudefor me always roots me in the
present.
It puts the focus not on what Idon't have but what I do have
(51:25):
today, and I'm using it quite abit because I continue to
struggle with being single.
I try to focus on all theblessings I have and really put
my time, energy and attentionthere and not on the future.
Or if I had X, I would be happy.
If I had Y, I would be complete, and that's a message younger
(51:47):
me probably really needed, and Ithink it's a valuable message,
in part because it wouldn'tchange my journey.
I would still be making gooddecisions, bad decisions.
I would still be moving along.
I would still be exploring more,more, more, more, more, but I
think I would have a greatercapacity to appreciate where I
(52:07):
was at, to appreciate thejourney in the moment, and
that's something I do now andsomething that I did not do then
, I mean I would also say buyApple stock, buy stock in Zoom,
become politically active veryearly and don't do drugs, but
(52:30):
none of those things wouldchange the person I am today,
saying, hey, practice gratitude,practice being where you are
and loving where you are in thisleather journey, and not only
always be looking for the nextthat I can give myself, without
really changing the wonderfulperson I ended up being today.
So, uh, our second question isfrom, as I've said a couple of
(52:55):
times, now Dr Ty.
Speaker 2 (52:58):
Dr Ty here a long time listener, Enjoy your show.
Thank you for continuing to dothis.
Uh, you always inspire me tothink of new things to think
about and to talk about.
My question is coming fromsomething that you said in terms
of a future show around titleholders and something has come
up a little recently in theTexas community around vetting.
(53:21):
What does community vettinglook like in best practices?
What would you suggestcommunities producers can do to
better vet potential titleholders beyond a standard
background check?
How can the community bettercheck our people and make sure
(53:42):
that the people actually runningfor our contests or actually
that are earned titles areworthy of it?
We've seen multiple instancesin the community of recent where
that's been a challenge andproper vetting was not done and
later came out that there wereissues with that person or they
were problematic, and I'm justcurious if you have any thoughts
on that.
Speaker 1 (54:02):
Thanks, I think this question presupposes that title
holders are supposed to beleaders in the community and by
default we have sort of turnedto title contests as a way of
shaping and elevating leaders.
But I don't know that titlecontests are well-designed to
(54:25):
select and produce leaders, nordo I think historically they
were ever supposed to.
Now my history on this might bea little mushy, but my sense is
title holders started as a wayfor bars to bring people into
the bar to celebrate the localcommunity, to choose a really
hot man, and I think at thelocal Ramrod bar we still have a
(54:48):
battle of the bulge contest, wehave a best butt contest, and
those are not about selectingleaders, they're about who's got
the best bulge, who's got thebest butt.
And I think historically, if wereach all the way back, that's
really title holders, how theybegan, and I think that's a lot
why embedded in title holdingcontests is a lot of kind of
(55:14):
pageantry.
I'm not the first, certainly,to observe that the title
contest and the pageant contestare not unrelated in some of
their expectations, some oftheir procedures, some of their
unwritten rules.
So what we really have issomething that was about
selecting someone not just hotbut aspirational, someone you
(55:35):
wanted to look like and someoneyou wanted to sleep with.
They were aspirational modelsfor the aesthetics of who we
wanted to be, perhaps, but Idon't think the contest was
designed to ever select leaders.
So if we want to say hey, let'sstart title holder contests that
(55:57):
really create leaders, then youhave to change all sorts of
things.
You wouldn't have categorieslike jockstrap or barware.
You would have categories likefundraising and part of the
contest who won would be who didthe best fundraiser or raised
the most money.
You would have more emphasis onpublic speaking.
(56:18):
There's usually like a brief,silly question on stage.
It'd be a little bit more likeIML, but more expanded, because
you want a leader who isarticulate, who is passionate,
who can connect with a crowd androuse a crowd.
You would have interviews thataren't about what's the most
significant item of leather youown, but much more diving into
(56:41):
their leadership skills and howthey have proved that in the
community.
The application wouldn't betell us how big your cock is.
Your application would be muchmore like a resume.
So if we expect title holdercontests to produce leaders,
then we need to center thecontest on leadership, and I
(57:02):
think some of that happens,especially when you get to IML.
The interview process there isremarkably brief, the speech is
remarkably brief, but it beginsto give you a sense of who this
person is going to be, how theywill move in the world to
represent IML as an organization.
(57:22):
So we get that sort of at thatnational level, at local levels,
though my experience judginglocal contests is that they're a
little bit more pageant-ish,just a little bit and so if you
want this to become a way ofproducing leaders, we need to
completely revamp what thecontest looks like.
(57:42):
We need to completely create anew kind of title that doesn't
have to displace the beautiful,aspirational, aesthetic title
that we have now that perhapscan run alongside it.
In terms of vetting, that'salso a really complicated
question, because human beingsare whole messy organisms, and
(58:09):
so everyone's got a littlesomething that maybe doesn't
look great in the public eye,and sometimes it is unacceptable
in relation to the mores wehave established as a community.
Sometimes it's just not great,it's not a great look.
Community.
(58:31):
Sometimes it's just not great,it's not a great look.
And if we are going to weed outeveryone who's messy, you're
going to be left with very fewindividuals.
Certainly, I would think,background check man.
I never, I've never, heard of acontest that has a background
check.
That seems pretty severe andpretty expensive.
I I would imagine that at somepoint social media checks will
(58:52):
be rigorous for a contest,because usually that's where
people get in trouble.
They've posted something onsocial media that is not aligned
with the values of thecommunity and may have been
years and years and years andyears and years ago from a
former version of themselves whothey are not anymore, but it's
there, because once it's on theinternet, it's there forever.
(59:12):
So I would imagine, if we arethinking title holder contests
as they exist today, we want toshoehorn them into producing
leaders, then we are going tohave to become more rigorous.
The judges will have to becomemore rigorous at evaluating
every contestant's full socialmedia profile, every post
(59:34):
they've made and sometimes everypost they've commented on,
because that's where the troublehappens.
That's a big lift.
That is a big, big lift.
I think.
Instead, part of what we need todo is build in a little bit of
generosity.
Some things are going to beunacceptable.
Some things are simply this isnot aligned with the title and
the organization that supportsthe title, and this isn't a good
(59:57):
fit for us anymore.
You will no longer be able tobe this title holder.
It just can't work right.
There are some things that aregoing to be unacceptable, but
there are a lot of other thingsthat are just people being messy
human beings.
So my ultimate answer is first,completely change what a title
holding contest looks like.
(01:00:18):
Create a new class of titlesthat are much more about
community service and leadershipand therefore have categories
of judging that are connected tocommunity service and
leadership, and therefore alsohave judges that come from the
community, that come fromleaders in the community.
That's how you create this sortof vetting process, is that you
(01:00:38):
start judging on the qualitiesyou are looking for.
However if we are keeping titleholder contests mostly as they
are now, which is largelypageant-based, largely based on
someone's overall aesthetics,then we need to at least, if you
believe in vetting, do thoroughchecks of social media and then
(01:00:58):
we might also extend theinterview portion.
You know a lot of people.
I've judged a lot of contestsand the crowd at the bar often
seemed surprised by who wonbecause they weren't at the
interview and a lot happens inthe interview.
It may not be a bad idea toopen up the interview process to
(01:01:22):
everyone so the bar can see theinterview happen, which then
creates more opportunities forsort of public speaking and
connecting with an audience, butalso makes more transparent the
judging process, because if youare in the interview, usually
the person who won is veryobvious.
Who they won.
So much happens in thatinterview you have no idea.
So we might make the interviewprocess more visible, more
(01:01:45):
transparent, but also longer, alittle more thorough.
