Polycule Rudeness
-
So this is a non-IT related issue that just blew my mind today.
As some probably know here I am a polyamorous person. I'm a mostly average geeky person otherwise. I sit at work in jeans and an oversized jumper, I like eating in restaurants and snarking about religious people. The usual kind of person you'd expect in IT
It took some time to come out at work. At first, I didn't think it was necessary, but then I didn't like lying to people who I was becoming friends with - even if only by omission. Coming out went much better than expected. Everyone was nice and respectful and I had a good time of it. I can talk about both my lovely partners when I so desire - it's the stuff of rainbow vomit with sparkles etc...
All the more surprised I was today when one of the dudes from another team sat down with me to tell me in detail how he was cheating on his wife with all of these other women, going into some graphic level of detail on how he was having his... climaxes. There, that's as polite as I can make it.
Alright, it's none of my business really and he can do what he wants - but the bit that really struck me is how he thought we were exactly the same. Because clearly openly having two partners in a loving and consensual manner exactly the same as lying to your partner and using the hurt inflicted through that for leverage. The douche apparently told his wife how these other women are better at sex than her to blackmail her.
I am so sick and tired of always getting the freaks talking to me thinking I'll sympathise with any old crap because I am the "adventurous" one. I should really get a sweatshirt printed: "Don't mind me, boring geek inside."
-
This is the main problem with social change: people don't even understand what things mean.
I would be freaked out by that guy too. You're the normal person.
-
As some probably know here I am a polyamorous person.
Ok, I looked up polyamorous and it just means you're ok with non-exclusive relationships. I mean... duh?
Why is there a word for that? Isn't that the default state until you talk to someone and ask about "going steady"? (Which I'm sure also has some big word.)
Why is this something you'd have to "come out" with?
-
Well, generally for most people it is still strange if you go steady with more than 1 person... so there is some coming out involved.
In my case I officially had mentioned the girlfriend at work and was just pretending that the lovely man I love didn't exist. It produces some conversational awk when people ask how your weekend went and you tell them about your "best friend".
Not necessarily untrue... but certainly not entirely right either.
-
Well, generally for most people it is still strange if you go steady with more than 1 person...
If it's with more than one person, it's not "going steady". That's not what "going steady" means. (In fact, I've seen sitcoms actually literally say "going exclusive" instead of "going steady", but I don't have any real life friends who say that at least. That I know of.)
In my case I officially had mentioned the girlfriend at work and was just pretending that the lovely man I love didn't exist. It produces some conversational awk when people ask how your weekend went and you tell them about your "best friend".
I genuinely hope the people I work with know absolutely nothing about my personal life. I sometimes leak stuff, like at holiday parties or happy hours or what-not, but.
-
We spend so much time together it feels kinda natural and it's a good crowd. We all get on.
And of course anything is a questions of how you define the labels, but linguistics is rarely precise. All the more fun to be had in sophism.
I'm sure you get the idea. Two stable long-term commitments at the same time.
Filed Under: Bring Your Own Wording
-
Why is it not "going steady" with three people that are all "going steady" with each other?
Also, my coworkers would shit bricks if they knew. They're so normal, even the geeky ones, except the one guy who is... Interesting.
-
I guess I'm saying you have polyamorous which has a weirdo scale of like 1/100:
Then you have bisexual polyamorous, which has a weird scale of like 65/100:
*****************************************************************
And you're "coming out" about the first and not the second.
-
wut.
So I'm just 1/100 weird. Like it!
-
@Arantor I am 65% weird. Omg! Here is the written proof we always waited for!
-
Why is it not "going steady" with three people that are all "going steady" with each other?
Look, if you want to use that phrase with that meaning, fine. But just be aware that nobody else uses it that way and so people are going to be confused, and don't get all pissy when people ask for clarification.
-
I don't use those words, I was questioning your use of them, Drax.
-
...And then you have the person who originally combined a Greek prefix with a Latin root to make an English word[1], and that person is somewhere around 80/100[2].
[1] Let's just call him Señor Polyamoryovna-san, Esq., and assume that he wears a Hawaiian shirt, Bermuda shorts, dress socks and sandals to work.[3]
[2] No comment on the other person who thinks this kind of linguistic MacGyvering is important enough to complain about.[4]
[3] Of course it could be her instead of him. Most likely it was actually a non-traditional arrangement of three amateur linguists, one of whom was inclined to steal from Greek, one from Latin, and one who stole the cheesecake from the fridge while the other two were arguing about it.
[4] And don't even get me started on people who write nested footnotes.[5]
[5] Or recursive ones.[4]
-
Well, they sure have innovative spellar and gramming
It took me some getting used to using it in the beginning - but the alternative makes people think I'm Mormon. do not want.
