Is it true that women have higher standards than men? (romantically/sexually/physically/whatever)

I was wondering. It just seems like for women, it's easier to get with a guy. Maybe that's my biased, unexperienced, influenced opinion, but that's currently how I see it. Sorry if I offend anyone

It's a difficult question, it can be true to some degree but it's not a yes/no question because then it would be generalization. I think it depends on people as individual rather than their gender.

Statistically, Yes. There's even been a research done by Okcupid actually, that proves it. Women on average see 80% of men, lower than average, while men it's more 25% on either above or below, and 50% in the middle. Which going by evolution, it makes sense. Men could sleep around without much issue. Women, well, Birth control is relatively new. That said, I wouldn't worry over it. All women are different, and their standards may be different than another's.

Here's an idea... If it's easier for women to get a date, it must be equally easy for men(If they're dating men, they're not just dating the same guy over and over.). The problem is, you get men who are single, feel sorry for themselves, have jealousy and wonder why. That and, many pass up a lot of potential partners for one reason or another and can't fathom why women do the same. The fact is, both sexes have their hurdles and neither has it over all "easier". Personality and body types are another issue not exclusive to either sex. Cupcake gets it. Leo, You're going off online dating and that's always a bit skewed thanks to anonimoty.

Yaashat The fact remains, both with evolution and now research into the subject, there is high reason to believe the opposite. And it's not a surprise either, women have always been the 'choosers', instead of the initiators. Now of course that is a generalization, but that's a must when talking about broad topics such as these. There are of course the exceptions. We don't pick dates for the same reason, we don't share the same attractions in the same way nor measure them the same. (Another study showing that many women would rather share a higher class of male rather than have one to themselves that is lower class. Polyamory being acceptable) It's the same reason why women can get laid easier than men on average. There's always a guy desperate enough in bar for any level of attractiveness a woman has. Men and Women, are different. We aren't the same, anyone who says otherwise obviously hasn't taken a course in psychology. Therefore our experiences will never be the same in categories where we are different. Which in the choosing of our partners, is one of the largest. There's nothing wrong with that, infact in my mind it's a good thing. We compliment each other with our differences. But pretending we have the same experiences when all the evidence points toward the opposite, isn't going by logic. Now if you have any research samples that say the opposite, or something else. I'm more than willing to read them, and even change my mind on the subject. However if you're just going by anecdotal, than there isn't much further your argument can lead towards.

Kind of pompous with that whole "Men and Women, are different. We aren't the same, anyone who says otherwise obviously hasn't taken a course in psychology. " aren't we? I mean, it doesn't take any amount of education to know there are differences in psychology and of course physiology. The point is, there's not some huge difference in the dating scene. If all women date more men than men date women, how can all men have less of a chance? From my own experience, it's more a case of picking one type and avoiding others. Sure, there's a reason behind that, but at this point in human history I really don't think we follow the evolutionary normalities. Just one example, monogamy is a very odd thing across all species and to some extent, humanity. But, what do I know?

having all your dream girls would probably make you loose 100 pounds. dont even make me think of two of my dreams, all dream girls and being thin.