Endometriosis: The One in Ten

It’s March, which means it is officially Endometriosis Awareness Month! Endometriosis Awareness Month takes place across the globe every March, with a mission to raise the profile of endometriosis. I know what you’re probably thinking – Endometri-What?

Let’s break it down: Endometriosis is a painful, chronic inflammatory condition, which is characterised by the presence of tissue similar to the lining of the uterus growing outside of the uterus, often on the pelvic organs and tissues (Carbone et al., 2021; O’Hara et al., 2021). Endometriosis is commonly characterized by life-altering pain (Culley et al., 2013). Endometriosis has been associated with a wide variety of pain symptoms, including severe pelvic pain, pain with menstruation, pain with vaginal penetration during sexual activity, pain with urination, pain with defecation, pain with ovulation, and lower back pain (Kennedy et al., 2005; van Poll et al., 2020). Other symptoms of endometriosis may include prolonged menstrual bleeding, gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g., bloating, nausea, diarrhea), subfertility (reduced fertility with prolonged period of unwanted non-conception) or infertility (inability to conceive after a year or longer of unprotected sex), and chronic fatigue (Dunselman et al., 2014; Ek et al., 2015; Kennedy et al., 2005).

So, how many people ‘have’ endometriosis? Prevalence data on endometriosis are limited due to many factors, including needing to have tissue surgically removed and sent to the lab for special analyses, the existence of microscopic (tiny) endometriotic tissues that are rarely diagnosed, and the barriers faced by those looking for a diagnosis (Carbone et al., 2021). With these limitations in mind, endometriosis affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age (1 in 10), and up to 50% of women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) or fertility problems; global estimates suggest a prevalence of approximately 200 million women (Adamson et al., 2010; As-Sanie et al., 2019; Dunselman et al., 2014).

I just listed statistics for women, so that must be the Endometri-Who, right? Nope! While most individuals diagnosed with endometriosis are adult women, there is evidence of endometriosis in cisgender males (Makiyan, 2017; Rei et al., 2018), the human fetus (Schuster & Mackeen, 2015; Signorile et al., 2010, 2012), gender diverse people (Cook & Hopton, 2017; Yergens, 2016), and females (pre- and post-puberty) who have never menstruated (Gogacz et al., 2012; Houston, 1984; Marsh & Laufer, 2005; Suginami, 1991).

You’re probably thinking, if there is evidence of endometriosis in individuals other than adult women, why do we only have prevalence rates for this subgroup? The answer is two-fold: first, not much is known about the pathophysiological mechanisms which cause or put individuals at risk for developing endometriosis. Many theories have been proposed, however, many hypotheses regarding how endometriosis develops are highly debated (Guidone, 2020). This leads me to my next point: In the past, endometriosis was known as the “career woman’s disease” based on the assumption that the disease predominantly affected childless, white, affluent, educated women (Carpan, 2003; Nezhat et al., 2012). This assumption still holds today despite increasing evidence of the existence of endometriosis in people of various genders, ages, menstrual status, and social locations.  

 
So, Endometri-Why?

Traditionally, the field of medicine tended to center men as the gender-neutral ‘standard’, while women were viewed as gender specific. Thus, (white) male bodies were viewed as the norm, and all other bodies were pathologized. The field of medicine also tended to view bodies through the lens of essentialism (that certain attributes—an “essence”—characterize people and objects); from this perspective, people who menstruated were automatically defined as ‘women’ and were assigned a primary function of reproduction. This, in turn, has caused medical professionals to attribute reproductive bodies with endometriosis, and only offer treatment options that revolve around the reproductive system, neglecting other areas of impairment. In a nutshell, sexism distorted scientific knowledge (Guidone, 2020). However, issues such as menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, and menopause are not inherent, nor confined, to women—individuals who are not women can and do experience these processes. Hence, using the term ‘gendered’ to indicate that endometriosis can occur in all genders, rather than ‘gynecological’ or ‘reproductive’ to describe endometriosis is important—endometriosis is a gendered, whole-body, condition.

Now that you know the Endometri-What, the Endometri-Who, and the Endometri-Why, let’s move onto the Endometri-How.

Endometri-How do I get a Diagnosis?

