Uncle Robin's Advice for Lovelorn Geeks 766
Don't Waste Your Time on Geek Girls
Here you are, an obsessed coder and all that, spending 2/3 of your waking time online and clicking on Slashdot five times a day. Wouldn't it be nice if you could find a woman who shares your interests?
No!
A woman just like you wouldn't be there for you when you wanted a hug. She'd be obsessively coding or posting on Slashdot herself, and would brush you off when you needed her. What you really want is a woman who will be there for you when you get tired of staring at your monitor and need some loving, but will leave you alone and not demand your attention when you're busy. You don't want a Geek Girl. You want a woman who is willing and able to meet a geek's needs, which is not the same thing at all.
Men involved in activities that demand long periods of intense concentration (programmers, artists, writers, musicians, etc.) need women who will respect what they do and help them do it well, not women who compete with them.
We need what are now called "old fashioned girls" who don't mind cooking our meals, rubbing our sore shoulders, and running our bath water for us. There are plenty of these women out there. They're as eager to find you as you are to find them. The trick is sorting through the 6 billion people on this planet to find the woman who is right for you instead of wasting your time on women with whom you cannot possibly build a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship.
Forget the Girls in Playboy
The silicone-enhanced babes you see posing in skin mags and on porn Web sites aren't interested in you. Neither are the blondies you see hanging on football players' arms, and even if one of them suddenly decides you'd be a nice change after the other men she's had in her life, you'll probably be disappointed with her.
I've gone out with more than a few "hot babes" in my time (I wasn't always married) and I generally found them to be more trouble than they were worth. Women who look great aren't necessarily good in bed, and those who have learned how to use their looks as a tool to manipulate men will almost always make your life miserable in the long run. If nothing else, they're expensive. Do you have any idea how much someone like Pamela Anderson spends on clothes, makeup, and cosmetic surgery every year? Trust me: it's more than you can afford unless you're a rock star or the CEO of Oracle (Hi, Larry!), and even then it's more than she's probably worth.
When you take off their clothes and their makeup, many "hot" women are really rather plain. The trick is to find a woman who doesn't spend a lot of time and money cuting herself up, but is pleasant to hold once all the packaging is removed. She'll be more likely to want some cuddling than the vain ones, and, unlike them, will concentrate on loving you instead of worrying about getting her hair messed up.
Practical hint: ever notice how, at a dance or in a bar, 90% of the men try to glom on to 10% of the women? Be smarter than those guys! Pay attention to the women who look nice but unspectacular and are being ignored because they aren't perfectly dressed or made up. The best software usually doesn't come in the fanciest box, right? The same goes for girls.
It's Okay to be Tongue-Tied
Don't worry about other men being "smooth talkers" while you're not. Many, possibly most, of your male ancestors were even less verbal than you, but they still managed to reproduce. (See your mirror for evidence.) Women don't always choose men based on slick opening lines. Indeed, many women tend to be put off by prepared "seduction" speeches, and prefer an honest, if slightly tongue-tied, guy to one who who comes across as having practiced pickup lines for hours on end.
And your clothes don't make all that much difference to women as long as they're appropriate for the time and place. Be clean and neat. That's all you need.
A woman who is only interested in your designer outfits is not only likely to be too shallow for you, but may also be interested in seeing you only in your fancy clothes, not out of them. This is not the right woman for you!
There's More to Life Than Computing
The biggest mistake I see computer-obsessed men make when getting to know women is to talk about nothing but computer stuff all the time. My wife uses her computer all day long as a working tool, but neither knows nor cares what kind of NIC (a 3Com) or how much RAM (64 MB) it has inside. If I want to discuss PC hardware I do it with male friends, not with my wife.
The best way to handle a conversation with a woman, especially one you've just met, is to find out what interests her. Ask her questions! Not whether she likes to be tied to the bed with ribbons and have her tummy tongue-tickled (at least not on a first date) but about her hopes and dreams in life, favorite TV shows, and other general interest things like that. Work and school are usually safe conversational starting points.
You've heard this before, but body language is more important than your words. So look at the girl! I mean her eyes, not her breasts. Don't cross your arms and legs as though you're trying to protect yourself from her. If you want to touch her arm, and she's close, go ahead. Maybe she'll touch you back. If your touch wasn't overly intrusive, returning it will be a natural, almost instinctive, reaction on her part.
You're a little shy and awkward? No big deal. She may be just as shy as you are. Don't push her. If she finds you at all attractive, she'll find subtle ways to be close to you without making it look as if she's being pushy.
And if the girl finds you unattractive, she'll let you know that, too (so you can dump her before you get too serious). Paying attention is the key to picking up the signals either way. If you're having trouble understanding the lady's vibes, ask questions! All females come with HOWTOs. Verbal ones. Ask them questions like, "Does this feel good?" and they'll answer. They also like honest compliments, so if you touch the back of her hand and it makes you feel all warm inside, go ahead and say, "Touching the back of your hand makes me feel all warm inside."
