Shrekking: TikTok’s dating-down trend sparks debate among singles and divorce lawyers

A TikTok-driven dating trend known as 'shrekking' is prompting discussion among singles and divorce lawyers about whether dating down could reduce heartbreak or backfire. The premise, amplified on social media, is simple in theory: deliberately date someone you know is below your usual standards — maybe shorter, less financially secure, or not as physically attractive — with the expectation that because you are out of their league, the person will cling to the relationship.

Supporters argue it could anchor commitment and spare people the frustration of ghosting, while critics warn that power dynamics can still tilt and that the strategy may not prevent heartache. The trend has become a talking point on TikTok and in columns that discuss modern dating rituals, with some writers framing it as a way to take back control in a dating landscape perceived as gamed by algorithmic matching and endless options.

New York divorce attorney James Sexton told the author there is an argument this could be smart in certain circumstances. He noted that the idea echoes an old maxim about marrying someone who is attractive enough to spark desire, but cautioned that going higher or lower than that sweet spot can create a power imbalance that undermines the relationship. He added that the concept should be weighed carefully rather than treated as a universal solution.

The discussion around shrekking is not limited to theory. A columnist who chronicled a personal lockdown experience offers a cautionary tale: during a fragile period, she found herself drawn to a shorter, bald man who provided daily support, even bringing meals when she had Covid. The relationship felt safe at first, but she later discovered he was sliding into the DMs of several of her closest friends and was actively engaging with a broad pool of online attention. The anecdote is used to illustrate how the very behavior shrekking seeks to hedge against—his access to options—can still lead to trust issues and heartbreak.

The takeaway echoed by many in the commentary is blunt: even a partner deemed to be 'below your league' can access the same buffet of options as anyone else, thanks to modern apps and social networks. As one TikTok commenter summarized a common sentiment: dating someone you think you’re above can still end in betrayal, and the moral of the story is not to assume loyalty is guaranteed by a shift in perceived status. The idea that a downtrodden or less conventionally attractive partner will automatically be more faithful rests on a fragile premise, and many observers say the risk of deceit remains high regardless of the initial power dynamic.

The conversation stretches beyond gender lines. Some men, too, engage in dating down, hoping loyalty will follow from the belief that a less socially valuable partner has fewer options. Yet the same dynamics can unravel when the other person becomes aware of the perceived hierarchy, or simply when desire and opportunity override caution. The brutal truth, many participants acknowledge, is that you cannot outsmart heartbreak by dating someone you secretly think is beneath you. Love built on status than on mutual trust and compatibility is unlikely to endure when the other party realizes the imbalance is the engine of the relationship rather than the emotion at its core.

For all the enthusiasm surrounding shrekking as a possible antidote to ghosting and commitment issues, experts emphasize that there is no guaranteed shield against heartbreak. The trend invites a broader reflection on how people choose partners in an era of social-media abundance, where access to potential mates is constant and visible. Relationships grounded in the premise of power dynamics or strategic calculation can still end when trust erodes or when one person seeks out others who better fit their evolving needs. In that sense, shrekking may be more a mirror of contemporary dating culture than a reliable method for securing lasting romance.

Ultimately, the culture-and-entertainment conversation around this trend remains unsettled. Some observers view it as a practical, even liberating approach for those tired of high-visibility dating dramas. Others worry it legitimizes a transactional mindset that can undermine genuine connection. As the discourse evolves, readers are reminded that human relationships resist simplification, and the most resilient bonds often form from surprise, empathy, and shared values rather than from calculated risk assessments about perceived league status.