{"id":14000,"date":"2013-01-17T18:56:40","date_gmt":"2013-01-17T22:56:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/?p=14000"},"modified":"2013-01-17T23:09:56","modified_gmt":"2013-01-18T03:09:56","slug":"available-is-no-longer-available","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/2013\/01\/17\/available-is-no-longer-available\/","title":{"rendered":"“Available” is No Longer Available"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

EDIT (17 January 2013): Please see update below.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

The scene is San Francisco, late 2009, and a friend is explaining\u2014animatedly, excitedly\u2014\u201cwhy there are so many poly [polyamorous] people on OkCupid.\u201d I wasn\u2019t paying much attention to online dating at the time, so the precise details are fuzzy, but it basically boiled down to the options that OkCupid offered for \u201crelationship status.\u201d In addition to the expected categories like \u201csingle,\u201d \u201cseeing someone,\u201d or \u201cmarried\u201d offered by other social networking and dating sites, OkCupid offered the label \u201cavailable.\u201d<\/p>\n

To know why this distinction would matter to someone who identifies as \u201cpoly\u201d or \u201cpolyamorous\u201d (as did this particular friend), you need to know a little bit about what polyamory<\/a> is. In an oversimplified nutshell: if monogamy is being in one romantic relationship while having one sexual partner (who are the same person), and non-monogamy is having more than one sexual partner (while having one or zero romantic relationships), then polyamory is openly having more than one romantic relationship<\/a> (usually while having more than one sexual partner). While a non-monogamous couple in a \u201cswingers\u201d scene might have casual sex with other partners but limit their romantic\/dating activities to each other, a poly couple often has romantic relationships with other partners rather than just casual sex<\/a>. (Nor are all poly partnerships couples; committed poly triads<\/a> are not all that uncommon.)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Polyamory symbol<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cAvailable\u201d was therefore an important distinction to my friend, who was in a polyamorous marriage. His wife had several boyfriends (whom he knew, and whom she dated with his blessing); he was interested in dating as well and, as an introvert, found online dating to be a more comfortable way of meeting prospective partners. When he identified as \u201cmarried\u201d or \u201cin a relationship,\u201d however, women who viewed his profiles often read \u201coff the market\u201d (or in one case, approached him for an illicit affair); the algorithms behind the sites also didn\u2019t show his profile to people who were seeking \u201csingle\u201d matches. Identifying as \u201csingle\u201d would have gotten the algorithms to behave, but he didn\u2019t want to mislead prospective partners or to insult his wife by denying their marriage.<\/p>\n

\u201cAvailable\u201d offered a much more appealing option, both as a relationship status and as a search category. As a status, it was an easy way for him to signal, \u201chey, you can date me, but I am something other than single.\u201d And because \u201cavailable to date\u201d and \u201cnot in a relationship\u201d were no longer treated as synonymous in the catch-all category \u201csingle,\u201d the algorithms behind OkCupid would show his profile to people who wanted to date, but didn\u2019t mind if their new partner had a partner. (It\u2019s important to note, however, that my friend\u2019s enthusiasm for \u201cavailable\u201d is not shared by all poly OkCupid users; others<\/a> find the term too general to be useful.)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>I don\u2019t know my OkCupid history that well, so I\u2019m not sure if OkCupid\u2019s reputation and status as a poly-friendly dating site<\/a> came from the fact that it offered the \u201cavailable\u201d status, or if it started offering the \u201cavailable\u201d status based on popular demand from its users. What I do know is that last week, as I was going through the process of signing up for OkCupid as a fictitious 18-year-old boy (as research for another piece of writing), I was surprised to find the \u201cavailable\u201d category missing.<\/strong> When you first sign up for OkCupid, it now offers only three relationship statuses: \u201cI\u2019m single,\u201d \u201cI\u2019m seeing someone \/ here for friends,\u201d and \u201cI\u2019m married \/ here for friends.\u201d Once you\u2019ve completed the registration process, these categories collapse even further: as a registered user, you can choose from \u201csingle,\u201d \u201cseeing someone,\u201d and \u201cmarried\u201d only.<\/p>\n

Jenny Davis (@Jup83<\/a>) wrote last fall about identity prosumption on the social networking sites Facebook and Fetlife<\/a>, and in her piece examines how the two sites differ with respect to both \u201ccollective vs. individualist orientation\u201d and \u201ccontrol over identity meanings.\u201d The structure of a Facebook profile puts more emphasis on a person\u2019s individual identities, while the structure of a FetLife profile puts more emphasis on a person\u2019s group member identities. Similarly, Facebook offers more open-ended response fields on its profile form, which allows for more flexibility in self-definition, whereas FetLife offers more drop-down menus with pre-set identity categories (and therefore structures identity prosumption by providing the categories into which people self-select). While I don\u2019t know how significant OkCupid is or was as a site of poly identity prosumption, Davis\u2019s work is instructive here because it shows the impact of online profile structures\u2019 differing affordances.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Four-person poly relationship<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

