Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Sexuality
Vol. 11:1 (2022) ► pp.1–30

More than the selfie

Online dating, non-monogamy, normativity, and linked profiles on OkCupid

| University of Washington Tacoma, USA

Success in the digital dating world is often dependent on an individual’s ability to negotiate the affordances and constraints of platforms (Bucher & Helmond 2017) while effectively expressing who one is and what they are looking for. Since mononormativity is the dominant script that underpins ideals of romantic love and intimate relations in our society (Wolkomir 2019), for the millions who ascribe to non-monogamy, profile creation is often complicated by dating platform interfaces and relationship orientations. This research takes a critical multimodal discourse approach (Machin 2016, Milani 2013) to examine the interplay between various semiotic modes in meaning making about sexual normativities (Motschenbacher 2019) in digital dating contexts, and considers how people navigating non-traditional relationship orientations negotiate discourse in digital dating contexts to demonstrate how discourse and design have the ability to empower and marginalize users (Sun 2020) as well maintain cultural norms (Wachter-Boettcher 2017) about emotional bonding and sexuality.

Keywords: normativity, non-monogamy, polyamory, digital discourse, multimodal critical discourse studies, online dating, user experience, design
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Consensual non-monogamy and sexual normativity
  • 3.Multimodality and queer linguistics
    • 3.1Methods
  • 4.Consensual non-monogamy and digital design
    • 4.1Labeling relationship type and status
    • 4.2Linking profiles
    • 4.3Constructing non-monogamy through written bios
    • 4.4Visualizing non-monogamy through profile photos
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Ethics statement
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.20005.tho
References
Anderson, Eric
2012 The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, Elizabeth A., England, Paula & Fogarty, Alison C. K.
2012 Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review 77(3): 435–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ault, Michael K. & Gilder, Bobbi Van
2015 Polygamy in the United States: How marginalized religious communities cope with stigmatizing discourses surrounding plural marriage. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 44(4): 307–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, Meg
2005 This is my partner, and this is my … partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 18(1): 75–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Robin
2010 Non-monogamy in queer BDSM communities: Putting the sex back into alternative relationship practices and discourse. In Understanding Non-Monogamies. Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (eds), 142–153. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baym, Nancy
2010 Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Berg, Alex
2014 Why these queers are boycotting OkCupid – and you should, too. Huffington Post. [URL] (June 29 2020).
Brown, Anna
2020 Lesbian, gay and bisexual online daters report positive experiences – but also harassment. Pew Research Center. [URL] (August 17 2020).
Bucher, Taina & Helmond, Anne
2017 The affordances of social media platforms. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell & Alice E. Marwick (eds) 233–253. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Callis, April Scarlette
2014 Bisexual, pansexual, queer: Non-binary identities and the sexual borderlands. Sexualities 17(1–2): 63–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Bronwyn
2019 Love and hate at the cultural interface: Indigenous Australians and dating apps: Journal of Sociology 56(2): 133–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapais, Bernard
2013 Monogamy, strongly bonded groups, and the evolution of human social structure. Evolutionary Anthropology 22(2): 52–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLamater, John & Rebecca F. Plante
2015 Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijck, Jose van
2013 The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimock, Michael
2019 Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. [URL] (May 30 2020).
Douglas, Susan J.
2004 [1999] Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Drouin, Michelle, Miller, Daniel, Wehle, Shaun M. J. & Hernandez, Elisa
2016 Why do people lie online? “Because everyone lies on the internet.” Computers in Human Behavior 641: 134–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duguay, Stefanie
2016 “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society 18(6): 891–907. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrer, Jorge N.
2018 Mononormativity, polypride, and the “mono–poly wars.” Sexuality & Culture 22(3): 817–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, John
2017 Critical Discourse Studies in context. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds), 165–179. New York: Taylor & Francis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel
1977 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
1988 Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Fry, Richard
2020 Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation. Pew Research Center. [URL] (May 30 2020).
Gahran, Amy
2012 Riding the relationship escalator (or not). Solo Poly. [URL] (February 5 2019).
2013 Couple privilege: Having it doesn’t necessarily make you an asshole (but it might). SoloPoly. [URL] (November 13 2019).
Gibson, James J.
2014 The theory of affordances. In The People, Place, and Space Reader, Jen Jack Gieseking, William Mangold, Cindi Katz, Setha Low & Susan Saegert (eds), 56–60. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony
1992 The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love, and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldhill, Olivia
2018 Polyamorous sex is the most quietly revolutionary political weapon in the United States. Quartz. [URL] (December 21 2018).
Grinberg, Emanuella
2016 OkCupid adds feature for polyamorous users. CNN Online, U.S. Edition. [URL] (October 3 2017).
Haritaworn, Jin, Lin, Chin-ju & Klesse, Christian
2006 Poly/logue: A critical introduction to polyamory: Sexualities 9(5): 515–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haupert, Mara L., Gesselman, Amanda N., Moors, Amy C., Fisher, Helen E. & Garcia, Justin R.
2017 Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 43(5): 424–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogenboom, Melissa
2016 Polyamorous relationships may be the future of love. BBC News, sec. Future. [URL] (June 6 2020).
Hyde, Janet S. & DeLamater, John
2000 Understanding Human Sexuality. 7th edition. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Iedema, Rick
2003 Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication 2(1): 29–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenks, Richard J.
1998 Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior 27(5): 507–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kale, Sirin
