It’s been around for over a year. Most of you are probably familiar with it and some of you may have even gotten laid because of it. It is a tool that immediately identifies other users in your vicinity with the inclination to see or play with your genitals. In it, there is no such thing as rejection, only overwhelming interest or distant, unassuming silence. The outright “no” that was once an inevitable part of our quest for companionship fades into virtual nothingness while all the users who “like” you appear in large and explicit notifications…in swirly font and shit.
For those who are unfamiliar with Tinder, it works like this. After pulling a few pictures from your Facebook page and allowing you to tweak your profile, you are directed to an endless thread of potential partners—little more than a picture and name—that are currently within the geographical radius of your choosing. You swipe right or left indicating whether you “like” or “dislike” them and as this happens, your profile shows up on the mobile devices of these other users who are also rating your bone-ability. Now, here’s the genius part: if either party decides they’re not interested in the other, nobody finds out. You can never tell who has seen your profile, much less if they have “disliked” you, thus sparing both parties the awkward shame of rejection.
But, if you like each other, a chat automatically opens up and you’re probably one or two clever comments—not to mention a short distance—away from being two knuckles deep in the slippery orifice of your choosing.
Although I myself have never been a user, I can attest to its efficacy. Sometime earlier in the year, a young lady, with whom I am well acquainted, joined Tinder as a sort of joke. “Just for fun,” she told me, “just to see who likes me.” We went out drinking with a few friends that night and for at least several minutes, it felt like we were hearing the thoughts of a peppy high school girl watching her own Facebook feed.
“YES! Another like!”
With each excited squeal, my heart sank and the craft beer—that sweet ambrosia—began to taste of bitter wine.
Now, my girlfriend (pronounced Jen), has rather discerning taste in men (obviously) so for every 25 or more profiles she saw, she would “like” perhaps one of them. As a result, each of the guys on her chat list was without fail, more attractive, talented and/or buff than her boyfriend. So, after several minutes of this, I aggressively insisted that she halt her very fruitful search for the most eligible bachelors within banging distance, lest she find herself face-to-face with the musician or walking six pack who just happens to be having a drink next door.
The value of an application like this is obvious. Grindr is another similar application for gay men who can arrange meetings with interested partners by spraying their details and locations across the Grindrsphere. Despite the incredible intrusiveness of this particular function, I get the appeal.
What both applications have in common, however, is their uncanny ability to connect you with lots of people you want to hump in a few short minutes. You can even afford to throw a few away as one coy suitor did when he told Gen he “would love to motorboat the shit out of those tits” in the opening line of their chat. But here’s the thing: it’s not even that crazy for him to be so forward about it. After all, the only reason that chat opened up is because in some sense, they’ve both already entertained the idea. Not necessarily his crass articulation, but something like it.
The problem with Tinder is that it turns any decent-looking boy into a hero standing atop the mountain of prospects that is his “chat list.” Female users are peppered with likes and, within this framework, judge their success according to the number of chats that haven’t yet descended into the depths of depravity.
It’s pitched as a “dating app” but there is no quality here, not even in the shallowest sense. That’s because before you go on any “date” there is nothing to judge except a few purposefully chosen pictures and a marginally clever one line descriptor. It would be like taking a book, looking at the cover, listening to the author’s single favourite sentence, then fucking the book before you decide to read it. Chats aren’t usually any more revealing. They flicker and die while everyone moves on to newer prospects and the enticing possibility of someone better.
Tinder poses a risk to the idea of dating, which feels like only a remote possibility at the rate you swipe through partners. It’s too easy. There’s no nervous approach, no fear, no heartfelt desire to connect. That’s why rejection is a good thing. It’s a means of fortifying your self esteem and a bulwark against cockiness, overzealousness, and general douchiness (all of which Tinder boasts by the shitload). But all things in motion naturally veer towards the path of least resistance and rejection has a tendency to stifle us. I’m not saying men or women will stop going to bookshops, nightclubs, and cocktail mixers to meet people who might reject them, but it’s unfortunate to think they now have the option not to. When Tinder does lead to a date, it’s rife with pretence, more so than with another partner you originally met in person. You didn’t get a message at 3:00a.m. because he (or she) is interested in you as a human being, it was a scattershot. You’re just the one that happened to respond. And if this represents the pickup of the future, that future seems very unfortunate.
True, getting laid is usually a good thing, but it usually isn't when it’s too easy.