Unfortunately, receiving a diagnosis of endometriosis can be a lengthy and non-linear process. The average length of time worldwide from the onset of symptoms to a diagnosis of endometriosis is estimated to be around 7.5 years (Bullo, 2020). Delayed diagnosis is a huge source of stress for people with endometriosis, and can result in large psychological impacts (Guidone, 2020). But, why is there such a long delay?

There are many reasons for diagnostic delays; for example, the invisibility of endometriosis requires invasive surgical procedures such as laparoscopic surgery, rather than identification in a more straightforward, non-invasive fashion (Hsu et al., 2010). Moreover, worldwide, people with minimal access to resources, or limited health coverage, may experience significant barriers to diagnosis (Cromeens et al., 2021). Furthermore, misinformation about endometriosis continues to be pervasive, permeating the healthcare and public sectors (Guidone, 2020). For example, in the healthcare sector, healthcare practitioners frequently dismiss and normalize women’s pain as part of their menstrual cycles (Bullo, 2018). In addition, a general lack of public education regarding pelvic pain persists (Guidone, 2020). For example, women with endometriosis have delayed seeking help for their symptoms due to the belief that their symptoms are a part of ‘normal’ menstruation experiences, with the assumption that clinicians may dismiss their pain as ‘all in their heads’ (Bloski & Pierson, 2008). Thus, this dismissal and normalization of pain may prolong referrals for diagnostic treatments (Bullo, 2020).

Transgender and gender non-conforming individuals may face additional barriers. On top of the experience of being misgendered and discriminated against, trans men and nonbinary individuals often face ignorance and hostility from clinicians (Jones, 2020). In addition, lesbian health has been historically subsumed under heterosexual women’s health (LaVaccare et al., 2018). Very few self-help resources for endometriosis mention LGBTQ+ issues; when they do, inclusion is framed around barriers to conceiving. Indeed, lesbians postpone accessing gynecologic care in order to avoid heterosexist microaggressions, such as pressuring them about birth control, or asking about sexual practices in heteronormative ways (Sabin et al., 2015). For example, the standard yearly gynecological exam is derived from premarital examinations done to ‘prepare’ (heterosexual) women for penetrative sex with their spouses. Given the fact that pain with sex, clinically stipulated as “recurrent or persistent genital pain upon penile penetration” (Olive, 2005, p. 135) and infertility are the hallmark symptoms of the endometriosis, lesbian women are likely underdiagnosed. Thus, due to historical biases and an abundance of misinformation in the medical sector, many individuals who may have endometriosis are not receiving appropriate medical care.

The spread of misinformation about endometriosis has recently made it into the media-sphere as well; in season 18, episode 10 of Grey’s Anatomy (aired March 3, 2022), many inaccuracies about endometriosis were reported. For example, in the show, endometriosis was reported to be composed of cells that line the inside of the uterus and it was also reported that it was treatable. Unfortunately, endometriosis is an incurable disease, and while there is a ‘gold standard treatment’, it’s notoriously hard to access.

What is this ‘gold standard treatment’, you ask?

Being that there is no known cure for endometriosis, treatment commonly consists of managing chronic pain (Arafah et al., 2021). When pain medication and/or hormonal therapy are not producing sufficient relief for individuals with endometriosis, laparoscopic excision surgery, the gold standard, becomes an option (National Health Service, 2017). However, a recent meta-analysis found no significant difference in pain relief in women who underwent surgery or medical treatment in the form of analgesics and/or hormones (Chaichian et al., 2017). Thus, further research is needed to understand the etiology, presentation, and treatment of endometriosis (Arafah et al., 2021).

The Endo-Effects

Although further research is needed, we do know that endometriosis and the associated symptoms have a substantially negative social and psychological impact (Missmer et al., 2021). Affected aspects of life include self-esteem, affective and emotional stability, private and professional relationships, sexuality, and the social and working functioning of affected people. The large burden of the symptoms causes distress and a substantial lowering of quality of life, and lowering of sexual quality of life (Friggi Sebe Petrelluzzi et al., 2012). Moreover, gender norms categorizing who does and doesn’t get or have endometriosis impedes abundant opportunities to detect endometriosis in individuals who do not menstruate (Guidone, 2020). Studying individuals who do not menstruate, as well as sexual and gender/sex minorities, and emphasizing endometriosis as a whole-body condition, could radically transform and improve medical knowledge about endometriosis.

