655 opinions shared on Dating topic. 5%.
But there are some obvious things like age range that cuts the number. After all if I will date people 2, 5 or 10 years apart very significantly changes the numbers.
Men will typically always get higher percentages as we:
1. Normally don't mind dating up/down in age whereas many women hesitate to date younger.
2. Normally don't care about height at all as long as it isn't shockingly unusual.
3. Normally do not care about level of income at all.
So the criteria are very much going to lead to women getting much lower numbers than men. While I absolutely believe that trend is a fair representation of reality I do think these tests slightly exaggerate the difference between us. - that is men's number should be a lower and women's should be lower too. As this does not account for looks etc. So whatever your number, of a guy divide it by 5, if a woman divide it by 3 or 4. That should be a more real representation.
So yes. The test is actually too nice and gives too high numbers when considering the whole population.00 Reply
Most Helpful Opinions
Anonymous(36-45)+1 y7.6% of all "women" in the US meet my VERY reasonable standards.
This thing is largely useless because it isn't well stratified by age. In particular, it's not even talking about "women" but about "females. When I put on literally ZERO restrictions it told me that only 78% of "women" in the US meet my standards. Presumably this means that 22% of the female population is under 18 or over 70.
When I restrict myself to a datable age range of 18-35 (again with no restrictions) I get that 28% of the females meet my standards.
Cool. What I REALLY care about is what percentage of WOMEN in THIS age range meet my standards. So let's add in my restrictions:
Adding a height restriction of 4'10" to 5'8" did NOTHING to reduce the number of women.
Ruling out the smokers, the married women and the fatties got me down to 7.6%
So that means that roughly a quarter of girls of datable age are non-smokers, non-married and non-obese. That actually sounds better than I would have guessed.
00 Reply
2.6K opinions shared on Dating topic. I definitely believe that I got a.19% guy. But for reference on the accuracy of this website, I put in the most average options and it still came out to only 4%.

00 Reply
- 1.1K opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 yIt says 0.05 %
But I am dating one of that 0.05 % currently
11 Reply- +1 y
I'm curious as to what those standards are. For science, of course.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
23Opinion
393 opinions shared on Dating topic. I doubt that is accurate. Also I put in my boyfriend’s characteristics just for fun and it gave me a 0% chance that he exists so there is that
61 Reply- +1 y
Same thing when I put in my characteristics. And it doesn't even seem to be a rounding error for the percentage: its output was "That’s 0 of 164,977,341 American men". Unless it just makes up the exact number it presents as being the value if you were to extrapolate it from the percentage it calculated rather than the other way around. It claims that it is "[c]alculated using U. S. Census Bureau Data", so I guess he and I both missed out on being included in the Census.
22.1K opinions shared on Dating topic. 
I wasn't even being picky on this 😅
11 Reply- +1 y
That's still more than one man, and sometimes one man is all you really need. Or so I've heard.
This doesn't seem fully accurate. I put in barely any criteria at all except obesity, married, no smoking or drinking, and I was given 0.68%, which doesn't compute. I've met plenty of guys who don't drink or smoke, lol, aren't obese or married, lol. But hey, I live in Canada. Maybe things are different here.
Okay but literally:
Wants kids: Yes
Age: 18-26
Height: 5"6 - 6"4
Minimum income: $0
Ethnicity: White (because there wasn't the option to choose multiple)
Eye and hair color: Any
Education: Any
Religion: Any
Smokes: No
Drinks: No
Married: No
Obese: NoI'm sorry but if these are high standards, I'll take my house full of cats, thank you very much.
25 Reply- +1 y
One thing that seems to be a big thing is excluding drinkers. Just selecting for non-drinkers brings the result down from 74% when everything is as inclusive as possible to 5.6% when choosing men who don't drink. In contrast, even the relatively narrow age range of 18-26 as opposed to 18-70 brings it down from 74% to 14%.
- +1 y
@FatNeville That's really sad, thb
- +1 y
Alcohol is perhaps the most harmful drug in terms of its impact on society as a whole, yet it is incredibly ubiquitous and has had a long tradition of being something that is expected for everyone to use, at least from time to time. It is even arguable that there is encouragement in the Bible to do so. From 1 Timothy 5:23, "Don’t drink only water. You ought to drink a little wine for the sake of your stomach because you are sick so often." (NLT) Of course, this was addressed specifically to Timothy, and this was in the days before water purification plants were a thing. The Greeks and Romans are believed to have added wine to their water to "purify" it or perhaps to try to impede the growth of pathogens, though their understanding of the nature of disease differs from our modern view of it.
