Dating Apps: Better Than Offline? Or Just a Waste of Time?

Swipe left, Super Like, send a rose. Many of us are familiar with these terms. Dating apps are more popular than ever, especially since the pandemic. Tinder reported that its busiest year was 2020, and Hinge tripled its revenue from 2019-2020 (Jamal, 2021). Dating apps give us access to a large pool of people that we might not otherwise be able to meet. Whether you’re looking for a casual hookup, a new friend, or a relationship, apps like Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and Grindr are becoming the increasingly common answer. With all the benefits, why isn’t everyone on dating apps? Well, it turns out that some things might be too good to be true. For some people, dating apps can be frustrating as they feel that everyone is looking for a casual hookup, and there is research demonstrating that individuals on dating apps are more likely to partake in risky sexual behaviours. So, are dating apps the solution to modern day dating, or part of the problem? Let’s dive into it. 

Should we swipe right?

Having casual sex is becoming increasingly more common and accepted, especially among young adults, and dating apps make it possible to have and find many sexual partners. If that’s not what you’re looking for, dating apps are also great for initiating new and potentially long-term relationships (Sutton & Blair, 2020). Regardless of your purpose for being on a dating app, the ease and efficiency of these apps mean that people can expand their dating options beyond their traditional social circles (Anderson et al., 2020) and allow those who are geographically isolated to find partners (Choi et al., 2016). This can be especially beneficial if an individual doesn’t feel comfortable establishing a casual sexual relationship within their community, or if one would like to engage in specific sexual practices outside of the cultural norms of their community (Choi et al., 2016). Unlike other dating sites, dating apps allow for constant access to others (as we are apparently unable to go anywhere without our phones!) and access to people close in geographical location, and they usually have no subscription fees. They provide a non-intimidating and flexible way to commence communication with others and often require less time and effort than traditional methods of dating (Castro & Barrada, 2020). Additionally, dating apps allow users to evaluate potential partners before agreeing to meet them in person, which can streamline and increase the ease of dating (Anderson et al., 2020). People also tend to be more comfortable talking about sex in an online environment (Choi et al., 2016), so dating apps can potentially enable individuals to express their sexuality more genuinely (Zervoulis et al., 2020).

Contrary to common belief, casual sex does not seem to be a primary motivator for joining a dating app. There seems to be multiple reasons for joining, and in fact, studies have found that for up to 70% of individuals, sex-seeking is not their primary goal (Castro & Barrada, 2020). About half of adults aged 18-29 (both heterosexual and members of the LGBTQ+ community) have reported using dating apps, and 20% of these users have married or been in some form of committed relationships with someone they first met through these platforms (Anderson et al., 2020). Moreover, half of individuals in the United States believe that relationships in which couples meet through dating apps are just as successful as those that begin in person (Anderson et al., 2020).

As demonstrated by the fact that members of the LGBTQ+ community are two times more likely to join dating apps (Anderson et al., 2020), these apps facilitate partner-seeking for marginalized groups (Castro & Barrada, 2020). This is the case for several reasons. For starters, not only is there a smaller proportion of individuals who identify as LGBTQ+, but sexual minority identity is not always obvious, thus making encountering LGBTQ+ individuals in public difficult. Dating apps are therefore the easiest way to meet and identify individuals that are part of the LGBTQ+ community (Leskin, 2020). Safety is another factor. Hate crimes and prejudice towards the LGBTQ+ community are still prevalent, so a lack of acceptance and fear of violence can make it challenging for members to meet in person (Leskin, 2020). Dating apps can also be a safe space for “closeted” individuals to gain anonymous access to community, and can empower individuals to behave more genuinely, thus having a positive effect on self-acceptance and the facilitation of identity processes and interpersonal relationships (Zervoulis et al., 2020). Dating apps are therefore an easy and efficient way for all individuals to meet new people.

