"In the desert, every thorn is a rose," notes a well-known cultural proverb, capturing the essence of scarcity. But what happens when the desert is replaced by an endless, blooming garden?
Our contemporary era of unprecedented romantic abundance appears, on the surface, to maximize our chances of falling in love and finding a suitable partner. With dating applications, social media platforms, and expanding social circles granting us access to an unprecedented pool of prospective partners, finding someone new is easier than ever before. Yet, having too much of a good thing may also carry a hidden cost, making profound and enduring love far more difficult to sustain. This dynamic forces contemporary society to confront a fundamental question: Does romantic abundance genuinely enhance the long-term prospects of love, or does it silently undermine our ability to sustain it over a lifetime?
Measuring Romantic Value in a Crowded Marketplace
As the author George Sand famously observed, "There is only one happiness in this life, to love and be loved." Yet, the mechanics of assessing a person’s romantic value have grown increasingly complicated in the modern dating landscape.
Evaluating an individual’s romantic appeal generally involves two major dimensions. The first is a nonrelational dimension, which concerns traits that hold intrinsic value regardless of the context, such as humor, wealth, intelligence, or wisdom. The second is a relational dimension, which concerns suitability—namely, the unique, highly specific fit between two particular people.
The nonrelational dimension is relatively straightforward. Most people readily agree that intelligence, financial stability, and wit are universally desirable traits. Suitability, however, is far more complex. It depends on personal and situational circumstances that are notoriously difficult to predict or quantify.
Consider intelligence as an example. While generally regarded as an attractive quality across the board, a vast intellectual gap between partners can ultimately diminish its relational value over time. Wealth presents a remarkably similar case. Although traditionally considered desirable because it offers security and comfort, excess wealth or extreme financial disparity may inadvertently increase access to outside romantic alternatives, thereby complicating long-term commitment. Even when two individuals possess an abundance of admirable personal qualities, their relational value may remain remarkably low if they fail to bring out the best in one another on a day-to-day basis.
These two distinct dimensions correspond directly to two central romantic tasks: finding a partner and sustaining a loving relationship. Romantic abundance dramatically facilitates the former, but it severely complicates the latter. As people encounter a growing number of prospective partners who possess desirable traits, they frequently become less willing to invest deeply, patiently, and resiliently in any single relationship. Interestingly, recent academic literature indicates that polyamorous individuals report many of the same psychological challenges as monogamous individuals, even if they sometimes report higher levels of baseline sexual satisfaction (Rogier, G. et al., 2024; Tatum, A. K., et al., 2026).
The Hidden Difficulties of Romantic Abundance
As the science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein once quipped, "Sex without love is merely healthy exercise." But navigating the modern landscape of sex and romance involves far more than physical health; it requires complex psychological navigation.
Romantic abundance creates several distinct and formidable challenges in romantic decision-making. Among the most significant hurdles identified by relationship researchers are the relentless search for a seemingly perfect partner rather than a suitably compatible one, the constant temptation of the road not taken, the reliance on a backup strategy, and a general reduction in overall commitment and investment.
The Perfect Person Versus the Suitable Partner
Romantic maximizers actively seek out the ultimate, flawless partner, whereas satisficers focus their energy on finding someone who is sufficiently compatible and genuinely capable of fostering a healthy, constructive relationship. Research shows that maximizers consistently spend more time comparing their current partner to former partners, potential alternatives, and even the idealized relationships of other people. Consequently, they tend to experience greater psychological regret and engage in higher frequencies of counterfactual thinking—wondering how things could have turned out differently.
Romantic abundance actively encourages this exhausting maximizing mindset. When romantic alternatives appear endless and only a swipe away, it becomes intensely tempting to search indefinitely for the elusive "perfect person" instead of pausing to appreciate and nurture a genuinely suitable partner.
The Temptation of the Road Not Taken
Under conditions of absolute romantic abundance, the metaphorical road not taken becomes especially alluring. When prospective partners seem readily available at any hour of the day, staying in one committed relationship can begin to feel less like a rewarding choice and more like missing out on broader horizons.
Modern lovers frequently find themselves lacking peace of mind, not necessarily because their current relationship is fundamentally inadequate, but because another theoretical possibility always glimmers on the horizon, appearing more exciting and novel. Yet, chasing these purely imagined possibilities is frequently part of the problem rather than the solution. Persistent fantasies about what else might be "out there" often become a poor, hollow substitute for what already exists right in front of us, ultimately destabilizing an otherwise valuable and loving relationship.
The Backup Strategy
As the legendary Mae West famously advised, "Save a boyfriend for a rainy day—and another, in case it doesn’t rain."
Romantic abundance inherently encourages a calculated backup strategy: the practice of maintaining potential replacements in reserve just in case a current relationship encounters turbulence or ends entirely. This behavioral tendency is particularly visible on modern dating platforms and apps, where a seemingly endless stream of prospective profiles makes it psychologically effortless to quickly move on to the next option at the first sign of friction.
When alternatives are endlessly plentiful, disappointment or minor conflict may no longer motivate partners to engage in deeper communication or compromise. Instead, abundance encourages continued searching and detachment. The easy availability of replacements drastically reduces the incentive to invest in a worthwhile relationship and develop true, unvarnished intimacy. This phenomenon reflects a broader psychological principle in romance: sometimes, having more can actually become less (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019).
Lower Commitment and Investment
Beyond changing how we search, romantic abundance may also structurally weaken our capacity for long-term commitment. Established commitment theory identifies three major pillars that influence whether a person stays in a relationship: overall relationship satisfaction, the perceived costs of leaving, and the quality of available alternatives.
Commitment naturally increases when individuals are genuinely satisfied with their relationship and perceive the prospect of separation as emotionally and practically costly. Conversely, commitment decreases when attractive alternative partners seem readily available and easy to secure. However, psychological research indicates that relationship satisfaction is generally a much stronger predictor of commitment than either the costs of leaving or the quality of outside alternatives (Benjamin & Agnew, 2003).
This finding offers a note of cautious optimism. Abundance does not automatically destroy established relationships. When partners remain genuinely satisfied with one another, alternative possibilities often lose much of their psychological appeal. However, when relationship satisfaction inevitably declines or hits a rough patch, the presence of numerous outside alternatives can make departure seem increasingly attractive and frictionless.
Coping With Romantic Abundance
As William Shakespeare famously wrote in All’s Well That Ends Well, "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none." Navigating the modern emotional landscape requires a delicate internal balance.
One promising way to cope with the pressures of romantic abundance is by cultivating greater psychological flexibility. Often defined by psychologists as the ability to bend without breaking, psychological flexibility is closely associated with positive mental health and overall emotional well-being. It involves adapting effectively to changing life circumstances, revising personal priorities when necessary, and maintaining a healthy balance among significant life domains. Individuals who exhibit higher levels of psychological flexibility also tend to enjoy healthier romantic and family relationships (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010).
However, romantic flexibility must never be confused with the casual habit of continually swapping partners. Profound, lasting love requires a foundational degree of stability. The central challenge for modern individuals is to remain flexible enough to adapt to life’s inevitable changes without becoming so adaptable that the very concept of commitment loses its meaning and significance.
The core principle that more is less in romance refers specifically to how an overwhelming abundance of options keeps people perpetually trapped in a cycle of choosing. Constant social comparison can undermine the sustained, patient investment required for profound love, ultimately contributing to chronic frustration, loneliness, and emotional uncertainty. The complementary principle that less is more suggests that intentionally limiting one’s focus to fewer romantic possibilities can foster greater depth, security, and meaning. In this sense, fewer alternatives are frequently associated with higher romantic quality and profundity.
Of course, abstract concepts like "more" and "less" are always context-dependent. As Aristotle wisely observed centuries ago, what truly matters is not quantity alone, but appropriateness. The overarching challenge of modern romance is therefore not to eliminate abundance entirely, but to find a wise, discerning balance within it.
Reflecting on the human condition, author Margaret Atwood once observed that "Humans die from a lack of love, not a lack of sex."
Borrowing Charles Dickens’s famous description of the French Revolution, observers might argue that these are simultaneously the best of times and the worst of times for modern lovers. Many relationships are undeniably fragile, some are rapidly disintegrating, and tempting alternatives are everywhere we look. Yet, these are also flourishing times for love as a cultural ideal. Love occupies an increasingly central place in people’s lives and has become a primary standard for evaluating the success of intimate relationships. Romantic love can no longer be easily dismissed as a naive childhood fantasy; for millions of people today, it is both a realistic and deeply attainable aspiration.
The ultimate paradox of our time is that romantic abundance grants us vastly more opportunities to find love, while simultaneously making it far harder to remain deeply invested in it once we find it. An expanded marketplace creates endless choices, but profound love requires something that abundance actively discourages: choosing one person, committing to the journey, and investing deeply enough to discover what that choice can truly become.
