Advertisement

Mobile Romance: Tinder and the Navigation of Masculinity

  • Chris Haywood
Chapter

Abstract

Whilst online dating has witnessed a dramatic rise in popularity as a form of dating, the incredibly fast rise of mobile applications points to a new method of relationship initiation. This chapter explores the accounts of 15 heterosexual young men aged 18–24. Using Tinder as a case study, this chapter argues that the affordances of the app create the possibilities of how mobile romance is experienced. The chapter begins by documenting these affordances that include Spatial Blurring , the Democratization of dating, Multimodal dating and Accelerated Elongated dating. The chapter then explores the interplay between these affordances and masculinity, first by highlighting how patriarchal norms become articulated through the marketization and gamification of dating and second, by exploring young men’s management of dating failure through self-sabotage and effortless achievement, personal branding and Facebook stalking. The chapter concludes by arguing that Tinder and mobile dating apps more broadly are relatively new practices and that young men and women will continue to learn how to use them and continue to develop their impact on gender relations.

Bibliography

  1. Abad, A. (2015). “I’5683’you:” Dating and Relationships in the Technology Age. Bergen Scholarly Journal, 2, 9–18.Google Scholar
  2. Ahuvia, A. C., & Adelman, M. B. (1993). Market Metaphors for Meeting Mates. Research in Consumer Behavior, 6, 55–83.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. Oxford: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Ames, M., & Burcon, S. (2016). Reading Between the Lines: The Lessons Adolescent Girls Learn Through Popular Young Adult Literature. In M. Ames & S. Burcon (Eds.), How Pop Culture Shapes the Stages of a Woman’s Life (pp. 32–57). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arbel, T. (2016, February 11). Young Adults Swipe Right on Tinder, but Is It Just a Game? Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-young-adults-swipe-right-on-tinder-but-is-it-just-a-game-2016–2?IR=T.
  6. Archer, L., & Yamashita, H. (2003). Theorising Inner-City Masculinities: ‘Race’, Class, Gender and Education. Gender and Education, 15(2), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayre, J. (2014). The Dating Detectives: A Study of User Behaviour Regarding. MA Dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
  8. Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  10. Bergstrom, M. (2016). Who Uses Online Dating Sites in France? Who Finds Their Partner This Way? Population & Societies, 530, 1–4.Google Scholar
  11. Bordo, S. (2000). The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  12. Briggs, A., & Burke, P. (2009). A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  13. Bulman, M. (2016, January 12). Tinder Makes Users Less Likely to Commit to Relationships, Experts Warn. The Independent, Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/tinder-makes-users-less-likely-to-commit-to-relationships-experts-warn-a6807731.html.
  14. Cass, N., Shove, E., & Urry, J. (2003). Changing Infrastructures, Measuring Socio-Spatial Inclusion/Exclusion: Final Report to the Department for Transport. Retrieved from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/64788.
  15. Chalfen, R. (2002). Snapshots “r” Us: The Evidentiary Problematic of Home Media. Visual Studies, 17, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, L. (2015). World Attending in Interaction: Multitasking, Spatializing, Narrativizing with Mobile Devices and Tinder. Discourse, Context & Media, 9, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Connolly, J., Furman, W., & Konarski, R. (2000). The Role of Peers in the Emergence of Heterosexual Romantic Relationships in Adolescence. Child Development, 71(5), 1395–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dedge, S. Guardia (2014, February 24). Tinder: The ‘Painfully Honest’ Dating App with Wider Social Ambitions. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/24/tinder-dating-app-social-networks.
  19. Dedge, S. (2015, November 5). Tinder Is for more than Just Casual Sex, Says CEO Sean Rad. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/05/tinder-app-users-casual-sex-long-term-relationships.
  20. Fetveit, A. (1999). Reality TV in the Digital Era: A Paradox in Visual Culture? Media, Culture & Society, 21(6), 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The Role of Facebook in Romantic Relationship Development: An Exploration of Knapp’s Relational Stage Model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(6), 771–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frith, J. (2013). Turning Life into a Game: Foursquare, Gamification, and Personal Mobility. Mobile Media & Communication, 1, 248262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffin, A. (2015, May 7). A Third of Tinder Users Are Married, Research Reveals. Belfast Telegraph Online. Retrieved from http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/sex-and-love/a-third-of-tinder-users-are-married-research-reveals-31203328.html.
  24. Haslam, D. (2015). Life After Dark: A History of British Nightclubs & Music Venues. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  25. Hearn, A. (2008). Meat, Mask, Burden: Probing the Contours of the Branded Self. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2), 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hendriks, E. C. (2012). Ascetic Hedonism: Self and Sexual Conquest in the Seduction Community. Cultural Analysis, 11, 1–16.Google Scholar
  27. Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thomson, R. (1994). Desire, Risk and Control: The Body as a Site of Contestation. In L. Doyal, J. Naidoo, & T. Wilton (Eds.), AIDS: Setting a Feminist Agenda (pp. 61–79). Southport: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  28. Illouz, E. (2013). Why Love Hurts: A Sociological Explanation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Jackson, C. (2003). Motives for ‘Laddishness’ at School: Fear of Failure and Fear of the ‘Feminine’. British Educational Research Journal, 29(4), 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, C., & Dempster, S. (2009). ‘I Sat Back on My Computer … with a Bottle of Whisky Next to Me’: Constructing ‘Cool’ Masculinity Through ‘Effortless’ Achievement in Secondary and Higher Education. Journal of Gender Studies, 18(4), 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jefferson, T. (1994). Theorising Masculine Subjectivity. In T. Newburn & E. A. Stanko (Eds.), Just Boys Doing Business?: Men, Masculinities and Crime (pp. 10–31). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Joinson, A. N. (1998). Causes and Implications of Disinhibited Behavior on the Internet. In J. Gachkenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications (pp. 43–60). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Karioris, F. G. (2016). Between Class and Friendship: Homosociality in an All-Male Residence Hall in the US. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Submitted to Central European University.Google Scholar