You know, I want to say I getmaybe, you know, 10 to 15
minutes in times that I'vejudged with a candidate.
I don't know, maybe I'm tryingto think, I don't even think I
get a half hour and if we get ahalf hour it's a panel of eight
judges, right?
(01:02:06):
So maybe each judge gets to askone question, maybe a couple of
judges get to ask two, and sothat's not really enough time
for the kind of vetting you'resuggesting needs to take place.
So I would expand the interviewoption and make it public.
But really what I would do iscreate a whole new title.
(01:02:29):
I don't know what it'd becalled, I don't know if it would
feed into IML, I don't know ifit would feed into some other
international title, but itwould be organized in categories
around leadership.
Alternatively, take the currenttitle contests and do some
social media checking.
Make the interview public andexpand the length of the
interview so that there's morethorough conversation.
(01:02:51):
Even then, people are messy,messy organisms and you may
still end up with title holderswho end up not aligned with the
values of the organization thatcreated the title.
I think that's just the waythings are and those are my
thoughts on it.
If you have a question for AskEdge, please, please, please
(01:03:13):
send it on, because I am alwayseager to hear from my listeners
and to create a kind of dialoguebetween us where I can share my
thoughts and help you explorequestions on your own, because
I'm never giving the answer.
I'm giving my answer and when Igive my answer, it helps you
figure out how you feel aboutsomething.
(01:03:33):
It might give you a newperspective, it might reinforce
your perspective.
It might provide clarity forwhat you really think if you
object strongly to what I'msaying.
All of that's good stuff, andthat's it for this episode.
I'm so happy to be proceedingwith the podcast and season four
and I'm so happy for my Texanfriends who submit questions and
(01:03:56):
I'm so happy for all of you forlistening.
Thank you, and that's it forthis episode.
Thank you so much for joiningme.
Please consider subscribing oryou can send feedback to edge at
full cow dot show, as always.
May your leather journey beblessed.
Let's talk, old Guard , that you are an adult.
Welcome to Full Cow, a podcastabout leather, kink and BDSM.
(00:41):
My name is Edge my pronouns arehe, him, and I'm your host, and
we're going to be talking aboutthe old guard, and in some ways
, this is another episode thatreturns to a previous episode,
because the very first episodeof this podcast, Origins, talked
about the old guard, but it isa topic that is perennial, which
(01:04):
is another way of saying wecan't get away from it, and so I
am bringing my good friend andleather person and title holder
and sexologist, dr Tai, to justhave a conversation about the
Old Guard, based in part on hisacademic research on Old Guard,
new Guard and mentoringstructures academic research on
(01:27):
old guard, new guard andmentoring structures.
Then we have an all-Texasedition of Ask Edge.
I have two questions from twofriends and they will be adding
to the conversation as I answertheir questions and, if I have
some time at the end I mightgive you some personal updates.
But our focus today is to reallydive into the old guard.
I know people always want tohear about it, always want to
learn about it, always talkabout it.
So let's go.
(01:48):
I am so thrilled to have myfriend Dr Tai with us.
Dr Tai, welcome to Full Cow.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Thank you so much.
I've listened for a long timeand I'm a fan of this podcast
and of you and I'm reallyhonored and excited to be here
with you.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Oh my God, I'm a fan of you too.
That's great.
So can you start by telling usyour pronouns and how you
identify in the community?
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Yeah, dr Tai he him.
And in the community I am achameleon.
I go where my passion, my love,my desires take me.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
I love that.
So we're here to talk about theold guard, and I understand
that in your dissertationresearch you actually created a
sort of official definition oracademic definition of the old
guard, so maybe we could startthere the old guard, so maybe we
could start there.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Yeah, I, um, I was floating around with with trying
to figure out what I wanted toto do my dissertation on, and,
uh, I wanted to focus on what Ithought was going to be helpful
for the community, and one ofthe things that I know is is a
big, large, divisive wedge inour community is the old guard
new guard debate.
But as I started to do myresearch, there's a lot of like
(03:08):
anecdotal writing about it.
There's a lot of conversationabout it naming the old guard
new guard, but I couldn't findan actual definition, and so my
dissertation is the definitivedefinition of what the old guard
new guard is.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Definitive by definition, because it's
defining it right, yes, sorryfor the redundancy.
No, I love it and your phd isin leatherology or a clinical
sexology is the phd.
Yeah, even better so how didyou end up creating a definition
?
What is the definition?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
yeah, so my, my, my.
The dissertation is thedefinition.
Yeah, so my the dissertation isthe Old Guard versus New Guard
an exploration of the impact ofmentoring in the gay men's
leather BDSM community.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
So the definition of Old Guard and I have one for the
New Guard too, but this episodeis on the Old Guard.
So the Old Guard is a term,title and sometimes
self-identification of asubculture within the
traditionally gay male leathercommunity who are intellectually
and or sexually attracted to atype of role playing that is
(04:12):
rooted in dominant andsubmissive roles, often includes
BDSM and strongly resemblesmaterialistic themes of
obedience, structure andprotocol.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
That definition sounds a lot just like
Leatherman.
So what makes the old guard oldguard to you, or what did you
discover in the course of yourresearch that makes it old guard
?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Yeah, so I mean this is a larger conversation.
I think that one of the thingsthat we struggle with in the
community is that how we viewthe old guard has evolved over
time.
I think in the old days the oldguard uh like when it was first
used this term was in referenceto older folks in the community
, and I think that that's how weuse the term in the vernacular
(05:05):
right.
How most people talk about oldguard or the OG right Is the
original folks, the folks thatstarted this thing.
But as we've progressed, thecharacteristics of the old guard
have evolved beyond that.
We're no longer talking aboutold players like people that
have been in the community for along time, and has nothing to
do with age, but it has more todo with how we like our play,
(05:27):
how we like to engage in thecommunity.
So really it's a point ofnegotiation, just like we would
negotiate anything else in ourscenes in our play.
So in contrast and this was abig piece of the struggle of
defining the new guard which isthere's nothing out there, it's
always in contrast of what it'snot compared to the old guard.
So the difference in thedefinitions is old guard,
(05:52):
specifically, is around themesof obedience, structure and
protocol and there's a rigiditythat comes with that.
That was one of the commonterms that was used.
In contrast, the new guard ismuch more about social
progression, inclusion, fluidityand self-expression.
It is less about protocol andstructure.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
All of this is quite fascinating to me because I was
sort of around when we made upthis term New Guard.
I remember it from the late1900s, shall we say.
The late 1900s, shall we say,and my sense of it was that it
was a reaction to the totalunstructuredness of the
community in attempt to kind ofbe more old guard in a new way.
(06:35):
So it's interesting that thishas evolved even more to be a
much younger, fresher, sociallyprogressive term, because my
memory is that is not how itmanifested.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Did you find any of that?
That's what I was saying.
It's progressed over time, likehow we first used the term old
guard was much more abouttradition and values and like
this is the way it's been.
So this is the way we mustcontinue our traditions, and
it's moved more away fromtradition per se se and more
into the structure of how welike our play.
So originally, as you're saying, when the term first kind of
(07:10):
came out, it was much more aboutthe tradition and the way that
things have been.
But it's progressed as manythings do I'm also.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
I'm kind of surprised , like the other, really
defining feature of the oldguard.
For me is this notion ofexclusivity Very much a closed
circle, very much have to knowsomeone and be vetted by them
before you're introduced intothe community and I'm wondering
why that didn't make its wayinto the definition or if it had
some role in your research.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
It did.
It just wasn't one of the mainthemes that arose.
I did a qualitative analysis inmy research and it was a theme.
It just wasn't one of the majorthemes and so when I was
actually making the definition,I didn't want to include
outliers as part of the actualdefinition.
(08:00):
But it was relevant.
It did come up many, many timesand people did reference that
sort of thing.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
um, but again, it wasn't, it wasn't one of the
main themes actually I love thatyou kind of separated it out,
because that exclusivity wasless about.
This is our sacred knowledgeand we must guard it, and more.
We're living in 1950s americaand if the wrong people find out
we're all going to get killed,right.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
So yeah, so I don't know that it was structurally
part of self-identity so much assafety yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Yeah, yeah, it was a root.
I mean, we were very and todaywe call it gatekeeping, right,
and there's an aspect of that,especially back then, we didn't
want to gatekeep, we did want tokeep the people that weren't
part of the community out of itas a way of protecting ourselves
, because it very much was lifeand death at times.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Yeah, I'm really glad that you're focusing on that
and that what looks likegatekeeping in the old guard was
really survival skill.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
And that's a piece that I think is really important
when we talk about just keepingthings in context, is the
intention of why things were theway they were.
Evolve, and our community has.
Our society has evolved in thepast 50 years, and it's
important that our definitionsalso evolve with it.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
So now I want you to kind of chameleonize and be not
just Dr Ty leatherologist, butalso Dr Ty Leatherman.
I see a lot of people online invarious contexts claiming to be
quote unquote old guard, and inmy mind there's no unbroken
chain, like the HIV pandemicbroke a lot of things, but also
the sort of opening up of thecommunity in the early 70s.
So when I see people who areold guard, I become immediately
(09:54):
suspicious.
And what's your take on that interms of legitimacy?
Let's start there withlegitimacy.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
Right, and so it depends.
Again, how are we operationallydefining old guard?
Are we talking about the OGfolks and does that mean that
you were raised as a leatherperson from the OG people?
Or does that mean that you inlike, you're the newer version
of the old guard term?
Is it just means you, you wereraised in a place of high
protocol and structure andtradition and like?
(10:25):
Are those your values?
So it really depends.
I would start with askingquestions of like.
When you say old guard, whatdoes that mean to you?
Because it's going to bedifferent.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
It is going to be different and I'm giving you
credit for legitimizing thosepeople because I look at them
with a great deal of suspicion.
I don't know what you'retalking about, but I look at
them with a great deal ofsuspicion.
I don't really talk about it,but I look at them with a great
deal of suspicion.
So part of, I think, why Ibecome so suspicious is a lot of
them adhere to these protocolsthat they claim are part of the
(11:00):
originals.
But from my knowledge of peoplewho were actually in the
originals, but from my knowledgeof people who were actually in
the originals, are not originaland there was a book that came
out that I won't call out byname but that really
manufactured a lot of historyaround protocols.
So can you dig a little bitinto the complication of people
(11:23):
who are calling themselves oldguard and is it legitimate for
them to be like no, this is anold guard tradition because you
know they are affirming it?
I mean, go into that a littlebit.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Yeah, I think part of the struggle that we've had of
our history being passed downverbally is that there's not
been research, no one'sdocumented our history that well
except from personal anecdotesand personal stories, is that?
It's just that it's a personalstory.
And when anyone starts togeneralize to the larger
(11:56):
community it's reallyproblematic.
And even if we do it today,it's problematic because our
individual story cannot begeneralized and this was the
problem of overgeneralization.
So this person, whatever bookthat was I don't know exactly
which book you're referring tomay have in fact been his lived
experience.
I don't know him, I can't speakto that.
(12:17):
That might have been his livedexperience, but the problem is
he generalizes and said this isthe way it was in the community.
And I think that is the biggestflaw of that, is the
generalization of it.
You know, if he had just takenthe book and said this is my
story, this is my livedexperience and this is one way
of doing things that happened tome in this time period, it
would have been a differentthing than saying this is the
(12:38):
definitive book of how things,the way things were Like.
That's where we have someproblems.
And even to this day, when wegeneralize and say this is the
way I was raised, is the way itis the right way, and everything
else is wrong or problematic.
That's where we have someissues in the community.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
So, then, is it fair to say that, historically
speaking, we do not know the wayof the old guard?
And, in fact, what we know ofhistory is that there were a lot
of pockets in different citiesthat might've had different ways
of doing it.
That's scientific fact.
At this point right.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
There is.
No, the way it doesn't exist.
It did not exist Because, Imean, this predates the internet
, it predates our ability for LAto communicate with Chicago, to
communicate with New York,right, and when NLA first
started to form and it was thefirst time and we had, living in
(13:35):
Leather was the first kind oflike actual events where people
came in from a national level tocommunicate like, oh, you're
doing a hanky coat this way, wedo it this way, and it was the
first time where we started toactually see that there were
differences in how we wereshowing up in our kinks and in
our communities or in our play.
And so the comparison neverstarted until NLA started in the
(13:58):
70s, right.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
So- NLA is National Leather Association.
For my listeners Stars yes.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
And LA is National Leather Association.
For my listeners, yes, and thefirst conferences predating IML,
predating CLAW, predating anyof the other events, was Living
in Leather.
It was the first big event andit was completely mixed.
It was not just the gay men, itwas completely integrated.
It's only more recent thatwe've started to separate and
segregate out our community.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
And do you know when that conference started?
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Oh gosh, I don't know the date off the top of my head
, but I believe it was early 70s.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
We're going to call it early 70s.
It's a podcast.
A quick Google search will findthat yeah.
What I also love in the wayyou're talking about old guard
is, even though we're sort ofsaying no, there was no the way
to do it, you're also creatingspace for people to legitimize
themselves as old guard andsaying, no, this is my style of
play and this is what I carry asa tradition from people I've
(14:54):
learned or from sources I'vecovered right.
So it is entirely possible andlegitimate for people to call
themselves old guard, right.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Totally, yeah.
Yeah, it's, I mean.
I mean the one.
The place that we struggle themost in our community is when we
start to should on other peopleabout how they should do their
kink or their play.
We have no business tellingpeople how they should do
anything.
Right If that works for themand it's consensual and
everyone's involved in agreeingto it and it's not causing
permanent harm, that's agreedupon Like what is the problem?
(15:24):
Stop policing each other.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
So then, do you consider yourself old guard, or
how do you relate to yourunderstanding of old guard today
?
Speaker 2 (15:37):
I am way too much of a psychotherapist to be that
rigid therapist to um, to um, tobe that rigid, uh, my, my, my
being is far more expansive andprogressive and um, there there
is a healthy piece of me thathas OCD and I really enjoy
protocol at times, um, but Idon't, um, I don't.
(15:58):
It doesn't speak to me as akink, it speaks to me
intellectually and I enjoy theexercise of that and I enjoy
routine and protocol.
But I would not ascribe to that, I would not take on the
identity as old guard.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Yeah, I think that you know.
I feel like some people mightlook at me from the outside and
assume I'm old guard, becausethey're conflating a kind of
Tama Finland aesthetic withautomatically meaning old guard,
and that is also incorrect.
Am I right in saying that?
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Absolutely yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
That old guard is a style of play and
self-identification that comesalmost internally and should not
be universalized.
Awesome, Totally agree.
So where do you think?
What is the future of old guard?
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Honestly, I wish we would move away from the guard
system altogether Me too.
Can we just abandon it?
And actually I say that in mydissertation as sort of a call
to the community of asking tomove away from this language
because it is so divisive and wecan't agree on the definitions,
right?
So when we get really upsetwith each other and there is
(17:09):
these heated debates about whatwas, what wasn't, what is their
personal identification, so theyfeel righteous in identifying
with it and everything thatcomes with their identification.
So they assume everyone agreeswith that.
Because it's so problematic, itcontinues to serve as a wedge to
divide us rather than bring ustogether.
That we're all kinksters on aspectrum of how much we enjoy
(17:32):
protocol and rigidity in ourplay and it's something to
negotiate.
Just like are we going to haveprotective sex or not?
Like, do we want that?
Do we not want that?
And it's something that we cannegotiate.
And if someone likes highprotocol, then they're not going
to play with someone, a puppy,who doesn't like protocol at all
.
Right, like no, that's not agood fit and we're just not
going to be play partners andthat's okay.
(17:53):
You will find other people outthere who want that level of
protocol and it's just about anegotiation.
And it's dating, it's kinkydating.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Yeah, and I love that you're zeroing in on
divisiveness, because I thinkpart of what Old Guard has
become code for is real, like ifyou're Old Guard, you're a real
leather person, right, and ifyou're not, then you're not
(18:25):
Right, and I think that's partof the problematics.
You're pointing to that, if wesort of put a certain kind of
play on a pedestal, then otherkinds of play get delegitimized.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
yes, and and and you're touching on something
that's also really important todiscern out is that you know old
guard, new guard, the entireidentity around this is a system
that is specific to leatherfolks.
It's specific to, it is not,cannot be generalized to
kinksters, and those are twoseparate communities that are
overlapping.
There's a large piece thatoverlaps, but there's huge
(18:52):
pieces that don't, and theidentification of old guard, new
guard is specific to leather.
It is not, cannot begeneralized to all kinksters.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I love that.
Can you expand on that a littlebit and help people understand
this differentiation betweenleather folk and kinksters?
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Yeah, leather is kink , but not all kink is leather.
Can you give us some examples?
(19:32):
It's like projecting Christianvalues onto a Muslim.
It's just not going to makesense to them, it doesn't apply,
and so we have to stopprojecting our values and
assuming that everyone in theentire kink scene ascribes to
leather values and the old guardand protocol and all that stuff
(19:53):
is a leather value.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
It is not a kinkster value.
Yeah, and another example ofthis sort of kinkster leather
divide I'm chatting with someoneright now on Instagram who
identifies as very dominant butdoesn't wear leather at all.
So this is just more general.
And I also know people who wearleather who are not kinky at
all.
They just like leather andthey'll take it off and fuck or
they'll fuck in their leather,but they don't do anything kinky
(20:15):
.
So I'm glad our conversationhas evolved this way to let
people know there are morepositions for them to stand.
Is it also fair, then, to saythat old guard is specifically a
leather man culture versus,like I don't know of any female.
I don't know that females werepart of the old guard
(20:35):
historically?
Speaker 2 (20:37):
I don't know that they weren part of the old guard
historically?
Speaker 1 (20:39):
I don't know that they weren't, oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Okay, I don't have any evidence either direction
around this.
I think we stereotypicallyassume gay men and that is the
narrow focus of my research.
I will admit that it was oneway an issue that arose.
Originally.
It was to the kink community ingeneral.
An issue that arose originally.
It was to the kink community ingeneral, but as I was being
(21:04):
advised by my dissertationcommittee, they encouraged me to
narrow my focus just to get thedissertation done.
So it is certainly.
I am in the process ofconverting the dissertation into
a book because I want thisinformation to be accessible and
right now a dissertation in anyrealm just sits on a shelf in
the library of my university andis not accessible.
People can't read this.
So I am in the process ofconverting it and I am going to
expand to include all kinksters.
(21:26):
That is my intention, but thedissertation itself is a narrow
focus to the gay men's leatherBDSM community.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
So you have no evidence either way.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
I have no evidence either way and I don't know that
it exists.
Again, we will get anecdotalinformation, but unless we do a
large-scale quantitative study,including non-male presenting
folks, then I don't know thatwe'll have that information, but
it's certainly something that Iwould love to do.
And I don't know that we'llhave that information, but it's
certainly something that I wouldlove to do.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah, alternatively, if you're a listener and you
know of women who were old guard, particularly historically, let
me know.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
That would be a really great episode In the new
definition of the way I'mpresenting this, because it's
just a level of protocol that welike to engage in.
I don't see there's any reasonwhy a female bodied or non male
bodied human would not engage inold guard, right?
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Oh yeah, I absolutely agree that if we think about it
in your liberating, enablingsense of a style of play, then
it's available to everyone.
I'm just also curious about thehistory, but really that's a
question about the history ofthe women's leather community,
which is another podcast episode.
Let me make a little bit of atransition.
You know you talked about howpart of Old Guard's appealing to
(22:44):
you because of your beautifulOCD-ness and that there are sort
of things that you do like aset of unwritten rules around my
cover and I was.
For example, I was once inanother city at a leather bar
and had my cover sitting on thetable because it was hot and
(23:05):
some guy came, picked it up andput it on his head and, like all
the leather folk I was with, wewere all kind of horrified,
right, Like that was clearlyGrass with pearls.
It was a very clutch of thepearls.
And it was a good revelation forme to be like, oh okay.
Well, that is clearly somethingI have taken from this notion
of old guard that that I've madea specialness in my cover.
(23:26):
Do you have similar thingswhere you find yourselves with
traditions that might be oldguardish, or is there parts of
old guard tradition that appealsto you?
Speaker 2 (23:36):
um, yeah, I mean there's.
There's some things that justways of working in acts of
submission, in everyday sort ofthing my protocol are really
subtle.
It's my boy always opening thedoor for me.
It is him getting.
I'll give him my credit cardand he'll get our drinks, or
he'll always step a step behindme, like one step behind.
He'll always step a step behindme like one step behind.
(23:58):
Like these sort of things arejust small things that I think
do stem from tradition and oldguard, sort of things that just
speak to me around levels ofsubmission that I think are
beautiful.
But some of those things aren'tgoing to speak to other people
and so it's very much a make ityours.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
It is a make it yours thing and it's also a kind of
for me.
I inherited things from mymentors that presumably they
inherited from somewhere else,that I think are possible to
trace back to the actualhistorical original old guard,
but that I wasn't aware of untilthey kind of get violated and
then I'm clutching my pearls.
So, and even like some of thethings you're talking about, the
(24:40):
sort of walk, the step behind,really I think harkens back to
the militaristic aspect of theold guard, if we think about
military protocol and where doofficers work and where do they
walk and where do people who arebelow them walk?
Yeah, any other thoughts on oldguard that you want to open up
here?
Speaker 2 (25:05):
I think it's important not to assume that
everyone shares our values.
Right, and I know I've kind oftalked about that before.
But in these types of examplesI think it's a learning
opportunity.
It's not a time to shame andblame and saying this is the way
, and you just don't touchsomeone else's cover, whether
it's a garrison cap or amaster's cut.
(25:28):
I mean there's a certain levelof just common courtesy, Don't
touch other people's shit.
Don't do that, but I think thatthere's a real learning
opportunity too, and for somepeople that maybe didn't have a
leather mentor or have someoneto talk about protocol, then
there's the opportunity then tohave that conversation and just
(25:49):
going hey, just raise someawareness.
Like that happened recently.
I was giving a talk and someoneused the term muggle to
describe a non-Kinkster.
Right, and there's not a rightnor wrong, but I think it's
important that we're aware ofthe context of words, and that
word stems from Harry Potter,which is RK Rowling's thing, and
(26:14):
there's a huge problematicaround our trans community and
JK Rawlings.
So a lot of the community isstarting to move away from using
anything associated with HarryPotter.
Like I didn't shame on them, Iwas like, hey, I don't know if
you know this or not, butthere's a context here that you
may be missing.
And now you are informed andyou can choose to use that word
or not, but do it with knowledge.
(26:34):
That's the important piece.
Right, and consent only worksif it's fully informed consent.
If we don't have all theinformation, we can't make an
informed decision.
If that touches me and I sharethat value, then I can do that.
But if I don't have theknowledge, then how am I
supposed to know if I actuallyhave that value or not?
Speaker 1 (26:52):
Yeah, and I want to now pivot to talking about
mentoring, which has cropped upa little bit in all the things
you've said, and certainly oneway to look at the old guard
system is that it was a rigorous, absolute mentorship system,
like you really were onlygetting in if you had a mentor.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Yes and no.
From my understanding of thehistory, yes and no.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
Well, let's talk about that.
Well, let's talk about that.
Historically, in the original,actual 1950s Old Guard, what
have you discovered in terms ofmentoring and how it happened or
didn't?
Speaker 2 (27:28):
It didn't Sucking.
It's one of the like what.
There was no statisticaldifference in our approach to
mentoring.
From the old guard to new guardresponses in my research no
difference at all.
But people were more likely toidentify that they had formal
mentoring as if they identifiedas old guard than if they
(27:50):
identified as new guard.
But how they actuallyapproached it, there was no
difference.
I think this is one of thosewhat's it called the mandala
effect or mandala yeah, wherethere's a cultural shared
misbelief about how somethinghappened, and I think that that
(28:10):
happens a lot in the old guard,new guard mythos of what was old
guard and what wasn't, and Ithink that book is a great
example that is presented asfact but it's not actually how
things happened and mentoring isone of those things.
Now, there were absolutelymentors and people that took
people under their wings andsirs taught their boys, but
(28:31):
they're teaching them their way.
Right, that is just their way,but that's exactly how it's done
today.
There's not an actualdifference in.
There was nothing structural,there was nothing formal around
that mentoring, which wasthrough.
This research is what sort ofinspired me to to move towards
launching an actual mentoringprogram.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Talk about that.
How's your mentoring programgoing?
What's the plan, what's thevision?
How can people who arelistening help participate, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
It's still infant stage.
I'm wanting to get the researchdone first, because the
research is the foundation.
I want to know where we've beenin order to know where we need
to go, networking withestablished mentoring programs
that already exist theLeatherman's Discussion Group,
onyx and House of Janice aregreat examples of that and I'm
(29:23):
in the process of connectingwith those folks to see about
those best practices.
But all of those areas arespecific.
They're not generallyaccessible.
I'm a white person and I can'taccess Onyx's mentoring program
right, so it is exclusive andI'm not knocking that at all,
I'm just white person and Ican't access Onyx's mentoring
program, right.
So it is exclusive and I'm notknocking that at all, I'm just
saying it's limiting.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Not everyone can access that, and so I'm wanting
to tap into that and make someof these best practices in our
overall community moreaccessible you suggesting out of
your research is that mentoringhas always occurred in some
(30:02):
form in the community, from thehistorical old guard through the
quote unquote, whatever thehell, it is new guard to today.
Is that your sense, that we area community that relies on some
sort of mentoring in some ways?
Speaker 2 (30:15):
I do, I absolutely do .
And the mentoring comes in manyfacets.
One is the social how tonavigate socially in our
community, whether it is at abar or in a dungeon, like
there's different rules that arenot posted somewhere.
Well, I guess they aresomewhere, but you'd have to
Google.
I'm really searching.
And again, it's going to bedifferent per dungeon, but
(30:35):
there's some general etiquettethat I think is just it's going
to be different per dungeon, butthere's some general etiquette
that I think is just it's commonknowledge but it's not actually
taught at times.
So, like how to navigate at thebar and navigating if some, how
to approach someone or notapproach someone there's just so
much that kind of goes into thehistory here that it's
important that we do mentorfolks along the way for that.
(30:55):
There's the literal skillbuilding around mentoring.
Right, if you're brand new tothe scene, you have no business
picking up a single tail period.
Right, you have no businesstouching that toy, at least with
the intention of touchinganother human with it.
And there's many aspects of kinkplay.
That is a I see it.
(31:16):
I use the analogy of gradschool, like I'm a therapist.
We go through and we do thetheory, we take all the classes
and everything before we eversit down in front of a client to
practice the art of therapy.
And then we get into practicum,then we actually start
practicing, but only after we'vedone a ton of research.
In theory, right, and I thinkkink should be the same way.
(31:38):
Pardon the should, but this ismy philosophy that we should do
a lot of our education withouttouching things.
And then we have an idea ofwhat we want to do and then we
start to explore with somementoring.
So those are the two, three andthen the last piece is our
history Again requires a littlebit of mentoring of people that
have either walked that walk ordone some research ideally a
(32:01):
little bit of both who can speakon those sort of things.
So those are the three mainareas where I think mentoring is
absolutely necessary in ourcommunity.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
So if someone's listening to the podcast, they
are brand spanking new to thecommunity.
They don't have access to Onyx,they don't live in San
Francisco, so they can't do theLeatherman's Discussion Group.
You haven't started yourprogram yet.
It's still an infant.
(32:30):
Where would you suggest peoplego for some of this informal
knowledge, for any kind ofmentoring?
Are there strategies people canuse today to try to find their
way into the community?
Speaker 2 (32:39):
This is why I'm being called to launch this, because
I don't think it exists unlessyou know the resources.
The number one book that Irefer to folks that are just
baby interested in kinkaltogether is Lee Harrington's
book Playing Well with Others.
It's a beautiful 101introduction and Lee is
fantastic human being.
(32:59):
I love them.
It's just a great 101.
It talks about some of thisetiquette and what to expect in
a play space versus the bar,versus a big kink event Like.
It talks about some of theprotocols, some of the not
protocol, but the etiquette, thethings that are expected for
(33:19):
people to know and what youmight expect from those
situations, as well as just kindof setting expectations.
So it's a great resource forbaby kinksters getting into the
scene.
Check out Lee Harrington's bookplaying well with others.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Thank you for that.
I will include it in the shownotes and I actually didn't know
that resource.
You're mentoring me.
Yay.
I mean, ironically, I know Lee,but I didn't know about the
book.
The book I usually recommend isLeather Sex by Joseph Bean,
which again is also good at likea lot of the knowledge stuff.
And then I think I'm going tostart recommending the Leather
(33:56):
Man's Handbook, which is back inprint, not as a how-to, but it
is such a rich piece of ourhistory.
I don't know if you've read it.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Oh yeah, it was one of the first books that we read
in the Kinky Book Club.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
Oh, tell us about this Kinky Book Club you have.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Love to.
The Kinky Book Club is based onFacebook.
If you search KBC, Kinky has anexclamation so we can get
around algorithms.
So the Kinky Book Club Istarted I don't know a year and
change ago.
Um, and we we pick readings, uh, kind of Austin Abernathy, it
(34:35):
was Mr Fire Dancer 2024.
Uh, and I kind of got this babygoing and it's been going um
since last, since April lastyear, and uh, we we pick kink
related content.
Uh, it's mostly books, uh, halfmostly books.
We're doing an every other monthsort of thing, so every other
month is a book.
So we get two months toactually read a book, and then
(34:56):
the alternating month we'reconsuming other types of media,
whether it's an on guard salonepisode, or it is what's the
safe Word episode, or watchingthe Pamba Finland documentary or
whatever.
And then we have a guest on,and we've been very lucky that
every book that we've chosen ofauthors that are still alive
have joined us, including Lee,and we actually read Lee's book
(35:19):
and were playing with others,and so it's been really
fantastic building somecommunity of folks that are
actually thirsty for thisknowledge and to have
conversations around the content, around these things.
It's been really fantastic ofbuilding some community of folks
that are actually thirsty forthis knowledge and to have
conversations around the content, around these things.
