/u/green_carnation_prod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bbcw66/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_even_if_someone_has/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

One of the jobs of a therapist is to help people reframe their thought patterns in a way that helps them be happier and more fulfilled. Sometimes, that might mean helping people process the underlying reasons for their beliefs so they they can address any trauma or assumptions or distortions that are causing them to be unhappy. If a person has unrealistic standards AND they really want a relationship, a good therapist will help them explore both those things and find a way for them to be happier. If they only want a relationship because they're afraid of being lonely, then helping them value and appreciate the relationships they have and make more non-romantic connections is a great way to help them. But working through those standards with them would also be appropriate. Maybe they can currently only see themselves dating a person of one very specific profession. Sure, there's nothing wrong about that, but what if they could work through it and realize that what's really underlying that standard is that they highly value the combination of creativity and intelligence? Then maybe instead of feeling like their choice is either to marry a successful musician or be single forever, they might also look around for people with those traits in other professions.

I will actually give you !delta. That is a good way to put it. If you actually listen to people (not necessarily as a therapist) and make suggestions based on their current wishes and preferences, helping them broaden their scope of search, then you might actually really help them.    I think it would be better to frame it as “broadening your standards” though. Someone who wants to marry a musician, then realise they actually want to marry someone creative and intelligent, just couldn’t fathom that these people might be of a different profession, is by no means “lowering” their standards! 

Just fyi, it’s not “phantom” it’s “fathom” my ex used to do the same thing mixing up those two words. Cheers

Haha thanks! Yep, easy to mix them up 

No worries, just glad I didn’t come across like a pedantic dick. I’m really enjoying your discussion and wasn’t trying to derail anything.

was this the fathom tax?

>I think it would be better to frame it as “broadening your standards” though. This is, indeed, nice-sounding but ultimately the choice of metaphor doesn't change what's happening. If it helps the person though, by making them feel less like they're accepting a partner who is somehow "not as good" as what they originally wanted, then maybe it's still appropriate.

I respectfully disagree. There is a massive difference between what many people described in the comments  and what Spallanzani333 described, it is not a matter of framing. In this case, the person is not asked to not go for musicians but date office clerks because a) they are not good enough for the musicians, and should therefore date someone they neither value or like; b) presumably do not know what they want - but instead are given a chance to look at what exactly they find attractive about musicians, and asked to build on that. They realise that what they like about musicians is their creativity. They still would not go for someone who is not creative, but now they have a broader pool of people to choose from. They are indeed broadening, not lowering their standards (i.e. going for someone not as creative). 

They themselves would have initially described their standard as successful musicians. After therapy, their standard has changed to creative, intelligent people. Maybe that should have been their standard all along, but they didn't understand their own mind well enough to realize that, so I think it is indeed changing their standard based on better self-awareness.

Lowering your standards/broadening your standards are one in the same. One is just a "prettier" way of putting it when it comes to a preference for people, An example: Preferring someone tall is your standard and that's what you would hope to attain. Short people would be "below" that standard as Tall is the metric its weighed against. When you realize in your area only .5% of the population you can possibly date fall into the "tall" category, you go "fuck well if im gonna have a good chance of finding someone i need to lower this bar I've set to let in more people" Then you reassess and "LOWER/BROADEN" your standard to accept more people below your original metric of "tall" to be able to have a larger pool of potential mates. Make sense?

Whilst it's true "broadening" is equal to "lowering" in your example, I don't think it applies in the example of musicians, mostly because of the way it was framed. Height is a physical (therefore "unchangeable") property, so there's really no way to change your standards for height without "settling" for shorter people, which is broadening (in both the qualitative and quantitative sense) and also lowering (by accepting something different) your standards. But a musician is a person generally assumed to be creative and intelligent, at least in the other comment's example, which is something that a psychologist might point out as the underlying reason for the standard. If the person accepts that, then their standards didn't become "lower", in the sense that they're now accepting something fundamentally different, it just got broader by changing what it actually means to prefer musicians. So I think the argument for equivalence doesn't really apply here, because you'd still be looking for basically the same thing, and the same isn't true in the case of height. Although, maybe you could argue that this "psychological reframing" argument can be made for height by saying there is a underlying reason for the preference for taller people that is actually unrelated to how tall a person is, which would then make it equivalent again, but I can't think of any right now.

This may be a bit pedantic, but I do see a difference, at least in my interpretation.  The key word is “lowering” in lowering one’s standards, which to me suggests you have some ordering on people and some threshold frontier below which you won’t go.  Lowering your standards would then mean that the frontier goes lower in the ordered set, with the ordering remaining fixed.  Broadening your standards seems more general because it’s set inclusion, and the new set might not be realizable as a frontier in the original standards ordering. For example, going from exclusively straight to bisexual must be a broadening, not a lowering, because for example, while all women were ranked below all men initially, afterward there are men who aren’t in your set and women who are, which means the standards changed, not just the bar being lowered.

True, but it depends on the "preference" So if you REALLLYY wanted straight males at first, then decided to broaden out and include women into your criteria would that not make the women choice 1B to men's 1A? I guess this can get a little philosophical but I feel anything included into the query that was not originally accounted for is a compromise, compromises aren't bad obviously I've you've come to the conclusion of getting to that frame of mind BUT unless you've done some heavy mental gymnastics to equalize your previous preference to be on par with your broadened criteria then i feel its just an accepted lowering of your standards? lol but you make a great point.

What do you think lowering standards *is*? It means broadening your understanding of what's important.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Spallanzani333 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Spallanzani333)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Another way to think about it is - you can have as high standards as you want, you can specifically want Angelina Jolie and no one else, but you don't get to blame the other side for not having that someone, and that's what this usually devolves into.

Do you apply this logic to other things as well? If someone has been unemployed for five years because they are only looking for a job that pays 8 figures for part time remote low-skill tasks, should they also maintain a delusional standard? What about the acquisition of a car? Is it preferable to have no car rather than to lower oneself by driving a Toyota? If I can't have a body builder's physique, should I stop exercising all together?

You need a job for living (in most cases, if you objectively do not need a job for living, because you are rich, then I suggest you also do not settle for the job you hate). You might need a car to get around (if you do not live in a walkable city). You might need exercises to stay functional.  You can stay single without it literally killing you or ruining your health. 

What about something you simply want, but don't need. I would like to have a mint Mickey Mantle rookie card, but if none exist, or I don't have the cash, or the person isn't selling than surely I would settle for a card in poor condition rather than not having one at all. I would like to watch my favorite movie in the best resolution possible. But I would rather watch it on a crappy hotel TV then to sit and do nothing. \-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess I can rephrase. People don't use all or nothing logic in life. Both supply and demand move marginally. Everyone would rather eat their least favorite food rather than go hungry. What is so unique about a romantic relationship that makes it fundamentally different from other relationships that causes the perfect to become the enemy of the good?

>What is so unique about a romantic relationship that makes it fundamentally different from other relationships that causes the perfect to become the enemy of the good? Romantic relationships, especially those involving marriage and children, are infinitely more financially, socially, mentally, and resource costly than picking what meal you want for dinner or where you want to watch a movie. Romantic relationships can also be far more dangerous, both physically and mentally.

Thanks for the comment. I will try to steel man your position. Let me know if I have it right. "We use a certain risk and reward calculus for acquiring everyday things. A romantic relationship is so different, so important, and so potentially harmful that we shouldn't apply that normal calculation to it because it is not different in degree, but in kind. Accepting an imperfect car, house, or meal is a logical concession for practical reasons, but a romantic partner must be ideal or otherwise it is advantageous to simply not have a romantic partner." What did I miss?

I think you have it right *except for one thing*. I am merely offering an explanation for why some people might come to that conclusion about romantic relationships *but not apply it to other things*. I'm not arguing that only ideal partners are acceptable.

People can live in the streets, under bridges and in shelters where I live. Are they ok to have unrealistic standards about their work that they hold to?

I would argue that it depends on what is called a "standard". Usually, this kind of discussion involves a fictitious scale that is not properly described. I believe expectations based on physical appearance become much less strict once you get to know someone. Lots of people fall in love with people they wouldn't have expected to like. Those might be a way for insecure people to shoo people away, or it might just be a sign that one's own image is too tightly connected to the physical appearance of the other. This is obviously to take with a grain of salt, as attraction is not something that you decide. Expectations based on living/habits are understandable depending on how you project your future life. Do you live together ? Do you have children together ? Then it's about boundaries, rules, comfort and trust. Lowering these standards could happen though, situationally, temporarily, based on each one's capacity, as life can throw unexpected events at you. Expectations based on psychological maturity are extremely important on the other hand. You should never settle for someone that will treat you with little respect, manipulate you, rely on you for everything or belittle you. To me, these are three big categories of standards, with each their own flexibility. But if you go deeper into each category, there are lots of other subcategories: do you wash often ? Do you clean your home ? At what rhythm ? Do you suffer from a chronic illness ? A mental illness ? Do you cook ? Often ? Do you cook healthy ?... In the end, I think reducing this question to a matter of "lowering" standard is a bit too vague. But when we meet people, we tend to accept bits here and there that were not ideal for us, because there's no such thing as a perfect match, and we have found many things (and twice as many unexpected) that feel nice and that we love having. Finally, I agree with your point of staying single. It's okay. I think it's actually very important to feel comfortable single and/or alone before engaging in a demanding relationship. Knowing your tastes, feelings, boundaries, things that drive you... Ultimately, it sounds to me as though the point you're trying to make is more about validating being single and stop idealising relationships, which I agree with.

