quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Stop me before I sub-reference again!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

I don't think anyone citing the Pro side of references is saying they substitute for getting to know someone.
References are a tool for getting to know someone. Are there shortcommings to them? Of course there are but there are shortcommings to every single method of getting to know someone.

When you meet the freinds, that is a reference it's just a less formalized manner of getting one.
When you ask their best freinds SO questions about their past behaviour guess what, that's a reference too.
When you say hello to the guy who lives next door to your prosective______ and make "small talk". (Again that's a reference) Anytime you get someone else who has known them longer to give you information about them, it's a reference just a camoflaged one.

The question I have to ask is: WHY limit yourself to one method? Combine references with instinct, with any and every other method available and you get MORE DATA. Then you get to wade through all the data and decide for yourself which data carries more weight. Last but not least I love to see how they handle the questions that come up when you have gotten information.

Hey the guy next door really has a problem with you it seems what's the story there?
Do they get defensive? Do they blame the entire problem on the neighbor? Do they accept part of the responsibility? Do they bash the neighbor in return do they dismiss the neighbor's opinion about them?
Each of these things give you a clue that your instinct will use to decide if the prospective ________ is the kind of person you are really seeking.

References are A tool not THE tool, and when you think about how big the job of geting to know someone is you can always use another tool or two in the toolbox.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Fast Reply to no one in particular...
 
Some folks use referecnes, and others do not.  I certainly wouldn't portray one or the other as "right" for everyone.  But for those that do (on occasion) utilize references, these are some reasons to do so:
 
1.  "Gut instinct" is great, and I'm sure everyone uses that as well.  But "gut instinct" requires an investment in time and effort.  Some don't wish to invest the time and effort into every anonymous individual they come across that might have some interest in them, only to find out that they're lying about who they are, their association with organized BDSM, their "experience" or "skill level", their reputation, etc.  Take Collarme for example... what percentage of folks are claiming to *be* something they are not? 
 
2.  Many folks who utilize references prefer to rely upon those from recognized groups/organizations rather than other anonymous individuals.  An reference for an anonymous individual for another anonymous individual isn't very valuable.  A reference (like any information) is only as good as its source... and a group/organization is a more reliable (yet not infallible) source than an anonymous individual.  Of course, we all (every one of us) utilizes mutual friends and acquaintances as references, whether we call them "references" or not. 
 
3.  No one would suggest that references should be the singular source of information for anyone.  However, they can be one of many sources of valuable information to (at the very least) confirm some of the basic information that someone has told you about themselves (are they currently collared or do they own another submissive/slave?... are they active, and welcome, in the local community?... do they attend workshops etc. and engage in ongoing education?... beyond personal issues, do they have a problem with their reputation such as inappropriate touching, problems with DM's/problems with scenes, etc.).
 
4.  A reluctactance to rely upon the veracity of references and their portrayal as "gossip" (good or bad, right or wrong) really has no merit.  Because everyone relies upon information provided from third parties at one time or another, and thinks nothing of it unless it's called a "reference". 
 
5.  For all the online bluster about "fakes and wannabes", it's disturbing that folks would disparage sources of information that would make it more difficult for them to ply their trade.  I guess they deserve what they get, if and when they get it.
 
6.  I personally agree with Jack Rinella, in that I view "loners" with suspicion and draw conclusions from that fact.  That's not particularly pertinent for those that are new, but becomes increasingly so as one's "experience" or "skill" level increases. 
 
Just a few of my own thoughts.
 
John

quote:

ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40

How common is it for vanilla-relationship searchers to seek formal references?   What makes BDSM different from vanilla in this regard?