What those 57% mean

57% of women 18-34 in apps received unsolicited sexual content — genitalia photos, explicit messages with no context, requests for sexual photos. Not in life, not in social media — specifically in dating apps.

Compare: among men the same age — 28%. So this isn't a «general online problem» but specifically asymmetric. In dating apps, women systematically face what men face half as often.

Gewirtz-Meydan et al. (2024) scoping review gave a wider estimate: sexual harassment in dating apps occurs in 57-88.8% of women, depending on study methodology.

Other forms of harassment

Pew documented several more numbers about women's experience under 35:

— 44% received offensive names— 19% received threats of physical violence— 60% experienced contact continuation after refusal— 23% had someone threaten to share private photos

Each number alone — many. Together — a portrait of systematic experience.

What modern apps do

Standard «safety» package in Tinder/Bumble/Hinge:

— Block and Report— Photo verification badge — voluntary selfie check. 5-15% of people get it.— Noonlight integration (Tinder) — SOS button during a date.— «Are you sure?» prompt (Bumble) — AI flags potentially offensive messages and asks for confirmation before sending.

All of this is reactive. They respond to the problem after it happened. None of them changes structure to make harassment more expensive or harder.

What apps don't do — and why

Structural solutions that would actually lower harassment are missing in mainstream apps. Why?

1. Mandatory video verification. Would lower anonymity. Would lower signups — economically unfavorable for an app monetized by the number of people.

2. Zero-cost messages only after a concrete action. So not «free messaging», but «first make a deliberate gesture — propose a meeting». Would lower «hey-hey» sessions. Would lower engagement metrics.

3. Structural cap on initiated contacts per day. Hinge has a like limit — a step in the right direction. But there's no cap on messages a man can send in an evening. So mass cold-outreach is still free.

All three reduce volume of interactions, which is the main KPI for ad-subscription models. So they don't get implemented.

How mmeet's approach affects women's safety

In mmeet, the structural solutions described above are taken as the product foundation, not an option:

1. Mandatory video registration. Without live video introduction — no account. This raises the entry barrier for scammers and opaque profiles.

2. First contact — meeting proposal. Not «hey». Not free message flow. A concrete proposal to meet. This removes «mass cold-outreach» as a pattern.

3. Chat only around the meeting. No drawn-out correspondences with someone who might never be met. If a meeting is canceled — the chat ends.

We don't claim this removes all risks — some categories of harassment don't depend on product design. But systematic forms Pew describes — anonymous «hey-hey» with unsolicited content, continuation after refusal, hundreds of cold messages per evening — become structurally harder.