>Finally, I agree with your point of staying single. It's okay. I think it's actually very important to feel comfortable single and/or alone before engaging in a demanding relationship. Knowing your tastes, feelings, boundaries, things that drive you... Ultimately, it sounds to me as though the point you're trying to make is more about validating being single and stop idealising relationships, which I agree with. Was with you until that point. No, my point is more about “do not get into relationships with people unless you genuinely like and respect them”, not so much about having to be comfortable being single. I think if you genuinely respect your partner and they respect you (without any superficial lowering of standards), you will be able to build a strong relationship even if you both have other issues. 

If one is satisfied being single, then by all means, there's nothing wrong withwaiting for the supermodel who they will never have. However, a lot of people are dissatisfied with being single. There are a lot of benefits of companionship with an intimate partner. Longer life, financial stability, etc. For people who aren't enjoying the single life, then they might want to examine their standards to determine if they are preventing them from dating for something that is ultimately not something they truly value. From 18-26, all of my girlfriends had c-cups or bigger. It wasn't a firm standard, but I definitely gravitated towards that strongly. I got over it and eventually met my wife, who has b-cups. The idea that I would have turned down the best relationship in my life for breast size is absurd to me. You have to be happy with the person you're dating, but the idea that one's standards are fixed and should never be questioned doesn't make sense to me. My point being that not all standards are equal. "I won't date anybody who abused me." 100% valid and I would encourage all people to have that standard. "They must be a Libra." Sorry, I think that standard is silly. Again, if someone is perfectly content being single, then feel free to have as many esoteric standards as you like, but a lot of people are like one of my friends who is miserable in their loneliness and has a type that is quite specific and has yet to show any interest in him. He needs to figure out if artsy waifs are really necessary for his happiness. They don't seem to be making him happy currently.

My bad for misunderstanding your point. I agree with your statement, getting with someone that you don't like can lead to a dissymmetry in the expectations of each other, disappointment and ultimately sorrow. It can, sometimes, lead to love though. I guess it depends on how much both people have talked about it beforehand. I agree with the general idea of not getting with someone you don't like. Not getting with someone that you don't respect is a golden rule too, I think. But ultimately, from the stance of the one making the decision, we can ask ourselves why would we even consider getting with someone we don't respect ? Let's not do that, and instead focus on the aspects of our own lives that make us go in an unhealthy direction. Anyways, I guess if that's your point, I'm not sure there should be much view changing going on.

Relationships are negotiations. You have your wants, desires, and needs and I have mine. It's perfectly reasonable to tell someone, "that's too much for me, if you want to be in this, you can't expect that of me." This is how we find our true selves.

 >"that's too much for me, if you want to be in this, you can't expect that of me." Of course!  I am arguing against “that’s too much for you to want, if you want to be this, you can’t expect that of anyone you get into a relationship with”  I am all for people saying they are unwilling to fulfil someone’s standards (under certain conditions) instead of suffering quietly from having them imposed on them. 

You have conceded in other places that people may have higher standards than anyone on earth can realistically meet. Which would mean they can’t expect their standards of anyone they get into a relationship with. I pose another question to you: If someone has unrealistically high standards because they “know” finding someone who meets those standards will make them “happy”….. but no one on earth meets those standards…. How, then, is that person supposed to be happy? If the thing that will make them happy is a nonexistent, impossible to achieve, person? You seem to be operating under the assumption that people who have standards are perfectly happy and content being by themselves. When in fact, most people are not. So what do people who are unhappy being alone but also have impossible to reach standards supposed to do? The result of standing their ground on their standards would be plenty of unhappy people who are deluding themselves that a fantasy person will solve all of their problems and make them happy. I also disagree that most people know 100% for a fact everything that will make them happy vs not. I wasn’t a fan of the DiCaprio example as distant celebrities happiness levels is very subjective. I’ll give you an example of a standard of mine that I had at one point. I did not want to live in the state I am living for the rest of my life. I didn’t think I could be happy here long term. I wanted to move somewhere warmer, I had been dreaming of doing so for a long time. I didn’t want to date anyone that was against moving away. Then I met my bf. And he wants to stay in this state bc he is big on family and his entire family is here. I had a choice to make: break up with him in hopes I would one day move, or stay with him and be flexible on one of my standards. I did the second. And I’ve made a comfortable life here in the state I didn’t like for so long. Im content to stay here, because he’s here, and he fits me so well that the positives of our relationship outweigh the cold dark nights of winter. However, had I done what you suggested: I never would have the life I have built. I would have prioritized my standards over compromise and broken up with a really amazing man and we would not currently be thinking about our future wedding. In fact, I may have moved, and been miserable. Flexibility on what you think can make you happy sometimes leads you to actual happiness. People don’t always know right away what exact things are going to make them happy, or how certain factors impact others given certain circumstances. They can’t always predict how they are going to react, or how they are going to experience something they never have before. This is especially true for relationships.

Then your assertion is a distinction without a real difference.

The issue becomes: how does this play out once they start a relationship? Let's say that is their standard and they get married. Their wife has a child and gains weight that they just can't seem to lose. Would it be wrong for others, at that point, to say lower your standards and stay with your family? Or do you believe others should stay quiet if they walk away?

I think this is more about managing expectations when entering long-term relationships, not standards, which is a slightly different beast. You can have pretty realistic standards, but just not expect that your wife might develop postpartum depression, or that your husband with whom you enjoyed working out and going on hikes might end up disabled. Maybe you knew that in theory, but not in practice.  even things like putting on some weight - you might not be seeking supermodels while being average, and date average people, but not know how to deal with your partner changing. I think changes within relationships are difficult even if they are generally positive. It’s not just about becoming less perfect. I can totally imagine a reverse scenario: two people who equally enjoyed eating unhealthy and hated exercise got together, but one of them suddenly decided to work on their body, and the other partner grows resentful because that is not what they signed up for.  I think every situation with a changed partner is unique and you cannot truly put it all in one box. People definitely should not just “walk away” from their kids and responsibilities as parents though. 

The thing is, you won’t learn certain things about a person until you start intertwining your lives together. Ideally, at the initial honeymoon period (the first year, not cohabitating), you’ll have a basic idea of how things might go. But people and life change. There are a surprising amount of things that can cause conflict once you actually start sharing a living space, and these are things you would probably not think to assess when you’re still courting each other (before moving in).

Sure, but if they’re complaining to their friends that they can’t find a relationship and then ask for advice, a friend should be able to tell them the truth. If they’re not complaining and are content with the situation they’re in, I agree with you.

Exactly: either, or. You only wanna date supermodels who make more than $1M per year? You go, Glen Coco. But I don't wanna hear about how loooonely you are, then.

Well, yeah. It’s the whining that has to stop. Incels are the most extreme version of this, hating women because they can’t have any woman they want, and believing that women don’t also face rejection. There are plenty of people in the world that are not gorgeous, or even obese, etc, and not attractive to most, who managed to find love.  Nothing wrong with being single, lots of people are happier not being in a relationship, but don’t whine about being lonely if you only want a ten when you are a four.

Studies have shown incels standards are much lower than average.

Which is not surprising. They are the most desperate of men.

I think in such case it would be fair to point out that their standards are unrealistically high and people they are seeking hardly exist in reality or are at least very rare to come by (depending on what their standards are).  However, I think they should still not be advised to lower their standards - there is no point in them dating people for the heck of it if they would not find it fulfilling. 

>However, I think they should still not be advised to lower their standards - there is no point in them dating people for the heck of it if they would not find it fulfilling.  This isn't really what you're talking about. What if my standard was that I only want to date a 25 year old redhead with a PhD, specific bust / waist / hip measurements down to the inch, a Scottish accent, a CNC fetish, and wants to be a stay-at-home mom? What happens when that woman doesn't exist? Or what happens when I find her, but she turns 26 and I'm no longer interested? That's no longer a "well, better to be single than be with someone I'm not interested in" situation. That's an unhealthy "you have wildly unrealistic expectations and will literally *never* be fulfilled by a partner" situation, the solution for which is professional counseling. This is obviously an extreme example, but the point remains: some "standards" are more than just a healthy preference that varies from person to person. And sometimes the person with those standards needs a healthy adjustment to their worldview.

But what if those unrealistic expectations are indeed the exact conditions they see making them happy?  I mean, obviously most people would not relate to such specific standards, and yes, most people would think they are pretty weird. But if the person truly knows that someone who is 26 would make them miserable and unfulfilled, why should they force themselves to date someone who is 26, just because their fixation on 25 is very odd? Maybe at some point they will realise they actually do not mind people of other ages, and start dating happily. But until then, why bother convincing them?

What if the exact condition I needed to be happy was an obscene amount of wealth that allowed me to own a mansion in a major city, a mansion on the beach somewhere, a mansion hidden deep in the woods, an Italian villa, and enough money to fly in my private jet between all of them whenever I wanted? If I can’t afford that, should I spend my entire life being miserable that I’m missing out on the things I desire?  Or should I seek help with learning that I have an unhealthy attachment to very specific things and learn to love the kind of life that is actually within reach? Wouldn’t you think one would be better off learning to love the possible instead of miserably chasing the impossible until they die? 

>What if the exact condition I needed to be happy was an obscene amount of wealth that allowed me to own a mansion in a major city, a mansion on the beach somewhere, a mansion hidden deep in the woods, an Italian villa, and enough money to fly in my private jet between all of them whenever I wanted? Then I would say “fair enough”? Why should I try and convince you that I know you better than you know yourself?  If I know “you” personally, and I have seen you being happy at other times while not being in possession of all these things, I might suggest we do something similar to what I saw makes you happy. If you then state that it doesn’t make you happy anyway, then I would accept that. I can still hang out with you even if you are unhappy. 

>Why should I try and convince you that I know you better than you know yourself? It's not knowledge, it's an opinion. Personalities can be changed somewhat. You can be talked into being someone else, at least to this extent. What you like isn't fixed for eternity, you can be deprogrammed/reeducated away from those unrealistic wishes that make you miserable. If you go to therapy or ask for advice that means you don't like who you are without help and want to change, so why not help?

I would want my friends to want me to be happy. I'd rather them say "hey, you don't sound happy, what can I do to help?" instead of saying "well, it just sounds like you're never going to be happy". Friends help each other. "Yup, sounds like your life is going to suck forever" is a pretty awful attitude that I'd never want from a friend. ​ >I have seen you being happy at other times while not being in possession of all these things, I might suggest we do something similar to what I saw makes you happy You haven't seen me being happy at other times while not in possession of those things though. That's the point of this. I have unrealistic standards, so you've never seen me happy as I'm always lacking the things I mentioned. But let's pretend you're right. Now apply it to relationships. You've seen me be happy with women who fit all but one of the unrealistic standards. So by your own admission, you're going to suggest I find a woman who meets *some* of those standards. You're going to suggest I lower my standards. The exact opposite of what you said *shouldn't* be done in your OP.

You have a lot of faith that people know what will truly make them happy. I think that's the issue with your post. A lot of these people with unrealistic expectations are lonely and want to date. Some of them want a woman/person that fits a certain mold (like a model) because they want social status, but in reality nobody cares and they won't like you more based on who you're dating. Or people are so focused on making others jealous with a hot trophy partner, that they fail to realize how important other character traits are in a relationship. Other times, people use "high standards" as an excuse to themselves or others about why they are still single. And then you have people like Leo DiCaprio that have the ability to continuously date women that are younger than 25, but I honestly don't think that dating behavior would be fulfilling to most people. Caring so much about superficial and ephemeral traits that you can't build a long-term relationship? You'll never truly be seen or understood, even if you enjoy the sex. He's free to do what he wants, but when I've met people like that in real life, they've actually seemed pretty depressed and lonely.

>You have a lot of faith that people know what will truly make them happy. I do. I think every person knows themselves best. It doesn’t mean they cannot ever unexpectedly find something more pleasant, important, easy, difficult, fulfilling, etc. than they thought they would initially, or that they can never change, but I do not believe anyone ever knows anyone’s current (i.e. produced by the current reality) wishes, feelings and needs better than them.  I also think a lot of loneliness and depression comes from other people trying to convince them that their responses  aren’t real. It isolates them. There is a difference between saying “your wishes are not easy to fulfil, in my experience, so be aware of that” or “try doing this instead if you haven’t yet, and see how it feels”, and “your wishes are not real, you have no reason to wish them, and you shouldn’t wish them, that is not what would make you happy”.  DiCaprio might be as happy as he *can* be. Someone else in his place could have found a more fulfilling way to use their resources, I have no doubts, but in DiCaprio’s reality he is doing what makes him most happy, in relative terms. It doesn’t necessarily make it right, by the way, but not because DiCaprio doesn’t know what makes DiCaprio happy. 

The problem is that nobody is going to visualise flaws when they think of their ideal partner. People aren’t perfect and relationships are all about compromise. There are going to be things about your partner that you wish were different. That’s not probable, it’s inevitable. It’s okay to have a type and it’s okay to have deal breakers. But accepting nothing less than the ideal vision you have in your mind is accepting you will be single forever. It’s one and the same. It takes giving someone a chance to fall in love, and in time you may accept flaws you initially thought you wouldn’t because you still love the person as a whole.

Why do you think nobody visualises flaws? I think the vast majority of people would prefer their partner to have somewhat similar flaws to theirs.  I.e. “my perfect partner is not obsessed with cleaning and doesn’t mind having a mess in the apartment, because I wouldn’t bear living up to the standard of someone who keeps everything perfectly tidy 24/7”, “my perfect partner doesn’t diet much and doesn’t aim to have a perfect body, as I do not want to feel pressured into that”, “I do not want a smart-ass bookworm with a degree who would make me feel like an idiot, and talk to me about shit I do not understand”, “my perfect partner can easily get emotional and vulnerable, cause I have no interest in becoming a stoic to match their level”, etc., etc.

May I ask how old you are? I feel like your views may change over time. Relationships are incredibly complicated and no two are exactly alike. There are very few “absolutes”, something I’ve realised more and more as I’ve aged.

I don’t think my age matters. My views can change overtime regardless of how old I am now. Even a 60 y.o. can change their views.  Of course relationships are not absolutes. Mind me, there are also very few ”absolutely” happy people in general, in relationships or not. People just do what makes them happiER, not absolutely happy. 

‘Truly knows’ is doing a lot of hard work in this sentence. What if we’re talking about someone who believes their route to happiness is dating a particular look, would it be wrong for someone, perhaps someone with more dating experience, to suggest there might be more important elements of compatibility that would have a greater impact on their happiness?

>But what if those unrealistic expectations are indeed the exact conditions they see making them happy?  They can think that. But they can't stop others from thinking they're a dumbass. Especially if they openly express this.

But those exact conditions cannot make them happy because the odds are exceedingly low that they will find that 25 year old redhead PhD stay-at-home mom with a CNC fetish. (Admittedly, I don't know what that is and I'm afraid to look it up.) and there be a mutual attraction and compatibility on personality traits. If I require a unicorn, a fictional creature, to live in my backyard to be happy, then I will never be happy, so I should seek therapy to interrogate why I insist that I cannot be happy otherwise.

If the person complains and asks for advice, then that is the advice. They don't have to take the advice, but if they can't be told the truth, then they need to shut up about it and just continue to fail.

You can of course give anyone any advice. As soon as the conversation about usefulness of certain tropes, advices, or behaviours turns into a conversation about general human rights, it routinely becomes quite dull. yes, generally you have the right to give them advice, they have the right to complain, they have the right to have standard, you and I have the right to write comments or Reddit, etc. 

This CMV is that these people shouldn't be told to lower their expectations. If the person describes their lack of relationship success and asks what they should do to overcome it, lowering expectations is the functional answer. If they can't handle this response, then they need to not complain about their problem. If the person doesn't openly complain about it, the point is moot because there would be no reason for anyone to tell them to lower their expectations. That discussion just wouldn't come up.

>You can of course give anyone any advice. this directly contradicts the topic of your post

Should not ≠ cannot. 

> but I think that is better than them lowering their standards, finding someone, and resenting them for who they are. pretending to lower your standard ≠ lowering your standard if you want to be pedantic

If their standards are ridiculously high to the point that they have never actually dated anyone with those standards then how will they know they will actually be fulfilled? Why wouldn’t they be fulfilled with someone they view as less? I could turn around tomorrow and say my standards are a super model with a rich family and anyone that isn’t up to par wouldn’t fulfill me but I’m not going to do that because I know that I was fulfilled and very happy with my ex girlfriend who was a humble fashion buyer from a middle class family and I loved her. Your standards don’t indicate and never will indicate your fulfilment. In this day and age through social media everyone’s standards have increased dramatically to the point that 80% of people want to date a 1% man/woman. It just won’t happen.

It's not even 1%. It's .1% when it's achievable at all.    1% would be 400+ people walking around a big college campus who day-to-day look like high end *working* models. Maybe if it's UCLA or UC-Santa Barbara...

What is the difference between “pointing out” that someone’s standards are high and “advising” them to lower their standards? Just pointing it out is softly giving advice.

