‘You don’t look for love on grindr, that’s for sure’: a qualitative investigation into dating app use of Australian same-sex attracted men

ABSTRACT

Dating applications (‘apps’) have become a popular means for men who have sex with men (MSM) to seek sex or relationships. Indeed, dating apps have become popular, in part, because they are perceived as providing LGBTQIA+ people with a safe space to explore their sexuality with a reduced risk of discrimination and violence compared to non-virtual dating. The current study aimed to better understand how Australian MSM experience dating apps, specifically how they perceive that dating apps influence their attitudes about relationships and dating behaviours. Thematic analysis from interviews with 11 MSM adult dating app users identified three themes that were centred around exposure to non-traditional relationship models and conformity to gay dating norms, commodification of dating and safety concerns. Dating apps appear to be a conflicted space for young Australian MSM that may offer some safety for relationship development away from threats of homophobia, but which may facilitate online harassment and predatory behaviours. This paper concludes with recommendations for dating apps to increase security and verification to ensure they offer a safe space for LGBTQIA+ users.

KEYWORDS:

• Dating applications
• social networking
• LGBTQIA+
• MSM

Advances in internet technology have changed the processes of modern dating, with the internet broadening methods to meet potential partners in ways that cross social and geographical boundaries (Anderson et al., 2018; Holloway, 2015). Online dating applications, widely known as ‘dating apps’, have become a focus for modern research due to their ever-increasing number of users and are projected to reach over 400 million users worldwide by 2027 (Statista, 2023). Gay dating apps (e.g. Grindr, Jack’d, Adam4Adam, GROWLr, Scruff), as well as more mainstream dating apps (catering to all sexualities, e.g. Tinder), have revolutionised the dating culture within gay communities (Fetters, 2018). Men who have sex with men (MSM) are one of the largest consumer bases for dating apps (Rosenfeld, 2018; Sumter & Vandenbosch, 2019); however, the app use of this group is understudied compared to heterosexual users. This study aims to better understand how Australian MSM experience dating apps, specifically how they perceive that dating apps influence their attitudes about relationships as well as their dating behaviours.

Dating applications and MSM

For the scope of this study, men who have sex with men (MSM) is used to describe any man who is romantically or sexually attracted to another man, encompassing, but not limited to identification as homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, or queer. MSM face a unique set of challenges when searching for and maintaining romantic and sexual relationships compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Miller, 2015). Given that MSM have a smaller pool of potential partners, along with the difficulties that are often faced in visually identifying the sexual orientation of potential partners in non-virtual spaces, using online platforms to meet other MSM may make the process easier and provide a safe place for MSM to connect (Baams et al., 2011; Brown et al., 2005; Chan, 2018; Grov et al., 2014; Gudelunas, 2012; Hiller et al., 2012; Lemke & Weber, 2017; Miller, 2015). Online dating platforms allow MSM to broadcast their own sexual preferences and identify the sexuality of others, without fear of in-person rejection or violence (Grov et al., 2014; Race, 2015a). While gay-specific venues (e.g. gay clubs, bathhouses), have long facilitated MSM casual sexual encounters, the benefits of dating apps over these venues include that they allow for relevant disclosures (e.g. HIV status as well as expression of their self-presentation and partner preferences based upon gay tribes: ‘bear’, ‘daddy’, ‘twink’) prior to meeting, and may facilitate interactions with a wider portion of the MSM community (Grov et al., 2014; Miller, 2015; Race, 2015b). Indeed, commentary has discussed whether the emergence of dating apps has resulted in the demise of the gay bar scene (Freeman, 2014). However, others have suggested that virtual and non-virtual venues can co-exist as spaces for LGBTQIA+ dating (Renninger, 2018).

Dating application design

Grindr, one of the most visited gay dating apps, is widely known as a ‘hook-up’ app, meaning that it primarily facilitates casual, sexual encounters (Badal et al., 2018; Blackwell et al., 2015; Corriero & Tong, 2016; Gudelunas, 2012; Licoppe et al., 2016). The Grindr interface employs a grid of profile photos, each with a user-defined username (Grindr, 2021). Dating apps are designed to be heavily image-based, with matching decisions primarily based on physical attractiveness. A key feature that distinguishes dating apps, such as Grindr, from more traditional dating websites is their ability to locate geographically close matches in real time (Alexopoulos et al., 2020; Blackwell et al., 2015), which may facilitate spontaneous ‘hook-ups’.

