skip to main content
research-article

Gay Dating on Non-dating Platforms: The Case of Online Dating Activities of Gay Men on a Q&A Platform

Published:11 November 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Gay dating applications, such as Grindr and SCRUFF, are considered the primary platforms for gay men to conduct online dating activities. However, on Zhihu, a Chinese question-and-answer website, tens of thousands of homosexual users have been searching for romantic partners, which suggests that Zhihu may have unique affordances in online dating activities for Chinese gay men. To better understand how Chinese gay men perceive the affordances of a non-dating platform for online dating, we conduct a mixed-methods study, including observations, interviews, and quantitative and qualitative analysis of users' self-presentations. We find that gay men users publish personal ads by answering "fishing questions" on Zhihu. Through our analysis, we examine how users perceive the affordances of Zhihu to satisfy their social and psychological gratifications at the self, community, and audience levels. Although gay users face the risk of disclosing homosexual identity on mainstream social media, they perceive such risk as acceptable for better online dating experience. We discuss how users respond to severe social stigma in China, and the gap between user needs and the design of gay dating applications. We elaborate on the implications of our findings to discuss the potential benefits for LGBTQ users if LGBTQ service providers collaborate with social media.

References

  1. Giorgia Aiello, Sandeep Bakshi, Sirma Bilge, Lisa Kahaleole Hall, Lynda Johnston, Kimberlee Pérez, and Karma Chávez. 2013. Here, and not yet here: A dialogue at the intersection of queer, trans, and culture. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 6, 2 (2013), 96--117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Kath Albury and Paul Byron. 2016. Safe on my phone? Same-sex attracted young people's negotiations of intimacy, visibility, and risk on digital hook-up apps. Social Media Society 2, 4 (2016), 2056305116672887.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Baidu Zhishu. 2021. Zhihu user demographic profile. http://zhishu.baidu.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Harold R. Baize and Jonathan E. Schroeder. 1995. Personality and mate selection in personal ads: Evolutionary preferences in a public mate selection process. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 10, 3 (1995), 517--536.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bijie Bie and Lu Tang. 2016. Chinese gay men's coming out narratives: Connecting social relationship to co-cultural theory. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 9, 4 (2016), 351--367.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jeremy Birnholtz, Colin Fitzpatrick, Mark Handel, and Jed R Brubaker. 2014. Identity, identification and identifiability: The language of self-presentation on a location-based mobile dating app. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services. 3--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jeremy Birnholtz, Shruta Rawat, Richa Vashista, Dicky Baruah, Alpana Dange, and Anne-Marie Boyer. 2020. Layers of marginality: an exploration of visibility, impressions, and cultural context on geospatial apps for men who have sex with men in Mumbai, India. Social Media Society 6, 2 (2020), 2056305120913995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Courtney Blackwell, Jeremy Birnholtz, and Charles Abbott. 2015. Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New media & society 17, 7 (2015), 1117--1136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jed R Brubaker, Mike Ananny, and Kate Crawford. 2016. Departing glances: A sociotechnical account of ?leaving' Grindr. new media & society 18, 3 (2016), 373--390.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jin Cao and Xinlei Lu. 2014. A preliminary exploration of the gay movement in mainland China: Legacy, transition, opportunity, and the new media. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 39, 4 (2014), 840--848.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Christopher J Carpenter and Bree McEwan. 2016. The players of micro-dating: Individual and gender differences in goal orientations toward micro-dating apps. First monday (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Andre Cavalcante. 2019. Tumbling into queer utopias and vortexes: Experiences of LGBTQ social media users on Tumblr. Journal of Homosexuality 66, 12 (2019), 1715--1735.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. China Internet Network Information Center. 2021. The 47th China Statistical Report on Internet Development. (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Lik Sam Chan. 2017. Who uses dating apps? Exploring the relationships among trust, sensation-seeking, smartphone use, and the intent to use dating apps based on the integrative model. Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017), 246--258.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Lik Sam Chan. 2018. Ambivalence in networked intimacy: Observations from gay men using mobile dating apps. New Media & Society 20, 7 (2018), 2566--2581.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Lik Sam Chan. 2021. The Politics of Dating Apps: Gender, Sexuality, and Emergent Publics in Urban China. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Karma R Chávez. 2013. Pushing boundaries: Queer intercultural communication. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 6, 2 (2013), 83--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Alexander Cho. 2018. Default publicness: Queer youth of color, social media, and being outed by the machine. New Media & Society 20, 9 (2018), 3183--3200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Kathryn D Coduto, Roselyn J Lee-Won, and Young Min Baek. 2020. Swiping for trouble: Problematic dating application use among psychosocially distraught individuals and the paths to negative outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 37, 1 (2020), 212--232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Edmond J Coleman and Wah-Shan Chou. 2013. Tongzhi: Politics of same-sex eroticism in Chinese societies. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mark Davis, Paul Flowers, Karen Lorimer, Jane Oakland, and Jamie Frankis. 2016. Location, safety and (non) strangers in gay men's narratives on "hook-up'apps. Sexualities 19, 7 (2016), 836--852.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Michael A DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, and Jeffery T Hancock. 2017. Platforms, people, and perception: Using affordances to understand self-presentation on social media. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 740--754.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Michael A DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2018. 'Too Gay for Facebook' Presenting LGBTQ Identity Throughout the Personal Social Media Ecosystem. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Michael Ann DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, and Julia R Fernandez. 2021. Values (Mis) alignment: Exploring Tensions Between Platform and LGBTQ Community Design Values. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Chunyan Ding. 2015. Surrogacy litigation in China and beyond. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2, 1 (2015), 33--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Nicole Ellison, Rebecca Heino, and Jennifer Gibbs. 2006. Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of computer-mediated communication 11, 2 (2006), 415--441.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Julia R Fernandez and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2019. " I Don't Want Them to Not Know" Investigating Decisions to Disclose Transgender Identity on Dating Platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Andrew T Fiore, Lindsay Shaw Taylor, Gerald A Mendelsohn, and Marti Hearst. 2008. Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 797--806.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jesse Fox and Rachel Ralston. 2016. Queer identity online: Informal learning and teaching experiences of LGBTQ individuals on social media. Computers in Human Behavior 65 (2016), 635--642.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Karoline Gatter and Kathleen Hodkinson. 2016. On the differences between Tinder? versus online dating agencies: Questioning a myth. An exploratory study. Cogent Psychology 3, 1 (2016), 1162414.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. William W Gaver. 1991. Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 79--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. David Gudelunas. 2012. There's an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality & Culture 16, 4 (2012), 347--365.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Jeffrey T Hancock, Catalina Toma, and Nicole Ellison. 2007. The truth about lying in online dating profiles. In Pro- ceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 449--452.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jean Hardy and Silvia Lindtner. 2017. Constructing a desiring user: Discourse, rurality, and design in location-based social networks. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 13--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Bettina Heinz, Li Gu, Ako Inuzuka, and Roger Zender. 2002. Under the rainbow flag: Webbing global gay identities. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies 7, 2 (2002), 107--124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Günter J Hitsch, Ali Hortaçsu, and Dan Ariely. 2010. What makes you click?-Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative marketing and Economics 8, 4 (2010), 393--427.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Petula Sik Ying Ho, Stevi Jackson, Siyang Cao, and Chi Kwok. 2018. Sex with Chinese characteristics: Sexuality research in/on 21st-century China. The Journal of Sex Research 55, 4--5 (2018), 486--521.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. I-Research. 2018. 2018 China Knowledge Marketing White Paper - Taking Zhihu as an Example. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Hui Jiang et al. 2011. ICCGL: cultural communication via the internet and GLBT community building in China. (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Travis SK Kong. 2010. Chinese male homosexualities: Memba, tongzhi and golden boy. Vol. 52. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Benjamin Law. 2014. Gaysia: Adventures in the Queer East: Adventures in the Queer East. Cleis Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Adeline Y Lee and Amy S Bruckman. 2007. Judging you by the company you keep: dating on social networking sites. In Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work. 371--378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Dennis H Li, Shruta Rawat, Jayson Rhoton, Pallav Patankar, Maria L Ekstrand, BR Simon Rosser, and J Michael Wilkerson. 2017. Harassment and violence among men who have sex with men (MSM) and hijras after reinstatement of India's "Sodomy Law". Sexuality research and social policy 14, 3 (2017), 324--330.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Yinhe Li. 1998. Subculture of homosexuality.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Christian Licoppe, Carole Anne Rivière, and Julien Morel. 2016. Grindr casual hook-ups as interactional achievements. New Media & Society 18, 11 (2016), 2540--2558.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Min Liu. 2013. Two gay men seeking two lesbians: An analysis of Xinghun (formality marriage) ads on China's Tianya. cn. Sexuality & Culture 17, 3 (2013), 494--511.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Iris Po Yee Lo. 2021. (Dis) Engagement with queer counterpublics: Exploring intimate and family lives in online and offline spaces in China. The British Journal of Sociology (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Freddy MacKee. 2016. Social media in gay London: Tinder as an alternative to hook-up apps. Social Media Society 2, 3 (2016), 2056305116662186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Mary Madden and Amanda Lenhart. 2006. Online dating. Pew Internet & American Life Project Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Elizabeth A McConnell, Antonia Clifford, Aaron K Korpak, Gregory Phillips II, and Michelle Birkett. 2017. Identity, victimization, and support: Facebook experiences and mental health among LGBTQ youth. Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017), 237--244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Weishan Miao and Lik Sam Chan. 2020. Social constructivist account of the world's largest gay social app: Case study of Blued in China. The Information Society 36, 4 (2020), 214--225.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. T Mountford. 2010. China: the legal position and status of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the People's Republic of China. International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Tiffany A Pempek, Yevdokiya A Yermolayeva, and Sandra L Calvert. 2009. College students' social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of applied developmental psychology 30, 3 (2009), 227--238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Guilherme Colucci Pereira and Maria Cecilia Calani Baranauskas. 2018. Codesigning emancipatory systems: a study on mobile applications and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues. Journal on Interactive Systems 9, 3 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. John R Porter, Kiley Sobel, Sarah E Fox, Cynthia L Bennett, and Julie A Kientz. 2017. Filtered out: Disability disclosure practices in online dating communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Kane Race. 2015. "Party and Play': Online hook-up devices and the emergence of PNP practices among gay men. Sexualities 18, 3 (2015), 253--275.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Ellen Simpson and Bryan Semaan. 2021. For You, or For" You"? Everyday LGBTQ Encounters with TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 1--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Rahul Sinha-Roy and Matthew Ball. 2021. Gay Dating Platforms, Crimes, and Harms in India: New Directions for Research and Theory. Women & Criminal Justice (2021), 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Statista Research Department. 2014. 1st China LGBT Community Survey. https://www.statista.com/statistics/324787/china-lgbt-community-breakdown-by-education/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Lesa A Stern and Kim Taylor. 2007. Social networking on Facebook. Journal of the Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota 20, 2007 (2007), 9--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Donald S Strassberg and Stephen Holty. 2003. An experimental study of women's internet personal ads. Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, 3 (2003), 253--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Elisabeth Timmermans and Elien De Caluwé. 2017. Development and validation of the Tinder Motives Scale (TMS). Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017), 341--350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Matilda Tudor. 2012. Cyberqueer Techno-practices: Digital Space-making and Networking among Swedish Gay Men.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Chad Van De Wiele and Stephanie Tom Tong. 2014. Breaking boundaries: The uses & gratifications of Grindr. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. 619--630.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Tess van der Zanden, Maria BJ Mos, Alexander P Schouten, and Emiel J Krahmer. 2021. What People Look at in Multimodal Online Dating Profiles: How Pictorial and Textual Cues Affect Impression Formation. Communication Research (2021), 0093650221995316.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Lita Van Wel and Lamber Royakkers. 2004. Ethical issues in web data mining. Ethics and Information Technology 6, 2 (2004), 129--140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Jiangtao Wang, Junyi Ma, Yasha Wang, Ning Wang, Leye Wang, Daqing Zhang, Feng Wang, and Qin Lv. 2020. Will online digital footprints reveal your relationship status? an empirical study of social applications for sexual-minority men. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 4, 1 (2020), 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Shuaishuai Wang. 2020. Calculating dating goals: data gaming and algorithmic sociality on Blued, a Chinese gay dating app. Information, Communication & Society 23, 2 (2020), 181--197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Shuaishuai Wang. 2020. Chinese affective platform economies: dating, live streaming, and performative labor on Blued. Media, Culture & Society 42, 4 (2020), 502--520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Shuaishuai Wang. 2020. Live streaming, intimate situations, and the circulation of same-sex affect: Monetizing affective encounters on Blued. Sexualities 23, 5--6 (2020), 934--950.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Mark Warner, Juan F Maestre, Jo Gibbs, Chia-Fang Chung, and Ann Blandford. 2019. Signal appropriation of explicit HIV status disclosure fields in sex-social apps used by gay and bisexual men. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Monica T Whitty. 2008. Revealing the?real'me, searching for the?actual'you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 4 (2008), 1707--1723.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Shangwei Wu and Janelle Ward. 2018. The mediation of gay men's lives: A review on gay dating app studies. Sociology Compass 12, 2 (2018), e12560.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Shangwei Wu and Janelle Ward. 2020. Looking for "interesting people": Chinese gay men's exploration of relationship development on dating apps. Mobile Media & Communication 8, 3 (2020), 342--359.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Tien Ee Dominic Yeo and Tsz Hin Fung. 2018."Mr Right Now": Temporality of relationship formation on gay mobile dating apps. Mobile Media & Communication 6, 1 (2018), 3--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Nan Zhang and Jing Zhang. 2010. The influence of traditional ethical views on the phenomenon of homosexuality in Chinese and Western history. Journal of Heilongjiang College of Education 3 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Xianglong Zhang. 2018. How Should Confucianism View the Legalization of Same-sex Marriage? INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHINESE & COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY OF MEDICINE 16, 2 (2018), 53--72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. Zaizhou Zhang. 2001. Aimei de lichen: zhongguo gudai tongxinglian shi/An Ambiguous Trajectory: History of Homosexuality in Pre-modern China.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Tiantian Zheng. 2015. Tongzhi living: Men attracted to men in postsocialist China. U of Minnesota Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Tianyang Zhou. 2018. Jack'd, Douban Group, and Feizan. com: The impact of cyberqueer techno-practice on the Chinese gay male experience. In Exploring Erotic Encounters. Brill Rodopi, 27--43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Douglas Zytko, Nicholas Furlo, Bailey Carlin, and Matthew Archer. 2021. Computer-Mediated Consent to Sex: The Context of Tinder. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Gay Dating on Non-dating Platforms: The Case of Online Dating Activities of Gay Men on a Q&A Platform

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
          Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 6, Issue CSCW2
          CSCW
          November 2022
          8205 pages
          EISSN:2573-0142
          DOI:10.1145/3571154
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2022 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 11 November 2022
          Published in pacmhci Volume 6, Issue CSCW2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader