A requirement of three recent references can be more ambiguous than some ladies may realize. Is it 3 in order to have better chances of hearing back, but 1 or 2 are sufficient, as some are suggesting? Or is it 3 because talking with only 1 or 2 doesn't give you enough of a comfort factor? Is it "recent" because a lady may not remember a client and be able to vouch for him after six months? Or is it "recent" because you're concerned that he may have changed so an OK from a year ago is much less reliable?
The reason I refer to the requirement as possibly ambiguous is that, depending on the reasoning behind it, a lady might be willing to accept something that doesn't meet the literal requirements. For example, a frequent suggestion is:
If your an infrequent hobbyist, might I suggest you sign up with date-check or p411 to aide you with getting screened.
Originally Posted by Laura Lynn
P411 solves the problems of ladies not responding to requests for vouchs promptly and ladies not remembering six months later whether she saw the guy. So if those are the reasons for a "three recent references," the lady might accept a P411 id even though I have no OKs within the past 6 months and only 1 OK within the last year. But if the reasons for the requirement are wanting more data points and being concerned about changes in my behavior -- well, that P411 id should't suffice either.
Unless the requirement is stated clearly enough for me to know the reasons behind it, I'll treat it literally and not waste that lady's time by inquiring. She has every right to decide she prefers guys who hobby often and see a lot of different ladies (and always make sure to get an OK). I respect that. And even if she would have accepted a P411 id without 3 recent references . . . well, she's likely not heartbroken that I didn't inquire. Plenty of other fish in the sea for her to see.