Young adults have gone from consulting matchmakers to app-makers, as they seek ways to meet sexual and romantic partners. Each dating application is constructed in a distinctive manner, creating unique “sexual fields” on each platform. In this study, I consider the affordances of four dating applications—the structure of profiles, available search filters, and application features—in order to understand how dating applications construct sexual fields and emphasize different forms of erotic and romantic capital. I find that which qualities constitute capital differs depending on the platform politics of the application, and the sexual fields vary according to the intended audience and outcome of the rules for interactions on the app. Such an analysis reveals how forces of heterosexism, racism, and classism operate in modern partner-seeking, both romantic and sexual.
BondME (2009) African American Sex Ratio Dilemma: How the Relationship between Individual Romantic Capital and African American Men’s Dating Status and Quality is Moderated by Sex Ratio Composition. PhD Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
3.
Bonner-ThompsonC (2017) “The meat market”: production and regulation of masculinities on the Grindr grid in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. Gender, Place & Culture24(11): 1611–1625.
4.
BucherTHelmondA (2018) The affordances of social media platforms. In: BurgessJMarwickAPoellT (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 233–253.
5.
CallanderDNewmanCEHoltM (2015) Is sexual racism really racism? distinguishing attitudes toward sexual racism and generic racism among gay and bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(7): 1991–2000.
DavidGCambreC (2016) Screened intimacies: tinder and the swipe logic. Social Media + Society2(2): 1–11.
9.
DhoestASzulcL (2016) Navigating online selves: social, cultural, and material contexts of social media use by diasporic gay men. Social Media + Society2(4): 1–10.
10.
DuguayS (2016a) Constructing public space| “legit can’t wait for #Toronto #WorldPride!”: investigating the twitter public of a large-scale LGBTQ festival. International Journal of Communication10: 274–298.
11.
DuguayS (2016b) “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society18(6): 891–907.
12.
DuguayS (2016c) Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer visibility through selfies: comparing platform mediators across ruby rose’s instagram and vine presence. Social Media + Society2(2): 1–12.
13.
FioreATDonathJS (2005) Homophily in online dating: when do you like someone like yourself?CHI ’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’05 Computer Human Interaction. Portland, OR, USA, 2–7 April 2005. New York: ACM Press, 1371–1374.
14.
García-IglesiasJ (2019) Wanting HIV is “such a hot choice”: exploring bugchasers’ fluid identities and online engagements. Deviant Behavior41: 1–12.
15.
GillespieT (2010) The Politics of “Platforms”. New Media & Society12(3): 347–364.
16.
GlasserCLRobnettBFelicianoC (2009) ‘Internet Daters’ body type preferences: race–ethnic and gender differences. Sex Roles61(1): 14–33.
17.
GoffmanE (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
18.
GreenAI (2008) The social organization of desire: the sexual fields approach. Sociological Theory26(1): 25–50.
19.
GreenNHarperRHRMurtaghG, et al. (2001) Configuring the mobile user: sociological and industry views. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing5(2): 146–156.
20.
HakimC (2010) Erotic capital. European Sociological Review26(5): 499–518.
21.
HancockJTTomaCL (2009) Putting your best face forward: the accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication59(2): 367–386.
22.
HineC (2008) Virtual ethnography: modes, varieties, affordances. In: FieldingNGLeeRMBlankG (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 257–271.
23.
HoppeT (2011) Circuits of power, circuits of pleasure: sexual scripting in gay men's bottom narratives. Sexualities14(2): 193–217.
24.
HutchbyI (2001a) Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the Internet. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
25.
HutchbyI (2001b) Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology35(2): 441–456.
26.
HutchbyI (2014) Communicative affordances and participation frameworks in mediated interaction. Journal of Pragmatics72: 86–89.
KreagerDACavanaghSEYenJ, et al. (2014) “Where have all the good men gone?” Gendered interactions in online dating. Journal of Marriage and Family76(2): 387–410.
29.
LamontE (2020) The Mating Game: How Gender Still Shapes How We Date. Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
LicoppeCRivièreCAMorelJ (2016) Grindr casual hook-ups as interactional achievements. New Media & Society18(11): 2540–2558.
31.
LightBBurgessJDuguayS (2018) The walkthrough method: an approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society20(3): 881–900.
32.
LinK-HLundquistJ (2013) Mate selection in cyberspace: the intersection of race, gender, and education. American Journal of Sociology119(1): 183–215.
33.
LoganTD (2010) Personal characteristics, sexual behaviors, and male sex work: a quantitative approach. American Sociological Review75(5): 679–704.
34.
MareRDSchwartzCR (2006) Educational assortative mating and the family background of the next generation. Sociological Theory and Methods21(2): 253–278.
35.
MilesS (2019) Going the distance: locative dating technology and queer male practice-based identities. In: NashCJGorman-MurrayA (eds) The Geographies of Digital Sexuality. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 115–135.
36.
MilesS (2020) “I’ve never told anyone this before”: co-constructing intimacy in sex and sexualities research. Area52(1): 73–80.
37.
MillerB (2018) Textually presenting masculinity and the body on mobile dating apps for men who have sex with men. The Journal of Men's Studies26(3): 305–326.
38.
MylesD (2020) Les rencontres amoureuses et sexuelles au temps des algorithmes: Une analyse comparative de Grindr et Tinder (Dating in the time of algorithims: a comparative analysis of grindr and tinder), (eds) Intimités et sexualités contemporaines: changements sociaux, transformations des pratiques et des représentations. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1–11.
OrneJ (2017) Boystown: Sex and Community in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
PaulJPAyalaGChoiK-H (2010) Internet sex ads for MSM and partner selection criteria: the potency of race/ethnicity online. Journal of Sex Research47(6): 528–538.
42.
PymTByronPAlburyK (2020) “I still want to know they’re not terrible people”: negotiating “queer community” on dating apps. International Journal of Cultural Studies24(3): 398–413.
43.
RosenfeldMJThomasRJ (2012) Searching for a mate: the rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review77(4): 523–547.
44.
ScheimAIAdamBDMarshallZ (2019) Gay, bisexual, and queer trans men navigating sexual fields. Sexualities22(4): 566–586.
45.
SchwartzCR (2013) Trends and variation in assortative mating: causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology39(1): 451–470.
46.
SchwartzCRMareRD (2005) Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003. Demography42(4): 621–646.
47.
SmithJGBrownS (2020) “No fats, femmes, or blacks:” the role of body types, gender roles and race in condom usage online. In: FarrisDNComptonDRHerreraAP (eds) Gender, Sexuality and Race in the Digital Age. New York: Springer International Publishing, 205–222.
