TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
155
- Hide Preview | 55 Comments | submitted 9 months ago by adam-l [Post Locked]

Disclaimer:

I have what I consider to be a well-researched and documented theory about gender dynamics, see The Empress Is Naked. This post is not part of it. This is a tentative theory, and a very disturbing one at that. I believe it does capture a critical aspect of sexual dynamics, but at this stage you should treat it as a Request For Comments.*


What is "Alpha"?

I won't go into answering that. You can find many good attempts at approaching it in TRP. Tingle-inducing, dominant, exciting... referring to behaviors rather than individuals... etc

The fact remains that a concise definition of "Alpha" eludes us.

However difficult it may be to define "Alpha" generally, ("Beta" is easier), defining "Alpha sex" and "Beta sex" is quite straightforward. It is about spontaneous desire vs negotiated "desire". From the female perspective, Alpha sex is the result of spontaneous desire. Beta sex is a concession resulting from negotiation. For women, only Alpha sex counts as sex, so much so that there is a feminist campaign to define all sex that is not "enthusiastic consent", i.e. Beta sex, as "rape".

Now, the point I want to make is this:

In evolutionary terms, Beta sex was in-band sex. Alpha sex was predominantly inter-band sex.

As you all (should) know, humans evolved in bands of 20-150 people. The bulk of daily interactions between humans was in-band. Sex as well. Before the institution of marriage, relationships were mostly transaction based (meat for sex), of short-term (the 2-4 years of the infatuation period). Now, consider growing up with and living all your life around the same people. How much genuine desire can you have for them? Where is the mystery? On top of that: consider that with paternity being unknown, in-band sex had a high degree of incest.

Can you see why inter-band sex was so lucrative? Especially for women?

The discussion around incest and sexuality is as much complex as it is critical, in my opinion. I cannot make a full appraisal, but I can identify some crucial points:

  • Back when our basic sexual psychology was inscribed, we had no knowledge of the specifics of reproduction. Only the mother-child relationship was concrete (and mother-side siblings). The incest taboo was not yet instituted, it is a cultural thing that came later.

  • Incest does not necessarily lead to defective offspring. In fact, for a given population, a degree of incest can actually improve its genetic makeup, by eliminating defective genes. Simply put, children with a accumulated genetic defects die, those with accumulated good genes survive. Seen from the other side, eliminating incest actually leads to more defective genes surviving in the future generations, by coupling them with dominant ones. (Note, if you, at this point, feel that I'm arguing, even implicitly, in favor of incest, you are too idiot, stop reading here.)

  • In spite of the species benefiting genetically from a degree of incest, for most individuals of that species incest is better avoided, exactly because of the above: high degree of elimination of offspring due to their recessive genes.

and the most important point:

  • Incest avoidance is of much more importance for women, due to their limited reproductive capacity, than for men. For example, there are interesting studies that show that women (but not men) can smell how similar the immune system of a man is, relative to theirs, and this is a major turn off - or turn on, if dissimilar.

OK, now that we have the correct data, crunching it is quite straightforward.

Women used to get protection and resources (mainly meat) inside the band, exchanging it for sex. A drudgery, perhaps, but what can you do. When, however, there was a chance to grab some strange dick, especially if there were clear indications of fitness and dominance, as was the case with the leaders of other bands, this rung a lot of bells (tingles) regarding her reproductive advantages.

So Alpha sex (tingles) were for/with a stranger, Beta sex (transactional) was with the band members.

I first encountered a related narrative in Steve Moxon's The Woman Racket. He goes as far as suggesting that the (well-known) female rape-fantasy is much more than just a fantasy, and has much to do with the dynamic I described. I remember personally nauseating with the idea, at the time. I now find it revelatory:

...just as women today go out to an anonymous nightclub in a micro-skirt, ancestral woman could walk to places away from the village near the territorial boundary with neighboring communities, where she may encounter a lone male stranger. This raised a new scenario, of an encounter with a foreign male that did not result in capture, but just sex. The woman returned to her natal community, where she ran the risk that her adultery had been witnessed or is detected. What then? ... The woman therefore pretends, very plausibly, that she was not having extra-pair sex, but was being attacked by a man and managed to thwart abduction. Over evolutionary time, such a strategy could be selected for, and made more reliably evoked by being rendered non-conscious. This would be exactly what would have happened if a woman had a sexually-coercive encounter with a foreign male... So the coerced sex and/or abduction, and voluntary extra-pair sex situations are very similar; and an adaptation that was an integrated response to both is likely. The cognitive shut-down mode of dealing with forced sex would be an excellent tool for non-conscious deception, both of the self and of others – the most reliable way to deceive others being to deceive yourself, of course.

In that excerpt, the clandestine element of Alpha sex is taken to its extreme conclusion.

There are a lot of evidence that has accumulated in research, which are consistent with such a narrative of Alpha sex being precisely sex lacking intimacy. Those referring to rape are the most revealing - as well as being the hardest to stomach for all us in TRP that are vehemently opposed to rape. The all-powerful female xenophilia and the allure of the "mysterious" man, female orgasm during rape (estimated at around 50% of the cases), the disturbing 1982 "study of American students [which] found that girls who were exposed to an attempt at date rape were three times more likely to resume their relationship with the man concerned if his attempt succeeded than if it failed.... If the man succeeded in forcing intercourse, nearly half (40 per cent) later resumed their relationship with him... If he failed, then nearly nine out of every ten of the women (87 per cent) refused to have any more to do with him..." (from R. Baker's Sperm Wars)

Modern men's efforts to "fix things at home", reach a blissful state of harmony with their wife etc etc, all stumble on this evolutionary past of the female. If she gets too comfortable, it feels like being in-band. It feels... incestuous. Woman is an ancient being, running an outdated operating system. Social assertions for the avoidance of incest was a much later addition - one which woman is hard pressed to accommodate. She still goes about trying to avoid incest and improve the genetic makeup of her children by feeling that intimate, steady, long-term relationships are in-band, while sex with the mysterious stranger is truly desired, inter-band.

So, what's the takeaway in practical terms?

Good luck trying to be consistently perceived as "Alpha" in LTRs or marriages. It was never meant to work that way for females. It might be possible, with very specific prerequisites, but for all practical purposes, don't go about destroying your "Alphaness" by committing too much.

[-] freestyler2k1 70 Points 9 months ago

This explains why so many woman are into traveling!

[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] frameTrumpsShitTests 47 Points 9 months ago

There are still some rough edges around your Thesis, but you're on to something.

Something to add from my side: Women actively seek out situations where they will probably be raped.

I often caught myself thinking that, and tried to change my thinking because surely it's just prejudices, no? Rape always appeared as a high risk strategy to me: Loss of control, potentially being killed to obscur the crime, abduction, potentially lower quality seed, bodily harm.

But over the time I've realized that this is not in my imagination. I've seen too many examples. Especially the hard-to-get type, which doesn't have sex regularly, shows this behavior. I'm talking about searching out abandoned parking lots in bad areas of the city, going to discos with a known bad crowd and rape cases, venturing through parks infested with drug addicts at night.

What I made out of this is, that the Lizard-Brain wants to be impregnated. The Vagina-Guard actively prevents this by rejecting all advances of her suitors. The Lizard-Brain forces her to this high risk behavior and this way gets his seed. Something like an override. But that's just my pet thesis and not necessarily true.

[-] AdventurousPrint 23 Points 9 months ago

Something to add from my side: Women actively seek out situations where they will probably be raped.

This might be extremely far-fetched and I am in no way making any judgements about her but a few weeks ago, I met up with a random HB7 I met online and who was DTF and she did what you described since we met up during midnight and went to a place we knew was notorious to have a high criminal rate and was quiet dangerous for both of us. There was zero resistance from her side and I was stunned at the fact that she didn't seem to care what happens to her, despite not knowing me at all. And tbh at some point during this date, I was afraid that she would do something fucked up like luring me into a place or so. We were both strangers at that point and had only been texting for like 3-4 days prior.

[-] adam-l 17 Points 9 months ago

Women actively seek out situations where they will probably be raped.

Not quite.

The idea is that women basically crave strangers, and "Alpha" has much to do with it. While comfort gives out a "Beta", incestuous smell.

In today's extended society they have ample opportunities to meet strangers, and can get the Alpha tingles in much more secure environments than was possible in ancestral settings. Women do have some reasoning abilities, and if safety and excitement can be met, they do pursue them both.

Those said, there are the outliers, in whom the subconscious ancestral drives are expressed in a raw form. These are the ones that pursue exceptionally dangerous situations.

In general, we cannot make direct inferences from our evolutionary past to present behaviors. We need evopsych in order to be able to identify the basic drives, but how these are expressed today is quite complex.

[-] Atheist_Utopia 3 Points 9 months ago

Well evo psych is poorly taught in psych school

[-] DasWolffy 8 Points 9 months ago

That's bc it makes women look really bad and that goes against the current agenda.

[-] redpill77 28 Points 9 months ago

This fits with my current thinking that we are not making any progress towards peace in the world because hypergamy. As societies gain dominance and stability, less powerful women argue for measures which allow them to bypass their local class. If she couldn't get a top 10% guy from her in-band options, she's wired to try desperately to find opportunities to rectify the tragedy of not becoming a princess. Open borders, open legs. Open possibilities for a better future. Worst case get an abortion.

[-] austindcc 19 Points 9 months ago

Not disturbing at all. I fucking love this evopsych approach to understanding human behavior.

Good luck trying to be consistently perceived as "Alpha" in LTRs or marriages.

Perhaps polygamy was a way of achieving this, as polygamy was much more widespread than it is now.

[-] ex_addict_bro 12 Points 9 months ago

Agree 100%, just as with your previous post on "What if women don't love (even their own) children". We're definitely onto something.

Nowadays the key to a good fucking seems to be to increase "interband-like" situations. As for LTRs, they're doomed to fail anyways. If not another man, time will take her away.

[-] xoxuv 11 Points 9 months ago

The benefit of mating with complete strangers is the same reason for which sex exists.

Sex is a search algorithm for better DNA. It creates new combinations for each person, so it causes faster evolution by having a more diverse DNA pool.

Closed communities always mix the same gen, so the search is slowered to the same combinations. It does not explores new territory. Faster evolution adapts faster, and beats competitors who do not evolve.

​

That's why men also fantasize with exotic women.

​

But the main source of genetic interchange on wild populations was not occasional rape, but war. A tribe went to war with another, killed the males and took the women.

In closed communities, the man needs some agreement from the woman, because he’s competing against similar males, and women have some social status. But in war, he doesn’t need any agreement.

That behavior is not archaic. In WWII, USA armies raped French woman, same as Germans did, and russians did. It didn't mattered if the army was an invader or a "liberator" one.

The female rape fantasy is not a fantasy about being raped by a weak beta wanderer, but by a powerful, desirable man.

[-] L3onard3 11 Points 9 months ago

There’s a reason why rapekink subreddit exists.

[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] Bone_Coat 10 Points 9 months ago

Modern mens' efforts to "fix things at home", reach a blissful state of harmony with their wife etc etc, all stumble on this evolutionary past of the female. If she gets too comfortable, it feels like being in-band. It feels... incestuous.

The all-powerfull female xenophilia and the alure of the "mysterious" man, female orgasm during rape (extimated at around 50% of the cases), the disturbing 1982 "study of American students [which] found that girls who were exposed to an attempt at date rape were three times more likely to resume their relationship with the man concerned if his attempt succeeded than if it failed.... If the man succeeded in forcing intercourse, nearly half (40 per cent) later resumed their relationship with him... If he failed, then nearly nine out of every ten of the women (87 per cent) refused to have any more to do with him..." (from R. Baker's Sperm Wars)

don't get too comfy (in-ban,blue pilled etc.), be powerful, dominant, mysterious, escalate,DGAF, hack the vagina-brain & fuck bitches.

this post is eye opening, mostly about the hamster-ing of a ONS that women call it was rape at the end.

This raised a new scenario, of an encounter with a foreign male that did not result in capture, but just sex. The woman returned to her natal community, where she ran the risk that her adultery had been witnessed or is detected. What then? ... The woman therefore pretends, very plausibly, that she was not having extra-pair sex, but was being attacked by a man and managed to thwart abduction.

