M EETING P OTENTIAL P ARTNERS AT O NLINE D ATING S ITES
M EETING P OTENTIAL P ARTNERS AT O NLINE D ATING S ITES
If sex can be said to have driven the technological development of the Internet, then we might say that sex has been driving the expansion of online dat- ing sites that have exploded on the Web. Sex in this sense would be in its broadest interpretation, from those seeking partners for pure erotic pleasure and release, to marriage and babies, to social and interpersonal connectedness, to alleviating loneliness or boredom, among others—with or without love of whatever sexual orientation. Ross (2005) has provided a useful framework for researchers to explore Internet-mediated sexuality. He focuses on social theory and sexual scripts, among
5 The Psychology of Sex
other perspectives, that he hopes will help us to better understand the diversity of sexual interactions on the Internet as a part of sexual culture at large. Delmonico (2003) highlights some of the challenges that online daters face:
On the Internet, relationships are virtual—that is, not based in the same reality on which we have created relationships for thousands of years. Our fi ve senses are often lost or dis- torted during Internet interactions. I usually cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or “taste” the individual with whom I am trying to form a relationship. There are attempts to approxi- mate these senses; however, efforts at videoconferencing and voice chatting are far from replacing the “real world.” Even more diffi cult is that sixth sense that we tap into when forming relationships—that inner instinct when our senses combine with our history, expectations, and desires which results [in] that internal feeling of “good” or “bad” about
a relationship. Granted, these fi rst impressions about relationships can be wrong, but as most of us know, if we trust these feelings, they are typically good cues about the future of that relationship. Perhaps this is what the Internet will never replace. (p. 259)
Most online dating services, such as the very popular Match.com, appear to start with the premise that similar interests and other factors that the two individu- als share contribute greatly to the potential for success. Prospective members fi ll out online profi les when they subscribe to the service that detail one’s self-descrip- tion and that of the ideal mate across various parameters. These sites seem to meet the needs of millions of subscriber-members. Specialized niche services exist as well that cater to people with very focused interests. One such organization, eHarmony. com, seems to have the most comprehensive enrollment process that statistically matches members based on an extensive sophisticated questionnaire which sub- scribers complete online. The instrument, according to the website, was developed based on research done by Dr. Neil Clark Warren, eHarmony’s founder, into vari- ous compatibility traits that he believes contribute to successful marriages. A key factor is that the site is strongly oriented toward traditional marriage and is clearly marketed to an audience seeking that. They subscribe to the popular belief that they can help one fi nd her or his soul mate. Research conducted by eHarmony indicates that marriages that resulted from matches made there had higher scores on marital satisfaction than comparison couples who had met elsewhere (Carter & Snow, 2004). Some specialized niche services cater to racial or ethnic populations, activities or special interests, such as exercising or pets, just casual dating or sex, or
a host of other variables. Of particular note are the sites that exist for individuals who are affl icted with herpes, HPV, HIV/AIDS, or other STDs. One of the most popular is PositiveSingles.com, which allows one to connect with other singles who understand the problems with potential rejection that having such infections can cause. As such, they can encourage honesty in relationships, as many people sometimes refrain from disclosing that they have certain diseases, such as herpes and HPV. These individuals can then enjoy the intimacy that they want, with the full knowledge that their partner will understand the need for certain restrictions. They can thus enhance their self-esteem and the general satisfaction with life that intimacy brings, to which everyone is entitled.
