RE: References

RE: References (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

Voltare -> RE: References (12/17/2006 12:34:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Stephan, it sounds as if references aren't for you. More power to you. Some of us find great value in them. More power to us. Quite right, more power to you. I'm not saying 'my way is right, yours is wrong.' I'm addressing an underlying issue, which you crystallized quite well: quote: P.S. - We do not all have the same geographical and financial limitations. It would be misguided to assume, as you have, that we do. My assumptions aren't that everyone is, or should be, limiting their searches and only establish relationships based on these (or other) factors. My concern is this: That the objectives of such a relationship are no longer social in nature, but more closely resemble a service contract. What's next? Someone who fabricates references being sued in a civil suit for falsification of references? How about establishment of an International BDSM Registry, the kink version of the Better Business Bureau? Showcasing advertisements on Alt.com - "Top quality sub, USRA rating A, ready to ship!" The major complaint is the amount of time "wasted" in someone who is a fraud. If, as you suggest, distance and finance aren't considerations for some, then how much time is actually wasted? A week, chatting an hour or two a night at most? If it doesn't phase you to drop a $1000 on airfare, hotel for a couple nights, dinner, and what not (for either myself or my prospective 'date') then why all bru-ha-ha? On the other hand, if you're investing a serious amount of time (several weeks, months, or years) attempting to 'cultivate' an online relationship with the end objective of finally meeting, that's a different matter. I would say your time was wasted not because of lack of references, but by your own unrealistic expectations that everyone online shares the same interests you have in meeting and having a relationship. This is the same as the real world example of meeting someone in a bar, and getting their phone number. You play phone tag for a few weeks, having great conversations now and then, but the other person never seems to really have time to meet, usually making work or personal related excuses. After about three to five weeks of this, isn't it frustrating to realize that the real reason is that they don't really want a relationship with you? That either they are already in a committed (monogamous) relationship, or for whatever reason they don't mind having a 'phone friend' but they don't want to hurt your feelings by simply saying "You're not my type." Obviously, the person would have done you a big favor in letting you know this up front, but you do yourself a bigger favor by reading the signals up front - that if you don't meet in a reasonable amount of time (either online or off) you probably aren't going to meet. It isn't their fault for not having references, it's yours for having unrealistic social expectations. Simply put, if you just want to buy a kink date, why not just fly to Las Vegas? quote: ORIGINAL: Archer And someone saying they are new would of course be a perfectly acceptable reason for not having any lifestyle references. quote: Presently, this seems to be a non-issue because we aren't expected to have references up front. If the trend were to shift that way, we would come across more and more 'newbies' simply because it's easier to erase your past than it is to change it - especially over long distances. Though to be fair, from your perspective, if I asked someone about their r/t experiences and they said they were part of such and such dungeon and xyz groups, and you know someone from those groups, it certainly doesn't hurt to give them a ring. My position is against forgoing the normal social introduction processes in favor of a resume-style interview, not against learning what you can. If on a date, I've taken a discrete look at someone's ID card when we're buying beer to see that she's given me the right name, and I've verified through an IP address that one girl who claimed to live in one place (Boston) was actually in a very different state (Florida.) Really, there are so many little signs that someone is not genuine (hesitancy to talk on the phone, even though there's caller ID blocking, fear of receiving calls during certain hours, living with extended 'sick' relatives, inconsistant facts i.e. a degree in accounting, when simple math seems to elude them, etc, etc.)

Voltare -> RE: References (12/17/2006 1:51:35 AM)
Crap, I forgot a '/' and now it looks like I'm quoting myself, and it only lets you do one edit. Sorry, folks.

