Digital Worlds and the Neo-Conservative Ambivalence of the Media
The perceived isolation of male netizens populating the online dating world is compounded by a deeply seated sense of unhappiness and lack of orientation, summed-up into what Michael Kimmel calls “aggrieved entitlement” (Michael Kimmel, Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era, New York: Nation Books/Perseus, 2013). Again, the role played by education and the pervasiveness of mainstream media – TV, cinema, popular music, fashion, advertisement, news – are fundamental in creating specific role-models based on structures of power, hierarchy and domination. Meeting-up face-to-face in real life as well as the negotiation terms of monogamy and (serial/simultaneous) polygamy seem, more often than not, to be factors determined by male protagonists due to classical courtship rituals in which the man is pursuing the woman. There is, of course, the bigger question: what categories of women are actually populating the cyberspaces of online dating? The answer might be a huge surprise to feminists and women activists, if we judge from these preliminary results referring to the overall aspects of the male population on online dating platforms. If the permanently negotiated stress ratio between supply and demand is taken into consideration, both in terms of quantitative relevance and of quantitative stratification, a first conclusion is that the portrayal of “classical women” in mainstream media impacts subliminally the perception of what “being a classical woman” in real life or in online encounters actually means: the more the woman acts as a liberated feminist self-confident person, the more she keeps on attracting the type of “exciting Don Juan” patterned upon the characters of Charlie Harper (from Two and a Half Men) and Don Draper (from Mad Men) who will use her for some sort of emotional validation and/or sexual arousal, or she will land in hookup situations and casual sex – if there is any real-life encounter at all. One might argue that, as long as this is what she wants, that should be fine, but very often it is not, and the awakening is brutal and devastating for her self-esteem as well as for her perception and processing of the outside world. Interestingly, “playing cool” leads to a worsening of the behavior of the male counterparts, which then quickly turns into a vicious spiral downwards. On the contrary, raising the standards, or at least keeping them high, results in the dissolution of the interaction altogether – or in one of the following scenarios, profoundly anti-social, but increasingly turning into socially acceptable, and, from my observation, preponderant among male netizens. (The list is not exhaustive; but these seem to be the most frequent types of behavior.)
1. “Love-bombing”: is a highly seductive strategy, and it happens when lavish demonstration of care and attention, manifested through presents (mostly virtual), plans and promises about the future, huge amounts of messages, shown by one part (usually male) during the initial phase of the courting ritual. It leads to the quick build-up of whirlwind romances, and it is extremely addictive for the receiving part (usually female). It serves to manipulative goals for the perpetrator. The situation cannot last, naturally, and is shortly followed by subsequent anti-social behaviors such as ghosting, benching or breadcrumbing (or a combination of them).
2. “Ghosting”: is the sudden interruption of all communication in a romantic interaction, without informing the other part of the d It is often argued that the main goal of “ghosting” is not to hurt the other person and leaving her the possibility to understand the hint and move on; the reality is that it has a very negative effect on the person being “ghosted”.
3. “Benching”: happens when, in a dating scenario, one of the persons thinks the other one is quite cool, but not the perfect number, so he puts her in a sort of “if I do not find anyone better, she is fine, too” mental folder, and keeps on checking further dating options. Of course, the person being “benched” is not informed of this happening to her. (Apparently, the term originates in sports.)
4. “Breadcrumbing”: is the act of sending little flirtatious messages to someone, or to several persons, when no one else is around for more significant exchanges, at random times and without any emotional investment.
5. “Zombieing”: refers to the act of “repeated ghosting”, that is, after “ghosting” someone, resurfacing in her life without any warning and, very often, without any explanation or excuse, because one feels lonely, isolated, and probably horny. It is pursued via small, insignificant messages to test the waters, which then very probably stop immediately, as soon as a better option comes along.
6. “Cushioning”: is a rather cruel dating technique, in which one partner flirts and texts with several other persons “just in case” the main relationship might end (so that he has some back-up plan). Neither the current partner nor any of the “others” are informed of what is going on.
7. “Roaching”: occurs when a person is seeing, romantically speaking, several persons at the same time without letting them know about it. (The term comes from “cockcroaching” and refers to the fact that “where there is a cockroach, there are more which you do not see [yet]”.) The shock emerges when the situation is getting more serious, probably with physical intercourse involved, and an honest and open discussion becomes inevitable. Like cockroaches, this type of behavior seems to be very common “and very nasty”, followed oftentimes by “ghosting” on the side of the “roacher”.
8. “Orbiting”: a relatively new trend, it refers to distant methods of digital observation – e.g., likes on Facebook, views on Instagram, etc. – in which the “pursuer” (“orbiter”) does not ever directly start communicating with the “pursued” (“orbited”). However, the “orbited” is aware of the “orbiter”’s activities due to technological settings. This situation can be unsettling and frustrating, regardless if the “orbiter” is a potential romantic prospect, a former partner or an unrequited love-interest.
9. “Scamming”: this is a financially driven dating strategy, in which one person claims to be someone different, mostly from a distant geographical area, and at some point in the interaction asks for money to be able to come and meet the other partner in real life. Most scammers pretend to be single fathers, widowed, either American servicemen stationed somewhere in a developing country or American engineers on ships stranded penniless on some exotic s In fact, they are in ca. 85% of cases Nigerian citizens living in Nigeria. The financial losses of scamming activities are estimated at several million USD every year worldwide.
10. “Catfishing”: is the same as “scamming”, but not for financial reasons and mostly without financial losses. The emotional hurts are correspondingly high, though.
11. “Trolling”: is one level of cruelty and malignancy over “catfishing”; it consists of purposefully hurting and leading someone on, very often under the disguise of good intentions. Generally speaking, trolls are a very nasty product of the internet galaxy.
12. “Pigging”: is a more individualized version of “trolling”; it specifically refers to an online dating practice in which the perpetrator chooses one trait which he feels might be an issue for the female person (such as body weight, hair color, freckles, glasses, teeth), and then uses this to humiliate her. According to various sources, some men deliberately target women they find unattractive, purely to sleep with them and laugh about it afterwards, or in some cases, continue to humiliate them for several months before dramatically rejecting them: apparently, extra-points are awarded for a particularly demeaning denouement.
13. “Sexting”: is a combination of “sex” and “texting”, and refers to that activity of exchanging sexual contents via text-messaging. It can happen at any level of the online interaction, depending on the personality and the boundaries of the female participant involved, as, from my observation, male participants would try to push for sexting very soon in the online interaction.
14. “Dick Pic”: is the crown behavior of online interactions; it refers to a picture of an erect penis, sent via instant messaging to a woman who, most often, has not asked for it. (I still have to meet a woman who has ever asked for a “dick pic” – or who would admit asking for one.) They are sent randomly by virtually any man with whom the text exchange has evolved beyond the initial greetings. In rare cases, the man would ask if he can send a “dick pic”, but the very real fear of rejection prevents them from asking – they just send it.
Arguably, the overwhelming presence of mainstream media and its educational function replace the direct or extended family, the immediate community, an effective schooling system, in which boys turn into men by following valid role-models and learning the subtle art of compassion and reciprocity. The popular image of a man who feels threatened by women and whose ego is so fragile that he gets off on humiliating them, has long become a reality in the cyberspaces. It haunts the romantic efforts of women seriously searching for a reliable life-partner. This trend of resurgent “toxic humanity”, rather than “toxic masculinity” as there is nothing masculine in the activity of purposefully hurting and deceiving other human beings, is a by-product of what Bauman labeled as the rise of “human waste” (Zygmunt Bauman, Wasted Lives. Modernity and its Outcasts. Cambridge: Polity, 2004), due to the large availability of digital devices and of media entities to human beings unable to grasp the responsibility which comes from the freedom to come in contact with – and to impact – other human beings on the other side of the screens of their devices. I believe the tendency is unstoppable – what can be done is to find ways to diminish its calamitous effects through awareness, education and by providing valid powerful alternative role-models.
