“If it wasn’t for Instagram, we wouldn’t have an
open relationship at all!”
Exploratory study of the affordances and gratifications of social media
use for sexual purposes among non-monogamous gay men
Juan Manuel Normey - ID: 12493074
Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication - Master’s programme Communication Science Supervisor: Dr. Marlies Klijn
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Dr. Marlies Klijn who guided this work with wisdom, clarity, kindness, hard work and patience. Without her tender instruction, this research could not have been conducted. The author would also like to thank all of the interviewees, for sharing their in-timate experiences with honesty, transparency and joy. I would also like express my gratitude to my family and dearest friends for their relentless support and for lifting my spirits in times of insecurities. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the gay community and its core message of freedom and love, which inspired me to carry out this research on non-monogamy.
I hope you enjoy reading this article as much as I enjoyed creating it. With love,
Abstract
The current research is an exploratory and qualitative study of the affordances and gratifications of social media for sexual purposes among monogamous gay men. Given that non-monogamy is the norm among homosexuals couples (Coelho, 2011; Stults, 2018; Adam, 2006) and social media is the main platform to meet gay sexual partners (Miller, 2019; Grosskopf, Lasseur & Glaser Edd, 2014; Miller, 2015; Gudelunas, 2012) but there is a lack of knowledge on the media use for sexual purposes among non-monogamous gay men, this research fills that void. Through semi-structured interviews (N=10) and utilizing the Uses and Gratifications approach in light of the concept of affordances, this article explicates how four different kinds of affordances: functional, social, identity, and emotional (Moreno & Uhsl, 2019) contribute to certain gratifica-tions presented by this social group. To define the concept of affordances the threshold criteria proposed by Evans et.al. (2017) was utilized. This research analyzes both dating applications and personal social media since it was suggested by past scholars (Gudelunas, 2012; Gras-Velázquez & Maestre-Brotons, 2019) that gay men also utilize personal social media for sexual purposes, not just dating applications. Three main novel conclusions are derived from this study: firstly, gay men use Instagram to sexually relate to other men. Secondly, this social group presents four main new gratifications unmentioned by past scholars which explains their social media selection and use. The new gratifications are as follows: sexual friendships, international social integra-tion, rich data, and practicality. Thirdly, this study sheds light on novel affordances that unveil that non-monogamous gay men feel confident, assertive, and decisive when they navigate through social media to look and connect with other sexual partners.
Introduction
During the last two decades, the internet has become the main platform to reach out to potential romantic or sexual partners (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). Most adults use technology to find sexual partners by swapping profiles, exchanging pictures, or texting with their potential partners (Miller, 2015). For lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals online dating is even more convenient because they do not face discrimination when they look for a partner online (Craig & McInroy, 2014; Giano, 2019). Different studies show that more than half of gay men utilize dating applications to find sexual partners. (Hull et al., 2016; Rosser et al., 2011). The popularity of dating applications is so large among gay men that the number of homosexual clubs has decreased because men tend to find partners online rather than at a night-club (Zablotska, Holt & Prestage, 2012). Namely, Grindr, a social networking site used by gay and bisexual men, has 6 million users worldwide (Statista, 2018).
Meeting new sexual partners through the internet is not an activity that only gay single men practice (Coelho, 2011). Gay couples are normally in some sort of open arrangement (Coel-ho, 2011; Stults, 2018; Adam, 2006). The percentage of non-monogamous relationships among gay dyads varies from 50% to 80% (Grov, Starks, Rendina, & Parsons, 2014; Hosking, 2013). This non-monogamous scheme is often constituted by two male partners that are both allowed to have sex with other men as well (Brady, Iantiffi & Galos, 2012). Scholars have acknowledged non-monogamous gay couples and they have studied several aspects of their sexuality (Coelho, 2011, Philpot et al., 2017, Parsons, Starks, Dubois, Groiv & Golub, 2011). Nonetheless, media studies have not focused on the way non-monogamous gay men (NMGM) use social media (SM) to find new partners. Past literature focuses on single gay men, their motivations for using dating
applications, and the way they present themselves on these online spaces (Miller, 2015; Lemke & Merz, 2018; Gudelunas, 2012). Based on past findings, this research will attempt to under-stand what nuanced and novel motivations drive the SM use for sexual purposes among NMGM. Former studies have focused on gay dating networks (GDN) such as Grindr, Manhunt, or Adam4Adam (Lemke & Merz, 2018; Miller, 2019; Gudelunas, 2012; Jaspal, 2016). Nonetheless, research has not analyzed the way gay men utilize personal SM (e.g Instagram) for sexual pur-poses. Nonetheless, the idea that Instagram fulfills the need for meeting new sexual partners has been suggested by past scholars (Gras-Velázquez & Maestre-Brotons, 2019). Therefore, this pa-per will also contribute to the body of literature by analyzing not just dating applications, but other SM platforms as well.
Societally, this issue is pressing for several reasons. Firstly, non-monogamous relation-ships are the norm among gay men (Philpot et.al, 2018; Coelho, 2011; Stults, 2018; Adam, 2006). Nonetheless, gay couples are often assumed to behave in heteronormative and monoga-mous terms, therefore more attentiveness should be paid to non-monogamy in the gay communi-ty to avoid this misunderstanding (Bonello & Cross, 2009). Secondly, LGBTQ individuals are more than twice as inclined to use SM than heterosexuals (English Department for Culture Me-dia and Sport, 2016). Therefore, it is pertinent to fully comprehend all of the uses of SM for this group.
The current paper will utilize the concept of affordances to understand SM use. This no-tion has been used to explicate the SM behaviors of adolescents and LGTBQ youngsters (Moreno & Uhls 2019; Hanckel, Vivienne, Byron, Robards & Churchill, 2019). Furthermore, the research question will be analyzed through the perspective of the Uses and Gratifications (U&G)
(Katz et al., 1973). The U&G approach has previously described the motivations for using dating applications both in homosexual and heterosexuals individuals (Gudelunas, 2012; Sumter, Van-denbosch & Ligtenberg, 2017; Miller, 2015). By understanding that SM affordances contribute to certain gratifications (Rathnayake & Winter, 2018), this study will attempt to shed light into new affordances and gratifications for NMGM and unravel the following question:
RQ: How do non-monogamous gay men experience social media use for sexual purposes in light of the concept of affordances?
Theoretical background
The following section provides the theoretical foundation for this research. It is divided into three sub-sections. The first one will summarize the key insights of non-monogamy among gay men. It is necessary to understand how these relationships function since these behaviors il-lustrate the SM use of NMGM. The second sub-section will integrate the concept of affordances with the U&G approach to provide a theoretical lens for this study. Lastly, the third sub-section will explain how the affordances of SM have contributed to several gratifications both in dating applications and in personal SM.
