Young Bisexual Women's Experiences of Using Tinder

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320912155

'I do like girls, I promise': Young bisexual women's experiences of using Tinder

Article · November 2017

CITATIONS READS 0 212

2 authors:

Tara Pond Panteá Farvid Auckland University of Technology Auckland University of Technology

1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 172 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bisexual Women & Tinder View project

Doctoral thesis: bisexual, pansexual and queer women's intimate relationships View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tara Pond on 07 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Special Section ‘I do like girls, I promise’: Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder Tara Pond & Panteá Farvid

Mobile phone dating applications (dating apps) are a pervasive means of fnding intimate partners, with Tinder as the most popular interface globally. Although this app is largely marketed towards heterosexuals, members of the queer community also utilise it. Since its inception, the internet has been very useful for non-heterosexuals seeking contact with others from their community, due to the safety and anonymity it affords them. When it comes to the internet and intimacy-seeking within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer community, bisexual women have received very limited scholarly attention. Tinder, too, has not yet received a great deal of psychological examination. To address these omissions, in this paper we examine the experiences of eight bisexual women who were interviewed in-depth about their Tinder use in New Zealand. The interview data were thematically analysed and three themes identifed: Tinder as not (queer) woman friendly; the (un)safety of Tinder; and virtual (un)reality. We discuss these themes and conclude that within this domain of technologically mediated intimacies, an intersection of heteronormative, biphobic, and gendered power relations profoundly shape bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder. Keywords: Technology; mediated intimacies; bisexuality; intersectionality; mobile dating; dating apps.

Introduction INCE ITS LAUNCH IN 2012, Tinder gap by examining young bisexual women’s has become the most popular dating experiences of using Tinder in New Zealand. Sapplication (dating app) globally (Smith, 2016). Tinder has over 50 million How Tinder works users worldwide, 10 million active daily Tinder is downloaded to smartphones at no users, makes 26 million matches per day, cost (although a paid version with increased and is used across 196 countries (Smith, functionality is also available), and profles 2016). Most of the users are digital natives can be set up within minutes by linking to a or digitally savvy, with 85 per cent of them pre-existing Facebook account. The app then now under the age of 35 years (Gatter & automatically retrieves the personal informa- Hodkinson, 2016), up from 75 per cent one tion of a user (such as name, age, occupa- year before (Lella, 2015). In a very short tion and friends). Users can choose up to six time, Tinder has become frmly rooted in photos to display on their profle and have popular culture, appearing on television the option of writing a brief (500-character shows, music videos, books, and many media maximum) biography (bio) about them- articles. Although there has been a plethora selves. When browsing the main interface, of media coverage about the popularity and individual users are presented with others’ features of Tinder (e.g. Roof, 2016), the risks profles which are displayed like a virtual deck associated with its use (e.g. Hume, 2015), of cards for assessment. If a user decides they and debates about its place within society are not interested in the person suggested (e.g. Sales, 2015), we know very little about by Tinder, they ‘swipe left’ to discard this the frst-hand experiences of Tinder users. profle. Alternatively, if a user decides they Within this paper, we seek to address this are interested, they ‘swipe right’ to accept.

6 Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder

Through this process, Tinder has introduced to the stereotypes surrounding bisexuality. the ‘double opt-in’ feature to mobile dating, These misconceptions include: bisexual where users must both ‘swipe right’ on each people pass as straight, are hypersexual, other to ‘unlock’ the ability to chat within are less likely to value commitment, and the interface (Roof, 2016). During subse- are denying their authentic gay or lesbian quent conversations, users can share personal sexuality (Israel & Mohr, 2004). Although contact details, other social networking bisexual people have experiences unique profles and if all goes smoothly, ultimately from lesbians and gay men, they are often set up a face-to-face meeting or date. confated with, and studied alongside, other marginalised sexualities (Barker et al., The internet and sexually marginalised 2012). Such amalgamation can contribute to identities ‘bi-erasure’ where the diversity of individual The internet has been widely used by people identities within the LGBTQ+ community who do not identify as heterosexual since the are not recognised (Barker et al., 2012). beginning of the World Wide Web (Clarke To date, there have been no studies of et al. 2010), as it allows socially marginalised Internet-use, online dating, or mobile dating people to connect without offine barriers with women who identify as bisexual. such as geography, disability and the possibility of persecution (Birnholtz et al., 2014; Mobile dating research Clarke et al., 2010). The online world can Mobile dating is a relatively new addition offer a safer space for queer1 people to fnd a to the feld of online dating (Finkel et al., community that helps them ‘come to terms’ 2016) and ‘technologically mediated inti- with their identity and aid in their ‘coming macies’ (Farvid & Aisher, 2016). The lack of out’ (McKie, Lachowsky & Milhausen, 2015). research into mobile dating is particularly Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB2) people pronounced when it comes to LGB women’s are more likely to meet intimate partners use of dating apps. Most dating app research through the internet than heterosexual on LGB users has been limited to examining people, and much more likely to meet online Grindr, an app designed for men who have than in any other situation (Birnholtz et sex with men (MSM) (e.g. Birnholtz et al., al., 2014). While research has indicated that 2014). Most of this research has focused on mobile dating is prevalent among queer men the risks of HIV/STI transmission (e.g. Rice (e.g. Davis et al., 2016), research has not et al., 2012) and users’ experiences (e.g. examined whether the same can be said for Corriero & Tong, 2016). Research on Grindr queer women. Further, research has noted indicates that mobile dating has fundamen- that the internet may be more important for tally shifted gay sociability, moving cruising bisexual people than lesbians and gay men out of bars and public areas, into the private because of bi-erasure and the connectivity and domestic sphere (Race, 2015). Motiva- internet offers (e.g. to be ‘out’ and meet tions for use are much more complex than others) (Lever et al., 2008). popular media’s portrayal of Grindr as only Bisexual people face a unique ‘double for casual sex (Van De Wiele & Tong, 2014). discrimination’, because they are often Instead, men tend to utilise the app for perceived negatively by both heterosexuals multiple reasons: such as socialising and and those from the queer community, due entertainment, as well as seeking relation-

1 Queer’ is a complex term with many meanings but in this paper we are using the word queer as a broad umbrella term for non-heterosexual people. However, some participants also used it as its own sexual identity category to describe themselves. 2 While the rainbow community has expanded its name to LGBTQIA+ to be inclusive of sexual/gender diversity, in this paper we use either ‘queer’ or ‘LGB’ as shorthand because we are focussing only on relevant sexual identities rather than the entire LGBTQIA+ community.

Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 7 Tara Pond & Panteá Farvid ships and sex (Van De Wiele & Tong, 2014). Flores, 2016). On Tinder Nightmares women In comparison to the slow uptake of submit screenshots of their troubling, abusive desktop-based online dating (which was or offensive interactions with men on Tinder introduced in the mid-1990s), mobile dating to ‘name and shame’ them (Hess & Flores, quickly soared in popularity (Bilton, 2014). 2016). Consistent with media discussions Tinder was swiftly embraced by many across of Tinder (e.g. Dewey, 2014; Lydon, 2015), the demographic spectrum, particularly scholarly literature has noted that some men by a younger demographic (Smith, 2016). objectify women on Tinder, sending them Scholarly work on the app is only recently sexually offensive messages or commenting emerging and has largely examined on their appearance (Hess & Flores, 2016). motivations for using Tinder (Gatter & Farvid and Aisher’s (2016) examination Hodkinson, 2016; Sevi, Aral & Eskenazi, of young heterosexual women’s use of 2017; Sumter, Vandenbosch & Ligtenberg, Tinder also noted how heteronormative and 2017; Timmermans & De Caluwé, 2017a, gendered discourses shaped the women’s 2017b) and self-representation or impression experiences. Traditional norms such as men management (Mason, 2016; Richey, 2016; as sexual and romantic initiators and women Ward, 2016a, 2016b). Others have looked as ‘passive and responsive’ to such advances at relationship initiation (LeFebvre, 2017), was evident. However, Farvid and Aisher ‘trolling’ (March et al., 2017), harassment (2016) also identifed the ways in which the (Richey, 2016), privacy (Lutz & Ranzini, women challenged and re-worked these 2017), body image (Strubel & Petrie, 2017), norms to use Tinder as a multipurpose tool for and intimacy (David & Cambre, 2016; Hobbs, fun, entertainment, to ease boredom and to Owen & Gerber, 2016). explore their sexuality. Nevertheless, Tinder Tinder is reported to be a multipurpose was also seen as a domain fraught with danger tool used for fun, an ego-boost, getting over and risks, requiring their hypervigilance. a breakup, easing boredom, passing time, Building on the literature described as well as seeking casual sex, friendships, above, and situated within a critical realist dates, or romantic and committed epistemology, this paper presents research relationships (e.g. Carpenter & McEwan, on young bisexual women’s use of Tinder 2016; Cohen, 2015; Farvid & Aisher, 2016; in New Zealand from an exploratory Hobbs et al., 2016; Timmermans & De qualitative perspective. Critical realism Caluwé, 2017b; Ward, 2016b). Recently asserts that while an objective reality may developed and validated, the Tinder Motives exist, our understanding of it, and our Scale has confrmed these uses of Tinder everyday experiences, are shaped by certain and added extra attributes: to gain social mechanisms that generate particular approval; as a result of peer pressure; to gain psychologies or events (Al-Amoudi & sexual experience; to meet people while Willmott, 2011; Houston, 2001). These travelling; to achieve a sense of belonging; generative mechanisms include social, for socialising; and out of curiosity cultural, or economic structures, which can (Timmermans & De Caluwé, 2017b). be distinguished by their effects (Willig, Some gendered or sexist aspects of Tinder 1999). In the context of a social world, critical have also been examined, for example, realism maintains that people’s actions are women on Tinder feel more pressure than infuenced by psychological mechanisms men to present an ideal and ‘beautifed’ as well as wider social structures (Bhaskar, version of themselves (Ranzini, Lutz & 1998; Houston, 2001); however, people are Gouderjaan, 2016). Displays of misogyny by not at the mercy of these mechanisms but some Tinder users has also been discussed rather can actively transform and in turn be through the examination of the popular transformed by them (Houston, 2001). Instagram account Tinder Nightmares (Hess & The analysis also overlays a critical

8 Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder feminist (See Farvid, 2014; Farvid & in interviews about their Tinder use. While Braun, 2013) and intersectional lens (see the study was targeted at women who identi- Fotopoulou, 2012) to make sense of the fed as bisexual, many of the women iden- women’s Tinder use. Critical feminism tifed with multiple sexual identities (see draws on postmodern theories (such as Table 1). The participants were aged 20–23 poststructuralism), and has a fundamental (M=21.6), most identifed as Pākehā,3 with interested in promoting gender equality, varying levels of time spent on Tinder. Ethics making visible the hidden operations of approval was gained from the Auckland (gendered) power relations, as well as University of Technology Ethics Committee, fostering social and political change (Gavey, before data collection commenced. 1989). Furthermore, critical feminism shaped the methodological progression Data collection of the project, including an emphasis on The women were interviewed about their analysing language and representation, experiences of using Tinder in Auckland, the inclusion of diverse women’s voices New Zealand during the latter part of 2016. and a commitment to ethical and All interviews were conducted in an offce egalitarian research (see Farvid, 2011). at Auckland University of Technology, by An intersectional approach allows a multi- the frst author (a bisexual Pākehā woman dimensional analysis to take place, where of a similar age to the participants). The all the social categories the participants data were collected using semi-structured belong to is seen as contributing to their interviews and ranged from 30 to 90 minutes experience. Of interest for this paper is an in length. The questions asked about the analysis of the intersecting axes of gender women’s sexuality, experiences of dating, (women), sexuality (female sexuality) and using Tinder and other mobile dating apps, sexual identity (bisexuality). and using online dating sites. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed Method verbatim, totalling 216 pages of data). Pseu- Participants and recruitment donyms were provided for the participants Eight bisexual women were recruited via and all identifying information was changed advertising and word of mouth to take part or removed for publication.

Table 1. Demographic details of participants.

Pseudonym Age Ethnicity Time on Tinder Sexual Identity Sharn 20 Māori 3 years Bisexual Amy 21 Pākehā 2 years Bisexual/Queer Nika 21 Filipino 3 months Bisexual Star 21 Pākehā 8 months Bisexual/Panromantic Asexual Quinn 22 Pākehā 7 months Bisexual/Pansexual Naomi 22 English 2 years Bisexual/Polyamorous Ivy 23 Pākehā 6 months Bisexual/Polysexual/Queer Tori 23 Pākehā 2 years Bisexual

3 Indicates non-Māori New Zealanders of European decent.

Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 9 Tara Pond & Panteá Farvid

Data analysis Overall, three main themes were identifed Situated within critical realism, and guided through the analysis: Tinder as not (queer) by critical feminism and intersectionality (as woman friendly; The (un)safety of Tinder; and noted above), a semantic inductive thematic virtual (un)reality. These are discussed below. analysis (TA) was used to identify, analyse, and report themes across the full dataset (Braun Tinder as not (queer) woman friendly & Clarke, 2006). An inductive approach As bisexual women who were attracted to means that the themes aligned strongly to men as well as people of other genders, many the data without any attempt to ft them into participants noted that they preferred dating a pre-existing coding framework (Braun & people who were not heterosexual. Hence, Clarke, 2006). The recursive process of TA many of the interactions they described, followed six phases of analysis: familiarisa- and the issues raised below, related to their tion with the data, generating initial codes, search for other queer women on Tinder. searching for themes, reviewing themes, The majority of the women talked about defning and naming themes, and producing not having a digital space to call their own the report. The process of coding and anal- as bisexual women looking for other queer ysis was conducted by the frst author, in full women. This was initially expressed through consultation with the second author. When frustration that a Grindr-like application did presenting data below, basic punctuation is not exist for them: used, short and long pauses are indicated, as well as laughter. The insertion of […] Ivy: You know how there is Grindr for denoted the removal of unrelated data. guys like there really needs to be something like that just for lesbians. Results and discussion The women’s experiences of using Tinder Although apps like Her are available and were complex, fraught and contradictory. designed specifcally for women who seek Despite media depictions of Tinder as a women, many did not talk about this app, and ‘hook up’ app (e.g. Sales, 2015), almost all others noted that the range of users on such participants reported using Tinder with the apps were too limited in New Zealand. The intention of fnding dates which could lead women adopted Tinder due to the perceived to a romantic relationship (see also Hobbs higher number of users, as well as the access et al., 2016). Two participants did not meet to both men and women on the same inter- anyone in person, and those who went on face. However, Tinder was often deemed as dates or engaged in casual sex did so with not queer friendly due to its marketing style, both men and women. Generally, partici- design features, and the behaviour of other pants dated more men than women, which users on the app. Many noted they did not was not because of their sexual or romantic initially realise that Tinder was an app that preferences, but due to the disproportionate queer people could even use: ratio of men-seeking-women to women- seeking-women on Tinder: Int: Um how did you hear about Tinder?

