Online Dating… OKCupid... what a trip. What works for you?

If a bloke is wont to be 'creeped' out,isn't it better that he knows beforehand (not that I have ever met this near mythical completely vanilla scared of kink gay man but let's just say he exists for arguments sake).

Oh, you must not live in the middle of Saskatchewan, Alberta, or Texas. I assure you, these people certainly do exist. You've not heard of gay bashing? You think it stops there??

Than it being thrown at him (especially if Joe is pretty extreme) later on in the middle of intimacy?

There's a pretty big gap between "first date" and "middle of intimacy": the whole "getting to know someone" stage. You can disclose this kind of information anywhere in that period without expecting someone to feel betrayed or lied to.

If someone seriously feels betrayed that a potential partner didn't disclose their deepest and darkest secrets on the second date, then they need to pull their self-entitled head out of their ass. Some people are open books, but most people need a bit of time to build trust. Many have been burned before and are hesitant to risk that again.

No, it's not usually the risk of beatings and rape. I was obviously exaggerating for dramatic effect. But that doesn't mean Mr. First Date won't post about "this freak I met last night" all over Facebook, putting Joe's professional life at risk.

I can't see any point in Joe keeping these things secret, I know plenty of gay men in the kink scene, I even know very secure in their sexuality straight males that will play with men in the scene.

Just because some people are out and open doesn't mean everyone can afford that privilege. The fact that you know about their sexuality just means they aren't in Joe's position.

Maybe instead of medical research, Joe is a school teacher, and even the suggestion that he might be into something kinky is enough to cost him his job. Teachers still get fired just for being gay. Sure, the administration makes up excuses to get around anti-discrimination laws... But do you really think it doesn't still happen? Do you honestly think that a Fundamentalist from the Bible Belt is going to let their child be educated by a gay-poly-kinky-freak?

You're in the scene, you go to fetish parties. You're out, your friends are out. That's awesome. But you need to realize that's a privilege, one that many people don't share. You know "plenty of gay men in the kink scene" because they're out; this whole conversation doesn't apply to them. But just because there's a handful of people who have a lifestyle that allows them to be out and proud doesn't mean there aren't 10x as many people scared for their jobs, if not lives, and forced to keep their secret safe.
 
Last edited:
Oh, you must not live in the middle of Saskatchewan, Alberta, or Texas. I assure you, these people certainly do exist. You've not heard of gay bashing? You think it stops there??

I was talking about the gay community, which I assume Joe is smart enough to be looking for gay partners, within the gay community.....of course gay bashing exists, but your argument doesn't actually make sense in the context.

If someone seriously feels betrayed that a potential partner didn't disclose their deepest and darkest secrets on the second date

Let's relist those deepest darkest secrets shall we?

a) Man that has sex with men - I assumed this to be bisexual as regarding disclosing for dating this would only be an issue if he was looking (or open to) a female partner, as I wrote before, gay men would take that as a given.
Also not wanting children thing leans heavily towards (but not exclusively of course) towards Joe looking for a female partner.

Now bisexuality might be considered a deepest darkest secret (which is quite sad but there you go...) but as I wrote before, if the woman would take issue with that now, it will still be an issue later.

b) Poly

Ditto....unless, of course he is willing to live monogamously for this person, however, this is what the thread is specifically about and lots of good input has already been given.

c) Kinky

This depends greatly on how much Joe's kink contributes to his sex life, if he simply will never be happy with a totally vanilla life, wouldn't he be better off stating that?

d) Doesn't want children.

I doubt this would put any lives/jobs at risk by being open about that.

Remember also, we are talking of online dating profiles, this is what Lotusesandroses referenced in the example, not meeting at a bar, therefore under the full disclosure up front tactic, there should never be a situation where you have a date with a person who will slate you for being a freak and trust me, a person is totally capable of doing that after one date or 30 if they feel betrayed, but there is no sense of betrayal if they knew all along is there?

No, it's not usually the risk of beatings and rape. I was obviously exaggerating for dramatic effect.

