Are You Too Picky for Love, or Not Picky Enough?
Why romantic success requires both standards and flexibility.
Posted May 17, 2026 | Reviewed by Lybi Ma
The abundance of romantic opportunities today makes it increasingly difficult not only to choose wisely but also to feel satisfied with one’s choices. Two common responses to this complexity are pickiness (high selectiveness) and compromising (flexibility). Which approach leads to greater romantic flourishing? The answer depends, in part, on the temporal dimension.
" Most people can't find love because they're picky, they overanalyze, and they find things wrong in people. We call them flaw finders ."—Patti Stanger
Romantic pickiness reflects self-respect and the importance people assign to their values when choosing a partner. Its main advantages are long-term: selective individuals are often more motivated to find deeply compatible partners. Indeed, highly selective individuals tend to report greater satisfaction once they form a suitable relationship (Close and colleagues, 2025).
However, extreme pickiness has clear drawbacks, especially in the short term. Highly selective individuals encounter fewer acceptable partners and may remain stuck in an endless search for someone “better.” As a result, they are less likely to form relationships at all—even if the relationships they eventually form are of higher quality.
Some degree of selectiveness is clearly necessary. Yet excessive pickiness—often rooted in fear —is a significant contributor to prolonged singlehood , particularly among women. A central problem is the pursuit of a “perfect” partner. Romantic love does not reside solely in isolated traits; it emerges through shared activities and emotional connection. Accordingly, checklist-based dating is limited: it evaluates individuals in isolation while neglecting the relational fit between them—the very essence of suitability (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019).
Romantic Compromising
“ Be careful not to compromise what you want most for what you want now .” —Zig Ziglar
Compromise is ubiquitous in life and love, yet it is often seen as weakness or surrender. Romantic compromisers frequently face negative stereotypes—fixed, simplified judgments about their supposed lack of standards (Smilansky, 2026). Calling someone a “compromise” can be deeply insulting, despite widespread recognition that compromise is inevitable in long-term relationships. Interestingly, willingness to compromise is often greatest at the beginning of relationships. New partners tend to form rapid attachments and adjust their standards accordingly (Joel and MacDonald, 2021).
Compromises can involve central traits (for example, choosing kindness over attractiveness ) or peripheral traits (for example, eye color). The more central the trait, the more difficult—and less common—it is to compromise. Unlike everyday trade-offs, romantic compromises are enduring and can shape an entire life trajectory (Ben-Ze’ev, 2023; here ).
The notion of “concession” in compromise has two meanings:
Healthy romantic compromise reflects the first, not the second. The ability to compromise while genuinely understanding the other’s perspective is a hallmark of emotional maturity and practical wisdom . Flexibility is linked to greater relationship satisfaction and healthier attitudes toward commitment—though it may occasionally lead to less-than-optimal matches (Devenport and colleagues, 2023; Ekinci and Canpolat, 2025; here ).
Pickiness and Compromise in an Age of Abundance
“ Good girls go to heaven; bad girls go everywhere .”—Mae West
Modern dating culture offers unprecedented choice—but abundance often undermines commitment. With so many options available, people may invest less deeply in any one relationship, leading to frustration, loneliness , and dissatisfaction. Paradoxically, limiting one’s focus can foster greater emotional depth. Fewer options may encourage stronger bonds and a richer experience of love. At first glance, abundance seems to favor pickiness: more options increase the likelihood of finding an ideal match. Yet the same abundance fuels constant comparison. Highly selective individuals may struggle to feel satisfied, perpetually imagining that someone “better” is just around the corner. While picky individuals emphasize ideals and preferences, those who compromise adopt a more pragmatic stance, focusing on compatibility and sustainability.
Toward a Balanced Approach
“ Never compromise your principles, even if it leads to difficulties in the short term .”—Alan Casden
“ I’ve never had a list of ‘musts.’ But I do have a list of ‘hard nos.’ As long as someone doesn’t cross those lines, I’m willing to give them a real chance .”—Woman
Extreme pickiness and excessive compromise are both detrimental. The challenge is to find a balanced middle ground. One way to moderate pickiness is to focus on a suitable rather than a perfect partner. This means prioritizing a small set of essential deal-makers and deal-breakers, while letting go of secondary preferences. Such an approach centers attention on what matters most: mutual fit. At the same time, high standards should not be dismissed. They often reflect self-respect and a genuine aspiration for meaningful love.
Drawing on Robert Goodin’s concept of “good settling” (2012), healthy romantic compromise has four features:
These features ensure that compromise supports, rather than undermines, flourishing.
We might think of picky individuals as maximizers and compromising individuals as satisfiers . Both extremes are problematic: excessive selectiveness limits opportunities, while excessive compromise risks poor matches. Flourishing love emerges from balanced selectivity —a form of wisdom that integrates standards with flexibility.
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2019). Is love best when it is fresh? The impact of time on love . University of Chicago Press.
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2023). Is casual sex good for you? Casualness, seriousness, and well-being in intimate relationships. Philosophies , 8 (2), 25.
Close, H. S., Nitschinsk, L., Zietsch, B. P., & Barlow, F. K. (2025). Choosiness as a Predictor of Sexual (In) frequency in Single Heterosexual Adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 54 , 2095-2106.
Devenport, S., Davis-McCabe, C., & Winter, S. (2023). A critical review of the literature regarding the selection of long-term romantic partners. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 52 , 3025-3042.
Ekinci, B., & Canpolat, M. (2025). Romantic relationship satisfaction and marriage attitudes in young adults: the mediating role of cognitive flexibility. BMC psychology .
Goodin, R. (2012). On settling . Princeton University Press.
Joel, S., & MacDonald, G. (2021). We’re not that choosy: Emerging evidence of a progression bias in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 25 , 317-343.
Smilansky, S. (2026). The moral duty not to confirm negative stereotypes. In S. Smilansky, Paradoxical Ethics (205-216). Oxford University Press.
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D., former President of the University of Haifa, is a professor of philosophy. His books include The Arc of Love: How Our Romantic Lives Change Over Time.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.