Leather Contests run the gamut from impromptu bar events with contestants drafted from the audience to International Mr Leather which requires thousands of hours of prep time for contestants and tens of thousands of dollars in wardrobe and travel.
But how much is too much? When do you go from being a competitor to being on the campaign trail?
But how much is too much? When do you go from being a competitor to being on the campaign trail?
Of course we need to figure out if it's really "bad" to campaign for a title? We certainly expect contestants to "compete" to the best of their ability. But each word has its own nuance: compete is associated with athletes and noble olympians whereas campaign is what politicians do and well, that's probably enough bad association right there.
We accept that competitors need to train and prep for their competition. Most IML-bound titles that have regional feeders have some kind of grooming network set up to support and prepare IML competitors. In Los Angeles for example there are 10 or more feeder contests which lead up to Los Angeles Leather and then Mr LAL goes on to compete at IML. Most contestants for the feeder contests haven't been coached or prepped. But once a guy wins a feeder he's likely to get some level of coaching before LAL and the winner there will get even more intense prep before IML.
Prepping a contestant is a fairly tangible set of activities and we could spend a lifetime debating the importance and appropriateness of, for example, having contestants memorize important community names like Mr Marcus and Guy Baldwin. But there's another whole set of activities which are far less tangible. Things like being seen at events, meeting the right people in advance of the contest, getting close to judges and producers, doing the right number of events in the run up to a contest, selecting the right non-profits to benefit. In essence, campaigning. You know...kissing the proverbial babies. Or asses.
That's really the nub of the question I'm asking. Prep makes sense, at least to a point. I think it's insane and ultimately self-destructive that we put any importance on whether a contestant memorized names from our history. But what purpose does campaigning serve? Are we supposed to score this new criteria? Is being seen at 30 events and getting as much stage time as possible a skill set that we want to require of our titleholders?
There's an interesting trend that emerges when you start to look at the whole. In the beginnings of the leather title holder scene we picked guys that gave us a bulge in our crotch. It helped if they were connected to the community through a club and it was a bonus if they could put a good sentence together. But ultimately it came down to hormones. Then AIDS swept through and suddenly our titleholders also had to be fund raisers. The amount of money you intended to raise during your title year was first pertinent and then imperative. This morphed in to not just how much you intended to raise but how much you had already raised.
In the last decade another criteria has become paramount, ie how well you can bridge the gaps between our communities. We're all about how you intend to create a more homogenous community by bringing all of us together as one big happy family.
This is why it scares me when I see campaigning for a title becoming the new benchmark for success. Because campaigning is rarely about what you've done in your lifetime, it's only about what you've done in the past 6 months or a year. It's all about packaging. I concede that we can't just pick title holders for our most visible titles soley based on their stud factor. But don't we want titleholders who actually have depth in the community?
I challenge that someone who gets involved only when they decide to compete is not the person who will best serve us as our chosen representative. At least not yet anyway. I know you gotta start somewhere and the guy campaigning for the title may be a great leader, someday. It's probably old-fashioned thinking but I really believe that you need some street cred in the leather world before you hit the title circuit. Putting on your leathers for the first time a week or month before the contest doesn't serve the community or the contestant well. We get an ersatz leather leader and they get hit with expectations that are impossible to meet. A flurry of activity and fundraisers and appearances in the months leading up to a contest should be equally suspect. It doesn't mean that the competitor is NOT a good leader, it just needs to be considered against the whole. It's resume fluffing which does not equal resume substance.
I suspect the campaign trail leading to contests is not going to go away and soon we'll end up with most guys locked out of competing because they can't or won't campaign. It's all compounded by the fact that lots of good work gets done during the campaign which can't be a bad thing right? So it all goes to motive and that's impossible to prove. A really good campaigner is also a really good politician and really good politicos are masters at working the game. I just think we should expect more from our titleholders than being able to work the game.
We accept that competitors need to train and prep for their competition. Most IML-bound titles that have regional feeders have some kind of grooming network set up to support and prepare IML competitors. In Los Angeles for example there are 10 or more feeder contests which lead up to Los Angeles Leather and then Mr LAL goes on to compete at IML. Most contestants for the feeder contests haven't been coached or prepped. But once a guy wins a feeder he's likely to get some level of coaching before LAL and the winner there will get even more intense prep before IML.
Prepping a contestant is a fairly tangible set of activities and we could spend a lifetime debating the importance and appropriateness of, for example, having contestants memorize important community names like Mr Marcus and Guy Baldwin. But there's another whole set of activities which are far less tangible. Things like being seen at events, meeting the right people in advance of the contest, getting close to judges and producers, doing the right number of events in the run up to a contest, selecting the right non-profits to benefit. In essence, campaigning. You know...kissing the proverbial babies. Or asses.
That's really the nub of the question I'm asking. Prep makes sense, at least to a point. I think it's insane and ultimately self-destructive that we put any importance on whether a contestant memorized names from our history. But what purpose does campaigning serve? Are we supposed to score this new criteria? Is being seen at 30 events and getting as much stage time as possible a skill set that we want to require of our titleholders?
