1. Background and App Use History
L was first introduced to dating apps through domestic platforms like Tantan and Momo, which he heard about socially. His initial experiences were negative—he described being “scared off” after encountering inappropriate behavior from a younger user. Later, he transitioned to Hinge, attracted by its reputation for being less hookup-oriented. However, after several months of intermittent use, he eventually stopped using dating apps altogether, describing the experience as “formulaic” and emotionally numbing.
2. Platform Choice and Perceptions
L compared Hinge favorably to other apps because it offered fewer daily matches and less “information bombardment.” He appreciated this slower pace, claiming that “too many matches” caused confusion and memory lapses when chatting. While Hinge was rumored to attract fewer users seeking casual sex, he recognized that hookups still occurred “half of the time.” His reasoning reflects a desire for manageable, low-pressure interaction rather than genuine long-term relationship pursuit.
3. Motivation and Purposes
Initially, L’s motivation for using dating apps was boredom and loneliness—“too bored, nothing to do.” He did not seek romantic or sexual relationships explicitly but saw chatting as a way to “kill time.” Over time, this motivation remained constant. He positioned dating apps not as a route to intimacy, but as a temporary emotional outlet during idle moments, often comparing the experience to “chatting to pass time” or “making short-term friends.”
4. Views on Connection and Temporality
L emphasized the short-lived nature of relationships formed online: conversations fade quickly, interests diverge, and contact ceases. He viewed most encounters as transient—“short-term friends”—noting that “life is different, so topics are few.” This highlights a sense of ephemeral digital intimacy, where connection is fleeting and rarely transitions into offline engagement.
5. Criteria for Attraction and Swiping Behavior
When browsing profiles, L prioritized physical appearance—especially body type (“body 80%, face 20%”). Secondary considerations included signs of empathy or kindness, such as profiles mentioning pets or caring for others. He expressed mild disdain for self-centered profiles and favored “multi-style” photo arrangements for his own account. He rarely read long bios and was disinterested in textual or ideological tags (e.g., feminism, LGBTQ+, politics), suggesting a preference for visual over verbal intimacy.
6. Self-Presentation and Strategy
In creating his own profile, L preferred minimal text and diverse photos reflecting different “styles” or moods. He described his presentation as “multi-dimensional but not wordy.” He avoided lengthy self-descriptions and saw elaborate bios as off-putting. His approach reflected an aesthetic performance of effortless authenticity—enough to appear genuine, but not invested. This aligns with the performative detachment central to Illouz’s concept of “cold intimacy.”
7. Communication Patterns and Engagement