Friday, February 13, 2015

"Mobile Love" Talk: Incomplete but Interesting

            In attending this week’s Sexpertise talk entitled “Mobile Love” I naturally expected what the description of the talk had said what would be discussed; I expected for the speaker to touch on relevant mobile apps like Snapchat and Tinder, and their impact on today’s youths’  conceptualization of romance and love. However, the talk led by Dr. José Bauermeister was not what I had anticipated at all.

            “Mobile Love” certainly delved into technologies and interfaces dealing with romantic connections that I was not as familiar with, in focusing a significant amount of attention on Manhunt and Grindr. I actually had not heard of Manhunt prior to this talk, but I learned that it is a gay dating site that has lost popularity with the rise of its contemporary-counterpart, Grindr. I’ve heard of Grindr through my gay friends, but never really pushed for details. Basically my knowledge of it prior to this speech centered on it using a GPS locator to find men nearby, so as to facilitate the likelihood of in-person interaction, hookups, etc.



            While this discussion of Grindr and Manhunt was not personally relevant, there were parts of this discussion that I did find interesting and surprising. Dr. Bauermeister noted that gays and lesbians are much more likely to use technology in their sexual perusals than heterosexuals. He equated this phenomenon to a sort of digital divide between the two sexual orientations, which I thought was very interesting. I started to wonder, and do wonder, why this might be so. My impression would be that since the homosexual population often times does not receive societal acceptance that this virtual atmosphere offers a space for them to interact and facilitate communication in a covert manner that will not encounter societal scrutiny. This, then, would mean that their sexual relationships would not face, or would face less, public contempt thus making it a more pleasurable experience. This is just a hypothesis, but I think this concept of a digital divide is fascinating.
            I also thought one of Dr. Bauermeister’s opening quotes was controversial and thought provoking. He stated that, “Technology has made dating easier.” However, I don’t know if I quite agree. From my experience, I think people have different understandings of what ‘dating’ means. For me ‘dating’ implies being involved in an emotionally engaging and mutually monogamous relationship; however for others, ‘dating’ means mingling with multiple people and exploring one’s own romantic interests. The others’ definition of ‘dating’ seems to affirm the validity of the idea of technology facilitating dating, as it allows people to meet others quicker and easier; however, my definition, from my vantage point, is in opposition to this idea. Sure, some monogamous and committed relationships emerge from technology (after all, Dr. Bauermeister said he met his partner online), but I think that the vast majority of the users of technology for romance, are likely just seeking a hookup or a fleeting romance. This, in my eyes, is not dating; it’s just a fling. I would be curious to know the number of committed relationships that have come out of mobile technology or online, versus the number of hookups.



            In conclusion, this talk was a little disappointing in its lack of breadth in tackling today’s complex world of mobile love. I genuinely think that Grindr and Manhunt are important facets of the today’s mobile world, but “Romantic love is a universal phenomenon,” (Brown, El-Toukhy, & Ortiz, 2015, p. 94), and I don’t think it was presented that way here. I wish more attention was given to the entire scope of our ever-changing mobile world and its universal impact on our idea of modern love.

Reference
Brown, J. D., El-Toukhy, S. & Ortiz, R. (2014). Growing up sexually in a digital world: The risks and benefits of youths’ sexual media use. In A. B. Jordan & D. Romer (Eds.), Media and the well-being of children and adolescents (pp. 90-108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.