OK Cupid Blues and Greens
[It turn out, as a novice user, i significantly over-simplified both the status and the politics of the polyamory identity/recognition struggle within OK Cupid in this post. Fortunately, my new friend Tara has added a long comment to this this post which gives the background and history. In this case you might want to read the comments to this post before the post itself.]
Some months back i joined a secret polyamory group on Facebook (which means it can only be seen by its members). One of the interesting aspects of this group was that there was an internal list of links to people’s OK Cupid (OKC) profiles and a few other links. Many dating sites and sex positive social network sites use pseudonyms to hide people’s identity, so this key inside the secret poly group was quite valuable in seeing who was in the group and how they present themselves. Almost everyone had an OKC profile, so i thought i should get one as well. Once i put it up, Cassandra heavily edited it for me.
One of the problems with OKC is that it was not designed to match poly people very well. Under relationship status you could be single or married or dating, but there was no “Open Relationship” option, which is quite important to dating sites. OKC fixed that this week. We will see if this leads to a different experience for me with the system.
i must confess an odd relationship with the OKC system. i want to be validated by having people who it seems i am good matches with, but i am not super interested in finding romantic partners this way, at least i don’t think i am. It has been slightly frustrating to find people who are 95% matches who have no interest in polyamory, since i have answered a number of questions about this, it seems like there is something wrong with the OKC weighting algorithm (or perhaps everyone else is just dodging all the questions on poly).
OK Cupid does have a number of revealing and curious statistics about it’s own users. For example if your desire is to get a lot of messages from OKC as a straight female user, then you are much better off with some people thinking you attractive and others thinking you are ugly, then you are with the same number of people finding you beautiful but many men finding you cute.
The service is free. You can add your own questions and answer the ones you like. It is in pretty wide use (which is important for network effects). It does not discriminate against non-heterosexual users (as a surprising number of dating sites do). And while it is not the only game in town, it is a good game. If you want to be in this world at all.
Other Polyamory Blog Posts:
- It is more than a label: Central versus Primary
- How much do we take care of monogamous partners? Old Guard versus Young Turks
- Perhaps this media attention is not a good thing: The problems of Polynormativity
And the latest news from Scientific American: Polyamory may be Good for You
About paxusa funologist, memeticist and revolutionary. Can be found in the vanity bin of Wikipedia and in locations of imminent calamity. buckle up, there is going to be some rough sledding.
- When almost all “yeses” means “no” March 22, 2017
- “So you are a polyamorous community?’ March 18, 2017
- What she sees wrong with me March 15, 2017
- Binghamton – Hello and Goodbye March 11, 2017
- Crafts House and Tufts March 9, 2017
- Commune Exports – Fatherhood February 11, 2017
- Stop Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee February 6, 2017
- Uninauguration- DC Jan 21st. February 4, 2017
- The O&I Board – too many options January 31, 2017