Flört Pratiklerinde Toplumsal Cinsiyetin Rolü: Türkiye’nin Heteroseksüel Çevrimiçi Flört Dünyasının Analizi

Öz

Heteroseksüel çevrimiçi flört kültürü ve pratiklerini araştıran doktora projesinin bir parçası olan bu çalışma, bireylerin hem flört uygulamalarıyla etkileşimlerinde hem de çevrimiçi flört deneyimlerinde toplumsal cinsiyetin nasıl belirleyici olduğuna odaklanmaktadır. Türkiye’de popüler olan ve algoritmik mimarileri birbirinden farklı iki uygulamayı, Tinder ile OkCupid’i incelemiş ve kullanıcılarıyla Zoom mülakatları gerçekleştirmiştir. Çıkan bulgular, özellikle erkeklerin deneyimlerinde kullanıcıların görünürlüğünü belirleyen algoritmaların başat bir rolü olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Erkekler, kadınların aksine, eşleşme alabilmek için algoritmaları yenecek ya da kandıracak çeşitli taktikler uygulamak durumunda kalmaktadır. Algoritmik mimari aynı zamanda bu uygulamaların toplumda nasıl algılanacağını etkilemektedir. Flört uygulamalarını, ama özellikle basit mimarisinden ötürü Tinder’ı, “takılma uygulamaları” olarak damgalayan toplumsal algı, kadın ve erkekleri farklı şekillerde etkilemektedir. Bu farklılık, genel olarak erkeklerin avcı, kadınlarınsa kurban olarak kodlandığı takılma pratiğinin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliğini yeniden üreten yapısından kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu nedenle, erkeklere nazaran, kadınların deneyimlerinde “o tarz kadın” muamelesine maruz kalma ve “saldırıya uğruyormuş” hissine kapılma öne çıkmaktadır. Çalışma, bu bulgular ışığında, hem insan-uygulama etkileşimine hem de flört uygulamalarının nasıl kültürel objeler olduğuna dikkat çekerek Batı odaklı çalışmaların hâkim olduğu çevrimiçi flört literatürüne katkı yapmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• tanışma uygulamaları
• dijital flörtleşme
• toplumsal cinsiyet
• toplumsal damga

The Role of Gender in Dating Practices: An Analysis of Turkey’s Heterosexual Online Dating World

Öz

As part of the dissertation research on heterosexual online dating culture and practices, this study focuses on the determining role of gender in individuals’ interaction with dating apps and their online dating experiences. It examines two algorithmically different and most-used apps in Turkey, Tinder and OkCupid, and organizes interviews with the users via Zoom. The findings demonstrate that algorithms that determine users’ visibility play a primary role in particularly men’s experiences. In contrast to women, men must develop various tactics to beat or cheat algorithms to get a match. Algorithmic architecture also influences how these apps are perceived in society. The social perception which stigmatizes dating apps, especially Tinder due to its simple architecture, as “hookup apps” affects women and men differently. These differences derive from the hookup structure that reproduces gender inequality by associating men with the hunter and women with the victim. Hence, in contrast to men, being exposed to “that kind of woman” attitudes and feeling as if they are being attacked are dominant in women’s experiences. In this light, this study aims to contribute to the predominantly Western literature on e-dating by drawing attention to human-app interaction and how dating apps are algorithmic cultural objects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dating apps
• digital flirting
• gender
• social stigma

