Interactive Dating and the Construction of an Ideal Self - Essay Example

Interactive Dating and the Construction of an “Ideal” Self As numerous people engage in internet matchmaking sites, researchers have started scrutinizing and debating its effect on social relationships (Jerin and Dolinsky citing Gerlander & Takala 2007). Apparently, there has been so much contrasting views about the strong tendency for people engaged in interactive dating to construct personae that best represent oneself in accord with the imagined “ideal.” This tendency to want to look attractive and “marketable” in the perception of a prospective partner is now made even more possible with recent advancements in technology, however (Clark 2003). Whether technology, particularly internet dating sites change for better or worst the way people construct his ideal self and the landscape for people looking for romantic relationship through dating is an intriguing subject to be explored. Prospects for Dating, Where Derive Online dating is a subject of interest among sociologists, psychologists, and more particularly, marketers. One that is keeping this subject on dating interesting is the way it changes and evolves as technology progresses. To understand the concept of dating, it is said it is best to postpone any attempt to define it unless one has inquired into its history. Never should it come to the point that dating will be considered as timeless thing that is wanting of change or variety. Like all human artifacts, dating has a history, therefore, one's understanding of dating must be sensitive to those changes. Relative to this discussion are the views of revolutionists Max Weber and Friedrich Nietzsche during their time. Weber (1864-1920) said, “Definition can be attempted, if at all, only at the conclusion of the study.” Meanwhile, Nietzsche (1844-1900) held that “only that which has no history can be defined.” To understand then what dating is, we look into its history. Lynn Schofield Clark (2003) in her seminal paper, “Dating on the Net: Teens and the Rise of “Pure” Relationships,” traced the early forms of dating during the 1920s among the middle-class teens. Clark considered this casual romantic interactions between males and females a relatively modern phenomenon. While during these period, teens must first get the consent of parents before going for a date with a prospective suitor, it is only in the later decades that some changes occur. A new concept of dating arose when compulsory education and restrictive child labor laws were enacted. These developments paved the way for the exploration of inter-gender relations as young people from different classes of society began interacting with one another. While in the early part of the last century required that the male should take the initiative to ask for the consent of the parents of the desired female, this pattern shifted the approval and sanctioning of dating from parents to peers (Clark 2003 citing Blumer 1933). Over the years, the modern definition of the term dating became associated with leisure and consumption because its reference to family and peers also shifted away eventually (Clark citing Illouz, 1997). This somewhat idiosyncratic way of defining dating turned a new leaf by being related to self-gratification and pleasures of the individual involved. With the break of technological milestones like the Internet, a new pattern in romantic relationships is emerging. At this point, the powerful anthology of online matchmaking studies edited by Whitty, Baker and Inman (2007) can come full to render insights on “how online romantic relationships will continue to evolve as people discover new ways to utilize this digital space.” Whitty, Baker and Inman acknowledged that the cyberspace will continue to evolve the way people engage in online relationships and sex, hinting further that future individuals will become more skilled and savvy in terms of building romantic relations online, as well engaging in sexual activities. Characteristics of Cyber-dating Sites Some features at GCS are somewhat similar with teen and online matchmaking sites for heterosexuals. Some of the few features these sites share include offering a medium through which registered users can set up and view personal profiles, post and access online personal ads, send messages to each other, and take part in real time online conversations in virtual chat rooms (Murphy, Rowstorne, Holt and Ryan, 2004). In their paper “Cruising and connecting online: The use of internet chat sites by gay men in Sydney and Melbourne,” Murphy, Rowstorne, Holt and Ryan said that gay chat sites (GCS) which have been on the rise since the 1990s have provided an alternative medium through which gay men can identify each other, socialize, and arrange meetings and sexual contacts. Users in online dating sites can set up their personal profiles and create a username or nickname that will not only identify them to others but also pique other users' interests and hide a user's real identity, according to Livia (2002, in Murphy, Rowstorne, Holt, and Ryan). Usernames are often used to disguise a person's real name and for others, they can also be used to market the user's demographics and sometimes sexual qualities. Apart from a username, a user's personal profile can include an individual's basic demographics, vital statistics, relationship status, sexual interests, and a profile photo. Users are allowed to exercise control over the content of their profiles by showing or hiding content they only want to make available to the public. Depending on dating sites, teen sites often exhibit profiles with simple face photos but GCS sometimes border to the more explicit photo materials like explicit nude body shots and photos of sexual acts. Studies showed that profile photos are often withheld to maintain anonymity until a face-to-face 'meet-up' is arranged. With GCS' relatively anonymous nature, users