xxxcuriousxxx -> RE: References (12/17/2006 1:59:25 AM)
deleted

Focus50 -> RE: References (12/17/2006 2:25:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline OK - try to focus here and stay with me on this - Actually, the analogy points out that there is more than one way and you are railing people from choosing the one you are afraid of... One might say that your Francophilic xenophobia and isolationistic desire to 'not allow others knowlege of you prior to meeting' is a smoke screen to cover the fear of being exposed for <insert reason here>. I would not - but, then - that is me. And, the fact that you rail others, call them names, and decry anyone who suggests it as a viable method of knowing someone better as "unreal" and "ignorant" through innuendo and suppositional reference states this rather more pointedly clearly for people who would say such. Besides - I get out plenty... people know me in many groups and as individuals... Because they know me -and- I know them (because I 'get out more' than - say - "you"), they would be good references should I ask them to be one for me... See how that works in this entire thing...? A person gets out of your house and meet people and, then would not have to be so afraid about having people vouch for them because then they actually could vouch for them! and one would not have to get upset when people suggest that "references might be a 'good' thing"... Neat, huh? If you do not believe me, I can provide references that can vouch for what I am saying. Mate, this is beautifully presented and I love the big words but it's all window dressing; no sudstance! In Oz, we use the term "all piss and wind".... Fear of being exposed? "afraid about having people vouch for them"! How can you possibly deduce such nonsense just because some of us choose not to live our lives in glass houses? In your country, you're not entitled to privacy? Independence is frowned upon? Any submissive wishing to get to know me may ask me anything she wishes and expect honest and open replies. I'm all for taking whatever time is meeded to get to know each other prior to a possible first meeting. If she has doubts or is unsure, I'm not gonna badger her into meeting - she can make her own mind up. It's what mature adults do! But for the umpteenth time, I will not involve third parties in my personal affairs - try to accept that; it's a common concept for many people, probably even the majority. Hate to burst your bubble but my very first post (top of page 1) made it fairly obvious I believe there's more than one way to meet strangers - old news! The "railing" has come first from Archer and then yourself, to which I've responded! So I now draw your attention to Archer's own analogy of the mirror.... I think it outstanding that it's you community hacks who seem threatened by a fellow lifestyler who doesn't need the validation of the hive - that I choose to live an independent and private life, which is something that obviously irks you.... For all your blustering, it's I who stands for alternative opinions and methods (in this thread), not your self-righteous self. Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: References (12/17/2006 2:53:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer I count at least aa half dozen times it has been said outright plain language that seems to be beyond your ability to read or take in References are not a magic bullet. Lol - News Flash - I'm saying that myself; paranoia et al! Priceless! quote: I never said or infered it ment they had something to hide, that was your own little paranoia creeping into things. I said it gives me pause and that it requires looking into the reasons they have for not giving them. If the reasons they present are good then no problem move on to the next getting to know you step. C'mon, we're s'posta be all adults here! While you didn't say the exact words, of course you've inferred then implied there's something to hide, and you're doing it here, AGAIN! Time to own up or shut up, ay? A valid reson for not giving references: I don't believe in them - end of story! Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: References (12/17/2006 3:08:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavejali quote: Lol, now I'm wounded, too! You mean you've only ever given me the peripheral glance of another from "Siberia" you're never likely to run into?? Pretty much ...eep. Why don't you get involved, is it that there is nothing happening in Newcastle...or? Sorry I havent followed this thread much, just bits and pieces of it. Is this off topic? I've been to enough local munches (now defunct) to know they're not really my scene. Went to Lexx's last time on the central coast, which was interesting, but he's moved back to Sydney now. Newcastle is somewhat of a BDSM backwater and I'm not that into "community" to bother driving all the way to Sydney.... Besides, I'm contemplating a few acres in eastern country Victoria - right where the massive fire-storms just cut a swathe.... <groan> Off topic? Maybe, but so what? lol Focus.

Voltare -> RE: References (12/17/2006 4:07:06 AM)
Slinging mud doesn't make what we say any more or less true, it just makes everything ugly. If our thoughts are to be taken seriously, we requires a minimal amount of objectivity and at least a teaspoon of respect. Therein lies the difference between a debate and a flame war.

LordODiscipline -> RE: References (12/17/2006 6:04:19 AM)
Actually - I am (as they say in the US) giving you "poop"... You are irrationally against this where it might benefit some people... so you open yourself up to being picked on. This has absolutely nothing to do with personal freedoms and/or the consituitionality of someone asking for references... nice twist though - it could be extrapolated into: It is against the values that this country is based on (fill in your own country there) This has nothing to do with your battered sensitivities or your inability to let this go. That you are injured that someone would actually dare to ask this of you is rather a silly thing to get pissy about. This has nothing to do with "hive speak" I seldom agree with anyone (I can be quite the disagreeable individual). This has more to do with "why is he being so obstinant about the possibility that it might be a good thing for other people? - Is he covering his ass in the event someone asks him for references further on - or, simply perfecting his argument for when that day comes?" Personally - I can say this has been an exceptionally fun exercise... although I lost a bet. But, I can see I am debating the Australian Cricket team... and, that is not right - I am sure you have better things to do with your time. ~J {PS: Your last paragraph had me misty eyed. The way you stand up for the underdog!} quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Mate, this is beautifully presented and I love the big words but it's all window dressing; no sudstance! In Oz, we use the term "all piss and wind".... Fear of being exposed? "afraid about having people vouch for them"! How can you possibly deduce such nonsense just because some of us choose not to live our lives in glass houses? In your country, you're not entitled to privacy? Independence is frowned upon? Any submissive wishing to get to know me may ask me anything she wishes and expect honest and open replies. I'm all for taking whatever time is meeded to get to know each other prior to a possible first meeting. If she has doubts or is unsure, I'm not gonna badger her into meeting - she can make her own mind up. It's what mature adults do! But for the umpteenth time, I will not involve third parties in my personal affairs - try to accept that; it's a common concept for many people, probably even the majority. Hate to burst your bubble but my very first post (top of page 1) made it fairly obvious I believe there's more than one way to meet strangers - old news! The "railing" has come first from Archer and then yourself, to which I've responded! So I now draw your attention to Archer's own analogy of the mirror.... I think it outstanding that it's you community hacks who seem threatened by a fellow lifestyler who doesn't need the validation of the hive - that I choose to live an independent and private life, which is something that obviously irks you.... For all your blustering, it's I who stands for alternative opinions and methods (in this thread), not your self-righteous self. Focus.