-
I'm confused. You're implying that you're not bisexual? But you have one sexual partner who's a woman, and another who's a man. Or did I misunderememberstand that.
-
I'm not bisexual. @royal_poet on the other hand...
-
Yeah, I missed that the person to whom Blakey replied and the person who replied to Blakey were not the same person. Nevermind...
-
A whoosh is you!
-
I blame it on your avatars ( and ). For some reason they seem similar enough to me that I have a hard time keeping track of who's who.
-
And the fact we're sat next to each other, laughing, while typing probably doesn't help.
-
we did swap avatars once at another site. fun times that.
-
We also did confusingly similar Unicode character display names - ◩ and ◪ - for giggles.
-
It produces some conversational awk when people ask how your weekend went and you tell them about your "best friend".
You being to converse in awk? Is that like speaking in tongues?
-
Reminds me of what @accalia and @raceprouk did with the fox-and-hedgehog-curled-together avatar.
-
might as well be
-
but the bit that really struck me is how he thought we were exactly the same.
Polyamory is unusual so it's likely most people won't understand the finer details of it.
I think most of us have realised here, thanks to a couple of certain topics, that if a person partakes in something that the majority of people see as unusual, you can't expect the majority of people to know the subtleties of how it's different from something they do understand, and you can't really blame them for that even if they are a massive douchecanoe.For clarity - I don't think they're the same thing, and when I say it's unusual I don't mean to make it sound like a bad thing either.
-
Reminds me of what @accalia and @raceprouk did with the fox-and-hedgehog-curled-together avatar.
Yeah, lets not do that again.
-
Nah, I get where you are coming from. This dude just seemed so weird to even tell anyone that. I mean I don't even go into that much detail on my personal life with people I know get it because boundaries and decency. I could just about stop him from showing me his ladies on his cellphone. NSFW anyone. I sit next to the boss ffs. XD
-
What a douchebag.
-
This dude just seemed so weird to even tell anyone that. I mean I don't even go into that much detail on my personal life with people I know get it because boundaries and decency
I think the sort of person who would tell his wife other women were better than her for blackmail might have different boundaries and definition of decency.
-
I think the sort of person who would tell his wife other women were better than her for blackmail might have different boundaries and definition of decency.
The wrong boundaries and definition?
Perhaps for Christmas we can buy him a new one then shove it down his throat.
-
There is hope he won't make probation. Not the brightest crayon in the box.
-
The douche apparently told his wife how these other women are better at sex than her to blackmail her.
Wait, what?As in "honey, I've been cheating on you, and boy, do you suck at sex! You better step up your game or else" ?
Or else what? I'll tell people that you suck at sex?
-
Exactly like that. According to him it worked too. I'd have thought that would have netted him a swift kick in the behind.
-
Look, if you want to use that phrase with that meaning, fine. But just be aware that nobody else uses it that way and so people are going to be confused, and don't get all pissy when people ask for clarification.
Isn't that only because other people assume "real", stable relationships have to be of only 2 people, which is precisely the assumption that polyamorous relationships remove?I don't exactly know much about relationships though...
-
-
-
-
If it's with more than one person, it's not "going steady". That's not what "going steady" means.
There's like, a difference between an "open relationship" (either one or two people bang others on the side with the other's consent), and what they have going (which is kinda like a harem or something, I guess?)
I'unno, I don't care, it's 2015, in my world nobody cares who you're sleeping or hugging or announcing a relationship with and how often anymore.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Dude, you 'enjo php that's really sick,and entirely off that scale..
-
-
Isn't that only because other people assume "real", stable relationships have to be of only 2 people, which is precisely the assumption that polyamorous relationships remove?
I suspect it's like most things that people take for granted because it send obvious to them. I cannot imagine being happy in a polyamorous situation, and if other people didn't express their satisfaction with them, it wouldn't occur to me to think of them as anything but guaranteed dysfunctional.
Eating fish willingly is another thing that I'm still skeptical about.
-
...And then you have the person who originally combined a Greek prefix with a Latin root to make an English word
An un[1]pleasant[2] guy indeed.[1] Proto-Germanic "not"
[2] Old French plaisant
-
I can go steady with one person, so it all averages out. See? Math makes it work.
-
I can go steady with one person, so it all averages out. See? Math makes it work.
You'd have to go steady with 0 people to offset @royal_poet's two.
Oh, wait.
-
I meant 1 total versus 3 total. As can be seen by actually reading my post and the post it is replying to.
-
-
-
Computer science is so easy compared to real life. Why can't relationships just be a DAG? Even family trees aren't DAGs. And trees are supposed to be more restrictive!