What Can I Do?

            Now that you know more about this condition, you may be asking, what can I do to help? First, you can help spread (accurate) information, and increase awareness about this condition. Second, you can advocate for others in your life who may have endometriosis—remember, 1 in 10 – which is most likely an underestimate! Third, if you have endometriosis, you can participate in the study (click HERE and if you decide to not participate, please share it; the study examines resilience and vulnerability factors associated with sexual outcomes in individuals who have been diagnosed with, or believe they may have, endometriosis. At SexLab, we are passionate about raising awareness and bettering the quality of life of those who are affected by endometriosis.

One lab, one blog, one month, one in ten.

We will fight with you, Endo Warriors.

Sam Levang (she, her, hers)
M.Sc. Student, Clinical Psychology, Sexual Health Research Lab, Queen's University

References

Adamson, G. D., Kennedy, S., & Hummelshoj, L. (2010). Creating solutions in endometriosis: Global collaboration through the World Endometriosis Research Foundation. Journal of Endometriosis, 2(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/228402651000200102

Arafah, M., Rashid, S., & Akhtar, M. (2021). Endometriosis: A comprehensive review. Advances in Anatomic Pathology, 28(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0000000000000288

As-Sanie, S., Black, R., Giudice, L. C., Gray Valbrun, T., Gupta, J., Jones, B., Laufer, M. R., Milspaw, A. T., Missmer, S. A., Norman, A., Taylor, R. N., Wallace, K., Williams, Z., Yong, P. J., & Nebel, R. A. (2019). Assessing research gaps and unmet needs in endometriosis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 221(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.02.033

Bloski, T., & Pierson, R. (2008). Endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain. Nursing for Women’s Health, 12(5), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-486X.2008.00362.x

Bullo, S. (2020). “I feel like I’m being stabbed by a thousand tiny men”: The challenges of communicating endometriosis pain. Health, 24(5), 476–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459318817943

Carbone, M. G., Campo, G., Papaleo, E., Marazziti, D., & Maremmani, I. (2021). The importance of a multi-disciplinary approach to the endometriotic patients: The relationship between Endometriosis and psychic vulnerability. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10081616

Carpan, C. (2003). Representations of endometriosis in the popular press: “The Career Woman’s Disease.” Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 27(2), 32–40. https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/1317

Chaichian, S., Kabir, A., Mehdizadehkashi, A., Rahmani, K., Moghimi, M., & Moazzami, B. (2017). Comparing the efficacy of surgery and medical therapy for pain management in endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician, 12.

Cook, A., & Hopton, E. (2017). Endometriosis presenting in a transgender male. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.297

Cromeens, M. G., Thoyre, S., Carey, E. T., Knafl, K., & Robinson, W. R. (2021). Inquiry into women’s pathways to diagnosis of endometriosis: A qualitative study protocol. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(2), 1017–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14616

Culley, L., Law, C., Hudson, N., Mitchell, H., Denny, E., & Raine-Fenning, N. (2017). A qualitative study of the impact of endometriosis on male partners. Human Reproduction, 32(8), 1667–1673. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex221

Dunselman, G. A. J., Vermeulen, N., Becker, C., Calhaz-Jorge, C., D’Hooghe, T., De Bie, B., Heikinheimo, O., Horne, A. W., Kiesel, L., Nap, A., Prentice, A., Saridogan, E., Soriano, D., & Nelen, W. (2014). ESHRE guideline: Management of women with endometriosis. Human Reproduction, 29(3), 400–412. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det457

Ek, M., Roth, B., Ekström, P., Valentin, L., Bengtsson, M., & Ohlsson, B. (2015). Gastrointestinal symptoms among endometriosis patients—A case-cohort study. BMC Women’s Health, 15, 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0213-2

Friggi Sebe Petrelluzzi, K., Garcia, M. C., Petta, C. A., Ribeiro, D. A., de Oliveira Monteiro, N. R., Céspedes, I. C., & Spadari, R. C. (2012). Physical therapy and psychological intervention normalize cortisol levels and improve vitality in women with endometriosis. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 33(4), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.3109/0167482X.2012.729625

Gogacz, M., Sarzyński, M., Napierała, R., Sierocińska-Sawa, J., & Semczuk, A. (2012). Ovarian endometrioma in an 11-year-old girl before menarche: A case study with literature review. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 25(1), e5–e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2011.09.009

Guidone, H. C. (2020). The Womb Wanders Not: Enhancing Endometriosis Education in a Culture of Menstrual Misinformation. In C. Bobel., I. T. Winkler., B. Fahs., K. A. Hasson., E. A. Kissling., & T.A. Roberts. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies (pp. 269–286). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0614-7_22

Houston, D. E. (1984). EVIDENCE FOR THE RISK OF PELVIC ENDOMETRIOSIS BY AGE, RACE AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS 1. Epidemiologic Reviews, 6(1), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036270

Hsu, A. L., Khachikyan, I., & Stratton, P. (2010). Invasive and non-invasive methods for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 53(2), 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181db7ce8

Jones, C. E. (2020). Queering gendered disabilities. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2020.1778852

Kennedy, S., Bergqvist, A., Chapron, C., D’Hooghe, T., Dunselman, G., Greb, R., Hummelshoj, L., Prentice, A., & Saridogan, E. (2005). ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. Human Reproduction, 20(10), 2698–2704. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei135

LaVaccare, S., Diamant, A. L., Friedman, J., Singh, K. T., Baker, J. A., Rodriguez, T. A., Cohen, S. R., Dary, F. Y., & Pregler, J. (2018). Healthcare experiences of underrepresented lesbian and bisexual women: A focus group qualitative study. Health Equity, 2(1), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2017.0041

Makiyan, Z. (2017). Endometriosis origin from primordial germ cells. Organogenesis, 13(3), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15476278.2017.1323162

Marsh, E. E., & Laufer, M. R. (2005). Endometriosis in premenarcheal girls who do not have an associated obstructive anomaly. Fertility and Sterility, 83(3), 758–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.08.025

Missmer, S. A., Tu, F. F., Agarwal, S. K., Chapron, C., Soliman, A. M., Chiuve, S., Eichner, S., Flores-Caldera, I., Horne, A. W., Kimball, A. B., Laufer, M. R., Leyland, N., Singh, S. S., Taylor, H. S., & As-Sanie, S. (2021). Impact of endometriosis on life-course potential: A narrative review. International Journal of General Medicine, 14, 9–25. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S261139

National Health Service. (2017, December 4). Endometriosis—Treatment. Nhs.Uk. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/endometriosis/treatment/

Nezhat, C., Nezhat, F., & Nezhat, C. (2012). Endometriosis: Ancient disease, ancient treatments. Fertility and Sterility, 98(6), S1–S62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.08.001

O’Hara, R., Rowe, H., & Fisher, J. (2020). Managing endometriosis: A cross-sectional survey of women in Australia. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2020.1825374

Rei, C., Williams, T., & Feloney, M. (2018). Endometriosis in a man as a rare source of abdominal pain: A case report and review of the literature. Case Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2083121

Sabin, J. A., Riskind, R. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2015). Health care providers’ implicit and explicit attitudes toward lesbian women and gay men. American Journal of Public Health, 105(9), 1831–1841. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302631

Schuster, M., & Mackeen, D. A. (2015). Fetal endometriosis: A case report. Fertility and Sterility, 103(1), 160–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.045

Signorile, P., Baldi, F., Bussani, R., D’Armiento, M., De Falco, M., Boccellino, M., Quagliuolo, L., & Baldi, A. (2010). New evidence of the presence of endometriosis in the human fetus. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 21, 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.04.002

Signorile, P., Baldi, F., Bussani, R., Viceconte, R., Bulzomi, P., D’Armiento, M., D’Avino, A., & Baldi, A. (2012). Embryologic origin of endometriosis: Analysis of 101 human female fetuses. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 227, 1653–1656. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.22888

Suginami, H. (1991). A reappraisal of the coelomic metaplasia theory by reviewing, endometriosis occurring in unusual sites and instances. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 165(1), 214–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(91)90254-O

Van Poll, M., van Barneveld, E., Aerts, L., Maas, J. W. M., Lim, A. C., de Greef, B. T. A., Bongers, M. Y., & van Hanegem, N. (2020). Endometriosis and sexual quality of life. Sexual Medicine, 8(3), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2020.06.004

Yergens, A. R. T., artist, C. M., performer (2016). Brooklyn, NY. Endometriosis and Gender Nonconformity. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pumpkin-spice-lattes-endo_b_10265178

Dating Apps: Better Than Offline? Or Just a Waste of Time?