Sharn: I’d say just fnding girls in general Star: To be frank, everyone knows about on Tinder is just really, really hard […] Tinder (laughs) […] I didn’t really ah there’s just not as many girls on there, realise that you could um use it for other I mean I could go on and there would than meeting – other than heterosexual be multiple guys, there’d be hundreds relationships of guys on there but girls, there’s hardly any. I have to keep swiping and swiping Int: Um why do you think it was only and I’ll run out. heterosexual?

10 Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder

Star: That’s all I’ve ever heard about, I’ve distressing or like disgusting for me or never heard of anyone using to um, like whatever, but I know that I have female girls fnding other girls or guys fnding friends especially like my friends who other guys. are gay who just really don’t want to see [men] y’know, they’re just not interested Tinder’s heteronormative marketing style at all (pause) and they shouldn’t have to (Duguay, 2016) is one reason many of the see that if they don’t want to um ’cause participants did not initially realise queer it’s kind of what the site is supposed to women could use the app. Tinder’s design be about, like tailoring it to your interests also marginalises non-heterosexuals during and only seeing those people. But then the installing process. The automatic import maybe Tinder could have it as an extra of information from Facebook to Tinder y’know part so you could have couple includes the user’s gender and ‘sexual orien- as your like gender and you can choose tation’ (if stated on Facebook). Despite the […] to turn on like lesbian couple, gay app analysing and categorising your gender couple, straight couple y’know. identity from Facebook, it does not do this for your ‘sexual orientation’ and instead Like Ivy, many participants identifed ‘design defaults to heterosexual. Those identifying faws’ in how the app works, and offered as women were automatically directed to suggestions for improvements. One of the men’s profles and vice-versa. participants, who was in a polyamorous rela- Until recently, only binary gender options tionship, found the absence of a section were available on Tinder. An update released dedicated to single women looking for in November 2016 incorporated a broad polyamorous contact frustrating. This was range of possible gender expressions (but because she would come across women who only for those in the US, UK and Canada). were in non-polyamorous relationships with Although this feature did not directly apply men, looking for threesomes. to any of the women, they saw it as a positive and inclusive move by Tinder: Naomi: If you have someone who is an interested party in this kind of thing, Star: I know that they’ve just recently um typically they’re in a similar relationship an option for non-binary as far as gender […] so it’s quite frustrating if I like speak goes as well like you can go other than with a girl and its going well and she’s male or female which is good (laughs) like ‘yeah me and my boyfriend would it’s a step forward so yeah that was inter- love to’. esting and that’s really the only reason I’ve continued to use it. Participants discussed that a frustrating aspect of using Tinder was when users did not make Another way in which the app was described it clear in their bio, or via their pictures, that as not queer friendly was the plethora of they were a (heterosexual) couple seeking (mixed-gender) couples seeking women for women for threesomes. This meant that many a threesome in the women-seeking-women participants often did not know this informa- section. The participants noted that this was tion until they were deep in conversation, and frustrating because such couples became were thus quite disappointed. unavoidable, despite the participants being Encountering couples on Tinder largely interested in contacting single was not the only issue identifed by the women: participants in the women-seeking-women section. Some participants noted that they Ivy: I just feel like that should be a third would also match with straight women. This option y’know […] it wasn’t like too was deemed problematic for users who were

Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 11 Tara Pond & Panteá Farvid exclusively seeking women to date. Hence, to or chatting with. The women had to rely women devised a strategy to only swipe right on limited cues or ‘reduced cues’ (Ward, (yes) on women who presented themselves 2016b) to make assumptions about users’ visually in a way that they deemed ‘gay sexual identity and personalities. While this enough’: could be problematic due to the level of generalisations that could take place, it was Amy: I’ll say no to a lot of girls who I deemed preferable to accidentally matching mean it’s kind of unfair but they seem with straight women and disrupting the straight. Like they’ll have club photos queer space they sought on Tinder. In the […] honestly like it’s such like when I above excerpt, we see Ivy marketing herself match with women sometimes I’m like in very specifc ways, based on who she wants there’s just, there’s still an assumption to attract (queer women). In this way, Ivy is that they’re straight. ‘relationshopping’ (Heino, Ellison & Gibbs, 2010), by selling the self and buying the Lesbian visual identities are stereotyped to other, under the rhetoric of choice and be masculine, but research has suggested consumption. that there is no obvious visually identifying Another way participants would ascertain code for bisexual women (Hayfeld et al., information about users was through their 2013). Further, in nightclubs, (straight) bios. The women noted that many would use women often perform highly heterogendered emojis in their bio (i.e. small stylised images, modes of femininity through their make-up, available on smartphones, that express an clothing and behaviour (Grazian, 2009). As idea, object or emotion), which would help a result, Amy’s understanding of how gay/ them to discern user’s sexual identity. Many queer women look is not congruent with queer women used the emoji of two women how women look at clubs due to the height- holding hands (sometimes beside the emoji ened femininity of their appearance, and she of a man and woman holding hands) to therefore deems women who have photos of indicate their sexual identity was lesbian, themselves in clubs heterosexual (although, bisexual or queer. Such emojis were often she notes this is an unfair generalisation). used as a shortcut to communicating gender Participants were uneasy about interacting preferences in terms of a sexual partner: with straight women on the app. This created tensions for other women if they looked too Int: So why would you, or why wouldn’t feminine in their Tinder photos: you put bisexual in your bio, do you think it would beneft you? Ivy: I think most girls assumed I was straight from my frst photo so I changed Amy: I think that emoji use, I think that’s that quite quickly, um because I wasn’t enough of a statement. It’s kind of a sly matching with many girls and just way to be like ‘hey by the way’. Um I like tonnes of guys, though I never quite think it is benefcial, it’s benefcial for me got the balance with girls right like I was when I swipe right to a girl and I see that trying to make it look a bit queerer […] they’re bi, I’m like ‘ah okay’, they’re not I’d try to have a couple messy haired in just a straight girl who happens to, who my t-shirt ones to be like (laughs) ‘I do happened to swipe right to a lot of people like girls, I promise!’. and then happened to swipe right to me […] I don’t want to swipe right with this When deciding who to swipe right on, straight girl and we like ‘hi how are you?’ women would decode photos for ‘clues’ on and for her to freak out so yeah if I have the sexual identity or personality of users, bi [emojis] and they have bi or queer to decide if they were worthwhile saying yes [emojis] or whatever (yeah) it’s clear.