It should, however, be noted that although the perception of Grindr as an avenue for seeking casual sex is pervasive, previous research has identified heterogeneity in users’ reasons for use, including wanting to explore their sexual identity and connect with likeminded people within the LGBTQIA+ community (Blackwell et al., 2015; Stempfhuber & Liegl, 2016). Further, it is noted that the perception of Grindr purely as an avenue for casual sex may perpetuate stereotypes that MSM are inherently sexually promiscuous (Jaspal, 2017).

In comparison to more mainstream dating apps, such as Tinder, in which a user’s account is linked to their existing Facebook or Instagram account, Grindr users can remain largely anonymous, given that only an email account is required for account set-up, and they do not need to provide their real name or upload face pictures. Many Grindr users use this anonymity to seek sexual partners without the need to out themselves to the wider public (Blackwell et al., 2015; Gudelunas, 2012; Miller, 2015; Phillips et al., 2014). However, this anonymity may come at a cost, with some users leveraging this anonymity to commit acts of infidelity in their existing relationships (Alexopoulos et al., 2020). Further, although the Grindr terms of use stipulate that users must be over the age of 18 years, the anonymity in setting up an account means that there are limited ways for the app to monitor and enforce this rule.

Existing literature

Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 2001) posits that cognitions, attitudes and behaviours, including those pertaining to sex and relationships, are influenced by environmental factors, including friends, family and the media. The relationship between media and attitudes and behaviours is well documented (e.g. Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014). More contemporary research has identified that this association may extend to online social media (e.g. de Lenne et al., 2019). Subsequently, it is plausible that dating apps, as a form of social media, may influence the attitudes and behaviours of its users, but this connection has only limited empirical research.

Much of previous research into the connections that dating apps have with relationship and dating attitudes and behaviours, has focused on samples of heterosexual individuals (e.g. Alexopoulos et al., 2020; Sawyer et al., 2018; Tomaszewska & Schuster, 2019). Emerging research with MSM samples has shown that individuals who use gay dating apps are more likely to report using the apps for ‘hook-ups’ over seeking committed relationships (Licoppe et al., 2016), and users of gay dating apps have reported larger numbers of casual sex partners, compared to non-app-users (Choi et al., 2017; Chow et al., 2016; Grov et al., 2014; Hong et al., 2018; Lehmiller & Ioerger, 2014). Further, users of gay dating apps have been found to engage in high rates of risky sexual behaviours, such as unprotected sex (Badal et al., 2018; Holloway, 2015; Hong et al., 2018; Landovitz et al., 2012; Rendina et al., 2013), and subsequently, be at greater risk of contracting sexually transmissible infections (Beymer et al., 2014; Lehmiller & Ioerger, 2014).

Although some studies have identified gay dating apps as safe spaces for sexual exploration (Miller, 2015), other research has identified that the image-based design of apps, as well as the ubiquitous use of hyper-sexualised imagery, contribute to sexual objectification (Anderson et al., 2018; Gaudette et al., 2022) and may lead to negative body image (Filice et al., 2019). MSM dating app users who are specifically seeking a committed relationship may be at greater risk of negative self-esteem and life satisfaction outcomes compared to those seeking casual sexual encounters (Zervoulis et al., 2020). Finally, research has identified many gay men experience harassment while using dating apps, with one-third of an Australian and British sample reporting having received offensive communication and/or threats to their personal safety (Powell et al., 2018).

Although this extant research provides an emerging picture of the correlates of using gay dating apps, there is currently a paucity of qualitative research exploring the nuances of how MSM experience dating apps. In a Chinese context, qualitative research looking at how gay men develop relationships through dating apps highlighted that most remain simultaneously open to both casual sex and more committed relationships (Wu & Ward, 2020). Similar findings were echoed in a mixed-methods paper by Chan (2018), who qualitatively investigated the romantic or sexual relationship ideals of seven Asian American gay dating app users and how they perceived dating apps helped or hindered their attainment of these relationships. Chan and colleagues found that there was often a discrepancy between what users say they are ‘looking for’ and what they are ‘open to’ and many users kept their options open to different types of relationships forming from the apps.