2018 All you need is loves: The truth about polyamory. The Guardian, sec. Life and style. [URL] (June 6 2020).
Khazan, Olga
2016 OkCupid adds a feature for the polyamorous. The Atlantic. [URL] (October 3 2017).
Klesse, Christian
2006 Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities 9(5): 565–583. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Polyamory: Intimate practice, identity or sexual orientation? Sexualities 17(1–2): 81–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, Gunther R. & van Leeuwen, Theo
1998 Front pages: (The critical) analysis of newspaper layout. In Approaches to Media Discourse, Allan Bell & Peter Garrett (eds), 186–219. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kunst, Alexander
2019 U.S. online dating by age 2017. Statista. [URL] (September 16 2019).
Laura
2020 Polyamory glossary. Ready for polyamory. [URL]. (October 3 2020).
Leap, William L.
2015 Queer linguistics as critical discourse analysis. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 661–680. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Machin, David
2007 Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
2013 What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Critical Discourse Studies 10(4): 347–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 The need for a social and affordance-driven multimodal critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society 27(3): 322–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald & Wajcman, Judy
(eds) 1999 The Social Shaping of Technology. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: McGraw Hill Education / Open University.Google Scholar
Mahler, Jess
2016 Kitchen table polyamory, parallel polyamory, and etiquette. Jess Mahler. [URL] (January 21 2020).
Matsick, Jes L., Conley, Terri D., Ziegler, Ali, Moors, Amy C. & Rubin, Jennifer D.
2014 Love and sex: Polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships. Psychology & Sexuality 5(4): 339–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milani, Tommaso M.
2013 Expanding the Queer Linguistic scene: Multimodality, space and sexuality at a South African university. Journal of Language and Sexuality 2(2): 206–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Straight-acting: Discursive negotiations of a homomasculine identity. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity, Siân Preece (ed), 469–483. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miller, Geoffrey
2019 Polyamory is growing – and we need to get serious about it. Quillette. [URL] (November 3 2019).
Mortensen, Kristine Køhler
2015 Informed consent in the field of language and sexuality: The case of online dating research. Journal of Language and Sexuality 4(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Motschenbacher, Heiko
2017 Sexuality in critical discourse studies. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds), 388–403. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Language and sexual normativity. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, Greg
2010 The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Norman, Don
2013 The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay
2011 Multimodal discourse analysis. In Bloomsbury Companion to Discourse Analysis. Ken Hyland & Brian Paltridge (eds), 120–137. London: A&C Black.Google Scholar
OkCupid
2020 Non-monogamy on OkCupid – OkCupid help. [URL] (April 1 2020).
Perez, Caroline Criado
2019 Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. New York: Abrams Press.Google Scholar
Pogensky, Ryley
2013 OkCupid petition: Extend the gender and sexuality options. Change.org. [URL] (June 29 2020).
Rich, Adrienne
1980 Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5(4): 631–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, Ani & Barker, Meg
2006 ‘There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make them up’: Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy: Sexualities 9(5): 584–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michael J. & Thomas, Reuben J.
2012 Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review 77(4): 523–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubel, Alicia N. & Burleigh, Tyler J.
2020 Counting polyamorists who count: Prevalence and definitions of an under-researched form of consensual nonmonogamy. Sexualities 23(1–2): 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Jennifer, Moors, Amy, Matsick, Jes, Ziegler, Ali & Conley, Terri
2014 On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für Psychologie 22(1): 19–37.Google Scholar
Rudder, Christian
2014 Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity – What Our Online Lives Tell Us About Our Offline Selves. London: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
Schippers, Mimi
2016 Beyond Monogamy: Polyamory and the Future of Polyqueer Sexualities. Kindle Version. New York: NYU Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheff, Elisabeth
2014 How many polyamorists are there in the U.S.? Psychology Today. [URL] (October 3 2017).
Sheff, Elisabeth & Hammers, Corie
2011 The privilege of perversities: Race, class and education among polyamorists and kinksters. Psychology & Sexuality 2(3): 198–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheff, Elisabeth & Tesene, Megan M.
2015 Consensual non-monogamies in industrialized nations. In Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities, John DeLamater & Rebecca F. Plante (eds), 223–241. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, Dawn
2016 Building Relationships: Online Dating and the New Logics of Internet Culture. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Shucart, Brendan
2016 Polyamory by the numbers. [URL] (January 18 2020).
Smith, Aaron
2016 15% of American adults have used online dating sites or mobile dating apps. Pew Research Center. [URL] (October 10 2017).
Smith, Aaron & Duggan, Maeve
2013 Part 2: Dating Apps and Online Dating Sites. Pew Research Center. [URL] (October 10 2017).
Sun, Huatong
2020 Global Social Media Design: Bridging Differences Across Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[
treena_kravm] 2018 Please stop using nesting partner when you really mean primary partner. reddit. [URL] (August 10 2020).
[
UsernameForSexStuff] 2018 OkCupid making changes to non-monogamous profiles. reddit. [URL] (January 31 2020).
Van Leeuwen, Theo
2012 Critical analysis of multimodal discourse. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Carol Chapelle (ed), 1–6. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wachter-Boettcher, Sara
2017 Technically Wrong: Sexist Apps, Biased Algorithms, and Other Threats of Toxic Tech. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Webb, Stephanie
2017 “There Will Be More Cookies”: A Discursive Exploration of Polyamorous Identity in a Monogamous World. (Unpublished) PhD dissertation, University of Denver.
Wolkomir, Michelle
2019 Swingers and polyamorists: A comparative analysis of gendered power dynamics. Sexualities 23(7): 1060–1079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, Curtis M.
2014 OkCupid begins rolling out new gender, sexuality options. Huffington Post. [URL] (October 3 2017).