Dating standards · a practical read
Are My Dating Standards Too High?
Almost nobody who asks this has standards that are simply "too high". The problem is usually narrower: one or two parts of the bar are rigid, and nobody has re-read the list in years.
The question behind the question
People rarely ask this out of nowhere. It usually arrives after a run of first dates that went nowhere, a dry stretch on the apps, or one comment from a friend that landed badly. The question sounds like it is about height, income or a jawline, but it is really about evidence: what would have to be true for you to conclude the bar is wrong?
That is the useful reframe. A standard is not a moral position and it is not a personality trait — it is a working rule for spending your time. Rules can be evaluated. If a rule produces the outcomes you want, keep it. If it produces months of nothing and you cannot say what evidence would change your mind, it is not a standard anymore; it is a habit with good branding.
Five tests you can run this week
None of these require lowering anything. They are diagnostic: each one tells you whether a given item on your list is doing real work or just occupying space.
The tests are deliberately cheap. You can run all five in an evening with a notebook, and each produces a yes/no rather than a feeling.
The friend test
Say the item out loud to a friend you trust, in the plainest possible words: "I will not date anyone who has not read a book in the last year." If saying it plainly makes you wince, the item is probably inherited rather than chosen — something you absorbed from a peer group, a parent or a corner of the internet rather than decided for yourself.
This test does not tell you to drop the item. It tells you whether you actually believe it. Items you believe survive being said out loud; items you merely repeat usually do not.
The swap test
Ask what you would accept in exchange for the item. If someone met every other thing you want and missed this one, would you still meet them? If the answer is an immediate no for every single item on your list, the list is not a set of preferences — it is a wall, and walls have exactly one outcome.
The swap test also exposes the items that are really about fear. "No one who is still friends with an ex" is often less about the ex and more about a bad experience. That is worth knowing, because fear-driven rules tend to expand over time.
The two-column test
Write two columns: what you ask for, and what you offer in the same area. Not to shame yourself — to check arithmetic. Most people have never put the two lists side by side, and the result is usually not "I want too much" but "I had not noticed that I am asking for a different trade than the one I am offering".
Trade does not have to be symmetrical to be fair. It has to be legible: you should be able to say what the other person gets out of the arrangement. If you cannot name it, the gap is your negotiation room, not a verdict on your worth.
The exception test
Give one exception a real chance once a month: two messages and one short, low-cost date with someone who misses one item on the list. Not to prove the list wrong — to collect data. If nothing changes after the date, the item earned its place and you can keep it with more confidence than before.
If something does change, you have learned that the rule was a habit. That is the single most common finding in this exercise, and it is worth more than any amount of advice from strangers about lowering your standards.
The cost test
Every filter has a price in time and options. "Must be over six feet" is not expensive in a dense city and very expensive in a small town. "Must want children in the next two years" is cheap if you are 31 and dating people who want the same, and brutal if you are 24 and dating people who do not.
Price the item against your actual pool rather than an imagined one. That single change — from "is this reasonable?" to "what does this cost me here?" — turns a moral argument into a decision you can make.
A preference, a filter and a rule
These three get used interchangeably and they behave very differently. A preference is a tiebreaker. A filter is a screening question. A rule is a refusal to look. Only two of the three are compatible with meeting anyone new.
The point of the table below is not to convince you that filters are bad. Filters are efficient. The problem is a filter that was written years ago, never reviewed, and is now doing the work of a personality.
What "too high" actually looks like
The word "high" is a red herring. Plenty of people with demanding lists are content and meeting people; plenty of people with modest lists are stuck. What separates them is not the height of the bar but four observable patterns.
First, rejection happens on a single trait rather than a pattern. Second, every story about why it ended sounds the same. Third, the list grows after each bad date instead of being revised. Fourth, you cannot name a single person you know who meets the whole list — not a celebrity, someone you have actually met.
What "high but workable" looks like
A workable standard has four properties. It is explainable in one sentence without jargon. It is based on evidence from your own life rather than a general theory about people. It is revisable when evidence changes. And it is priced: you know roughly what it costs you in time and options, and you have decided the cost is worth it.
Notice that none of those properties is a number. That is deliberate. The useful question was never "how high", it was "how load-bearing".
What to do in the next 30 days
Write your list down — the whole thing, including the items you would not say to a friend. Cut it to five items you could defend out loud. Run the exception test on the item you are least sure about. Then decide, once, how many hours a week you will spend looking, and hold that number steady so urgency has somewhere to go other than your standards.
That is the entire intervention. It is unglamorous, it takes an evening, and it is more than most people ever do. The six-question test on this site exists to show you which of the six parts of your bar is doing the most filtering, so you can start there instead of rewriting everything at once.
| Type | What it is | Example | What it costs | How to test it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preference | A tiebreaker between two good options | "I tend to click with people who read" | Almost nothing | Nothing to test — keep it |
| Filter | A screening question with a reason attached | "Must want children; I do" | Shrinks the pool, on purpose | Ask whether the reason is still true |
| Rule | A refusal to look, usually inherited | "No one under 5'10"" | Options, silently, for years | Run the swap and exception tests |
Four things worth keeping
- High standards are not the problem; unreviewed ones are. Review is a habit, not a one-off decision.
- If no possible new evidence would change an item, it is no longer a standard — it is an identity claim, and it will be defended rather than examined.
- Price every filter against your real pool, not an imagined one. The same item can be cheap in one city and ruinous in another.
- Change one lever at a time for a month. Rewriting the whole list at once produces regret, not information.
Before you use any result
- Entertainment & self-insight only. Not medical, psychological, or dermatological advice.
- The Score is a weak geometric signal. It does not predict matches, dates, replies, or your worth.
- Estimated with a lightweight on-device geometry heuristic — not a 478-landmark clinical measurement.
- Your free result is never blurred, locked, or held back.
- For adults 18+. Lost your report? Enter your email and we will resend the links.
Next step
See which part of your list is doing the filtering
Six questions, no photo, no score for you as a person. Then decide what to change — or keep the list and raise the effort instead.
One payment. No subscription, no auto-renewal, nothing to cancel. If we can't measure it honestly, we say so — before you pay.
Frequently asked questions
Are my standards too high if I get no matches?
Not necessarily. No matches is more often a photo, bio or platform problem than a standards problem — those decide whether anyone sees you at all, while standards decide what happens after they do. Fix the visible layer first, then evaluate the bar.
Is it bad to have a physical type?
No. Having a type is normal and often accurate about what you enjoy. It becomes costly when the type functions as a gate: no date with anyone outside it, ever. Keep the type as a tiebreaker and test it as a filter once a month.
Should I lower my standards to find someone?
We would not frame it as lowering. The useful move is removing items that were never really yours, and pricing the ones that are. Some people end up with a shorter list; some end up with the same list and a clearer reason for it. Both are fine outcomes.
How do I know if a dealbreaker is reasonable?
Two questions. Would I accept this in a close friend? And is it about safety and values, or about preference? Safety and values are legitimate dealbreakers. Preferences are legitimate too, but they belong lower down the list and they should be cheap to hold.
What if my standards come from my family or culture?
Then say so out loud, and decide whether you are choosing them or inheriting them. Inherited standards are not automatically wrong — many are load-bearing for a reason. They just need to be a decision rather than a default.
Does this test tell me my standards are too high?
No. It tells you which of six parts of your bar is doing the most filtering, and gives you three things to test. Whether a given standard is worth keeping is a decision only you can make, with better information than a quiz can supply.
Read next: Dating standards test · Dating market value · Dating Report
Please read this before you use the result
- Entertainment & self-insight only. Not medical, psychological, or dermatological advice.
- The Score is a weak geometric signal. It does not predict matches, dates, replies, or your worth.
- Estimated with a lightweight on-device geometry heuristic — not a 478-landmark clinical measurement.
Optional, never required
Want the free Photo Checklist instead?
Ten fixes you can make in an afternoon, as a single PDF. We send one honest tip a week — no anxiety marketing, no data selling.
We use double opt-in for The List: we only add you after you confirm the link in the email. The checklist itself arrives right away, whether you tick the box or not. Read our Privacy Policy.
No thanks, take me to the report → see the report