The current study

The current study is informed by existing research into the associations between dating app use and sex behaviours of MSM (Choi et al., 2017; Landovitz et al., 2012; Lehmiller & Ioerger, 2014), as well as the emerging qualitative research looking at how relationships form through dating apps (Chan, 2018; Wu & Ward, 2020). As outlined by Race (2015b), how dating apps influence gay dating is related to the interaction between dating app use and specific contexts and cultures (see also White Hughto et al., 2016). Despite the legalisation of gay marriage in 2017 and relatively liberal societal attitudes towards diversity in sexual identities, many Australian MSM still experience stigma and discrimination (e.g. Symons et al., 2017). Given the prominent role of dating apps in MSM dating in Australia, it is important to better understand how these apps are changing the dating landscape and whether previous results (e.g. Chan, 2018) translate into an Australian context. Specifically, this study aims to better understand how MSM in metropolitan Western Australia perceived dating apps influence their attitudes about relationships and their dating behaviours. Through a series of in-depth interviews and an inductive qualitative lens, the perceptions of Australian MSM can be explored, with the intention to provide insight and recommendations to users of gay dating applications.

Method

Participants

Eleven participants took part in this study, who were either current users of dating apps or had used at least one dating apps in the previous 12 months. The age of participants ranged between 21 and 63 years (M = 32.9 years, SD = 11.39). Of the 11 participants, nine identified as cisgender male and two as non-binary.¹ Ten participants identified as homosexual, with one participant identifying as bisexual. All but one of the participants were single, with the remaining participant in a committed relationship and using dating applications to facilitate platonic friendships. All participants resided in Western Australia during the period of data collection, most were born in Australia (n = 9) and most identified as either atheist or agnostic (n = 8). Sample characteristics are outlined in Table 1. Most participants reported using multiple dating apps; Grindr was the app used by most participants (n = 10), with other apps used including Tinder (n = 6), Hinge (n = 3), Bumble (n = 2), and Scruff, Taimi, Bearworld and RedHotPie were each used by one participant. Frequency of dating app use varied across participants, from daily use (n = 1), multiple times a week (n = 7), once a month (n = 2) and less often than once a month (n = 1). Data were collected between June and August 2021. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling, LGBTQIA+-specific Facebook pages and through a Western Australian university.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Participant number	Alias	Age	Gender identity	Sexual identity	Relationship status	Country of birth	Religion
1 2 3	George Chris David	23 33 30	Man Man Non-binary	Homosexual Homosexual Homosexual	Single Single Single	Australia Australia Australia	Agnostic/Atheist Agnostic/Atheist Agnostic/Atheist
4 5 6	John Ollie Shaun	30 28 63	Man Man Man	Homosexual Bisexual Homosexual	Single Single Committed relationship	Australia Australia Malaysia	Agnostic/Atheist Agnostic/Atheist Roman Catholic
7	Mike	39	Man	Homosexual	Single	Sri Lanka	Agnostic/Atheist
8	Matthew	34	Man	Homosexual	Single	Australia	Spiritual
9	Chester	21	Man	Homosexual	Single	Australia	Prefer not to say
10	Mark	25	Non-binary	Homosexual	Single	Australia	Agnostic/Atheist
11	Ali	36	Man	Homosexual	Single	Australia	Agnostic/Atheist

Procedure

Following approval from the Murdoch University Human Research Ethics Committee, data were collected through a series of in-depth interviews, all conducted online via Blackboard Collaborate software using a semi-structured interview schedule. Prior to participating in an interview, participants were asked to complete a brief online survey, which determined their eligibility for the study and collected demographic and dating app usage information.

Online interviews have been found to facilitate in-depth and authentic data collection, and have the utility to extract more sensitive data (Thunberg & Arnell, 2022; Woodyatt et al., 2016) and may elicit richer responses (both in length and quality) from sensitive and marginalised populations in comparison to face-to-face data collection methods (McDermott & Roen, 2012). In Australia, approximately 30–40% of LGBTQIA+ individuals conceal their sexuality whilst working, socialising, or accessing public services (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014); hence, online data collection was employed to provide participants an increased level of anonymity. To further mitigate potential privacy concerns, participants could opt to use an alias rather than their real name and/or opt not to use their video function. To accommodate participants’ schedules and preferences, each was offered either one-on-one interviews or the option to participate in a small group interview. Gatlin and Johnson (2017) discuss the importance of flexibility in data collection for hard-to-reach sub-populations, including LGBT groups. Nine participants partook in one-on-one interviews and two participants consented to a combined interview. All participants opted to use their real names and video functions within their sessions. With participant permission, audio and visual recordings were made of all interviews.