Rover -> RE: References (12/17/2006 6:12:28 AM)
quote: My assumptions aren't that everyone is, or should be, limiting their searches and only establish relationships based on these (or other) factors. My concern is this: That the objectives of such a relationship are no longer social in nature, but more closely resemble a service contract. You seem like a genuinely nice guy, Stephan. And I've enjoyed reading many of your posts. But what business or concern is it of yours what someone else's relationship objectives are? I hope not to be the first to tell you that some folks want to be objectified in their relationship. Others want an emphasis upon service. Not everyone is seeking a relationship based upon the "traditional" social values. We're not all the same, nor are we all seeking the same relationship dynamic. You can't persist with this point of view without appearing to be incredibly short sighted, or a devotee of "the one true way". quote: What's next? Someone who fabricates references being sued in a civil suit for falsification of references? Like it or not, we live in a litiguous society, and people sue for any reason at all. I have already heard of successful lawsuits regarding personal relationships in which material facts were misrepresented. The only new aspect of your example is that it would involve a lifestyler, most of whom wouldn't want the public scrutiny. quote: How about establishment of an International BDSM Registry, the kink version of the Better Business Bureau? Showcasing advertisements on Alt.com - "Top quality sub, USRA rating A, ready to ship!" There are some people who claim to be able to do just that. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the recently deceased Jon Jacobs. There was even a recent effort to establish some sort of online "BDSM Certification". I think it's all quite silly, but people are regularly known to be silly. Doesn't stop them though, nor you and I (evidently) from having (or expressing) an opinion about it. quote: The major complaint is the amount of time "wasted" in someone who is a fraud. If, as you suggest, distance and finance aren't considerations for some, then how much time is actually wasted? A week, chatting an hour or two a night at most? I think you'll find that most women who meet someone online desire a more substantial "getting to know you" period before meeting real time. There's no standardized time frame, of course. When I was new to the net, I was an advocate of "not rushing" things, as I heard of all the awful things that seemed to happen regularly to poor defenseless submissives meeting crazed lunatics from the internet. It only made sense.... until such time as I realized that it didn't make sense. There were no accompanying newspaper articles or expose on 20/20 or Primetime Live, no corresponding string of real time victims in any of the (many) places I traveled, no death notices, no police investigations... you get my drift, don't you? Point is, genuine or fraud, many folks are influenced to take an inordinate amount of time prior to meeting. Often this influence is from less than honorable sources. quote: If it doesn't phase you to drop a $1000 on airfare, hotel for a couple nights, dinner, and what not (for either myself or my prospective 'date') then why all bru-ha-ha? Because a bunch of online do-gooders has convinced her that she should wait months before meeting, since Dominants are frequently axe murderers. You know another good reason for references? Anyone out in the community knows this is utter BS, and simply uses good judgement about where and how to meet. quote: On the other hand, if you're investing a serious amount of time (several weeks, months, or years) attempting to 'cultivate' an online relationship with the end objective of finally meeting, that's a different matter. I would say your time was wasted not because of lack of references, but by your own unrealistic expectations that everyone online shares the same interests you have in meeting and having a relationship. It's true that many folks claiming to desire a real time relationship are just fibbing in hopes of manipulating someone into an online relationship that they can draw out for an extended period of time. If your expectations are genuinely for a real time relationship, whose expectations are unrealistic? What is unrealistic is to take people that you meet online at their word because... hold on to your seat... people on the internet lie about themselves and their intentions (gasp). Knowing that someone is out there in the community, is single, gender appropriate, etc. goes a long way to ensuring that your not the victim of someone who might fabricate the truth. quote: This is the same as the real world example of meeting someone in a bar, and getting their phone number. You play phone tag for a few weeks, having great conversations now and then, but the other person never seems to really have time to meet, usually making work or personal related excuses. After about three to five weeks of this, isn't it frustrating to realize that the real reason is that they don't really want a relationship with you? There are a few fundamental flaws in your example, Stephan. In your example you know the woman's gender, what she really looks like, have spoken to her on the telephone, can reasonably ascertain that she is single (no one else answers, she doesn't ask you not to call in the evening or to leave messages that unwanted ears might hear, etc.), you know something about her personality, decorum, how she dresses, interacts with others, etc. And despite the fact that there are no guarantees that she (or you) will want a relationship with each other, you can reasonably assume that she wants a real time relationship with someone. Contrast that with meeting someone online who may require weeks of tedious emails and IM's before speaking on the telephone (it's ok to give out your number to a stranger in a bar, but a Dominant you meet online could be an axe murderer), assuming that they actually want a real time relationship at all (versus an enjoyable online fantasy), you don't know their actual gender or whether the photo received in email is actually her, whether she is single or married with three children, whether she has overpowering BO, brushes her teeth or hair, wears clownish clothing, swears like a stevedore... are you catching my drift? To equate meeting someone face to face with "meeting" them on the internet is flawed at the outset. quote: That either they are already in a committed (monogamous) relationship, or for whatever reason they don't mind having a 'phone friend' but they don't want to hurt your feelings by simply saying "You're not my type." Obviously, the person would have done you a big favor in letting you know this up front, but you do yourself a bigger favor by reading the signals up front - that if you don't meet in a reasonable amount of time (either online or off) you probably aren't going to meet. It isn't their fault for not having references, it's yours for having unrealistic social expectations. Really, you sound a bit jaded. Now I'm not suggesting that I would intentionally ignore obvious signals, but like most people who have run into interesting potential partners online, I have surely been strung along only to find out that it was all a fabrication. And for every time I've been strung along, the effort to do so has been made twenty times. I'm not complaining, mind you. I realize this problem is inherent to the internet (and given that I am "out there" regularly, and over a rather substantial geographic area, the internet is far from my sole source of potential partners). Now, define for me what is a "reasonable time" to meet? Ask ten people and you'll get ten answers. If your first meeting is simply to "authenticate the basics" (ie: gender, appearance, etc.) then a reference can do so much more easily and quickly. Personally, I prefer to meet sooner rather than later for many reasons, some of which have been mentioned in this post. If I'm interested in someone, I have no problem flying out to spend the weekend somewhere to share some good food and conversation. If they're active in their local community, I enjoy attending a munch, workshop, etc. with them and to meet their friends. Seriously, what is so unrealistic about that? quote: Simply put, if you just want to buy a kink date, why not just fly to Las Vegas? Why would you assume such a thing? Who said anything about a kinky date? Are you inferring that anyone willing to travel to meet someone of interest is simply looking for a "kinky date"? Are you saying that such a person should hire the services of a prostitute? Really, Stephan... that sentiment is more than a little objectionable. In fact, it's downright offensive and says quite a bit about you. John P.S. - I've been to Vegas twice this year, and will be back again in January.

