The problem with dating? Your standards might be too high.

Last year, a specific archetype for an ideal boyfriend gained traction online: a Man in Finance. Trust fund. Six-foot-5. Blue eyes. What began as a playful TikTok song from creator Megan Boni became a viral sensation — endlessly memed and remixed until even David Guetta hopped on the track. Aside from its earworm status, “Man in Finance” winked at a wider trend in dating: the standards for what women desire in a romantic partner have reached new heights. Boni later said she was inspired by the complaints of women, herself included, who lament singledom “but then have this laundry list of impossible needs.”

It’s not just heterosexual women who are accused of having impossible standards for their male partners. Certain men seem to harbor a very specific fantasy of how their female partners should look and behave too: look no further than the popularity of the “tradwife” or the fact that late last year, actor Sydney Sweeney was labeled “mid” by a bevy of online male commenters. If Sweeney isn’t good-looking enough, one might wonder, then what woman is?

It should go without saying that maintaining some sort of inventory of qualities you’re looking for is mostly beneficial when choosing a partner. These ideals provide a loose sketch of the type of person you want to date and how you’d like to be treated. There was a time, in the not-too-distant past, where the standard most appropriate for women to have was, “Can he provide enough to ensure we won’t be destitute?” Now, with more freedom, daters want to ensure they align with their partners on values and worldviews. If not, they’re empowered to walk away.

The issue, experts say, is that people who, in theory, want romantic partnership may be delaying commitment until they find a potential partner who checks all of their boxes — even about the most minute things. 

As online dating entered the mainstream, licensed marriage and family therapist Elizabeth Earnshaw observed more clients feeling “disposable” to other singles, all the while becoming just as dismissive of those they were dating. “They might have been thrown away,” she says, “but their behavior is often very much throw-away behavior. They won’t see it that way. They’ll see it as their standards are really high.”

However, singles might end up disappointed when no one measures up. According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, among both straight and queer Americans who reported difficulty dating, 43 percent said it was because they failed to find someone who meets their expectations. “I don’t think that people are realistic at all,” says Daphney Poyser, the CEO, matchmaker, and head dating coach at LGBTQ matchmaking service Fern Connections. “People just think that I’m gonna meet my Prince Charming … and we’re gonna live happily ever after. And it just doesn’t work that way.”

What men — and women — want

Prior to the 20th century, marriage was largely an economic decision and whether or not a prospective spouse could provide, either financially or through unpaid labor, was perhaps the most important romantic standard. Though society — and laws — have changed to allow women to earn an education, own property, hold jobs, and live independently, pairing off with a “provider” remains attractive to women. Over the last 30 years, women have consistently said they value male partners who have good financial prospects, socioeconomic status, ambition, and intelligence. 

Men, on the other hand, consistently aspire to date someone hot. Across the same studies spanning decades, results show men prefer physically attractive mates with “good genes” and “reproductive capacity.” “As a matchmaker,” Poyser says, “I hear a lot of ‘I need someone who’s petite. I want someone who’s younger,’ when it comes to men.”

Raymond Truong, a 27-year-old accountant in Portland, is looking for a woman who is fit, interesting, ambitious, conventionally attractive, and who shares his values. While he’s gone out with a number of women primarily from dating apps — he likes the information he gets up front — only a handful have progressed to second dates. 

Truong has been told his standards are too high, but he doesn’t see the point in lowering them. “In the beginning of my dating I did do that,” he says, “and it felt like a waste of time.” He also wonders if the women he’s seeing have better options than him. 

