Like most of you, I belong to several online bulletin boards and enjoy the give and take associated with the sharing of divergent opinions. Most often they’re a general amusement and source of entertainment, though every now and then I run across something that really sticks with me. And recently I ran across just such a topic.
I should start by getting a few disclaimers out of the way, so that you can better appreciate my perspective. My personal life and relationships are quite structured, but beyond that most folks would not consider me captive to commonly held practices, either traditional or contemporary. I don’t wear leather (don’t I look dashing in my golf attire?). I’m anything but formal. I speak up (and out) when it suits me. I eschew those that desire to impose their personal expectations of “appropriate” conduct, under the guise of what is “proper protocol”.
I could hardly be perceived as an ardent devotee of historical precedent, particularly when some “time honored” custom serves no obvious purpose to me personally. With all that in mind, I engaged in a rather lengthy and sometimes testy conversation on a board recently, in regards to the use of references.
I travel frequently, attend events, and meet people over a rather substantial geographic region. When I meet people, I do not commonly ask them for references, nor do they ask for them from me (though there have been a few instances in which I was mistaken for an undercover police officer, and there are events for which references are a necessary part of the registration process). Over the years there have been times when I have wanted to ascertain that someone was indeed active in their local community and what their reputation might be like, and there have been times when people have inquired about me as well. Nothing unexpected nor unwarranted.
But by far, the most important use of references (to me, personally) has been on the occasions when I have “met” someone on the internet who either professes something so outrageous that it “demands” authentication, or who shares a mutual personal interest (ie: we kinda like each other). In both those instances I (naturally) ask if they are active in their local community. If they are, I ask whom I might contact for a reference. If they’re not, I take that into consideration and give it whatever weight I feel it deserves in that situation. And in return, I provide references upon request as well.
Back to the conversation on the board.
The discussion quickly resulted in the development of two divergent groups; one advocating the use of references, and the other adamantly opposed to their use. Not surprisingly, those who advocated the use of references had references to provide and those who opposed their use did not. Nor was it surprising that the advocates of references viewed them as one (of many) sources of information, while those opposed saw them as a crass violation of trust and privacy. However, there were several elements of the discussion that I did find surprising, bordering upon shocking.
To begin, advocates proposed the use of references when relevant and as a personal choice, whereas the opponents asserted that they should never be used. When pressed on the matter, they grudgingly acknowledged the existence of personal choice, but characterized anyone that would do so as (to paraphrase many characterizations) devious, deceitful and untrustworthy. Several went so far as to say that the use of references was tantamount to “outing”.
Some opponents cited the lack of “fairness” inherent to the use of references, because some folks are new, don’t live nearby active local communities, or for a variety of other reasons don’t have references available.
Others advocated the use of public arrest records and private background checks, but remained steadfastly opposed to community references. I suspect this may be a symptom of the “information age” in which we rely upon our computers as “nonbiased” information sources, without considering the human element inherent to data collection, entry and interpretation. It’s also consistent with the tendency for a great many to believe what they read on the net, as if it has some stamp of “authentication”.
A few cited the potential for personal relationships to unduly influence references (either positively or negatively) as reason to discard any and all information they may provide.
Most (surely not all) thought the use of references was something new to BDSM, and something that was inherently antithetical to BDSM community mores, as they see them. Of course, they were not aware of the historical usage of references within the SM community.
What struck me as ironic was the propensity for these “reference opponents” to also be the most vocal complainers about all the “fakes, liars and wannabes” they run into, online and off. And yet, they refuse to utilize a valuable informational tool to confirm what someone has told to them. Not only do they refuse to utilize that resource for their own use, they denounce it as a tool for anyone’s use.
Over the years, people have been responsible for many “good” uses of the internet, and just as many “bad”. BDSM, like any group, has benefited from the increased availability and quantity of information. We’re able to find each other and exchange information with folks locally, regionally, nationally and internationally who share our interests. And a great many more people have found us, and their interest in BDSM, than would have otherwise.
The flip side of that coin is equally well known, in that plenty of the information that’s available is factually untrue. And many of the people that have found BDSM are the “fakes, liars and wannabes” of which we hear so much complaint. People mitigate this hazard by many means, including their own experience, common sense, and corroborative informational sources. Sometimes more elaborate measures have been proposed, and/or employed.
There have been several (mostly aborted) efforts to establish some sort of national register of “authenticated” lifestylers. Most of those fail under the weight of numerous and significant deficiencies in logistics and accuracy, not to mention the question of “what, exactly, does such an authentication signify?” It’s not likely to provide any more helpful information than “somebody, somewhere, knows this guy”, which is to say nothing at all.
These well-intentioned efforts, while I believe them to be fundamentally flawed, do speak to the growing recognition that there’s a problem in need of a solution. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the problem has increased in pace with the popularity of the internet, and a recognition that online boasts lack a fundamental foundation in offline reality. The question is not one of identifying the problem, nor (generally speaking) its source. The question is one of solution.
I suppose it’s a testament to our hi-tech age that we expect hi-tech solutions. But this is decidedly a low-tech problem. People have wanted to confirm what they are told by others since the first “check was put in the mail”. And while the internet may make it easier for people to tell a few whoppers about themselves, it hasn’t created any new problem that didn’t already exist.
One of the things that struck me about the conversation on that board was how uninformed the “reference opposition” was in regards to what references are, how they’re used, how to obtain them, and the historical reliance upon them (ie: it’s not “outing”). These are the same people that can (seemingly) cite, chapter and verse, an enormous quantity of information about the lifestyle, some “good” and some “bad”. And it struck me that the problem is less the fault of the neophyte than it is the sources they rely upon for their information. After all, how can they know what they don’t know?
I’m not saying that references aren’t mentioned anywhere, or by anyone. Jay Wiseman, and a few others are notable exceptions that do more than a credible job discussing the topic. I’m particularly fond of Jack Rinella’s article entitled “Preaching to the Choir” (LeatherViews, Issue 29 July 7, 2006), but as the name implies, all too often the conversation takes place amongst the converted (ie: informed). Even for those few neophytes that may have read something like this view it as an interesting, but not very relevant, historical curiosity. Community references have no present-day significance to them, because we’ve allowed them to become insignificant.
Our challenge, as I see it, is to breathe new life into a venerable (and useful) practice. Not by talking about it amongst our selves, but by introducing it to an entire generation that has (largely) been underserved in this regard. A generation with neither the tools to make use of this valuable resource, nor the means to acquire them. It’s incumbent upon us, “the choir”, to sing that song beyond the bounds of the congregation. To write about it, talk about it, include it in our community websites, post about it, and generally do our part.