Abstract
This study critically reflects on recent conceptualisations of online dating apps for men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) as a telling example of the hybridisation of virtual and physical spaces. Online dating apps such as Grindr, Tinder, and PlanetRomeo, and websites such as Bullchat, show how physical and digital environments overlap. The authors of this chapter, however, show that while both digital and physical encounters are part of the online dating practice, they each occupy a distinct position in the communication between the men who use these apps for sexual and/or more social meet-ups. Are online dating apps a perfect example of hybridisation of spaces, or a perfect opportunity to study this hybridisation?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ahmed, S. (2000). Strange encounters: Embodied others in post-coloniality. London: Routledge.
Alexander, J. (2002). Introduction to the special issue: Queer webs: Representations of LGBT people and communities on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 7(2–3), 77–84.
Anderson, B. (2009). Affective atmospheres. Emotions, Space, and Society, 2(2), 77–81.
Blackwell, C., Birnholtz, J., & Abbott, C. (2015). Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society, 17(7), 1117–1136.
Bonner-Thompson, C. (2017). ‘The meat market’: Production and regulation of masculinities on the Grindr grid in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. Gender, Place, and Culture, 24(11), 1611–1625.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brickell, C. (2010). Sex, space and scripts: Negotiating homoeroticism in history. Social and Cultural Geography, 11(6), 597–613.
Brown, G., Maycock, B., & Burns, S. (2005). Your picture is your bait: Use and meaning of cyberspace among gay men. The Journal of Sex Research, 42(1), 63–73.
Casey, M. E. (2007). The queer unwanted and their undesirable ‘Otherness’. In K. Browne, J. Lim, & G. Brown (Eds.), Geographies of sexualities: Theory, practice, and politics (pp. 125–136). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Cockayne, D., Leszczynski, A., & Zook, M. (2017). #HotForBots: Sex, the non-human and digitally mediated spaces of intimate encounter. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 35(6), 1115–1133.
Cohen, J. E. (2007). Cyberspace as/and space. Columbia Law Review, 107, 210–256.
Duff, C. (2009). On the role of affect and practice in the production of place. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(5), 881–895.
Gudelunas, D. (2012). There’s an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality & Culture, 16(4), 347–365.
Jordan, B. (2009). Introduction: Blurring boundaries: The real and the virtual in hybrid spaces. Human Organization, 68(2), 181–193.
Kitchin, R. (1998). Towards geographies of cyberspace. Progress in Human Geography, 22(3), 385–406.
Licoppe, C., Rivière, C. A., & Morel, J. (2016). Grindr, casual hook-ups as interactional achievements. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2540–2558.
Miles, S. (2017). Sex in the digital city: Location-based dating apps and queer urban life. Gender, Place, and Culture, 24(11), 1591–1610.
Nash, C. J., & Gorman-Murray, A. (2014). LGBT neighbourhoods and ‘New Mobilities’: Towards understanding transformations in sexual and gendered urban landscapes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(3), 756–772.
Raj, S. (2011). Grindring bodies: Racial and affective economies of online queer desire. Critical Race and Whiteness Studies, 7(2), 1–12.
Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22(1), 53–60.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97–120.
Stempfhuber, M., & Liegl, M. (2016). Intimacy mobilized: Hook-up practices in the location-based social network Grindr. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 41(1), 51–70.
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37(3), 335–351.
van Doorn, N. (2011). Digital spaces, material traces: How matter comes to matter in online performances of gender, sexuality and embodiment. Media Culture Society, 33(4), 531–547.
van Lisdonk, J., Maliepaard, E., Oostrik, S., & Vermey, K. (2017). Weinig om het lijf? Ervaringen met online dating van jonge mannen die seks hebben met mannen. Utrecht, Netherlands: Rutgers.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4), 496–502.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maliepaard, E., van Lisdonk, J. (2019). Online Dating Practice as a Perfect Example of Interwoven Worlds? Analysis of Communication in Digital and Physical Encounters. In: Nash, C.J., Gorman-Murray, A. (eds) The Geographies of Digital Sexuality. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6876-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6876-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6875-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6876-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)