These good-on-paper ideals, however, do not represent the world in which we live. Although men outnumber and generally outearn women in the workforce, millions of American men of working age are not working nor looking for employment. Compared to men, more young women are enrolled in and graduate from college. More women occupy the  C-suite than a decade ago. And in some metro areas, like New York, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles, young women make more than their male counterparts. This has implications for dating: If women want a man with high earning potential, the pool of potential matches is dwindling. “Women don’t want to be stay-at-home wives, but they still want to feel like they dated well and they married up,” says Arielle Kuperberg, associate professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Meanwhile, female breadwinners tend to inspire stress among their male partners. When wives outearn their husbands, men are increasingly anxious, research shows. “A lot of these men who are not going on to college are often having trouble finding jobs and then resenting women,” says Campbell Leaper, a distinguished professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz.  

Traditional gender roles still dominate dating

One reason for the current state of affairs in dating may be that despite society’s shift toward more egalitarian partnerships, young people still support traditional gender roles. In a 2016 study, both male and female college students said men should be the ones to initiate a date, hold the door open, pay for the date, and propose marriage, while women should take the man’s last name. A 2020 study found that gender stereotypes in first dates, where men are proactive and women are reactive, persist and may create unrealistic expectations. 

Among the LGBTQ people Ellen Lamont, an associate sociology professor at Appalachian State University, spoke to for her book The Mating Game: How Gender Still Shapes How We Date, these gendered expectations are a non-issue. When someone wants to make a move, they do so. “In fact, for certain people I interviewed who had been in heterosexual relationships before coming to identify as LGBTQ,” Lamont says, “they discussed having to unlearn those expectations, and they came to see those expectations as very toxic.”

As for heterosexual singles, even if they say they want an equal relationship, social scripts can be deeply rooted and internalized. Throughout her life, Morgan Moore, 33, observed her parents dote on each other, and watched as her father cheered on her mother when she became the breadwinner. Moore, who works in ad sales in the DC area, yearns for a relationship like her parents — one where values are aligned, and where her future partner “emotionally, physically, financially” takes care of her.

Still, she struggles to find a man who lives up to these standards. “I can’t remember the last time a guy bought me a drink at the bar in my adulthood,” Moore says. While she has no issue approaching men and making the first move, she assumes these prospective partners aren’t serious about a relationship. “The sperm chases the egg,” she says. “You should be coming up to me. You are now, as a man, in your feminine energy and putting me in my masculine energy.” This kind of talk about masculine and feminine energies, it should be noted, is all over social media. 

Earnshaw, the therapist, says the examples of love and romance people observe — whether in culture or in their lives — can shape daters’ beliefs around what they should want or how courtship should look. Many men Earnshaw speaks with, she says, were socialized to approach women first, but they realize that’s no longer the expectation or preference. “You’ve got a generation of people,” Earnshaw says, “who feel very stuck in ‘What the hell is my role supposed to be? Society is telling me I want a more modern way of dealing with this, but my heart and my mind and my socialization are telling me that that’s icky, and so I don’t know what I’m supposed to do here.’”

Standards as protection

So it’s fair to ask: are we all just being too picky? 

Exceedingly high expectations have given way to “red flags” — habits and quirks that are instant dealbreakers. It’s impossible to know whether your date’s penchant for cutting you off mid-sentence may portend deeper issues, but the impulse to self-protect could lead you to write them off anyway. You may be well-meaning in wanting to avoid an unhealthy relationship, but “it’s very hard to build relationships with people if you’re trying to control everything and if you aren’t able to settle into allowing some things to not be perfect,” Earnshaw says. Dating apps, which lay bare plenty of characteristics, from height to dietary preferences, make it easier to choose — or discount — others based on these qualities under the auspices of having standards.

Ironically, the normalization of prioritizing mental health led to greater acceptance of our own flaws and imperfections, Earnshaw says, but less willingness to tolerate that same messiness in others. As a result, minor foibles are filed under red flags and the person possessing them is dubbed as failing to meet your standards. “We’ve made everything toxic when it comes to relationships except ourselves — we’re not toxic,” she says. “We’re wonderful, authentic, should be able to be our full selves. But if somebody isn’t good at texting back, that’s a toxic person.”