Swipe left, Super Like, send a rose. Many of us are familiar with these terms. Dating apps are more popular than ever, especially since the pandemic. Tinder reported that its busiest year was 2020, and Hinge tripled its revenue from 2019-2020 (Jamal, 2021). Dating apps give us access to a large pool of people that we might not otherwise be able to meet. Whether you’re looking for a casual hookup, a new friend, or a relationship, apps like Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and Grindr are becoming the increasingly common answer. With all the benefits, why isn’t everyone on dating apps? Well, it turns out that some things might be too good to be true. For some people, dating apps can be frustrating as they feel that everyone is looking for a casual hookup, and there is research demonstrating that individuals on dating apps are more likely to partake in risky sexual behaviours. So, are dating apps the solution to modern day dating, or part of the problem? Let’s dive into it. 

Should we swipe right?

Having casual sex is becoming increasingly more common and accepted, especially among young adults, and dating apps make it possible to have and find many sexual partners. If that’s not what you’re looking for, dating apps are also great for initiating new and potentially long-term relationships (Sutton & Blair, 2020). Regardless of your purpose for being on a dating app, the ease and efficiency of these apps mean that people can expand their dating options beyond their traditional social circles (Anderson et al., 2020) and allow those who are geographically isolated to find partners (Choi et al., 2016). This can be especially beneficial if an individual doesn’t feel comfortable establishing a casual sexual relationship within their community, or if one would like to engage in specific sexual practices outside of the cultural norms of their community (Choi et al., 2016). Unlike other dating sites, dating apps allow for constant access to others (as we are apparently unable to go anywhere without our phones!) and access to people close in geographical location, and they usually have no subscription fees. They provide a non-intimidating and flexible way to commence communication with others and often require less time and effort than traditional methods of dating (Castro & Barrada, 2020). Additionally, dating apps allow users to evaluate potential partners before agreeing to meet them in person, which can streamline and increase the ease of dating (Anderson et al., 2020). People also tend to be more comfortable talking about sex in an online environment (Choi et al., 2016), so dating apps can potentially enable individuals to express their sexuality more genuinely (Zervoulis et al., 2020).

Contrary to common belief, casual sex does not seem to be a primary motivator for joining a dating app. There seems to be multiple reasons for joining, and in fact, studies have found that for up to 70% of individuals, sex-seeking is not their primary goal (Castro & Barrada, 2020). About half of adults aged 18-29 (both heterosexual and members of the LGBTQ+ community) have reported using dating apps, and 20% of these users have married or been in some form of committed relationships with someone they first met through these platforms (Anderson et al., 2020). Moreover, half of individuals in the United States believe that relationships in which couples meet through dating apps are just as successful as those that begin in person (Anderson et al., 2020).

As demonstrated by the fact that members of the LGBTQ+ community are two times more likely to join dating apps (Anderson et al., 2020), these apps facilitate partner-seeking for marginalized groups (Castro & Barrada, 2020). This is the case for several reasons. For starters, not only is there a smaller proportion of individuals who identify as LGBTQ+, but sexual minority identity is not always obvious, thus making encountering LGBTQ+ individuals in public difficult. Dating apps are therefore the easiest way to meet and identify individuals that are part of the LGBTQ+ community (Leskin, 2020). Safety is another factor. Hate crimes and prejudice towards the LGBTQ+ community are still prevalent, so a lack of acceptance and fear of violence can make it challenging for members to meet in person (Leskin, 2020). Dating apps can also be a safe space for “closeted” individuals to gain anonymous access to community, and can empower individuals to behave more genuinely, thus having a positive effect on self-acceptance and the facilitation of identity processes and interpersonal relationships (Zervoulis et al., 2020). Dating apps are therefore an easy and efficient way for all individuals to meet new people.

Maybe we should swipe left:

Although dating apps can provide great opportunities for many, they aren’t all good. Studies have found that overall, dating app users tend to be more sexually active and more willing to take risks. There seems to be a higher prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), unsafe sex, and unplanned pregnancies amongst users of all sexual/affectional orientations. Users are also more likely to have at least one self-reported prior diagnosis of STIs (Choi et al., 2016). A study done by Choi and colleagues demonstrated that dating apps are associated with more sexual partners, more unprotected sex, and increased likelihood of inconsistent condom use (Choi et al., 2016). While this might be the case, other studies have found that users also engage in more prevention measures like treatment and testing than those who are not on dating apps, and not all studies have demonstrated that users are less likely to use condoms (Castro & Barrada, 2020). Thus, further studies must be done to draw more accurate conclusions. It is, however, consistently the case that individuals on dating apps have more sexual partners, and this is a risk factor for STIs, recreational drug use, alcohol consumption, and unplanned pregnancies (Choi et al., 2016).

Some users that are looking to form more long-lasting relationships might find dating apps frustrating, as the hasty way that people tend to act on these apps is discordant with cultural norms and how people typically form relationships (Castro & Barrada, 2020). Dating apps also tend to focus on appearance and physical attractiveness, leading to negative outcomes. Due to the shallow nature of the apps, some individuals believe that they facilitate superficial relationships rather than meaningful ones (Anderson et al., 2020). Additionally, the emphasis placed on physical appearance can promote excessive concerns about body image which can lead to unhealthy weight management behaviours and high shame about one’s body. Moreover, some people report dissatisfaction with their relationships formed on dating apps as they become overly sexual quickly and progress faster than they would expect it to offline (Zervoulis et al., 2020).

Beyond relationship dissatisfaction, dating apps can have some other serious consequences. Some find that dating apps can pose risks with security and privacy, leading to fears related to the availability of one’s personal information and location (especially for women) (Castro & Barrada, 2020). They can also become avenues for harassing behaviour such as receiving unsolicited explicit messages/images and the continued contact after one has expressed disinterest (Anderson et al., 2020). Many people also believe that it is common for people to be dishonest and misrepresent themselves either by creating scam accounts, or by lying to appear more desirable, which can leave people feeling frustrated and discouraged (Anderson et al., 2020).

So Which Direction Should We Swipe?

Ultimately, dating apps not only provide a less intimidating and easier route to dating and meeting new people, but they can also be a place where one can find community and self-acceptance. However, like any social media, dating apps are good in moderation, as too much investment or time spent on swiping is associated with low psychological and social well-being (Zervoulis et at., 2020). So, should you use dating apps? As long as boundaries are set, and your motivations are clear to yourself and others, dating apps can be great. As research shows, people are on dating apps for a multitude of reasons, so with time, you will likely find someone for you. The negative effects of dating apps seem to manifest when we treat dating online differently from offline, so remember to be genuine, communicate well, and pace the relationship appropriately.

Ashley Kim (she/her)
Life Sciences Major (BSc) and Concurrent Education (BEd)/ Fourth Year
Queen's University

References:

Anderson, M., Vogels, E. A., & Turner, E. (2020, October 02). The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/the-virtues-and-downsides-of-online-dating/

Castro, Á., & Barrada, J. R. (2020). Dating Apps and Their Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Correlates: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6500. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186500

Choi, E. P., Wong, J. Y., Lo, H. H., Wong, W., Chio, J. H., & Fong, D. Y. (2016). The Impacts of Using Smartphone Dating Applications on Sexual Risk Behaviours in College Students in Hong Kong. PloS one, 11(11), e0165394. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165394

Jamal, U. (2021, August 03). Dating changed during the pandemic; apps are following suit. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/dating-changed-during-the-pandemic-apps-are-following-suit-1.5532321

Leskin, P. (2020, February 06). LGBTQ adults are using dating apps nearly twice as much as straight adults, Pew study finds. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.businessinsider.com/dating-apps-use-lgbtq-community-twice-as-much-straight-adults-2020-2

Sutton, K.S. & Blair, K.L. (2020). Perspectives in sexuality. In C. F. Pukall (Ed.), Human Sexuality: A contemporary introduction (pp. 3-25). Oxford University Press.

Zervoulis, K., Smith, D. S., Reed, R., & Dinos, S. (2020). Use of ‘gay dating apps’ and its relationship with individual well-being and sense of community in men who have sex with men. Psychology & Sexuality, 11(1-2), 88-102.