That's certainly a lot classier than, "You got nice boobs," which is a statement virtually guaranteed to put off almost any woman who isn't selling her body for drug money.
In other words, you don't have to be slick with women, but being stupid or crude with them gets you nowhere. (Unless you like stupid, crude women.)
Teenagers Take Heart: It Gets Better
All teenage boys are idiots when it comes to girls. And teenage girls are idiots when it comes to boys. The girls who laugh at you in high school laugh because they're nervous and, if you're exceptionally bright, posibly because they're a little bit scared of you. Sooner or later those same girls will get over their stupid crushes on Ricky Martin (in my time it was Ringo Starr), and other unreachable figures, and decide to look seriously at guys like you. This change generally comes between the ages of 18 and 25. Meanwhile, you may have matured a bit yourself by then, so that when the ditzy girls of today turn into tomorrow's adult women, you will no longer look or act like the dork they thought you were in high school
One warning: be gracious, not obnoxious, to girls you find ugly at the age of 15 or 16. There was a girl named Jessica who had a slight crush on me in high school for some unkown reason. She had horrible acne, bad posture, braces, ugly glasses, and wore tacky, faded dresses. She was also a straight-A student -- and slightly arrogant about it. I was not nice to this girl. Hardly anyone was -- except a very ordinary, slightly geeky guy named Mike.
At 18, Jessica suddenly changed. It was like a movie makeover. She got new glasses and the braces came off. She got a better wardrobe, her acne cleared up, and she stopped being stuck-up about her academic achievements. And she grew ... breasts. She took longer than most to develop in the chest department, but the results were worth waiting for. You know the rest of the story. It was Mike all the way. I'd blown my chance by being a jerk. I still have a flat spot on my forehead from banging it against the wall over Jessica.
Women Are More Complicated than Computers
I think this is why so many guys hide their heads in their monitors instead of going out and meeting women. Understanding women is harder than figuring out the hardest computer game, harder even than setting up a secure 200-client network running *BSD. But women can offer more satisfaction than even an overclocked, dual-Celeron workstation, so learning how to deal with them is worth the extra effort.
I believe the greatest frustration about women for men who are used to dealing with Open Source software is that you cannot fix flaws you find in them. You pretty much have no choice but to take them the way they are. For example, my wife likes to redecorate frequently, which sometimes annoys me, but I've learned to shrug my shoulders and call this part of her personality a feature, not a bug, and to accept it with the same good grace with which I accept a certain respected coworker's unique approach to the English language.
But I take pride in the fact that I am just as much of a mystery to my wife as she is to me, and that she can't change my source code any more than I can change hers.
Perhaps this is the true secret of finding a woman to love: knowing that there is no such thing as a perfect female, but that a woman worth loving is worth loving in spite of her imperfections, just as you are worth loving in spite of your imperfections -- to at least one woman in this world, who is probably sitting alone right now, wishing she could find a fine, brilliant (if slightly shy) man like you to fill that big, empty spot in her life.
Re:This is kidding (Score:1)
very, very intelligent. (Score:1)
but really now, if i could only reach, you can bet i would be doing what you suggest, with no change to my heterosexual status.
and no, i wouldn't swallow.
so go jump off a bridge you bigot prude.
I'm from Canada and I'm scared of bigotspam.
-AC
he's being honest, not PC or hypocritical (Score:1)
Re:How to meet the perfect girl? (Score:1)
Re:Can we make this into a HOWTO? (Score:1)
And, utterly without scientific merit (Score:1)
As just one example, the synapses of the female brain are organized in a tetrahedonal shape, those of the male in a cubic shape. Since information is stored in the magnetically curved space between the synapses, and so, relative to the worldly influences around them, a women's brain will tend to operate on a shorter wavelength than a man's, and faster. Look at the skull size as a starting point for the difference. The larger brain size of the male stretches out the synapses, producing a different magnetic organization of the spaces between synapses, and this slows things down for men. This faster shorter capacity of the female structure is a problem too, in that, their brains are picking up a terrible load of annoying useless noise too. A good woman knows she needs the slower, less noise prone, and more concentrated, imbalanced (that is longer horizon perspective) brains of men, to clear the synatpic air for them, magnetically as it were.
The male brain needs more time to concentrate, and the natural inclination of this longer slower wavelength is on beyond-the-horizon invisible-type things. But this greater concentration wavelength generates higher impulse, a male power of truly distant focus, than the female brain. On the same side of the coin, it's a damn fool of a man who ignores the utterly superior information gathering ability of his female counterpart, and her natural synaptic structure and its natural informational wavelengths. While she needs you to love her, by which means you magnetically blow away all the useless crap out of her brain structure every now and then, giving her brain a refreshed starting point from which to start, so too the male needs her superior "eyes and ears," sometimes called social inclinations, to collect necessary worldly information for you, while you concentrate on the next horizon, or whatever your project is. Trust me, if you are focused on and can see that distant horizon, she needs you and will support you, not because she is some inferior support system, but because she needs that distant perspective which can only be achieved by the synaptic structure and wonderful timing lags and focus of the male brain.
That's just one point of difference, on the synaptic structure and curvature of the synaptic spaces, resulting in different natural operating tendencies of their brains.
Are there any other anthropologists from Mars out there. Beep beep beep.
Re:Utterly utterly offensive (Score:1)
The other thing is that, if geek girls are so awful because they like to spend a lot of time doing certain things, geek guys can't be any better and the right advice would be "perhaps you should become a more balanced human being so that you will be more pleasant to be around", instead of "try to pass yourself off as this great genius composer/artist/inventor dude (which, by all avergaes, you're not) and find yourself a happy doormat who can tell herself she's got a great brilliant catch. They're out there, honest!"
Re:Women. (Score:1)
I don't know about yours (Score:1)
How to meet the perfect girl? (Score:1)
Geek girls rock (Score:1)
HOWTO pick-up women, important links: (Score:2)
(From a former lonely geek now banging chicks left and right):
Useful resources:
be yourself, dammit (Score:2)
In the end, if you just be yourself and are respectful and kind to people you interact with you will eventually attract a person who matches your personality best. If you are a totally dorky nerd with no interpersonal skills, it will probably take a while, but it will happen. As usual, being true to yourself can be a lonely task if you are a "unique" person. But if you are patient, the payout is enormous.
So don't be manipulative or work too hard at "catching" a woman or try to change yourself, but on the other hand don't let your high IQ seduce you into becoming closeminded (know-it-all) or snide or dysfunctionally withdrawn from the world. Make an effort, but be true to yourself.
Cherish your visions; cherish your ideals; cherish the music that stirs in your heart, the beauty that forms in your mind, the loveliness that drapes your purest thoughts, for ... if you remain true to them, your world will at last be built."
--- James Allen
Re:What about gay geeks? (Score:2)
- Robin
Re:is this really "news"? (Score:2)
- Robin
Re:Women. (Score:2)
That mutual respect is what I was looking for, and found in my wife (though we have some rough edges, mostly my fault as some of my values are incompatable with hers but hers are okay with me).
Don't be a dick. (Score:2)
I *could* have said, "The best example I can think of for this sort of relationship is my friend Mike and his girlfriend Sarah", but that would only be effective to the people who know them (a relatively small sample). Trollboy.
----
Re:One secret! (Score:2)
----
Don't listen to him! (Score:2)
But seriously, my girlfriend is somewhat geeky, maybe not as bad as I am, but I like it when she knows what I'm talking about. Being geeky doesn't mean being competitive (I'm not), it doesn't mean being obsessed with computers (she's isn't really, unless you count computer games, but many non-geeky people share that flaw), and it doesn't mean being unable to communicate with people or being unable to express yourself.
Some of your advice is good, but I don't need a woman who will simply accept that I'm different, get in the kitchen, and make me some pie. I think that relationship would be missing something.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
You are truly old school (Score:2)
From what you've said, it seems the only reason to be nice to a woman is on the outside chance she'll make your bed in the morning and let you see her bits once in awhile. That's a pretty messed up way of thinking. If I want a slave, I'll go hang out at the local S&M places.
As for your idea that she shouldn't be a geek, and probably shouldn't be involved in computers, that would present problems for me. Sure I don't live & breathe the things, but it sure would be nice to be able to sit around somewhere and be able to talk like a total nerdy luser and not have to explain everything.
Your theory might work in 1960, but it's not going to work most of the time these days, thank Bob.
dude (Score:2)
Bottom Line: Money (Score:2)
Completely, totally, utterly realistic. (Score:2)
So, we have to make our marriage work. And work it does. Why does it work?
Because both my wife and myself are willing to put aside our egos in pursuit of happiness. Your post reeks of the self-aggrandizement that our society has used to replace humility. A real marriage that is going to have any future has to include mutual sacrifice. And yes, there have been occasions where that has included my wife acting as my servant.
But there's a flip side to that. I have an obligation to care for my wife, no matter what. That obligation includes dieing for her if the issue came up. It includes working hard a long way from home four days a week so that she doesn't have to work and one of us can stay home with our son. Why her? Because I have job skills that let me make more money, plus I really suck at breast-feeding. (On an aside: my son is now coming up on two and has only been sick -- including colds and ear infections -- when he was teething. Compare that to a formula-fed baby sometime).
I have done some, limited, marital counseling. And I can tell you that the only way that a marriage will work in the long term is if both partners give up their ego's and petty desires and pursue the much more lasting joy that can be found in marriage and family. Most problems in marriage come when one partner decides that "just this once" they will place their immediate wants ahead of the needs of their marriage and family. They gave up that right when they said "Love, honor, and cherish till death do us part". Anything less than total love and total sacrifice as though your spouse is yourself is not marriage, but masturbation.
This will be contentious, but I have to say that I am so sick of our culture acting as though everyone has some kind of right to pursue their immediate wants. Often, you have to give up your immediate wants to get what you need -- and you will find greater joy in getting what you really need than the shallow "self-esteem" that our culture glorifies. It's called being an adult.
I'm rambling... Later.
Re:Utterly utterly paranoid (Score:2)
Geek girls are incapable of being loving and considerate, and unloving and inconsiderate geek guys have to avoid that.
OK, I have to agree on this one. This was rather poorly worded. I won't say this article couldn't have stood another revision or two.
The ideal woman is one who selflessly meets your every needs.
I assume you're talking about the "old-fashioned girl" thing. I didn't get that read from the passage, though. It looked to me as though Roblimo was saying that geeks need someone who doesn't mind doing this occasionally. There's a corollary behind this: if she does it sometimes, you'll have to do it too.
The proper role for the woman is that of handservant, who considers running your bathwater to be part of a "mutually beneficial" relationship.
What you describe is, I think, more of an abusive relationship than a mutually beneficial one. The point Roblimo was making was this: At any one time, no given relationship is ever truly equal to both sides. It balances out over time, but at any given moment the man might need more, or the woman might. That's where the phrase "give and take" comes from. This is another thing where Roblimo left out something he should have added: geeks need (actually, anyone needs) a partner who doesn't mind being on the giving end of things sometimes. But said geek had better be prepared to do his fair share of giving sometimes too. In the end, a good relationship will balance out.
One way to evaluate a woman is to take off her clothes and makeup.
Oh, please. He was trying to rephrase "people aren't always what they seem at first glance." Besides which, I suppose it is one way to evaluate a woman; not a good way by any means but a way nonetheless.
In bars, the females that are unattainable are called "women" while the ones that you are supposed to go after are called "girls".
Frankly, I find your paranoia more offensive than anything he said in his article. You're talking semantics now. No need for that.
If a woman finds you unattractive, dump her as quickly as possible.
There are more types of attraction than physical, you know. I think this is what Roblimo was trying to get at. If someone doesn't find you attractive in any way (or, to word it a bit better, isn't sttracted to you at all), then you're both wasting time in a relationship. It seems to me that you're more obsessed with the physical aspects of Roblimo is, as evidenced by the next couple of statements...
Grown breasts are worth waiting for.
Be nice to geeky looking girls, just in case they grow up and look good.
This wasn't even meant to be advice. He was merely giving an anecdote. The unattractive one is teased by all the boys but one. Then, a few years later, she becomes attractive, and everyone wants her but she is only interested in the one who had been kind to her. The moral of the story: don't be mean to anyone, or your decisions could come back to haunt you.
In spite of all of the above, imperfections are to be overlooked.
Either you're a hypocrite or you had absolutely no clue what you were doing when you wrote this one. It runs quite counter to your argument. You seem to fight the idea of the "ideal woman" and yet you state here that any imperfection should be taken as grounds for avoiding a relationship. I have some news for you: no one is perfect. That's what real love is: you recognize the faults in your partner, but you love him/her anyway.
All women are looking for a man to fill the empty void in their lives.
Um, where'd you even pick this one up? I've looked over the article several times and I still can't find anything that even remotely suggests that one. He does say at one point that there are a lot of women who are looking for a man; statistically this is probably quite true (over three billion women on the planet, after all; even one percent of that is still 30,000,000, and there's probably more than one percent looking).
If you're not having any success, find someone like Roblimo, considers himself an expert at picking up chix and is ready to dispense a handful of advice because he has a pleasant and apparently subservient wife who meets his needs.
Look. Roblimo didn't word everything in the article all that well. He's also new; mistakes are to be expected. Heck; I've been reading Slashdot for four years, my Karma is over 60, and I still word things pretty poorly sometimes. No need to jump all over him for one mistake.
Relationship Guides (Score:2)
To those who have not found their special one yet:
It's out there. Go for it. You will know when you met her or him. Then don't let the opportunity pass. Don't listen too much to others, it will be different for you. And, yes, all that trouble is worth it. :)
Chicks like bad boys (Score:2)
True story here:
Me and some buddies went to a party freshman year (college), the whole night was pretty lame everyone was looking for something better to do. I noticed these two bi-chicks sitting at a table in the backyard. I simply approached and asked "Wanna fuck?" and both said yes, immediately.
Moral of the story here guys is chicks are just like us, they get horny and they like challenges as much as they like one night stands. Nice chicks don't get laid anymore than nice guys.
Re:B*S (Score:2)
Best as I can summarize, from my very much outside perspective, this is quite true; However, after going through a lifetime of being patronized and objectified, most women tend to want meaningful sexual relations. After having shallow and crude sexual innuendo and gestures -- and often intercourse itself -- pushed on you for years and years, you'd grow pretty weary of sex for its own sake too. It becomes like the trendy song on the radio they just won't stop playing: After a while you get to hate the whole genre. This is a portrait of an extreme, but just ask any woman friend where inbetween she falls.
Glad it had the "foot" icon anyway (Score:2)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAaaaaa
You're in for some bitter resentment down the line, boy.
Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this (Score:2)
My present partner isn't a techie, or a geek. She's a sales manager for a software company. But being in the same industry she understands the long hours (puts them in herself) and the type of job I do. I've had previous partners from totally different walks of life that didn't understand my job, or the amount of time I spend on Linux and resented it.
So I think there's something to be said for someone who perhaps shares ones interests or at least can relate to it in some way.
Macka
Re:Ok, enough! (Score:2)
--
QDMerge [rmci.net] 0.4 just released!
Re:One secret! (Score:2)
6 years and one kid, and going strong.
Re:Women? Hah. (Score:2)
Why should I go out and do a whole big bunch of things I find horribly unpleasant? It seems to me that the fact that I'm obviously uncomfortable would be a huge turnoff.
Re:Utterly utterly offensive (Score:2)
Geek girls are incapable of being loving and considerate, and unloving and inconsiderate geek guys have to avoid that.
Doesn't apply to all of them, but many.
The ideal woman is one who selflessly meets your every needs. The proper role for the woman is that of handservant, who considers running your bathwater to be part of a "mutually beneficial" relationship.
Maybe not ideal for _you_, but this is what lots of guys are looking for.
One way to evaluate a woman is to take off her clothes and makeup.
That's one way.. there are others.
In bars, the females that are unattainable are called "women" while the ones that you are supposed to go after are called "girls".
I don't know what this means.
If a woman finds you unattractive, dump her as quickly as possible.
I agree...assuming she doesn't dump you first.
Grown breasts are worth waiting for.
Might be his personal preference.
Be nice to geeky looking girls, just in case they grow up and look good.
Advice to LIVE BY.
In spite of all of the above, imperfections are to be overlooked.
Nobody's perfect.
All women are looking for a man to fill the empty void in their lives.
Many are, and many men are looking for a woman to fill a void, so this statement is only partially true.
If you're not having any success, find someone like Roblimo, considers himself an expert at picking up chix and is ready to dispense a handful of advice because he has a pleasant and apparently subservient wife who meets his needs.
Advice can be taken or ignored. He didn't force you to accept his advice did he? I think some of his points were very realistic and can help out people who are shy or have problems with the opposite sex. You've done nothing but criticize.
Can we make this into a HOWTO? (Score:2)
Maybe time for a new poll - how many male
I think so (Score:2)
There may be some truth to the idea, though. What's needed in a relationship isn't for both people to love the same thing so much as to both like what the other one loves. This way you can have understanding of the other. Both loving the same thing may work out better or worse, I'm not really sure as I've never had a relationship where that happened, but I think that it's pretty obvious that you need to at least like what the other one loves.
That being the case, there are a whole lot of other personality traits on has to have in common for a relationship to work as well. Past the basics like being a decent human being, caring, thoughtful, etc., both partners need something of a similar spirit. A similar sense of humor. A similar way of looking at the world. Or maybe compatable is better than similar, though I think that in general it's only similar spirits that are compatible.
Now, personality/spirit types seem to be about randomly spread out through the human race. Some football players are caring, others aren't. Some geeks are caring, others aren't. Geekdom like the rest of professions doesn't require a full person, only a few aspects of a person, so the rest can be whatever God wanted them to be, and they'll work out as geeks (same goes for just about every profession, though different ones select on different traits). If that's true, then you'll be more likely to find a caring person in a somewhat different field, as the number of caring people in your field will be n-1 (assuming that you're a caring person and not going to date yourself).
The other problem is that for men the ratio of men:women in computers is really off balance. You'll find more geek-type girls in other "intellectual" professions (most of my girlfriends have been really into math, biology, or physics (usually with significant overlap)). That piece of advice may be more gender-specific because if you're a computer-geek guy and the number of computer geek guys is l, then the eligible population of dating partners just in computer geeks is something like l/5 (assuming that you're not homosexual). Those aren't good odds to start out with, so you've got a better chance of success by expanding your pools of possibilities. When you include anything which requires at least reasonable comfort with mathematics or logic, your odds of finding someone compatible are just a lot higher (statistically speaking, actual results may vary).
So in conclusion, it all depends (big surprise). If you're a caring partner and need a caring partner, then your odds of finding one may be better or worse if you look in the computing field, but they're almost definitely worse if you limit your search to women in the computing field as there are significantly fewer of them then men (or rather it appears to be so, however someone not announcing their geekiness and someone who isn't a geek is the same thing unless your telepathic).
But I think that a lot of this can be simplified quite a bit:
1. Make friends with everyone you like and try to be on good terms with everyone if possible.
2. If in the course of life one of your friends of target gender starts to want more from you, and at the same time you start to want more from them, and equally importantly you want to give more to each other, then great.
Sounds fairly reasonable, doesn't it?
Re:Think outside the box. (Score:2)
Sure I love the freedom of having tons of porn laying around, not bathing while in the grips of a 3-day coding binge, staying up all night writing code because I was on a roll and didn't want to forget what I was doing because I hadn't commented a single line of code (hehe), etc. But I would gladly give up those "freedoms" for the security of knowing that the woman laying next to me in bed every night loves me .
That's just me. I understand what I need in life and so do you. We're just different. Nevertheless, I envy you.
Best of luck.
<SIG>
I think I lost my work ethic while surfing the web. If you find it, please email it to crispy@crotch.caltech.edu.
</SIG>
He Obviously Missed Their Anniversary (Score:2)
Poor Rob. He missed a big date or something and Debbie is pissed. Quick! Use Slashdot to kiss up and make things right. He won't be sleeping in the doghouse tonight.
Lucky guy. I'd have to buy jewelry.
{grin}
InitZero
Lay of the stupid computer analogies already! (Score:2)
I guess for people like you most of this is sound advice, but I know geeks and geek girls that get along GREAT together. And it's not about being able to discuss computer hardware with them. It's about not having to always dumb it down by talking about the latest gossip and fashions each day.
Smart people often like to just throw around ideas recklessly, making for some very unusual conversations. I know a guy who is a smart computer person, and has a girlfriend who is also a smart computer person. They hardly ever talk about computers. They talk about everything from time travel and astrophysics to the intricacies in the etiquete for calling shotgun. The difference is that their conversation takes place at a much higher level than a typical husband and wife conversation. To outsiders it sounds downright weird, but that's what happens when two people hit the same wavelength.
--
grappler
Woah! Downright wild!!! (Score:2)
They made the poll point to the Robin Miller discussion on women! That will keep it going for a while yet, and probably also cause a fair amount of confusion when a bunch of valid posts are moderated as "offtopic". That's my guess anyway.
About the poll - I'm not one to complain about this, but there really wasn't any option that was even close to my answer, nor was there a "throwaway" option (Rob sux, onions are blue) to indicate none of the above. And I don't think I'm in the minority.
I get along with girls just fine, and have several friends that are girls. But they aren't constantly coming on to me...
--
grappler
Re:This is kidding (Well, this here is serious...) (Score:2)
> PETA women are always looking for partners, and
> they vote just like you and donate to the same
> causes.
Like hell they do! PETA, Greens, and other luddite bastards are the natural enemies of anyone who likes technology and/or believes in liberty. I'd rather be with a "right-wing" chiX0r whose political/religious views I'm indifferent to than some raging tree hugger whose politics are threatening the future of my species and my civilization. Of course, I don't have to settle for right-wing, because the sisters ain't dumb: more and more of them are wising up to what Libertarianism has to offer.
Re:This is kidding (Score:2)
The last thing anybody wants is some ditzy broad that chases after the latest political trends because she's tryin to keep up with the PC crowd and entering the "I care more than you do" race.
Re:The Geek Female - Misrepresented. (Score:2)
Me. I like geek girls.
> This also begs the question: why can't geek girls be supportive, compassionate, and loving?
I don't know if he meant that, per se. Fact is, though, that obsessive behavior (sometimes to the point of neglecting other, very important life details) is a pretty common trait in geeks. Ever lose track of the time when coding something, or researching some little nuance of an algorithm that has piqued your interest? I have. I can see where that could become a bone of contention in a relationship, unless both people understand what's going on. The geek in question (be it a male or female of the species) must know that that behavior is not conducive to gettin' a little lovin' once in a while. The other half of the relationship must also realize that the behavior is not intentional, and that that behavior in no way means that the geek thinks or feels less of you.
Lots of us geeks have a problem with self-image. If I had a significant other, and that person spent more time doing (whatever) than spending time with me voluntarily, I might deduce (correctly or incorrectly) that that person has found a flaw in me that is causing them to not want to spend time with me. Geek guys and geek girls are susceptible to this mindset, and some might not realize that another's obsession with computing and technology might not be an escape from their inadequacy as a partner.
That said, I've examined myself and have noted that, while I have no problem concentrating on some little bit of code I'm toying with for hours on end, or rearranging and rewiring 3+ TB of disks with about 5 minutes of thought, I cannot seem to remember to take my vitamins in the morning. Neglecting those things doesn't mean that I value them less (when I've had the mindset to take my vitamins and thyroid medication for, say, a week straight, I'm rewarded greatly - those things really do help you feel better...), but it's a quirk in my personality.
> Guys need to be willing to drop coding for a night because sometimes their partner needs them
> too.
Indeed. The question isn't whether the person values you enough to drop whatever he or she is doing, but whether the fact that he or she is needed is even realized.
Had I a significant other, I might be doing something quite geeky, walking around my apartment in my underwear (ack! the horror!) waving my hands around in a seemingly senseless dance in front of me (which is actually my using the air like an invisible whiteboard, figuring out some bit of an algorithm), and not notice that my partner was sitting on the couch, her knees drawn to her chest, staring blankly into the cushions, obviously bothered by something. It wouldn't be because I don't care for her, or that I'm insensitive to her needs, but that I've gone off on a tangent and need to be snapped back to reality.
Oh, well... too much. Gotta go out and find a geek girl to make us both unhappy (hell... I'd like someone to discuss weirdo algorithms with, bounce ideas off of her and see if she has any input that might help me...).
--Corey
Re:Utterly utterly offensive (Score:2)
Do people who are exactly alike in their interests make good love interests; not in general, with some this is good, but not in general (not for the reasons Roblimo stated, but that is ok; you dont need subservience, you need a change. When you finish setting up that 200+ client BSD cluster, etc., last thing you want to come home to is "How do I do X" or "look honey I just set up a 5000 client cluster with an OS I wrote myself, and it took me 15 mintutes" instead you want to pretend computers dont exist for a while)
> One way to evaluate a woman is to take off her clothes and makeup.
no one way to evaluate women is to ignore their fancy clothes or the lack thereof, and look beyond their makeup. Very slick twisting of Roblimo's words there...
> The ideal woman is one who selflessly meets your every needs.
>The proper role for the woman is that of handservant, who considers running your bathwater to be part of a "mutually beneficial" relationship.
have you ever been in a relationship? a real one, mind you? I do not mean this as a flame, but your comment does not address the issue.
give you an example. If I just got home, and am tired as shit, and I ask my gf to get me a glass of milk SHE WILL. Why is this? A few reasons:
there is pure quid-pro-quo; she knows I would do it for her
but much more important than that is that this thing called love is involved, and she does it simply because you want it. This does not make her a slave, because if you have ever been in love, men go that far and further in the name of love... and if you want to characterize it as both individuals being slaves to the other DAMN STRAIGHT!!!
> Grown breasts are worth waiting for.
He was trying to say, if you do not find a given woman attractive, still be nice to her. Ideally you would due to human compassion, but if so you would not need reasons, that comes from inside. Roblimo was giving you the amoral (though valid) reasons to act in a moral manner.
>If a woman finds you unattractive, dump her as quickly as possible.
No matter how PC and '90s we get, somethings are inherently true, regardless of how distasteful it sounds. Having been in a relationship where I genuinely like the girl, but do not find her attractive, I can tell you it sucks. (I am not a good actor, and I did not want to hurt her) If a woman is in that position she SHOULD dump you, but she may not be able to work up the courage/ not want to hurt you. Both of you would get more hurt if it went on, so the cogent advice is to give her a hand and initiate the breakup...
quite frankly my friend, the fact that you got moderated up to 5 scares me, because it means others feel like you. It does not mean that you will hurt others necissarily; you all are much more likely to get hurt.
Have a nice day
-RS
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde
Re:This is kidding (Score:2)
Most of my male friends are slashdot readers. Every one of our wives (except for the single guys, of course) are different women with different world views and opinions, even different racial backgrounds and religions. The 'old fashioned' thread that ties them all together is each has a vested interest in the happiness of their spouse. I think that's the 'old fashioned' value Rob was talking about here, not religion or politics. If that mutual respect for another's happiness isn't there, no common belief is going to keep a couple together.
I won't even try to define the average slashdot reader, but I doubt too many guys would have much trouble putting up with someone who cares about their well-being, be they christian, communist, or otherwise.
Don't mix "child free" with "committment free" (Score:2)
You've described a life where you have to make very few compromises- you game when you want, you bathe when you want, you whack off when you want. You have no committments- you are totally your own person, moving through life without any attachments coming between you and what you want to do. To some extent, I can understand the appeal of that. I gave up a lot of that kind of freedom when we "tied the knot".
