The Leather Restoration I (04/30/03)
	Observer wrote: A rather interesting read. 2 things spring to mind: Guy is good for that. :) Observer wrote: First, some people here and in other places have said that the "leather lifestyle" is not the same as BDSM. Would someone care to explain the differences to me? Well, in it's less kind incarnations "BDSM" is often equated to "bedroom BDSM" or those people that have a very loose affiliation to social groups and exist as individuals or partners. Leather refers (where I'm from) to those people that associate in Families or Houses that have somewhat more protocol in them. Unfortunately, I'm still trying to pick out some of the subtle differences to be able to verbalize them. Perhaps Master Rob can detail a bit more. :) Observer wrote: Second, I think we can boil down Baldwin's argument to this: "in the past, we were very selective about who we let in. Now we aren't, so "bad" people are coming in the scene and ruining it". He had other points, but that is one of his central ones. And by "bad" he doesn't just mean dangerous abusers, he means a big pile of things that he grouped under the term "loser". I'm having a hard time with this. Whatever pie-slice you take out of society, you are going to have good people, bad people and ordinary people. Baldwin's criteria are so demanding that he's going to exclude a lot of ordinary people in my view (I don't have a job at the moment nor a car, does it mean I shouldn't be involved in the scene!?!?). Perhaps not permanently, no. But it might indicate the need to pull back and deal with "mundane" things and get them in order before returning to the realm of WIITWD. When I work with pagan students of mine, I require similar things. (job, transportation (bus, car, whatever), etc.) If their life outside of religion isn't in order and balanced, their religion won't be, either. So it goes with kink. Long term inability to meet the main needs of one's life outside of WIITWD indicates, to me, issues that need to be dealt with and resolved so that we are not "escaping from the pain of reality." Observer wrote: What happens to those ordinary people? There is a lot of them you know, if you don't include them they will: A. Form their own scene B: stay isolated and practice bdsm in a possibly unsafe manner C: stay isolated and not be involved in BDSM, leading to loneliness and or guilt. (I've been there, it isn't fun or healthy) That already happens now. Requiring certain standards won't change that. And it can protect those members that are already active. Observer wrote: The scene has to be inclusive. Why? Why do we need to include everyone and become mainstream? What if Guy is correct that in doing so, we are losing a large part of what we are? Observer wrote: It might be diluted because of it, but I see no other practical alternative. Sure, smaller groups of friends can be very exclusive if they wish, but not the community as a whole. Again, why?