130 Raymond J. Noonan
In the summer of 2005, television viewers were given a glimpse of the world of online dating in Hooking Up (Taylor, 2005), a “reality TV” documentary from ABC News following the online dating adventures of several New York City women as they searched for “Mr. Right.” It was revealing in that it clearly demonstrated that the trials and tribula- tions of online dating were not substantively different from those of traditional forms of dating. The women—and to a lesser extent, the men—still appeared to cling to unrealistic notions that there existed “out there somewhere” their one-and-only soul mate, their Mr. or Ms. Right, if only they could fi nd them. According to the program, there are 40 million online daters in the United States, all searching for someone. It was apparent that high-tech involvement in the initial meeting process did not mediate the insecurities, the need for approval, the desperation, the vulnerabilities, the fear or experience of rejection and failure, and so on, that real people with real bodies and minds have in negotiating a potential intimate relationship. Several dynamics of relationships were highlighted, includ- ing the observation by some of the women that “women have the upper hand” in the online dating experience, at least in the screening process. They enjoyed the fact that they can be independent and the pursuer and be in control and have power. Sex was often seen as a commodity and a bargaining chip in the dating game, which gave the women power. “Dating deception” was also highlighted, as were lies and manipulation on the part of both the women and the men, which counterbalanced some of the shifting power dynamics within the couples, much as often happens in traditional dating scenarios. Most of this deception did not seem malevolent, but rather attempts to allow the other person to see how they “really” were beyond aspects of their true identities and professions. Still, the bottom line, as in traditional fi rst meetings, was that chemistry and spark (the sexual component, although it was rarely articulated as such), along with shared interests, were what everyone seemed to be seeking.
The fi rst national survey on online dating took place in the fall of 2005 conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project (Madden & Lenhart, 2006; summary: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/177/report_display.asp), which revealed some interesting insights into the rising popularity of online dat- ing in recent years. A preliminary report was also published based on the same data (Rainie & Madden, 2006; summary: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/ r/173/report_display.asp), which presented some additional insights into roman- tic pairings in contemporary America. Of particular note was the discovery that actively looking for romantic partners was not a high priority for most young singles, and that signifi cant numbers of those seeking relationships were not even dating very frequently. The reader is referred to these online reports for statistics on current committed-relationship and partner-seeking status among Internet users, as well as comparison data on where fi rst meetings took place among those who are married or in committed relationships (only 3% met through the Internet). Yet, online dating sites have been affecting how we date early in the 21 st century, according to these reports.
Among the major fi ndings relative to online dating itself, Madden and Lenhart (2006) found that roughly two-thirds of those who are currently single and looking
5 The Psychology of Sex
have used the Internet in some way, including online dating, to further their romantic interests. They also found that signifi cant numbers of Americans personally know peo- ple who have tried online dating and succeeded at it, resulting in a major shift in public attitudes toward it in recent years. Yet they found that most Internet users believe that online dating is dangerous because of posting personal information online. Still, among those who have actually tried it, a slight majority feels it is not dangerous, although many others believe it involves some risk. Yahoo! Personals and Match.com were found to
be the most popular dating sites among those who took part in the survey. More than half of the respondents said they had mostly positive experiences with online dating, while less than a third reported mostly negative experiences. (I know of no comparable data with respect to offl ine dating with which to compare their experiences, although anecdotal stories suggest that it might be similar.) The young seemed to have the most favorable responses in general. The authors noted that, although deception is certainly
a possibility as in offl ine encounters, it “seems to be the exception rather than the rule” (p. 2), despite the fact that most people said they believed that a lot of people lie about their marital status. On social attitudes in general, there were statistically signifi cant dif- ferences between online daters and both Internet users and Americans in general. An interesting highlight was the fi nding that 15% of American adults and 43% or online daters personally knew someone who found a long-term partner online.
All of this, of course, raises the question as to the role that psychologists or commentators might play in improving the dynamics of couples’ relationships, if they themselves believe in such concepts as Mr. and Ms. Right, one-and-only soul mates, and similar mythologies. It appears that the lifecycle of relationships follows the same path as that in offl ine relationships. Thus, Internet dating is just another way to meet people. Is it a hit-or-miss proposition as much as random meetings with new people are? After all, we only get intimately involved with people with whom we come in contact; if we do not meet them, we will not have a relationship. And what of the failures that will likely ensue? It has long been my contention that if we told young people that most relationships do not last, we would help inoculate them from the self-blame or fear of failure that often results from failed relationships. Certainly, we still have much to learn about creating successful relationships.