Online dating — How apps from Tinder to Hinge reshaped courtship and fueled dating fatigue
There is a growing sense of exhaustion around modern dating, according to a recent reflection on how apps have changed courtship. Once celebrated for making matches easier, dating platforms are now blamed for fostering impatience, perfectionism and a transactional approach to relationships.
The piece argues that algorithms and profiles have turned the search for a partner into an exercise in efficient selection. What once involved time, awkwardness and slow discovery has been streamlined into swipes, filters and checklists. When an early conversation does not immediately meet expectations, users are inclined to move on rather than invest the time or effort needed to let a relationship develop.
That dynamic has made dating feel like shopping, the article says: the possibility that something better remains just a swipe away encourages a restless mindset. Even small quirks or differences can be interpreted as deal-breakers because the expectation has hardened that a perfect match can be specified and delivered.
Platforms named in the original commentary include Tinder, Bumble, OkCupid, Grindr, PlentyOfFish, Hinge, eHarmony and Match.com — alongside niche options such as FarmersOnly, Raya and CatholicMatch. The variety of services, the piece contends, reinforces the idea that compatibility can be tailored to every preference, further reducing the willingness to tolerate imperfection.
Beyond convenience, the writer highlights a deeper cultural cost: a diminished capacity for patience and endurance. Traditional rituals of courtship — awkward pauses, slow discovery and shared effort — allowed affection to grow. By contrast, technology treats time as a scarce currency to be conserved rather than invested, encouraging an expectation that love should be immediate and effortless.
The reflection also draws on a religious frame to make its point, invoking the Christian concept of agape: selfless, unconditional love that requires forgiving imperfection and committing through difficulty. It suggests that contemporary dating’s appetite for perfection undermines that kind of love because agape depends on an act of will and endurance rather than instantaneous compatibility.
Importantly, the piece argues this is not simply vanity or selfishness. Young people, it says, are exhausted by the search for meaning amid a carousel of similar encounters. Each interaction often begins with a performance and ends with retreat; loyalty and long-term commitment become harder to form when every match is treated as disposable.
There is no single remedy prescribed, but the writer urges a shift in perspective: stop treating love primarily as self-fulfilment and begin asking who another person is and how to love them best, including what may be objectionable. That shift, they contend, requires humility and a willingness to wait — qualities technology alone cannot instill.
The central claim is succinct: romance is eroding not because people are inherently selfish, but because we have grown impatient. To rebuild meaningful connection, the argument concludes, we must relearn how to accept imperfection and allow relationship to develop over time.