eyesopened -> RE: References (12/17/2006 6:26:51 AM)
Archer, Sir, i AM a member of T3WD and Geoff knows me. my job requires i be out of town tuesday-thursday so i have not been able to attend a munch in well over a year. i do go to events when possible. The point i was trying to make but now fear being attacked, is that Geoff could not vouch for me in a play scene or anything more that to say yes, i exist, i appear to be a natural female and i mind my manners, chew with my mouth closed, etc. i checked and Georgian Dungeon Society is gone and was private play parties by invitation, not a public dungeon where i could get to know people. i was on the yahoo list for MBK in Myrtle Beach where they hold munches on saturdays but i would have to find a hotel room and they are expensive there. i would have rather said all this on a private email than on the boards but it is what it is. i know a couple of people who know You and elegant. i know i should get out there but it's not as easy as it sounds. i am not terribly experienced, i would not be comfortable playing with a brand new acquaitance. i'm much more B&D than S&M so i'm not just looking for a skilled Anyone who can whack on me for a while. Reading threads like this often make me feel like i just don't belong and i should probably just not bother. Funny thing is, if i had not found sites like this one i would have never have known about local groups at all, it was through meeting people online that i was first referred to the groups in the area.

Rover -> RE: References (12/17/2006 6:43:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Archer, Sir, i AM a member of T3WD and Geoff knows me. my job requires i be out of town tuesday-thursday so i have not been able to attend a munch in well over a year. i do go to events when possible. The point i was trying to make but now fear being attacked, is that Geoff could not vouch for me in a play scene or anything more that to say yes, i exist, i appear to be a natural female and i mind my manners, chew with my mouth closed, etc. i checked and Georgian Dungeon Society is gone and was private play parties by invitation, not a public dungeon where i could get to know people. i was on the yahoo list for MBK in Myrtle Beach where they hold munches on saturdays but i would have to find a hotel room and they are expensive there. i would have rather said all this on a private email than on the boards but it is what it is. i know a couple of people who know You and elegant. i know i should get out there but it's not as easy as it sounds. i am not terribly experienced, i would not be comfortable playing with a brand new acquaitance. i'm much more B&D than S&M so i'm not just looking for a skilled Anyone who can whack on me for a while. Reading threads like this often make me feel like i just don't belong and i should probably just not bother. Funny thing is, if i had not found sites like this one i would have never have known about local groups at all, it was through meeting people online that i was first referred to the groups in the area. I know this wasn't directed to me, but I'd like to comment anyway. 1. We all start at exactly the same place. We all begin as newbies and unknowns. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to feel self-conscious or insecure about sharing that truth. People run into problems by fabricating an untruth, not by being new or unknown. 2. Many folks will not care if you have scened publicly or not (unless it is their specific objective to scene publicly with you). While they may be interested in knowing what you have and haven't "done", most often those are not "make or break" issues unless they conflict with what you have told someone. Then the issue becomes one of honesty, not experience. Most people will put greater emphasis upon who you "are", rather than what you have "done". 3. Life isn't always fair, and while we all have equal opportunity that does not guarantee equal outcome. Your life makes it difficult to be more active in your community, and that may be the case for a good many people. I think most of us understand that. In my life, I am blind in one eye, making my depth perception (or lack thereof) incompatible with longer impact toys such as a single tail. Is it fair? No, but it's just the way it is. Time to move on. 4. Most people can understand and appreciate that newer folks are often hesitant to engage in play with a recent acquaintance or stranger. Heck, there are plenty of experienced folks who feel that way, or consider play an extension of a committed relationship. You shouldn't feel badly about saying so for yourself. Just a few thoughts that come to mind reading your post. John

slavejali -> RE: References (12/17/2006 8:06:19 AM)
Considering I consider peoples opinions of others a lot of the time as...faulty..I don't hold much credence in them. I would prefer to use my own judgement when it comes to matters of personality and safety and about what kinda person they are. As far as references go, a recognised certificate in first aide I might look at.