can easily disclose personal information like HIV status. Users at GCS can also restrict or reduce risk by sorting the partners to contact them on the basis of sexual practice, safe sex attitudes, and serostatus (Murphy, Rowstorne, Holt, and Ryan). Given these profile information, GCS is easily seen as an accessible and convenient medium to facilitate cruising for virtual “cybersex” and real-life, face-to-face encounters. In sum, all the properties of the sexualized atmosphere of GCS “all potentially intensify the social divisions and sense of hierarchy that can permeate dominant gay male cultures,” mentioned by Holt & Griffin (In Murphy, Rowstorne, Holt, and Ryan). What these recent developments in online dating sites show runs counter to how the inventor of the World Wide Web envisioned the medium to be used. Tim Berners-Lee believed that the Web should be used as a mirror to reflect real life and not fantasy. He idealized an online world that is not different from the offline realm or real life because both spaces are made up of real people with real feelings. Identity Construction on the Online Dating Sites Many studies pointed out that people engaged in digital role-playing games and anti-normative behaviors when on the Net (e.g., Clark; Jerin and Dolinsky; and Whitty, Baker and Inman). While it is now becoming easier to predict how an individual construct identity on the web, it is still worth noting what recent studies have revealed about this phenomenon. In “Sex, Technology and Public Health,” Mark Davis (2009) called online dating as a reflexive practice. This phenomenon occur in the sense that online daters construct themselves self-consciously through the web landscape and through their interactions with others. Like a continuum, online daters are free to manage their social interaction through the assembling of images and texts that best represent their desirability or marketability to become attractive with interested parties (Davis 2009). An intense desire to be liked and desired by others is part of the role-playing game spurred by the web environment at least up until the point where dialogue or negotiation can occur via chat or email. For his part, Smaill (in Davis 2009) implied that the online daters' fantasies, desires, and aspirations are revealed both in the way they present themselves and project this self to meet the imagined expectations of the desired other. In his furtherance of this Internet-based communications' tendencies, Davis (2009) underscored that this “evanescent quality” of the Internet is manifested through the conscious management of appearance and disappearance. To this he posited: “[In the Internet] one finds oneself in this network by ensuring that one's social and sexual appeal is managed, including making the necessary adjustments to refashion or reinvigorate network connections” (Davis 2009). In reviewing online dating sites, Clark (2003) discussed why teen girls reported having constructed appearance to be desirable because it made them feel more empowered. It was also revealed in the study that teen girls actively construct what they believe is a more socially acceptable version of themselves. On the other hand, the self-presentation construction is one way of limiting potential emotional pain that teen girls often experience from the environment of “real life.” Teen dating sites then, suggested Clark, are transformed into a space where ideal pure relationship is developed: “a space where imagined intimacy exist but no need for trust commitment; thus one that is fulfilling and liberating to the the self.” For Kim, et al (2001 in Murphy, Rowstorne, Holt, and Ryan, 2004) gay chat sites or GCS is an accessible avenue for younger, more isolated and behaviourally bisexual men as these digital space afforded these people an anonymous environment to express their being gay or bisexual. The GCS also provide a space when even non-gay-identified men can experiment with the idea of homosexual identity and behaviour. In effect, the anonymity of the Internet offers a window about the kinds of personae the gays, lesbians and bisexuals construct online. Since it is a fact that most people are alone when they surf the Web, these people are also expected to be less affected by the pressure from societal regard for the desirable and the same experience less social anxiety when they are online, according to Joinson (1999, in Murphy, Rowstorne, Holt and Ryan, 2004). Participants at GCS are often described as ones whose inhibitions are reduced and possesses tendencies to misrepresent and “massage the truth.” The space created by the World Wide Web has no material reality, hence its virtuality, however has been seen as a new arena which can extend the possibilities of human interaction (Evans, 2004). When assessing the outcomes of most researches and literature about the identity constructed by individuals engaged in dating online can only be boiled down into one – dual personality. This tendency to assume dual personality on the web, according to Shirley Turkle (In Jerin and Dolinsky 2007) is provoked by this new age of communication, which in effect has bred numerous people who exaggerate or lie about who they are online. As a result, this dual personality, according to Turkle (2002 in Jerin and Dolinsky 2007), “leads to trust issues in online relationships … and that any relationship that stems from that will lack complete trust and honesty because of these small lies.” When individuals lie online about who we are, it is perceived and seen not as such but a protection. Rosa (In Jerin and Dolinsky 2007) further argued that while anonymity identity is supposed to protect you from other people on the Internet who might be lying. Hence, lying has turned into an accepted human behavior on the cyberspace that a study by Albright (In Whitty, Baker and Inman 2007) showed that people lie more online because they feel less accountable. Meanwhile, Zhao, Grasmuck, and