On the other hand, standards provide an effective framework for what behavior is and isn’t acceptable to you in a romantic partner. Without them, you may find yourself in an unfulfilling relationship with someone who’s so misaligned or whose actions make you feel disrespected, unheard, or worse, unsafe. In an effort to pair off with someone who shares their values, singles may decide that dating someone of another political party is off limits, which data suggests they are. 

To say nothing of meeting high standards, evidence points to men failing at the basics. In her research, Lamont has found that men are struggling to fulfill women’s baseline expectations: someone who isn’t controlling, someone who believes in reciprocity, someone who will commit. When men fail to clear these hurdles, some women may raise the bar to weed out those who don’t meet the bare minimum.

Kay, a 22-year-old psychology major living in Pensacola, Florida, whose last name is being withheld so she can speak freely about her relationships, feels this lack of effort from some of the men she’s dated. “A lot of men my age seem uninterested in moving forward in life and it’s frustrating because many of them try to hold women back who are focused on advancing their education or career,” she says in an email. “It’s hard to find someone who’s not intimidated by ambition and who is willing to grow alongside me.” While she says financial stability is important in a relationship, she cares more about a potential partner’s values and their willingness to grow together.

Compromise is possible

So what hope do singles with high standards have if they feel the dating pool is full of duds? First, you need to home in on what qualities in a partner really matter and which are non-essential, Poyser, the matchmaker, says. Sure, dating someone with a six-figure salary would be nice, but do they share your values?  

After ending a six-and-a-half-year relationship, Gia Aldisert, a 22-year-old content creator based in Los Angeles, reevaluated what she wanted out of a partner. While she admits her past relationship wasn’t unhealthy, there were some boxes her ex left unchecked, some areas where she felt she was settling. Her current list of standards for a boyfriend includes someone ambitious, who embraces romantic gestures, who makes time for her friends and family, and who wants to show her off. “I feel like a major way that dating as a whole for women [changed] is that they understand their value now and they don’t just settle for the first guy that treats them with the bare minimum,” Aldisert says.

Standards are only as good as your ability to reciprocate, Poyser says. If you hope to date someone who prioritizes their career, you should be able to say the same about yourself. “If I’m going to say I want someone who is kind and thoughtful,” Poyser says, “then I need to be kind and thoughtful too.”

You may also want to interrogate the source of your expectations, especially ones rooted in established gender roles. Singles shouldn’t be ashamed to admit to themselves if they do yearn for more stereotypical dating scripts, such as a man pursuing a woman, Earnshaw says. But you might also come to the realization that you were socialized to believe you desired these traditional dating roles. In reality, many relationships will have some combination of “traditional” and modern: a woman may not care that she outearns the men she dates, but she would like a long-term partner who cares for the lawn and the car. “Just lean into it,” Earnshaw says. “You want traditional? Fine. You’ll find somebody out there that’s like that, but then you have to be willing to lean into that. If you want to be the one to talk to this guy in the bar … then you got to do it.”

Standards can help guide your romantic choices, but they’re best utilized once you have a fair assessment of the person you’re dating. Paul Eastwick, a psychology professor at the University of California, Davis, says we generally don’t have a good read on someone until the third date — so don’t immediately write them off if you’re not instantly physically attracted or felt their jokes were lacking. “I usually recommend people do three dates in three totally different places,” he says. “Actually give people chances and try to do fun things that you would do anyway.”

But maybe it’s time to unburden yourself from the tyranny of rigid standards anyway. In one of his studies, Eastwick and his collaborators found that while participants tended to be romantically attracted to people who had the qualities they were looking for in an ideal partner, they were equally as attracted to people who had qualities other study participants listed as ideal. In other words, what we think we want in a romantic partner doesn’t matter so much. 

So keep your standards as a north star, a path from which you don’t want to stray too far. But as a checklist for the perfect partner? Unfortunately, the 6-foot-5, blue-eyed trust fund man in finance — who’s also kind and doting and funny — probably doesn’t exist.