L invites Carrie and myself to a social dance event
Carrie, not wanting to third wheel it, asks someone to come along
I write back to L, telling her what’s going on, to make it clear that I’m not thinking “double date” here, and not expecting to monopolize her time
L writes back to say that she’d assumed Carrie and I would be going together, and had asked someone to come with her
So, instead of three wheels, now we have five
In all honestly, this actually really pleases me. I have people to go and hang out with without the responsibility of entertaining any one person.
People on dating sites, who are polyamorous or open or what-have-you, whose profiles are about nothing except that they are poly or open or what-have-you. I want to link these people to something describing the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. I’d rather contact someone interesting who might possibly be open to nonmonogamy, or at least seems like they wouldn’t be offended by the question, than someone who is interested in seeing other people but has nothing else to say.
It’s a toss-up as to whether this is more irritating to me than people who contact me without reading the parts of my profile(s) that clearly indicate that I’m already seeing someone(s).
Two posts ago I mentioned a date, and then never got back to that subject. Partly because I’ve been a bit distracted.
L and I have seen each other in the mean time, and enjoyed ourselves enough to have scheduled more time together. This is clearly “going somewhere” for sufficiently tautological values of that phrase.
This has triggered a handful of new experiences, all things that needed to be gotten through at some point. E.g, the negotiating-to-use-the-apartment convo, which consisted primarily of my saying I’d like to bring L over and bracing for an uncomfortable conversation that didn’t end up happening because Carrie didn’t have a problem with it, at all; sometimes I don’t give her enough credit. The last time I was dating (outside of the relationship between Carrie and myself), we weren’t cohabitants.
I was remarking to someone earlier that it would have been nice to have been asked out by someone at some point who could be a mentor-figure in the open relationship arena. Or even just to have developed a strong friendship with someone who had some relevant experience. There are plenty of people out there I like well enough, and who I’ve leaned on from time to time, but no one really accessible and close (in every sense). I’m aware that this is likely asking for something unreasonable, but it would have helped a bit; I suppose the lack of resources here is sort of why I started this chronicle in the first place.
I digress, though. There is someone new and shiny in my life, and we, ah, share certain compatible, er, interests. I am eager to see her again, and things are suprisingly comfortable with Carrie–I’m sure at some point this will cease to surprise me. If there’s a dim spot here, it’s that we’re both busy enough to make coordination difficult; I don’t mind saying I’d rather go less than a week and a half before seeing her again, whatever idiocy roissy.wordpress.com would have one believe aside.
You’ll probably love this blog, which has a similar theory with a different perspective. This is mostly not an oblique way of hitting on the author.
(cross-posted from my OkCupid journal)
I like the interpretation better here than their usual fare–fewer assumptions and more raw data. If I have one quibble, it would be that I think their interpretation of what is a private question is flawed because it checks for privacy on a per-question rather than a per-answer basis. By way of example:
Do you have rape fantasies?
I would guess (and guessing is all that I can do, as I don’t have access to the data, oh, if only I had access to the data, what fun we would have, the data and I, but in any event, the preceding phrase to this overly lengthy parenthetical in which you’ve forgotten what I was saying was “I would guess”) that this question is much more private to the people who say yes than the people who say know. And even if I’m wrong about this question, I would guess with a very high confidence level that there are other questions which do cut that way, where people are very open about one answer and very private about another.
I love this idea, though, and wish they would apply it more broadly. It would be fascinating to see which questions correlate to what ostensibly unrelated data. Of course, having too much information about those correlations warps the data; now that this article is out there, people who read it are going to be thinking of the semiotics of their answers in ways that they weren’t before.
So, one thing that I didn’t say in the OkCupid journal, which wouldn’t have been irrelevant there, is that I’d like to see which questions had a high correlation with the “available” status, because one could then possibly use that to cut between very high matches who are interested in non-monogamous relationships despite not having “available” as their status nor having answered the explicitly poly/open match questions.
I had a date tonight. Believe it went well.
That is all for now.
I was browsing profiles on OkCupid a few days ago, and looked at someone who used to be nearby when I was back in Indiana. I had contacted her, and we’d had an exchange that didn’t go anywhere in particular, but not for months after first seeing her online. A thousand excuses: a little too far away, a little too young, etc., but really it was just easier on me not to bother. This happened a lot. One person in particular, about whom I should write when this blog is not already awash in emo bullshit, I never actually got to meet because I put it off too long and it ended up being a little too late by the time we ever made actual plans.
I digress. My point was that I looked at this profile and didn’t immediately recognize her, and my first reflex was to get in contact. I then realized that I already had, but I also realized that this represents a significant shift in how I approach these things.
The point being, as I’ve noted here before, it’s hard to see gradual changes in yourself until they’re pointed out to you by something. I’m clearly on a good overall trajectory, internally, even if I don’t always realize it. Whether or when that will translate into, like, dates, who knows, but it’s good to know it’s there.