Non-monogamous gay relationships: key insights
Non-monogamous relationships are bonds in which both partners have agreed to have extra-dyadic sexual and/or emotional partners without jeopardizing the main relationship (Con-ley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine, 2011). Homosexual men usually start their relation-ships in monogamy and then shift towards some form of non-monogamy (Bonello & Cross 2010; Philpot,.et al. 2017; Mitchel, 2014). The construction of rules within the couple is crucial in open relationships (Adam, 2006). These rules vary among different couples. Examples of these rules
are: not sharing information with his partner about the sexual encounters with other men, having sex with other men separately or as a group; not becoming emotionally attached to other men; among others (Weeks et al., 2001). The diversity of rules among non-monogamy posits the no-tion that there is a spectrum of openness as opposed to a fixed dichotomy of open relano-tionships and monogamous relationships (Coelho, 2011; Parsons & Grov, 2012).
Older studies have elucidated that men choose this kind of relationship to have: variety in their sexual partners, experimentation, and adventure in their sexual lives (Silverstein, 1981). NMGM are more likely to encourage sexual activity outside the dyad because they consider monogamy to be restrictive their sexual satisfaction (Silverstein, 1981). Another reason that ex-plains non-monogamy is the decline of sex in the relationship, which leads to the quest of sex mates elsewhere (Blumstein & Schwartz 1983). Couples might also choose to be open as a way of expressing independence while rejecting heteronormative ideals of romance (Weeks et al., 2001).
Although most authors conceive non-monogamy as an innovative expression of sexual liberation and as a rejection of heteronormative norms, (Coelho, 2011; Parsons et al., 2011; Con-ley et al., 2017) Philpot et al. (2017) challenged this notion. In the last years non-monogamy has become so widespread among gay men, that younger gay men acquiesce in the openness of the couple (Philpot et al., 2017). Hence, the reason for accepting non-monogamy might also be relat-ed to an abidance to a normative conception of the gay man as a sexually uninhibitrelat-ed individual. Conversely, requesting monogamy is considered as non-cooperative, old fashioned, and socially undesirable (Philpot et al., 2017).
Uses & Gratifications and affordances: a theoretical lens
The U&G approach implies that individuals actively select certain media platforms to fulfill specific gratifications and needs (Katz, 1959). The user satisfies his needs when he uses a medium that meets his expectations, thus receiving a gratification (Katz et al., 1974). McQuail, Blumer and Brown (1972) postulated four main gratifications that explain media use: sur-veillance (acquiring information), personal identity, social integration, and diversion. For the cur-rent research, one additional category should be considered: sexual pleasure (Van De Wiele & Tong, 2014) which usually motivates the use of dating applications (Valkenburg and Peter, 2007). Many scholars have successfully applied these four broad categories, while others have added new gratifications (Buente and Robbin, 2008), and others have fragmented these gratifica-tions into more specific ones (Joinson, 2008). Although these categories were first developed to study mass media, authors have successfully applied them to SM use (Foregger, 2008; Ryan et al., 2014; Shao, 2009) Notwithstanding, Sundar & Limperos (2013) affirmed that the Internet changed the body of literature of U&G in two ways: firstly new more subtle gratifications have arisen and old gratifications have become more specific because new technology allows the user to generate content, thus changing the way they approach media (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). However, Ruggiero (2000) presented one major shortcoming of the U&G approach: he stated it was too centered on the user and not focused enough on the media. Hence, scholars have brought attention to the concept of affordances and integrated it into the U&G lens (Sundar & Limperos, 2013; Rathnayake & Winter, 2018; Shaw & Sender, 2016). The term ‘affordances’, originally used by Gibson (1979), focuses on the ‘possibilities for action’ in the encounter between humans and objects (Evans et al., 2017). The concept of affordances refers to how a feature of a
techno-logical object enables an activity: for instance the microphone feature of the mobile phone en-ables recordability (Hanckel et al., 2019). The current research will integrate these two concepts (affordances and gratifications) by understanding that NMGM utilize the functionalities of SM to receive specific gratifications that can contribute to their: surveillance, personal identity, social integration, diversion, sexual pleasure, and more specific gratifications that might arise in the results section.
Although several scholars have applied the concept of affordances, the lack of precision of the original definition has lead to several ambiguities regarding the term (Evans et.al., 2017). Consequently, Evans et al. (2017) tackled this issue and pointed several inconsistencies in the literature of affordances. Namely, they found that scholars utilized the concept of affordances as a synonym of a technological feature (e.g tagging) or as the gratification derived from the use of technology (e.g. protection of privacy) (Evans et al., 2017). Consequently, Evans et al. (2017) proposed a threshold criteria that should be met to define an affordance: 1-An affordance is not the functionality of the object 2-It is not the gratification derived from media use 3-It shows vari-ability (Evans et.al., 2017). As a result, an affordance is what mediates the encounter between the user and the technology. For instance, anonymity meets the proposed threshold criteria, since it is not the feature of the object itself, it is not the gratification of the use (that would be the
protec-tion of privacy) and it shows variability, as users can choose different degrees of anonymity
(Evans et. al 2017). Another issue regarding the literature of affordances is the inconsistency in the terminologies. Different scholars use different terms to refer to the same affordance, thus making it harder for scholars to construct theory (Evans et.al., 2017). Hence, to contribute to the
consistency of the literature, the current paper will maintain the same terminology used by past scholars to refer to previously mentioned affordances.
Given the abundance of different SM affordances, specialists have classified them into five categories: functional affordances, social affordances, identity affordances, emotional affor-dances, and cognitive affordances (Moreno & Uhsl, 2019). This categorization is fitting for this research because it helps to explain how different affordances contribute to different gratifica-tions of NMGM, namely finding new sexual partners or constructing their sexual identity. The categorization is as follows: functional affordances are focused on how messages are transmitted or saved, and it is useful since it sheds light on the practical uses of the functionalities of SM. For instance, SM permits permanence to messages by pinning them on a public profile. Moreover, social affordances contribute to a sense of belonging to a certain social group. Namely, Instagram allows network-informed associations by giving users suggestions on what profiles to follow. Furthermore, identity affordances refer to how the platforms help the user with developing and portraying his identity. For instance, by curating the presentation of the persona through pictures, users can practice self-presentation. Fourthly, emotional affordances include attributes of SM that can involve the expression of emotions. Namely, with the heart button of Instagram, users can show likeness towards other users. Lastly, cognitive affordances refer to how SM help the user in expanding their knowledge (Moreno & Uhsl, 2019). However, this last affordance is not associated with the main question of the current research therefore it won’t be applied.
