Definitely agreed on the first part, but the second part annoys me. While technically true in a poly situation, if 'single' is the comparative state it begs the question, "available for what, then, if not a relationship?".
While technically true in a poly situation, if 'single' is the comparative state it begs the question, "available for what, then, if not a relationship?"
>"kinky doesn't mean easy and available isn't the same as single"
Let's break down the assumptions.
One, the person making this statement is making it about someone who is "kinky and available", which may not necessarily be themself.
From the first part "kinky doesn't mean easy" it can be inferred that whomever they are describing may be, but is not definitely, 'easy'... with the implied bias towards not.
In the second part, 'single' is a relationship state, which when the person being described says they're 'available' may be, but is not definitely, the case... with the implied bias being towards not.
Now, from that we're describing someone who might not be easy and/or might not be single, but is likely neither; so, what the heck does 'available' mean?
Possible interpretations, given the likely context provided by 'kinky', 'easy', 'available', and 'single';
"we could date". Not if you aren't single, unless you're poly, which isn't part of this problem set. "we could just fuck" == easy, which they are implying they aren't.
Not if you aren't single, unless you're poly, which isn't part of this problem set.
They *are* poly, which *is* part of the problem set.
The problem in question is that (presumably mono) people are reading a clearly written "available" as "single" and getting pissy when the "available" person is available, just not for a monogamous relationship. People were making the assumption that anyone saying they're "available" must be "single", i.e., interested in an exclusive relationship.
The part where it becomes an epic fail is that it was on OKCupid and the profile made it clear the person was poly. "What part of poly do you not understand?" is the thought that springs to mind about those responders, closely followed by the thought, "All of it, evidently."
That, and "How many seconds did they spend reading this profile, anyway?"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-11 07:37 pm (UTC)me. While technically true in a poly situation, if 'single' is the
comparative state it begs the question, "available for what, then, if
not a relationship?".
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-11 09:26 pm (UTC)comparative state it begs the question, "available for what, then, if
not a relationship?"
I can't figure out what you mean here.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-11 10:07 pm (UTC)Let's break down the assumptions.
One, the person making this statement is making it about someone who is "kinky and available", which may not necessarily be themself.
From the first part "kinky doesn't mean easy" it can be inferred that whomever they are describing may be, but is not definitely, 'easy'... with the implied bias towards not.
In the second part, 'single' is a relationship state, which when the person being described says they're 'available' may be, but is not definitely, the case... with the implied bias being towards not.
Now, from that we're describing someone who might not be easy and/or might not be single, but is likely neither; so, what the heck does 'available' mean?
Possible interpretations, given the likely context provided by 'kinky', 'easy', 'available', and 'single';
"we could date". Not if you aren't single, unless you're poly, which isn't part of this problem set.
"we could just fuck" == easy, which they are implying they aren't.
So, what then? That's why it's annoying.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-12 12:20 am (UTC)Not if you aren't single, unless you're poly, which isn't part of this problem set.
They *are* poly, which *is* part of the problem set.
The problem in question is that (presumably mono) people are reading a clearly written "available" as "single" and getting pissy when the "available" person is available, just not for a monogamous relationship. People were making the assumption that anyone saying they're "available" must be "single", i.e., interested in an exclusive relationship.
The part where it becomes an epic fail is that it was on OKCupid and the profile made it clear the person was poly. "What part of poly do you not understand?" is the thought that springs to mind about those responders, closely followed by the thought, "All of it, evidently."
That, and "How many seconds did they spend reading this profile, anyway?"