Introduction

Online dating has experienced explosive growth within the last decade. In the US alone, there is an estimated 30.4 million users (Clements, 2019). Online dating’s’ prevalence has led to a many people finding romantic relationship, but also has led a predetermined language within this realm. As people navigate this environment, they also search for ways to succeed, to stand out. A quick search online of “how to succeed in online dating” results in numerous articles with tips, tricks and suggestion about how to stand out or be more attractive. I argue that this almost predetermined “language” within online dating serves to reinforce hegemonic gender and sex norms. As a result, this online environment does not serve as utopia for those who fall outside the hegemonic ideas of masculinity and femininity, but instead serves to further perpetuate these ideals and segregate those who fall outside these ideals.

 This is the case for many dating apps such as Tinder or OkCupid. But even a case for apps like Bumble. Bumble claims to be a dating app that “changes” the game “; “Bumble’s design is geared towards engineering social changes related to equality. One major modification to the typical dating app infrastructure aims to achieve this goal: ensuring that “the woman always makes the first move”” (Bivens, 2018). This lady ask first feature is meant to represent the companies aims to address gender inequality, creating a “feminist dating app”. However, despite of this goal Bumble still ultimately perpetuates gender stereotypes and inequality. Bivens argues that concept of Bumble design see’s gender as the solitary axis of oppression, that its infrastructure generates an ontological relationship between gender, sex, and sexuality that narrows the capacity to achieve social change (Bivens, 2018). MacLeod argues that this infrastructure is one that is shared by both Bumble and Tinder as she argues that “many of the aspects of identity construction and self-representation are now shared between user and GUI. These interfaces are designed to offer specific customization options to users in very specific ways. Where text allows for an array of gender identities, modern GUIs are designed with pre-packaged options for sexed bodies.” And that these interfaces allow “for the production of heteronormative identities act as “regulatory regimes,” forcing users to align themselves with a rigid binary system.’ (MacLeod, 2017). This paper will attempt to understand how these dating apps’ designs perpetuate gender and sexual norms, and how these online environments both differentiate itself and represents real life. Understanding the social impact of design within this environment can hopefully lead to equitable technology.

The Language of Dating Apps

Online dating represents a new medium for single people to find potential partners. Fullick argues that the internet has enabled users create more nuanced versions of representing themselves as the internet removes constraints of more traditional mediums in the past such as personal ads as space is not of a concern (Fullick, 2015). These constraints of print ads are well documented; with most ads being very brief approximately 50 words are less and often utilizing bold headings attempting to grab a potential reader’s attention, such as “Strawberry blonde”. The ad would usually contain a  quick description of themselves and what they were in search of. Below is an of a personal print ad by a man named Ed. (Anzari, 2016).

(Example of personal print classified ad (Anzari, 2016))

Looking upon this print ad, we can see that there are elements of what you would see today in someone’s online dating profile. A bio like this whether online or in print represents a representation of self and consequently our gender identity. What has changed in the shift to online dating is the ability to filter your choices of potential partners. In Ed’s classified advert he states his current marital status, religion and essentially his race. 

Most dating apps now allows you to explicitly choose categories of the potential partner you are seeking; such as “Single” “Heterosexual” “White” “Female” for example. As a result of this and the ability to have photos online; a user cannot use a “broadly simple code” in constructing their profile, and instead is more likely to be “tailoring” their profile for a specific audience, as they “sell themselves within this online environment. (Fullick, 2015).

The internet of course is full of advice in terms of how you “sell” yourself in this new environment. In the NBC article “Ask the experts: How do I make a good online dating profile?” by Vivian Manning-Schaffel; they interview Alyssa Dineen the found of Style My Profile. Style My Profile is a consulting business that helps people in constructing their online dating profiles. In the article she provides some advice people can take to make their profiles “stand out”. She suggests being super specific about what you are and what you are into; “A lot of the bios say the same thing, like ‘I like new restaurants’ and ‘I like wine’ and ‘I like yoga,’ so you want to find something more unique and interesting, like ‘I went on a yoga retreat in India this spring,’” as well she provides advice for photos  “I usually suggest at least five if not more, depending on the app,” says Dineen. “Start with one headshot where you look at the camera, smiling so people can see your full face. Add another shot where you're doing something active or are engaged in a hobby — something that shows what you're interested in and that you’re active. Include another picture of you within a social situation, whether it's just dinner with a friend or maybe you're at wedding and you’re with a couple of people — no large group shots. And make sure you have at least one photo where you can see head-to-toe.” (Manning-Schaffel, 2019). 

