Photos: Leather Pride at Out 4 Justice

These leather contingent 2004 photos don't seem to include any bare female breasts. That's NOT consistent with common attire at play parties.

In the mid-Nineties, bare-breasted women were often seen in the leather contingent in SF Pride parades.

Later the leather organizations were told, privately, that Pride and the SF Police Department would be happier if no bare female breasts appeared. So the leather contingent, bottoming to the cops, began self-censorship of skin. [ Pride never OPENLY banned breasts; but the Dyke March distinguished itself from the Pride Parade by proclaiming, "We have no titty policy"; a statement heard at DM as recently as 2004.]

By 2003, at least, topfree women were common at the Pride Festival; and completely nude men were also seen there (tho less often). The Pride committee clearly didn't object to nudity in 2003 (or 2004); so the SFPD ignored nudes and topfree women at the festival.

Yet in June 2003, a leatherwoman was pressured to cover her chest by leather contingent officials, who claimed that her exposed breast (she has only one, because of mastectomy) would cause TV cameras to avoid televising the leather contingent. She documented this in two letters which were published in SF Bay Times.

In June 2004, did the leather contingent continue to ban the female breast, as the 2004 photos imply?

If so, then they again discriminated against females.

--- TBL
for SUN
1 July 2004

In response:

--I can guaranty you that this anonymous writer has absolutely no idea what the SF Leather Contingent was told "privately" or otherwise. They weren't there.

--At no time has the SF Leather Contingent "banned" or "censored" bare female breasts. That wasn't true in 2003 and it wasn't true in 2004. Writing a letter to the editor of the Bay Times doesn't "document" anything.

--Ummm, I don't see a lot of bare-breasted photos here of play parties, either. Perhaps that's because a private play party is not a public parade? When play parties are covered on live broadcast TV, that might be a less specious statement.

--The writer of this note and the writer of the letter to the BT (whom I strongly suspect is one and the same) could have certainly brought their concerns to any of several planning meetings for the Contingent. They chose not to be involved.

--The Leather Contingent has no "policy" about nudity. We openly discuss the issue as it impacts all of the 32 different organizations and 400 individuals involved. We try to keep everyone informed so that they can make their own, individual decisions about behavior, but the very idea that any of these very independent leather-folk could be "pressured" one way or the other is ridiculous.

--The Leather Contingent is an ad hoc community group. There are no officers, no organizational policies, no lawyers, no bank accounts. It's just us, trying to facilitate a safe, satisfactory place in the Parade that meets as many needs as possible. Anyone willing to roll up their sleeves, contribute to the planning and lend a hand is welcome.

I am certainly not a fan of censorship, neither do I have anything against skin. I have fought for the 1st Amendment for over 30 years-- first as a reporter and journalism instructor, then as the publisher of the infamous Drummer magazine, based here in San Francisco. I have been invited to speak to "What Is Obscene?" by the GLBT Historical Society and to InterPride (the international organization of Gay Pride organizations) about "Including Nudity and Kink In Your Celebration."

This subject deserves thorough and thoughful discussion. Attitudes in this country about nudity and body image are archaic and arbitrary-- but you do not make progress on such an issue with obvious nonsense and lies.

signed, with a real name....
Robert Davolt