A friend recently ran into a phenomenon I’ve seen in passing on OkCupid a few times but never really noted, which is the “fake single” poly guy* profile. This is a guy who’s status is “single”, but either a) he mentions in his profile that he has a significant other and/or spouse, or b) I happen to know he has one or more people in those roles and doesn’t mention it at all.

This is, I think obviously, kind of skeevy, but more than that I’m not sure what the impetus is. You’ll show up on more searches and may get more interest, but it’ll be from people who don’t want to date you. Is it that these guys expect/intend to be so interesting and charming that someone inclined toward monogamy will go for it with them anyway? That seems like a wild long shot and also a recipe for disaster if it works out. I’m assuming here that these are (as in the case with the friend in question) guys who are at least up front enough to tell the other person when they do go out about their SO. I mean, on some level I understand what’s going on with guys who are just straight up lying about being single.

I suspect that this is of a piece with the sense that some poly dudes* seem to have that it’s unfair for some people not to want to date them just because they’re seeing other people. Like, they should still get their shot. And that seems of a piece with the sense that a lot of dudes* in general have that it’s unfair for someone they’re interested in not to reciprocate.

I guess maybe it’s a sort of poly-Nice-Guy-ism; why don’t these monogamous gals want to go out with me when I’m so great? They just keep dating other guys just because their life goals match better.

Anyway, as should be obvious, I don’t mean to say that a particularly large number of guys who are nonmonogamous/open/poly/&c are doing this, but enough that I’ve seen it multiple times, and that others of my acquaintance have seen it as well. And it’s not… wrong, per se, I guess, just sort of skeevy.

* Women may do this, too, but I haven’t seen it if so. I wouldn’t be likely to notice it.


A relevant conversation

vis a vis the last post

L: heh, right
would it be enough to have one bool and one int?
boolean isLookingForMore, int currNum
this way you can avoid hypercubage
so single + searching is (1, 0)
‘seeing someone’, in the traditional monogamous way is (0, 1)

me: hm.

L: though this doesn’t give a good way to show weight among relationships
oh, hah, if you make it two ints, you could potentially say “I am searching for this many more”, “I have this many”

me: That works. I mean, provided you’re seeing fewer than 2^16th people.
We could use a collection, and let people put whole objects in the “looking for” bit.
See, this is where weak typing is useful.
var relationships = [
“has” : [“wife”, “girlfriend”, “boyfriend”],
“seeking” : [“slave”, “mistress”]

L: hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

me: Then you could test for Nick.seeking(Str) and see if it shows up.

Further lexicography

There ought to be a word for “only seeing one other person”, the way that we have “single” to mean “only seeing zero other people”.  Dual?  “I’m dual” doesn’t quite sound right.  “Monogamous but not on purpose” doesn’t really roll off the tongue.  In any event, I’ve had times where I could really use that sort of word, especially when I first started seeing Carrie.  Some lingo would be helpful here, if I could alias to it “I am seeing one or more people but am in fact available to see other people and, in particular, you”.

Maybe if more of the world started using OkCupid’s terminology, and “available” became understood to mean “available but not single”, that would suffice.  I mean, my asking for a word that means “only seeing one person” begs asking why there wouldn’t be more such words.  “I’m triple”.  “I’m triangular”.  “I’m closed-v”.  “I’m a hypercube”.

Plus, I’m starting to realize that, outside of monogamy, “seeing someone” isn’t really a binary.  One can (and generally is) in a sort of suspended state of seeing people, where there may be some time between encounters but there’s still a sort of ongoing togetherness in the ether.  And from what I’ve seen, there’s rarely a cutoff, just a sort of fizzling where it gradually becomes understood that that particular bond is of a different sort now.  I don’t know.

This is by way of saying that I am, for all intents and purposes, newly dual.