How Grindr Is Changing the Way We Connect
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
It could simply be that “gay men are early adopters,” he said. “I joke that the wheel was invented by a gay man so he could get to his hookup faster.””
Is this really such a mystery? Women are not nearly as interested in meeting strangers online -- especially for random hookups -- as men are.
"What is the minimum number of metres I need to walk to get laid" is a solution looking for a problem here.
It's really not so different. The "wooing" process for casual sex generally involves little more than giving signals that you're a normal person, and not a weirdo, creep, or bore.
But to take it to Grindr level of connection matching money needs to be involved.
The colloquial saying for prostitution is that the money is so that after they leave. That's what makes it a business transactions, you remove the emotional capital.
The inverse then of creating a connection, hypothetically, is to have money to show that you're a serious candidate about meeting someone. The money could be put into escrow for disbursement to do something at a later point, but at least you get bought in enough to see the flop. Anything thereafter is up to you.
That's how Grindr for straight people could work.
1. Match on proximity/intrest
2. Man puts $X in escrow associated with woman's profile (and not any other profile at the same time)
3. Woman sees that guy put $X in escrow
4. Woman agrees to meet
5. They go have a nice dinner
6. The check arrives.
7. [Man or woman or both together] uses online service to release escrow funds and pay for the dinner.
or alternatively
4. Woman rejects invitation or ignores it for Y amount of time
5. Funds returned for possible use on another invitation to somebody else
Is this what you're suggesting? Do I have it right? Basically making the commitment to pay for dinner (or something) explicit in the service?
I keep hearing this from friends, and I honestly don't get it. The couple of times I've gone on Grindr, all I saw were things like: http://www.douchebagsofgrindr.com/ and http://www.reddit.com/r/lolgrindr . Those certainly represent the worst-of-the-worst, but it's clear what the 'Grindr community' is looking for when they log in to the app.
On the other hand, a friend of mine just told me last week about an in-depth political debate he got into with a guy on Grindr. While I can think of of a few ways to segue from 'check out this dick shot' to 'what do you think of Mitch McConnell', it still leaves me a bit baffled to hear that this actually happens.
My perspective may be a bit skewed because of my work with more, um "traditional" online dating (a phrase which makes me chuckle to type), but I have a hard time understanding how such meaningful conversations arise from a platform where people are quite clearly on the hunt.
Sidenote: It also amuses me how many of Grindr's ads are clearly hetero-oriented ('sexy [female] strippers nearby', etc.). I know they try to keep up the pretense that it's a 'social networking app for men', not just a hookup app for gay men, but.... still!
Isn't it like twitter in that regard? Sturgeon's Law is universal.
When I get out to Seattle I plan on attempting to make new friends through both Grindr and OkCupid but not necessarily exclusively for friends. Who knows.
Which is to say, if you ever took away the hookup aspect of Grindr, everything comes crashing down. The platform isn't growing beyond hookups, it's layering things on top of it, which seems like a natural evolution. This is great, just not quite as world-changing as the article would have us believe.
I sincerely doubt Grindr is a herald for a new means of mass communications.
Dating is less formal nowadays, even with women. The distinction between a date and a hookup is getting blurry, since a lot of first dates nowadays end up at least making out.
I'd say that even hookup-oriented guys are looking for a relationship with "the right person," so it isn't always clear saying that someone uses a service just for hookups. Plus, hookups often evolve into friendships or dates (and vice versa).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/concerning
The usage you're describing might as well be met with the question 'Concerning what?'.
Let's take a look at the relevant one from the OED.
1.1 That is of concern, that gives cause for consideration; important, weighty. arch.
Note the annotation 'archaic' - as in, not actually in current use. Words do, indeed, have multiple meanings. They do also have common usage and this one is just silly and bad writing. 'Concerning' does not mean 'cause for concern' - if you are sure of the contrary, find me a non-blithe usage of it, in that sense, in any current publication that is not a forum post or blog.
It's not like these fuc^H^H^Hhookup sites are a new thing. AdultFriendFinder launched in 1997 and literally dozens of such sites have existed for a similarly long time.
Seriously, the NYT blogs are basically people emailing their friends for topics. I get them all the time due to my network of past associates who have become bloggers for NYT, WSJ, etc.