Modern Day's Version Of The Prisoner's Dilemma

I was walking home from work yesterday, thinking about the social dynamics of Tinder (as you do) and realised that it's reminiscent of The Prisoner's Dilemma. For those of you who don't know this problem, Wikipedia explains it like this:

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of speaking to or exchanging messages with the other. The prosecutors do not have enough evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They hope to get both sentenced to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to: betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. Here is the offer:

• If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison
• If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)
• If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)

It is implied that the prisoners will have no opportunity to reward or punish their partner other than the prison sentences they get, and that their decision will not affect their reputation in the future. Because betraying a partner offers a greater reward than cooperating with him, all purely rational self-interested prisoners would betray the other, and so the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each other.^[1] The interesting part of this result is that pursuing individual reward logically leads both of the prisoners to betray, when they would get a better reward if they both kept silent.

I realised Tinder "game theory" is similar:

Two members of Tinder go out for a date. Each person doesn't know the other, and doesn't know the motives behind the other person's reason for a date. There could be two motives that you can have for wanting to go on a date: the first is for casual sex, the second is for a relationship. In this dilemma, both A and B hope to get into a relationship, but neither of them know the other person's motive. Now we have three possible combinations;

• If A and B both say they want just casual sex, both get just casual sex
• If A tells B that they want a relationship but B wants just casual sex, B will not feel comfortable continuing to see A knowing that A wants more, and will break off the Tindership, Neither will get anything.
• If A tells B that they want a relationship and B also wants a relationship, they both live happily ever after. Yay.

Now, as stated earlier, in this dilemma both parties want a relationship. But we can see that saying that you want a relationship also opens the risk of getting nothing in return. Rather, the best decision logically might be to say that you just want casual sex, as in this way, you always get at least casual sex out of a Tindership rather than run the risk of getting nothing. 

Discuss.