Maybe we should swipe left:

Although dating apps can provide great opportunities for many, they aren’t all good. Studies have found that overall, dating app users tend to be more sexually active and more willing to take risks. There seems to be a higher prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), unsafe sex, and unplanned pregnancies amongst users of all sexual/affectional orientations. Users are also more likely to have at least one self-reported prior diagnosis of STIs (Choi et al., 2016). A study done by Choi and colleagues demonstrated that dating apps are associated with more sexual partners, more unprotected sex, and increased likelihood of inconsistent condom use (Choi et al., 2016). While this might be the case, other studies have found that users also engage in more prevention measures like treatment and testing than those who are not on dating apps, and not all studies have demonstrated that users are less likely to use condoms (Castro & Barrada, 2020). Thus, further studies must be done to draw more accurate conclusions. It is, however, consistently the case that individuals on dating apps have more sexual partners, and this is a risk factor for STIs, recreational drug use, alcohol consumption, and unplanned pregnancies (Choi et al., 2016).

Some users that are looking to form more long-lasting relationships might find dating apps frustrating, as the hasty way that people tend to act on these apps is discordant with cultural norms and how people typically form relationships (Castro & Barrada, 2020). Dating apps also tend to focus on appearance and physical attractiveness, leading to negative outcomes. Due to the shallow nature of the apps, some individuals believe that they facilitate superficial relationships rather than meaningful ones (Anderson et al., 2020). Additionally, the emphasis placed on physical appearance can promote excessive concerns about body image which can lead to unhealthy weight management behaviours and high shame about one’s body. Moreover, some people report dissatisfaction with their relationships formed on dating apps as they become overly sexual quickly and progress faster than they would expect it to offline (Zervoulis et al., 2020).

Beyond relationship dissatisfaction, dating apps can have some other serious consequences. Some find that dating apps can pose risks with security and privacy, leading to fears related to the availability of one’s personal information and location (especially for women) (Castro & Barrada, 2020). They can also become avenues for harassing behaviour such as receiving unsolicited explicit messages/images and the continued contact after one has expressed disinterest (Anderson et al., 2020). Many people also believe that it is common for people to be dishonest and misrepresent themselves either by creating scam accounts, or by lying to appear more desirable, which can leave people feeling frustrated and discouraged (Anderson et al., 2020).

So Which Direction Should We Swipe?

Ultimately, dating apps not only provide a less intimidating and easier route to dating and meeting new people, but they can also be a place where one can find community and self-acceptance. However, like any social media, dating apps are good in moderation, as too much investment or time spent on swiping is associated with low psychological and social well-being (Zervoulis et at., 2020). So, should you use dating apps? As long as boundaries are set, and your motivations are clear to yourself and others, dating apps can be great. As research shows, people are on dating apps for a multitude of reasons, so with time, you will likely find someone for you. The negative effects of dating apps seem to manifest when we treat dating online differently from offline, so remember to be genuine, communicate well, and pace the relationship appropriately.

Ashley Kim (she/her)
Life Sciences Major (BSc) and Concurrent Education (BEd)/ Fourth Year
Queen's University

References:

Anderson, M., Vogels, E. A., & Turner, E. (2020, October 02). The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/the-virtues-and-downsides-of-online-dating/

Castro, Á., & Barrada, J. R. (2020). Dating Apps and Their Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Correlates: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6500. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186500

Choi, E. P., Wong, J. Y., Lo, H. H., Wong, W., Chio, J. H., & Fong, D. Y. (2016). The Impacts of Using Smartphone Dating Applications on Sexual Risk Behaviours in College Students in Hong Kong. PloS one, 11(11), e0165394. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165394

Jamal, U. (2021, August 03). Dating changed during the pandemic; apps are following suit. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/dating-changed-during-the-pandemic-apps-are-following-suit-1.5532321

Leskin, P. (2020, February 06). LGBTQ adults are using dating apps nearly twice as much as straight adults, Pew study finds. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.businessinsider.com/dating-apps-use-lgbtq-community-twice-as-much-straight-adults-2020-2

Sutton, K.S. & Blair, K.L. (2020). Perspectives in sexuality. In C. F. Pukall (Ed.), Human Sexuality: A contemporary introduction (pp. 3-25). Oxford University Press.