I don't think that was particularly helpful and just confused the issues.
Just because some people are out and open doesn't mean everyone can afford that privilege. The fact that you know about their sexuality just means they aren't in Joe's position.

Of course not everyone can be open, I was referring to this specific context.
You are making quite a few assumptions about what I believe with regards to people protecting themselves based on what I believe in this context SC.

Instead of being righteously indignant, why not look at it from another POV?
Joe signs up at Polyamory.com and writes a lovely personal ad in the N.America section stating his interests and also he is "a bisexual, Poly kink man living in Alberta (or Texas or whereever) who doesn't want children"

Now since Joe could be anyone, a chimp, a plank of wood, a sock puppet...I don't know, I am not in any position to put Joe's career at risk, Joe hasn't even posted a picture and...his name isn't even really Joe....

But, he lives not far, Jane Doe is kinky and Poly and him being bi doesn't bother her, so is she!!! She doesn't want children either, so, she contacts him and after a nice time of online correspondence they meet up.

Sorted!

Scenario 2

Joe goes on 'singleTexan/Alberta.com' and leaves out all this deep dark stuff.
He meets a different Jane Doe, who is looking for 'the one' She starts to fall for Joe because he is perfect and then, one day....after a lovely romantic walk home holding hands Joe says 'I have something to tell you...'

Bam! Jane Doe goes psycho, tells all her girlfriends what a freak Joe is and how he led her on by pretending to be "normal". Even if Jane is not the vicious type and she won't be letting people know, how is he to feel confident of that? He might always worry she might put it on facebook, leaving him anxious and fearful.

I don't know how he is protecting himself by waiting either.

That was my point, please do extrapolate a whole world view out of such a simplistic scenario.

Natja
 
I was talking about the gay community, which I assume Joe is smart enough to be looking for gay partners, within the gay community.....of course gay bashing exists, but your argument doesn't actually make sense in the context.

Joe is supposed gay, poly, and kinky. Don't know about your gay community, but ours is poly- and kink-unfriendly. You'd "think" that being on one fringe of society would tend to make people more accepting of the other fringes, but alas no. Not only do they fail to accept poly and kinky folks, but they actively distance themselves from them, not wanting straight folks to associate any of those things with being gay. It's really sick, actually. Ahh, welcome to Saskatchewan.

Joe goes on 'singleTexan/Alberta.com' and leaves out all this deep dark stuff.
He meets a different Jane Doe, who is looking for 'the one' She starts to fall for Joe because he is perfect and then, one day....after a lovely romantic walk home holding hands Joe says 'I have something to tell you...'

There are smarter ways to broach the subject. "Jane, I saw this documentary last night on BDSM. What do you think about that?" "I just read an article online about people who are in multiple relationships where everyone knows about the other partners. It's called polyamory. That's kind of interesting, isn't it?" Joe wouldn't tell Jane unless he'd already "screened" her for acceptance of those lifestyles.

If you want to be a stickler for the original topic, he was talking about Plenty of Fish, not polyamory.com ... this forum is not a dating website by any stretch. There's a personal ads section, but from what I can see, they never go anywhere. Now I personally happen to agree with you that if your life allows it, then being as open and upfront about poly, kink, and bisexuality is fantastic. But that's a big "if."

I'm surprised I didn't realize this sooner... but I actually have a colleague who is literally Joe (buys his food from local farmers, makes his own wine, well respected in his field... bi, poly, kinky, child-free, closeted). The only significant difference is he's white and works in academia. He is absolutely terrified that his colleagues or students will find out. I only know about him because I started a local poly group on fetlife and he saw it. We have mutual friends so he figured it was safer to come out to me personally and swear me to secrecy rather than let me find out second-hand and inadvertently out him.

Yes, he has a profile that says all this on OKC. But because he can't put any pictures up and is scared to meet people who might out him, he doesn't tend to meet a lot of people that way. So it's a fine line.
 
Last edited:
Joe is supposed gay, poly, and kinky.

Not to be pedantic, but Lotusesandroses did not say Joe is gay, just that he has sex with men, so he could be bisexual...

Joe wouldn't tell Jane unless he'd already "screened" her for acceptance of those lifestyles.

And if she hasn't been and yet he really likes her? Poor Joe eh? Set up for a shed load of pain....

If you want to be a stickler for the original topic, he was talking about Plenty of Fish, not polyamory.com

Doesn't really matter which website it is really, except that obviously the more alternative the personal site the more likely Joe will be able to meet others who can accept him for who he is and also understand why he may feel the need to be discreet.

Yes, he has a profile that says all this on OKC.

But would he be more happy or date more successfully if he had a totally straight, vanilla and monogamous profile on OKC? Eventually you have to let that cat out of the bag and who knows how Jane Doe will take it?

No, it is never easy....

Natja
 
On OK Cupid the statement of my independent polyamory is right there on my profile page; clear and explicit. This reduces the number of times I have these useless conversations greatly.

And how do you know when you're dealing with someone who isn't going to come on board, no matter what you say, vs someone who needs some time to process what you're saying, but may come around in time?

I am not in the business of converting people. This reduces my dating pool to almost zero but I don't have the energy to chase a monogamous person around. I also don't have the energy to chase a permission based polyamorous people around either.
 
"Come around" or "come on board" to WHAT? A relationship with you? If someone can't stand cats, I'm not going to wonder if some day I can convince them that they should get into the business of rescuing strays. I am going to focus my energies on people who ALREADY LOVE CATS and want to do more with that.
 
"Come around" or "come on board" to WHAT? A relationship with you? If someone can't stand cats, I'm not going to wonder if some day I can convince them that they should get into the business of rescuing strays. I am going to focus my energies on people who ALREADY LOVE CATS and want to do more with that.

THANKS for putting the IMPORTANT BITS in CAPS to make it EASIER for us slow types to UNDERSTAND.

You're the BEST, BG.

As it happens, what I'm talking about is not the same as someone disliking CATS and trying to CONVINCE them that cats are GREAT.

I'M talking about the SITUATION where a person is UNAWARE that poly even EXISTS or is even an OPTION. I imagine there are quite a few people who, if shown that poly exists, would want to give it a TRY.

This is clearly different to a person that hates cats, but trying to convince them otherwise. I'm pretty sure that everyone in the world is aware of what a cat is, whereas poly is not quite such a mainstream thing.

But THANKS for your response anyway BG. I do enjoy your 'I'm GREAT and PERFECT and the rest of the world are total MORONS' approach to life. I have no doubt it serves you well.
 
Yah BG, you dick

But THANKS for your response anyway BG. I do enjoy your 'I'm GREAT and PERFECT and the rest of the world are total MORONS' approach to life. I have no doubt it serves you well.

Holy crap dude!

lol
 
Wow. Seriously?

Why so much hostility?

My guess is that we're missing some background, and that there is a reason of some sort for ManofDiscovery to hate BoringGuy. But I reassure you, I too was shocked at MoD snapping like that for what seemed to me no reason at all.
I'm guessing there is something other than this thread to warrant it, though.
 
I'm guessing there is something other than this thread to warrant it, though.

MoD was traumatized by Steve Buscemi as a child.
 
Pof poly

We were on PoF too and our profile said couple both looking for love and girls would talk to us because they saw me (Jessica) and wouldn't even read the profile would talk to me and I even had pictures of him it said couple in the heading. Still they didn't read then I'd talk to them for a while start to like them and say hit us up on the cell and they'd say "US????" Like yeah couple didn't you read but it was always the same I erased it. Good luck
 
multiple partners & online dating

Lately I have been putting a lot of effort into online dating (OKCupid). Luckily I am in an area with a reasonable number of poly folks. My method is to search for the terms "poly" and "ethical non-monogamy" and to have those terms clearly labeling my profile. So far, this is working much better than when I began non-monogamous online dating 2 years ago but felt that I wasn't quite poly and was more focused on labeling myself as seeking out casual/friend-with-benefits relationships. However, that's not what my question is about...

