Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Personal Preferences, Discursive Strategies, and the Maintenance of Inequality on Gay Dating Apps

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scholars have noted how online dating technologies are one important arena in which racism, classism, heteronormativity, and other systems of domination are reproduced. This often materializes via a “personal preference” discourse—a framing of desire as unique, individual, and untethered from systems of domination. Yet underexplored is how such a discourse, which fosters prejudice in preferences, is framed as socially acceptable. This paper draws on a content analysis of 858 unique profile screenshots and in-depth interview data of 26 users of Grindr, Scruff, and Jack’d to examine how users voice their “personal preferences.” The content analysis results indicated that 24 percent of profiles listed a preference, and that most were framed in “positive” or polite ways (e.g., “I’m into…”). Analysis of interview data demonstrated that respondents engaged in what we call blatant exclusion and positive reframing in their interactions with other users to voice their “personal preferences.” Users who did not state preferences still allowed their preferences to infuse their experiences on the app. We document how users negotiated racist, classist, and heteronormative preferences and, to an extent, how these users are understanding others’ preferences. This study has implications for understanding the logic behind “personal preference” discourse and why it remains socially acceptable even as other systems of domination do not.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Grindr is a leader among gay dating and meet/hookup apps, so it is plausible that their efforts to restrict exclusive language might resonate with similar apps. However, updates to Grindr's community guidelines were made in September of 2018 as part of their Kindr Grindr campaign. These updates came several months after the authors collected their profile data on June 15 of 2018 and began their analyses. Therefore, their campaign does not affect the present findings, and the authors’ triangulation of data via content analysis of multiple apps as well as interviews adds to the validity of their findings.

References

  • Altheide, D. L. (1987). Reflections: Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10(1), 65–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, A., & Klinenberg, E. (2015). Modern romance. Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badal, H. J., Stryker, J. E., DeLuca, N., & Purcell, D. W. (2017). Swipe right: Dating website and app use among men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 22(4), 1265–1272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960–973.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartone, M. D. (2017). Jack’d, a mobile social networking application: A site of exclusion within a site of inclusion. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(4), 501–523.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bonilla-Silva, E. (2014). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonos, L. (2016). What is Jack’d? The gay dating app, explained. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/06/15/what-is-jackd-thegay-dating-app-explained/

  • Buggs, S. G. (2017a). Dating in the time of# blacklivesmatter: Exploring mixed-race women’s discourses of race and racism. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 3(4), 538–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buggs, S. G. (2017b). Utopic subjects, post-racial desires: Mixed-race, intimacy, and the on-line dating experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UT Electronic Theses and Dissertations. (Accession No. 993938999).

  • Callander, D., Holt, M., & Newman, C. E. (2016). ‘Not everyone’s gonna like me’: Accounting for race and racism in sex and dating web services for gay and bisexual men. Ethnicities, 16(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796815581428

  • Callander, D., Newman, C. E., & Holt, M. (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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

  • Collins, P. (2004). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, C. T. (2019). The gay gayze: Expressions of inequality on Grindr. Sociological Quarterly, 60(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2018.1533394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dating Sites Reviews. (2021). Grindr information, statistics, facts and history. https://www.datingsitesreviews.com/staticpages/index.php?page=grindr-statistics-facts-history#ref-ODS-Grindr-2017-2

  • Deterding, N. M., & Waters, M. C. (2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50, 708–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, R. M. (1998). Latino gay men and HIV: Culture, sexuality, and risk behavior. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijk, T. A. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society, 3(1), 87–118.

  • Duggan, L. (2012). The twilight of equality?: Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, S. L. (2012). Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews [Editorial]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(6), 1319–1320.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedel, W., Brooks, F., & Duncan, D. (2016). Approaches to sampling gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men from geosocial-networking smartphone applications: A methodological note. Social Sciences, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5040051

  • Green, A. I. (2008). The social organization of desire: The sexual fields approach. Sociological Theory, 26(1), 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, A. I. (2011). Playing the (sexual) field: The interactional basis of systems of sexual stratification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(3), 244–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindr Community Guidelines. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.grindr.com/community-guidelines/