12 Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder

Many participants noted that they believed like ‘oh that’s cool but I don’t care’. But this code went unnoticed by heterosexual a lot of the time, though, they are just users. Its use was thought to be a special really excited about it. queer language in a non-queer friendly environment. Some women directly employed strategies Another unsatisfying aspect of Tinder to avoid such biphobia. For example, some identifed by the participants was the regular participants explicitly stated their sexual encounters with men in the women-seeking- identity in their bio, so that those uncomfort- women section: able with bisexuality would not swipe right on them. Many also shifted from looking at Ivy: Most of my friends are queer both men and women to exclusively looking females and they kind of don’t really like at women, as many men would either sexu- it because […] if you put it only females, alise them or shame bisexuality: guys would still show up and I was like ‘how are they showing up’? Why are you Nika: I told it to some guys but they took still here? […] so like it’s kind of a little it the wrong way like ‘oh can I join’ or bit disappointing in that regard. something like that, they were inappropriate about it but from then on I just Seeing men was a source of frustration don’t tell them. for the participants as many of them had turned off the option to view men, and Naomi: I get people who are very slut this contributed greatly to the feeling that shamey or like judgey about ‘why would Tinder was not queer woman friendly. you want that anyway that’s gross’. Relatedly, Tinder was also viewed as not queer friendly because of fagrant displays The women-seeking-women section was of biphobia, mostly by heterosexual men. reportedly not immune from biphobia Tinder exists in a cultural context where either: women’s bisexuality is often exploited for male consumption and bisexual women Int: So you don’t put [bisexual] on um are objectifed or depicted as hypersexual your bio on Tinder? (Boyer & Galupo, 2015). Participants reported often receiving straight men’s Sharn: No. Only because for girls, like titillated and inappropriate responses to for lesbians I know they’re not big fans learning of their sexual identity: of bisexuals because they automatically think that you like guys more and so I Tori: Guys get weird about it if you say don’t like telling anyone on Tinder like you’re bi they just imagine girls hooking the females about it. up in front of them […] it just doesn’t help Amy: If I match with someone who, a woman who expresses as gay then I’m Int: Have you had any issues with that? worried that they won’t want to match with me or like because there’s biphobia Tori: I get when people have just assumed I’m going to run away with a man, that that I’m– well guys have just assumed that sort of thing. I’m straight and if I do bother to correct them um yes, they can get a bit excited Participants were aware of stereotypical about it and I’m like well, no it’s not for understandings of bisexuality, particu- your beneft, I’m just pointing out that larly as invoked by lesbians to justify their I’m not straight um sometimes they’re biphobia (Bostwick & Hequembourg, 2014).

Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 13 Tara Pond & Panteá Farvid

Both Sharn and Amy, in the extracts above, able, and unchanging part of (mobile) dating. identifed the common myth that bisexuals As noted in other work (e.g. Farvid & Aisher, are ‘really’ straight or ‘really’ gay and their 2016; Farvid & Braun, 2013), such percep- identity as bisexual was deemed transient. tions are indicative of a social and cultural Similar strategies that were adopted to avoid system where women experience pleasures biphobic men on Tinder, were also employed (e.g. excitement, intimacy) within the dating to avoid biphobia in the queer community: world, while facing some serious dangers (e.g. sexual assault) (Vance, 1984). Secondly, many Int: Do you state your sexuality in your bio? gave accounts of experiencing, frst-hand, instances of stalking, catfshing (defned Star: Yes, yeah below) and sexual coercion. Such incidences only occurred when interacting with hetero- Int: Yes, why’s that? sexual men, and resulted in some women ceasing to interact with men on Tinder: Star: I (pause) I suppose it’s a way of avoiding any potential aggression um I Int: What was wrong with the men? know that there can be people um that identify as um lesbian or homosexual Nika: They were more dodgy that can be very aggressive about um bisexual or pansexual individuals um I Int: In what way? have yet to experience it myself, I know other people that have experienced so Nika: In like a sexual way, so I just stopped it’s sort of (pause) it’s just sort of a way of talking to them. avoiding that before it can ever happen. In line with media portrayals of mobile Star (and other participants) would state dating, fears over people misrepresenting their sexuality upfront instead of employing themselves online prevailed in discussions. ‘straight passing’ tactics or discovering The women often talked about doing ‘detec- people’s anti-bisexual biases later. The tive work’ to confrm Tinder users’ identities: participants’ concerns are echoed in other research which has found that bisexual-iden- Amy: I would quickly try fnd their Facebook tifed people are less likely to be consid- profle, it would be much easier if they had ered as potential intimate partners for both at least one mutual friend in common even heterosexual and homosexual people, due to before you start talking to someone like if biphobia, stigma, and ‘anti-bi’ myths (Klesse, you just match with them and go ‘oooh’ 2011). Because of the intersecting prevalence they show quite a bit of potential, oh one of sexism and biphobia on Tinder, many of mutual friend go onto their friends list and the women also reported being hypervigilant look up the frst name, most probably will about their online and offine safety. get it, look at their profle a bit more, see what they’re like. The (un)safety of Tinder Participants reported that Tinder both offered Social ‘media multiplexity’ (Haythornthwaite, a sense of safety for exploring one’s sexual 2005) has been defned as the multiple social identity as well as an inherent sense of risk media platforms that people use to connect or danger. The risk and danger of Tinder with one another. In this context, Tinder were discussed in two ways. Firstly, the women users connect with their ‘matches’ on sites discussed Tinder-use as though they were that are connected (or ‘linked’) to Tinder always at possible risk of danger or victimisa- (such as Instagram or Facebook), and other tion and that this was a ubiquitous, unavoid- social media apps (such as Snapchat). This

14 Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder is either through consensually shared profle they are catfsh or not because I wouldn’t information, or by ‘digging’ or ‘stalking’ the swipe with them whether they were real users across platforms. This is a common or not. practice for mobile dating users, to verify a user’s ‘authentic’ identity, or learn more Another technique participants used to about them, and leads to a greater intimacy safeguard against catfshing was moving the (Ward, 2016a). Sometimes, the women conversations with users off Tinder and on found themselves at the receiving end of to other social media apps such as Snap- such social media identifcation: chat, Instagram or Facebook. Because social networking apps like Instagram and Snap- Ivy: I had a photo from sitting on, in chat are largely visual, with text kept to a one of the motorway things like [for minimum, authenticity of offine identity is a] protest […] the guy had somehow easier to assess and deception is believed to fgured out my last name even though we be less common (Ward, 2016a). Related to had no mutual friends which was creepy concerns around catfshing was the possi- […] um, but yeah he had fgured out bility that people may to some extent misrep- who I was and looked at me [on Face- resent themselves on Tinder, which could book] and my cover photo was a collage lead to disappointment once individuals I had done for a collective I’m a part of met in person. For example, Ivy matched […] and he had Facebook stalked me with a 29-year-old man on Tinder who seen that and decided to bring it up in later admitted to being 34 when they met conversation with me. in person. He noted that this lie was so he would only match with younger women While the information Ivy had on Facebook (rather than women his own age). Many of was publicly available, she classifed the man’s the participants were also aware of the possi- identifcation behaviour as elaborate and bility that people may misrepresent them- ‘creepy’. While the women’s detective work selves through selectively choosing photos on social media was depicted as legitimate, that depicted a fattering or idealised version when carried out by others, it was seen as inva- of themselves: sive and a form of intimate encroachment. Another way Tinder was constructed as Sharn: There was this one guy I met up unsafe was through the phenomenon of with and we’d been snapchatting and ‘catfshing’. Catfshing is a serious act of he’d been sending me photos and I online deception where people use fake thought it was good but I’d never really photos or bios to take on a completely false asked for any photos of his body and it’s persona. The fear of being catfshed was probably really shallow but when we met salient for participants and it was seen as up he just didn’t look the same as I was ‘quite risky’ but also ‘common’ when it came expecting him to […] yeah you don’t to online and mobile dating (Nika). Due to really get to see the whole person as they being aware of such a risk, Nika only ever met are now, it’s kind of just what they want face-to-face with one person after verifying to show you. her identity through a video call. Others were less fearful of deception because they This concern regarding misrepresentation was were confdent they could detect catfshing: also something that the women sometimes took on when it came to their own profles: Tori: I feel like a lot of the time the catfsh profles are the ridiculously unat- Amy: I’m afraid of meeting up with tainable model profles that I don’t go someone and them being disappointed for, regardless, I don’t worry whether

Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 15 Tara Pond & Panteá Farvid

Int: In what way disappointed? noted that this was only when meeting men, as documented in previous research). Amy: Um like ‘oh she’s a little bit short Women were typically acutely aware of the and round’ (laughs) like ‘she’s not as dangers they face as women in the dating petite as she looked in one of her photos’ world, particularly when this involved online or something like that. or mobile dating (Farvid & Aisher, 2016). To mitigate such (ubiquitous) risks, On Tinder, like other modes of techno- participants would meet Tinder matches with logically mediated intimacies (e.g. online their friends, or in public places. Another dating), there is a requirement for users to strategy was to let friends know who they carefully balance presenting an ideal and were meeting, when and where, and have an attractive self (to increase their matches), as ‘escape plan’ in case something went wrong: well as presenting an authentic self and not going beyond the realms of reality (in rela- Quinn: I would always tell my fatmate tion to what they look like offine) (Ellison, um make sure yeah, she knew where I Heino & Gibbs, 2006; Ward, 2016a). This was going how long I was gonna be […] carefully curated depiction of the self on We would always meet in a public place Tinder was something that the participants and yeah, I’m, I was always very careful were very much aware of when selecting especially about inviting them like going their profle photos: to their place or like them coming to my place. I was really careful about that Ivy: [In] my photos […] you always got not letting that happening until I was to have your main one as your nice one comfortable with them. ‘cause I always think if people have a bad frst one, all the rest aren’t going to be When discussing sexual assault, studies have very good, so you gotta have a nice frst noted that women often position themselves one and then I try to have some more as responsible for managing the risks of true refections of what I look like every victimisation, often by having a ‘safety check- day (laughing) rather than just what I list’ – which we identifed in the current look like on a y’know one night out. study (Frazier & Falmagne, 2014). Although many women spoke of taking such protective As noted above, dating apps are a reduced measures, two participants reported having cue environment and the information you experienced coercive sex with men they met present is two-dimensional and static (commu- on Tinder, and one reported being raped nicated via brief bio and photos). This is very by a man she had met via traditional online different to three-dimensional and dynamic dating. When such encounters occurred, physical co-presence, when meeting someone the women were quick to position them- in person. The information presented on selves as responsible for not taking enough Tinder is minimal but carefully constructed precautions to protect themselves, rather to present a specifc portrayal of the self. With than positioning the fault with the men who an awareness of such potentials for deception, assaulted them: the women often saw it as their own personal responsibility to identify misrepresentations Ivy: I didn’t prepare enough I don’t on Tinder. think, in terms of [safety] um (pause) This notion of keeping themselves yeah no I didn’t, I didn’t prepare enough safe from risk was also refected when the (laughs) participants spoke about the precautions they took when meeting with someone in Int: Why do you think that? person for the frst time (most participants

16 Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder

Ivy: Aw I just think that I defnitely a gay bar now and I’ve never done this could have been safer and people aren’t before and I don’t know if this is who I as normal as they seem and just like, I am’. You can sorta like just experiment in didn’t have (pause) like I wouldn’t say your room or in your bed with your phone that there was ever like rape situations and like if you don’t like it you can stop. with a capital R but I would say that there was a bit of non-consensual sex Gay bars can be daunting, highly sexualised where it was like I ended up in people’s and exposing to frequent for those exploring houses through being passive and not or questioning their sexuality (Stempfhuber good at ending dates and would then & Liegl, 2016). Many young people use the like be trying to like trying to show all internet to explore their sexual identity these physical signals of I’m not inter- and experiment with same-sex attractions ested and like round guys who were because it is deemed safer and easier than like, it was never women this but guys doing so offine (DeHaan et al., 2013). who’d be like refusing to pick up on Tinder was also seen as a safer it […] and then I would kind of be environment to meet women than bars and too concerned with someone’s rejec- clubs because of the reduced ambiguity tion reaction especially within their own around people’s relationship status, their home to kind of say like proper no’s sexual identity, or the reciprocation of even though I would be like kind of like attraction: not into having sex with them I would sometimes have sex just to kind of make Naomi: Being on Tinder was really like it easier to leave. an easier way to like interact with women than in public ‘cause quite often in Ivy’s account depicts a typical scenario public I’m like, there is that moment of relayed by a few women. While Ivy doesn’t well if they’re straight this is going to be position her experience as rape, she does really fuckin’ weird for them (laughs) so acknowledge that she was coerced into sex. I’m not gonna like engage. Whereas on However, when she notes that she ‘didn’t Tinder they are swiping and looking at prepare enough’ and ‘could have been women and they haven’t said ‘I’m just safer’, she is not only relaying a victim- looking for a friend’. blaming discourse, she is also displaying rape myth acceptance (Burt, 1980), where it On Tinder, people’s sexuality is either stated is seen as women’s responsibility take elabo- explicitly in people’s biography or assumed, rate precautions in order to avoid rape, because they use the app and swipe right rather than positioning the blame on the on those of the same gender. The fear of men who perpetrate such criminal actions accidentally asking out a straight woman (Frazier & Falmagne, 2014). can be immense for queer women as the While Tinder is seen as a risky domain for consequences could range from feelings of (bisexual) women, some found it a safer and embarrassment to being assaulted. Tinder, more discrete environment to meet other then, makes users’ sexuality more obvious women: and so reduces both the possibility and the consequences of a rejection from a straight Naomi: Others I know have used it to woman. Overall, Tinder was seen as both a sort of like explore their sexuality which safe and unsafe place for bisexual women is cool. Um even if things didn’t like lead due to the behaviour of other users and the any one place it at least gave them like a nature of the app as a digital medium. The safe avenue to try um rather than having complication and contradiction created by to feel like ‘ah I’ve got to go like walk into Tinder’s online status when it comes to nego-

Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 17 Tara Pond & Panteá Farvid tiating and locating intimacy is explored in Int: So you don’t feel confdent talking the next theme. to people, is that different online than offine? Is it easier? Virtual (un)reality The theme of virtual (un)reality relates to Star: No (laughs) it can be a bit easier the women’s articulation of the differences online but only if they’re sort of willing to between online and offine dating, as well step forward and make an effort as […] as some of their subjective responses and offine I am 100 times worse at talking reported internal negotiation when it came to people um it’s one of the reasons to using Tinder. Here, participant refec- I did start using Tinder was because it tions related to mobile dating as a medium was another way of getting in touch with for fnding dates and relationships are people and […] meeting people offine teased out. proves to be very very diffcult […] um Many attributed Tinder’s success to how just my inability to talk with strangers or instantaneous and hassle-free it was: people I don’t know very well.

Int: What do you think the benefts of Many found approaching people in the using Tinder are? digital landscape much easier than offine, particularly when people had information Amy: I guess if you have a busy life and about themselves in their description that you don’t go out much you can cut the could facilitate a conversation. When Tinder crap and like, you don’t need to go to a is downloaded, the frst piece of informa- bar and go to a club and start talking to tion you are offered is the declaration that strangers, you can just sift through, fnd any ‘liking’ or ‘passing’ is anonymous. This someone that you like, if you want to date emphasis on the anonymity Tinder affords is them, if you want to have sex with them accentuated in positive media narratives of the casually, you can sort it out. app because of the reduced embarrassment this feature affords. This anonymity safeguard Finding dates offine was depicted as a labo- was identifed as useful by the participants, rious process. With Tinder, hundreds of particularly for ‘breaking the ice’ in a way that potential matches may be close by, and is much more diffcult offine: decisions on who to swipe ‘yes’ to can happen in the privacy of your own home. Sharn: Say if you’re in a bar there might So, although some participants still clas- be a guy who’s busy talking to his friends sifed computer-based online dating as a so […] I wouldn’t approach them ‘chore’, Tinder and mobile dating were whereas on Tinder there’s none of that seen as much simpler and more enjoyable, pressure – you just kind of just swipe as well as offering more choice. [right] who you fnd attractive, swipe Participants constructed dating offine [right] who you like um yeah and it cuts as a place fraught with many obstacles, out all that ‘do they like me, do they particularly if they did not describe not?’ um and the initial having to talk to themselves as an outgoing person. someone. Whereas [on] Tinder there’s Identifying as introverted was typically really no pressure. one of the main reasons given for why the participants preferred mobile dating. While While indicating your interest, or initiating approaching people offine was unnerving contact with someone offine is depicted as and complicated, online interactions were fraught, the anonymous ‘swiping’ on Tinder much easier, albeit not trouble-free: reduces or removes the element of embarrassment or social risk. On Tinder, matching

18 Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder with someone is understood to be an agree- Sharn: When you date someone in ment that you are both attracted to or inter- person you kind of get the whole person ested in each other. In this way, Tinder offers all at once, you know, you meet them a site where anonymisation of indicated and you get to see them. You get to see interest creates a dating environment where whether you do connect whereas if you there is less pressure and less at stake than talk to someone online you might get offine, when it comes to rejection. along really well but you could meet in However, due to Tinder’s requirement person and the connection is just not for relatively quick assessments of people’s there so I think that’s defnitely missing profles, based mainly on their appearances, online is that you don’t really know some participants critiqued Tinder as what to expect whereas in person you, ‘shallow’ and superfcial: you kind of feel it straight away or you don’t. Naomi: We made a profle and swiped through and like um, they were like ‘oh The women explained that this connection, yeah he’s cute he’s cute he’s not’ lah dah described above, was diffcult to ascertain dah dah it was very much like a game of when talking to someone online. No matter voting back and forth, so I didn’t really how attractive someone might appear on like it at that stage. I felt like it was a little Tinder, it was the offine meeting that deter- bit shallow but I was with my friends and mined if ‘real’ chemistry or attraction existed. just having a laugh but um then like the Online attraction was thus ‘unreal’ until more time that the app sat on my phone confrmed via an offine meeting. In this way, the more I felt myself going into it in my not only was there a splitting of the offine/ own time and wanting to use it. physical and online/virtual, but a privileging of the former when it came to determining Despite Naomi and other participants’ the legitimacy of intimate connections. concerns about Tinder’s design promoting Tinder is designed to be a fast-paced superfciality, they nevertheless continued game-like tool for screening potential to use the app. The justifcation for this partners based on self-selected images, was to position ‘offine dating’ as also based rather by other criteria such as shared on physical attraction – albeit while physi- interests, hobbies or personality, as with cally co-present, rather than digitally. Many online dating. This creates a level of argued that matching was just the begin- superfciality that some argue promotes ning and it allowed them to then engage in ‘looks over mind’ (Yeo & Fung, 2016, conversation with someone and hence allow p.4), making dating apps ostensibly more for deeper engagement. compatible for seeking casual sex rather The words ‘connection’ and ‘chemistry’ than romantic connections. Although was often used by participants to explain most of the participants interviewed for the intangible feeling people have when the current project were open to and they are attracted to someone. However, any sought friendships, romantic relationships attraction to other users that led to ‘matches’ and casual sex, one participant used it had to be vetted offine; only then was it was exclusively for ‘hooking-up’: deemed legitimate or ‘real’. Online pictures and chatting were not seen as providing Sharn: I think I’d usually meet people in enough information about a person, and real life through friends […] I do I think the goal was always to ultimately meet offine Tinder is just for hook-ups primarily before deciding if a match had a sexual or and so when I meet someone I’m not relational future: expecting anything else and even if they

Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 19 Tara Pond & Panteá Farvid

say that they like me I’ll just think no this quick, easy to use, and simplifed design is just about sex. offered these women immediate access to an extended array of individuals they would not Because Tinder had a reputation for being have typically met offine. Yet, the interface a ‘hook-up app’, it was sometimes stigma- also worked to position them as ‘outsiders’ tised as less of a socially acceptable means in a heteronormative and biphobic domain. for fnding dating or romantic partners. As Participants were at times exotifed and a result, some participants would lie about eroticised in a way that was directly linked meeting their partner on Tinder: to their bisexual identity. The participants encountered unwanted profles in the Int: So would you be less likely to tell women-seeking-women section (from men, people that you’ve met people online? heterosexual women and (heterosexual) couples looking for threesomes), and were Tori: Ha! Yes, defnitely made up lies um subjected to negative interactions because of normally go ‘okay how did we meet?’ their sexual identity (from both heterosexual anything from we met at the library to we and queer users). In this way, bisexual women met at town were subjected to a ‘double discrimination’, where they experienced prejudice from both Int: So why do you make up lies? the heterosexual and queer community. We argue for more research on bisexual women’s Tori: Um just to make it seem legit I daily experiences (including their sexual and guess, I think the whole stigma around intimate lives), and continued awareness and people are just looking for anything, or educational efforts that addresses ongoing it’s a joke, I guess if you said that you met biphobia and monosexism found here. On somewhere else, it might seem more real an individual user-level, to address (or avoid) to other people. biphobia, some women devised creative modes of displaying (or not displaying) their The layering of the offine and online worlds sexual identity. In this way, Tinder refected is complex when it comes to mobile dating. broader power relations evident in offine As demonstrated within our data, online spaces: heterosexually dominated and queer interactions did not replace offine meet- friendly spaces were an afterthought, with ings, which were always deemed as more the potential for creating great tensions for authentic, legitimate, and special. Within bisexual women. this domain of technologically mediated Like the experiences of heterosexual intimacies, the offine meeting was the fnal women who use Tinder (Farvid & Aisher, frontier in determining the future potential 2016), and heterosexual women’s dating of any online match. lives in general (Vance, 1984) , Tinder was a domain imbued with elements of both Conclusion pleasure and danger for bisexual women. As In this paper, we have demonstrated how queer women, participants found navigating these bisexual women’s use of Tinder was a Tinder safer than offine interactions with complex, contradictory, and contested site strangers they had not met. However, Tinder of ‘digitally meditated intimacies’ (Farvid & also created some new(er) risks (catfshing, Aisher, 2016). Drawing on critical feminism online deception, and online stalking), while and intersectionality we were able to demon- reifying some pre-existing and well-known strate how the categories of women, female ones (sexual coercion and rape). Many of sexuality and bisexuality converged to create the women saw it as their duty to ‘keep safe’ specifc Tinder experiences in the contem- from any possible negative outcomes of using porary context of New Zealand. Tinder’s Tinder. The men who were perpetrators of

20 Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder inappropriate, deceptive, abusive or criminal engaged in the careful curation of their own behaviour, were rarely positioned as solely profles, as well as engaging in the savvy and responsible or held to account. More research, intricate decoding of others. Future research education, and public awareness is still needed needs to investigate the evolving modes of when it comes to dismantling such victim- communication and representational motifs blaming and rape myth discourses. that users engage in while mobile dating, Tinder occupies a unique hybrid status – in order to relay various messages about blurring the lines between what is virtual and themselves and their sexual identity. More what is deemed ‘real’. Within these interviews, research is also needed to investigate, in depth the women almost always privileged and and breadth, the frst-hand experiences of prioritised the physically co-present over using dating apps by those who are straight the virtually co-present. Although Tinder and queer, to add to the MSM literature. was seen as an easier way to meet potential In addition, given the fnding that there intimate partners, it was also deemed ‘shallow’ are a large number of couples on Tinder and less favourable than meeting someone looking for people to join their relationship, offine. There was both an idealisation of or for a threesome, it would be important to offine ‘chance’ meetings and a privileging of investigate the experiences of this cohort. the offine as more real and authentic when Finally, we confrm previous work it came to assessing desire and attraction. on heterosexual women’s use of Tinder When it came to fnding partners through (Farvid & Aisher, 2016), in asserting that Tinder, it was the offine encounter than the outcomes identifed here in relation determined the authenticity of attraction and to bisexual women’s use of Tinder do not connection made online. In this way, Tinder happen in a cultural vacuum. In particular, was a vital (virtual) intermediary (Hobbs et the experiences of pleasures, dangers, and al., 2016), which did not replace traditional contradictions refect the intersectional and modes of dating; rather, it facilitates in social and cultural context where sexism, making the initial (online) contact that is heteronormativity, and biphobia are part of then taken offine to evaluate longevity. This backdrop where bisexual women not only is an important fnding that needs further negotiate their daily lives, but experiences of exploration to examine how intimacy, mobile dating. connection, and authenticity are understood in the online/offine world of technologically The authors mediated intimacies. The separation and Tara Pond is a PhD Candidate in the Depart- distinction between online and offine and ment of Psychology at Auckland University the differences participants discussed in of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. relation to chemistry and attraction highlights Email: [email protected] a unique area of future study. As a digital platform designed for making Panteá Farvid, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer social and intimate connections, Tinder in the Department of Psychology at Auck- offered an ambiguous and reduced-cue land University of Technology, Auckland, environment which invited specifc modes New Zealand. of tactful interaction. The participants Email: [email protected]

Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 21 Tara Pond & Panteá Farvid

References Al-Amoudi, I. & Willmott, H. (2011). Where David, G. & Cambre, C. (2016). Screened intimacies: constructionism and critical realism converge: Tinder and the swipe logic. Social Media & Society, Interrogating the domain of epistemological 2(2). doi:10.1177/2056305116641976 relativism. Organization Studies, 32(1), 27–46. Davis, M., Flowers, P., Lorimer, K. et al. (2016). Loca- doi:10.1177/0170840610394293 tion, safety and (non) strangers in gay men’s Barker, M., Yockney, J., Richards, C. et al. (2012). narratives on ‘hook-up’ apps. Sexualities, 19(7), Guidelines for researching and writing about 836–852. doi:10.1177/1363460716629334 bisexuality. Journal of Bisexuality, 12(3), 376–392. DeHaan, S., Kuper, L.E., Magee, J.C. et al. (2013). doi:10.1080/15299716.2012.702618 The interplay between online and offine Bilton, N. (2014). Tinder, the fast-growing dating explorations of identity, relationships, and sex: app, taps an age-old truth. Retrieved 30 April 2016 A mixed-methods study with LGBT youth. The from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/ Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 421–434. doi:10.108 fashion/tinder-the-fast-growing-dating-app-taps- 0/00224499.2012.661489 an-age-old-truth.html Dewey, C. (2014, July 2). The myth of the ‘female- Birnholtz, J., Fitzpatrick, C., Handel, M. & Brubaker, friendly dating app’. Retrieved 5 May 2016 J.R. (2014). Identity, identifcation and identifa- from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ bility: The language of self-presentation on a location- the-intersect/wp/2014/07/02/the-myth-of-the- based mobile dating app. Paper presented at the female-friendly-dating-app/ Proceedings of the 16th international conference Duff, H.H. (2015, 14 May). Hilary Duff – Sparks on Human-computer interaction with mobile [Video fle]. Available from: https://www. devices and services, Toronto, ON, Canada. youtube.com/watch?v=pW4qU4aWrDg Bostwick, W. & Hequembourg, A. (2014). ‘Just a little Duguay, S. (2016). Dressing up Tinderella: Interro- hint’: Bisexual-specifc microaggressions and gating authenticity claims on the mobile dating their connection to epistemic injustices. Culture, app Tinder. Information, Communication & Society, Health & Sexuality, 16(5), 488–503. doi:10.1080/ 1–17. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2016.1168471 13691058.2014.889754 Ellison, N., Heino, R. & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing Boyer, C.R. & Galupo, M.P. (2015). ‘Prove it!’ Same- impressions online: Self-presentation processes sex performativity among sexual minority women in the online dating environment. Journal and men. Psychology & Sexuality, 6(4), 357–368. of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), doi:10.1080/19419899.2015.1021372 415–441. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis Farvid, P. (2011). The social construction of heterosexual in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, casual sex. (Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Doctoral thesis), The University of Auckland, Bulman, M. (2016, 8 March). Ten ways to avoid falling Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved 30 April 2016 victim to online dating predators. Retrieved 5 from https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/ May 2016 from http://www.independent.co.uk/ handle/2292/6581 life-style/10-ways-to-avoid-falling-victim-to-online- Farvid, P. (2014). ‘Oh it was good sex!’: Hetero- dating-predators-dangers-safety-a6915301.html sexual women’s (counter)narratives of desire Burt, M.R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for and pleasure in casual sex. In S. McKenzie-Mohr rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, & M. Lefrance (Eds.), Women voicing resistance: 38(2), 217–230. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217 Discursive and narrative explorations (pp.121–140). Carpenter, C.J. & McEwan, B. (2016). The players of New York: Routledge. micro-dating: Individual and gender differences Farvid, P. & Aisher, K. (2016). ‘It’s just a lot more in goal orientations toward micro-dating apps. casual’: Young heterosexual women’s experi- First Monday, 21(5). doi:10.5210/fm.v21i5.6187 ences of using Tinder in New Zealand. Ada: Clarke, V., Ellis, S., Peel, E. & Riggs, D. (2010). A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, 10. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer Psychology. Farvid, P. & Braun, V. (2013). Casual sex as ‘not a Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. natural act’ and other regimes of truth about Cohen, L. (2015). World attending in interaction: heterosexuality. Feminism & Psychology, 23(3), Multitasking, spatializing, narrativizing with 359–378. doi:10.1177/0959353513480018 mobile devices and Tinder. Discourse, Context & Finkel, E., Eastwick, P., Karney, B. et al. (2016). Media, 9, 46–54. doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2015.08.001 Dating in a digital world. Scientifc American, 25, Corriero, E.F. & Tong, S.T. (2016). Managing uncer- 104–111. tainty in mobile dating applications: Goals, Fotopoulou, A. (2012). Intersectionality queer concerns of use, and information seeking in studies and hybridity: Methodological frame- Grindr. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(1), works for social research. Journal of International 121–141. doi:10.1177/2050157915614872 Women’s Studies, 13(2), 19–32.