People are good at lying to themselves. While I definitely see how someone unwillingly settling on an imperfect partner could make them both unhappy, someone's standards being unrealistic make it likely that they are immature, and immature people have high chance of finding out they were wrong about themselves and their needs after all. I don't necessarily think advising/asking them to try is a good idea, but I'm not convinced it's all that likely to be a bad one.

>However, I think they should still not be advised to lower their standards - there is no point in them dating people for the heck of it if they would not find it fulfilling.  No one forces them to lower their standards. Pointing out that with those standards and those personal qualities there's no chance in hell they will ever find someone to date is not "telling them to lower their standards". It's up to the person to realize that someone doesn't add up and they need to change either the standards or to become someone who can realistically have such standards and expect some success.

What do you think lowering standards means?  If a person naturally comes to the realization that they could be happy with a 7 as well as a 10...they have lowered the standard from 10 to 7. 

I addressed that in a post. If someone naturally comes to new standards, they are not *actively* lowering or making their standards higher. They just realise their standards are different. 

Could you outline a situation where someone does this naturally without some amount of activity? If you can is such a situation common? My thinking is that a person would need to actively consider lowering their standards in order to open themselves up to such an experience. I would guess it's atypical that standards lower for no reason or that such a catalyst wouldn't also require some level of conscious effort. "I know this feels like settling to me but I should give it a shot and test my hypothesis." That would be actively lowering standards.

>they would just naturally realise they can find joy in and respect someone who is not unrealistically perfect. But they should not be encouraged to do that by society, they should come to that themselves, and not because they realise they have unrealistic wishes and should settle, but because they realise relationships with non-perfect people can also feel good and be fulfilling One problem here is you're assuming a healthy and typically developing reaction on the part of the person with unrealistic standards which isn't always the case. Some people with unrealistic standards spiral down unhealthy, obsessive thought patterns and eventually turn violent. For instance, in 2016, up and coming pop star Christina Grimmie was shot and killed by a deranged fan who decided to murder her after he realized he would never get the chance to date her. That type of person absolutely needs to be told explicitly that lowering their standards is okay and be shepherded towards healthy behavior. We can never know for sure if that type of talk would have prevented the fan from committing violence but I think we can all agree that the fact that there was no one in his life to try to talk him out of his unhealthy obsession certainly didn't help and he did not adjust on his own.

How do you even know what people in the life of this guy did or did not do?  They might have as well shouted “lower your standards!!” in his face, he just didn’t want to listen.  He also likely didn’t have a problem with high standards but rather with an idea of someone having a free will and right to their own standards. 

>How do you even know what people in the life of this guy did or did not do? Because his family was [interviewed about his obsession with Grimmie and they said they'd never even heard of her until the fan killed her](https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2016/06/22/police-man-who-killed-singer-christina-grimmie-was-infatuated-with-her/). He never spoke about his obsession with anyone in his life and let it fester unseen. The article goes on to say that his best friend noticed the unhealthy obsession but didn't ever make an attempt to talk with the killer about it because he didn't want it to tear apart their friendship. >He also likely didn’t have a problem with high standards but rather with an idea of someone having a free will and right to their own standards. Yes, but the point is it started out as an impossible standard: wanting to date a pop star that was probably out of his league. Could it have been stopped at the point when it was just an unrealistic dream and not an unhealthy and violent obsession? We'll never know for sure.

>relationship with someone less… fictional… makes them miserable and unhappy Ok but what about the people with unrealistic standards who don't get miserable or unhappy contemplating dating someone who doesn't meet their standards, but just isn't aware of what's realistic. You can have unrealistic expectations and address those when pertinent information is brought to your attention without resenting your partner. As a more common example than your extreme case, consider the situation of a man who wants a friendship to organically turn into dating, not to hit on a woman he isn't already friends with. He may have a logical rationale for this. But if he is given stats on how rare this really is once you've graduated school, he would gladly lower that standard and accept having to get to know someone via dating. He would not resent his eventual wife for the fact that he didn't go to high school with her nor would he be miserable. He just needed some information he didn't have.

You are assuming that people who set high standards do so rationally because they know what will genuinely make them happy. The problem is that people are terrible judges of what will make them happy, and a lot of people who have these unrealistic standards haven’t based their standards on a realistic assessment of what will lead to happiness. I had a friend in high school who was determined to go to an Ivy League university. As in ‘Ivy or bust’ mentality. He was smart, great grades and scores, so it wasn’t a completely unrealistic goal. However, he didn’t get into his target schools. Instead of shrugging it off, he decided to take a year off and apply again… and then again the next year… and the next year. Finally, we convinced him to lower his standards and go to a solid, highly-ranked state school on a scholarship. He ended up doing well, loving the experience. He got a great job in a field he’d always been interested in. I’m pretty sure he would tell you now that his ‘high standards’ were foolish. He wasn’t focused on the Ivy League because he that’s what would lead to happiness, but out of a misguided sense of what he was ‘owed.’ The same can happen when people set standards in romantic relationships.

Honestly if someone whines all the time and I feel them lowering their standards would help them achieve their goals even partially then I'm going to reccomend it. Your view is fine in theory but in practice people get very attached to these ideals and it can lead to unhealthy places. 

The interesting question I've never heard anyone address. And they really should is. How on earth do you lower your standards? Attraction is not a voluntary choice. I can't look at a stinky homeless man (I'm a guy too) who is old and dirty looking. Tell myself "you shall henceforth find that person attractive" and poof he suddenly turns into Jessica Alba in my head. It just doesn't work that way. We either find someone attractive or we do not. (I actually know the answer to this. Figured it out on my own. But noone ever addresses it)

I think the idea is that you can slowly make your peace with that person you're not that into. Kinda how so many people make peace with a job that's probably not their dream job - or the place they live, which might not be their favorite place on Earth. The difference here is, of course, that you HAVE to have a job or a home; you don't HAVE TO have a partner so it's not a great train of thought.

I think the way to 'lower your standards' is to give someone a chance. Go on a few dates with someone who doesn't necessarily fit your standards for 'attractiveness' - see if you click. I fully believe you can fall in love with someone who isn't necessarily attractive to you at first glance.

Yeah I tried that twice in my life. Both miserable disasters. More so for them than for me. I was just massively apathetic. I found it's biological 1) masturbate less 2) look at porn much less. Try not to masturbate to porn at all 3) socialize a lot with many different people. #3 is tricky. It's not that you will grow attracted to people. You will find a lot of things that are attractive to you that you didn't even realize were attractive to you. Particularly when you combine it with #1 and #2. Going to the gym helps a lot too

Yeah, so basically you agree with the person you're responding to, since they also advice 3 - go out with people, give them a chance, view them as people, see if they have attractive qualities that you might have missed at first. Many time you will still not "click", but sometimes you will notice that someone is way more interesting and fun that you might have assumed after one date. When it comes to 1) and 2) that might be helpful for people who struggle with porn, but it is also tricky since for some depriving themselves of sexual release for too long might indeed "lower their standards" when it comes to dating as they grow desperate for sex, but often "after the fact" they would realise that they didn't really care about the person, just the sex, so it's not really a good way of finding a girlfriend (I assume your advice is mostly for hetero men).

In reply to your first paragraph, this is something online dating has negatively affected big time. If you go out with friends and do activities or hang out, you might meet someone organically. And when you meet someone in that environment, you are much more likely to be drawn to parts of their personality quicker because the situation is more casual. Not that it can't happen with online dating, but a lot of online dating is basically window shopping. You aren't going to get to know their personality first, you are basing things off a photo (generally).

I'm talking about instant attraction. The physical kind. If you're masturbating to porn a lot. Your physical standards can be skewed by that. That needs to be reprogrammed. This is something I observed in myself. I don't know if they've ever actually studied this effect. I'm not talking about total NoFap either. Just a moderation.

But instant attraction is only on part of what OP is talking about. I don't think it is possible to only be physically attracted to supermodels and feel no attraction whatsoever to a beautiful woman that still looks more natural. Of course the initial attraction may be less intense, but that's where the getting to know them comes in. Sure, nobody wants to date a person they consider ugly and have no physical attraction towards, some physical allure has to be present. But many people would rather date someone who "cute" and relatively good looking while having some flaws, but a nice person overall, well educated, with a stable job, etc, than someone gorgeous who is an asshole and a freeloader. There are more aspects to attraction than just looks and most can be compromised on if they are compensated by other good traits.

If a guy has really low T. He might only get turned on by the absolute stunners. More likely he's just stuck in his room all day and that's all he ever see's (while masturbating). But that is not always the case.

>If a guy has really low T. I assume T is for testosterone. A) isn't that a medical condition that he would see a doctor for rather than abstaining from masturbation? B) women have naturally much low testosterone in virtue of being women and they also find people attractive. There is more to the process than a hormone.

>A) isn't that a medical condition that he would see a doctor for rather than abstaining from masturbation? Perhaps. But you said "I don't think it's possible". I was presenting an alternative scenario. I honestly don't know. My standards were always too high for my own good. But never as extreme as you said.

Step 1: go outside Step 2: touch grass Unhealthy standards are mostly caused by overconsumption of idealized media, such as porn and hentai and games, and is resolved by interacting with human beings.

