>>20249414Is that not fairly minimal and practical? I don't feel like I'm asking for the moon on a stick. She doesn't have to share any of my views on anything important, she doesn't have to share interests or hobbies, she doesn't have to put out whatever dirty fetish sex I want when I want it, she doesn't have to be a 10. All she needs to do is be healthy, normal, not ugly, not a money black hole, and not present an unacceptably high risk of divorce. So how many women meet these standards?
I took the total population of this country, divided it by 2 to find the female population, divided that by the non-fat percentage, divided that by the not-tattooed percentage, divided that by the percentage of americans within the acceptable age range, divided that by 2 to find the percentage that is a 5 or higher in looks, divided that by the percentage that is either white or hispanic, divided that by the percentage of adults with a body count of 3 or lower, divided that by the percentage that has no student debt, divided that by the percentage that is single, and divided that by the percentage that is childless. And I got the alarmingly low figure of...
66,915
That's right. Out of the 166,665,000 females in this country, at any given time, only 66,915 of them meet my minimal standards, for a jaw-dropping 1/2490. If I was to sit down and speed date 2,490 women consecutively, for a total of one minute each, it would take 41.5 hours, and there would be a 50% chance that none of them will meet my standards. If I was to do that a second day with a whole new batch of women, there's a 25% chance that still none of them fulfill these normal and historic standards. Twenty five percent! Out of a batch of 4,980 women! And that's assuming things don't continue to get worse, which they will. If decent women are distributed evenly throughout the country, that means that in my native Texas, where the female population is 15 million, there are only 6,024 women who satisfy my criteria.