Martin (2008) took a particularly distinct identity assessment on the way individuals present themselves on social networking site like Facebook, a nonymous site. The authors argued that opposite with online matching sites, an anonymous online environment, people at Facebook construct their identities in a more implicit way by showing more than telling. This is confirmed by studies made by Susan Barnes (In Jerin and Dolinsky, 2007), who pointed out that lack of accountability for what an individual do online turns the online space into a some form of fantasy. Furthermore, there are so much contradictory accounts about whether anonymity is the direct result of online communications. Numerous literature and studies note that anonymity and deception are two inseparable outcome of the emergence of Internet-based communications, and the two prominently figure in accounts of online dating and sexuality. Thus, researchers have assumed risk of unsafe sex may occur through among cheap, ubiquitous, and anonymous-based dating sites (Ben-Ze-a, 2004). Among the daters, age and physical attributes are demographic attributes that are often distorted or enhanced. This is supported by researches by psychologists who pint that anonymity reduces inhibition and afford its Internet-based manifestations (Davis 2009). But some studies oppose the mistaken perspective that anonymity on the web is infallible. Slater (2003 in Davis 2009) argued online dater's identity is “not necessarily pre-given, fixed, or knowable.” Thus, it has to be made. His reason for believing so rest on the thesis that reciprocal ethical relations and technical capacities of the Internet bring out the online self of an individual. As this turns out, anonymity is the beginning point for social-aware social actors (Slater 2003 in Davis 2009), contradicting notion that the concept of anonymity is an outcome of Internet-based communication. For his part, Phillips (2003 in Davis 2009) pointed out that some aspects of technology are capable of eventually identifying the user. Where these theoretical arguments bring us, Davis posit that young people deemed they are closer to a true self when online than in their “real” or offline life. Given this perspective, it can be said that anonymity can now hardly be blamed for spurring online deception. Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Dating As more people use and as more hours are spent on the Internet, it is predicted that the popularity of the Internet will further increase (Whitty, Baker and Inman, 2007). Along this growth, online dating or online matching websites as tools invented on the web to help people find prospective partners will also become more ubiquitous and cheap. Through these Internet-based communication medium, people are afforded means to search for casual fling to extend to offline or with similar sexual interests, with the intention to live out fantasies face-to-face, according to Jerin and Dolinsky (2007). Although some researchers argued that the Internet can sometimes be an isolating experience for an individual user, according to Kraut, et., al (In Evans 2004), but as collective experience such device may lead to greater community participation, according to Katz and Aspden (In Evans 2004). This contrasting poles about the impact of technology to social relations consist of two parts – 1) those who see the impact of technology on the individual user and their motivation to connect with others; and, 2) those who see the collective of social world, which would translate to the sum of the effect of technology on numerous individuals. Online dating sites when compared to the traditional, more personal approach to dating offer some advantages and disadvantages. Among its advantages are – 1. Connectivity and Reach. In her essay, “Maintaining Community in the Information Age,” Karen Evans (2004) said that with information technology growth, advancements present individuals with the most flexible means to communicate which can then be used to build links between or within organization or for more personal communication. One of online matching site's many properties is that it has the ability to allow individuals to meet each other from around the world in fast and more accessible means. Evans (2004) articulated that the internet could also be said to present more opportunities for the like-minded to share experiences and ideas sans geographical limits or boundaries. As Makepeace (In Jerin and Dolinsky, 2007) noted Internet dating has expanded and added differentiation points to the courtship process. 2. Avenue for Genuine, Positive Communication. As some pundits advocate, the Internet offers a way for individuals to get genuine and meaningful communications. As an accessible tool with global reach, the Internet, particularly dating sites, present more positive opportunities for the like-minded to share experiences and ideas sans the limitation of geographical barriers. The get-to-know phase between two prospective partners occur through an inverted developmental sequence, whereby individuals get to know each other first before discovering whether there is true attraction after a face-to-face meet-up (Jerin and Dolinsky 2007 citing Stoll). Meanwhile, there are also disadvantages that online-based communications yield. Among these drawbacks include – 1. Strained Meaningful Relationships. Online relationships court detrimental changes in meaningful social relationships and in society in general to happen. As online dating critics argue, online matchmaking sites produce shallow, impersonal, and potentially dangerous online relationships. This is made possible by the air of anonymity and deception that permeate most online dating sites. Trust is hardly won in the digital realm. Many theorists pointed out that deception is often an exemption than the rule in the cyberspace. 