The “Keeper” of Modern US Eugenics: How AI Matchmaking Perpetuates Eugenic Love

---

 In 2022, tech entrepreneurs Jake Kozloski and Cody Zervas launched a new dating website. Unlike Bumble or Hinge, this site is powered by artificial intelligence and promises its users “love at first match.” To find “the one,” Keeper requires its users to fill out a lengthy profile, asking singles to identify the traits of their ideal partner, including their partner’s ideal political party and preferred ethnicity and race. Keeper’s algorithms analyze these responses and produce a supposedly perfect match. While Keeper’s use of AI algorithms is new, its promise is not novel: it is yet another example of eugenic intrusions into the intimate decisions of mate selection that became prominent beginning in the late nineteenth century.

Coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a British statistician and cousin of Charles Darwin, eugenics advocated selective breeding under the false premise that the future of humanity could be improved. Eugenics promoted increased reproduction of supposedly desirable individuals (positive eugenics) and the limitation of reproduction for those viewed as undesirable (negative eugenics), leading to practices such as immigration restriction, involuntary sterilization, institutionalization, and other social phenomena such as Better Babies and Fitter Families contests.^[1] Most importantly, both positive and negative eugenic practices were built upon ideals that were inherently racist, classist, sexist, and ableist.

Although the selective breeding demanded by eugenics and the ideals of romantic love may seem disconnected, many eugenicists have attempted to link the two together. One example can be found in the work of Paul Popenoe (1888-1979), an advocate of eugenic sterilization who believed that romance could be engineered in order to follow eugenic “laws” and thus “save” mankind. In a telling 1952 speech, Popenoe asserted that “it is not what the individual does but what the marriage does that determines the next generation and the fate of mankind.”^[2] Popenoe argued that the fate of humanity was contingent upon proper mate selection. Choose correctly, and the future is saved. Choose wrong, and degeneration is assured, according to Popenoe.

Although far more discreet than inhumane sterilization, eugenics infiltrated the hearts of everyday Americans through the creation of eugenic cultural standards surrounding love and romance. Eugenicists like Popenoe constructed a romantic ideal in which love was not a feeling or an emotional connection. Instead, love was a force to be managed, which should result in selective matchmaking. Popenoe discounted the emotional qualities associated with romantic love, deeming this condition “romantic infantilism.” He further dismissed the idea “that love is a mysterious visitation which comes and goes entirely independent of any human control and that this ‘love’ is the sole basis of marriage.”^[3] Popenoe’s notion of love required human control from its very definition.^[4] In contrast to romantic infantilism, Popenoe’s love developed through an analytical process and human intervention.

Popenoe’s analytical love was undergirded by his insistence on both heteronormativity and similarity. He stressed that, “broadly, it has been shown by many students that people are attracted to each other by unlikeness in sexual traits [alluding to his emphasis on heteronormativity] and likeness in all other traits.” According to Popenoe, love could be reduced simply to matching traits, which would result in the most supposedly “superior” couples. Moreover, Popenoe advised that the process of falling in love should include both considerations of partner similarity and the genetic inheritance for children.

The concept of “eugenic love,” coined by historian Susan Rensing in 2016, encapsulates this effort to eugenically manage romantic love. In Rensing’s words, eugenics could also be viewed “as a sort of OkCupid of the Progressive Era,” as eugenicists sought to “make love, romance, and marriage scientific.”^[5] Expanding upon Rensing’s article, I define eugenic love as the attempt to strategically manage romantic love and thus individual unions and reproductive choices based on eugenic lines. Eugenicists sought to infiltrate and control everyday Americans’ romantic decisions through the promotion of selective mate choice. Popenoe, like other eugenicists, encouraged the unions of some and dissuaded others from walking down the aisle. In his view, romance could be regulated and thus controlled in order to ensure that only those he viewed as eugenically superior fell in love and eventually reproduced. While Rensing’s eugenic love explores the myriad intersections between romance and eugenics, eugenic love, according to my definition, refers strictly to the ways in which eugenicists such as Popenoe both encouraged and dissuaded certain romantic relationships.

More importantly, Popenoe’s eugenic understanding of romantic love was not always so overt. Instead, both he and other eugenicists masked their eugenic ambitions by claiming that this advice was simply best practice. For example, in eugenicist Albert Edward Wiggam’s popular 1946 publication Let’s Explore Your Mind, Wiggam referenced the American Institute of Family Relations, the marriage-counseling organization and eugenic love laboratory that Popenoe founded in 1930. On the front cover of the advice manual, Wiggam included a provocative question to his readers: “Do married couples who have had proper pre-marital instruction often fail in marriage?” Wiggam asserted: “Practically never. Among several thousand engaged and married couples instructed by the American Institute of Family Relations, Los Angeles, on how to carry on happy sex relations, there have been only one or two divorces.” Wiggam praised Popenoe’s institution, writing “Amazing, when over half the marriages in this same region have ended in divorce—about 1000 times as many as those who received instruction.”^[6] Wiggam thus played on the fears of his readers, advising them to open their hearts to Popenoe or risk divorce.