This advice can be found echoed across many posts online; and provides the “language” that users reside with when using dating apps. This representation of identity can be tied in large parts to the consumer culture we live in, “identities the late modern potential for consumers to buy a life style, by making consumer decisions about how to behave, what to wear and what to eat” (Coupland, 2016) Gender and our identity in this sense is tied to our “lifestyle choices”. This can be reflected in the interest’s different genders are “supposed to have”. A typical heterosexual male for example might like cars, outdoors, sports. While a heterosexual female might like art, baking, traveling. Within the realm of online dating you must be like everyone else; have common enough interests that you seem “normal” yet while being unlike everybody else; you still have to stand out amongst the sea of people who also like “hiking”. If you fall outside of those predetermined acceptable interests or personality type, you are not rewarded for being different but instead punished by not fitting into those norms, as on the surface a potential partner might see you as deviant.

Fullick sums the duality of consumer culture and dating by saying this “A dating profile also styles it creator as a “product”, while showing what kind of “product” she/he is seeking(or what kind of subject/objects/he desires) in return. Thus, while users are marketing themselves, a part of this promotionalism involves signaling what one chooses to consume, which in terms makes one worth consuming. In this kind of environment, it would seem unsurprising to find people objectifying potential partners as accessories, items to match a chosen lifestyle." (Fullick, 2013).

Design of Dating Apps

Equally important to the “language” is the framework in which dating apps constrain and reflect the language. While there is no doubt that the “language” in which online dating uses is created by our societal values, the design of the dating apps themselves serve to perpetuate the ideals found in said language. What I mean by this is that the inherent design of most dating apps ultimately serves to further reproduce the hegemonic ideals of gender and sex, all the while preventing the expression of gender and sex outside of these hegemonic ideals.

MacLeod argues similarly that gender within dating apps are constructed both implicitly and explicitly; while some apps allow the users to share or conceal their gender with some measure of choice, many require explicit disclosure and display of their gender and do not provide the full range of possible identities of the users (MacLeod, 2018). This contrasts with the early days of the internet where online spaces were seen as a possible utopia, where users could be unconstrained by their gender, sexuality and race. Cyberfeminism sees the separation of gender and sexuality from each other; however, in most modern user interfaces we see that the users are limited to the gender binary of male and female. This is an example of the implicit gender building technology such as dating apps do, offering the option of “gender” but in actuality are given the binary option of male and female.

To examine dating apps role in all of this will be examining two of the most prevalent dating apps currently; Tinder and Bumble. Tinder first launched in 2012 and has audience size of over 7.68 million. Bumble was launched shortly after in 2014, and trails 2nd behind Tinder with an audience size of 5.02 million (Clements, 2019). Both have many similarities; using swipe-based system, in which potential partners are presented in a sort of card format. You swipe left to reject, or right to “like” them anonymously. In both apps when both users must swipe left to form a “match” and for contacting each other to be possible. This basic similarity is not surprising as Bumble was formed by a former co-founder of tinder after she left the company. Bumble differs from Tinder in two main aspects; in the case of a male – female match, only the female can initiate the messaging and secondly the option for platonic same-gender matches to make friends (in this case, either users can initiate). These differences were created in attempt to create a “feminist” dating app, where the woman is able to make the first move. However, much literature has shown Bumble’s intention in creating a feminist dating app has not change the landscape of online dating. In MacLeod’s paper in examining literature about Bumble notes that it is easy to use Bumble and unaware of any feminist intention and that beyond the initial contact of “the woman making the first move” the “norm” of the male asking out the female returned (MacLeod, 2018). This ultimately means that at its core perhaps Bumble is not that different from Tinder.