  34. Kibby, M., & Costello, B. (2004). Displaying the Phallus: Masculinity and the Performance of Sexuality on the Internet. In P. F. Murphy (Ed.), Feminism and Masculinities (pp. 214–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Knight, A. (2013). Reclaiming Experience: The Aesthetic and Multimodal Composition. Computers and Composition, 30(2), 146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koch, S., Mueller, B., Kruse, L., & Zumbach, J. (2005). Constructing Gender in Chat Groups. Sex Roles, 53(1–2), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Korobov, N. (2011). Young Men’s Vulnerability in Relation to Women’s Resistance to Emphasized Femininity. Men and Masculinities, 14(1), 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kray, T. R. (2018). By Means of Seduction: Pickup-Artists and the Cultural History of Erotic Persuasion. NORMA, 13(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Light, B. (2013). Networked Masculinities and Social Networking Sites: A Call for the Analysis of Men and Contemporary Digital Media. Masculinities & Social Change, 2(3), 245–265.Google Scholar
  40. Marwick, A. E. (2012). The public domain: Social surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance & Society, 9(4), 378–393.Google Scholar
  41. Meenagh, J. (2015). Flirting, Dating, and Breaking up Within New Media Environments. Sex Education, 15(5), 458–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller, B. (2015). “Dude, Where’s Your Face?” Self-Presentation, Self-Description, and Partner Preferences on a Social Networking Application for Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Content Analysis. Sexuality & Culture, 19(4), 637–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ng, K. (2016, January 11). Tinder and Grindr: Warning Over Dating App Risks as Crimes Like ‘Sextortion’ and Rape Increases; Reports of Crimes Mentioning Either App Have Increased Sevenfold in Two Years. Independent.co.uk. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/warning-over-dating-app-dangers-as-crimes-like-sextortion-and-rape-increases-mentions-of-tinder-and-a6805601.html.
  44. Pascoe, C. J. (2011). Resource and Risk: Youth Sexuality and New Media Use. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 8(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Patterson, M., & Elliott, R. (2002). Negotiating Masculinities: Advertising and the Inversion of the Male Gaze. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 5(3), 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peters, T. (1997). The Brand Called You. Fast Company, 10(10), 83–90.Google Scholar
  47. Peters, D. (2015, July 17). Whatever Happened to Romance? Australia Is the Top Tinder-Using Country in the World with One in Six Signing Up for a Hook-Up. MailOnline. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3164659/Whatever-happened-romance-Australia-Tinder-using-country-WORLD-15-cent-population-using-dating-app.html.
  48. Quinn, B. A. (2002). Sexual Harassment and Masculinity: The Power and Meaning of “Girl Watching”. Gender & Society, 16(3), 386–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Quiroz, P. A. (2013). From Finding the Perfect Love Online to Satellite Dating and ‘Loving-the-One-You’re Near’. A Look at Grindr, Skout, Plenty of Fish, Meet Moi, Zoosk and Assisted Serendipity. Humanity & Society, 37(2), 181–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ramsey, L. R., & Hoyt, T. (2015). The Object of Desire: How Being Objectified Creates Sexual Pressure for Women in Heterosexual Relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sales, N. J. (2015, September). Tinder and the Dawn of the Dating Apocalypse. Vanity Fair. Retrieved from https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/tinder-hook-up-culture-end-of-dating.
  52. Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwarz, O. (2010). On Friendship, Boobs and the Logic of the Catalogue: Online Self-portraits as a Means for the Exchange of Capital. Convergence, 16(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strano, M. M. (2008). User Descriptions and Interpretations of Self-Presentation through Facebook Profile Images. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2(2), article 1.Google Scholar
  55. Suler, J. (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tannen, R. S. (2014). The Female Trickster: The Mask that Reveals, Post-Jungian and Postmodern Psychological Perspectives on Women in Contemporary Culture. East Sussex: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Urry, J. (2002). Mobility and Proximity. Sociology, 36, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van der Land, S., & Muntinga, D. G. (2014). To Shave or Not to Shave? In F. F. H. Nah (Ed.), International Conference on HCI in Business (pp. 257–265). London: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Vilnai-Yavetz, I., & Tifferet, S. (2015). A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words: Segmenting Consumers by Facebook Profile Images. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 32, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wee, L., & Brooks, A. (2010). Personal Branding and the Commodification of Reflexivity. Cultural Sociology, 4, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weitzer, R., & Kubrin, C. E. (2009). Misogyny in Rap Music: A Content Analysis of Prevalence and Meanings. Men and Masculinities, 12(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wernick, A. (1991). Promotional Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity Construction on Facebook: Digital Empowerment in Anchored Relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816–1836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Haywood
    • 1
  1. 1.Media, Culture and HeritageNewcastle UniversityNewcastle-upon-TyneUK

Personalised recommendations