|
emdoub -> RE: References (12/20/2006 11:21:59 PM)
|
I'll be chopping this mercilessly - don't really have the time to give this the response it deserves, but can't stand walking away and not giving it some response -
quote:
ORIGINAL: Focus50
quote:
ORIGINAL: emdoub
quote:
ORIGINAL: Focus50
From page 1, the insinuations of the pro reference lobby have been that those of us who don't believe in them would fit loosely around your example - that *all* have something to hide! <sheesh>
You (and others) don't want to use references. Fine. Some don't want anyone to put too much reliance on them - I'm in that crowd myself. But your implication (from page 1) that anyone who uses them is a 'dingy and repugnant' is somewhat offputting.
It's not "offputting" at all once you restore the context of what I said, and I quote (myself):
"And there's just something dingy and repugnant to me about references from third parties when we're talking about relationships, intimacies and sexuality...."
That second half of my statement is a *relevant* qualifier....
Not so much - it's not as if getting references gives the people who give you references any vote in what you do, or even necessarily any knowledge of what you do with the information you get - so, you're fairly interpreted as being repused by us dingy types who gather information from a variety of sources, rather than count on being able to see past a facade.
Yup - that's a tad offputting, and context doesn't change that much.
quote:
<snip> But it's I who gets to decide what's acceptable in my *personal relationships*, ie, "the price of admission". And 3rd party references are simply NOT acceptable.
Has anyone given the impression that getting a reference or a reading from someone gives them veto power over what you can or cannot do? That'd hit my hard limits, too - but that's not how it works. They give information, either verifying or refuting what you've heard from the prospective partner, you take it with as much salt as you think is fitting, and make your decision - perhaps, a more informed decision. It's still your decision, though.
quote:
I feel there's a clear and distinct line between BDSM as a personal relationship dynamic and wandering along to some club or function and getting it on with ropes and whips with virtually anyone willing.
I take it you don't do clubs or munches much... We're not usually swingers - come to think of it, most swingers aren't of the "takes on all available" sorts, either - they tend toward personal relationships as well.
quote:
With the latter, I can understand a need to "be known" by someone if that's your BDSM but I'll continue to call references dingy and repugnant as a precursor to a potentially committed and loving longterm D/s or M/s relationship. Takes all the romance out before it's even begun!
So, you've never been deceived - congratulations. I have, and could tell some amazing stories about being burned by people misrepresenting themselves quite plausibly, flat-out telling me one thing while telling everyone else the opposite, etc. Fraud is not only overcommon in 'nilla life, it's even more widespread in BDSM circles - particularly by and to newbies. Some are easy to spot, some aren't - and I see no harm to my self-respect, my respect for the potential partner, or the potential relationship if I verify what's being said to me - and positive points, if they will check to feel safe that I'm telling them the truth.
Why you consider that so repugnant remains a point of conjecture.
quote:
quote:
Seems like only yesterday that it was cool to be anti "big brother".... Not being a smart-arse here but has American culture changed that much since the towers fell down?
quote:
Not at all - it's still as diverse as ever - but what the hell does that have to do with anything?
<snip>Ignorant Aussie that I am, I can't get my head around that it must now be commonplace for references to be part of the mating rituals of BDSMers in your country, maybe even anyone who dates now? Simply meeting the parents for approval, or otherwise, has been taken to a whole new dimension.... lol When you take the 3 posters mentioned to task, it becomes more about socialising and scening at functions and clubs moreso than personal relationships, and that players/sceners are the "true" lifestylers. And with that comes the stench and stigma of elitist cliques and "one-true-way ism".
<snerk> - I'm about as anti-OTW as you're likely to find. But let's look at this closer:
I, and others, say "references are a good idea - we recommend 'em, but won't get our undies in a bundle if you don't wanna use 'em."
You say "references regarding intimate relationships are dingy and repugnant. I refuse to use them, and sneer at anyone who does use them."
Which one looks OTW-ist?
quote:
If you don't have or believe in references, there's been a clear presumption of guilt in this thread; which you examplified with your own tale.
Not at all - no newbie can give references, and I know lots of folks who don't feel a need to check references - no guilt there. It's the people who object so strenuously when anyone uses or suggests references that look like they have a reason to fear that process.
quote:
quote:
<snip>....I always think of him (with suspicion?!) when I run into someone who not only doesn't want to bother with references, but objects when other people do."
This is where my "towers" comment is coming from.... Either you're just joining the bandwagon with Rover, Archer & Lod or there's been a greater cultural shift. What has become of freedom of choice; of natural justice; innocent till *proven* guilty; an individual's right to privacy?
As bandwagons go, I tend to build my own, and only rarely jump onto one when someone has a concept I haven't seen before.
As paradigm shifts go, yes, there has been one - the safety police got an awful lot of converts on 9/11 - a bit of a win for the terrorists.
As for the right to be trusted as honorable without any evidence in either direction - sorry, I've met too many folks who can't spell "honor", much less understand the concept. I'll keep an open mind until I see evidence, but I'll look for the evidence - and, sadly, my basic assumption is that they're bullshitting me until I know better. Even more sadly, that assumption pays off more often than not.
quote:
quote:
Such disdain for other folks' way of doing things could cause some ill feelings, eh?
As one with principles and strong sense of justice myself, it'd be fair to state the same of you and the other three, "eh"?
Several have posted that they don't require or even like references. As long as they've said it without too much elaboration, humbly even, their views have been seemingly respected and left alone. Those who have expanded have generally been set upon by <namecalling, deserved or otherwise, deleted>
You're missing the point. If someone tells me "I don't bother with references, though I've heard and understand your recommendation", I won't argue - they, and all of us, have a right to pick our own way.
If, however, someone takes the stance "I do/don't, and anyone who does otherwise is bad/dingy/repugnant/whatever", I bridle - because that is OTWism, which I despise. I'll argue wholeheartedly with someone who does something the same way I do - if they're saying that it's the only good way to do that.
To be blunt, it looks like you're accusing others of doing the bad thing that you're displaying yourself.
Pot, meet kettle.
Midnight Writer
|
|
|
|