Kaynakça

1. Aba, A. (1 Kasım 2020). Modern zamanlarda aşk… Birgün. Erişim tarihi: 15 Aralık 2020, https://www.birgun.net/haber/modern-zamanlarda-ask-321287.
2. Alam, S. S., Islam, Md. R., Mokhbul, Z. K. M., & Makmor, N. B. (2018). Factors affecting intention to use online dating sites in Malaysia. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4.28), 192-198.
3. Albury, K., Burgess, J., Light, B., Race, K., & Wilken, R. (2017). Data cultures of mobile dating and hook-up apps: Emerging issues for critical social science research. Big Data & Society, July-December 2017, 1-11.
4. Ali, N., Phillips, R., Chambers, C., Narkowicz, K., Hopkins, P., & Pande R. (2020). Halal dating: Changing relationship attitudes and experiences among young British Muslims. Sexualities, 23(5–6), 775–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460719850113
5. Anderson, B. (2009). Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society, 2, 77-81.
6. Arcak, E., & Öztürk, S. (Yapımcılar) (2020). Dijital flörtleşme [Belgesel serisi]. Ancyra Documentary & Film Production; BluTv.
7. Aydoğan, B. (2020). Konum temelli çevrimiçi tanışma uygulamalarını kadınların flört deneyimleri açısından düşünmek: Tinder ve Happn. Moment Dergi, 7(2), 287-313.
8. Bailliard, A. L. (2015). Video methodologies in research: Unlocking the complexities of occupation. Canadian Journal of Occupation Therapy, 82(1), 35-43.

9. Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1-13. Bergström, M. (2022). The new laws of love: Online dating at the privatization of intimacy. Polity.
10. Birgün. (16 Aralık 2019). Türkiye’de her 80 kişiden biri Tinder kullanıyor. Erişim tarihi: 15 Eylül 2020, https://www.birgun.net/haber/turkiye-de-her-80-kisiden-biri-tinder-kullaniyor-280213.
11. Bivens, R., & Hoque, A. S. (2018). Programming sex, gender, and sexuality: Infrastructural failures in the “feminist” dating app Bumble. Canadian Journal of Communication, 43, 441-459.
12. Brooks, A. (18 Kasım 2020). 34 interesting & surprising online dating statistics in 2021. Erişim tarihi: 15 Ağustos 2021, https://www.datingadvice.com/studies/iasods.
13. Bryant, K., & Sheldon, P. (2017). Cyber dating in the age of mobile apps: Understanding motives, attitudes, and characteristics of users. American Communication Journal, 19(2), 1-15.
14. Carr, A. (1 Kasım 2016). I found out my secret internal Tinder rating and now I wish I hadn’t. Erişim tarihi: 28 Haziran 2020. https://www.fastcompany.com/3054871/whats-your-tinder-score-inside-the-apps-internal-ranking-system.
15. Casimiro, C. (2015). Self-presentation in the Portuguese online dating scene: Does gender matter? A. Degim, J. Johnson, & T. Fu (Eds.), Online Courtship: Interpersonal interactions across borders (ss. 71-95). Institute of Network Cultures.
16. Chan, L. S. (2016). How sociocultural context matters in self-presentation: A Comparison of U.S. and Chinese profiles on Jack’d, a mobile dating app for men who have sex with men. International Journal of Communication, 10, 6040-6059.
17. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York University Press.
18. Cöbek, G. (2021). Beyond the female love-male sex binary: A non-representational approach to online dating. Kültür ve İletişim, 24(1), 7-35.
19. Cöbek, G. (2022a). Flört uygulamalarındaki imajlar dünyası: “Klişelerin diktatörlüğü”ne karşı doğallık. Moment, 9(1), 13-34.
20. Cöbek, G. (2022b). What affect proposes: Swiping as a bodily practice. Emotions & Society, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1332/263169021X16617404866768.
21. Cöbek, G. (2023a). “When Harry met Sally (via dating app)”: An affective approach to the techno-social world of Turkey’s heterosexual online dating [Doktora tezi, Koç Üniversitesi].
22. Cöbek, G. (2023b). Right of men to hook up: An analysis of Tinder’s architecture and its cultural interpretations in Turkey. In G. Muschert, M. Ragnedda, M. Şentürk, & H. Eşrefoğlu (Eds.), New Media / New Society? Istanbul University Press.
23. Cöbek, G., & Ergin, M. (2021). Swipe me if you can: Cultural and gendered uses of Tinder in Turkey. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences, 5(3), 11-38.
24. Cruyt, M. L. (12 Şubat 2020). Check out the most popular dating apps by country. Erişim tarihi: 15 Ağustos 2021, https://www.apptweak.com/en/aso-blog/check-out-the-most-popular-dating-apps-by-country.
25. Davis, E. M. & Fingerman, K. L. (2016). Digital dating: Online profile content of older and younger adults. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 71(6), 959-967.
26. De Rooij, L. (2020). The relationship between online dating and Islamic identity among British Muslims. Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture, 9, 1-32.
27. Deniz, A. (2020). Changing geographies of intimacy: A study on female Tinder users in Istanbul. Fe Dergi, 12(1), 113-124.
28. Deveci, E. (23 Kasım 2020). Tinder, OkCupid, Bumble… İşte pandemide çevrimiçi çöpçatanlığın bilançosu. Erişim tarihi: 16 Ağustos 2021, https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2020/ekonomi/tinder-okcupid-bumble-iste-pandemide-cevrimici-copcatanligin-bilancosu-6135818/.
29. Duguay, S. (2018). Tinder. Swiped: A focal gesture and contested app visions. J. W. Morris & S. Murray (Eds.), Appified: Culture in the age of apps (ss. 127-135). University of Michigan Press.
30. Duguay, S. (2019). You can’t use this app for that: Exploring off-label use through an investigation of Tinder. The Information Society, 1-13.
31. Galloway, A. R. (2006). Gaming: Essays on algorithmic culture. University of Minnesota Press.
32. Gewirtz-Meydan, A. & Ayalon, L. (2018). Forever young: Visual representations of gender and age in online dating sites for older adults. Journal of Women & Aging, 30(6), 484-502.
33. Hasan, F. (2020). Keep it halal! A smartphone ethnography of Muslim dating. Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture, 10, 135-154.
34. Hess, A., & Flores, C. (2018). Simply more than swiping left: A critical analysis of toxic masculine performances on Tinder Nightmares. New Media & Society, 1-18.
35. Holden, M. (25 Mayıs 2021). How to use Tinder for hooking up (and more). Askmen. Erişim tarihi: 28 Haziran 2020, https://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith/dating-with-tinder.html.
36. Illouz, E. (2019). The end of love: A sociology of negative relations. Oxford University Press.
37. Johnson, J. H. (2017). Dating_missrepresentation.com: Black women’s lived love-hate relationship with online dating (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
38. Krüger, S., & Spilde, A. C. (2019). Judging books by their covers – Tinder interface, usage, and socio-cultural implications. Information, Communication & Society. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1572771.
39. Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881-900.