It's been really amazing.
In such a short amount of timewe've actually grown to over
1,900 members internationally.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
How many are actually showing up?
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Not 1,900.
No, it's actually a tinyfraction of that.
It definitely lets me know thatthere's a lot of interest in it
.
But being able to actually showup and read a book is very
challenging and part of thereason why we edited when we
launched it it was a book everysingle month.
We read a book every singlemonth, which was very
(36:01):
challenging for everyone,including myself, so that's why
we moved to this every othermonth book sort of approach.
But we get 20 to 30 folkshaving a conversation every
single month, which is lovely,and invariably we'll have a
couple of international folkspop in, which has been pretty
cool and very humbling thatpeople are thirsty for this type
(36:21):
of content.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
Well, and what you're also indicating is that there's
another important pseudomentoring resource, which is the
Kinky Book Club, which can getyou to read these books that
include some of the unwrittenrules, some of the history, but
then also connect to kinkstersand leather people in a
not-sexual, not-pressured space.
So you are already doing apseudo-mentoring?
Speaker 2 (36:47):
no yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
Yeah, it's not unintentional but thank you
absolutely absolutely.
Oh god, where am I gonna goafter that?
Something else about the bookoh, the other reason I love that
you're doing a book club is Iknow so many of my followers on
the socials are nerds, likethere's a huge young gamer with
(37:09):
a Y community, you know,tabletop role playing game
community and those people oftenare readers.
They actually read books.
So I think it's great to givethem a kind of forum that allows
them to access knowledge in away that they may be tuned to do
it Well done.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
Yeah, I was just having this conversation with my
Texas folks literally yesterday.
There's the cross-sectionbetween kinksters and cosplay
and D&D folks and neurotypicalor atypical folks, neuro-spicy
folks.
There's a huge cross-sectionand overlap because a lot of
this is about fantasy and roleplay and an exploration right,
(37:48):
it's.
It's a headspace.
Right, we're able to get into aheadspace.
These are common denominatorsthrough them all.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
Yeah, yeah, you also mentioned in passing um your
title holding your miss are wereyou were mr well, I will
forever be Mr Texas Leather 2024.
What motivated you to pursuethe title?
How was your title year?
What did you learn?
(38:15):
What did you hate?
What did you love?
Tell us a little bit about that.
Speaker 2 (38:19):
That's a whole episode Barkley.
Speaker 1 (38:21):
I mean, I'm planning a title, whole episode, so we
might get back to that.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
But just you know, tell me a little bit.
So it was an amazing experience.
The reason I wanted to run,both for Mr Texas and, hopefully
, to move on to IML which I wasable to do, and I was very
excited and humbled to make top20 and give my speech was this
exact thing I wanted to put outthe information about Old Guard,
new Guard and challenge some ofthese old myths that exist and
(38:49):
are problematic in our community, and that was the sole reason I
decided to run was to put thisinformation out there, because I
knew that that was going to befaster than me finishing my book
and getting that published, andso that was.
My platform was mentoring andeducation in our community.
So this was it.
So thanks for helping continueto highlight my platform.
Speaker 1 (39:11):
Yeah, absolutely.
And you know, I think,particularly historically, we
only had certain mechanisms forpeople to lead in the community
and porn was one of them,leading in a certain way,
aspirationally, in terms oflooks, um.
But title holding has alwaysbeen like historically, this
(39:34):
sort of mechanism for leadershipwhich maybe might be shifting.
I don't know, title holding iscomplicated now, would you say
it's complicated.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
yeah, I think we have a theory of um, an aspiration
of what title holding issupposed to be, but our actual
application and practice of thatis problematic and not always
in alignment with ouraspirations.
But that's life.
We always have our idealizedself and our actual self, which
don't always align.
But I think there's a movement,I think there's effort in that.
(40:05):
But I think there's a movement.
(40:27):
I think there's effort in that.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
I think there's a want for us to, for title
holders to be representatives ofthe best of us, right, and the
people that are actually outthere doing the work and
committed to trying to buildcommunity.
But sometimes it's not.
Sometimes it's a popularitycontest, sometimes it's the
hottest person.
It's not always about the work.
Yeah, and spoiler alert, you'regoing to be hearing again from
Dr Tai later in this episodebecause he did submit an Ask
Edge question.
In fact, we have a whole Texasedition of Ask Edge because
Austin also submitted a question.
Of course he did, so you allhave that to look forward to as
well.
So I just want to kind of makesure we wrap up with a single
(40:49):
message that people can takeaway.
And so what I've heard and youcan correct me or add to this is
the old guard.
First of all, when we talk aboutthe old guard, there is the
actual historical people livingin the 1950s old guard.
But, more importantly, as thecommunity has progressed, it's
become a style of play that isvery protocol, heavy, very
formal, very militaristic.
(41:10):
As a style of play, it isperfectly legitimate to call
yourself old guard and as partof that, you might have some
unbroken thread of tradition.
Maybe not, but it's importantto not universalize old guard in
any way, because there neverwas a universal old guard.
That part of the old guard wasmentoring, but so is part of the
(41:33):
new guard.
So, as part of the not guard,that mentoring has a role to
play throughout our communityand it manifests in many
different ways, sometimes moreformally, sometimes less
formally, but hopefully, as DrTai continues his crusade, there
will be a larger formalmentoring program emerging that
people can access.
In the meantime, there arebooks, there are resources like
(41:56):
the Kinky Book Club, which notonly is itself a resource, but
it's been pointing you todifferent resources like En
Garde and like what's the SafeWord and like what's the safe
word, and so to access mentoring, you have some avenues more are
coming and as you enter intothat mentoring you can make a
decision of whether or not youwant to be old guard and ideally
(42:17):
, eventually we will move awayfrom this whole notion of guards
completely.
Is that a good summary?
Speaker 2 (42:24):
That was beautiful.
What would you add?
What would you add?
Add a little something.
Speaker 1 (42:27):
Put some Dr Ty spice in that.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
It was very good.
I don't know that I would add.
I think you did a wonderful jobof kind of summar.
We've defined the guards and anurging, a call to action for
people to move into this place,of trying to negotiate protocol
(42:56):
instead of an identification,which is rigidity, and anytime
we pigeonhole ourselves intoanything, it limits us into that
box, and that's what a lot ofthe movement of society and
community is about is seeingthings more on a continuum
instead of a box.
But if you live the box, live inthe box, and that's what a lot
of the movement of society andcommunity is about is seeing
things more on a continuuminstead of a box, which but if
you live the box, live in thebox, that's perfectly okay.
But just allowing ourselves tobe the full range of a human and
(43:19):
being able to play around withthis and that's the whole point
of this, is why we call it playis to go in and have fun and
enjoy ourselves, and when welimit ourselves, sometimes it
limits our ability to play.
So yeah, if you don't mind, Iwould love to invite your
audience.
Like, if you are part of acommunity where you have a
(43:42):
mentoring program, I would loveto hear from y'all as part of I
do my research and build ourbest practices.
If you could reach out to me,instagram is probably the best
place for me, and my handle isDr Ty D-R-T-Y Leatherman, which
ironically spells DirtyLeatherman without the I Happy
accident.
Speaker 1 (44:04):
I'll put that link in the show notes so people can
just click on it.
Speaker 2 (44:07):
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that and becauseit really takes a village and I
think we need a place where wecan highlight and come together
and practice mentoring as acommunity, because I think it's
definitely needed.
Speaker 1 (44:21):
Yeah, I mean, given how important it is, it's really
shocking how few officialformal mentoring programs exist
in the community.
And I think you've named theones I know.
Plus, I didn't know aboutJanice, so that's one I guess
doesn't surprise me, but one Ididn't know.
But when we're looking at justthree mentoring programs period,
(44:44):
that's interesting.
So there might be smaller onesand hopefully they'll get in
touch with you.
Speaker 2 (44:50):
So that you can and I know there are.
I know that there are likelocalized ones, the people that
are a small group.
I know there's one in austinthat I didn't know existed and
uh, but I I just haven't beenable to connect with it,
especially the pan community, um, and our heterosexual side of
the community, like I don't havea lot of access to those
communities.
It's not my circles and myexperience is very much around
(45:11):
gay men, so there's just a lot Idon't know.
But those practices, thosearound mentoring and teaching,
like those are absolutely validand my hope, my wish, is for us
to be more integrated and to beable to share our best practices
as a community.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
Yeah, actually I have a boy in Phoenix who's a member
of the Phoenix Boys of Leatherand just recently got a mentee,
so a lot of these are also thenembedded in clubs or groups to
various degrees of formality.
So hopefully, if you know ofmentoring programs, you will
reach out, because I think DrTai's looking for best practices
but also to get as many voicesin this and as much in
(45:48):
engagement with the community aspossible.
Speaker 2 (45:50):
Absolutely yeah, thank you very much Awesome.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
Are you going to run for any other titles or are you
kind of done with that?
Speaker 2 (45:56):
Literally.
I was having a conversationwith Austin yesterday.
Austin from Houston, Austinfrom Houston, but has a Dallas
title.
Hi Austin, Cause I know he'lllisten to this.
We were just talking about that.
The drummer.
Drummer title is back in some,some capacity, and I don't know
(46:17):
exactly.
Speaker 1 (46:17):
International leather serve.
Boy is back.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
That is back as well.
Community boot black, oh youmean the drummer NA.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
Is that back again too?
Yes, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
Yeah, the actual drummer.
Drummer magazine title is back,so I don't know if it's an
international.
I don't know what that is, butit hit my radar yesterday so it
piqued my interest.
But, as of this point, I haveno plans to run for another
title.
I this, this mentoring thing,is going to be a massive
undertaking and I'm reallyexcited about that and, um I
(46:48):
it's going to take a lot ofenergy.
Speaker 1 (46:49):
So running for a title, I don't know, I don't
know I mean, besides all thepractical good you did in your
title year locally, I mean Ithink it also did boost gives
you the signal boost you needed.
Like you stood on the stage andtalked about mentoring and so I
think you had a good widebroadcast of what's going on and
that might've done enough foryou to then focus on the
(47:11):
mentoring and have people cometo you to enlist in that, I hope
, cause title holding is a lotof work.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
It is a lot of work, yeah, but it's a labor of love.
Like again, like the aspirationpiece of this.
I hope people run for titlesbecause they want to serve and
it is not and I see it that wayphilosophically it is not a
leadership role, it's a servicerole and I hope that that is why
people run for titles, becauseultimately, that's what I think
(47:39):
it's about is serving thecommunity.
Speaker 1 (47:41):
Yeah, if I have an episode on title holders, will
you come back?
Speaker 2 (47:44):
I would love to yeah.
Speaker 1 (47:52):
Awesome, I think.
For now, we're going to wrap itup.
Speaker 2 (47:55):
This has been a really fantastic conversation
about the old guard and I wantto thank Dr Tai for joining us
on Full Cow.
It's my pleasure.
Speaker 1 (47:59):
Thank you so much for having me, and now it's time
for Ask Edge, the segment whereI answer questions from all of
you.
If you would like to submit aquestion and please, please,
consider submitting one you canleave me a voicemail at
speakpipecom slash leatheredge,that's L-T-H-R-E-D-G-E or you
(48:20):
can email me at ask atfullkyleshow.
Both of those links areavailable in the show notes and
in this episode we have anall-Texas edition of Ask Edge
and, in fact, people who havebeen on the podcast before,
because I'm pretty surecertainly Austin, I believe, has
submitted a question before andDr Tai is in this very episode.
(48:44):
So our first question is fromAustin, from Houston.
Speaker 3 (48:49):
Hi Edge, this is Austin from Houston.
I'm glad that you've picked upseason four and you're doing it
in a way that is sustainable andhealthy for you.
I'm happy that it's here.
My question is what would youtell your younger self now,
let's say age 21.
What piece of advice, withtoday's wisdom, lived experience
(49:09):
and hindsight, what would youtell your younger self that you
really needed to hear?
Speaker 1 (49:14):
anything about my past, because I live in this
really amazing present where Ihave so many blessings.
It's crazy.
(49:34):
So on the one hand, I wouldn'twant to tell myself anything and
on the other hand, I also thinkthis question is very sort of
dripping with a kind ofnostalgia that I like to kind of
resist, because when youactually start aging and I'll be
55 at the end of October youfind all these cliches turn out
(49:57):
to be true and then the onlything you can do is repeat the
cliche, fully aware that you arerepeating a cliche.
That being said, let me engagewith this wonderful question
from Austin.
I think the biggest message Iwould have for my younger self
is slow down and enjoy thejourney.
(50:20):
Especially in my early twenties,I was hyper-fueled with
testosterone.
I was horny all the time and Iwas constantly seeking more,
more intensity, more scenes,more men, more, more, more, more
, more.
Now that may be related to thehunger of youth and the
testosterone fueling.
For me, it may also be relatedto my disease of addiction,
(50:43):
which was always craving moreanyway, which was always craving
more anyway.
But looking back at 55, I dofeel like I kind of rushed
through a lot of my journey, ornot rushed.
I was always so busy looking tothe next thing that I wanted
the next item of gear, the nextscene, the next fetish that I
(51:05):
don't know.
That I always appreciated rightwhere I was.
Gratitude is an importantpractice in my world now for my
mental and spiritual health, andI wish I had had those tools of
gratitude, because gratitudefor me always roots me in the
present.
It puts the focus not on what Idon't have but what I do have
(51:25):
today, and I'm using it quite abit because I continue to
struggle with being single.
I try to focus on all theblessings I have and really put
my time, energy and attentionthere and not on the future.
Or if I had X, I would be happy.
If I had Y, I would be complete, and that's a message younger
(51:47):
me probably really needed, and Ithink it's a valuable message,
in part because it wouldn'tchange my journey.
I would still be making gooddecisions, bad decisions.
I would still be moving along.
I would still be exploring more,more, more, more, more, but I
think I would have a greatercapacity to appreciate where I
(52:07):
was at, to appreciate thejourney in the moment, and
that's something I do now andsomething that I did not do then
, I mean I would also say buyApple stock, buy stock in Zoom,
become politically active veryearly and don't do drugs, but
(52:30):
none of those things wouldchange the person I am today,
saying, hey, practice gratitude,practice being where you are
and loving where you are in thisleather journey, and not only
always be looking for the nextthat I can give myself, without
really changing the wonderfulperson I ended up being today.
So, uh, our second question isfrom, as I've said a couple of
(52:55):
times, now Dr Ty.
Speaker 2 (52:58):
Dr Ty here a long time listener, Enjoy your show.
Thank you for continuing to dothis.
Uh, you always inspire me tothink of new things to think
about and to talk about.
My question is coming fromsomething that you said in terms
of a future show around titleholders and something has come
up a little recently in theTexas community around vetting.
(53:21):
What does community vettinglook like in best practices?
What would you suggestcommunities producers can do to
better vet potential titleholders beyond a standard
background check?
How can the community bettercheck our people and make sure
(53:42):
that the people actually runningfor our contests or actually
that are earned titles areworthy of it?
We've seen multiple instancesin the community of recent where
that's been a challenge andproper vetting was not done and
later came out that there wereissues with that person or they
were problematic, and I'm justcurious if you have any thoughts
on that.