22 Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder

Frazier, K.E. & Falmagne, R.J. (2014). Empow- LeFebvre, L.E. (2017). Swiping me off my feet. ered victims? Women’s contradictory posi- Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 0(0). tions in the discourse of violence prevention. doi:10.1177/0265407517706419 Feminism & Psychology, 24(4), 479–499. Lella, A. (2015, 24 September). Venmo, BuzzFeed, doi:10.1177/0959353514552036 Tinder and Snapchat among the top 20 apps with Gatter, K. & Hodkinson, K. (2016). On the differ- highest concentration of millennials. Retrieved ences between Tinder™ versus online dating 30 April 2016 from http://www.comscore.com/ agencies: Questioning a myth. An exploratory Insights/Blog/Venmo-BuzzFeed-Tinder-and- study. Cogent Psychology, 3(1), 1162414. doi:10.10 Snapchat-Among-The-Top-20-Apps-with-Highest- 80/23311908.2016.1162414 Concentration-of-Millennials Gavey, N. (1989). Feminist poststructuralism and Lever, J., Grov, C., Royce, T. & Gillespie, B.J. discourse analysis: Contributions to femi- (2008). Searching for love in all the ‘write’ nist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, places: Exploring internet personals use by 13(4), 459–475. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1989. sexual orientation, gender, and age. Interna- tb01014.x tional Journal of Sexual Health, 20(4), 233–246. Grazian, D. (2009). Urban nightlife, social capital, and doi:10.1080/19317610802411532 the public life of cities. Sociological Forum, 24(4), Lutz, C. & Ranzini, G. (2017). Where dating meets 908–917. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01143.x data: Investigating social and institutional privacy Hayfeld, N., Clarke, V., Halliwell, E. & Malson, H. concerns on Tinder. Social Media & Society, 3(1). (2013). Visible lesbians and invisible bisexuals: doi:10.1177/2056305117697735 Appearance and visual identities among bisexual Lydon, C. (2015, 7 July). Female friendly Tinder women. Women’s Studies International Forum, alternates. Retrieved 4 September 2016 from 40, 172–182. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. http://www.gadgette.com/2015/07/07/female- wsif.2013.07.015 friendly-tinder-alternatives/ Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks March, E., Grieve, R., Marrington, J. & Jonason, P.K. and internet connectivity effects. Informa- (2017). Trolling on Tinder (and other dating tion, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125–147. apps): Examining the role of the Dark Tetrad and doi:10.1080/13691180500146185 impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, Heino, R., Ellison, N. & Gibbs, J. (2010). Relationshop- 110, 139–143. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.025 ping: Investigating the market metaphor in online Mason, C.L. (2016). Tinder and humanitarian dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, hook-ups: The erotics of social media racism. 27(4), 427–447. doi:10.1177/0265407510361614 Feminist Media Studies, 1–16. doi:10.1080/146807 Hess, A. & Flores, C. (2016). Simply more than 77.2015.1137339 swiping left: A critical analysis of toxic masculine McKie, R.M., Lachowsky, N.J. & Milhausen, R.R. performances on Tinder Nightmares. New Media (2015). The positive impact of technology on & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444816681540 young gay men’s dating and sexual relationships Hobbs, M., Owen, S. & Gerber, L. (2016). Liquid in Canada: Results from a focus group study. love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the Journal of LGBT Youth, 12(1), 19–38. doi:10.1080 digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Soci- /19361653.2014.935552 ology. doi:10.1177/1440783316662718 Race, K. (2015). Speculative pragmatism and inti- Houston, S. (2001). Beyond social constructionism: mate arrangements: Online hook-up devices Critical realism and social work. British Journal in gay life. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(4), of Social Work, 31(6), 845–861. doi:10.1093/ 496–511. doi:10.1080/13691058.2014.930181 bjsw/31.6.845 Ranzini, G., Lutz, C. & Gouderjaan, M. (2016). Swipe Hume, M. (2015, 3 October). Police probe two right: An exploration of self-presentation and impres- Tinder date attacks in Christchurch. Retrieved sion management on Tinder. Paper presented at 30 April 2016 from http://www.stuff.co.nz/the- the Annual Conference of the International press/news/72625132/police-probe-two-tinder- Communication Association, Fukuoka. https:// date-attacks-in-christchurch www.alexandria.unisg.ch/248333/ Israel, T. & Mohr, J.J. (2004). Attitudes toward Rice, E., Holloway, I., Winetrobe, H. et al. (2012). bisexual women and men. Journal of Bisexuality, Sex risk among young men who have sex with 4(1-2), 117–134. doi:10.1300/J159v04n01_09 men who use Grindr, a smartphone geosocial Klesse, C. (2011). Shady characters, untrustworthy networking application. Journal of AIDS & Clin- partners, and promiscuous sluts: Creating ical Research. doi:10.4172/2155-6113.S4-005 bisexual intimacies in the face of heteronorma- Richey, L.A. (2016). ‘Tinder humanitarians’. Javnost, tivity and biphobia. Journal of Bisexuality, 11(2–3), 23(4), 398–414. 227–244. doi:10.1080/15299716.2011.571987

Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017 23 Tara Pond & Panteá Farvid

Roof, K. (2016, 2 February). Tinder owner match Timmermans, E. & De Caluwé, E. (2017a). Devel- group reports frst earnings since separating from opment and validation of the Tinder Motives IAC. Retrieved 30 April 2016 from https://tech- Scale (TMS). Computers in Human Behavior, 70, crunch.com/2016/02/02/1271797/ 341–350. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.028 Sales, N.J. (2015, 5 September). Tinder and the dawn of Timmermans, E. & De Caluwé, E. (2017b). To the ‘dating apocalypse’. Retrieved 30 April 2016 from Tinder or not to Tinder, that’s the question: An http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/ individual differences perspective to Tinder use tinder-hook-up-culture-end-of-dating and motives. Personality and Individual Differences, Sevi, B., Aral, T. & Eskenazi, T. (2017). Exploring the 110, 74–79. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.026 hook-up app: Low sexual disgust and high socio- Van De Wiele, C. & Tong, S.T. (2014). Breaking bound- sexuality predict motivation to use Tinder for aries: The uses and gratifcations of grindr. Paper casual sex. Personality and Individual Differences. presented at the Proceedings of the 2014 ACM doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.053 International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Smith, A. (2016). 15 per cent of American adults have Ubiquitous Computing, Seattle, Washington. used online dating sites or mobile dating apps. Wash- Vance, C.S. (1984). Pleasure and danger: Exploring ington, DC: Pew Research Center. female sexuality. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Stempfhuber, M. & Liegl, M. (2016). Intimacy mobi- Ward, J. (2016a). Swiping, matching, chatting: lized: Hook-up practices in the location-based social Self-presentation and self-disclosure on mobile network Grindr. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, dating apps. Human IT, 13(2), 81–95. 41(1), 51–70. doi:10.1007/s11614-016-0189-7 Ward, J. (2016b). What are you doing on Tinder? Strubel, J. & Petrie, T.A. (2017). Love me Tinder: Impression management on a matchmaking Body image and psychosocial functioning mobile app. Information, Communication & Society, among men and women. Body Image, 21, 34–38. 1–16. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252412 doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.02.006 Yeo, T.E.D. & Fung, T.H. (2016). Relationships form Sumter, S.R., Vandenbosch, L. & Ligtenberg, L. so quickly that you won’t cherish them: Mobile dating (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging apps and the culture of instantaneous relationships. adults’ motivations for using the dating appli- Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th cation Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 2016 International Conference on Social Media 67–78. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009 & Society, London, United Kingdom.

24 Psychology of Sexualities Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2017

View publication stats