My question is...well, I guess it's an observation. In the first place, absolutely every guy who describes himself as either poly or ethically non-monogamous already has a primary partner. That's okay with me, as I'm happy with "solo poly" and am not seeking my own primary partner. I have one steady-but-non-serious, non-primary partner already. Although my ideal would be a man who, like me, is also happy without a primary partner, I am comfortable with the idea of dating someone in a committed primary partnership. But I guess I'm a little disappointed that solo poly straight men seem non-existent? (And single men who don't identify as poly just seem to be after purely casual sex).

The other part of my question is a little harder to articulate. Lately I am leaning toward thinking that non-hierarchical poly appeals most strongly to me. (Although I can also see myself being perfectly happy in a healthy secondary-type relationship). And I guess I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for non-hierarchical poly on these OKC profiles.

Don't get me wrong, most of the men seem great and seem to be in healthy relationships with awesome women (whose profiles are often linked to theirs). And they aren't necessarily seeking hierarchical poly. But they do already have a wife / life partner / serious long-term girlfriend--only ONE serious partner.

Where are the folks with MORE THAN ONE serious partner? Or even those with multiple less-serious partners?

Or is this just a logistical issue? If you have two partners, maybe you aren't actively seeking to date others via online dating even if you're not poly-fi. Or maybe you don't mention it on your profile because mentioning just one partner is already off-putting enough. Or other reasons--I personally don't mention my (one) lover on my profile because it's too much private info and I am dating very autonomously (although I describe my situation through messages once contact has been established).

I know there are lots of people on this forum who are already in multiple relationships and are still open to more. How detailed are you about this in your profile?

Perhaps I am over-thinking this. But it's hard for me to relate. I have never really had a primary partner, and before learning about poly I avoided getting serious with anyone because the thought of being monogamous long-term was so odious to me. So I feel like someone whose profile says, "I have two girlfriends and a casual lover" would be much more suited to me than someone whose profile says "I have a wonderful wife of 10 years."

I guess I am thinking, I'd really prefer someone who has never wanted to get married because they couldn't choose just one person to marry, than someone who has already met the poly version of "the one."

But I am also still in the "dating" phase of my life (not ready to settle down in one house and one job forever, difficulty imagining a lifetime committed partnership), so maybe I am just immature for my age range.
 
I think hierarchical or not really depends on how you look at it, at least in some cases. For example, I have a long-distance SO who I haven't even met in person yet, but I don't think my connection with him is any less significant than that with my husband. I don't like to think of my LDR as "less serious" simply because we don't (and never will) share a life together. My two relationships are equal emotionally, with the only difference being the logistics.

I really like this blog post which proposes the term "non-primary" instead of "secondary". I've always disliked "secondary" because it implies "less important", while "non-primary" is more neutral and objective. I believe there are many poly people who are looking for a non-primary partner rather than a secondary partner. But I agree those who opened up their relationship after being monogamous long-term are more likely to exhibit some sort of couple privilege, and it's probably better to look for the "I have two girlfriends and a casual lover" type.

Just my two cents. Not sure if it helps. :)
 
I know exactly what you mean! When I was actively dating I noticed that too. I actually began to experience it as a turn off, that guys would approach the poly thing from the ' we' perspective instead of the 'I' perspective.

To be honest when I first put up a profile on an poly online dating site, I did the exact same thing - I said: happily married, open to more love.
Now my profile says 'Happy with all the loves in my life' (without mentioning that there is one primary and 2 secondary relationships, because my thoughts on this have shifted so much).

Both my BF's are very independent - one is looking for another relationship besides the one he has with me, but not looking for a primary. The other has what technically could be called his primary (they see each other often, communicate daily, and are considering becoming parents) but they don't live together and he doesn't talk or think in hierarchy, at all. This independence and the 'solo' aspect of their lives was really what drew me to both of them.