[-] max_peenor 8 Points 9 months ago

In fact, for a given population, a degree of incest can actually improve its genetic makeup, by eliminating recessive genes.

While the argument is sound, I would remove reference to recessive genes. They are not inherently bad. In fact, quite a few are environmental adaptations that dramatically improve survival. I haven't done the science, but it wouldn't surprise me if they cluster based on location. This is why I like the argument itself. Local adaptations would persist, while external 'improvements' would come from a visiting Chad. Again just throwing out thoughts too.

[-] adam-l 7 Points 9 months ago

Very astute observation. I missed that. Thanks.

Changing it to "defective".

[-] rredhammer 2 Points 9 months ago

Instead of recessive genes, it should be weak genes referenced here. Incest removes undesirable genes and increases the population of those which are 1) ‘strong’ 2) fit for the environment 3) desirable within a given population.

[-] [deleted] 8 Points 9 months ago

[deleted]

[-] adam-l 23 Points 9 months ago

Get friends for intimacy. Women are for fucking.

[-] awakenedspirit1 12 Points 9 months ago

Took 36 years to learn this one...

[-] Vikingcel 0 Points 9 months ago

It makes me wanna stalk women from the nearby band.

[-] sabinmightyfist 5 Points 9 months ago

Wow really good post. Do you have further readings on this? This material is absolutely fascinating

[-] adam-l 4 Points 9 months ago
[-] Schhwing 4 Points 9 months ago

Some of your ideas are very on point. Especially the rape fantasy and the false rape accusation and denial from the woman. Why you see so many (false) rape accusations, from women is because they are trying to cover the shame of a ONS to stop being slut-shamed by her “tribe” (as well as now being financially rewarded for it). If an alpha of the tribe found his woman sleeping with another man he would probably kill the man and severely beat, kill or ostracise her. To lie about rape is a survival mechanism that has been genetically selected for in women. (Also probably why women don’t cheat on alphas). And maybe, genetically speaking, women have been selected to unconsciously enable rape to happen as it was better for the species. (That sentence sounds pretty fucked up but it may be true). Same could be said for men - genetically we are wired to want to force ourselves on women if they present as available.

The false rape accusations may explain why many (traditionally) are sceptical of women’s word (they are more accomplished liars/deceivers, even of themselves) and their rape claims; because women have been saying this shit for ages and still getting in positions that make rape (or non intimate sex/cheating) happen. Problem is, now we are really un-labeling women as a provocateur and forcefully labelling men as perpetrator. With no responsibility on women and all on men. The feminine imperative at work and further evidence of society’s consistent efforts to demonise and punish men.

As for married monogamy, it is not natural for either men or women to be monogamous for very long periods of time. The human tribe/band is probably much more natural, where there was probably a more complex interplay in the social and sexual connections within. Where multiple and changing partners and orgies probably happened.

Also I think defining alpha sex as inter-tribe and beta sex as same tribe is probably a little wrong. There would have been “alpha” and “betas” within tribes that would have got different mating rights. I would say the alpha leaders having access to the most number and most beautiful women - especially at ovulation. The betas would’ve been probably more emotionally tied to the women (friendzoned) and provisional and the lowest beta of the tribe probably wouldn’t have got any pussy. Hence his genes dying out.

As for the women seeking a quickie with the man from the other tribe that does make sense from a genetic variability standpoint. Bringing new genes into the tribe gene pool to reduce incestual breeding. It also to some extent explains the desire to cheat from a woman’s perspective. Also from a man’s to spread his genes.

You have to to remember that every human behaviour that exists today has at some point been advantageous to our species. Yes that even includes rape and adultery. When you remove the moral judgement of the situation you do see the truth and this is what the red pill is really all about. I loved this post because it was thought provoking and I hoped you enjoyed reading my wall of text.

[-] HelloTims 4 Points 9 months ago

Except, evolutionary speaking, men would be evolved to shut that down immediately and just abandon any kid that isn't theirs or at least somewhat related to them(why you see a lot of religious texts that say widows should marry the dead husbands brother, because the brother would have evolutionary incentive to still care for his nephews). And that would be extremely punishing for the woman, pregnancy is very time and resource consuming, unlike men, women have a strict upper limit for how many children they can have in one life time. Getting raped is a very dumb evolutionary strategy for women.

