"A shaved head is the only haircut that makes sense anymore." --Bruce LaBruce, No Skin Off My Ass

      If you're in a discussion group for leathermen, it doesn't make sense to shy away from provocative subject matter.
      I attended a leathermen's discussion meeting last week on the topic of gay skinheads, but didn't expect the discussion to include politics or the history of skinheads. Instead, I expected a straight-forward talk about fetishes and sexual role-play.
       In fact, there was comparatively little talk about the latter.
       Maybe my expectations were shaped by experiences in London, where racism and politics have been virtually disconnected from the image of the gay skin. In London, the fetishized aesthetic thrives - and there are clubs which specifically cater to it. At a bar near London Bridge, I once found myself in a room of guys in boots and braces, madly snogging each other.
       But things are different in the U.S.
       When I arrived at the venue, I saw that the atmosphere in the room was a tense one; many audience members were silent throughout. The discussion facilitator introduced the members of the panel.
      The more vocal member of the group (I'll call him Matt) stressed the diversity of skinheads. However, I felt that not enough was said about "sharps." (Sharps may share some similiarities in dress code but their politics are anti-Nazi.) Instead, Matt talked about the importance of uniting with their brothers and to avoid division over politics (or sexuality for that matter.)
       One panelist, 'Jon,' talked about the skinhead uniform. Apparently, at the annual European Gay Skin gatherings, the guys are really criticized if their outfit looks inauthentic. To me, this is equivalent to drag queens bickering over the "realness" of a look and commencing to 'throw shade' at each other. In either context, the argument would appear to miss the point - if there was one.
       When one audience member asked about the details of the uniform, Jon began to explain -- but then cut himself short. He said that he didn't want to give away "secrets" which only "real" skins should know. Such secrecy struck me as ridiculous, and I hoped that the discussion would feature more redeeming elements.
      Matt was the member of the panel who had read Murray Healy's book, Gay Skins.
       Healy, generally known as a contributor to a London gay newspaper, The Pink Paper, had initially proposed to write an scholarly dissertation on working-class men's culture. He "was inspired by an academic's challenge to disprove the matter-of-fact assumption that 'gay' was a middle-class identity and that, until about 1970, most working-class men could not identify with it."
       I asked Matt how he felt about the image of skinheads given in Gay Skins. He responded that he held the book in high esteem, and that he owned several copies so as to pass them on to friends.
       From a cursory reading of Gay Skins, one might assume that Healy glorifies the skinheads he writes about. On the contrary, he later writes in a news article of calling security on a group of skinheads who showed up in a London gay bar. The men were obviously quite gay, but Healy protested the fact that they were wearing Screwdriver (Nazi skin band) T-shirts to the club.
       It's doubtful that Matt would have approved of Healy's actions, since he continually talked of "brotherhood" between skins.
       When questioned about whether or not he identified primarily as a skinhead and secondarily as gay, Matt replied by way of anecdote. At one point, International Mr. Leather (a mostly-gay, annual leather event) was being held at the same time as an Oi gathering. He said he went to the Oi Gathering - even though he was sure that he would be one of a handful of gays, out of hundreds of participants.
       Matt went on to criticize the film American History X for giving "pat," Hollywood-ized answers; it was flawed in not addressing the class and economic issues which might have created skinheadism. For example, Matt referred to working-class whites in England who were frustrated by the arrival of skilled, immigrant workers. He concluded by arguing against scapegoating as a useful response to this.
       All members of the panel, however, seemed unanimous in their revulsion at "fashion skins" and the idea that the skinhead look could be used merely as a fetish by gay men. There was a vague "intrinsic" nature involved in skinheadism, to be kept pure of the taint of appropriation.
       To me, the skinhead look is only useful as a fashion statement (or more specifically, as a fetish statement). I think it's important for queers to feel free in presenting themselves in ways which deflate stereotypes of what gayness is 'supposed' to look like. Just as the image of a drag queen can be threatening, the image of a gay man with a hyper-masculine aesthetic causes most people to scratch their heads.
       I would go further in saying that the two forms of performance are more alike than they are different.
       Particularly in the realm of the sex club or the bedroom, it doesn't take a Pat Califia to say that whatever is most taboo is that which is fetishized. A bomber jacket and a good pair of boots can be sexy; that doesn't mean that an ideology of fascism is also attractive.
       Although it was not spoken at the discussion, it needed to be said: Do not assume.