I think not many people come to poly from their own individual needs (my BF MrBrown is such a person, he's always been non monogamous, before, during and after his marriage) but from a situation where an existing partnership is opened up. It takes a while, or even a long time (it took me 4 years) to shift to that more individual way of poly, and of course for some people that is not even the model they're after.
 
My question is...well, I guess it's an observation. In the first place, absolutely every guy who describes himself as either poly or ethically non-monogamous already has a primary partner.

This is a good question, and a valid observation. I *hope* the reason for this is because a person will want to be able to say that they identify as poly because they can nurture one solid relationship before opening up to multiples - at least that's the common wisdom and advice given to newbies here and elsewhere. Perhaps some less-experienced people can only describe themselves as poly in the context of an existing relationship? (This is analogous to an ongoing discussion in bdsm communities - some people only identify as "master", "slave", "dominant", "submissive", etc., in the context of an existing relationship - it's not an identity to these folks.)
Perhaps they feel that if they met someone who was steadfastly mono and they found (to their surprise) that the relationship was completely fulfilling, they would no longer identify as poly? Some people who are less experienced in poly tend to hedge their bets when making personal statements like these.

I personally don't mention my (one) lover on my profile because it's too much private info and I am dating very autonomously (although I describe my situation through messages once contact has been established).

I hate to break this down to a gender-based difference, but to me it seems that a man who didn't make his existing poly relationship apparent right there in his profile would be seen by many women as a shady character. I'm glad that you reveal this in messages once contact has been established, but for men who did the same, that revelation would (in my opinion) be judged quite differently.
 
I hate to break this down to a gender-based difference, but to me it seems that a man who didn't make his existing poly relationship apparent right there in his profile would be seen by many women as a shady character. I'm glad that you reveal this in messages once contact has been established, but for men who did the same, that revelation would (in my opinion) be judged quite differently.

not by me. If a guy mentions ethical non-monogamy in his profile, he doesn't need to talk about his existing relationships. We can talk about that when we start to communicate. I don't have all my loves described in my profile and really don't expect this from anyone else.
What I DO expect is the mention of poly.. if a guy is listed as married or available, and doesn't say anything about ethical non-monogamy, that's a red flag right there.
I get so many messages from guys who turn out to be married and looking to cheat...
 
I hate to break this down to a gender-based difference, but to me it seems that a man who didn't make his existing poly relationship apparent right there in his profile would be seen by many women as a shady character. I'm glad that you reveal this in messages once contact has been established, but for men who did the same, that revelation would (in my opinion) be judged quite differently.

No, I don't think that's correct at all. No one is obligated to make their existing relationships apparent on a profile.

You're talking about when men are not up front about being poly / non-monogamous at all, and only mention it later. (See the thread on "Online dating: when to mention poly?"). Which I agree is quite deceitful.

If someone is clear on their profile about labeling themselves as poly or non-monogamous, I would assume that they are in some sort of relationships which I will learn about as I get to know them. They don't need to say explicitly who they are dating (although, as I said, most seem to mention their one primary partner). I would not find it shady for a man in my situation to be open about his poly-ness but more private about the exact specifications of his dating life.

In case it wasn't clear: pretty much every other word of my profile is poly / ethical non-monogamy / non-exclusive / open. I would assume no one who contacts me would be shocked to learn I am not a nun.
 
And to clarify further: I have indeed seen many profiles of men who state clearly that they are poly and/or ethically non-monogamous but do NOT mention their existing relationship(s) on their profiles.

I don't find that shady, and I assume I will learn of their relationships as I learn other things about them.

However, these men too turned out to be involved with only one primary partner, which they informed me of right away upon initial contact. (Not that my sampling pool is very high, to be fair). Which is okay--I am not ruling out getting to know them better.

But it sounds weird to say that I'm disappointed that I can't find someone who's already involved with a bunch of people????
 
@Cleo & MeeraReed - I respect your opinions on this, but I know firsthand that this actually does happen as I described it. I'm very happy to hear that there are those like you who take a more even-handed approach.
 
Back
Top