[-] FockeWulf190D 8 Points 9 months ago

The man wouldn't know he was raising another man's child. The widespread knowledge that sex leads to pregnancy is quite recent in evolutionary terms.

[-] HelloTims 2 Points 9 months ago

I find that hard to believe when many non-human animal males have been often seen killing the children of other males to try to get females to stop raising that child and have sex with them.

There are even species of primate that, the female has sex with multiple males over a period, and later when a baby is born, the males seem to have a very accurate idea of the likelihood it's their kid, like if it's a 20% likelihood they'll make some effort to help the child but not a very significant one, but if it's 100% they'll actively take a lot of action to help the child.

Also this article: https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/when-did-humans-realize-sex-makes-babies-evolution-of-reproductive-consciousness-of-the-cause-of-pregnancy.html

[-] adam-l 2 Points 9 months ago

No non-human species understands the link between sex and procreation.

Even if they did, "spreading your genes" is something that your genes do, not exactly you. This is a bit delicate point to grasp, but note that your interests, i.e. your life, may be compromised in order for your genes to propagate. Think mantises. Today, the richer, most advanced, most conscious people have fewer children than the poorer, more backwards, more primitive ones.

The link you post confirms that actually, during our evolution of our sexual instincts, we had not grasped the mechanics of reproduction.

[-] EmoNiteIsForLovers 2 Points 9 months ago

The bible was written after nomadic hunter-gather days. Everyone was hooking up and raising the children communally whilst traversing the frozen tundra.

[-] strikethrough123 4 Points 9 months ago

It all comes down to good genes and resources. Fuck the alpha for good genes; fuck the beta for resources.

[-] INNASKILLZ2K18 3 Points 9 months ago

This stuff is hugely interesting. What I get from it, is women are more turned on by strangers

Hits home that too much comfort and rapport is a bad thing.

Women want the mystery, that sense that you are an outlier to her normal world. Best to keep some distance and keep escalation and sexual intent high, over rapport building, comfort and familiarity.

Let her feel the attraction is based on your raw desire and sexual motivation. Let her try to get to know you later.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 9 months ago

That's why I like theory. You can get really good practical advice, like don't cohabitate, keep an emotional distance etc, but unless.you can fit it in a theoretical framework it's hard for it to hit home. "It doesn't make sense that the more I get close to her the more she is repulsed". Well, now it does.

[-] INNASKILLZ2K18 2 Points 9 months ago

Yeah, I agree. It has to be good theory though.

This one is really cool. It also gives a deeper level of awareness.

Be different. Come from outside her usual domain. Don't give away too much and always lean on the side of being a 'stranger'. Put sexual intent, escalation and fucking way before any rapport.

Present yourself as that inter-band Alpha.

It kind of fulfills that 'rape fantasy'. A high value man fuelled with sexual desire, who she doesn't know, and manages to fuck her.

Yeah, this theory made shit hit home on a whole 'nother level.

Play the lizard brain.

[-] IAMB4TMAN 2 Points 9 months ago

I think from a Man's perspective this theory raises some interesting points in terms of the different 'Alphas'.

I'd say there are 2 different types of Alphas - social & lone Alphas. Anecdotally - the strongest pair bonding I've witnessed is with the Lone Alphas.

[-] __ROOSTER__ 1 Point 9 months ago

no such thing as a lone alpha, there must be others to be alpha over.

[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] __ROOSTER__ 2 Points 9 months ago

some good stuff in here especially about rape

That said I dont think its about alpha vs beta. It about a biological need to bring a small amount of new DNA into the troop.

Inside the troop the female is still trying to breed alpha. Breeding alpha inside the troop is line breeding and its how you eugenically improve the troop. There is nothing alpha about being from outside the troop and nothing beta about being inside the troop. In fact most loners males that would come upon a lone female are doubtful to be actually alphas in any way except for that exact situation with a lone female.

Line breeding is breeding of somewhat related animals to stack and perpetuate good traits. Inbreeding stacks and perpetuates bad traits and in nature thats kills eventually. line breeding is eugenic, in breeding dysgenic.

Out breeding brings in new traits but is very risky as there is no way to predict how the mix will work out.

