Men of Color
Presence, service, and legacy—documented.
Men of color have always been part of Leather—building bars, teaching skills, holding titles, creating art, and doing the quiet labor of keeping community alive. What changed (and harmed) was who got centered, who got believed, and who got gatekept out.
Below is a plain, historically grounded explanation of how exclusion happened, what “subjugation” looked like in Leather spaces, and why men of color were pushed to the margins—even while contributing to the culture.
The larger truth: Leather didn’t invent racism, it inherited it
Post-WWII Leather in the U.S. grew inside a society structured by segregation, housing discrimination, workplace exclusion, and aggressive policing of Black and Brown bodies. That matters because Leather wasn’t built in a vacuum—it grew through:
- Bars and private clubs (often with door control, membership rules, and social networks).
- Contests and title systems (judged by communities with existing racial bias).
- Print media and imagery (which set a “default” look for what Leather “is”).
When the wider world is unequal, a subculture can either fight that current—or unconsciously reproduce it.
What “subjugation” looked like inside Leather
In Leather contexts, men of color commonly describe patterns like these:
1) Gatekeeping at the door
Many Leather spaces formed around bars, runs, and private parties. “Who belongs” was often enforced informally:
- Being turned away or “discouraged” without a clear reason.
- Extra scrutiny at the door, assumptions of theft, or being treated as “suspicious.”
- Social exclusion: ignored, not introduced, not invited forward into the “inner circle.”
Even when not written down, a culture can enforce a “white default” by who gets welcomed vs. merely tolerated.
2) Club membership and “old boy” networks
Old Guard structures (clubs, patch communities, sponsor lineages) can be honorable—but they can also become closed loops when access depends on:
- Who already knows you (social capital),
- Who is willing to vouch for you (often biased),
- Whether you “fit the look” (coded as white, masculine, “traditional”).
When those networks were racially homogenous, men of color were often forced to be twice as perfect to be seen as half as legitimate.
3) Contests and representation bias
Leather titles are supposed to reflect service, presence, and character. But historically, judging and crowd support could be shaped by racial bias.
A concrete example: Ron Moore became the first Black winner of International Mr. Leather in 1984, and the historical record notes it was controversial at the time—exactly the kind of “the room wasn’t ready” moment that tells you what the room was protecting. Int'l Mr. Leather+1
(Contrast this with much later milestones that show slow change: e.g., broader conversations about representation around IML winners and visibility in recent decades. Them+1)
4) Fetishization instead of belonging
Some men of color were welcomed as a fantasy but not respected as Leather men:
- Reduced to stereotypes (“BBC” tropes, “thug” fantasies, “exotic” framing).
- Desired in private, ignored in public.
- Treated as a “type,” not a brother.
That’s a particular kind of subjugation: being consumed, not included.
5) Culture-making that erased non-white bodies
Leather visual culture—flyers, magazines, porn, “icons,” and later online imagery—often centered hyperwhite masculinity, treating men of color as rare exceptions.
Scholarly work examining Leather histories and imagery points out how whiteness became a “default” in representation, with people of color appearing infrequently or through biased frames. SAGE Journals
6) Policing, safety, and “respectability” double standards
Men of color faced extra risk in nightlife and kink spaces because policing and violence were not evenly distributed. Add to that:
- White Leather spaces sometimes prioritized “not causing trouble” over confronting racism.
- Complaints could be dismissed as “drama,” “divisive,” or “bringing politics in.”
That’s how harm persists: silence becomes policy.
Public health and community voices have explicitly called out that inequitable power structures still show up in kink/leather spaces and can retraumatize Black participants if not addressed. San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Why men of color were excluded: the core drivers
If you strip it down, exclusion usually came from five drivers:
- Control of space (bars/clubs/committees controlled who entered and who advanced)
- Control of narrative (media and “what Leather looks like” centered whiteness)
- Control of legitimacy (titles, patches, and endorsements often ran through white networks)
- Fear of social change (diversity framed as “political” rather than truthful)
- Convenience (it was easier to ignore racism than to confront friends, donors, or institutions)
How men of color responded: building their own institutions
One of the most important acts of resistance wasn’t just protest—it was institution-building.
A landmark example: ONYX, founded in 1995, explicitly to provide education, community, and to “serve as a bridge” for men of color into the greater Leather community. Onyx Men+1
That founding mission is itself evidence of the reality: you don’t need a “bridge” unless there’s a gap—and that gap was built by exclusion.
Coverage and reflections on ONYX also emphasize the need for a space where men of color can show up in numbers, find safety, and claim visibility in a scene long dominated by white men. Pride Source+1
The Old Guard lesson to carry forward
If we’re speaking in Old Guard terms: a community that cannot protect its brothers cannot claim honor.
Repair isn’t performative. It’s practical:
- Clear anti-discrimination expectations at the door and in the dungeon.
- Diverse leadership with real authority (not symbolic seats).
- Accountability that doesn’t punish whistleblowers.
- Historical preservation that names exclusion truthfully and uplifts men of color as architects—not footnotes.
Resources: