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: 2009-03-12 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?"