A post on ending Leather relationships

Recently, on an e-mail list, there was a question about ending Leather relationships and what happens to symbols, tools, and collars. The following is what I wrote in response.

***

I'll speak to some of how I was taught by friends in the midwest in the mid to late 80's about how we tried to conduct our relationships and how one relates to tokens and tools, particularly when relationships come to a close. These are just some of how I learned and some of how I (personally, speaking as a switch) have structured my own relationships. A lot of how I deal with tools and objects at an end has everything to do with how we related to the objects and the meanings we imbued them with throughout the course of the relationship.

First and foremost, I was taught was that how a Leatherperson conducts their personal affairs reflects deeply on them, and so just as one would enter into a relationship with honesty, forthrightness, and no hidden motives, ideally the same should be able to be said (again, *ideally*, anyway) of drawing one's relationships to a close if that time comes. Just as we negotiate a beginning, so too, must we sometimes negotiate an end- in good faith, honestly, articulately, and without hidden motives. Ending as civilly as possible is about many things, not merely maintaining a reference of sorts. I think it says a lot about a person, and about how they care/cared for their partner through the relationship to end it as civilly as possible.

When that's not possible, well, do the best one can to end it as civilly as possible- while still standing firm on what one's genuine needs are. There are some things that genuinely cannot be budged on without loosing parts of oneself, and on those things holding firm may be the civil thing one can do.Maintaining one's self respect is important as well, because even after the relationship is long gone, you still have to look yourself in the mirror in the morning. At the end of the day, it's you you have to live with.

One of the key qualities of a Leatherperson was that he or she kept their word. If they said it, they did it. This applies, doubly so perhaps, to when 'the going gets tough'. How one ends a relationship, and whether or not one 'does right' by the other person, not to the exclusion of self, but to their word and to the extent they can is a measure of a person. Do you bend over backwards for an abuser, no. Emphatically, NO. Here, I'm talking about situations where both parties did what they could, an honest attempt, it didn't work out, and now it's time to do something else. Being adult about it is important.

Reputation was an important aspect of Leatherlife in the community I was a part of back then (it still is to me), and so being a person of your word was very important. That also meant knowing when to say no, and when to turn things down, even if the other person was going to be unhappy, because it was better to say no at the outset rather than say yes, and then try to back out later.

Another aspect of reputation and respect meant not gossiping or badmouthing about one's ex after it was over.

Genuinely giving honest answers if asked about them? Say what needs to be said, but don't editorialize or badmouth, stick to the facts. If asked your opinion, make it clear that it's your opinion, give a very short summary, (sentence or two, unless there's pertinent safety information and you're being asked for a recommendation for example. Make it clear that that was at that time, x number of years ago, and the other person may have learned new skills, etc in the intervening x years) and leave it at that.

As for tools and other Leather symbols from the relationship? Being switch myself, I've some experience from both ends.

I was taught (and maintain in relationships that I have had) that the collar belongs to the Dominant/Top/Sir/Mistress (whatever term one uses, I'll just use "D" in this as a shorthand) as it is their property and extended to their submissive/bottom/girl or boy/plaything (whatever term one uses, I'll just use "s" in this as a shorthand) as a symbol of their relationship to the D.

Which was always predicated upon really 3 things-

1. that the D in the relationship had chosen/procured/and extended the collar for/to the s in the first place

2. that the symbolism of the collar initially had to do with coming under ownership or protection of said D- which carried with it the idea that the D was taking responsibility for that s and that the D's collar was an outward, external symbol and reminder of that.

3. and finally, that the collar, similar to other leathers also falls under a rule I was taught- that if a D puts a piece of leather on their s, the s is not to remove it until the D removes it or gives permission or instruction for when and how it is to be taken off.

As the collar was chosen, procured, in some cases even designed by the D, and then extended to the s as a symbol of those reciprocal aspects of the relationship (that of the s being owned, and coming under the D's protection and responsibility), the collar was never viewed as being "owned" by the s. It was a privilege to wear the collar of a Dominant (never "their" Dominant as the possessive term wasn't used in relation to the Dominant who owned/owns one). It was a privilege that could also be taken away at any time, although that would be considered a pretty severe measure and potentially signaling the end of a relationship.

I was also taught that while a D may remove (their) collar at any time, the s could not remove it without permission. (See point 3 above.) So if an s wanted the collar removed, or more broadly out of the relationship, it was their responsibility to ask the collar be removed or permission to remove it, which also, had the implication of either loss of privilege, end of ownership, and potentially end of the relationship.

