Puppy Play History

While Critter play as a broad term has been practiced for thousands of years, every culture around the world has viewed and practiced it differently. Here is a historical account of how we in the western world practiced.

Pup community websites and manuals often romanticize a quasi-mythological past for the practice and make various attempts to connect puppy play to other ethnographic or historical contexts.

There is, however, very little evidence to connect puppy play to the ancient and non-Western practices identified by practioners. We can find little to no evidence that suggests puppy play is anything other than a peculiarly Western, modern practice, albeit one that may contain echoes of practices that occur today in other ethnographic contexts and have long disappeared within the West.

The first stage of scene development occurs, Irwin (1973: 134) explains, when a ‘group of actors piece together a new lifestyle’, often as a consequence of increased leisure time.

This process does not involve actors creating a set of practices de novo, but rather, Irwin explains, adapting elements that already exist into a new set of configurations. As Irwin does for surfing, we can trace the beginnings of this stage of the Puppy Play Scene to the end of World War II in the USA, with dog-slaves and SM clubs and spaces providing the necessary elements for the Scene’s articulation.

The formation of queer communities around military bases in the USA following the end of World War II has been well documented (D’Emilio, 1991), and has been connected to the development of a number of queer subcultural groups, most famously perhaps the leather scene (Rubin, 2011, Sisson, 2007).

In its original form, the leather scene, comprised not only a strict aesthetic (black leather, echoing that of the motorcycle gangs of the 40s and 50s), but also a clear set of protocols by which submissive ‘boys’ could interact with dominant ‘Sirs’ or ‘Daddies’.

The relationship between Sirs and boys within this framework was self-evidently Dominant/submissive (D/s); boys were not just submissive, but entirely subservient to their Sirs, who were expected to care for and train their boys in the correct manner of behavior, posture, and speech.

Sirs were responsible for initiating boys into the leather scene and, potentially, allowing them to progress up the hierarchy and one day become Sirs themselves (Mains, 1984; Weal, 2010).

Punishment was a key component of training for a boy. Errors in protocol, or mistakes made in service would be corrected by punishments designed to inflict pain, or humiliate.

Being reduced to the role of dog was one possible punishment: a misbehaving boy would be compelled to drop to all-fours, forbidden to speak, to eat from the floor or from a bowl (St Clair, 2015).

This punishment appears to have developed into a different style of D/s relationship, closely connected to but distinct from the formal, Old Guard leather protocols; the ‘dog-slave’.

The dog-slave was a submissive individual, closely connected to the role of boy, who would be trained by a dominant Sir or Master, to be obedient and well-behaved; to move on all-fours, to eat from a bowl, to sit or speak on command.

The relationship between dog-slave and Master was frequently, and explicitly sexual, just as the relationship between boy and Sir was in Old Guard protocol.

Puppy play may differ from dog-slave protocol in that it places a primary emphasis on play rather than sexual humiliation for many (though not all) people. And the inclusion of or connection to sex is often problematic for many individual pups within the community compared to the dog-slave protocols.

Pup hoods and gear can be made of many materials, but leather is particularly common, and while for many pups rough and-tumble play that is non-sexual (pushing a ball around, playing tug-of-war) is the sine qua non of puppy play, for other aspects of S/M sex, humiliation and punishment are still present and significant.

The historic connections to leather protocol are generally recognized within the Puppy community, even though some groups today do not recognize with leather or any kind of D type and S type dynamics.


Modern Day:
Puppy play is a modern socio-sexual practice with historical roots in the gay BDSM/leather subculture of the post-war USA.

The origin of this practice/identity was likely the ‘dog slave’ of gay Leatherman dominant/submissive sexual relationships. In recent years, the puppy play community has seen a sudden surge in popularity having become newly visible to the public following some substantive media attention.

The community remains based predominantly within gay male spaces and so whilst the ‘everyone is welcome’ discourse is popular among practitioners, there is a lack of reflection about power or other structural inequalities in people gaining access.

The puppy play community over the years has become vastly diverse in its participants and the acceptance of those participants. Having started as a predominantly gay male lifestyle, it has become a safe space for all to feel welcome.

Where some groups may still segregate keeping to “old guard” fashion, most puppy play groups are open to all genders and sexual orientations. As well as views and ways to “play”.

Some puppies still see it as a sexual kink and an outlet to unleash their wild side and let lose. Some feel more comfortable preforming certain acts while being in a puppy headspace.

Other modern puppies do not treat it as a sexual or kink act at all but more a form of meditation or relaxing, it’s been described as a “mental health hobby”. Puppy play and Puppy headspace are simply forms of role play which its self has been known to have many different psychological benefits.

In the end, there is no wrong way to be a puppy, just the way that makes you happy, and never forget “everyone is welcome”.



References:
Lawson, J., & Langdridge, D. (2019). History, culture and practice of puppy play. Sexualities. Advance online publication.
St. Clair J (2015) Bark! Las Vegas, Nevada: Nazca Plains Corporation.
Weal J (2010) The Leatherman's Protocol Handbook: A Handbook on Old Guard Rituals, Traditions and Protocols. Las Vegas, Nevada: Nazca Plains Corporation.
Mains G (1984) Urban aboriginals: a celebration of leathersexuality. Los Angeles, CA: Daedalus Publishing.
Sisson K (2007) The cultural formation of S/M: history and analysis. In Langdridge D and Barker M (eds) Safe, Sane and Consensual: Contemporary Perspectives on Sadomasochism. London: Palgrave MacMillan, pp10-34
Rubin G (2011) Thinking sex, notes for radical theory of politics of sexuality. In: Rubin G (ed) Deviations: A Gayle Rubin reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 473 – 456.
Irwin J (1973) Surfing:The Natural History of an Urban Scene. Urban Life and Culture 2(2): 131–160.
D’Emilio J (1991) Gay politics and community in San Francisco since World War II In: Duberman MB, Vicinus M and Chauncey jr G (eds) Hidden from history: reclaiming the gay and lesbian past. London: Penguin, pp. 473 – 456.