Internet Dating, Essay Example

Introduction

Typically a subject either lightly touched upon, or merely employed to humorously comment upon the proliferation of the Internet within all aspects of modern living, Internet dating is both an enormous industry and a pivotal element in today’s socialization. What began, and relatively very recently, as a derided and presumably ineffectual means to establish romantic connections has become something of a “mouse that roared”.  As vociferously as the mockery continues, so too do the numbers of subscribers to dating sites rise, and the practice has steadily become integrated within the behaviors people exercise to generate friendships, relationships, or purely casual encounters, if not outright replacing them: “The previous venues for finding mates – religious institutions, matchmakers, mixers – are being replaced by where the new generation is to be found: at the office, and on the Internet” (Penn, Zalesne, 33).

Current studies point to approximately one in three Americans as either actively engaging in Internet dating, or open to attempting it. Online dating sites that grossed several million annually in the 1990s are reporting earnings nearing the billion dollar mark. Clearly, the trend is going nowhere quickly, save perhaps in a further and dramatic escalation. What is truly noteworthy about this mass activity, however, is how those busy within it have, in the brief time span since online dating emerged, both adapted behaviors to it and consequently altered the parameters of the industry. Internet dating stands as a remarkable instance of virtual reality bending to, and being shaped by, the realities in existence before the Internet.

Enticements, Realities, and Challenges

A curious aspect of the advent of Internet dating was that the innocence with which it was first approached was in direct contrast to the sophisticated technology permitting it. Intelligent, urbane people, equipped with years of experience in the complex and often unpredictable realms of socializing and romance, sat at their computers and blithely took everything presented to them virtually as literal. People set out profiles or personal advertisements stating their physical attributes and interests, and the Internet gave to these statements a stamp of credibility. The most wary online daters in this new world typically accepted every claim made, principally because the public had already invested the Internet with integrity. It was, furthermore, largely  unthinkable that deception would be practiced, as the anticipated result of the claims would be a meeting wherein the truth would be revealed.

So began the immersion into the real complexities of Internet dating, and how it translates experience, both received and presented. Deception aside for the moment, users found themselves perplexed by a strikingly unexpected dilemma: how do I tell a stranger who I am? In life – the literal version – this had been a very different sort of issue, for people are accustomed  to tailor their presentations of themselves after some sort of connection is made. The Internet was asking that the same parameters of identity be conveyed, but that single missing component vastly altered the requirements of the process. It called for, essentially, an entirely new social construct, and it is one still very much in development: “Users still have the complex challenges of negotiating relationships (including) norms and social skills that are different from face-to-face communication” (CQ, 55).

This relates to the deception factor, as Internet fraud in regard to self-image became a byword in popular culture. While it is certainly true that online users did, and do, deliberately misrepresent themselves, a more subtle and disturbing reality became evident: not everyone was lying, and a great many people portray themselves as who they truly believe themselves to be, irrespective of how they are usually perceived. In the streets of the real world, this sort of inaccurate self-perception is easily identified and just as quickly dispensed with; online, it is a baffling clash of subjective realities.

As Internet dating flourishes, another challenge arises, and one born from its albeit modest lasting power thus far: the reinvention of the self on the virtual plane, in order to both attract new potential partners and refine the online identity. For the dating site user, it is typically a hit-and-miss affair; a profile is created and pictures are added to it, few responses come, and the user edits. Then, each online encounter provides information as to just what image the profile is sending, and whom it is likely to attract. “It is indeed a frustrating process for many online daters, as they attempt to actively rewrite themselves as units to be analyzed, and try to hold onto some trait of personality in the process” (Freedman, 122).

This requires, ironically, an enormous amount of effort, for the inherent danger within the process, and one most users are liable to, is that of unintentionally obfuscating real elements of themselves to better attract partners. Here, again, no one is out to deceive, but a succession of unpleasant consequences of a profile may easily inspire excess creativity. The abused user decides, in a sense, to empower themselves better, as confidence that their real attractions will render whatever minor, untrue adjustments made as unimportant.

All of this points to the extraordinary manner in which online daters are adapting to the virtual environment. Those who deliberately misrepresent themselves are a dying breed, and simply because the arena does not tolerate the activity. Increased wariness on the part of modern users has also effectively weakened such ruses, and this goes to evolutionary progress within the process.

Nonetheless, it could be argued that each adaptation made by Internet daters is still, at best, a protracted rehearsal for all the elements intrinsic to the personal contact. An individual may devote hours, energy, and money to a dating site to best isolate a potential romantic partner, only to discover upon meeting that an essential component of simple attraction, or even genuine liking, is absent. Antipathies between people may be manifested despite many acknowledged affinities, and this single aspect fuels most opposition to Internet dating.

Conclusion

In terms of assessing the impact of a trend, and whether or not Internet dating is viewed favorably or otherwise, the “reality” of it points to something beyond the temporal quality usually defining a trend. Online romance may have begun as a fashionable, interesting option to be explored, but it has imbedded itself into the worlds of romance and socializing as firmly as any other avenue people employ.

Internet dating is, even when applied most efficiently and with the happiest of results, no more expeditious than any other means of romantic connection. It offers great advantages, chiefly in terms of volume of potential partners and access to them, yet it bears an equally substantial degree of difficulty, and not merely within specific dating venues online: “The process that occurs in identifying and contacting potential partners online differs with those who meet in online dating sites…as opposed to those who meet in online communities” (Barak, 171). Nonetheless,  Internet dating stands as a remarkable instance of virtual reality bending to, and being shaped by, the realities in existence before the Internet.

Works Cited

Barak, A. Psychological Aspects of Cyberspace: Theory, Research, Applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print.

CQ Researcher. Issues for Debate in Sociology: Selections from CQ Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2009. Print.

Freedman, E. Transient images: Personal Media in Public Frameworks. Philadelphia, PA:  Temple University Press, 2010. Print.

Penn, M. J., and Zalesne, E. K. Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes. New York, NY: Hachette Book Group, 2007. Print.