Zervoulis, K., Smith, D. S., Reed, R., & Dinos, S. (2020). Use of ‘gay dating apps’ and its relationship with individual well-being and sense of community in men who have sex with men. Psychology & Sexuality, 11(1-2), 88-102.

Screw it! I’m Downloading OnlyFans!

“Screw it! I’m downloading OnlyFans!” I turn and see the girl behind me laughing with her friend in lecture. They continue to brainstorm the various ways they can pay for their expensive utilities bill. OnlyFans is online platform where creators sell exclusive content to users. Users pay a fee, usually between five and ten dollars per month to subscribe to a creator’s account (Jarvey, 2020). Although OnlyFans does not advertise sex work, OnlyFans is primarily associated with one thing: porn (Safaee, 2021). OnlyFans has become exponentially popular and it is now mainstream, and COVID-19 has had a huge influence on the company’s success. The restrictions imposed by COVID-19 created a demand for digital sex work and digital intimacy, and the timing and goal of OnlyFans were near perfect. During the first year of the pandemic, global subscriptions rose from 20 million to 120 million (Nilsson, 2021). 

This blog explores the benefits and drawbacks to creating sexually explicit material (SEM) on OnlyFans with an emphasis on sexual wellbeing and will assess if the mentality, “Screw it! I’m downloading OnlyFans!” holds any value.  

OnlyFans = Empowered Sex God?

Katrin Tiidenberg (2014) studied exotic bloggers and self-shooters on Tumblr, a social media website. OnlyFans is similar to Tumblr and may demonstrate similar effects on sexuality. Like Tumblr, OnlyFans operates like a social network: creators posts photos and videos to their account; however, the key difference is that OnlyFans users must subscribe to have access to content (Jarvey, 2020).

Blogging SEM directly challenges a theory called the “regimen of shame,” where many sexual practices cannot be openly expressed, causing immense anxiety and dissatisfaction (Tiidenberg, 2014). Tiidenberg (2014) found that creators on Tumblr had increased sexual desires and sexual open-mindedness. This finding was attributed to two unique characteristics of sexual self-shooting and blogging. First, creators on Tumblr were frequently exposed to sexual scripts that were different from their own, and the website was viewed as a safe community for discussing sexual desires. Furthermore, Tiidenberg (2014) notes SEM that is self-shot has shown to be a form of empowering exhibitionism. Feeling in control of the process of taking and editing sexual content, paired with the support from subscribers, transforms one’s blog into a sensual “looking glass,” and can improve sexual self-esteem.

Give Me Some Sexual Agency

OnlyFans may give women some of that sexual agency they’ve been craving. OnlyFans is recognized for personal power and control over sexual decisions, especially in the adult entertainment industry. Marylin Corsianos evaluated if mainstream pornography could promote women’s sexual agency in 2007 (pre OnlyFans). Most of Corsianos’ (2007) work highlighted that SEMs are entrenched in a patriarchal and heterosexist landscape. For example, in mainstream pornography, women are expected to perform a sexual script that emphasizes men’s satisfaction over their own pleasure and are bound to a hyper-feminine role. Corsianos (2007) concluded that new pornography must be diverse/self-defined and more accessible to creators to improve women’s sexual agency. OnlyFans is an example of the rise in individualized erotic labour where sex work is conducted, managed, and advertised in an isolated setting (Jones, 2015). It seems that the framework of OnlyFans allows women to obtain the sexual agency that Corsianos described. OnlyFans might just make women their own boss, and finally allow them to gain capital on their sexuality without entering the historically sexist mainstream porn industry. 

