AN ESSAY ABOUT "THE OLD DAYS"
printed with permission of Jay
Wiseman
copyright Jay Wiseman
For some time now, and in particular within the last year or so, a number of
assertions about so-called "Old Guard" traditions, customs, and
teachings have come to my attention. Many of these assertions have caused
me to roll my eyes and utter a world-weary sigh. I'll also confess that
I've been having a bit of satirical fun in this regard (as if I could deny
that). Hopefully, nobody has taken serious, lasting offense.
I've mentioned it before, and I'll briefly mention it again now, I see the
"Old Guard" being romanticized and idealized in a manner similar to
how the cowboys of the Old West were romanticized and idealized. Sadly,
the reason for this is largely identical -- all too many of the people who could
set the record straight are dead.
One of my slaves recently remarked to me that people, particularly
disenfranchised people (such as we sadomasochists) want to have a history, and
if such people don't have such a history then they will create one and proceed
to set about convincing themselves that it's true. I believe I see more
than traces of that going on regarding "the Old Guard."
Therefore, before these rapidly fading brain cells of mine deteriorate too much
further, let me see if I can contribute something that might actually be at
least slightly useful.
To paraphrase a line from a current movie: "What do I know for sure?"
In other words, what do I know because I actually witnessed it, rather than
because somebody told it to me? (By the way, I would suggest avoiding
making any strong assertions about the teachings, traditions, and customs of the
"Old Guard" until you can cite at least two, and preferably at least
three, independent sources for your information -- all of which are willing to
be named. Some of the people that I personally know well enough to
consider credible on this topic include Race Bannon, Guy Baldwin, Joseph Bean,
Tony DeBlase, Peter Fisk, Dossie Easton, Pat Califia, Alan Selby, and Gayle
Rubin.)
By the way, there is a good general recommendation that if you want information
about anything in SM, you should get your information from a variety of sources.
Nowadays, I consider this recommendation to be especially true regarding the
supposed "Old Guard" traditions. The truth will survive being
cross-checked.
Well, anyway, here are a few of my thoughts about what it was like "back
then":
I first came into the SM community in 1975, when I -- very nervously -- started
attending functions at Backdrop. I attended my first Janus function in
either 1977 or 1978. (I forget which.) I have been told by sources I
definitely consider credible that Backdrop was actually started (possibly under
the name of The Menlo Park School of Bondage) by Robin Roberts in 1968.
The store currently known as "A Taste of Leather" was, I believe,
started in 1967. San Francisco Sex Information (SFSI) was started in, if
memory serves, 1972.
By the way, I believe that one could make a very strong case that Robin Roberts
is the father of the "relatively het" portion of the Bay Area BDSM
community. Many of the current senior prodommes, and a number of the
people who went on to become founders of SM organizations got our "basic
training" from Robin. To this day, he doesn't get the respect and
recognition he deserves for doing that.
My good friend Bill Burns started the female-dominant organization called the
Service of Mankind Church in 1977. I started the male-dominant
organization called the Gemini Society in 1978. (Back in those days, a lot
of submissive men did not want to be "in role" if any dominant men
were present, so at the mixed-energy parties that Backdrop gave the male-top
folks would often be in one area and the female-top folks would often be way off
in another area.)
So what do I remember about those days?
Well, IMO, probably the most important thing to remember about those days is
that SM was a LOT more taboo and vilified than it is now. Please remember
that back in those days "simply" being gay was considered evidence of
being mentally ill. Being into SM was widely considered to be evidence of
being even more mentally ill. For example, in one police training manual
published in, if memory serves, 1972 advises the officers in training that a
person who was found in possession of sadomasochistic pictures "should be
arrested under any pretext whatsoever." A popular sex book called "The
Sensuous Woman" advised its readers that if a potential lover wanted to
play with whips and chains the best thing to do was (a) refuse and (b) to urge
this person to seek professional help. A book on sadomasochism that I looked
over in a college library contained numerous pictures of things like murdered
women's corpses with over a hundred stab wounds in them.
Thus, while there was some discussion about matters such as what a collar meant,
who should stand where in relationship to who, what was a good way to whip or
bind, and so forth, we spent _much_ more time trying to reassure newbies that
they weren't necessarily sick or crazy. It was _the_ major issue.
(The good news was that the "free love" sexual revolution was in
progress; the bad news was that it wasn't including sadomasochism.)
If you want to get a hint about how we sadomasochists were regarded back then,
imagine what popular reaction would be today towards people who were members of
a group which advocated that sex between blood relatives -- mothers, fathers,
brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, etc. was OK as long as everyone consented.
You can get another good hint of how negatively we were regarded back then by
reading the first edition of "Coming to Power." The section on
the negotiations between the women's SM group called The Outcasts and the people
who managed the Women's Building so that The Outcasts could meet there is
particularly illuminating. References to how the SM contingent was
regarded in the Gay Freedom Day Parade are also illuminating.
Sadomasochists were frequently only slightly less unwelcome than NAMBLA
(basically, the pedophile crowd).
So, point number one, IMO the most important thing to understand about
"back then" is that SM was a lot more taboo and vilified than it is
now. A _whole_ lot more.
A subpoint of the above is that, because SM was so much more negatively viewed
back then, it took IMO a lot more courage to contact the community than it does
today, and even more courage to do something like start a club or be an SM club
officer. Please remember, in those days the entire
"establishment" was asserting that wanting to engage in SM,
specifically including consensual SM, was evidence of a fairly serious mental
illness. It took a lot of just plain raw guts to be able to stand up to
them and say, "No! You are wrong!" If for no other reason,
those early pioneers deserve a lot of respect for having had the bravery to show
up at all.
Another subpoint: 1973 was "International Women's Year" and the
feminist vibes was very strong back then. Among other things, that was
roughly when N.O.W. took its anti-SM position -- a position that only now is
coming under challenge. Thus, women who wanted to take the
submissive role had to face even more negativity than sadomasochists in general
had to face.
A final subpoint to the above is that any "Old Guard" which existed at
the time did not widely see itself as such. Instead, they were more like,
as the song lyric goes "just a bunch of people, doin' the best they
could."
Point Number Two would be that the community, such as it was, was much, much
smaller than it is now. It was considerably harder to find kindred
spirits. Subpoint: the main reason why what we are currently calling the
mentoring system existed back then was largely because there was no alternative.
You couldn't send someone seeking knowledge to places such as Janus, QSM, or
Differences for the very good reason that they didn't exist.
Point Number Three would be that we didn't know as much as we do now. Many
of the things being taught today were being painfully learned, mostly by trial
and error, back then. Also, because SM people (calling what existed back
then a community is something of a stretch) were a lot more isolated from one
another and more underground, it was much harder to find good teachers, credible
books, and other useful information. (This high degree of isolation and
fragmentation are the main reasons why I view with a very dubious eye any
assertion that the "Old Guard" teachings were a unified, widely agreed
upon, body. If there was a, so to speak, "Ten Commandments of
SM" I never heard of it.)
Regarding "Old Guard" teachings and customs: When I started
going to Janus events (which at the time consisted of one event a month), it was
about 85% gay men, about 13% lesbians, with literally a sprinkling of hetfolk
like me. Among other things, it meant that "we" had to be
careful about what we did and said. While "on paper" Janus was a
pansexual organization (I don't think that the word pansexual was in widespread
use at the time), in reality it had a very strong gay male leatherman
atmosphere. Thus, being low-profile, relatively quiet, and courteous was a
distinctly good idea if you were het.
Even in that atmosphere, there was something of a divide among the gay
leathermen between the "highly ritualized" leathermen and the
"California casual" leathermen. Interestingly enough, one of the
items that was the subject of ongoing and vigorous debate at the time was
whether or not it was proper for a bottom to initiate a conversation with a top.
If memory serves, no consensus was ever reached.
(My personal "lowest common denominator" definition of BDSM is
"ritualized sexual aggression and submission." I notice that, then as
now, some of us want significantly more ritual associated with our BDSM than
others want. I personally, as many of you know, definitely lean more
towards the "California casual" end of the spectrum. I also
notice that the "ritual" folks sometimes regard the "casual"
folks as not treating SM with the respect it deserves, and that the
"casual" folks sometimes regard the "ritual" folks as taking
both themselves and SM with much more seriousness than necessary.)
Regarding the assertion that "people who didn't follow the Old Guard
teaching were excluded from the community" -- that ain't exactly how I
remember it. What I remember is that, then as now, if someone was considered to
be dangerous, people would warn others about them. Also, then as now, this
warning process, while usually well-intentioned, lacked any shred of objectivity
or due process. Then as now, abuses of this process, such as malicious
warnings, sometimes occurred. I also remember that, then as now, people
who were considered desirable and popular could repeatedly get away with things
that would have gotten a less desirable, more unpopular person quickly shunned.
There was a sort of general saying that it was better to start out in the
submissive or bottom role, but that was not universally agreed upon. I
remember one person making this assertion at a Janus program sometime around
1980, and a large, butch-looking leatherman replied with a loudly uttered
"Bullshit!" Nobody raced to disagree with him.
My final point is often-not-subtle implication that these supposed "Old
Guard" teachings are somehow better than the "regular" teachings.
This always makes me scratch my head a bit. Was there some kind of
"post Old Guard" decline in SM teachings, traditions, customs, and so
forth that I failed to notice? When did "the 'hood" go into
decline? (Some old-timers would say, privately, that "the 'hood" went
into decline when all those damned hets started coming around. I've heard
this lament from more than one old-timer who felt that I wasn't like "the
rest of them.")
So that's about it. To recap my main points:
1. SM was a lot more taboo and widely condemned than it is now. (Het women who
wanted to take the submissive role faced particularly strong condemnation.)
2. The SM "community" -- such as it was -- was much smaller and more
underground than it is now, and the different groups tended to be smaller and
more isolated than they are now.
3. We didn't know as much as we do now, and what knowledge did exist was harder
to find -- other than by personal trial and error. Almost all of the
books, clubs, and so forth that exist today didn't exist back then.
4. The main "teaching" of the time was that being interested in SM
wasn't in and of itself proof that someone was seriously mentally ill.
5. Then, as now, other than, "yeah, SM needs to be consensual or, at
the very least, not distinctly nonconsensual" there was a wide spectrum of
opinion and a lot of debate about almost all SM-related technical and
interpersonal matters.
As the song lyrics go:
He said "They was just a bunch of people,
doin' the best they could.
Yeah, they was just a bunch of people,
doin' the best they could,"
and then he said that they did it
"pretty up and walkin' good."
-- Jim Croce (I think)
copyright Jay Wiseman,
All rights reserved.
Greenery Press - http://www.greenerypress.com
Submissive Women Kvetch - http://members.aol.com/oldrope