Playing Los Angeles

My webzine reflects my personal and close experiences over a 12-day research period. While I recognize that this is just one sliver of LA’s dating culture, I find it fascinating how patterns emerge even within the smallest subcultures. My goal is not to make definitive claims but rather to explore how geography, digital culture, and social aesthetics intersect in shaping this online dating niche. Although my focus is on this particular LA scene, similar behaviors can be found in other internet-driven dating subcultures.

Los Angeles is a city built on performance and self-curation. Somewhere between irony and aspiration exists a certain kind of person—one whose bookshelf consists of theory selectively referenced in conversation, whose playlist shuffles between electronic and post-punk, who doesn’t have a bedframe (for "aesthetic reasons") but whose bathroom is an Aesop shrine, and whose Letterboxd reads like a manifesto. They aren’t just influenced by cultural capital—they are actively accumulating it. The performance of intellect is as crucial as intellect itself. For some, this might read like an incoherent string of buzzwords; for others, it might hit uncomfortably close to home. The internet encourages self-mythologization, but the ways in which people construct identity—and the value assigned to different personas—are unevenly distributed.

Digital archetypes, especially those that emerge within online dating cultures, often reflect broader social hierarchies. The aesthetics of cool—whether through fashion, music, or theory—frequently draw from subcultures that originated in queer spaces and communities of color, only to be repackaged and stripped of their original context. But the sorting mechanisms of online platforms don’t just reflect cultural appropriation; they reinforce and accelerate it. As e-flux’s exploration of homophily suggests, algorithmic systems operate on principles of similarity, clustering users based on shared behaviors, tastes, and references. While this can create the illusion of organic social formation, it ultimately entrenches existing cultural stratifications. The detached irony, the obsession with self-curation, and the hyper-referential humor that define these personas owe much to queer digital subcultures, where performance and reinvention have long been modes of self-preservation rather than mere aesthetic choices. Yet in algorithmic spaces, these once-subversive strategies become flattened into a commodified performance of taste, optimized for visibility and desirability. Homophily in digital dating doesn’t just sort people into like-minded groups; it reifies a particular kind of taste-driven hierarchy, where certain aesthetics and reference points are systematically elevated while others are rendered invisible. Similarly, internet-borne identity categories, often applied most rigidly to marginalized groups, reveal how online spaces both enable and constrain self expression.

Dating within this subculture reflects these tensions. Identities are constructed through highly specific cultural signifiers—books, films, fashion, and media references that demonstrate an awareness of internet-driven discourse. Online dating profiles often reflect a carefully controlled detachment, filled with ironic humor, obscure Twitter jokes, and self-referential satire. Attraction becomes mediated by an algorithmic logic, where shared references serve as compatibility markers more than emotional connection. The question is no longer just Do you like this thing? but Do you like it in the right way? and Do you perform that liking correctly?

Geography plays a significant role in shaping these dynamics. In areas like West Hollywood and Santa Monica, one might adopt a polished, affluent aesthetic, frequenting gentrified coffee shops and designer boutiques. In Silver Lake and Echo Park, the aesthetic leans art-world adjacent, with an emphasis on vintage minimalism and carefully curated “anti-mainstream” tastes in the most cosplay way possible. Despite these differences, both versions share a reliance on digital homophily—dating within aesthetic and intellectual bubbles, seeking partners who “get it.”

Social media, particularly TikTok and Twitter, has amplified these personas, turning dating into a meme-laden, algorithmic exercise rather than a natural human interaction. The rise of chronically online behavior means that attraction is often filtered through an internet-first lens, where references, aesthetics, and engagement with niche discourse dictate desirability. The result is a dating culture where authenticity is constantly questioned, and irony serves as both a shield and a filter. The internet makes it easier than ever to self-mythologize, but in doing so, it also turns connection into a performance—one in which participation is mandatory, but sincerity is optional.

While this is a highly specific niche, it reflects broader trends in online dating—where identity is increasingly shaped by digital aesthetics, and relationships are mediated through a performative lens. This dating subculture may be a small fraction of Los Angeles, but it represents a fascinating case study in how online connections have evolved into something beyond romance: a game of status, intellect, and cultural belonging.