  • Hakim, C. (2010). Erotic capital. European Sociological Review, 26, 499–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, C. (2006). Geisha of a different kind: Gay Asian men and the gendering of sexual identity. Sexuality and Culture, 10, 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, C. (2008a). A qualitative exploration of the relationship between racism and unsafe sex among Asian Pacific Islander gay men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(5), 827–837.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Han, C. (2008b). No fats, femmes, or Asians: The utility of critical race theory in examining the role of gay stock stories in the marginalization of gay Asian men. Contemporary Justice Review, 11(1), 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, C., & Choi, K.-H. (2018). Very few people say “No Whites”: Gay men of color and the racial politics of desire. Sociological Spectrum, 38(3), 145–161.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, K.-H., & Lundquist, J. (2013). Mate selection in cyberspace: The intersection of race, gender, and education. American Journal of Sociology, 119(1), 183–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, A., Hull, K. E., & Ortyl, T. A. (2009). Young adult relationship values at the intersection of gender and sexuality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 510–525.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, B. (2015). “Dude, Where’s Your Face?”: Self-presentation, self-description, and partner preferences on a social networking application for men who have sex with men: A content analysis. Sexuality & Culture, 19(4), 637–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClintock, A. (2013). Imperial leather: Race, gender, and sexuality in the colonial contest. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz-Laboy, M., & Severson, N. (2018). Exploring the roles of race, ethnicity, nationality, and skin color in the sexual partner choices of bisexual Latino men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(4), 1231–1239.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, K. (2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, J. P., Ayala, G., & Choi, K. H. (2010). Internet sex ads for MSM and partner selection criteria: The potency of race/ethnicity online. Journal of Sex Research, 47(6), 528–538.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, B. A. (2015). “Personal preference” as the new racism: Gay desire and racial cleansing in cyberspace. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 1(2), 317–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, B. A. (2016). The quantifiable-body discourse: “Height-weight proportionality” and gay men’s bodies in cyberspace. Social Currents, 3(2), 172–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, B. A., & Vidal-Ortiz, S. (2013). Displacing the dominant “Down Low” discourse: Deviance, same-sex desire, and Craigslist.org. Deviant Behavior, 34(3), 224–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. K. (2007). Structural dimensions of romantic preferences. Fordham Law Review, 76, 2787–2819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robnett, B., & Feliciano, C. (2011). Patterns of racial-ethnic exclusion by internet daters. Social Forces, 89(3), 807–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, M. J. (2007). The age of independence: Interracial unions, same-sex unions, and the changing American family. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shield, A. D. (2018). Grindr culture: Intersectional and socio-sexual. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 18(1), 149–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97–120.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, P. (2015). Middle-aged gay men, ageing and ageism: Over the rainbow? Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. C., & Shin, R. Q. (2014). Queer blindfolding: A case study on difference “blindness” toward persons who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(7), 940–961.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, L., & Forbes, T. D. (2022). Feeling like a fetish: Racialized feelings, fetishization, and the contours of sexual racism on gay dating apps. Journal of Sex Research, 59(3), 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1979455

  • Stember, C. (1978). Sexual racism: The emotional barrier to an integrated society. Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumerau, J. E., Forbes, T. D., Grollman, E. A., & Mathers, L. A. (2021). Constructing allyship and the persistence of inequality. Social Problems, 63, 358–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.

  • Tan, J. Y., Pratto, F., Operario, D., & Dworkin, S. L. (2013). Sexual positioning and race-based attraction by preferences for social dominance among gay Asian/Pacific Islander men in the United States. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(7), 1233–1239.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thai, M., Stainer, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2019). The “preference” paradox: Disclosing racial preferences in attraction is considered racist even by people who overtly claim it is not. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 70–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. dating apps daily usage 2016. (n.d.). Retrieved March 6, 2019, from Statista website: https://www.statista.com/statistics/737103/popular-online-dating-daily-usage-sessions/

  • Wikipedia. (2021). Scruff (app). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scruff_(app)

  • Wilson, P. A., & Yoshikawa, H. (2004). Experiences of and responses to social discrimination among Asian and Pacific Islander gay men: Their relationship to HIV risk. AIDS Education and Prevention, 16(1), 68–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P. A., Valera, P., Ventuneac, A., Balan, I., Rowe, M., & Carballo-Diéguez, A. (2009). Race-based sexual stereotyping and sexual partnering among men who use the internet to identify other men for bareback sex. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 399–413.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

TehQuin D. Forbes and Lawrence Stacey have contributed equally to this manuscript. The authors would like to thank Koji Ueno, Brandon Andrew Robinson, Helana Darwin, Kate Curley, Penny Harvey, Tim Arthur, and Rin Reczek, as well as the anonymous reviewers, for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this work. We would also like to thank our undergraduate research assistants Arria Hauldin, Macarena Gonzalez, and Jordan Rundle for their help coding and transcribing data. Earlier versions of this work were presented at the Southern Sociological Society’s annual meeting in 2019.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Honors Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

      TehQuin D. Forbes

    2. Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

      Lawrence Stacey

    Authors
    1. TehQuin D. Forbes
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Lawrence Stacey
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to TehQuin D. Forbes.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

    Ethical Approval

    All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Florida State University Human Subjects Committee (reference number: 2017.22476) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

    Informed Consent

    Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

    Additional information

    Publisher's Note

    Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Forbes, T.D., Stacey, L. Personal Preferences, Discursive Strategies, and the Maintenance of Inequality on Gay Dating Apps. Arch Sex Behav 51, 2385–2397 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02223-1

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Revised:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02223-1

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation