Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language and Sexuality
Vol. 11:1 (2022) ► pp.1–30

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

More than the selfie

Online dating, non-monogamy, normativity, and linked profiles on OkCupid

 | University of Washington Tacoma, USA
Published online: 11 February 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.20005.tho
Abstract
Success in the digital dating world is often dependent on an individual’s ability to negotiate the affordances and constraints of platforms (Bucher, Taina & Helmond, Anne. 2017. The affordances of social media platforms. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell & Alice E. Marwick (eds) 233–253. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) while effectively expressing who one is and what they are looking for. Since mononormativity is the dominant script that underpins ideals of romantic love and intimate relations in our society (Wolkomir, Michelle. 2019. Swingers and polyamorists: A comparative analysis of gendered power dynamics. Sexualities 23(7): 1060–1079. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), for the millions who ascribe to non-monogamy, profile creation is often complicated by dating platform interfaces and relationship orientations. This research takes a critical multimodal discourse approach (. 2016. The need for a social and affordance-driven multimodal critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society 27(3): 322–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, Milani, Tommaso M. 2013. Expanding the Queer Linguistic scene: Multimodality, space and sexuality at a South African university. Journal of Language and Sexuality 2(2): 206–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) to examine the interplay between various semiotic modes in meaning making about sexual normativities (. 2019. Language and sexual normativity. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) in digital dating contexts, and considers how people navigating non-traditional relationship orientations negotiate discourse in digital dating contexts to demonstrate how discourse and design have the ability to empower and marginalize users (Sun, Huatong. 2020. Global Social Media Design: Bridging Differences Across Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) as well maintain cultural norms (Wachter-Boettcher, Sara. 2017. Technically Wrong: Sexist Apps, Biased Algorithms, and Other Threats of Toxic Tech. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) about emotional bonding and sexuality.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Consensual non-monogamy and sexual normativity
  • 3.Multimodality and queer linguistics
    • 3.1Methods
  • 4.Consensual non-monogamy and digital design
    • 4.1Labeling relationship type and status
    • 4.2Linking profiles
    • 4.3Constructing non-monogamy through written bios
    • 4.4Visualizing non-monogamy through profile photos
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Ethics statement
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (83)
References
Anderson, Eric. 2012. The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Armstrong, Elizabeth A., England, Paula & Fogarty, Alison C. K. 2012. Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review 77(3): 435–462. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ault, Michael K. & Gilder, Bobbi Van. 2015. Polygamy in the United States: How marginalized religious communities cope with stigmatizing discourses surrounding plural marriage. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 44(4): 307–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barker, Meg. 2005. This is my partner, and this is my … partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 18(1): 75–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, Robin. 2010. Non-monogamy in queer BDSM communities: Putting the sex back into alternative relationship practices and discourse. In Understanding Non-Monogamies. Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (eds), 142–153. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baym, Nancy. 2010. Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berg, Alex. 2014. Why these queers are boycotting OkCupid – and you should, too. Huffington Post. <[URL]> (June 29 2020).
Brown, Anna. 2020. Lesbian, gay and bisexual online daters report positive experiences – but also harassment. Pew Research Center. <[URL]> (August 17 2020).
Bucher, Taina & Helmond, Anne. 2017. The affordances of social media platforms. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell & Alice E. Marwick (eds) 233–253. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Callis, April Scarlette. 2014. Bisexual, pansexual, queer: Non-binary identities and the sexual borderlands. Sexualities 17(1–2): 63–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Bronwyn. 2019. Love and hate at the cultural interface: Indigenous Australians and dating apps: Journal of Sociology 56(2): 133–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chapais, Bernard. 2013. Monogamy, strongly bonded groups, and the evolution of human social structure. Evolutionary Anthropology 22(2): 52–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLamater, John & Rebecca F. Plante. 2015. Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dijck, Jose van. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dimock, Michael. 2019. Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. <[URL]> (May 30 2020).
Douglas, Susan J. 2004 [1999]. Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drouin, Michelle, Miller, Daniel, Wehle, Shaun M. J. & Hernandez, Elisa. 2016. Why do people lie online? “Because everyone lies on the internet.” Computers in Human Behavior 641: 134–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duguay, Stefanie. 2016. “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society 18(6): 891–907. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrer, Jorge N. 2018. Mononormativity, polypride, and the “mono–poly wars.” Sexuality & Culture 22(3): 817–836. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John. 2017. Critical Discourse Studies in context. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds), 165–179. New York: Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fry, Richard. 2020. Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation. Pew Research Center. <[URL]> (May 30 2020).
Gahran, Amy. 2012. Riding the relationship escalator (or not). Solo Poly. <[URL]> (February 5 2019).
. 2013. Couple privilege: Having it doesn’t necessarily make you an asshole (but it might). SoloPoly. <[URL]> (November 13 2019).
Gibson, James J. 2014. The theory of affordances. In The People, Place, and Space Reader, Jen Jack Gieseking, William Mangold, Cindi Katz, Setha Low & Susan Saegert (eds), 56–60. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love, and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldhill, Olivia. 2018. Polyamorous sex is the most quietly revolutionary political weapon in the United States. Quartz. <[URL]> (December 21 2018).
Grinberg, Emanuella. 2016. OkCupid adds feature for polyamorous users. CNN Online, U.S. Edition. <[URL]> (October 3 2017).
Haritaworn, Jin, Lin, Chin-ju & Klesse, Christian. 2006. Poly/logue: A critical introduction to polyamory: Sexualities 9(5): 515–529. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haupert, Mara L., Gesselman, Amanda N., Moors, Amy C., Fisher, Helen E. & Garcia, Justin R. 2017. Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 43(5): 424–440. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hogenboom, Melissa. 2016. Polyamorous relationships may be the future of love. BBC News, sec. Future. <[URL]> (June 6 2020).
Hyde, Janet S. & DeLamater, John. 2000. Understanding Human Sexuality. 7th edition. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iedema, Rick. 2003. Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication 2(1): 29–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jenks, Richard J. 1998. Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior 27(5): 507–521. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kale, Sirin. 2018. All you need is loves: The truth about polyamory. The Guardian, sec. Life and style. <[URL]> (June 6 2020).
Khazan, Olga. 2016. OkCupid adds a feature for the polyamorous. The Atlantic. <[URL]> (October 3 2017).
Klesse, Christian. 2006. Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities 9(5): 565–583. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Polyamory: Intimate practice, identity or sexual orientation? Sexualities 17(1–2): 81–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther R. & van Leeuwen, Theo. 1998. Front pages: (The critical) analysis of newspaper layout. In Approaches to Media Discourse, Allan Bell & Peter Garrett (eds), 186–219. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kunst, Alexander. 2019. U.S. online dating by age 2017. Statista. <[URL]> (September 16 2019).
Laura. 2020. Polyamory glossary. Ready for polyamory. <[URL]>. (October 3 2020).
Leap, William L. 2015. Queer linguistics as critical discourse analysis. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 661–680. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Machin, David. 2007. Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Critical Discourse Studies 10(4): 347–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. The need for a social and affordance-driven multimodal critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society 27(3): 322–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald & Wajcman, Judy (eds). 1999. The Social Shaping of Technology. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: McGraw Hill Education / Open University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahler, Jess. 2016. Kitchen table polyamory, parallel polyamory, and etiquette. Jess Mahler. <[URL]> (January 21 2020).
Matsick, Jes L., Conley, Terri D., Ziegler, Ali, Moors, Amy C. & Rubin, Jennifer D. 2014. Love and sex: Polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships. Psychology & Sexuality 5(4): 339–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Straight-acting: Discursive negotiations of a homomasculine identity. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity, Siân Preece (ed), 469–483. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Geoffrey. 2019. Polyamory is growing – and we need to get serious about it. Quillette. <[URL]> (November 3 2019).
Motschenbacher, Heiko. 2017. Sexuality in critical discourse studies. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds), 388–403. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Language and sexual normativity. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, Greg. 2010. The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norman, Don. 2013. The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay. 2011. Multimodal discourse analysis. In Bloomsbury Companion to Discourse Analysis. Ken Hyland & Brian Paltridge (eds), 120–137. London: A&C Black.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
OkCupid. 2020. Non-monogamy on OkCupid – OkCupid help. <[URL]> (April 1 2020).
Perez, Caroline Criado. 2019. Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. New York: Abrams Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pogensky, Ryley. 2013. OkCupid petition: Extend the gender and sexuality options. Change.org. <[URL]> (June 29 2020).
Rich, Adrienne. 1980. Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5(4): 631–660. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, Ani & Barker, Meg. 2006. ‘There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make them up’: Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy: Sexualities 9(5): 584–601. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michael J. & Thomas, Reuben J. 2012. Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review 77(4): 523–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rubel, Alicia N. & Burleigh, Tyler J. 2020. Counting polyamorists who count: Prevalence and definitions of an under-researched form of consensual nonmonogamy. Sexualities 23(1–2): 3–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rubin, Jennifer, Moors, Amy, Matsick, Jes, Ziegler, Ali & Conley, Terri. 2014. On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für Psychologie 22(1): 19–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudder, Christian. 2014. Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity – What Our Online Lives Tell Us About Our Offline Selves. London: Broadway Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schippers, Mimi. 2016. Beyond Monogamy: Polyamory and the Future of Polyqueer Sexualities. Kindle Version. New York: NYU Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheff, Elisabeth. 2014. How many polyamorists are there in the U.S.? Psychology Today. <[URL]> (October 3 2017).
Sheff, Elisabeth & Hammers, Corie. 2011. The privilege of perversities: Race, class and education among polyamorists and kinksters. Psychology & Sexuality 2(3): 198–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheff, Elisabeth & Tesene, Megan M. 2015. Consensual non-monogamies in industrialized nations. In Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities, John DeLamater & Rebecca F. Plante (eds), 223–241. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shepherd, Dawn. 2016. Building Relationships: Online Dating and the New Logics of Internet Culture. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shucart, Brendan. 2016. Polyamory by the numbers. <[URL]> (January 18 2020).
Smith, Aaron. 2016. 15% of American adults have used online dating sites or mobile dating apps. Pew Research Center. <[URL]> (October 10 2017).
Smith, Aaron & Duggan, Maeve. 2013. Part 2: Dating Apps and Online Dating Sites. Pew Research Center. <[URL]> (October 10 2017).
Sun, Huatong. 2020. Global Social Media Design: Bridging Differences Across Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
[treena_kravm]. 2018. Please stop using nesting partner when you really mean primary partner. reddit. <[URL]> (August 10 2020).
[UsernameForSexStuff]. 2018. OkCupid making changes to non-monogamous profiles. reddit. <[URL]> (January 31 2020).
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2012. Critical analysis of multimodal discourse. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Carol Chapelle (ed), 1–6. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wachter-Boettcher, Sara. 2017. Technically Wrong: Sexist Apps, Biased Algorithms, and Other Threats of Toxic Tech. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webb, Stephanie. 2017. “There Will Be More Cookies”: A Discursive Exploration of Polyamorous Identity in a Monogamous World. (Unpublished) PhD dissertation, University of Denver.
Wolkomir, Michelle. 2019. Swingers and polyamorists: A comparative analysis of gendered power dynamics. Sexualities 23(7): 1060–1079. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wong, Curtis M. 2014. OkCupid begins rolling out new gender, sexuality options. Huffington Post. <[URL]> (October 3 2017).
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Copulsky, Daniel & Phillip L Hammack
2025. Consensual nonmonogamous relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sexualities 28:1-2 ► pp. 699 ff. DOI logo
Gershon, Ilana
2025. Seeking romance in a marketplace of profiles: a commentary. Discourse, Context & Media 68 ► pp. 100948 ff. DOI logo
Rowlett, Benedict J.L. & Kwan Ting Chung
2025. Queer(ing) language practices in a Hong Kong lesbian dating app. Discourse, Context & Media 63 ► pp. 100839 ff. DOI logo
Sengul, Kurt
2025. “View profiles without pronouns”: The politics and discourse of ‘anti-woke’ right-wing dating app, The Right Stuff. Discourse, Context & Media 65 ► pp. 100876 ff. DOI logo
Andersen, Elisabeth Muth
2024. The invitation game. Internet Pragmatics 7:1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Andersen, Elisabeth Muth
2025. “So fast on the keys, when do you have time to meet”: Interactionally generated invitations in Danish Tinder chats. Discourse, Context & Media 64 ► pp. 100849 ff. DOI logo
Döring, Nicola, Deevia Bhana & Kath Albury
2022. Digital sexual identities: Between empowerment and disempowerment. Current Opinion in Psychology 48 ► pp. 101466 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue