The (New and Improved) Loving Dominant by John Warren, Libby Warren Page A

person before you meet is largely up to you and your comfort level.
    I’ve seen lists of questions in web pages that go far beyond what most people would need for comfort and, in fact, become unacceptably intrusive. For example, let’s say you ask for a social security number? Now, what could you do with such a number to assure yourself that the person is safe enough to meet with? It’s not the most convenient of factoids. Think of what kind of harm someone could do with your social security number should they prove to be malevolent. This is a case where the downside is much greater than the upside.
    It’s not so much what you ask, but what you confirm. I’ve known people who before meeting another asked about the person’s home and cell phone number, his date of birth, his place of employment and where he lived and then blissfully went off on the date, thinking they knew him, only to learn later that not one thing they had been told was accurate.
    I have a paperweight that was given to me by the staff of the student newspaper at the University of Southern Mississippi that reads “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with an independent source,” a phrase I had pounded into their heads about checking out every detail one is given. You may think you “know” something, but until you confirm it you’ve only been “told” it.
    With telephone numbers, I advise to call him or her on them. As for addresses, I say send a nice vanilla card to the address and then ask him or her if it’s been received and a question or two to see if it really has been. Until you’ve confirmed information of a given fact, you don’t really know it.
    Some people put considerable stock in references. I have mixed feelings about them. One big problem about the online scene is that most people only know someone from his or her chat, postings and emails. X may be completely sure that Y is a wonderful person, but X isn’t going to be putting his or her ass on the line; you are. If you ask for a reference about someone, be sure to ask just how the referrer knows the person. If it is purely online, then it’s unlikely they really know much more than you do.
    Any online reference should be treated with reasonable skepticism if you don’t really know the referrer. It’s not all that difficult for someone to create a “sock puppet” identify for the sole purpose of validating and praising his or her primary identity.
    Finally, beware of “friendly warnings” from online sources. It’s far from unheard of for someone to spawn a campaign of vilification out of a desire for revenge. Quite often, “this person isn’t a real submissive,” or, “she’s a lying tease,” translates to “she said ’no’ to me.” Multiple sources giving the same information shouldn’t increase the credibility because, as noted before, some people have “sock puppet” identities, and other people simply pass on warnings in an unquestioning belief that negative news is more credible.
    Many in the scene use “safe calls” or “silent alarms” for the first few meetings. These, in their simplest form, mean contacting a friend, telling him or her where you’ll be and who you will be with. At a prearranged time, you call your friend and let him or her know you are all right. Some people arrange an innocent-seeming code to signal a problem without needing to come right out and say it. The explicit arrangement is that, if you miss the call or signal there is a problem, the friend should come over or contact the police.
    It’s a good idea, if you do it properly. I’ve heard of situations where the couple simply lost track of time only to be reminded of it when the cops came banging on the door. Other times, nothing happened because the contact person didn’t consider it significant that the call was not made.
    To me, the real value of a safe call is the reaction of the other person when you mention one is in play. Anyone with a clear