No Such Thing as Easy $

Selling SEM comes with risks. Many individuals struggle with the stigma and social repercussions that are associated with this type of work. This begs the question, why did OnlyFans make exotic labour more appealing to those who previously would have never considered this type of work? In short, money. OnlyFans captivates its users by promising fast, easy money with the added benefit of being your own boss (Safaee, 2021). Individuals who sell SEMs reported that money was the primary motivation for joining the industry and maintaining involvement (Griffith et al. 2010). However, there are misconceptions surrounding OnlyFans and its profit that are vital to consider. First, the distribution of income on OnlyFans is exceptionally skewed. An analysis found that the top 1% of creators make 33% of the profits on the website (Perry, 2020). Furthermore, the average woman creator on OnlyFans only secures 30 subscribers. Additionally, the analysis notes that creators’ income may not pay off when measuring both the time spent creating material and interacting with subscribers (Perry, 2020).

Goodbye Privacy. 

OnlyFans might seems private--I mean, people need to pay to see the content, right?  Angela Jones (2015) investigated the role of sex work in the digital era. They note that scholars in sexuality view the Internet as a positive adaptation in the sex work industry, creating more affordances in physical safety and improving solicitation for SEM producers. However, Jones (2015) reminds us that the Internet is not as safe as you may think. SEM workers, such as Camgirls, are frequently victims of capping and doxing, two risks that one must be aware of when considering OnlyFans. Capping is when consumers share a creator’s SEM on other platforms without consent or compensation. Doxing is when viewers find personal information, such as your address, birth name, etc. and share with other users to harass the SEM producer. Indeed, creators on OnlyFans were distressed by the lack of security on their account. Safaee (2021) interviewed six creators on OnlyFans, and found that a common concern reported was the emotional stress of their content being shared. Multiple creators had not disclosed their account to family or friends. Many creators felt that they would be humiliated if those in their social circle become aware of their account. As discussed previously, shame around sexual behaviours can cause immense anxiety and dysfunction in one’s sexuality (Tiidenberg, 2014).

Does OnlyFans Really Matter?  

Why does these issues matter if OnlyFans is “worth it” to the average creator? SEM has grown exponentially in the last few decades and it is increasingly consumed due to accessibility from the Internet (Pukall, 2020). Much emphasis is placed on the effects of consuming SEM, while the effects of producing SEM has been ignored.  This is problematic, as platforms, such as OnlyFans, have increased participation in this form of sex work. To many, OnlyFans is appealing, given that the individualized erotic labour entails more sexual agency and empowerment. However, this article addressed two main costs associated with creating content on OnlyFans. First, that OnlyFans has a false reputation of providing an impressive income for its users which undermines the popular motivation for producing SEM. Second, creators on OnlyFans experience immense emotional distress over the lack of privacy and risk sexual shame and harassment. Indeed, it seems as though SEM on the Internet is here to stay, so perhaps it is time to consider the health and wellbeing of its creators especially as this workforce increases in size and becomes more mainstream. 

Chelsea Roberts, Psychology (Honours) - BAH / 3rd year, Queen’s University.

References

Angela Jones. (2015). Sex Work in a Digital Era. Sociology Compass, 9(7), 558–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12282

Aryana Safaee. (2021). Sex, Love, and OnlyFans: How the Gig Economy Is Transforming Online Sex Work. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 

Griffith, Hayworth, M., Adams, L. T., Mitchell, S., & Hart, C. (2012). Characteristics of Pornography Film Actors: Self-Report versus Perceptions of College Students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(4), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0033-5

Katrin Tiidenberg. (2014). Bringing sexy back: Reclaiming the body aesthetic via self-shooting. Cyberpsychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-1-3

Louise Perry. (2020). By exploiting loneliness, OnlyFans became the porn industry’s great lockdown winner. But at what cost? New Statesman (1996), 149(5545).

Marylin Corsianos. (2007). Mainstream Pornography and “Women”: Questioning Sexual Agency. Critical Sociology, 33(5-6), 863–885. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916307X230359

Natalie Jarvey. (2020). OnlyFans: Hollywood’s Risque Pandemic Side Hustle. Hollywood Reporter, 426, 32–33. 

Patricia Nilsson. (2021). OnlyFans blurs boundaries as lockdown demand drives success. FT.com.

Pukall. (2020). Human Sexuality : A Contemporary Introduction (Third Edition.). Oxford University Press.