Human females not on chemical birth control will line breed the vast vast majority of the time , not just because of society, but because they are most attracted to not-close relatives, and less attracted to in and out breeding situations.

A very few will choose to in or out breed.

In nature the males kill the females they catch outbreeding so its pretty dangerous. Of course they dont have that problem in the western world now

A small amount of outbreeding has always existed and is probably evolutionarily "good" (a very small amount is all it takes)

I dont think the take away is you cant stay alpha in a relationship. If you have significant value in your troop you provide what a woman biologically needs. There is nothing beta about being in the same troop as a female.

[-] AutoModerator 2 Points 9 months ago

Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.

Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red and reserve your reddit name today.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-] Lateralanouncer 1 Point 9 months ago

I c your point and it’s great to get some new perspectives on our instinct. I don’t think the children would have a high survival rate (most alphas in the animal kingdom kill babies of other alphas) MY bro science tells me. Rape fantasies would be around around the social norms. Woman living seperate to men (woman instinctively want to be around parents and family when having a baby, ). The strongest Men would go in, fuck (what we call rape) and that’s that. they didn’t have much choice in the matter. Maybe weak Beta males would live and help with the cooking and house work and if they are lucky get some ass when the alphas out hunting.

[-] adam-l 2 Points 9 months ago

My view is that most men got quite some "beta" sex in-tribe, while a few got "alpha" sex outside the tribe. There is no tendency in men to kill babies: they are either indifferent, or protective. So, if a level of sexual gratification was assured for men within the tribe, so was the well-being of women's children.

It's not a black-or-white picture, i.e. known paternity and infanticide vs hippy-style all-for-all, it's rather a socio-sexual dynamic playing between these two extremes.

[-] nobody_thinks 1 Point 9 months ago

This is a pretty interesting theory.

[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] johnsmith1046 1 Point 9 months ago

I'm the only Asian in a white boarding school. I have about the same level of looks as the white guys, does that give me an advantage?

[-] adam-l 2 Points 9 months ago

White? No.

If it was black or Latino, maybe it would.

There is a cultural perception of whites being the dominant race and Asians being subordinate, which is hard to overcome. The dynamic I describe would work for "tribes" at around the same level.

[-] johnsmith1046 2 Points 9 months ago

So if there's a Latino guy would he have an advantage with white people?

[-] adam-l 3 Points 9 months ago

No, you as an Asian might be advantaged if the boarding school was Black or Latino.

[-] beachbloke 1 Point 9 months ago

Yeah if you have the right frame. Frame is everything.

[-] GrouchyTalk 1 Point 9 months ago

Excellent! Take my upvote!

[-] EmoNiteIsForLovers 1 Point 9 months ago

Read "Sex at Dawn" by Chris Ryan.

[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] anotherchump99 1 Point 9 months ago

Great post!

I would just like to know if you have any material or further thesis as to why modern man in general do not retain as much natural instincts as that of women?

It seems that your thesis in explaining why familiarity reduces desirability for men within the comfort zone of a woman. It is based on the premise that women genetically retain a huge part of their natural instincts.

Scores of modern men, on the other hand, seems to have reduced "ability" or "awareness" of what really arouses desire in women. Why is that, in your opinion?

[-] adam-l 6 Points 9 months ago

Both women and men have retained their basic instincts. The issue is that in modern (class) society, female instincts are pro-system, so they are given free reign, while men are under pressure: consumerism relies on the consuming nature of the females, females are the reproductive machines necessary for replenishing the working class, females lust over the ruling class, something highly desirable. Males are made to produce and achieve, in order to be female-elegible. They must be kept under control with the whip of sexlessness and the carrot of sex. So it's kind of natural that women + the ruling class = L.F.E.

The last society that had some elements of male-primacy was ancient Athens, but this was a true democracy, something that both women + the ruling class hate vehemently. Women ♥️ the prince, not the working class hero.

So, to recap, both sexes have their sexual instincts intact, but females are more inline with the system, while free men are seen as a destabilizing, revolutionary factor, and are being socially repressed. Hence their confusion about the sexual dynamics.

Grab a copy of my book, for a more complete discussion.

[-] rpleo -1 Point 9 months ago

Dating websites are shit