I do not speak from the sidelines. I speak as a gay leatherman, an Old Guard traditionalist, a Master, a writer, an award-winning documentary filmmaker and a man who stands visibly and unapologetically for the masculine, same-sex culture from which Tom of Finland emerged—and which his art, together with Durk Dehner’s lifelong work, helped shape for generations.
I stand for the very values Tom of Finland repeatedly glorified in his art: masculinity without apology, male beauty without shame, brotherhood, sexual freedom, confidence, strength, camaraderie and the right of men to desire other men openly and proudly. Those values are not incidental to his work. They are its blood and pulse. I make no apology for the uncompromising nature of that position.
I believe in men standing upright. I believe in hierarchy earned through character, authority earned through service, and respect earned through years of standing the watch when it matters. I believe a man should know those who came before him, what those men fought for, what they built, and what he is duty-bound to hand intact to the men who follow.
And that is why I will not stand quietly while institutions built out of gay male courage, Leather, erotic freedom and masculine brotherhood are stripped of their memory, reduced to abstraction, or handed over to people whose decisions show too little regard for the culture that gave those institutions life. My clear intention is to remain vocal in defence of the men who built this culture, the men who still carry it, and those who will inherit it after us.
I never imagined I would have to spell out something this obvious: the Tom of Finland Foundation is not merely another arts organisation to be administered, rebranded, relocated or reshaped according to the preferences of whoever happens to hold office today. It is the custodian of a living inheritance—one created by Tom of Finland (Touko Laaksonen) and Durk Dehner, and rooted in the gay male, Leather and erotic world from which the Foundation itself was born.
And when the custodianship of that inheritance is called into question, those of us who belong to that culture have not only the right, but the duty, to speak.
It should hardly need explaining—although perhaps, at this point, it does—that the Tom of Finland Foundation was founded in Los Angeles in 1984 by Tom of Finland and Durk Dehner. TOM House became Tom’s Los Angeles home: the place where he lived, worked, drew, entertained and became part of a brotherhood of friends, models and leathermen. Over four decades, it became far more than a residence. It became the physical heart of the Foundation and a living monument to gay erotic art, cultural memory and the community that grew around Tom.
I am far from alone in being deeply concerned by reports—including accounts from people directly affected—of major staff reductions and the erosion of key functions involving archives, artists, membership, exhibitions and partnerships; by serious questions about the staffing, resources and future continuity of programmes at TOM House; and by Durk Dehner’s statement that, by decision of the Board, his communication with the Foundation now takes place through attorneys.
I am also hearing mounting concern across the community about the future location and direction of the Foundation. If the Board is considering any fundamental change that would shift the Foundation’s institutional centre away from Los Angeles, relocate significant collections or operations elsewhere, or diminish TOM House’s historic and programmatic role, the community is entitled to know.
The Board therefore owes its artists, donors, supporters, members and the wider gay and Leather communities a full account of its actions, intentions and stewardship: the long-term future of TOM House; what decisions followed the facilities review announced in 2025; whether any fundamental change is contemplated concerning the location of significant operations or collections; how archival and institutional knowledge will be preserved following reported staff departures; what staffing and resources will sustain programmes including the Artist-in-Residence programme; and how the Board intends to secure the Foundation’s long-term financial stability.
And most importantly: how did a Foundation built by Tom and Durk reach the point where one of its founders was shoved to the margins?
Those familiar with the controversy and Durk’s subsequent resignation should also bear in mind that no allegation appears to have been made that wearing the historical insignia at issue, considered in itself, constituted a criminal offence under applicable law. A symbol is not an ideology. An aesthetic is not an allegiance. People are free to find particular imagery offensive, but offence is a reaction—not evidence of another man’s political convictions.
That distinction is especially relevant here. Tom of Finland himself drew erotic inspiration from German military uniforms while expressly rejecting the ideology associated with them. His own work demonstrated that an aesthetic could be eroticised without its politics being embraced. Whatever judgment others may make about Durk’s appearance on that occasion, one episode involving controversial imagery should not eclipse more than forty years of service to Tom, the Foundation and the preservation of erotic art. Durk is not an inconvenient relic of the Foundation’s past. He is one of the men who built it.
For more than forty years, Durk Dehner carried Tom’s legacy with a discipline, loyalty and endurance no committee can manufacture and no branding exercise can replace. He protected the archive, fought for the legitimacy of erotic art when respectable institutions preferred to pretend it did not exist, built relationships with artists, collectors, museums and cultural institutions across the world, maintained TOM House, expanded the Foundation’s mission and helped secure Tom of Finland’s rightful place in international contemporary art. That history is not decoration. It is the backbone of the institution.
You do not strip that knowledge from the centre of the Foundation, leave the man who carries it without meaningful participation, and call the result progress. Call it what it is: institutional amnesia. And an institution without memory soon becomes an institution without honour.
I therefore believe that Durk Dehner must be restored to a formal, permanent and meaningful role in the stewardship of the organisation he co-founded. This is not about turning the clock back to 1984. It is about recognising something older, harder and more fundamental: a man who stood the watch for forty years does not become disposable merely because others have grown comfortable occupying the institution he helped build.
An institution created to preserve cultural memory cannot afford to cast aside the man who carries that memory in his bones. Durk has earned permanent recognition as Founder-Guardian and President Emeritus, with formally defined authority and participation in Foundation decisions concerning the use and programming of TOM House, the archives, historical interpretation, artists, exhibitions and long-term cultural direction.
This is no longer merely a dispute between Durk Dehner and the Board. It is a question of custodianship, legitimacy, inheritance—and who has earned the trust required to carry Tom’s legacy forward.
Tom of Finland did not emerge from an academic theory of sexuality. His work came from homosexual male desire. From masculinity. From Leather. From military uniforms, motorcycles, boots, bars, bodies, sweat, camaraderie, fantasy—and the dangerous exhilaration of men refusing to be ashamed of wanting other men. That world is not incidental to Tom’s work. It is written into its DNA. Any institution bearing his name has a duty to understand those origins before it dares reinterpret the legacy.
No organisation owns the culture that gave it life. It is entrusted with its care. And stewardship is not an entitlement. It is a duty—with obligations, limits and consequences.
The present Board must now answer these concerns publicly and begin rebuilding trust with Durk, artists, former staff, supporters, donors and members of the community whose cultural inheritance the Foundation exists to protect.
There is still a path forward that preserves dignity on all sides. Silence is no longer an answer. Administrative language will not substitute for accountability. History will not disappear merely because parts of it are uncomfortable, unfashionable or difficult to explain. The community is watching. The men who remember are watching. And those of us who intend to defend this legacy will keep asking until the answers are worthy of the institution.
— Dom of Pigland
⬛️🟦❤️⬛️🟦⬜️🟦⬛️🟦⬛️
Dom of Pigland is a gay leatherman, Old Guard leather enthusiast, community organizer, and filmmaker. He has been active in the leather, BDSM, and fetish scene for over a decade. First Runner-Up at Mr. Leather Russia 2021, he met his partner, Master Marcus, the contest winner, during the competition. Together they have organized leather socials, BDSM events, educational conferences, and community-building initiatives. His award-winning documentary FETISH IN E[X]ILE received the Night Award for Best LGBTQ+ Film at the 2026 Night of Shorts international online film festival in Milan, Italy, an Honorable Mention at the 2025 BDSM Fetish & Kink Film Festival in Barcelona, Spain, and was a finalist for the 2025 Fetish Film of the Year at the Darklands X-Awards in Antwerp, Belgium
Berlin
Germany