Examining the affordances and limitations of the two’s designs we can further understand why both Tinder and Bumble ends up perpetuating gender norms. With Tinder, the usage of the apps requires linking it to your Facebook, in which it will automatically use your Facebook profile image as your Tinder profile picture. While you can change it and add additional photos, it is important to note for both Tinder and Bumble the profile picture serves as the primary point of engagement. While in both apps you can add text for your bio, many do not, and the swipe design does not lend itself for users to read someone’s bio as you must click/tap in order to access their profile. As Gaby David notes; “The almost exclusively image-based interactions are crucial for the emergence of the swipe logic, providing the assessing glance a surface, instead of lines of profile information.” (David, 2016) This system encourages us to predicate our judgment of someone on the face value of their profile pictures. This ties back into my argument about the language in the online dating environment; were you must simultaneously be like everyone else, yet while being unlike everybody else. In this case is the pressure to meet a generally accepted beauty standard. This at a glance assessment is worsened by the ease of the swipe. The means to quick be able to connect with others also means that decision gesture is quick and sometimes because of involuntary reflexes means users swipe left or right on people they do not mean to.

The other issue of this at a glance assessment is the algorithms involved in these dating apps. These algorithms are supposedly built to help us find our next significant other. However, this isn’t always the case. In Finkel’s paper “Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science” he argues that there is “no compelling evidence supports matching sites’ claims that mathematical algorithms work—that they foster romantic outcomes that are superior to those fostered by other means of pairing partners” (Finkel, 2012). He further argues that the environment of online dating is based of the idea that the information we obtain from someone’s online profile is a good way to measure if someone would make a good potential partner. Conversely the limited information we are given about the person often causes us to overvalue that information, causing people to go on dates with people they are not compatible with (Finkel, 2012).

Conclusion

The inherent purpose of a dating app is for people to meet other and develop relationships. However, as we explored; dating apps such as Tinder and Bumble problematic technology. These apps with their inherent design and accompanying affordance and limitations combined with the language of the landscape equates to an online environment that does not serve as utopia for those who fall outside the hegemonic ideas of gender and sexuality, but instead serves to further perpetuate these ideals and segregate those who fall outside these ideals. The need for users to present themselves in certain manner and form contradictorily impacts their potential to find a true partner, as finding someone with similar interest is not the same as compatibility. Similarly,the ease of swiping provided by these apps means that users are not put into a situation to meaningfully engage with the people presented to them on these dating apps. This is not to discount the benefits of online dating, or the possible opportunities. Online dating provides a wealth of possible freedoms for those who may be otherwise constraint by societal, familial or other pressures. As ultimately what online dating provides is a opportunity to connect with others; it is important look for ways to make these online connections meaningful and inclusive for everyone, regardless of their gender or sexuality. Afterall doesn’t everyone deserve a shot at love?

Bibliography

Aziz Anzari, “Online Dating”, Modern Romance, Penguin Books, 2016

Bivens, Rena, & Hoque, Anna Shah. (2018). Programming Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: Infrastructural Failures in ‘Feminist’ Dating App Bumble. Canadian Journal of Communication, 43(3). https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2019v44n3a3375

Clement, J. (2020, July 16). U.S. dating apps by audience size 2019. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/826778/most-popular-dating-apps-by-audience-size-usa/

Clement. (2020, March 18). Digital market OUTLOOK: U.S. online dating users 2024. Retrieved August 8, 2020, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/417654/us-online-dating-user-numbers/

David, Gaby, & Cambre, Carolina. (2016). Screened Intimacies: Tinder and the Swipe Logic. Social Media + Society, 2(2), 205630511664197. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116641976

Eli J. Finkel, Paul W. Eastwick, Benjamin R. Karney, Harry T. Reis, & Susan Sprecher. (2012).  Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522

 Fullick, M. (2013). “Gendering” the Self in Online Dating Discourse. Canadian Journal of Communication, 38(4), 545. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2013v38n4a2647

MacLeod, Caitlin, & McArthur, Victoria. (2018). The construction of gender in dating apps: an interface analysis of Tinder and Bumble. Feminist Media Studies, 19(6), 822–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1494618

Manning-Schaffel, V. (2019, October 16). Ask the experts: How do i make a good online dating profile? Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/ask-experts-how-do-i-make-good-online-dating-profile-ncna1066546

O'Connor, C. (2017, November 17). Billion-Dollar BUMBLE: How Whitney Wolfe Herd BUILT America's FASTEST-GROWING dating app. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2017/11/14/billion-dollar-bumble-how-whitney-wolfe-herd-built-americas-fastest-growing-dating-app/#2deec5ca248b

Stampler, L. (2014, February 06). Tinder's founders on dating and how they created their addictive app. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://time.com/4837/tinder-meet-the-guys-who-turned-dating-into-an-addiction/