Affordances and gratifications of dating applications and personal SM
Researchers have studied how the functionalities SM contribute to different gratifications (e.g Sumter et al., 2017; Sheldon & Bryant, 2016). Namely, the GPS technology of mobile
phones has enabled proximity in applications like Tinder, which brought the attention of Sumter et al. (2017). The authors explained that this dating network, with its GPS technology and the functionality of ‘matching’, allowed young Dutch adults to find: new sexual or romantic part-ners, receive positive feedback about their appearance thus enhancing their self-worth, and hav-ing fun with a trendy application (Sumter et al., 2017). Similarly, Miller (2015) explained how gay dating networks (GDN) and their GPS technology allowed men to connect with other users nearby, thus gratifying men with mobility and accessibility for those who dwell in non-urban ar-eas. Likewise, Gudelunas (2012) conducted a qualitative exploratory study on GDN based on GPS technology and elucidated that gay men used them to find sexual partners and making friends (Gudelunas, 2012). Moreover, Miller (2015) brought attention to the importance of GDN being exclusively for homosexuals. As a result, men are gratified with safety because they know they won’t be discriminated in GDN. Furthermore, men also connect with the gay community through GDN, and are also gratified with versatility because they can find either sexual or ro-mantic partners. Moreover, through the functionality of blocking users, men can gain control over the communication (Miller, 2015). Furthermore, GDN also allow men to practice self-pre-sentation. Through the analysis of 9232 profiles, Lemke & Merz (2018) found that two-thirds of the participants utilized pictures with nudity in their dating profiles to receive quick attention from sexual partners, empower themselves, and receive positive feedback regarding their physi-cal appearance.
For some men, the presentation in GDN is not informative enough, therefore they use Facebook to receive more data about the men they meet on GDN (Gudelunas, 2012). The use of personal SM for sexual purposes was also insinuated by Gras-Velázquez and Maestre-Brotons
(2019) who performed a content analysis on the Instagram profiles of gay Spanish men and found that they presented themselves in a sexualized manner and with a high percentage of shirt-less pictures. This suggests that gay men also use Instagram to get the attention of other men.
Since this research is also concerned with the use of personal SM, it is pertinent to under-stand their affordances and gratifications as well. Namely, Nadkarni and Hofmann (2011) stated that through the Facebook functionality of ‘groups’ and of adding friends, people obtained a sense of belonging to a social group. Similarly, Tosup (2012) stated that Facebook was mainly used to maintain social relationships. Moreover, through photo and video-sharing, Facebook also allowed users to practice self-presentation in a close to life manner (Nadkarni & Hoffman, 2011). If Facebook encourages users to present their true-self (Tosun, 2012), Instagram allows individu-als to present an enhanced version of themselves through filters and edited pictures (Pittman & Reich, 2015). Furthermore, by posting pictures and Instagram stories, the users are also able to pin content permanently on their profiles, thus documenting their lives. Moreover, by scanning other Instagram user’s profiles, individuals are also gratified with ‘Suirvellance/Knowledge’, since they keep track of the life of other people (Sheldon & Bryant, 2016).
Considering that the current scientific knowledge is mainly focused on heterosexuals in-dividuals or single gay men, and does not consider NMGM neither the use of personal SM for sexual purposes, the current paper aims to dismantle the following sub-questions:
1- How do the functional affordances of social media use for sexual purposes contribute to the gratifications of NMGM?
2- How do the social affordances of social media use for sexual purposes contribute to the grati-fications of NMGM?
3- How do the identity affordances of social media use for sexual purposes contribute to the grat-ifications of non-monogamous gay men?
4- How do the emotional affordances of social media use for sexual purposes contribute to the gratifications of NMGM?
Methods Design
The following research was conducted through a qualitative and exploratory approach for several reasons. Firstly, qualitative studies are utile to address uncharted issues and generate the-ory (Flick, 2014). To the author’s knowledge, research has not analyzed how the affordances of SM use for sexual purposes contribute to certain gratifications among NMGM. Thus, conducting qualitative and exploratory research is the most fitting option due to its inductivist, construction-ist, and interpretivist nature, which quantitive research lacks (Bryman, 2018). Furthermore, a qualitative approach has proven to be useful for describing experiences, meanings, and the sub-jective thought processes, which are the focus of this research (Flick, 2014; Bryman, 2018). Semi-structured interviews were selected given the level of intimacy of the topic. This display of intimacy is less likely to occur in a focus group (Bryman, 2018).
Sample
NMGM (ages: 24 -36) from different nationalities were chosen for two reasons. Firstly, the age range was selected because adults are usually involved in more meaningful and estab-lished romantic partnerships than young adults or adolescents (Arnett, 2004). Secondly, an in-ternational sample was selected because the gay community is not confined to a geographical area. Thus past scholars like Miller (2019) suggested that an international scope for a research
about SM and homosexual men would be useful, given that gay men have built a sense of com-munity through the Internet, surpassing their nationalities. The sample consists of 10 men, 50% are in the range of age 24 - 29, and 50% are 30 - 36 years old. A purposeful sampling was ap-plied as it permits to select interviewees that match the criteria of the phenomenon under study (Palinkas et al., 2015). Men selected for the sample were in some sort of mutually non-monoga-mous relationship with their partners. Techniques such as online snowball sampling and personal networks were applied to find the participants. Given that the participants are close to the au-thor’s social network, some of the interviewees are personally known by the author. However, there is not a friendship between the author and the men selected in the sample.
Figure 1: Overview of participants
Name Age Gender Occupation Social media used for sexual purposes Residence
James 24 Male Self employed Instagram Netherlands
Pieter 28 Male Full-time Instagram Netherlands
John 31 Male Full-time Instagram and Grindr Uruguay
William 27 Male Full-time Instagram, Grindr and Tinder Uruguay
Martin 32 Male Full-time Instagram and Grindr Netherlands
Lukas 36 Male Full-time Instagram and Grindr Netherlands
Max 28 Male Full-time Instagram and Grindr United States
Rob 31 Male Full-time Instagram and Grindr Portugal
Philippe 30 Male Full-time Instagram and Grindr England
Data collection and procedure
The ten interviewees gave their consent to participate in this research through a digitally signed ethics form (Appendix A). The interview guide was structured in different blocks with broad questions about the affordances of SM for sexual purposes and the gratification derived from media use. Since qualitative research aims to stay as close to the life of the participants as possible (Bryman, 2018), the questions formulated are neither incisive nor too specific. Con-versely, more general and broad questions were posited in order to gain flexibility and let the in-terviewees genuinely depict their sexual experiences, without limiting them to a restrictive theo-retical framework (Bryman, 2018). The first questions are ice breaker questions regarding the structure of their open relationship and SM use. Following those inquiries, more specific ques-tions about the affordances and the gratificaques-tions derived from social use for sexual purposes were posited. The complete interview guide can be found in Appendix B.
The interviews were carried out via FaceTime and only the audio was recorded in the ap-plication VoiceNote. The interviews could not be performed face to face due to the pandemic context of Covid-19. All of the interviews were carried out in English, except one, which was performed in Spanish. That transcript was performed in Spanish but coded in English. Pseudo-nyms were selected to protect the privacy of the interviewees.
The first interview was carried out on the 17th of April of 2020 and it assessed the inter-view guide effectiveness. The following 9 interinter-views were performed between the 23rd of April and the 2nd of May. Saturation was met since the information presented by the interviewees be-came repetitive in the last two interviews. The duration of the interviews ranged from 44 minutes to 87 minutes. Moreover, memo writing was performed during the interviews to enhance the
trustworthiness and the validity of the research. Examples of these notes can be found in an ex-cerpt from one Interview in Appendix C. Moreover, memo writing enabled a thick description of the participants which was beneficial for a contextual understanding of the results. Examples of how memo writing contributed to a thick description of the experience of the participants can be found in Appendix D. The transcripts and memos were written immediately after the interviews to avoid biases and assure transparency. This enhances the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings (Flick, 2014).
After the interviews were executed, member checking was performed to enhance the credibility of the findings. The interviewer summarized the content of each interview and con-tacted the interviewees individually to check the truthfulness of the findings (Flick, 2014). Ex-amples of the participant’s replies are found in Appendix E. All of the interviewees agreed that the findings correctly reflected the content of the interviews. Only one interviewee stated he could not finish reading the findings because he found it hard to read about his sexuality.
Analysis
The experience of affordances of SM with sexual purposes for NMGM cannot be preci-sely illustrated by existing theories and research, therefore the main question was analyzed with the data-driven grounded theory approach via ATLAS.ti. The basis of the grounded theory by Glaser and Strauss (1967) lay in an open circular process, in which theory is derived from the data. Firstly, the transcripts were analyzed and broken down into small units (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Afterwards, codes were assigned to the respective units via line by line open coding. 902 codes were generated.
Secondly, during the process of axial coding, the categorization of affordances presented by Moreno and Uhsl (2019) was utilized to classify the codes. Through axial coding, codes were assigned to these four broader categories. It was found that many codes referred to the expression of the sexuality of the users, thus the category of emotional affordances was transformed into sexual/emotional affordances. Lastly, within those four categories, different meanings were found and contributed to the construction of the indicators of the model via selective coding. For the build-up of each indicator of the model, it was utilized the threshold criteria proposed by Evans et. al (2017) to define each affordance. Each title of the indicators refers to the different affordances. Examples of which codes were assigned to the different indicators can be found in Appendix F.
Through selective coding, it was unveiled how each affordance presented by the indica-tors contributed to the gratifications described in the results section. For instance, it was found that the affordance of directness contributed to the gratification of sexual pleasure.
Moreover, peer debriefing was applied to enhance the validity of the research. The con-struction of the model was checked with two peers who stated that dimensions showed variation among each other and each indicator accurately depicted the data regarding the experience of NMGM.
Results
The following concept-indicator model presents four different dimensions that aim to de-pict the experience of the affordances and gratifications of SM use for sexual purposes among NMGM. The data collected from the interviews drives the current section. In order to structure these data, the categorization of affordances presented Moreno & Uhsl (2019) was utilized. The
four categories presented in the literature (functional, social, identity, and emotional) are the four dimensions of this model. However, the category of emotional affordances seemed unfitting as it does not fully address the expression of the sexual intentions of NMGM. Therefore, the author proposes a new category: sexual/emotional affordances. This new category will encapsulate all of the affordances that contribute to the sexuality and expression of emotions of the users.
The model is based on the idea that the functionalities of the platforms generate different affordances and these contribute to several gratifications (Rathnayake & Winter, 2018). In some cases, the gratifications are sufficiently explained by the concepts of surveillance, personal
identity, social integration, diversion, or sexual pleasure, proposed by past scholars (McQuail et al., 1972; Van De Wiele & Tong, 2014). However, in some cases, these concepts cannot fully de-pict the experience of NMGM, hence more specific gratifications were also created.In some cas-es, certain gratifications overlap among some affordances.
This model will illustrate how the user navigates through the platforms of Instagram and Grindr since they were the most useful for sexual purposes among the NMGM sampled. Tinder and Whatsapp were mentioned by the users, nonetheless, Whatsapp was only presented as a tool to keep in touch with a partner once the user had already established a bond with other men. Moreover, Tinder was barely used since it was deemed as a slow platform and more suitable for single men.
Functional affordances
This dimension explains how the way messages are transmitted in SM generate affordan-ces that gratify NMGM in their sexual experience. Namely, Instagram enables gay men to post pictures that stay permanently in their feeds. Thereby the users can present themselves through an extensive compilation of images. Hence, by allowing permanence, NMGM have more infor-mation to judge a potential sexual partner. Moreover, they can also rely on a larger space to pre-sent themselves. Conversely, Grindr only allows the user to have a maximum of 5 profile pictu-res. Depicting this idea, William (28) stated why he prefers to use Instagram for sexual purposes:
‘[…] I have a more complete, graded, probably more real image of who I'm talking with. Even if that's curation. For me, it tells you something about the guy, probably is not the real life of who I am seeing but it tells you something about what they want to show[…] ’
This affordance is relevant for NMGM because they are not just gratified by sexual pleasure. Conversely, for NMGM the line between sex and friendship is undefined, as Max (28) explains:
‘[…] there are guys that we get laid that are friends […] we are very good friends and also maybe we end up fucking […] sometimes it's just a random guy from Grindr. In gen-eral, we prefer the first, someone that we know, some that there is actual chemistry.’ Similarly, Rob (31) depicts his sexualized friendships: ‘[…] I can consider them like sex-friends […] whatever you want to call them.’. Wherefore Instagram is fitting since men can scrutinize other men, with a plethora of information, and assess them not just as sexual partners but also as sexual friends. Thus, two gratifications arise from this indicator: rich data (a more specific form of surveillance) and sexual friendships.
As opposed to this permanence, Instagram has the function of Instagram Stories which consists of briefs videos and pictures that last 15 seconds and are accessible for 24 hours. Insta-gram stories tend to show the daily routine of users followed by NMGM. Moreover, this func-tionality allows men to have direct contact with other users since they can privately reply to these stories with pictures and videos that last 15 seconds and are not archived. This ephemerality, de-rived from Instagram Stories, allows users to have a glimpse of the daily lives of men while en-couraging NMGM to be flirtatious through the use of disappearing pictures and content, as Marc (29) explains:
‘[…] they don't stay forever. I love that because you feel that you can share more stuff […] sometimes you are talking on WhatsApp you wouldn't share your stuff because you know that that person will have it there.’
This ephemerality also encourages nudity which is not a taboo for NMGM, as Marc (29) laughs and explains which kind of pictures he sends through direct messages as disappearing pictures: ‘Of course there's nudes involved! Because the other types of pictures you can see in my Insta-gram feed.' Moreover, this ephemerality encourages men to sexually fantasize with other men, as Pieter (28) explains the process of replying to Instagram stories with disappearing content: ‘I mean the whole fantasy and the whole talking and getting up to that point was way more fun and exciting than the actual thing.’. Through this ephemerality, men are gratified with diversion.
Furthermore, the functionality of Instagram Stories serves as a reminder of the options of prospective sexual partners, since the content appears on the user’s home page. Through this function, the platform repeatedly shows the activity of other men and it enhances awareness of the possible men the user can contact. As William (28) states: ‘I have the constant opportunity to talk with someone. It's like the app telling me: this guy is over there. You forgot about him. You can talk with him.’. By raising awareness of their prospective hookups, NMGM are gratified with practicality.
Lastly, since Instagram is used for many purposes (e.g connecting with family), the appli-cation centralizes several gratifiappli-cations which is practical for NMGM. This notion of
centraliza-tion is explained by Max (28) as he states he does not want to have more applicacentraliza-tions: ‘I have a
lot of apps to manage […] I am already a lot on the phone in general. So I try to limit the amount of time I use it. […] I think adding another app for would only hurt.’. By this centralization, the user is again gratified with practicality.
Social affordances
Men of this sample use Instagram and Grindr to expand their sexual and social capital. Particularly Instagram is useful for NMNG because they have more information about the social background of other men. Namely, tagging allows men to navigate into new profiles of prospec-tive hookups, thus NMGM can find other gay men and be certain they belong to a specific social network. As James (24) explains how he meets men through Instagram: ‘[….] most of the time it's always through just like browsing through other people's pictures and seeing like who their friends are [….] if I find someone I like, I'll go into their profile’. This idea is summarized under the indicator network-informed association. Through this affordance, men have rich data about the social background of prospective sexual partners or sexual friends.
Secondly, Instagram allows users to contact people from all over the world, regardless of the user’s location. NMGM can find men through hashtags, tagged users, or the search engine. By this internationality, men can have access to a broader gay community and be gratified with international social integration. As it was explicated by Rob (31) when he gave the example of how he started an online bond with a Spanish man, which eventually lead to an encounter:
‘[…] I was speaking to a guy from Madrid, […] there was some sexual interest there, but most of all we spoke about our relationships […] So, at one point he broke up with his boyfriend. […] I told him if you want to come to Lisbon, be my guest […] So he came to Lisbon, […] he stood in my place. We got along super well. And we had sex.’
Through this internationality, NMGM connect with men they haven’t met in real life yet, but they hope that one day they will do so. This fuels a fantasy about that man, which is fulfilling and enjoyable. Rob (31) explained this notion by stating:
‘[…] you keep like for three years talking, creating a relationship but never meeting in person […] you get the desire that you're gonna have that person or the desire that you find that person attractive […] it becomes like more than just an Instagram friend, like someone that you really want to know […] So, it's actually very nice.’
Lastly, utilizing SM for sexual purposes is a social activity that NMGM experience with their partners. Finding men through these platforms is a shareable activity for the couple, which contributes to the prosperity and well-being of the dyad. This activity derives a sense of team-work. Marc (29) outlines this notion: ‘He brings hot guys and I do the same, so we duplicate ef-forts! I think we are not jealous about it, we are happy’. Similarly, William (27) outlines that the couple has specific strategies: […] there's something with my partner. The way we work is like, […] we both have like a role in this approaching guys, […] I'm more the one who has a filter and he's like the one who generates contacts’.
Identity affordances
SM also allows men to communicate and construct their identities. On Instagram and Grindr, men have to select what pictures to post and what language to use. These choices of self-presentation construct an online image that NMGM, by decision or omission, curate. Firstly, it is relevant to state that the interviewees use individual profiles. When the desire to do so, they pri-vately disclose to other men their relationship status. As Marc (29) explains about his Grindr pre-sentation and how he communicates he only does threesomes with his partner: ‘[…] even though I have a separate profile, it’s clear that we are a couple, I send both of our pictures because usual-ly, it's not that I'm looking only for me […].’ Moreover, it was found that this presentation varies among platforms and contexts of use. For example, on Grindr, the presentation is straightforward
and sexual. Less pictures are used and they usually include nudity. This presentation differs from Instagram, in this platform the user presents a wider range of pictures. As William (27) explains
‘On Instagram, I intentionally try that the pictures are different […] I can say I have vari-ety in what I post. That also shows what is my life. […] on Grindr is the opposite. There's not much to curate. Once a year, I pick some nudes and my best Instagram picture from our faces, and that's all […]’.
Furthermore, the presentation also varies in the context of use. For instance, when the users uti-lize Grindr abroad, they are more prone to send pictures with their faces. As John (31) puts out when he talks about the photographs he sends on Grindr: ‘If I am in another country, I really don’t mind sending pictures of my face.’. Instagram and Grindr allow men, with the dichotomy of public images and direct messages, and the possibility of changing profile pictures, to present themselves differently in different sub-channels thus constructing a layered, multi-faceted and malleable image. This variation is summarized by the indicator manifold self-presentation. This affordance contributes to their personal identity.
This manifold self-presentation also gratifies men with the protection of their privacy. NMGM tend to not publicly disclose their relationship status. Hence, they are reluctant to display their faces on the profile pictures of Grindr, as Marc (29) explains: 'I think it's private […] it's not like a public thing, you disclose, only to the people that I want to. I want to have that power of choosing.’. Thus, some of the interviewees do not post sexual content on Instagram because their family members can see that content and infer that their relationship is open. Instead, on Insta-gram, they present themselves sexually only through direct messages. As Pieter (28) explains regarding his Instagram use:
‘The only thing I don't really share is things that are too sexual in a way, because I have my family on Instagram as well […] I don't want to put it out there if it's something is really sexual, then it will be a direct message to someone, but I wouldn't put it on my In-stagram stories.’
The choice of platform and the attitude men have on Instagram and Grindr permit them to respect and abide by the couple’s rules. For instance, Philippe (30) has a long-distance relation-ship and he is only allowed to have sex with other men if he is spontaneously presented with the opportunity. He can’t actively plan a sexual encounter, therefore in order to respect the rules of the couple, he does not use Grindr, since the application use implies that he is actively looking for sex. Illustrating this idea he states: ‘I never do something that I have already planned […] That’s why I don't have Grindr, I don't have social networking for hooking up.’ This denotes that men protect and respect the rules of the couple through their SM use. Hence, through this
abid-ance, men increase their trustworthiness. Sexual/emotional affordances
Lastly, NMGM utilize SM to express their sexual desire and emotions. Although they en-joy using Instagram to meet men, they recognize that it is not an application used for a quick sexual encounter. If they need to be rapidly sexually gratified, they use Grindr since it allows
di-rectness about their intentions of having sex. The conversational style of Grindr is direct and
sexualized, hence the user is allowed to be candid. However, the use of the platform is deemed as unpleasant as Rob (31) explains this contradiction:
’Because, if I'm going to the app is because I want something. It's not because I want to be chit-chatting and like making friends.[…] it's so boring […] there are like tons of fake
profile […] I don't have the patience for that […] I'm not available and I have plenty of time in my hands that I want to use other than being on an app talking to random people for nothing to happen. […] If I want something to happen, I'm going there and I'm very direct. […] if it happens, it happens. Then I just erase it.’
Moreover, Instagram also allows men to express their feelings towards other men by following them on Instagram, liking their pictures, and sending them visual content. Through this con-trolled communication, men can display sexual/emotional interest with comfort, confidence, and strategy. For instance, James (24) explains how he approaches a man on Instagram:
‘At first […] I keep strictly text, and then maybe if it does evolve into, flirty […] maybe you could send one of those disappearing pictures, but still like obviously not explicit as first, just like selfies. And then obviously if it follows further, then can we get a bit more like promiscuous and sexual.’
Similarly, John (31) depicted this concept when he explained how he contacts men through Ins-tagram prior a trip to Brazil: ‘If I am going to Rio on Carnival, I might start to warm things up previously, especially with people that I am going to meet, or meet again if I already know them. Everything depends on who am I targeting’. After this explanation, the interviewer asked if he considered that his behavior was strategic. He quickly answered:
‘Of course, and especially if it’s on a trip because it’s when we have more sex. And I start organizing, I do have a strategy, if I am going to Rio, I ask myself: who are the men in Rio? And I start contacting them individually’
Through these functionalities, men feel confident enough to display their sexual/emotional
Lastly, Instagram and Grindr allow men to have sexual encounters outside the couple and explore the ways they relate with these men. This exploration of sexuality refers to how SM has encouraged men to challenge the notion of openness. As James (24) explains: ‘I think if it wasn't for Instagram, […] I don't think we would have an open relationship at all!’ SM increases and stimulates the number of sexual encounters men have. Therefore, these encounters lead to the exploration of new forms of openness. As Marc (29) explains: ‘[…] one thing that is relevant […] is the evolution of thinking only of this as a sexual thing or something that involves emo-tion, I think we're evolving in that way. […] I think that's a big difference that we are exploring.’. Also, Pieter (28) similarly posits: […] ‘ you're creating a conversation. […] that's what Instagram does as well, it created conversations between us about how do we feel about certain situations’. By exploring their sexualities through SM, men challenge their ideas about non-monogamy, thus contributing to their personal identities.
Conclusion & discussion Discussion
The current study aimed to illustrate the experience of SM use for sexual purposes among NMGM in light of the concept of affordances and their contribution to certain gratifications. In regards to the research questions and the subquestions, three main novel findings must be high-lighted: 1) NMGM utilize Instagram for sexual purposes because the platform provides gratifica-tions tailored to their needs 2) Four new and specific gratificagratifica-tions have arisen for NMGM, which were unmentioned by past scholars 3) How the new affordances described in the results section unveil a positive, fulfilling and satisfactory experience of SM use among NMGM.
It was initially suggested that Instagram is used for sexual purposes (Gras-Velázquez & Maestre-Brotons, 2019). This is truthful for men in this sample who use Instagram to sexually engage with other men. This phenomenon can be related to past findings of scholars. For in-stance, Cassidy (2013) stated that applications like Grindr are utilized by gay men, nonetheless, they are unenthusiastic about it. Thus, this finding is aligned with the experience of Grindr de-picted by the interviewees of this research. Moreover, Cassidy (2013) also stated that young gays craved for a space where they could interact through direct messages with their sexual peers in an environment that was not merely sexual. However, at the moment they did not have that space (Cassidy, 2013). The findings of Cassidy (2013) help to understand why Instagram is preferred over Grindr. Moreover, in the past, homosexuals used to choose Grindr because it was a platform in which they could find other sexual partners without having to communicate their sexual iden-tity to other people (Gudelunas, 2012). Men in this sample did not express a need to hide their sexual identity. Conversely, they utilize a mainstream platform like Instagram to sexually con-nect with other men. This comfort presented by gay men might also be related to the concept of the post-gay era (Lea, Wit & Reynolds, 2015). In this era, gay men in western culture have achieved social, institutional, and legal equity. Thus, they are less discriminated than they were in past decades, hence they are not segregated to exclusively homosexuals spaces (Lea, Wit & Reynolds, 2015). Hence, the concept of post gay-era might explain why gay men feel comfort-able enough to sexually express themselves on a mainstream platform like Instagram, and are reluctant to use exclusively homosexual networking sites.
This study also unveils that SM provides certain gratifications to NMGM which were not mentioned by past scholars e.g. Sumter et al. (2017) or Miller (2015). These gratifications
ex-plain the selection of Instagram as a useful platform. For instance, NMGM in this study are not just looking for new sexual partners. For NMGM the line between friendship and sex is blurred. This notion was previously suggested by Gudelunas (2012) who concluded that for gay men, so-cial and sexual capital were closely aligned. For the men in the sample, the gratification of sexual pleasure should be referred to as sexual friendships, since NMGM also enjoy establishing a friendly bond with their hookups. This idea helps to explain why men choose Instagram since affordances like network-informed association and permanence (Moreno & Uhsl, 2019) allow men to assess prospective hookups not just by their physical appearance. Therefore, they can see men not just as sexual partners, but also as potential sexual friends. Consequently, another grati-fication that arises from this analysis is the rich data. This concept is similar to the idea of sur-veillance presented by McQuail et al. (1972). However, the term rich data is more nuanced be-cause it refers to the plethora of information about other men that Instagram offers and Grindr lacks (pictures, videos, Instagram Stories, tagged pictures, and friends in common). Moreover, a new gratification that arises from the result section is the international social integration. Given that Instagram is not based on the notion of proximity, men can contact partners from all over the world. Conversely, Miller (2015) proposed an opposing idea by stating that men enjoy approach-ing sexual partners nearby. As opposed to that, NMGN in this sample enjoy expandapproach-ing the na-tionalities and cultural backgrounds of their prospective hookups through Instagram. This finding is closely aligned to the conclusions presented by Gras-Velázquez & Maestre-Broton (2019) and Miller (2019) who affirmed that gay men have constructed a strong sense of international com-munity through the internet. Furthermore, these men also enjoy utilizing Instagram as a platform
to meet new men because it is practical, given that they do not need an extra SM application for this.
Lastly, it is relevant to recall that the concept of affordances focuses on the encounter be-tween the user and the object (Evans et.al., 2017). If anything, the experience of the functionali-ties of Instagram and Grindr presented in this study depicts these men as active and avid users of SM for sexual purposes. They are confident, comfortable, knowledgeable, and in full control of the platforms. They navigate the applications and their functionalities with easiness and certainty. They comfortably tailor the functionalities of the platforms to meet their needs while protecting their privacy and constructing a layered complex online persona. Consequently, this experience leads to the fulfillment of several gratification which ultimately are beneficial both to the couple and their expression of their sexuality. This comfort, confidence, and control with the functional-ities of SM by LGBTQ individuals was previously stated by scholars, who concluded that young LGBTQ users curate online spaces to comfortably express their identities (Hanckel et.al 2019). Moreover, this ease might find its roots in earlier developmental stages and in the coming out of the closet process. Since younger gay men usually can’t easily communicate their sexuality to their friends and family, they utilize the internet to establish meaningful bonds that they cannot find offline (Craig & McInroy, 2014; Fox & Ralston, 2016: Giano, 2019). Thus, this tight link between SM and homosexuals might begin in younger developmental stages and it continues to be visible in adulthood.
The current research not only posits new affordances and gratifications of Instagram and Grindr, but it also unveils interesting insights about the sexual experience among NMGM. Espe-cially, regarding the way they relate to social and sexual capital, which seem intertwined for this
group. These insights raise interesting inquiries for the future and imply theoretical implications that could positively contribute to consequent scientific studies of SM and sexuality.
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the body of literature of dating applications in five ways. Firstly, it proposes new gratifications: rich data, international social integration, sexual friendships, and practicality. However, old gratifications like personal identity, social integration, diversion or sexual pleasure proposed by past scholars (McQuail et al., 1972; Van De Wiele & Tong, 2014) also explain the media use for sexual purposes among NMGM. Moreover, this study proposes new affordances to analyze in other social groups: ephemerality, awareness, centralization,
in-ternationality, shareable activity, manifold self-presentation, abidance by the rules, directness, display of sexual/emotional interest, and exploration of sexuality. Thirdly, it raises attention to
how personal SM can function as a dating application. Future quantitative research can assess if this is true for other social groups, namely: single gay men, lesbians, non-binary individuals, transexuals, or heterosexual women and men. Also, this study suggests that SM encourages men to be more flexible with their sexuality. It might be pertinent to approach this issue with longitu-dinal research to assess causality and thus expanding the knowledge on the roots of non-monogamy. Finally, given the abundance of information encountered in the use of SM for sexual purposes, this research proposes adding a new kind of affordance to the categorization of Moreno and Uhsl (2019): sexual affordances. To the author’s knowledge, this category is not utilized to explain SM use and it could encapsulate all of the affordances that contribute to the sexuality of the users. With this, the author will like to emphasize the statement that sex should not be a
taboo. It is a topic that demands scientific attention for a better understanding of the sexual be-haviors in social media.
Practical implications
The current study presents several practical implications for app marketers and app de-velopers of gay dating networks. For instance, it is relevant to state that men in this sample do not enjoy using Grindr. This insight should be considered by app developers of gay social net-works who should deeply understand the reasons for this phenomenon. Furthermore, this study presents relevant findings about the use of Instagram as a platform to meet sexual partners, which could be considered by app marketers who could foster and encompass these behaviors with new functionalities that facilitate sexual encounters and connections through personal SM.
Moreover, this research also aims to raise awareness about the normality of non-monogamy in the gay community, and how this practice has prevailed for the last forty years (Blumstein & Schwartz 1983). This should encourage people to not judge gay men in hetero-normative terms, and treat non-monogamy as one of the many forms that humans select to form dyads.
Limitations
This study presents several limitations. Firstly, the categorization of Moreno and Uhsl (2019) was applied after the data collection and it did not guide the interview guide. If that struc-ture would have been applied to the interview guide, more nuanced questions could have been posited. Secondly, due to the outbreak of Covid-19, all of the interviews had to be performed on-line and a degree of non-verbal language was lost. This was detrimental to the quality of the thick description of this research. Thirdly, scholars distinguish three types of non-monogamous
gay relationships: open, monogamish, and polyamorous (Philpot et al., 2017). This distinction was not considered in the sample due to time limitations, thus different kinds of NMGM were sampled. Perchance, a more homogenous sample could produce more solid and cohesive conclu-sions.
References
Arnett, J. (2004). A longer road to adulthood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adam B. D. (2006). Relationship innovation in male couples. Sexualities 9(1): 5–26. Blumstein, P. & Schwartz, P. (1983). American Couples. New York: William Morrow.
Bonello, K., & Cross, M. (2009). Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can’t Have Sex With Only Yo u . J o u r n a l o f H o m o s e x u a l i t y , 5 7 ( 1 ) , 1 1 7 – 1 3 9 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 10.1080/00918360903445962
Brady, S., Iantaffi, A., Galos, D., & Rosser, B. (2013). Open, Closed, or In Between: Relations hip Configuration and Condom Use Among Men Who Use the Internet to Seek Sex with Men. AIDS and Behavior, 17(4), 1499–1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-012-0316-9 Bryman, A. (2018). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). London: Oxford University Press, 59. Buente, W. & Robbin, A. (2008), Trends in Internet information behavior, 2000 – 2004. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1743-1760.
Cassidy, E. M. (2013). Gay men, social media and self-presentation: Managing identities in Gay-dar, Facebook and beyond (PhD thesis). Queensland University of Technology.
Coelho, T. (2011). Hearts, groins and the intricacies of gay male open relationships: Sexual desire and liberation revisited. Sexualities, 14(6), 653–668.10.1177/1363460711422306
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical exami-nation of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relation-ships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 124–141.
Conley, T. D., Matsick, J., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). The Investigation of consensually non-monogamous relationships: Theories, methods and new directions. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 12(2)
Craig, S. L., & McInroy, L. (2014). You can form a part of yourself online: The influence of new media on identity development and coming out for LGBTQ youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Mental Health, 18(1), 95–109 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9699-2
Department for Culture Media and Sport. (2016). Taking part focus on: social media. English
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.ser
vice.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519678/Social_ media_-_FINAL.pdf
Evans, S., Pearce, K., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. (2017). Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180
Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (Edition 5.). Los Angeles: Sage. Foregger, S.K. (2008). Uses and Gratifications of Facebook.com. Dissertations Abstracts
Fox, J., & Ralston, R. (2016). Queer identity online: Informal learning and teaching experiences of LGBTQ individuals on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.009
Giano, Z. (2019). The Influence of Online Experiences: The Shaping of Gay Male Identities.
Journal of Homosexuality, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1667159
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. Sociology
the Journal of the British Sociological Association, 12(1), 27–49.
Gras-Velázquez, A. & Maestre-Brotons, A. (2019). #Gayspain: homonormativización y transna-cionalidad en Instagram, Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies, 20:4, 551-567, DOI:10.1080/14636204.2019.1689708
Grosskopf, N. A., Lesseur, M. T., & Glaser, D. B. (2014). Use of the Internet and mobile based ‘apps’’ for sex-seeking among men who have sex with men in New York City. American
Journal of Men’s Health, 8(6), 510–520. http 10.1177/1557988314527311 .
Grov, C., Starks, T. J., Rendina, H. J., & Parsons, J. T. (2014). Rules about casual sex partners, relationship satisfaction, and HIV risk in partnered gay and bisexual men. Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy.
Gudelunas, D. (2012). There’s an App for that: The Uses and Gratifications of Online Social Networks for Gay Men. Sexuality & Culture, 16(4), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12119-012-9127-4
Hanckel, B., Vivienne, S., Byron, P., Robards, B., & Churchill, B. (2019). “That’s not necessarily for them’: LGBTIQ+ young people, social media platform affordances and identity curation.
Media, Culture & Society, 41(8), 1261–1278.https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719846612
Hosking, W. (2013). Satisfaction with Open Sexual Agreements in Australian Gay Men’s Rela-tionships: The Role of Perceived Discrepancies in Benefit. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
42(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0005-9
Hull, P., Mao, L., Prestage, G., Zablotska, I., de Wit, J., & Holt, M. (2016). The use of mobile phone apps by Australian gay and bisexual men to meet sex partners: An analysis of sex- seeking repertoires and risks for HIV and STIs using behavioral surveillance data.
Sexually Transmitted Infections, 1–6. doi:10.1136/sextrans-2015- 0232
Jaspal, R. (2017). Gay Men’s Construction and Management of Identity on Grindr. Sexuality &
Culture, 21(1), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-016-9389-3
Joinson, A. N. (2008). ‘Looking at’, ‘looking up’, or ‘keeping up with’ people? Motives and uses of Facebook. Proceedings from CHI ’08: Online Social Networks. Florence, Italy: ACM. Katz, E., (1959). Mass communications research and the study of popular culture: an editorial
note on a possible future for this journal. Journal of the American Association for Public
Opinion Research, 37(4).
Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public opinion quarterly. Journal of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, 37(4), 509– 523.
Lea, T., de Wit, J., & Reynolds, R. (2015). “Post-Gay” Yet? The Relevance of the Lesbian and Gay Scene to Same-Sex Attracted Young People in Contemporary Australia. Journal of
Ho-mosexuality, 62(9), 1264–1285. 10.1080/00918369.2015.1037139
Lemke, R., & Simon M. (2018) The Prevalence and Gratification of Nude Self-Presentation of Men Who Have Sex with Men in Online-Dating Environments: Attracting Attention, Em-powerment, and Self-Verification. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 21.1: 16–24.
McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. (1972). The television audience: A revised perspective.
In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of Mass Communication (pp. 135- 65). Middlesex, England:
Penguin.
Miller, B. (2015). “They’re the modern-day gay bar”: Exploring the uses and gratifications of social networks for men who have sex with men. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 476– 482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.023
Miller, B. (2019). A Picture is Worth 1000 Messages: Investigating Face and Body Photos on Mobile Dating Apps for Men Who Have Sex with Men. Journal of Homosexuality, 1 – 2 5 . https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1610630
Moreno, M., & Uhls, Y. (2019). Applying an affordances approach and a developmental lens to approach adolescent social media use. Digital Health, 5, 2055207619826678. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2055207619826678
Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual
Number of Grindr daily and monthly active users worldwide as of August 2018 (2018).Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/253577/number-of-monthly-active-instagram-users/ Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015).
Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Imple-mentation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services
Research, 42(5), 533-544. doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
Parsons, J. T., & C. Grov. (2012). Gay Male Identities, Desires, and Sexual Behaviours.
Handbook of Psychology and Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press.
Parsons, J., Starks, T., Gamarel, K., & Grov, C. (2012). Non-Monogamy and Sexual Relationship Quality Among Same-Sex Male Couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 669– 677.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029561
Pittman, M., & Reich, B. (2016). Social media and loneliness: Why an Instagram picture may be worth more than a thousand Twitter words. Computers in Human Behavior, 62(C), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.084
Philpot, S., Duncan, D., Ellard, J., Bavinton, B., Grierson, J., & Prestage, G. (2018). Negotiating gay men’s relationships: how are monogamy and non-monogamy experienced and practised o v e r t i m e ? C u l t u r e , H e a l t h & S e x u a l i t y , 2 0 ( 8 ) , 9 1 5 – 9 2 8 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 10.1080/13691058.2017.1392614
Rathnayake, C., & Winter, J. (2018). Carrying Forward the Uses and Grats 2.0 Agenda: An A f-fordance-Driven Measure of Social Media Uses and Gratifications. Journal of Broadcasting
Rosenfeld, M.J., & Thomas, R.J (2012). Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary. American Sociological Review 77(4), 523–547.
Rosser, B. R., Wilkerson, J. M., Smolenski, D. J., Oakes, J. M., Konstan, J., Horvath, K. J., & Morgan, M. A. (2011). The future of internet-based HIV prevention: A report on key findings from the men’s Internet (MINTS-I,II) sex studies. AIDS and Behavior, 15(Suppl. 1), S91– S100. doi:10.1007/s10461-011-9910-5
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication
& Society, 3, 3-37.
Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: a uses and gratification perspective. Internet Res. 19 (1), 7–25.
Shaw A. and Sender K. (2016). Queer technologies: affordances, affect, ambivalence. Critical
Studies in Media Communication 33(1): 1–5.
Silverstein. C. (1981). Man to Man: Gay Couples in America. New York: Quill.
Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2015.12.059
Stults, C. (2019). Relationship quality among young gay and bisexual men in consensual non-monogamous relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(10), 3037– 3056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518809530
Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media.
J o u r n a l o f B ro a d c a s t i n g & E l e c t ro n i c M e d i a , 5 7 ( 4 ) , 5 0 4 – 5 2 5 . h t t p : / /
10.1080/08838151.2013.845827.
Sumter, S., Vandenbosch, L., & Ligtenberg, L. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009
Tosun, L. (2012). Motives for Facebook use and expressing “true self” on the Internet.
Comput-ers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1510–1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.018
Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some characteristics of online daters. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: the Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and
Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 10(6), 849–852. https://doi.org/10.1089/
cpb.2007.9941
Van De Wiele, C., & Tong, S. (2014). Breaking boundaries: the uses & gratifications of Grindr.
Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, 619–630. https://doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2636070
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B. & Donovan. C. (2001). Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and
Other Life Experiments. London: Routledge.
Worth, H., Reid, A., & McMillan, K. (2002). Somewhere over the rainbow: Love, trust and m o n o g a m y i n g a y r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y, 3 8 , 2 3 7 – 2 5 3 . doi:10.1177/144078302128756642
Zablotska, I. B., Holt, M., & Prestage, G. (2012). Changes in gay men’s participation in gay community life: Implications for HIV surveillance and research. AIDS and Behavior, 16, 669–675.
Appendix B - Interview guide
Topics Questions
Topic 1: The non-monogamous relationship of the respondent.
Goal: I want to have an overview of the kind of NMR (non-monogamous relationship) they are at the moment.
Introduction: How would you describe the rela-tionship you have with your partner in terms of its openness?
(Probes - Follow up)
For how long have you had this bond? Do you have any (unspoken) rules in terms of what is allowed with other men?
Have the rules of the relationship ever changed? Are you allowed to have any emotional connec-tions with other men?
How would you shortly describe the other bonds that you have with other men?