2. Sex-related risks and Cyber-victimization. The benefit that online matchmaking sites offer like providing registrants wide selection for prospective mate or partner can be countered by the risk attached into it. For Spitzberg and Cupach (in Whitty, Baker, and Inman 2007), online dating is not always a safe experience because the use of electronic communication can sometimes pose some risks and can often lead to harassment of people in online matchmaking sites. Like its traditional counterpart, sexual risk on the web should strike some alarm. Hillier and Harrison (in Murphy, Rowstorne, Holt and Ryan, 2004) cited as an example his survey among gay and lesbian users of these internet spaces, who appeared to value the way in which they could be anonymous in their communications. This opportunity allow these people to carefully explore gay and lesbian cyber-communities without jeopardizing their privacy. But in most cases, researchers suggested that the Internet may increase sex-related risks because of the anonymity that it afforded individuals participating in online match-making. 3. Online Narcissism. Numerous studies pointed out to narcissism as one of the banes that the Internet, more particularly social networking and dating sites develop among people in this web environments. To look desirable and achieve a certain level of anonymity, profiles on the Internet are perfected to match the idealized self. Some researchers argued, however, that narcissism online develops because mass media cater to the narcissistic individual (Holmes 2005). David Holmes tackled what made media appealing to narcissistic individuals through what he called the new media's interactive potential's ability to extend the homogenising and individualising properties of the broadcast media (2005). As in online matching sites, this media appeal may means that “individuals replace authentic social relations with the satisfaction of selfish desires.” As such, the Internet is by no means any different with broadcast media. Conclusion The debate about whether the web through the spectrum of cyber-communities and online matchmaking sites is a boon or a bane will not end. The way in which individuals on the web create a web profile is a balancing act, often prompted or dictated by ones' true intention or motive. A glimpse of that motive and intention are revealed to us by numerous research and studies on how individuals self-represent on the Web. As these studies reveal and as soon as advancements in Internet-based communication continue to evolve, it is looking like the way people live their lives online and off might be blurred. The offline realities may push its limits towards the online environments. The positive and negative results of these developments in our world will continue to occur in both space. Now comes the better question whether technology should be blamed when we experience the negative outcomes? Or is it just us, humans, who use technology as an escape goat for our lapses, to have something to blame when things go wrong. The tons of research about the impact of technology to the way people should live their lives online already showed something. Although with limitations in their reach or scope, however, the findings show that technology are only technology. It is devoid of feelings, awareness and even the heart to decipher what is good or bad. Technology only do what its master instructed it to do. In other words as in techno speak, garbage-in, garbage-out or GIGO. It is befitting to close this paper with the statement by Cooper & Griffin-Shelley (2002 in Murphy, Rawstorne, Holt, Ryan 2004) that: “As with any technological tool, the Internet is not inherently good or bad. Instead it is what cyber-traveler does with it that can lead to positive or negative outcomes.” Works Cited Bakir, Vian and Barlow, David. Communication in the age of suspicion: Trust and the Media. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print. Clark, Lynn Schofield. "Dating on the Net: Teens and the Rise of “Pure” Relationships." Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader. Ed. Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez. London: Sage Publications, 2003. 696-707. Print. Davis, Mark. Sex. Technology and Public Health. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Print. DeVoss, Danielle Nicolle. “From BBS to the Web: Tracing the Spaces of Online Romance.” Online Matchmaking. Ed. Monica Whitty, Andrea Baker, and James Inman. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 17-30. Print. Evans, Karen. Maintaining Community in the Information Age: The Importance of Trust, Place and Situated Knowledge. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Print. Jerin, Robert and Dolinsky, Beverly. "Cyber-Victimization and Online Dating" Online Matchmaking. Ed. Monica Whitty, Andrea Baker, and James Inman. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 147-156. Print. Mathy, Robin. Sexual Orientation Moderates Online Sexual Activities. Online Matchmaking. Ed. Monica Whitty, Andrea Baker, and James Inman. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 159- 167. Print. Murphy, Dean, Rawstorne, Patrick, Holt, Martin, and Ryan, Dermot. Cruising and Connecting Online: The Use of Internet Chat Sites by Gay Men in Sydney and Melbourne. National Centre in HIV Research, 2004. Print. Spitzberg, Brian and Cupach, William. Cyberstalking as (Mis)matchmaking. Online Matchmaking. Ed. Monica Whitty, Andrea Baker, and James Inman. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 127- 146. Print. Whitty, Monica. The Art of Selling One's 'Self' on an Online Dating Site: The BAR Approach. Online Matchmaking. Ed. Monica Whitty, Andrea Baker, and James Inman. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 59-67. Print. Zhao, Shanyang, Grasmuck, Sherri and, Martin, Jason. "Identity construction on Facebook: Digital Empowerment in anchored relationships." Computers in Human Behavior 24.5. September 2008: 1816-1836. Print. Read More