40. MacLeod, C., & McArthur, V. (2019). The construction of gender in dating apps: An interface analysis of Tinder and Bumble. Feminist Media Studies, 19(6), 822-840.
41. Mason, C. L. (2016). Tinder and humanitarian hook-ups: The erotics of social media racism. Feminist Media Studies, 16(5), 822-837.
42. McGloin, R., & Denes, A. (2018). Too hot to trust: Examining the relationship between attractiveness, trustworthiness, and desire to date in online dating. New Media & Society, 20(3), 919-936.
43. McWilliams, S., & Barrett, A. E. (2014). Online dating in middle and later life: Gendered expectations and experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 35(3), 411-436.
44. Murray, S., & Ankerson, M. S. (2016). Lez takes time: Designing lesbian contact in geosocial networking apps. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 33(1), 53-69.
45. Narin, B. (2018). A netnography study about Wapa as a mobile dating application. Journal of Cultural Studies, 5(2), 343-367.
46. Nisa, E. F. (2021). Online halal dating, Ta’aruf, and the shariatisation of matchmaking among Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims. CyberOrient, 15(1), 231-258.
47. OkCupid. (b.t.). Dating deserves better. Erişim tarihi: 17 Eylül 2019, https://www.okcupid.com/.
48. Özkazanç, A. (2020). Anti-gender movements in Europe and the case of Turkey. Baltic Worlds, 1, 45-55. https://balticworlds.com/anti-gender-movements-in-europe-and-the-case-of-turkey/
49. Paasonen, S., Light, B., & Jarrett, K. (2019). The dick pic: Harassment, curation, and desire. Social Media + Society, (April-June), 1-10.
50. Pasin, B. (2020). Görün(m)üyorum, öyleyse varım: Konumsal medyada kuir mekân pratikleri. C. T. Şahoğlu & B. Aydoğan (Eds.), Konumsal media: Dijital çağda mekân üzerine disiplinlerarası tartışmalar (ss. 205-214). Siyasal Kitabevi.
51. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
52. Peters, S. & Salzsieder, H. (2018). What makes you swipe right?: Gender similarity in interpersonal attraction in a simulated online dating context. Journal of Psychological Research, 23(4), 320-329.
53. Pink, S. (2012). Situating everyday life: Practices and places. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Pink, S., & Mackley, K. L. (2014). Re-enactment methodologies for everyday life research: Art therapy insights for video ethnography. Visual Studies, 29(2), 146-154.
55. Poulsen, K. (21 Ocak 2014). How a myth genius hacked OkCupid to find true love. Wired. Erişim tarihi: 16 Ocak 2021. https://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/
56. Pozsar, M. H., Dumitrescu, A. I., Piticas, D., & Constantinescu, S. (2018). Dating apps in the lives of young Romanian women. A preliminary study. Analize – Journal of Gender and Feminist Studies, 11, 216-238.
57. Rochadiat, A. MP, Tong, S. T., & Novak, J. M. (2018). Online dating and courtship among American Muslim women: Negotiating technology, religious identity, and culture. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1618-1639.
58. Salecl, R. (2016). Seçme ikilemi. Metis Yayınları.
59. Sales, N. J. (2015). Tinder and the dawn of the “dating apocalypse.” Vanity Fair. Erişim tarihi: 23 Kasım 2020. https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/tinder-hook-up-culture-end-of-dating.
60. Shaw, F. (2016). “Bitch I said hi”: The Bye Felipe campaign and discursive activism in mobile dating apps. Social Media + Society, October-December, 1-10.
61. Shield, A. DJ. (2018). Grindr culture: Intersectional and socio-sexual. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 18(1), 149-161.
62. Similarweb. (b.t.). Top apps ranking: Most popular apps in Turkey / Dating / Top Free. Erişim tarihi: 15 Aralık 2022, https://www.similarweb.com/apps/top/apple/store-rank/tr/lifestyle/top-free/iphone/.
63. Sobieraj, S., & Humphreys, L. (2021). Forced empowerment and the paradox of mobile dating apps. Social Media + Society, October-December 2021, 1-12.
64. Soybakış, O. (2019). Kamusal alanda saklambaç: İstanbul’da eşcinsel ve biseksüel erkeklerin mekânsal sosyalleşmesi. C. Özbay & A. Terzioğlu (Eds.), Türkiye’de cinsiyet kültürleri (ss. 267-280). İletişim Yayınları.
65. Statista Research Department (10 Ocak 2023). Leading dating apps worldwide in 2022, by downloads (in millions). Erişim tarihi: 16 Mart 2023, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1284769/top-dating-apps-global-by-downloads/.
66. Su, X., & Hu, H. (2019). Gender-specific preference in online dating. EPJ Data Science, 8, 12.
67. Sumter, S. R., Vandenbosch, L., & Ligtenberg, L. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics & Informatics, 34, 67-78.
68. Tanrıöver, H. U. & Sunam, A. (2017). Türkiye'deki çevrimiçi evlilik siteleri: Medyanın benlik sunumuna etkisinin toplumsal cinsiyet odaklı bir analizi. İleti-ş-im, 26, 9-38.
69. Tinder. (b.t.). Subscription tiers at a glance. Erişim tarihi: 18 Haziran 2021, https://tinder.com/feature/subscription-tiers.
70. Thompson, L. (2018). “I can be your Tinder nightmare”: Harassment and misogyny in the online sexual marketplace. Feminism & Psychology, 28(1), 69–89.
71. Tong, S. T., Hancock, J. T., & Slatcher, R. B. (2016). Online dating system design and relational decision making: Choice, algorithms, and control. Personal Relationships, 23, 645-662.
72. Vuzharov, M. (2019). UX & fomo. Looking for love or looking for options? Digital Age in Semiotics & Communication, 11, 74-79.