Some of the qualitative research, such as Gibbs, Ellison, and Heino (2006) and Ellison, Heino, and Gibbs (2006), uses theories of gender and sexuality to inform hypotheses about gendered behaviour in online contexts. When users have virtually no limit on the amount of information they can provide in an ad, they can use other methods of signifying gender to supplement what is provided by basic demographic details and also by the inclusion of a photograph. Use of a photo is still highly strategic because of its status as “proof” of claims made in the profile about physical appearance; photos are important because proof of the body is important (Whitty & Carr, 2006). Images are also used to signify aspects of identity (Whitty, 2007a).
When searching for profiles, you can see everything that the other user has on their page, even without a paid membership. Christian Mingle doesn’t hide anything just because you didn’t pay a membership. Plus, with the detailed profile, you get a great illustration of who you are looking at and then can decide whether or not to take the leap and send them a message.
Dating profiles are not trivial texts; in spite of the humour employed by many profile authors, “the search [for a romantic partner] is far from playful, since it involves the very sense of the self, social acceptability, and desirability” (Paasonen, 2007, p. 45). At stake is one’s self-perception and self-worth, signified by success or failure in the romantic arena, with gender “performance” serving a key role. Dating sites in form offer users a peculiar combination of private and public, personal and promotional elements, as do many of the websites in the “social networking” genre—they invite one to present a particular kind of face to the (virtual) world, and they tend to structure the interactions they are designed to facilitate. Profile-writing and other forms of online participation are also part of a reflexive process of identity “creation” and reformation. As more people continue to use these sites as a part of their everyday practices of interacting and identifying, what will be the implications for intimate relationships?
Match has a dating carousel like Tinder where you can vote “Yes” or “No” on someone’s main picture, and if you both say “yes”, it’ll show up as a match. You can’t dive into their profile and read more about them unless you have a paid membership. Match also has a lot of “get-togethers” for singles in your area. I’ve never personally have gone to one of these, but I would always get emails about them. It’s something to do if you have the time. You can also like photos of others, send them “winks” to let them know you’re interested and upload over 20 photos of yourself.
Hinge may seem like it plays second-fiddle to the likes of Tinder, but it has a pretty elite user base (99 percent of its daters went to college, for example). Hinge’s CEO compared his app to Facebook, versus Tinder’s Myspace—sometimes for interface reasons (Hinge is aimed at the college-educated set) and sometimes for class reasons (much has been written on the ways dating app algorithms may favor white people).
This app wants to find you more than just a one-night stand or a cool-for-the-summer situation. That said, you're going to have to work for it. To join, you have to fill out an extensive survey, and you can't see photos of your potential matches unless you pay to subscribe. If you're out to spend more time finding your mate, eharmony is a good (if more costly) option. That is, as long as you're not looking for a same-sex mate: That's not an option here.