Participants were each asked a series of questions pertaining to their current relationship status, followed by a series of nine open-ended questions regarding their experiences using dating apps and how they perceived that dating apps have influenced their dating attitudes and behaviours, with an example item including ‘Have dating apps influenced how you act in relationships, if so, how?’. The interviews ranged from 27 min to 1 h and 22 min in length. Data collection was completed once the research team reached consensus that data saturation had occurred and no new themes emerged (per the definition by Charmaz, 2006). Our sample size was in line with Braun and Clarke’s suggested amount of data needed for small-to-medium projects utilising Thematic Analysis (2006). The recordings of the focus group/interviews were uploaded to Trint transcription software. To ensure transcript accuracy, the research team manually cross-checked the transcriptions against the original recordings. All participant names were removed from the authenticated transcriptions and replaced with pseudonyms, which were used in the reporting of results.

Data analysis was approached from an inductive, critical realist perspective (see Wiltshire & Ronkainen, 2021) that focused on participants as the experts, with responses analysed within the wording and context reported by the participants. This data-driven approach means that relevant theories only provided an understanding of the context from which themes were identified, preserving the data’s specific meaning (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Analysis of the data was conducted following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) Six Phases of Thematic Analysis, with themes identified at the semantic level. The lead author and last author read the interview transcripts multiple times to familiarise themselves with the data corpus. Data-driven coding for interesting and recurring aspects was followed by collating data that fit the codes (e.g. ‘relationship expectations’, relationship ideals’). Codes were then examined in relation to each other to establish early themes. The lead author and the last author then reviewed themes together by referring back to the raw data and initial codes with all disagreements resolved through discussion. Themes were named and defined.

Positionality. The research team who conducted this study are all Australian citizens who resided in Western Australia during the time of data collection. They are mostly from Caucasian backgrounds, and all are cis-gendered. The team includes people of colour as well as those who identify as gay or queer. Most team members are current or past users of dating apps. The team understands that there is great heterogeneity in the lived experiences of those within the wider LGBTQAI+ community and within the MSM community and the obtained data will not encapsulate all experiences. All but one participant was in their 20s or 30s at the time of data collection and with high agreement among participant responses and subsequent low sample size, we are limited in the generalisability of our findings. Subsequently, these findings do not represent MSM dating app users in general, but rather, highlight specific concerns of a mostly young, white and non-religious MSM cohort in metropolitan Australia.

Results

Participant responses most often focused on Grindr, which was also the most prolifically used app. When other apps were mentioned, these were most often cited for comparative purposes in reference to Grindr. Thematic analysis identified three key themes, which are explored below.

’Every’ gay man is in an open relationship

Participants were each asked how they would define an ideal relationship; overall, participants expressed that their ideal relationship would be a long-term, monogamous relationship between two people, with many referring to marriage as a goal. Descriptors such as ‘trust’, ‘support’, a ‘best friend’, ‘respect’, ‘equality’ and ‘commitment’ were each echoed by multiple participants when describing their ideal relationship. In contrast to those ideals, participants perceived that non-traditional relationship models were the norm within the MSM community, including ‘hook-ups’, polyamory and other forms of consensual non-monogamy.

Participants, such as Mark (age 25), described that using dating apps allowed them to learn more about non-monogamy and gain a better understanding of the heterogeneity across relationships within the MSM community:

[…] you see so much about […] non monogamous and like polyamorous sort of relationships and stuff like that, and I feel like that’s had like a really recent increase […] seeing the sheer amount of people that […] sort of have that goal and sort of think of themself in that sort of way, that without the dating apps I probably just would have been completely in the dark about.

Mark credited dating apps with both exposing him to types of relationships that he was not exposed to in his offline life as well as being the facilitator of the ‘recent increase’ in those types of relationships. Mark made the link between relationship choices and identity, describing not just the types of relationships people want but also how they think about themselves. Matthew (aged 34) similarly expressed the perception that open relationships were highly pervasive throughout the MSM community, particularly on dating apps: ‘[…] just about every gay is in an open relationship, every gay man in Perth now’.

Because of the perceived pervasiveness of non-traditional relationships on dating apps, some participants disclosed feeling like there was little hope of finding an ongoing monogamous relationship, which led to feeling deterred from using dating apps, as described by Chris (age 33):

I guess now in my head I’m like is this [monogamy] an outdated model kind of thing, like is this something I won’t actually find on there? […] I’m trying to find like one person, like a monogamous relationship, basically settle down with that one person, be happy. But it seems like everybody on there wants to be in these sort of open relationships so they can do whatever they want, whomever they want, whenever they want.

Chris described a stark binary linking happiness to a committed relationship with one person, in contrast to what ‘everybody on there wants’. Although not addressed by participants, we did note an interesting discrepancy between participants perceiving that ‘everybody’ on dating app wanted non-monogamy and casual sex, but participants reporting they wanted monogamy and commitment. The social stigma associated with behaviours linked to the gay community can be internalised and experienced by MSM on a personal level, known as internalised homonegativity (Berg et al., 2016). It is possible that our participants were not representative of the community they described. Alternatively, participants may have downplayed their desires due to internalised homonegativity and stigma regarding promiscuity and MSM sex.

Some participants also conveyed concerns that it would not only be harder to find a relationship that met their expectations for monogamy but that their values for monogamy could be compromised by using dating apps given the pressure to engage in casual and non-monogamous sexual relationships. This pressure to conform was described by John (age 30):

My particular point of view […] of wanting a monogamous type of relationship, a lot of people criticize that as saying, oh, you’ve sold out to the heteros, as it was, or you’re buying into the hetero-normative dream - you’re selling out.

John described being compared to ‘the heteros’, which positions not only monogamy as objectionable but also the person who wants that type of relationship as a ‘sell-out’, again linking relationship choices to identity. The narrow and prescriptive set of sexual and relationship behaviours framed as ‘normal’ within heteronormative society positions behaviours outside of those norms as ‘morally weaker or personally less fulfilling’ (Duncan et al., 2015a, p. 800). Subsequently, MSM engaging in monogamy may be perceived as more ‘acceptable’ or ‘tolerable’ within heteronormative contexts compared to MSM engaging in other types of sexual behaviours. This illustrates a difficult space for MSM in which the desire for a monogamous relationship could be interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as internalised homonegativity or trying to engage in what Duncan et al. discusses as (2015) ‘“good” gay citizenship’ (p. 800).

Along with facilitating open relationships, participants perceived dating apps as geared towards facilitating short-term ‘hook-ups’ and, subsequently, hindering the formation of long-term romantic relationships. Several participants expressed that they believed dating apps had reduced their desire and expectations for finding a committed relationship, such as Chester (age 21):

How dating apps influence how we think about relationships […] it makes me feel like relationships are like one in a million […] because the way the dating app is set-up is all about hook-up culture, and so I really think it changes your mindset to be more about hook-up culture rather than seeking a relationship.

What is particularly striking in Chester’s response is his linking of dating apps to his change in his attitude towards ‘hook-ups’. Chester made the connection between the way the dating apps are ‘set-up’ and his expectations of finding a relationship. Although Chester did not explicitly specify, it was clear to the interviewer that when he referred to ‘relationships’ being a rarity, he was referring to the monogamous model. Again, short-term sexual relationships and the traditional relationship model are positioned as mutually exclusive.

Participants voiced doubt as to whether the types of relationships fostered by dating apps would transfer into meaningful face-to-face relationships. In particular, Grindr was implicated as being a facilitator of casual sex and not a place that someone would go when looking for a committed relationship, with George (age 23) expressing:

[…] you don’t look for love on Grindr, that’s for sure.

Although our participants were not explicitly asked whether/how they communicated their preferences for long-term relationships to potential matches, previous research (Chan, 2018) found that even when gay dating app users state in their profiles that they are looking for long-term relationships, they are often open to the emergence of other relationship possibilities. Although many of Chan’s participants were open to the possibility that casual sex may lead to more committed relationships, this sentiment was not shared by our participants, who conveyed a pessimism towards using dating apps to find a committed relationship.

Overall, participants perceived non-monogamy and ‘hook-ups’ to be widespread across dating apps, which increased their exposure to this aspect of gay dating culture. However, most participants expressed that they were seeking monogamous relationships and were concerned that they would feel pressured by others within the MSM community to engage in relationship models that were perceived to be aligned with gay dating norms.

A meat market

Participants attributed the inability to find stable monogamous relationships and a culture of mistrust engendered by dating apps to aspects of their design. The focus on one’s profile image and the seemingly endless choice of partners were perceived by participants to have contributed to the casualisation of dating within MSM communities. Several participants expressed frustration that the image-based design of dating apps encouraged shallow behaviour and casual connections, reducing the significance and seriousness of relationships. Mark (age 25) lamented the superficial nature of dating apps and expressed how dating app users (including himself) may be missing out on good connections because they judged matches solely on their profile pictures:

[…] you’re sort of just comparing off of first impression of somebody. So I feel like it’s almost hindering you from like potentially forming those, you know, relationships with people just because […] you’re judging a book by its cover.

Mark described the image focus of dating apps as closing off possibilities for good matches and how the instant gratification afforded by the image-based design leads to a mindset of ‘just move on’ if there are any issues with the match. Echoing the sentiments of Mark, Chris (age 33), voiced that the perceived ease of finding an alternative partner meant that fewer people were willing to invest work into a relationship, but rather, would leave at the first sign of relationship difficulty:

Now basically you have this almost disposable sort of arrangement with relationships, it’s like OK, that one didn’t work, let’s swipe right on the next guy […] it’s a lot more throw away now.

The use of the terms ‘disposable’ and ‘throw away’ by Chris suggests a perception of relationships established online as easily replaceable, which aligns with research on choice overload (see Chernev et al., 2015), such that perceived large numbers of potential partners may manifest as pessimism for dating and lower confidence and satisfaction in relationship decisions. Chris went on to liken the design of the apps to grocery shopping:

It’s like going to Woolworths and like going up and down the shelves, looking for things that like take your interest. You see something, it’s got like really good marketing and you’re like ‘wow, that looks really delicious, I’ll buy that’. It’s the exact same thing with dating apps.

In this way, dating apps were described as reducing people to objects with their market value based upon physical appearance. Several participants used this shopping analogy when describing dating apps, including John (age 30), who described dating apps as ‘like a meat market’, in which he also hinted at the highly sexualised aspect of the apps. Interestingly, this same phrasing was used by participants in previous research into Grindr (Licoppe et al., 2016). This shopping analogy was also previously used by Bauman (2003) when describing the movement towards seeing potential partners as objects to be leveraged for fulfilling one’s own needs, arguing how neoliberalism has pervaded into the dating sphere. Although our participants cited awareness of the limitations and problems associated with image-based platforms, they still took the time to carefully craft their own profiles in a way that they perceived would be attractive to others, and actively participated in self-commodification, which suggests that despite the negatives, the apps continued to fulfil some needs for participants.

(Un)safe space

Despite the multiple negative aspects of dating apps discussed above, there were also discussions around the positive opportunities to meet a wider pool of potential partners and build a sense of queer community. However, even when reporting these positive aspects, participants expressed conflicting ideas as to whether dating apps offered a safe space for MSM dating or whether the design and anonymity afforded by the apps facilitated predatory behaviours and harassment.

Several participants expressed that dating apps have become the primary vehicle through which contemporary MSM dating occurs as more traditional methods of meeting people have lost popularity. Further, many participants, including John (age 30), reported that dating apps provided a safe space for MSM individuals to connect with others in their community ‘free from judgement for being gay’ and ‘a very useful and a very meaningful tool that connects people, particularly in communities like the gay community’. This sentiment was also echoed by Chris (age 33):

it just breaks down a lot of social barriers.

The anonymity afforded by dating apps, especially Grindr, provides a sense of control in allowing users to only provide the level of personal information with which they feel comfortable. John (age 30) described the safety fears felt by some MSM, which were reduced through using dating apps:

I think it’s a safe space in the sense of, you’ve got no risk there of, say, hitting on someone and them turning around and not being gay and trying to smack you in the face.

John described dating apps as allowing a safer place for people to be more certain of another male’s sexuality before commencing communication and prior to a face-to-face meeting, which alleviate some concerns around physical violence in response to unwanted advances.

However, the perceived benefits of dating apps in reducing social barriers and increasing connectivity within the MSM community were often outweighed by the negatives, the predatory and ‘seedy’ aspects of the apps, particularly the hypersexualized content. Grindr was cited as particularly harmful for young gay men who may be vulnerable to exploitation. John (age 30) expressed concern that dating apps are detrimental to the emotional development of young MSM:

You’re now chucking an 18-year-old who hasn’t actually gone through any emotional growth because they’ve been closeted all of high school, you know, throwing them into this cesspool. This is […] their first foray into emotional connection with people on this in this in this way and in this area. That doesn’t sound like a particularly healthy first go.

The description of the world of online dating apps as a ‘cesspool’ conveys the strong impression of a corrupting environment that is not safe for those lacking life experience or emotional maturity. Interestingly, John, previously described dating apps as a ‘safe space’, which exemplifies the acknowledgement by participants of the good and the bad aspects of dating apps and tension between these aspects.

Chester (age 21) agreed with John’s sentiments that gay dating apps were not a safe space for young MSM:

Grindr is […] a breeding ground for predators[…] I was like I was like 16, 17 when I first started using Grindr and looking back on it now, I’m like, surely people could tell by the photos I was sending that I wasn’t I was at least around 18[…] the way older men treat you […] it can be quite disgusting to me.

Chester framed the online environment created by Grindr as promoting predatory sexual behaviour. This strongly negative language used by Chester to describe this behaviour (e.g. ‘disgusting to me’) was also used by other participants when outlining the negative aspects of dating apps. Much of the disgust around dating apps and predatory behaviour revolved around the hypersexualized content shared on the apps. Many participants reported receiving unsolicited nude pictures from other users and some considered this as a form of harassment, including Chris (age 33):

I don’t wanna be bombarded by unwanted dick pics, it’s horrible […] But it happens so much on the apps, it’s not even a fun thing anymore. It’s like disgusting. Because you’re anonymous, you don’t have to worry about the repercussions.

These incidences of unwanted sharing of sexual images were described as deterring users from establishing meaningful romantic connections and leading the communication towards casual sex. The anonymous nature of Grindr was perceived as increasing the propensity of lewd and hypersexualized content.

Dating apps appeared to represent a conflicted space for MSM, wherein, the apps provided a space for gay dating away from homophobia and fear of gay bashings. However, on the downside, the anonymity often resulted in unwanted hypersexualized content, which was perceived as particularly inappropriate for younger users who may be beginning their explorations into dating. Again, we noted a discrepancy between what participants perceived as negative behaviours of other dating app users versus their own, more ‘virtuous’ behaviours; framing the sharing of unwanted sexual images as something regularly perpetrated by others but not by themselves. Further, the very strong, negative language used ubiquitously by participants when describing the apps was interesting given that all continue to engage with these apps. These mismatches need to be considered in relation to internalised homonegativity (Berg et al., 2016). The sense of disgust suggested by the term ‘cesspool’ and the framing of behaviour as predatory align with dominant heteronormative messages about homosexual behaviour (Herek, 2004). Berg et al. (2016) review of the impact of internalised homonegativity on the wellbeing of lesbian, gay and bisexual people found that it permeated all aspects of their lives, including social and behavioural. This construction of a conflicted space therefore might represent this tension.

Discussion

Dating applications were described as an integral aspect of the Western Australian MSM dating scene. When considering the positives, participants described that dating applications provided a safe place for MSM to express their sexual desires. This finding aligned with previous research (e.g. Brown et al., 2005; Davis et al., 2016; Hiller et al., 2012; Miller, 2015; Race, 2015a; Sharabi et al., 2022; White Hughto et al., 2016) that gay dating apps provide supportive and safe environments for LGBTQIA+ people, facilitating the desires of gay men without the risks associated with ‘cruising’ in non-virtual spaces, particularly for closeted men. The current findings suggest that dating apps can help overcome geographical barriers to allow MSM access to a wider pool of potential partners and may promote positive psychosocial outcomes, such as community connection, aligning with previous research (White Hughto et al., 2016). However, our results also suggested that dating apps (particularly Grindr) do not always provide supportive and safe environments for MSM, with most participants expressing safety concerns, including unwanted sharing of hypersexualized images and predatory behaviours. The mixed views regarding the safety and benefits of dating apps closely echo recent findings by Gaudette et al. (2022), who sampled health professional working with young Canadian MSM. Together, the Gaudette study, along with the current findings, suggest that both gay dating app users and their mental health professionals may be acutely aware that while dating apps can foster an inclusive environment for MSM dating, they can also foster negative experiences, including harassment (see also Anderson et al., 2020; Powell et al., 2018; Sharabi et al., 2022). Harassment is of particular concern for the studied cohort as sexual minority groups are inherently at higher risk of poor psychosocial wellbeing because of factors related to minority stress, stigmatisation and internalised homophobia (Rostosky & Riggle, 2017).

Despite most participants citing the desire for a monogamous, committed relationship, participants reported pressure from the gay community to conform to gay dating norms, such as open relationships and casual sex. The perceived importance of conforming to the norms of the MSM community has been previously documented, with seeking belongingness to their community likely to be especially important for those from sexual minority groups (McLaren et al., 2008). Previous research has identified that gay men often report a tension between pursuing a committed relationship versus engaging in the gay ‘hook-up culture’ (Duncan et al., 2015a), such that people in same-sex relationships ‘juggle the often-contradictory norms of mainstream and queer sexual cultures’ (Heaphy & Hodgson, 2021, p. 874). Scholars have suggested that pressure within the gay community to engage in promiscuity may come about due to stereotypes regarding the ‘insatiable’ male sex drive (Mutchler, 2000), as well as the absence of monogamy as a relationship norm within the gay community (Duncan et al., 2015b). Indeed, compared to heterosexual relationships in which dominant ideologies associate monogamy with being virtuous (Conley et al., 2012), monogamy in homosexual relationships has been previously framed as a ‘morally neutral subject’ (Bettinger, 2005, p. 98). The current findings, however, suggest that rather than being neutral, monogamy may represent ‘selling out’. However, although participants may have felt pressure to engage in gay cultural norms, the mismatch between participants citing the goal of monogamous committed relationships but perceiving that ‘everyone’ on the apps was looking for open-relationships and casual sex suggests that responses may not be accurate self-reflections and/or participants may have felt pressure to engage in heteronormativity. Indeed, pressure to simultaneously align with both homosexual and heterosexual cultures exemplifies Heaphy and Hodgson’s ‘contradictory norms’. Although we are not suggesting our participants were deliberately untruthful, their responses may have been the product of internalised homonegativity. This data was produced in a context where MSM sex and promiscuity are often still stigmatised, and our participants were not immune from internalising or perpetuating this stigma.

Some of the themes highlighted by Chan (2018) in a US context appear to translate into the Australian context. For example, participants in both studies explicitly highlighted (and lamented) the superficiality of image-based apps, and perceived choice overload to have a detrimental impact on the dating experience. Participants perceiving dating apps as commoditizing gay dating also aligns with previous work by Lindsey (2014), wherein MSM dating app users felt judged solely on appearances and what they could ‘offer’ other users. Participants in the current study perceived this commodification as cheapening the dating process and facilitating the casualisation of relationships, which aligns with previous findings that the design of the apps facilitates commitment-free dating (Race, 2015b) and promotes a ‘hook-up culture’ (Gaudette et al., 2022; Yeo & Fung, 2018).

Implications and future research

The finding of the ubiquity of predatory behaviours towards under-aged users is a significant and worrying finding. The Australian Government recently held a roundtable discussion with dating app executives to discuss implementing better protections for users from abuse and harassment. A possible mandatory code of conduct for all dating app companies operating in Australia has been floated, which may include mandatory identification verification for all users (Michelle Rowland, 2023). The authors of this paper welcome such discussion and recommend that dating app companies continue to liaise with Government and health agencies to build resources within their apps for users struggling with poor mental health, and information to promote healthy app usage. Further, data algorithms and artificial intelligence technologies can be better leveraged to block underage users and other illegal/prohibited behaviours. Indeed, Grindr has already made progress with using machine learning models to detect solicitation (Grindr, 2023b).

Future research could uncover the attributes and experiences that lead to some dating app users to exhibit harassing behaviours against others. Research has linked online trolling to the dark triad personality dimensions (Lopes & Yu, 2017) but is yet to explore whether these findings translate to trolling and harassment in MSM-specific online sites and dating apps.

The current research was conducted with small, relatively homogenous groups of MSM based in Western Australia, who expressed similar (largely negative) experiences with dating apps; therefore, our findings are not generalisable to a wider MSM community. Research has shown that various individual differences are related to relationship development in MSM, including race (Stacey & Forbes, 2021), age (Dubé, 2000; Ramirez & Brown, 2010) and religion (Boellstorff, 2005). Subsequently, it is important to replicate this research in sexual minority men who are of other racial, religious and ethnic groups. Finally, the experiences of transgender and other sexual and gender minority participants could provide further insight into the diverse experiences of LGBTQIA+ dating app users, especially given the findings that people of different sexual identities experience different types of discrimination on social media (Nelson et al., 2022).

Conclusion

The current study colours our understanding of how a sample of predominately white, young Australian MSM dating app users perceive that dating apps influence their attitudes about relationships and dating behaviours. Overall, it seems that while dating apps are a popular and integral part of the Western Australian MSM dating scene, they also present some challenges for users, including predatory behaviours and harassment. Apps, such as Grindr, continue to evolve with new features, such as users now being able to prevent other users from knowing they have looked at their profiles, as well as changes to subscriptions and pay-walling some features (Grindr, 2023a). These changes have the potential to impact the ways people interact with the apps, hence it is important for research in this field to continue to capture these changes over time.

Future research is encouraged to investigate the experiences of other sexual minorities and to consider individual differences that relate to why some users of dating apps exhibit harassing behaviours against others.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the study design, data collection, data analyses and writing of this manuscript.

Ethics approval

Approval was given by the Murdoch University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 2021/071).

Consent to participate

All participants provided informed consent.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank our participants for their time and their candour in providing such insightful and rich data.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2024.2378721

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

1. The two non-binary identifying participants were retained in this study given that they actively opted into this study, aware that it was investigating MSM. We understand that gender may be fluid across the lifespan, and we did not deem it appropriate to reject participants who believed they had relevant experiences to share.