While I can\u2019t speak to the significance of OkCupid as a site of poly identity prosumption, that OkCupid is<\/em> a site of poly identity prosumption is not in question. Poly OkCupid users developed ways of doing\/being[i]<\/sup><\/span><\/sup> poly<\/a> on the site, which usually involved<\/a> using the relationship status \u201cavailable,\u201d using the term \u201cpoly\u201d or \u201cpolyamorous\u201d (or both) in one\u2019s profile keywords, and linking to one\u2019s partner\u2019s profile (if one\u2019s partner was also on OkCupid). In so doing, people experienced with polyamory and online dating not only taught others how to write poly-friendly dating site profiles<\/a>, but also demonstrated to the newly poly what \u201cbeing poly\u201d means: for instance, that one should be clear and forthcoming about one\u2019s existing relationships, that one should expect to know about one\u2019s partner\u2019s other relationships, and that one should expect to get to know one\u2019s new partner\u2019s other partner(s).<\/p>\n

This makes the prosumption of poly identity on OkCupid an interesting contrast to Davis\u2019s examination of identity prosumption on Facebook and FetLife. Both \u201cpolyamorous\u201d and \u201cBDSM enthusiast\u201d are largely considered \u201cdeviant\u201d identities (despite what life in San Francisco might lead one to believe), and therefore have fewer well-known scripts and templates for their performance. Yet where \u201cFetLife, through its templated categories, prominently posted norms, and dropdown menus, guides prosuming subjects<\/a> through the process of BDSM identity prosumption,\u201d poly identity prosumption was (at the time) structured both by OkCupid\u2019s templates (choosing the \u201cavailable\u201d status) and<\/em> by poly OkCupid users\u2019 creative appropriation of the site\u2019s more open-ended features (searchable and clickable keywords, linking to other profiles) to create poly-specific practices (using the term \u201cpoly\u201d as a keyword, linking to one\u2019s partner\u2019s profile).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Poly triad<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I really wish I\u2019d been paying attention to this over the last few years, because now I have a bunch of questions I don\u2019t have the data to answer. First, does anyone know when the \u201cavailable\u201d category disappeared? (And did its disappearance have anything to do with the more traditional\/mainstream dating site Match.com purchasing OkCupid<\/a> in 2011?) Second, how has the disappearance of the \u201cavailable\u201d category changed users\u2019 experiences on OkCupid generally, and poly identity prosumption on OkCupid specifically? Third, what new practices (if any) have poly OkCupid users developed to route around the fact that \u201csingle\u201d is once again the catch-all term for \u201con the market,\u201d while new users are rather explicitly told by OkCupid that people who are \u201cseeing someone\u201d or \u201cmarried\u201d should only be looking for friends? I\u2019m interested in hearing more about this, particularly from poly OkCupid users.<\/p>\n

UPDATE (17 January 2013, evening):<\/strong> It turns out I should have titled this post “‘Available’ is Not Readily Available.” The emerging consensus from my Twitter feed in response to this post is that the “available” status still exists, but is not\u2014and may never have been\u2014a status that one can select directly. Instead, the “available” status has to be “unlocked” (my term) by selecting an appropriate combination of options in the “status” and “looking for” categories. The [up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A-start] for “available” on OkCupid is selecting either “seeing someone” or “married” for one’s status, and checking any\/all of “short-term dating,” “long-term dating,” or “casual sex” in the “I’m looking for” category. After doing so, a user will appear as “available” throughout the site.<\/p>\n

Most of the rest of this post still stands, however, and I’d love to hear from readers about how\u2014or if\u2014you think the indirect selection of the “available” status affects poly identity prosumption on OkCupid.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Whitney Erin Boesel is on Twitter: she’s @phenatypical<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Triad in bathtub photo from http:\/\/gaypoly.wordpress.com\/<\/a><\/em>
\nPolyamory symbol from http:\/\/2.loverules.info\/3501<\/a><\/em>
\nPoly gender keychain image from http:\/\/cindykesey.wordpress.com\/2008\/03\/08\/the-ultimate-meetup-polyamory-in-second-life\/<\/a><\/em>
\nFour-person poly relationship photo from http:\/\/www.ontheragmag.com\/watch\/polyamory-married-and-dating\/<\/a><\/em>
\nPoly triad photo from http:\/\/romantiqueinnocence.blogspot.com\/2012\/01\/lovely-couple-no-just-odd-couple-arent.html<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[i]<\/a> Whether \u201cpoly\u201d is an identity, an orientation, a practice, a status, or some combination of the above (or none of the above) is up for debate, and I find that debate particularly fascinating.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

EDIT (17 January 2013): Please see update below. The scene is San Francisco, late 2009, and a friend is explaining\u2014animatedly, excitedly\u2014\u201cwhy there are so many poly [polyamorous] people on OkCupid.\u201d I wasn\u2019t paying much attention to online dating at the time, so the precise details are fuzzy, but it basically boiled down to the options […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1875,"featured_media":14001,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9967],"tags":[19783,387,19779,13967,4611,3193,19780,19781,3331,10245,19782],"class_list":["post-14000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","tag-available","tag-dating","tag-deviant-identity","tag-identity-prosumption","tag-okcupid","tag-online-dating","tag-poly","tag-polyamory","tag-prosumption","tag-relationship-status","tag-triad"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/files\/2013\/01\/bathtub-triad.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14000","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1875"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14000"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14000\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14026,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14000\/revisions\/14026"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14001"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}