juliaoceania -> RE: References (12/17/2006 8:10:36 AM)
I am very curious about something having kept track of this thread. I see a lot of people that are proponents of references and their use, and I see a lot of people that could not give a rat's ass about them. There have been many threads about background checks, how much information one wants to give out before actually meeting someone. Isn't checking references another form of background checking? If it is a form of background checking, aren't there more effective ways of doing this? When one wants to get a job they must provide personal references, job references, citizenship info in addition to perhaps a drug test and criminal background check. This reference checking is all well and good, and as LA stated, it is more information. I just wonder how it rates with other background checking. I have seen people really down on those who want to check the backgrounds of people before they meet someone from a long distance away... such as full name, address, landline, and other information such as a license number and car registration for safe information, this is considered by many to be invasive, but calling people that may or may not know someone very well is considered non-invasive, reliable, and a good tool to use to establish if this person is someone you want to hook up with? So those who think that references are of such import that they would not meet someone without them, or are at least very important, I was wondering if you think that other checkable information is as important as references or not as important as references. I had all this info on the person I am seeing presently. I knew which dungeon he belongs to also. I never did a background check on him. He has left me alone with all of his bank info, his SSN, and gobs of other info, yet I have not used it to find out about him... but I am thinking that if I was inclined to do a check on him I would get more reliable info from these sources than the dungeon he frequents rarely these days because he is a busy person.

Rover -> RE: References (12/17/2006 8:18:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I am very curious about something having kept track of this thread. I see a lot of people that are proponents of references and their use, and I see a lot of people that could not give a rat's ass about them. There have been many threads about background checks, how much information one wants to give out before actually meeting someone. Isn't checking references another form of background checking? If it is a form of background checking, aren't there more effective ways of doing this? When one wants to get a job they must provide personal references, job references, citizenship info in addition to perhaps a drug test and criminal background check. This reference checking is all well and good, and as LA stated, it is more information. I just wonder how it rates with other background checking. I have seen people really down on those who want to check the backgrounds of people before they meet someone from a long distance away... such as full name, address, landline, and other information such as a license number and car registration for safe information, this is considered by many to be invasive, but calling people that may or may not know someone very well is considered non-invasive, reliable, and a good tool to use to establish if this person is someone you want to hook up with? So those who think that references are of such import that they would not meet someone without them, or are at least very important, I was wondering if you think that other checkable information is as important as references or not as important as references. I had all this info on the person I am seeing presently. I knew which dungeon he belongs to also. I never did a background check on him. He has left me alone with all of his bank info, his SSN, and gobs of other info, yet I have not used it to find out about him... but I am thinking that if I was inclined to do a check on him I would get more reliable info from these sources than the dungeon he frequents rarely these days because he is a busy person. Let's see if I can make this as simple as possible. In my opinion, lifestyle references rate somewhere between no information at all, and a professional background check. If they don't work for you, don't use them. Just don't complain or denigrate those that do find them useful as one piece of the confirmation puzzle. John