There's an interesting trend that emerges when you start to look at the whole. In the beginnings of the leather title holder scene we picked guys that gave us a bulge in our crotch. It helped if they were connected to the community through a club and it was a bonus if they could put a good sentence together. But ultimately it came down to hormones. Then AIDS swept through and suddenly our titleholders also had to be fund raisers. The amount of money you intended to raise during your title year was first pertinent and then imperative. This morphed in to not just how much you intended to raise but how much you had already raised.
In the last decade another criteria has become paramount, ie how well you can bridge the gaps between our communities. We're all about how you intend to create a more homogenous community by bringing all of us together as one big happy family.
This is why it scares me when I see campaigning for a title becoming the new benchmark for success. Because campaigning is rarely about what you've done in your lifetime, it's only about what you've done in the past 6 months or a year. It's all about packaging. I concede that we can't just pick title holders for our most visible titles soley based on their stud factor. But don't we want titleholders who actually have depth in the community?
I challenge that someone who gets involved only when they decide to compete is not the person who will best serve us as our chosen representative. At least not yet anyway. I know you gotta start somewhere and the guy campaigning for the title may be a great leader, someday. It's probably old-fashioned thinking but I really believe that you need some street cred in the leather world before you hit the title circuit. Putting on your leathers for the first time a week or month before the contest doesn't serve the community or the contestant well. We get an ersatz leather leader and they get hit with expectations that are impossible to meet. A flurry of activity and fundraisers and appearances in the months leading up to a contest should be equally suspect. It doesn't mean that the competitor is NOT a good leader, it just needs to be considered against the whole. It's resume fluffing which does not equal resume substance.
I suspect the campaign trail leading to contests is not going to go away and soon we'll end up with most guys locked out of competing because they can't or won't campaign. It's all compounded by the fact that lots of good work gets done during the campaign which can't be a bad thing right? So it all goes to motive and that's impossible to prove. A really good campaigner is also a really good politician and really good politicos are masters at working the game. I just think we should expect more from our titleholders than being able to work the game.
Editor's note: You hit the nail on the head - there is immense value in knowing where we came from. The key word is "knowing" and not just memorizing for the sake of a judge's interview.
Posted by: Editor | 02/22/2010 at 09:45 AM
This struck me in a way that I felt compelled to comment:
You said: "Prep makes sense, at least to a point. I think it's insane and ultimately self-destructive that we put any importance on whether a contestant memorized names from our history...."
I feel that there is importance in knowing from whence we came, and history has a part in everything we do, from lamenting the loss of 'ways gone by' to preventing the repeat of mistakes because we have learned, hopefully, from the past.
When I was coming up through the ranks of martial arts, history played an important part in my 'knowledge' quotient. Was it a requirement to know, by name, all 250 black belts? No, but I sure had to know the name of the first 7 or 8 of them and their value to the martial arts community.
When I competed for the Southern California Leather Woman 2007 title, it was a matter of respect that I knew the names of those who had played a part in our leather history, and what they brought. Not to mention knowong who my fellow titled brothers were, and the current leaders in our community.
Just my thoughts...
Posted by: Rane Fox SLCW 2007 | 02/21/2010 at 05:18 PM
Perhaps the contest organizers, producers, club owners and titleholders could be brought to a round table at say both IML and MIR this year. Allow people to air both their frustrations and suggestions. Perhaps that discussion will spark enough loving-compassion and understanding to set everyone on the right step, if not, then the same direction.
Whadya think? *wags*
tulku
Posted by: Tulku Rinzen | 01/27/2010 at 10:19 PM
Any role worth acquiring will garner attention from those who will do whatever they can to acquire it. This is true as much of IML as it is of the american presidency. It is an odd backhanded compliment that people are willing to do what they see as 'what it takes' to land the job.
I do think that one problem that we face with many contests is that we don't spend much time judging the contest itself. What are the rules and scoring? What priorities and ideals are those rules and regulations underscoring (pardon the pun)?
Do we take the time to REALLY understand each contestant's history, community involvement, values, goals, interactions, availability and resources? Or do we ask a crowd of horny men to pick a winner by ballot?
I think it interesting that I have participated in judging panels when we had an opportunity to spend an hour with a single candidate to make sure that they can 'cross the bar' but if we have three candidates, or fifty, it does not seem to warrant that degree of scrutiny, instead being limited to 8-15 minutes of question/answer. Often that interview is vastly outweighed by stage presence and or public opinion.
This is not an inherent condemnation of the contest system, simply an observation that we need to step back and look at the way a title is determined to see what we can expect the title to reflect. And that may a very complex consideration, the best answer to which is 'indeterminate'.
The question remains open...we seem to care about the role contests and titles play in our community. So I as...what role do we WANT each of them to play?
Cheers,
Alex Lindsay
American Leatherman 2009
Posted by: Alex Lindsay | 01/27/2010 at 08:38 AM