Speaker 1 (54:02):
Thanks, I think this question presupposes that title
holders are supposed to beleaders in the community and by
default we have sort of turnedto title contests as a way of
shaping and elevating leaders.
But I don't know that titlecontests are well-designed to
(54:25):
select and produce leaders, nordo I think historically they
were ever supposed to.
Now my history on this might bea little mushy, but my sense is
title holders started as a wayfor bars to bring people into
the bar to celebrate the localcommunity, to choose a really
hot man, and I think at thelocal Ramrod bar we still have a
(54:48):
battle of the bulge contest, wehave a best butt contest, and
those are not about selectingleaders, they're about who's got
the best bulge, who's got thebest butt.
And I think historically, if wereach all the way back, that's
really title holders, how theybegan, and I think that's a lot
why embedded in title holdingcontests is a lot of kind of
(55:14):
pageantry.
I'm not the first, certainly,to observe that the title
contest and the pageant contestare not unrelated in some of
their expectations, some oftheir procedures, some of their
unwritten rules.
So what we really have issomething that was about
selecting someone not just hotbut aspirational, someone you
(55:35):
wanted to look like and someoneyou wanted to sleep with.
They were aspirational modelsfor the aesthetics of who we
wanted to be, perhaps, but Idon't think the contest was
designed to ever select leaders.
So if we want to say hey, let'sstart title holder contests that
(55:57):
really create leaders, then youhave to change all sorts of
things.
You wouldn't have categorieslike jockstrap or barware.
You would have categories likefundraising and part of the
contest who won would be who didthe best fundraiser or raised
the most money.
You would have more emphasis onpublic speaking.
(56:18):
There's usually like a brief,silly question on stage.
It'd be a little bit more likeIML, but more expanded, because
you want a leader who isarticulate, who is passionate,
who can connect with a crowd androuse a crowd.
You would have interviews thataren't about what's the most
significant item of leather youown, but much more diving into
(56:41):
their leadership skills and howthey have proved that in the
community.
The application wouldn't betell us how big your cock is.
Your application would be muchmore like a resume.
So if we expect title holdercontests to produce leaders,
then we need to center thecontest on leadership, and I
(57:02):
think some of that happens,especially when you get to IML.
The interview process there isremarkably brief, the speech is
remarkably brief, but it beginsto give you a sense of who this
person is going to be, how theywill move in the world to
represent IML as an organization.
(57:22):
So we get that sort of at thatnational level, at local levels,
though my experience judginglocal contests is that they're a
little bit more pageant-ish,just a little bit and so if you
want this to become a way ofproducing leaders, we need to
completely revamp what thecontest looks like.
(57:42):
We need to completely create anew kind of title that doesn't
have to displace the beautiful,aspirational, aesthetic title
that we have now that perhapscan run alongside it.
In terms of vetting, that'salso a really complicated
question, because human beingsare whole messy organisms, and
(58:09):
so everyone's got a littlesomething that maybe doesn't
look great in the public eye,and sometimes it is unacceptable
in relation to the mores wehave established as a community.
Sometimes it's just not great,it's not a great look.
Community.
(58:31):
Sometimes it's just not great,it's not a great look.
And if we are going to weed outeveryone who's messy, you're
going to be left with very fewindividuals.
Certainly, I would think,background check man.
I never, I've never, heard of acontest that has a background
check.
That seems pretty severe andpretty expensive.
I I would imagine that at somepoint social media checks will
(58:52):
be rigorous for a contest,because usually that's where
people get in trouble.
They've posted something onsocial media that is not aligned
with the values of thecommunity and may have been
years and years and years andyears and years ago from a
former version of themselves whothey are not anymore, but it's
there, because once it's on theinternet, it's there forever.
(59:12):
So I would imagine, if we arethinking title holder contests
as they exist today, we want toshoehorn them into producing
leaders, then we are going tohave to become more rigorous.
The judges will have to becomemore rigorous at evaluating
every contestant's full socialmedia profile, every post
(59:34):
they've made and sometimes everypost they've commented on,
because that's where the troublehappens.
That's a big lift.
That is a big, big lift.
I think.
Instead, part of what we need todo is build in a little bit of
generosity.
Some things are going to beunacceptable.
Some things are simply this isnot aligned with the title and
the organization that supportsthe title, and this isn't a good
(59:57):
fit for us anymore.
You will no longer be able tobe this title holder.
It just can't work right.
There are some things that aregoing to be unacceptable, but
there are a lot of other thingsthat are just people being messy
human beings.
So my ultimate answer is first,completely change what a title
holding contest looks like.
(01:00:18):
Create a new class of titlesthat are much more about
community service and leadershipand therefore have categories
of judging that are connected tocommunity service and
leadership, and therefore alsohave judges that come from the
community, that come fromleaders in the community.
That's how you create this sortof vetting process, is that you
(01:00:38):
start judging on the qualitiesyou are looking for.
However if we are keeping titleholder contests mostly as they
are now, which is largelypageant-based, largely based on
someone's overall aesthetics,then we need to at least, if you
believe in vetting, do thoroughchecks of social media and then
(01:00:58):
we might also extend theinterview portion.
You know a lot of people.
I've judged a lot of contestsand the crowd at the bar often
seemed surprised by who wonbecause they weren't at the
interview and a lot happens inthe interview.
It may not be a bad idea toopen up the interview process to
(01:01:22):
everyone so the bar can see theinterview happen, which then
creates more opportunities forsort of public speaking and
connecting with an audience, butalso makes more transparent the
judging process, because if youare in the interview, usually
the person who won is veryobvious.
Who they won.
So much happens in thatinterview you have no idea.
So we might make the interviewprocess more visible, more
(01:01:45):
transparent, but also longer, alittle more thorough.
You know, I want to say I getmaybe, you know, 10 to 15
minutes in times that I'vejudged with a candidate.
I don't know, maybe I'm tryingto think, I don't even think I
get a half hour and if we get ahalf hour it's a panel of eight
judges, right?
(01:02:06):
So maybe each judge gets to askone question, maybe a couple of
judges get to ask two, and sothat's not really enough time
for the kind of vetting you'resuggesting needs to take place.
So I would expand the interviewoption and make it public.
But really what I would do iscreate a whole new title.
(01:02:29):
I don't know what it'd becalled, I don't know if it would
feed into IML, I don't know ifit would feed into some other
international title, but itwould be organized in categories
around leadership.
Alternatively, take the currenttitle contests and do some
social media checking.
Make the interview public andexpand the length of the
interview so that there's morethorough conversation.
(01:02:51):
Even then, people are messy,messy organisms and you may
still end up with title holderswho end up not aligned with the
values of the organization thatcreated the title.
I think that's just the waythings are and those are my
thoughts on it.
If you have a question for AskEdge, please, please, please
(01:03:13):
send it on, because I am alwayseager to hear from my listeners
and to create a kind of dialoguebetween us where I can share my
thoughts and help you explorequestions on your own, because
I'm never giving the answer.
I'm giving my answer and when Igive my answer, it helps you
figure out how you feel aboutsomething.
(01:03:33):
It might give you a newperspective, it might reinforce
your perspective.
It might provide clarity forwhat you really think if you
object strongly to what I'msaying.
All of that's good stuff, andthat's it for this episode.
I'm so happy to be proceedingwith the podcast and season four
and I'm so happy for my Texanfriends who submit questions and
(01:03:56):
I'm so happy for all of you forlistening.
Thank you, and that's it forthis episode.
Thank you so much for joiningme.
Please consider subscribing oryou can send feedback to edge at
full cow dot show, as always.
May your leather journey beblessed.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.