LadyHugs -> RE: References (12/17/2006 8:33:35 AM)
Dear Unicorm2, Ladies and Gentlemen; In response to your original post, in my mind's eyes it is ok to inquire if a person is a member of a local community and or organization. However, the answer may be no, should someone be visiting from out of state and staying a while with friends. There are many reasons as to why people may not be a member of a local community and or organization, to include risk of exposure that would risk their jobs. It is not that they do not want to but, since to many individuals have loose lips, the art of being discrete is lost so they cannot afford the risk. Another possible reason, is due to the lack of funds to make trips to distant groups and the like. In addition, there might be cases where a 'group' that is so cliquish; that it repells individuals as not to be involved in the politics and games of out posturing one another like two roosters thumping their chest over one hen. In my mind's eyes the asking for local community ties and references request packaged into one question can be awkward and may give a false read on someone you ask questions of. So, I would see in my mind's eyes in asking for references, it would be to focus on finding an expert in their field, such as caning, bondage and the like-- I would also see the justification in my mind's eyes; if it was applying for a position; such as presentor, mentor, trainer, speaker and leader of a round table discussion. That said, I do understand the spirit of asking for references; however that may be awkward as if someone has plenty and some have none. Our personal journeys are not always fair; in addition to our (in a general sense) measure of what quality of references are against our (in a general sense) personal measuring stick; which is made up from our (in general sense) personal skills, experiences, attitude and bias. In my mind's eyes I see, a preference in meeting at a dungeon and or a party, and given an opportunity to do a scene--is allow my whips speak for me. My behavior, my interactions with you in conversation should guide you and match to your own reference points in your logical mind. True, I could give a roll call of individuals to whom have interacted with me personally in many capacities. I could provide you with written proof, not by my own hands but that of a newspaper reporter with photographs. True, I can give you certification and registration numbers, to written works I authored and yes, I can have you speak with 70 year old and older Leathermen to whom know me very well, as well as title holders and well known names. However; I must proffer for your thoughts--what do references do other than tie me to individuals and gives a time line to the decades in the lifestyle. I wish to offer for consideration; that history is 'history' but, the most important consideration is for the present and future. Although I am getting old, the individuals to whom knew me have passed on and those in their 70s knew those who I began with. But, when they pass, there is only the time line of what was--not what is. There was a time in the lifestyle, when name dropping was considered in poor taste. And, as someone has stated before, names can be dropped and they have only been brief acquaintances and never seen them in action and or some form of exposure to where I could testify for their qualifications and the like. I'm certain that 'note worthy names in the lifestyle' have been subjected to strangers tagging on to their names, as if a reference when only they have attended a workshop or so. But, not breaking bread with them, talking sports and other stuff inside and outside of the lifestyle, like a buddy and or dear friend. Those references are private and, it is only with rare occassions where I ask permission of them to use their name as a reference. In my mind's eyes I see; the established trust is started between us two (in general terms). References are nice but, they are not without flaws. As has been posted; where an individual has had community 'reports/references' that were glowing; yet real wreckage is strewn behind in his wake as it deals in attempting a poly relationship. It is true, there are many out and about that are very good whip skills masters and bondage experts yet, they cannot hold a successful relationship more than a year. So much 'really' private relationship matters happen behind closed doors and will be subjected to the way people view it inside and or out. And, relationships ending are not always pleasant and may poison the truth of what really happened. And, I have seen the evil of intimidation and fear, applied to those who buck those with a 'name' recognized local and or nationwide. Fear of being black listed/black balled yet innocent. Bullies and predators, those who take advantage of others and or their position, as well as their popularity. In summary, there is no fail safe when it deals with human nature. In dealing with your original post, asking from a slave/submissive's point of view on requestion activities with the community and references; it can be done in reverse. Would you (in general terms) as a submissive or slave be able to give references and hold up to the same 'test' as applied to others in all fairness. In regard to establishing credibility, in my mind's eyes I see--it is not from posturing, shoving references and the like but, bringing it to your (in general terms) level and know me at the present. As to the mention of STD, HIV, and other medical risk areas; in my mind's eyes it is only the status of medical/sexual health at that time. However, in my mind's eyes I see--a current test, such as one jointly taken same time would be more mind easing, yet some diseases take a bit of time to manifest; so even after these tests--it can all be canceled out if you lay with an infected individual hours later and or partake of the same needle and so many other ways of transmissions. I also have concerns for those who are new. They may not have references. I have concerns for those, to which have lost their sources of references, through death or other medical, military and or legal situations and or circumstances. The inability to access them, does not mean they never existed. I also have concerns about the "scene police" that start spewing their standards and challenging other's credibilies and or make it a personal crusade and or creating an Inquisition. My thoughts are outloud on this; is what credibility, references and the like and by what authority do they have to be 'the scene police and or lifestyle police.' If one innocent is harmed, it is one to many in my opinion. In summary, it goes back to you (in general terms) making the adult choices which effect/affect you (in general terms) personally and not totally depending on references, which may be flawed, skewed and or misleading. Being adult, regardless of what roles we lead in the lifestyle is of making life choices based on your gut instincts and what is right for you. True and truth is only as good as it is measure on your scales and or measurement of what true and truth is. Unfortunately, there are only few absolute truths. Trust is a living thing. Trusts lives in many levels and manifests in different ways. Trust is earning interest every moment to moment and trust can/may be withdrawn and or lost completely. It really is a matter of truth, trust and credibility in your (in general terms) personal courtroom, to which you (in general terms) are judge and jury, as well as the executioner. Just some thoughts. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