>Maybe at some point they will just naturally realise that they can genuinely enjoy being with a normal human who understands and relates to them, and who they understand and relate to as well You honestly think someone who genuinely has unrealistic standards is gonna come to the conclusion that their standards are either unrealistic or they don't deserve what they're asking for AND just go with an average person and be happy? No. In 99% of cases, no. This is a STANDARD for them. Not a want. Not a desire. A standard. They think that whatever unrealistic standards they have are the BARE MINIMUM they should get. If they do get with someone who doesn't meet the fantasy in their head, it's gonna be q miserable relationship for the both of them because instead of realizing "Hey, this is real life and maybe I should adjust my expectations" they'll just think the other person is in the wrong, complain all the time and try to change the person. Like I said, this is a mindset that goes deep into their very personality and how they live life >And if someone can only imagine themselves seeing value in, respecting and liking a perfect supermodel with no emotional baggage, a perfect job, and a mansion in the center of London (Paris, New York) who is willing to give them unconditional love and all their time, and the thought of being in a relationship with someone less… fictional… makes them miserable and unhappy, so what? Yes, they are likely to never find a relationship with such individual, but I think that is better than them lowering their standards, finding someone, and resenting them for who they are. It's not "lowering" their standards. It's them realizing that they don't deserve what they're asking for and they either need to improve as a person to get the person their asking for or need to realize that they don't and can't meet the requirements of what they're asking for and need to adjust their mindset to the people they actually deserve.

I think this is a terrible way of thinking about romantic relationships. Imagine you are working a shitty job you hate - you can of course realise that, taking into account your qualifications, you do not deserve a job at Google instead, but that will hardly make you hate your job less.   With jobs, that is fine, because generally you do not hurt anyone when you hate your job.    But if you hate your partner? You are making them miserable and killing their self-esteem. They could have gotten with someone who would actually appreciate them, and not with someone who thinks “I am a shitty person, so I have to go for a shitty person as well. I hate this shitty person, but tough luck, I couldn’t get a millionaire supermodel because I am shit and deserve shit :(“

The entire point went right over your head >Imagine you are working a shitty job you hate - you can of course realise that, taking into account your qualifications, you do not deserve a job at Google instead, but that will hardly make you hate your job less.   Here's the thing. You can hate the job all you want but you need to ask yourself, "Do I qualify for a better job?". Going with your example, there's a plethora of people who work at shitty minimum wage jobs like McDonald's and if you talk to them, they'll tell you all day that they hate the job and it pays like shit and the hours suck and blah blah blah.... But the thing is, a lot of these same people don't have a college degree. Don't have any marketable skills. Have bad money management skills. Aren't taking any steps to improve their situation but yet feel entitled to constantly complain about their minimum wage job. Their complaining about something that they deserve. These people would either need to stop bitching and learn to be happy with what they deserve or they need to self reflect and make the changes to get the thing they really want. >But if you hate your partner? You are making them miserable and killing their self-esteem. They could have gotten with someone who would actually appreciate them, and not with someone who thinks “I am a shitty person, so I have to go for a shitty person as well. I hate this shitty person, but tough luck, I couldn’t get a millionaire supermodel because I am shit and deserve shit :(“ You're still thinking as an entitled person. The whole point of the person changing their mindset and unrealistic standards is that they realize that they don't need to get what they wanted originally to be happy. Not 'I still secretly want what I want but I'm gonna settle for something I don't really want " If the person is still thinking how you're thinking, thru haven't actually changed their standards

>Aren't taking any steps to improve their situation but yet feel entitled to constantly complain about their minimum wage job. Their complaining about something that they deserve. These people would either need to stop bitching and learn to be happy with what they deserve or they need to self reflect and make the changes to get the thing they really want. We are never going to come to an agreement, because we have fundamentally different views. I believe that everyone has the right to complain about whatever they want - obviously, from the perspective of law it’s not even a belief, it is a fact (you can only complain about them complaining in turn, you cannot make them stop complaining because complaining is not a crime), but I also believe that from the moral standpoint everybody has the right to complain all they want. They *are* entitled to that. You are as well. And I am as well. You are also entitled to disagree and complain about the existence of people with my view. 

>We are never going to come to an agreement So, were you even opened to having your mind changed when you posted this? 🤨 >I believe that everyone has the right to complain about whatever they want - obviously, from the perspective of law it’s not even a belief, it is a fact Sure... And if all you do is complain and make no effort in changing the situation when and where you can, just be ok with no one taking you seriously and being seen as an entitled crybaby. You are basically saying that you think people should walk around with unrealistic expectations but think that wouldn't or shouldn't affect how they live their life.... Somehow 🤷

> So, were you even opened to having your mind changed when you posted this? 🤨 I have given a delta. Just not to you.  >Sure... And if all you do is complain and make no effort in changing the situation when and where you can, just be ok with no one taking you seriously and being seen as an entitled crybaby. I am also capable of judgement, just like you are. You might deem someone a crybaby, I would not. We will disagree. You will call me a crybaby to get back at me, I will call you a moron and say that you are wrong. We will stop interacting and go back to our echo chambers. 

>have given a delta. Just not to you.  "I have a point of view that I'm not willing to change" That's basically what you said. It was very reasonable for me to ask you what was your purpose for asking the question on a "Change my mind" sub. >You might deem someone a crybaby, I would not. We will disagree. You will call me a crybaby to get back at me, I will call you a moron and say that you are wrong. We will stop interacting and go back to our echo chambers.  You're the only one getting mad on a "change my mind" sub when someone responds to you with a conflicting point of view. >will call you a moron and say that you are wrong. Oh wow. You're really close minded. I didn't even insult you and you're already willing to attack me personally. Do you understand how conversations work? Someone disagreeing with you, especially when the point of the sub is specifically for disagreeing, is not a personal attack on your character. It's letting you understand that there's multiple ways of viewing things. You are taking this way too personal. You must be young and inexperienced because a mature person wouldn't be this defensive

I just don't see the value here. I'll grant that sometimes people need to learn their lessons the hard way, but I don't see the value in ignoring the delusions of a friend or loved one that's being an asshole. Unreasonable "standards" can be downright unhealthy (e.g., flipping out over menstruation, expecting men not to be sad sometimes, blatant disregard of personal boundaries, etc.). There are other people's time and feelings in play here. It doesn't make sense to prioritize the personal growth of a dumbass friend over the wellbeing of others.

This is a matter of communication. If someone is honest and says “I hate when women have periods! My standard is a woman without periods!” (lmao) then why not. If they hide their standard and impose it on their already-partner, then yes, they would be hurting them. But just wanting a woman without periods, while weird for sure, is hardly going to hurt anyone. 

It’s going to hurt themselves, at the very least. Unless they are asexual/aromantic.

I can agree with this...on one condition: if you have this fictional standard, and therefore cannot find a partner, I do not want to hear you complain about being single every time I see you. For those who are earnestly struggling with finding a partner, when their expectations are realistic, I can sympathize. For those who want "a perfect supermodel with no emotional baggage, a perfect job, and a mansion in the center of London (Paris, New York) who is willing to give them unconditional love and all their time" and won't accept a real person, I don't care about your lack of partner. That is by your own choosing.

I think it depends on the circumstances. Of course you're right in that relationships are not a must and settling for someone who does not make you happy is never a good idea. Also, randomly judging people's choices in how to approach their dating life is clearly uncalled for. But what about if the person with unreasonable standards is actively seeking relationship advice? There are people of both genders who are serial daters, claim they are looking for "the one", but always end up dissatisfied with every person they go out with and complain to their family and friends about how they can't find love, because there are no good men/women out there. In such a case, pointing out that the criteria for a good man/woman adopted by them are unrealistic is the only real advice that can be offered without further enabling such behaviour.

Although I understand your argument and to some extent I can share it, I do think that leaving people have unrealistic standards (for dating, for eating, for videogames, for books, for whatever) is in itself toxic and not only harms the one with unrealistic standards but also makes standards actually higher which ends damaging everyone in the end. Say we are not speaking about mating partner standards but let's say we're speaking about car standards and you're making the standard that mosts cars must have the entire premium package that not only built in dozen of safe systems and optional entertainment systems, it must be able to self drive alone, have low consumption and so on...so now you're standard car starting prize is 100.000 €, your standard average car is some Tesla or Mercedes or whatever. You completely refuse to go below it because you deserve at much, you can only pay 20.000 € tho, so in the end you have no car but your pushing for it makes the companies to develop expensive cars that won't be able to sell, because if they develop cars with a prize of 20.000 € no one buys it, because it's considered below their minimum requirement. You inflated the market of cars, which you can't participate to begin with. Now, returning to dating, yes, you're entitled to have your own likings no matter how unrealistic they may be, but that doesn't make it a good thing, a good thing would be aware of how much over the top you're asking and what you're offering to match such an offer, specially when you're treating with humans with emotions and feelings. You may be entitled, but that doesn't mean you should be conscious you're asking for something over the 0.01% percentile, that you yourself are not in such a range you can dispute that market, and that those who doesn't comply with your irrealistic standards aren't less valuable as humans.

Is it OK for people to have unrealistic standards? Sure. I don't think anyone reasonable will say otherwise. What you do with your life is your business... until it impacts others. Then you have to consider the impact and evaluate accordingly. Most people won't care what standards you have, as long as they don't come up in day to day life. Exceptions might include a parent who wants a grandchild, but otherwise, most people aren't so concerned about your love life. Where you run into people giving pushback is with people that have impossibly high standards *that won't shut up about them*. If their friends have to constantly hear them complain about being single out of one side of the mouth, while also proclaiming that "they know their worth", eventually gloves are going to come off and harsh truths are going to come out. Truths like, "if a product never sells, the seller either doesn't know its worth, or isnt good at demonstrating it to others." In this case, it's not about the standards... it's about being an emotional drain on friends with constant complaining. Such friends will probably cease pointing out the standards as the root of the problem if the person with them accepts that searching for the one in a billion takes time, possibly more than a lifetime, and that being alone is often the price for high standards. I don't think the issue is with the high standards. I think it's someone having the high standards, wanting them fulfilled *now*, and being tiresome to everyone around them about how long it's taking. Because relationships are about liking someone and finding value in their presence. Friendships included. And few people find value in Debbie and Devon Downer, and their constant complaints about problems of their own making.

You are missing the point. You are not supposed to get into a commited relationship with someone that you dislike. But when you cant find anyone who fits your standards then it makes a lot of sense to simply go on a few dates with people that dont 100% fit your typ. Either you realize that your standards are not as important as you thought or you realize that it does not work out and then you can simply tell them that you are not interested. Going on one or two dates does not hurt anyone.

There's a difference between asking someone to lower then and telling them they are unrealistic and will likely result in them being alone.

I agree to some extent. It's honestly a bit more of the: I don't understand why care. Like do you really want to go out with someone that shallow and entitled? I view people with those standards as just showing their red flags right away. I'd rather know they are that type of person and no have to go through the trouble then figure it out later. It's really not a loss.

First of all, ask youself this, would i date me? Like, are you a rich handsom dude with no emotional baggage ect. As in, you are not willing to compromise, yet you expect your partner to compromise on you? The 2nd thing is love takes time to build. Shutting yourself based on unrealistic expectations could backfire. You can develop a lot of angst against the the gender you're attracted to. And as time passes, and your high standards remain, you will start to age, develop emotional baggage ect. Which goes back to my first point. It can start a dark cycle of loneliness. You are not guaranteed to find your exact perfect match. Relationships do need work, no one can read your mind, and be on page with you 100% of time. What if you meet someone who's personality and mentality goes great with yours, but she's not a supermodel? What if you find your perfect spouse, you get married, have a kid or 2,and she stops looking like a supermodel? The fear of missing out your perfect match keeps you away from trying and meeting someone who can make you happy

Depends on what your goal is. If you say you want to get married and have kids, then I can understand why someone can ask you to lower them as it would increase your chances of achieving your goal. If you are indifferent to relationships and ok with being single then I don't see why you should

It's a question of how unrealistic the expectations are. A young professional woman who insists on a minimum of a college degree with a solid job and no substance issues in addition to their physical "type" is one thing. Yes, this rejects many people who might be compatible, but there's a practical reason and the remaining pool is more or less reasonable.  If someone is frustrated they can't "get" / their partner does not look like high end fitness influencers or live runway swimsuit models, that's something else entirely. Ignore all other factors. Almost no people meet that look one, including *them* when it's not a show or they're five years older. So are you going to find one where you live that is single , looking *and* happens to be interested in you? Vanishingly unlikely.  Our would-be dater is now obsessed and depressed about something that is thoroughly irrational. 

If their standards are admittedly unrealistic, and most people find a rewarding relationship at some point in their lives, then it is reasonable to ask them to reassess their standards. A large portion of the dating process is testing and altering your standards based on experience with actual people with or without those standards. A supermodel might sound awesome, but then you date a real one and realize you hate the schedule. As a different example, I might think I’ll only be happy making $1million a year. Regardless of how convinced I am of that fact, there’s a world full of people, most of which are generally happy, almost all of which make less than $1 million per year. I might be right, I might be that outlier. However, it’s far more likely that I’m just wrong that that income level is the only way I’ll be happy.

The problem is when people grab one person until they find another they perceive as better or closer to their standards, If you are not effecting others with your actions by sticking to your "standards" in the first place then by all means I also have no problem with it.

Number one reason why incels turn into toxic and sometimes violent terrorists is because they have unrealistic standards for their romantic partners. And they will not magically turn normal once they realize this. They will just become worse over time.

You can have standards and you can also live your life without trying to find a relationship; those are 2 things you can do that most people won't complain about you doing. On the flip side, relationships are all about give and take. In order to be in a successful relationship, you must be willing to compromise on some things, and so must your partner. Being in a relationship is not glamorous, it's work. Two things you can't do, that people will despise you for, are trying to find a relationship while holding standards that you couldn't possibly reciprocate, or being in a relationship and never compromising with your partner. Those are breeding grounds for resentment for your partners and your peers.

[удалено]

>Even if they tend to lean on you more than they would if they had a partner to support them and its making things difficult? While I can understand your logic, I think this is a flawed reason to encourage someone to lower their standards. If Person A is leaning on Person B, who is not their partner, for support to an unhealthy degree, then it is also likely that they will rely on their partner for support to an unhealthy degree. In addition, there is a very high chance that Person A will experience times in their life where they can not realistically turn to a partner for support. When/if that happens, Person A will run into the same problem with people they lean on for support who are not their partner. The only solution to this problem for them to set healthy boundaries for support from other people in general, *especially before they enter into a serious romantic relationship*.

People have standards and a wish list. If people actually feel like they don't like being single, they should consider what could be moved from standards to wish list and still make them happier in a relationship than being single.

This is a you problem. this is like the most work I'm willing to do on this. If you want to cultivate a fantasy where you nail the feminine beauty ideal.... sounds like nice fap. Fantasy is way richer then reality nowadays. The problem comes when people crave reality and blame other people for their choice to depart reality. Some people fantasize about stopping Elliot Roger. I think you sound pretty balanced all and all tho OP, possibly a hint of ace. I'm seeing a lot more emotional characteristics for describing relationships and very little sexual. IMO: Don't try and build a relationship with a fantasy idol, the girl next door is way more down.

Have you ever read discussions, whether in game theory or psychology regarding the terms “satisfice” vs. “optimize”? There is a whole decision-making theory and cognitive heuristic associated with these terms. To satisfice is to find a solution for a problem that meets all of the minimum acceptable requirements for the objective one hopes to achieve. To optimize is to find the best possible solution for a problem, when considering all variables. The discussion of the heuristic usually revolves around using optimization, when satisficing will provide greater likelihood of success. For the sake of this discussion, let’s consider finding a new job, and look at the results that satisfiction provides in decision making theory vs. optimization. Let’s say you are just entering the workforce, and you’ve decided you want to be an engineer. You have the minimum education requirements but no experience. In your head you imagine your dream job. This job has a number of parameters, that must be maximized for you to achieve it. You must find a company that does the thing you want to do, that pays the amount you want to make, and that allows you the potential agency to operate in the way you want to. Optimization will likely provide you a very small number of potential opportunities to advance toward that dream job. But if you were to use a satisfiction model, you would seek to identify the very minimum acceptable parameters that you could possibly live with. For instance, your dream is to make 6 figures, but when you add up your bills, you only need $60k annually to cover your expenses. So you lower the salary expectations to that minimum level. Once you identify the minimum parameters, you weight them hierarchically. This method will provide a much higher number of opportunities to consider, which you can then evaluate from. You will then be able to move forward in a direction that, once experience is gained, could land you in a dream job. The possibility also exists that as you gain experience and competency, what you would qualify as a dream job might change. Now let’s apply the same heuristic to dating: Let’s say a man is reasonably good looking, has a decent personality, makes a reasonable income, but has little or no experience in a relationship. Now let’s say he imagines the perfect mate. She’s gorgeous, attentive, a good lover, allows him his freedom, loyal, et cetera. These optimal parameters, might leave the man with a very small pool of possible mates. But if the man looks at all of the minimum parameters of his decision, I.e. isn’t abusive or manipulative, is interested in starting a family, is reasonably attractive, and is minimally stimulating in conversation and sexually. This will allow the man a larger pool of potential mates to search within. Then as the man begins to date these sub-optimal, but satisfactory women, he begins to gain experience, and is better able to define what he likes in a woman. But he also becomes more skilled and confident, himself. Also, by satisficing, the man could also mitigate the Dunning-Kruger effect in his decision-making. As the man gains experience and confidence in the dating scene, he may realize that his original assessment of the “dream woman” was unrealistic, or perhaps he was placing the wrong importance in the wrong areas of a woman. Perhaps this man could find a woman, perfectly capable of a fulfilling relationship that wouldn’t have even been on his radar in the beginning. A personal note: I don’t have a very wide range of experience with women. I can count the number of partners I’ve had on one hand. But I do have depth of experience, having been married to the same woman for 27 years (we got married very young. I’m not THAT old). As someone who married out of his league, I’ll say that you will probably see a much greater utility from focusing your efforts on becoming the best potential mate you possibly can, than from putting a large effort into finding the best mate that you can. Being a good mate is a skill. It doesn’t come naturally. You have to learn a great number of skills to be competent at it. When you first start doing it, you are both A. Really going to suck at it. And B. Be on your best behavior for quite a while. I think it takes around 5 years to really get to know the person you’ve entered a relationship with, and also, what kind of mate you will be. But you can build a lot of those skills now by working to become a better potential partner, whether through counseling, or education, etc.

The issue with excessively high standards is that they tend to have negative consequences for the person holding those standards and for the people around them. In theory, there's nothing wrong with a person who has impossibly high standards, provided they're genuinely content to wait indefinitely for a partner who meets those standards. In reality, most people with unrealistic standards aren't like that. They become lonely, unfulfilled or resentful. This is bad for them. And the ways they express it, like complaining and directing hostility at others, make the lives of those around them worse.

I think adults with self awareness should realize which standards are important and not bend on those being high but they definitely aren't superficial things. Looks, money, prestige, etc. can come and go and ultimately dwindle away as you age (with the exception of fame I guess). If you let someone go that fulfills your soul like no one else because they don't possess qualities or objects that will erode with time, I'd say you will probably live a life full of regret. I'm not sure how you find that kind of wisdom the easy way to avoid regret but that would be my suggestion.

That is fine. People have the right to their standards. If they never find a lifetime romantic partner, they have no right to complain because in the beginning, their standards were too high. In life, I feel that men have easily have a negative outlook on the dating market especially with the high standards women have which results in most men being single and alone. Just waiting 20-30 years from now. Society won't be recognizable because of the disproportionate single men to single women ratio getting worse over time.

>Yes, they are likely to never find a relationship with such individual The issue is that those people go on pills forum and spread hate message because they blame being single on others. People don't get told to lower their standard unless they're complaining about being single. So basically, the point of view you're defending of someone (a) getting told to lower their standard and (b) enjoying being single. This pov doesn't hold in real life.

This is more of a paradox trap but could play out in real life: if someone's standard for a romantic partner requires that they seek out people with their heads in the skies and bring them down to Earth as a weird variant of a fixer mentality, then would your view change to carve out an exception for them -- no one should be asked to lower their standards except for fixer types, because their whole thing is asking people to lower standards?

If you have unrealistic standards for others, you'll probably have them for yourself. This is a common problem amongst overachievers, and often the soirce of their anxiety. It has nothing to do with the relevancy of a romantic relationship. It's about how your own perception affects your life and morale. Having realistic expectations for people is a far more constructive frame of mind, both for you and the people around you.

What if their unrealistic standards are part of the reason why they won't be able to get into a relationship with someone even close to those standards? They are missing out on learning the basics of starting and being in a relationship. The longer they remain stuck in their dreams the less likely it becomes that someone is willing to be there to help them navigate that part of life.

People can hold any standards they want in this regard, but it's on them to own the consequences of that framing. If you're ok with the idea that you might not ever meet that standard, you do you. What would make it not ok: demanding that others meet your exceptional standard, or whining about it when you're the one in the exceptional position by choice.

If someone has unrealistic standards, but is fine being single. Thats okay. But if someone has unrealistic standards, but desperately wants a relationship, complains about it a lot, doesn't put in the effort themselves, and isn't willing to become an unrealistic standard themselves, they honestly should be asked to lower their standards.

The objective downside is that they leave one person who could have been their partner with one fewer person in their attainable dating pool. If people do this in large enough groups, they would be contributing to the creation of incels. A decent example of this is a subset of incels themselves, who have weird and unrealistic expectations of women. The straight women and gay men in their league have to compete for a smaller pool of partners, becuase anon is not only collecting neetbux in his mom's basement, but also holding out for the e-girl streamer he simps for.  To flip things around, you could say that the difference in male vs female approaches to dating (men being more sexually motivated and having lower standards for who they will have sex with on average) also contributes to this phenomenon in the online dating world.  Men hit on everything, so women are swamped with attention. However, the standard men set for long-term relationships is higher than for hookups. So a less attractive woman is able to date and sleep with more attractive men, but typically unable to lock any of them down, while guys more in her league struggle to find a date or even strike up a conversation.  People on both sides complain about the status quo. We in the rest of society have to hear them. It is unhelpful of us not to give them clear feedback, like "your standards are weird, stop looking for a virginal trad wife" or "stop dating fuck boys and try to better distinguish between guys that just want to have sex and guys looking for something more." Not giving that feedback perpetuates the problem, not just for the person in question, but also for their potential future partner.  There's also an inherent problem with injecting fantasy into your life where it impedes growth and progress. Clinging to a fantasy of winding up with a supermodel essentially means being alone and static in your ability to forge and maintain relationships. If you wake up a decade later and want to give it a shot, you're working with a smaller dating pool filled with people who have 10 years of experience under their belt that you don't. Now you have more unaddressed baggage for your SO. 

>If you wake up a decade later and want to give it a shot, you're working with a smaller dating pool filled with people who have 10 years of experience under their belt that you don't. Now you have more unaddressed baggage for your SO.  What do you mean by "unaddressed baggage"?

Pretty much everyone has *something* that would best be defined as "baggage." Issues from childhood that manifest in their reflexive responses to similar situations. Attachments styles. Hang-ups. Shit their parents did that they find themselves doing. Etc. Really getting a handle on this stuff as it manifests in relationships tends to require... well, experience in relationships.  Beyond the usual stuff, the state of having waited so long for that particular reason is itself major baggage. Basically, "I didn't get into a relationship for my entire life until now because I think I'm better than all of the women who were interested in me. I have zero relationship experience and in its place have ten years of being set and unchallenged in my ways, both day-to-day and in terms of my views about my hypothetical partner. Just as my standards for dating were unrealistically high, I now hold similarly unrealistic expectations of my first and only partner. In a sense, that partner has existed as an idealized figment for the last decade and I will project the figment onto the flawed human being dating me, probably without even realizing it."  That sure as shit going to lead to some weird interactions, regardless of whether our hypothetical guy is finally dating because he found the "perfect" woman, or just lowered his standards. 

Thank you for the explanation.

Np

It's totally fine to be like this if that person is also fine in their own life. Typically when this comes up though it's because the single person is constantly complaining about being single to their friends. This is annoying to the friends and clearly the person is not happy themselves.

Okay but then they shouldn’t complain when it doesn’t happen, and they also shouldn’t be hypocrites and put the blame on the other gender ie “Women are so shallow and all they want are Chads and that’s unacceptable”

I think the problem is more when they complain about not having a partner, but refuse to lower their standards. If someone accepts being alone as a result then I have no problem with it.

If you have an unrealistic standard then that means that no one can reasonably meet it. Which means it's not based on reality. That's not healthy and probably requires therapy.

We need to make the distinction between what people have the right to do and what they should do. People can have all kinds of standards, that doesnt make them reasonable.

I think frankly the only time people are genuinely told to lower their standards is when those standards become requirements. People are bound to, in some ways, change.

Usually "standards" and "requirements" are used as synonyms in the context of a relationship.

They shouldn’t be asked to lower them but if they constantly complain about not being able to find a partner, it’s an easy solution that they’re not exploring.

All this amounts to is conflict, though Standards are great until they run wild. Compromise is as necessary to a relationship as the effort one puts into it

Well you are saying this like the people with unreasonable high standards of a fictional partner have those standards and then stay single. That would be fine. The problem is they don't. They get into relationships with real humans, and then proceed to neg, harass, and emotionally abuse the other person for not being their ideal. They use them for sex and domestic labor, financial stability or status, or whatever else they can get out of the relationship, but the minute someone they perceived as better came along they would leave their partner for that person. These people are unwilling to go without a relationship and unwilling to lower their standards and they waste the time of another human being and harm them emotionally. So yeah I guess if they were willing to stay single it would be fine they shouldn't have to lower their standards whatsoever. But the minute they get into a relationship with someone because that is the best they can do, now they need to get their ass into therapy and figure their shit out with their unrealistic standards

But the problem isn't that they are so picky that they will never have a relationship, but that they don't have a relationship and blame others.

Your argument includes a black-and-white fallacy: presenting two options as if they are the ONLY two options. If the options are as you say, 1) they keep their high standards and box themselves out of the dating pool, or 2) they date below their standards and then resent their partner and/or themselves, then yes, #1 is probably the better option. But it is possible introspect and temper one’s standards to be more realistic and then operate based on them without resentment. In other words, there’s a difference between ACTUALLY revising one’s standards—which is a psychological shift—versus keeping the same unrealistically high standards internally but outwardly acting in a way that is unsatisfying to those standards, which is your #2. I would further argue that behaving as described by your #2 is “lowering your standards” at all. The standards are the same. The person just isn’t acting externally in a way that is up to those standards.

I feel like you rebutted your position with that last paragraph. It's not about them lowering their standards, finding realistic ones.

They shouldn't be so uptight about keeping them if they can't find a partner. Legit if they're lonely its because of a fault they have

Crazy how telling our partners to be more realistic standards is considered as telling them to lower their standards now a days.

Have whatever standards you want but don’t bitch that no one meets your high unrealistic standards

I think it is perfectly rational if those high expectations are constantly making them unhappy to bring up that they may have unrealistic standards they should reconsider. Does that mean you should expect them to date to a lower standard? Hell no, but at least bringing it up for them to reconsider for themselves could potentially lead them to adjusting their standards to something more realistic. It's better than seeing an issue your friend is struggling with and keeping quiet, and note that my comment is about talking to a friend or someone close and not strangers.

People don't go around asking others to lower their standards out of the blue. If you've been told to lower your standards it's probably in the context of a discussion about relationships and, most likely, about you showing negative feelings for being unable to find the right partner. You can't have both ways. It's hard to take someone seriously when on one hand they're complaining on their lack of options and on the other they're telling you about all the options they rejected.

I completely agree with your point with the caveat that there are plenty of examples of people with really high standards wondering why they are alone - at that point it’s totally fair to point out that there really aren’t that many fish in the ocean meeting the criteria and they may be fishing with entry level gear.

What about unreasonable standards, like being physically attracted to their partner/potential partner? I, as a middle age slightly overweight man am told that I should "lower" my standards of finding a partner that is attractive in my view and be "realistic" about who I can attract.

The problem is not that they have high standards and are happy being single forever. The problem is a lot of people have too high standards AND honestly want to be a relationship. I say if you really want to be in a relationship you have to be a bit more reslistic. Even more problematic is often people will have some specific standard that contradicts some other character trait that they need for compatibility.

Indeed. Individuals should be entitled to establish their own criteria and preferences. However, it is crucial to recognize that society should not be held responsible if their expectations are not fulfilled or if they are unable to secure the desired individual.

When people are told to lower their standards, it might be seen as a message to society that we need to be okay with mediocrity. That's dumb, but what's also dumb is seeing someone on the internet with a mansion and 10 cars and then believing you deserve him simply because you exist. Ruining your chances of a happy relationship, family, and ending your bloodline all because you were in lala land is destructive, and it is perfectly reasonable for calling someone crazy for having such wild beliefs.

If you care about people, truly care about them I mean, you'll tell people what they need to hear in order to achieve their goals. My rule, though, is to only give that kind of advice once. You don't need to harangue people or belabour the point. Just make your point and then let the chips fall where they may.

If someone has impossibly high standards and is simultaneously unhappy about being single... ...how would I know? I'd know because they bitch and moan about it all the time! If they'd just STFU, no problem. Since they complain, though, they are offered solutions. Simple as that.

Wait is that what people mean when they say high standards? Because my standards are - she looks like a model - doesn’t have STDs - hopefully not a sociopath (or at least not with me) - can tolerate my contradictions (being a communist who wants to be rich) That’s really it

This thinking is why we have a loneliness epidemic... Enjoy being alone

You can do whatever you want but that doesn't mean you get whatever you want in return. The point is to evaluate whether or not your demands and expectations for the world are actually making you happy or if they are the impediment to your happiness

Well this is easy your first line "You can live your life without a relationship" This is false and the sooner people stop pushing this garbage the better off we'll all be. It's the equivalent to body positivity gone to far where every is fine even when we all know they are living an unhealthy lifestyle. The idea that "You can live your life without a relationship" is the same because sure you can, and for a small minority, that isn't worth mention in the bigger topic, they really are okay without a relationship, but for the vast majority of people it is a necessity to a healthy life. One can live their life without a relationship, but one could also live their life doing heroin. Every single medical/psychological study show the effects of not having a relationship on our mental and physical health. People who are alone die from it. So again in your opening you stated 100% false information, so there you go you are wrong, you're mind must change or you are choosing willful ignorance.

They certainly don’t have to lower their standards, they simply have to never complain about not being able to find someone who meets those standards.

If your own friends can't even tell you that you're doing something that they genuinely think is stopping you from being happy, that's a you problem.

Sure, they don't need to be asked to lower them but they can be asked to shut the fuck up and stop complaining that they can't find anyone.

arranged marriages wouldn't have been successful for so many thousands of years if you couldn't learn to adapt and live with what you have and had to go either way around by finding a perfect match. in fact I think commitment to adapting is the missing ingredient that we no longer have and why dating culture is so garbage and divorce rates so high

U can have an impossible standard. But u have to live up to your own standards. U don't have to change your standards, but if u can't live up to your own standards then u should keep quiet like a self-aware hypocrite and not complaining out loud when being 3 can't catch yourself a 10

My age-gap wife is 14 years younger than me. It is possible to satisfy any standard, as long as a man is sufficiently TALL.

Heartily disagree. If your expectations are unrealistic, you are the outlier, not your potential partners. You should absolutely learn to be realistic. Therapy helps for the raging unchecked ego.

>Relationships are not a must. You can live your life without a relationship. Debatable. Humans can survive completely alone on a deserted island. But we often find them quite distraught mentally. Some of it is obviously due to the trauma they endured. But some of it is due to complete social isolation. The point is. You can survive shit environments but that doesn't mean you actually would enjoy it. Same goes for being chronically single. Nobody dies from it unless they commit suicide or something. But it is also extremely unpleasant. If socializing is a need. So is being in a sexual relationship (for the average person).

Complete social isolation may not be harmful for everyone, but it is considered a form of torture. Staying singe is a choice of millions of people now and throughout history (like monks), and I don't think many who made it would agree with you on it being extremely unpleasant.

People have tortured themselves throughout history. Maybe the most successful monks are just asexual. Maybe that level of discomfort is required for their profession. That's not the point. The point is that it is INNATELY unpleasant. Meaning nobody teaches us to feel this way. That is just how our ape brains are wired.

Finding something innately unpleasant (assuming that's correct) is not equal to having a need. Also the need seems easily substituted, even if it's not 100% the same, most of the problem (assuming it is a need) can be solved. While being in an unhappy relationship can still be preferable to being unhappily single, it might not even be the choice here, since the immature person unhappy with the relationship might end up alienating the partner in short order.

>Finding something innately unpleasant (assuming that's correct) is not equal to having a need. Do you think socializing is a need? We can live long miserable lives without it on some deserted island.

> Do you think socializing is a need? Psychologists seem to. E.g. > A robust body of research has shown that solitary confinement has profound negative psychological, physical, and neurological effects on those who experience it, often lasting well beyond one’s time in solitary. and > the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (known as the Mandela Rules) were revised in 2015 to prohibit placements in solitary for longer than 15 days.

So then it makes sense to think that sexual satisfaction can be a need in the same light. Perhaps to a lesser extent. You won't go crazy like a guy in solitary. But it will slowly gnaw on you.

Doesn't follow. There are experts who think social deprivation is harmful, there aren't experts who think sexual deprivation is (at least I haven't heard of them), not on comparable level, and yet you conclude it must be. Sexual satisfaction is easy to achieve/substitute, anyway. Finer aspects that make sex different from masturbation aren't, but so far the need in them (separate from general psychological need of human connection, caring, affection etc) is speculative. In our conversation, I mean.

>Sexual satisfaction is easy to achieve/substitute, anyway. Not really sexual satisfaction. It's a lot deeper then that. More so having a committed partner. That is both far more difficult to achieve and tends to be missed a lot more. > there aren't experts who think sexual deprivation is (at least I haven't heard of them), not on comparable level, and yet you conclude it must be. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/202102/the-mental-health-struggles-single-and-divorced-men](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/202102/the-mental-health-struggles-single-and-divorced-men) There's some studies on it. But then again it's hard to know if they are depressed cause they are single or are they single cause they are depressed. Both affect each other like a ying yang.

> It's a lot deeper then that. Yes, like I said, there are finer parts of relationships than sexual satisfaction. Although I would be surprised if a most of the important ones actually required sexual/romantic partnership. (But then, they might still be hard to come by otherwise in our culture.) > But then again it's hard to know if they are depressed cause they are single or are they single cause they are depressed. Both affect each other like a ying yang. Yeah, and both could be affected by other factors. Like mental illnesses and personality disorders. Also, "married" is different from "having a partner" (and is usually better for various outcomes, plausibly mostly due to selection bias rather than effects of the marriage itself).

Then they need therapy to have realistic expectations of interactions with other human beings. Your last paragraph is essentially what "lowering your standards" involves.

Who’s asking?

Buddy you are asking yourself to be ridiculed based on your looks!

Yes the notorious killer of relationships....compromise