- +1 y
While reasons like the aforementioned are not as compelling today as they once were, it is still an accepted practice in most of the world for people to consume alcoholic beverages for the flavor or to enjoy the feeling of mild intoxication and the effects it has on the person's physiological and other functions and processes. And it is a drug to which many people can become addicted. Attempts by governments to outlaw alcohol entirely have generally been unsuccessful. But in more recent times, there have been pushes to encourage the general population to moderate their intake and to recommend persons with certain conditions or health problems, or those taking certain medications, to abstain from alcohol entirely. (I am among those taking medication that would interact or have its effects diminished or otherwise modified if I were to consume alcoholic beverages, so such abstention is strongly urged for people in a position such as I.)
982 opinions shared on Dating topic. I got 3,4% and there were a lot of things where I didn't mind either way. Mainly I did no smoking, no obese, not married and I limited the age and that was enough to already bring it down a lot. It seems a bit low tbh because this doesn't include a lot of things still that can exclude more people. I knew women's percentage is usually low because of height and income etc. But I didn't think mine would be this low :). It's good to know though :) You actually have a higher chance of finding a man than a woman what did you put in to get that result? :)
01 Reply- +1 y
I'm pretty flexible on everything except age, religion, marriage and obesity. I guess the age is what did it as with men I prefer no more than 1 year younger up to 35 and women im a little more flexible with 2-3 years younger but on the higher end it's to 30. I don't know why I feel like I can never relate to women in their 30sn
+1 yThis calculator produces very interesting results. Let's give everything the maximum leeway possible other than restricting to women, doesn't want kids, 18-60, no smoking, no drinking: 3.6% - 6,059,168

Baseline Repeated calculation but restricting ethnicity to white: 3.6% - 6,059,168 (Exactly the same as before.)

White Ethnicity
Repeated calculation restricting ethnicity to black: 3.4% - 5,722,547
Black Ethnicity I guess there's something wrong with my abacus.
00 Reply
m +1 yNot that in reality I would likely date an American (being realistic) in America, however went for it. I am not overly worried about height, hair colour, eye colour, education or religion. I am also not hugely bothered about education as long as she has intelligence to chat and interacts on various things.
I did exclude married (not exactly dateable) and obese (mainly as I’m active, that was about 12 million).
The hardest bit is not the physical attraction side, it’s the emotional attraction and the traits a person has. She could be stunning but if no emotional connection or she’s say homophobic, transphobic, racist etc she would not meet my standards, requirements.
00 Reply1.2K opinions shared on Dating topic. 1.36%
of all women in the United States meet your standards
That’s 2,289,019
of 168,310,216
American women.
Wow, I pretty much only selected as a deal-breaker that I wouldn't date obese. Everything else I was flexible on. Guess that gets rid of the vast majority of them...
00 Reply- 6.5K opinions shared on Dating topic.
u +1 y
23 million it's a metrópoli of potential matches 13 Reply- +1 y
Damn!
- +1 y
I selected any or either in few markers... lol
income, kids, ethnicity, hair, eye, education, religion, etcétera... - +1 y
damn... I'm still among the highest
and I thought I was selective and fussy... lol
2.2K opinions shared on Dating topic. My guess is this, not many, probably less than 1%, in the US, that is. Outside it? I'd say about 30% of them in my age range
But such a low number is caused by me having a hard standard that she doesn't have an Onlyfans account, that alone leaves very few01 Reply- +1 y
There are probably over a hundred thousand women in the United States without an OnlyFans account. Or at least not one that she posts content to.
- 1.1K opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 y
I think the problem is i clicked exclude obese.
41 Reply- +1 y
I think we're excluded by default.
- 1.1K opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 yThis is a ripoff of Fresh and Fit's Female Delusion Calculator.
I got 9.8% for putting in the following:
Female
18-35
4'0-5'10"
White
Any income/education/religion
Exclude married and obese
00 Reply All i think of is just panties i only wear panties and my google search is full of pantie searches when i was on school i like too go into the female rest room where the swimming is there i got a lot of panties out of the bags and sometimes i would matrubate and cum inside one back or i would see a lot of naked school girls and i would just mastrubate what are you're opinions about it
10 Reply319 opinions shared on Dating topic. 
Weird 10 Reply
Anonymous(36-45)+1 yThat is a bogus, rigged test. Try different variations and the results will be almost identical.
22 Reply- +1 y
Yet people have different results...
- +1 y
No, you are just delusional.
- 3K opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 y1.04%
I'm surprised. I'm pretty open minded so not really restricting much, so quite surprised it's so low. Gives a new perspective to the videos where women have really high standards and get 0.01%.00 Reply
+1 y
I'd probably agree with this actually.
11 Reply- +1 y
Women in general seem to be better at meeting standards than men, but perhaps I am a little biased.
+1 yI don't know why i bothered taking that quiz since I'm not trying to date an American but regardless it was 0.178%
10 Reply
u +1 y0.046% of American men meet my standards (75,890 out of 164,977,341). I really didn’t think my standards were that high.. lol! What 😆
11 Reply- 8.9K opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 yso roughly 25% of women are in the age range that i date. and of that 25% i'm roughly attracted to 20%. that makes an overall 5%. no exact numbers. just rough estimations based on educated guesses.
00 Reply 2.1K opinions shared on Dating topic. 0.28% of men but I limited the age to 22-28 so I think it was because of that
12 Reply- +1 y
@Apple1996, Are your standards for women and standards for men significantly different?
0.8 percent. That can't be right. I'm not that fussy!
10 Reply
+1 y1.28% That really surprises me. I'm not sure this program is accurate.
02 Reply- +1 y
I did this again with as open a range as possible and it said 78%. So a accurate answer might be: your_result + 22.
- +1 y
10% of the population of women in the USA is under 18 and about another 10% over 70 so about 20% are not included in the data.
- 4.5K opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 yOnly 4.4% of women are 25-50, not married, not obese, and non-smokers? Somehow I doubt the accuracy of this.
03 Reply- +1 y
@AmyHew1tt It would be more likely if it were represented that 0.64% of men aren't married, aren't smokers, and aren't obese.
- +1 y
@FatNeville Yeah, but that's insane
3K opinions shared on Dating topic. 8% was my number of women and I was really generous too, wow.
00 Reply
+1 yZero plus she gotta have a good personality, good hygiene. What i go for.
00 Reply- 623 opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 yI don’t have standards. What an entitled notion. All that matters is I find her attractive, and the vibe is there.
00 Reply
Anonymous(25-29)+1 y0.7%
Looks like it's a good thing I'm asexual10 Reply6.5K opinions shared on Dating topic. Probably less than 5%
00 Reply
+1 y0.64% men😲😲
24 Reply- +1 y
Bruh, invest in Chewy!
- +1 y
i have no idea what this meansss!!😂😂😅😅
- +1 y
It means buying Chewy stock is a good investment because you and so many others are going to be cat ladies and dog moms.
- +1 y
oh lol i don’t have a problem finding dates😂😂 not worried about it
927 opinions shared on Dating topic. 0.001%
10 Reply- 1.5K opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 yVery few I guess
16 Reply- +1 y
Why are you guessing...
- +1 y
Cause I don't know all the women in the world, it would be kinda ignorant for me to claim it like I got everyone in my contacts no?
- +1 y
Did you read the body of the question?
- +1 y
Yes I did
- +1 y
And you didn't do the thing in the link lmao?
- +1 y
Nope, judging by everyone else's being so low I can only assume mine will be extremely low, that's if virginity is in the calculations of course if not then the same low as everyone else 😂
0.040% of American men meet my standards
10 Reply- 1.1K opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 yNo more than 15% that's for sure
00 Reply 1.82 I guess
12 Reply- +1 y
You guess?
- 615 opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 y1.04%
10 Reply
+1 yOnly you 🙃
10 Reply- 795 opinions shared on Dating topic.
+1 yRidiculous.
00 Reply 2.6K opinions shared on Dating topic. 6.2%
00 Reply
What percentage of the population meets your dating standards?
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior
Guy's Behavior
Flirting
Dating
Relationships
Fashion & Beauty
Health & Fitness
Marriage & Weddings
Shopping & Gifts
Technology & Internet
Break Up & Divorce
Education & Career
Entertainment & Arts
Family & Friends
Food & Beverage
Hobbies & Leisure
Other
Religion & Spirituality
Society & Politics
Sports
Travel
Trending & News 