Rover -> RE: References (12/17/2006 9:14:00 AM)
I thought the following article by Jay Wiseman is interesting and relevant to the discussion. Section 12 on "Reputations, references, warnings and politics" would be the most pertinent: http://www.soj.org/articles/A%20Beginners%20Guide%20to%20BDSM%20Munches.htm In Jack Rinella's book, "The Theory & Practice of Voluntary Servitude", his slave Patrick advises the reader to prepare a list of references, and to develop references if you currently have none (last page at the following link): http://www.soj.org/articles/A%20Beginners%20Guide%20to%20BDSM%20Munches.htm Jack also devotes attention to the acquisition and use of references (pg. 69 of his book), but unfortunately that's not available to read online. My point is that the use of references has a long and deep historical pedigree, and it is only a more recent affectation that people have begun expressing a disdain for them. Not surprisingly, those expressions are concurrent with the increasing popularity of the internet, and a recognition that online boasts lack a fundamental foundation in offline reality. John

juliaoceania -> RE: References (12/17/2006 9:16:08 AM)
I have not denigrated them at all, they are to be weighted in my mind the same way an employer weights them, and that is an applicant is going to use references that think well of him or her. If they had no use they would not be asked for. I think that meeting someone's friends and family and coworkers illuminates far more than any checking does. Seeing people around those who have known them for years tells you a lot more. Like the job applicant analogy, if you get the job you still have to keep it by performing correctly on the job. No amount of checking is going to show how the applicant is going to fit into his environment or the one at work...only time tells.

Rover -> RE: References (12/17/2006 9:29:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I have not denigrated them at all, they are to be weighted in my mind the same way an employer weights them, I agree entirely... they should be factored into your decision making process, but are probably inappropriate to rely upon solely. Though if someone wants to rely upon them solely, that's fine for them. quote: I think that meeting someone's friends and family and coworkers illuminates far more than any checking does I also agree, but then, meeting friends and family is a form of background check and reference. For example, my friendship is a reference (good or bad) for my friends (and vice versa). John

LadyHugs -> RE: References (12/17/2006 10:16:40 AM)
Dear Rover, Ladies and Gentlemen; As far as Jay Wiseman's works, I will hold them in higher standing as there is wonderful personal history and Mr. Wiseman has good intent and is also ethical. So, indeed I would recommend others reading the link you have posted. I would additionally recommend that he be offered more opportunities to present to larger conventions, gatherings and or conferences. As for Jack Rinella's written works. They have made good fire starters. Having personal experiences with ... what I have witnessed, what I have heard him utter have been most vile and contrary to his writings ...and, they have not been an occassional manifestation of such, one being at the Master-slave conference the most despicable and shocking to where an assembly of individuals witnessed this along with me. His treatment of others in my presence was equally and independently vile on a more personal level, although I was not a target and was civil, respectful and a gentleman with me, I cannot associate, condone, support and or assist and or share with him knowing his true colors. And, that is why I must admit my prejudices and bias against him. Being a fair person I state my bias/prejudice up front so that others can be independent of my bias/prejudice and go about seeking what they must and once personally interacting with him can come to their own conclusions. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

LordODiscipline -> RE: References (12/17/2006 10:28:54 AM)
*Ms Hugs:* *Not to digress from the origination and intent of hte postings* Just because someone might be a miserable SOB does not mean that they do not have something relevant and important to say which people might find poignant without knowledge of the personality involved. *I would suggest that if you have issue with someone not on the board, that you take it up with them personally.* ~J quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHugs Dear Rover, Ladies and Gentlemen;

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02