This was not Wiggam’s sole reference to Popenoe or eugenic matchmaking in his book. In a later question, Wiggam asked readers: “What are the five most important questions all young persons should ask themselves before becoming engaged?” According to Wiggam, the first question couples should consider was, “Am I physically and mentally fit?” Echoing Popenoe’s sentiments, this question presumed that only supposedly “fit” or “superior” individuals qualified for marriage. Not only did Wiggam conform to this view, but he also reinforced Popenoe’s insistence on similarity, writing that couples should ask, “Are our race, morals, religion, education and standards of living very similar”?^[7] Wiggam’s readers hoping to find love were bombarded with eugenic ideals about who love and marriage were suitable for and how they should go about finding it. Everyday readers who may solely have wanted to “explore their minds” were therefore subjected to eugenicists’ attempts to control their romantic decisions.

Moreover, Wiggam’s mention of race resonates with the much longer history of preventing interracial marriages in the United States. Under state-mandated anti-miscegenation laws, interracial couples were not permitted to marry until the landmark Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case in 1967. However, while Popenoe’s home state of California overturned their law in 1948, he continued to attempt to dissuade lovers from pursuing interracial marriage. For example, after an anonymous, white, female client sought Popenoe’s advice on her relationship with a Japanese man, Popenoe compiled a list of forty points that he asked the woman to consider before walking down the aisle. He began by asking the woman, “[W]hat do you actually know about the Japanese people as a race?. . . Is the basis adequate for such an important decision as a choice of a life-long mate?”^[8] Popenoe also turned his attention towards reproduction by asking, “Have you considered the problems involved for children who will be born of this marriage? Will he face ridicule and prejudice? Will he be accepted by both groups? Either group?” He then asked his client, “can one be tolerant and still be opposed to an interracial marriage like this one? What is the difference between the attitudes of a racist and those of one who wants all conditions to be met for a good marriage? Does the fact that some 29 states prohibit inter-racial marriages carry any negative weight?”^[9] One can assume that Popenoe’s client lived in California following the Perez v. Sharp case in 1948, which legalized interracial marriage in the state. Thus, Popenoe’s line of questioning was an attempt to reify anti-miscegenation law and uphold his eugenic belief that only similar individuals should marry.

Popenoe’s list exemplified eugenic love. By asking his client to consider his racist (and eugenic) questions, he attempted to control this woman’s love life and influence her decision about a partner. Popenoe framed his forty points as simply “objective facts” that he believed she should consider before the wedding day, obscuring his eugenic and racist goals. Keeper’s algorithms today may be viewed as an intensification of Popenoe’s advice. We do not know whether Popenoe’s client chose to continue her relationship or not; she may have wed her lover. By contrast, Keeper ensures that singles only see matches who fit the guidelines chosen in their profiles. Thus, the eugenic practice of selective mate choice is built into the program. By limiting singles’ choices and prioritizing likeness, Keeper’s users are participating in selective matchmaking and therefore carrying out Popenoe’s – and other eugenicists’ – dreams. With Keeper, it is no longer necessary for eugenicists to intervene in Americans’ romantic lives. This can simply be done by training algorithms to sort according to the dictates of eugenic ideals. Moreover, Keeper provides eugenic-minded individuals with the tools to carry out their beliefs. Kozloski and Zervas have created the roadmap for its users to conform to the eugenic practice of selective mate choice.

Keeper’s website also perpetuates eugenic ideals of biological determinism. Under “Our Values,” Keeper asserts that “for millions of years, human nature has shaped how men and women choose long-term partners. Yet modern dating apps ignore these differences, treating everyone identically and encouraging superficial connections. Keeper respects our natural wiring, using genuine human insights to foster deeper, lasting matches.”^[10] On X, the creators have also directly reinforced selective mate choice. They assert that “Cross-trait assortative mating is the phenomenon of people choosing partners based on their overall desirability.”^[11] Thus, Popenoe’s selective mate choice has transformed into “cross-trait assortative mating.” Finally, after praising Elon Musk (who also espouses eugenic beliefs) in the “Keeper Master Plan,” Kozloski addresses his vision for the app. He asserts that, “We’re in a fertility crisis fueled by a marriage crisis that jeopardizes the future of humanity itself. Our mission is to address this crisis head-on by reversing the decades-long trend against marriage and family-formation.”^[12]Although vague, Kozloski and his team’s words demonstrate that their vision for humanity is an increase in marriage and reproduction – although solely for those with similar “desirable” traits.

Keeper’s Master Plan and its matchmaking practices remain concerned with marriage and subsequent reproduction, rather than emotional connection or happiness. Instead, (like Popenoe) Keeper prioritizes the quantification of romance in order to increase marriage and reproduction rates, rather than to foster happier, healthier relationships. Specifically, in addition to requiring users to specify their potential partners’ traits, Keeper relies heavily on quantifiable measures such as IQ scores. Not only does reliance on IQ reduce romance to mere quantification, but it is also worth noting that IQ testing was created in the name of eugenics.^[13]

Keeper’s algorithms and Master Plan echo the philosophy that inspired eugenicists like Popenoe. By attempting to promote marriage and reproduction of particular and only similar individuals, eugenicists of the past and present believe that humanity can be saved. Only now, this eugenic process has become instant through automation. While it would be unfair to label all of Keeper’s users as active eugenicists, its creators have not shied away from the term. In fact, Keeper’s social media manager Hunter Ash fully accepts the association, writing “I love eugenics” on his dating profile.^[14]

Kozloski, Zervas, and Ash are frightening enough. However, they are not alone in their attempts to reinsert eugenics into the dating market. According to Keeper’s website, 1,470,169 individuals are registered in its database.^[15] While these statistics may be inflated, praise for Keeper on social media speaks for itself. For example, an X user declares: “Kudos to @keeperai… the only dating app company I’ve ever seen that talks accurately about cross-trait assortative mating.”^[16] As Donald Trump and JD Vance mobilize eugenic terminology in their speeches, such as Trump’s use of phrases like “good genes” in Minnesota in 2020, this enables Keeper’s creators to reintroduce Popenoe’s eugenic love. While Keeper’s singles may simply be looking for an alternative to exhausting first dates, the company discreetly perpetuates eugenic love in an American environment in which eugenic language is the norm on the highest stages.

Notes

1. Daniel Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Harvard University Press, 1985; Paul Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008; Alexandra Minna Stern, Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America. University of California Press, 2005; Wendy Kline, Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom. University of California Press, 2001; Laura Lovett, Conceiving the Future: Pronatalism, Reproduction, and the Family in the United States, 1890-1939. The University of North Carolina Press, 2007. ↑
2. Paul Popenoe, “The Practice of Marriage Counseling: Paper Presented to Third International Conference on Planned Parenthood, Bombay, Nov. 24th to Dec 1st, 1952,” The American Institute of Family Relations no. 526: 15. The Paul Bowman Popenoe Papers. The American Heritage Center. The University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY; hereafter, Paul Popenoe Papers. Box 127, Folder 7. ↑
3. Popenoe, “The Practice of Marriage Counseling,” The American Institute of Family Relations no. 526: 15. Paul Popenoe Papers. Box 127, Folder 7. ↑
4. Paul Popenoe, “How Do You Know You’re in Love?” The American Institute of Family Relations no. 26: 2. Paul Popenoe Papers, Box 124, Folder 4. ↑
5. Susan Rensing, “’Falling in Love Intelligently’: Eugenic Love in the Progressive Era,” Journal of Popular Romance Studies 5, no. 2 (July 2016): 1-2. ↑
6. Albert Edward Wiggam, Let’s Explore Your Mind, John F. Dille Company. 1946: 12. ↑
7. Wiggam, Let’s Explore Your Mind, 93. Emphasis in the original. ↑
8. “Questions and Problems-Interracial Marriage.” Paul Popenoe Papers Box 127, Folder 2. ↑
9. Ibid. ↑
10. “Our Values,” https://www.keeper.ai/about., Accessed 2 June 2026. ↑
11. Keeper, “Cross-trait assortative mating is the phenomenon of people choosing partners based on their overall desirability,” X, April 21, 2025. ↑
12. “The Keeper Master Plan,” https://www.keeper.ai/about., Accessed 2 June 2026. ↑
13. Daniel Kevles, “Testing the Army’s Intelligence: Psychologists and the Military in World War I,” The Journal of American History 55, no. 2 (Dec.,1968); John Carson, “Army Alpha, Army Brass and the Search for American Intelligence,” Isis 84, no. 2 (June 1993). ↑
14. Amanda Hess, “Can You Optimize Love?,” The New York Times, 12 Feb., 2026. ↑
15. “FAQs,” https://www.keeper.ai/about., Accessed 9 July 2026. ↑
16. Geoffrey Miller, “Kudos to @keeperai…,” X, April 21, 2025. ↑

---

Featured image courtesy cottonbro studio.