Tinder: Dating, Virtually

Have you ever seen a commercial for eHarmony or Match.com and thought, "A website that assesses my compatibility with other singles and offers the potential for lasting relationships is brilliant--it's the future of dating"? Maybe you haven't. In fact, I would venture to guess that you definitely haven't. A more typical response to online dating tends to go something like this: "Who finds relationships online?! I would never do that! I am too confident, independent, and altogether charming to need dating sites! They're for the weak! And I'm not weak! I'm not!"

There is a scene in "The Social Network" where Mark Zuckerburg has an epiphany and decides to include relationship status as a feature on Facebook profiles. While the scene comes off as somewhat forced, it introduces several enduring themes of the social networking age: the lack of social privacy (everyone wants to know everything about everyone else), our interest in other's dating lives (learning whether or not you're single is more important than learning your name), and our ever-increasing tendency to use the internet to further our romantic lives (because if the internet can allow me to listen to anything, read about anything, and watch anything all at the same time, it might as well get me a girlfriend too, right?). Facebook isn't eHarmony, but maybe the distinction isn't all that significant.

Facebook was (and is) a conglomeration of ideas that hinted at what social networking could (and would) become. And as social networking outlets have continued to become more and more specified (Twitter for worthless comments, Instagram for slightly less worthless photos, Pinterest for an excuse to do something other than watching TV, Snapchat for when you've ran out of ANYTHING else to do), it was only a matter of time before a dating app exploded onto the scene--enter Tinder.

Tinder is an iPhone app that "finds out who likes you nearby, and connects you with them if you're also interested" (according to their website).  It allows users to create a profile based on their Facebook photos (pick them wisely) and bio (which will likely go unread). Users then select what gender they are searching for, the maximum distance of the search radius, and the minimum and maximum age of potential matches (the minimum age is 18--sorry, Miguel). After these preferences are defined, users are shown the profiles of other users who fit their criteria, and they can then select either to "like" or "pass" on each profile.

Now, what makes Tinder so appealing is its relative secrecy; users are only notified that someone has liked their profile if they have liked that person's profile in return. So, anonymity is maintained unless the liking is mutual. It's an addictive concept that promises no hurt feelings, no commitment, and no risk (unless you don't get any matches; then your feelings might be hurt). Dating purists (do those exist?) might scoff at the idea, but why? Is avoiding potential rejection wrong? (No! Rejection sucks!) Is there something to be gained by chasing romance where it might not be? (Rejection! That is the only thing to be gained!)

So what if Tinder is impersonal? So what if it is based almost solely on looks? I just want to find a girl without acting like I want to find a girl. Is that so crazy? (No, it's not crazy; that preceding sentence makes a ton of sense.)

Maybe the dating landscape is changing (and by maybe I mean definitely). Maybe those who dismissed eHarmony as a service for the socially inept will find themselves turning to the internet for romance (or find themselves single). For now, Tinder acts as an intermediate service for young adults, too playful and stripped down to mimic dating sites, but too viable to be cast off as just a fad. Whether your future spouse is to be found on Tinder (that premise deserves an offbeat romantic comedy!), or you are simply looking for conversation, the app is worth some of your time. Who knows? You just might be contributing to the future of dating as we know it. (It would be kind of weird if you were, though.)