I have known a few couples who have at one time or another set a collar aside for a time, and then at a later time returned a collar. Not wearing the collar didn't mean the end of the relationship, but it certainly indicated vast changes in the structure of the relationship, and in at least one case a massive renegotiation and fundamental changes prior to wearing the collar again. I even know of one couple who had one collar for a period of time, another period of their relationship without a collar, and then a third period which was marked by 'retiring' the initial collar and procuring a second collar, as a way of saying this is not the same relationship they had, but was something new and different, based on a completely renegotiated relationship that started from as close to 'scratch' as possible.

In any case, I was taught the collar always went back to its owner, (the D). The one (often unstated) 'rule' in that though, was that as each collar was unique to the individual who wore it, each collar represented a particular relationship, and thus the now empty collar was never to be 'recycled' or worn by others.

A lot of these ideas related to collars of a somewhat different era, though, deeply personal collars that were custom pieces, often made by a D themselves, or by a club or bar artisan at the request of a specific person for a specific person. I'm not saying today's collars AREN'T, I'm just saying these ideas came from a specific time.

Piercing rings, bars, etc (a more recent issue in relationship endings) again, has everything to do with how the people involved related to them through the course of a relationship. If at the time of the piercing it was made clear that these were ownership rings, and symbols of the D, then at the relationship's close, I feel they are within their rights to ask their tokens back. Sure, you keep the piercings themselves, but if the rings were symbols of a particular person 'returning' them can be a very visceral symbol of ending. (Buying yourself your own set of rings and placing them in the holes can also be damn liberating/symbolic of 'self ownership'.)

Other Leathers; jackets, vests etc, were often 'earned' so they went with the s, as they had earned them. (There are a few exceptions, but they related to exceptional circumstances.) What I was taught was that when one started out as a s, you were entitled to your own boots, belt, denim, and in some communities vest. Everything else, jacket, chaps, armbands whatever, were either

A. explicitly gifts (now owned by the s)

B. earned (through special service to the community or the D, or through undergoing an ordeal and coming back changed)

C. or the D's property placed upon you and not to be removed until they took them off.

At the conclusion of a relationship, the D could take back what pieces of theirs they put on you, but pieces you had earned or that were gifts you could take with you. That's part of why it was important to understand when a piece of leather was being put on you at any point in the relationship whether it was the D's (thus their mark or symbol on you) , a gift that was yours to keep, or earned. Some of the more 'ritualized' aspects relating to Leathers themselves were about making it clear what the nature of the item you were being given, or being placed upon you was.

As for whips and other implements, I learned these were always the responsibility and property of the D- unless they were things you entered the relationship with (anything you came with, you could take).

Any tool that 'tasted blood' was completely unique to an individual s- and upon a relationship ended, they stayed with the D- never to be used again, not unlike the collar.

What this means as a practical matter is that just as I have love letters and other 'artifacts' from previous relationships, I have my ex's collar, and several tools that will never again be used on anyone.

As for whether such tools and symbols are kept individually, or shared immediately or eventually through places like the Leather Archives and Museum (http://www.leatherarchives.org/ ), or even burned as a means of symbolizing the release and end, these are all things to think about and perhaps even write into contracts preferably long BEFORE any end comes.

The other HUGE factors sitting in the middle of relationship endings, (that could take books, far more than any single e-mail post), are both the emotional dependency and loss an s feels at the end, upon no longer having that particular D in their lives, and the concrete 'real life' losses this can mean- i.e. lack of ownership of property or lack of their own credit rating, or retirement funds, etc those kinds of things that may or may not be 'side effects' of a relationship. In short the things that had they not been in a particular relationship they might otherwise have had.

(I haven't even touched on children in the middle of relationships, nor am I going to here, but it is something to think about now, BEFORE the possibility of a relationship end.)

The emotional isolation is a somewhat unique facet of our lives, and no number of friends etc can stand in for that now empty space where a D once was. That said, having a support network, and not being cut off from other friends etc in the first place is something to build into the life of any s- LONG before a break up. (This can also help prevent the s jumping at whatever 'next' D appears in their lives, just to fill that emptiness.)

As for the real world parts, caring about one's s during the relationship also means caring about one's s if the relationship should end. This means ensuring that while they may be owned, they aren't going to be left homeless and penniless at the end of two decades. It means real world things like a credit rating, like helping build 'real world skills' in addition to learning proper tea service. Etc.

As for those of us living the s end of the equation? It means no matter how in love we are, no matter how much we trust, we still make sure that we're not going to be completely out in the cold should the bad day ever come. That yes, we will still have friends, we will still be able to earn a living and rent a place of our own if need be, etc.

Even if we're so fortunate as to 'never break up', we may find ourselves responsible for the care of a longterm incapacitated D, or face the possibility of our beloved passing before we do. Not being useless, completely alone, or stuck is part of what need to take care of, now, in the day to day, not later.

(That's more than I expected to write, but it seems like the kinds of things I don't often hear passed along verbally or see in books.)