The thing is, it was a small price to pay for the immense rewards of a *mutually* committed relationship. To put it simply, I *know* that I'm always going to have someone at my back. Someone who is looking out for me, pushing me to be a better person, helping me grow. And it goes the other way, too... I find it immensely rewarding to do the same for her. And the best part is that it's for life. (Yes, I know not all marriages work this way. Mine happens to, and I feel incredibly blessed that it does.)
But we don't have a minivan. We leave town whenever we want. I can leave computer parts lying around without worring about seeing them on a medical X-ray the next day. Most importantly, we enjoy having a lot of time for ourselves. We would have to give a lot of this up if we have kids.
From what you've written, it sounds to me like you've developed a very stereotypical viewpoint of women (they all want children) and mutually-committed relationships (biological manifest destiny). Maybe it's what's right for you. Before I found the right person, I would have been horrified at the idea of making the sacrifices I have. After I found her, I discovered that there were other things that were important to me, so changing was not a sacrifice.
My point is, don't knock something until you've tried it. Coding and gaming may be what you are optimizing your life for now, but that's based on your current preferences. You may discover some day that there are other things that you enjoy more. Unless you open yourself to that possibility, you'll never know, and could miss out on something wonderful.
And yes, I apply this to myself. My wife and I are keeping an open mind about kids, even though it's not what we want now. Who knows... anything can happen. I just hate to see people who aren't willing to consider that.
Yet More Wishful Thinking Love Advice (Score:2)
And in all cases, all such Love Advice has the following characteristics:
- It attempts to allay fears that there is something wrong with the reader, while trying to appeal to their nagging fear that they are doing something wrong, or looking in the wrong place.
- It suggests that the solution to the reader's problem is quite simple, even if it suggests that some sort of "hard work" is involved (adding to the reader's likely sense of social ineptitude).
- It brags about the author's ability to succeed where the reader has failed (adding to the reader's likely sense of futility and bad luck).
More importantly,
- It is written by someone who did not need any Love Advice of this sort in order to so succeed,
and above all,
- It either isn't applicable to the reader's situation, or it plain doesn't work at all.
The further implications of the second to last point is that although the author thinks, through his own experience, that he has found The Answer which eludes all others. The reality is that the Love Advice written is an introspection of the author's own desires, and is a well-meant but misleading attempt to take that which worked for the author, in his situation and environment, and generalize it so that it can apply to others. This is never successful, in that what worked for the author, is quite unlikely to ever work for anyone else.
ob.antithesis:
No one ever writes "Advice for the Lovelorn _Girl._"
Irked once again,
Romulus
Re:is this really "news"? (Score:2)
I don't mean to be offensive, but I think the thing that stroked me the wrong way was it had a patronizing tone to it. I know it was not meant/written that way, but it felt like it.
One secret! (Score:2)
Oral sex and lots of it.
Re:One secret! (Score:2)
There should be a retard filter for possible moderator status. It could use the NSA's software (espionage!) to figure out what people's posts were saying and then use them to decided whether or not they are a moron.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Ok, enough! (Score:2)
It's been a consistent story on Wired and other news sources. Now I have Slashdot telling me how to pick up women?
Re:Utterly utterly offensive (Score:2)
I hate to me-too this post, but I couldn't agree more. This article has to be the biggest load of shit I have ever seen on Slashdot, or in any other publication I have respect for.
Roblimo may want a wife as a long term prostitute, but hopefully most of us are looking for a real soulmate. I don't want a woman to be "there for me" whenever I want her, I want to be there for her just as much. Obviously the interests don't have to be the same, but I sure as hell want a woman who I feel is my intellectual equal, and that probably means geeky.
If anything this article agrees with one of my long time cynisisms: the best way to get women is to be a complete asshole.
I think Jon Katz should be proud that Slashdot is around to publish this shit, because it would be censored in just about any real world media.
-
Dare I say it? "Me too!" (Score:2)
I had a psych of personality book that basically said "marry your opposite"
I think that most of the problems some geek guys have with the idea of dating a female geek come down to some form of insecurity. Either they want the gorgeous babe to take back to their high school reunion as a "who's sorry now?", or they are afraid of being "beaten by a girl" and don't want an intellectual equal around, or (this seems to be the most frequent) they are disturbed by having a SO who has a lot of male friends and/or gets along quite swimmingly with their friends. For someone who is socially insecure as it is, that can be pretty threatening.
Satire or not, it has some good points (Score:2)
I know some geek guys who have their act together, but many of them are still in Lost Boy mode (even my own boyfriend falls slightly into this category, though he is at least in school full-time). And I certainly wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't seem to understand that swearing at one's manager is a real good way to get fired
One thing that is absolutely non-negotiable in my relationship is that my boyfriend WILL live outside his mom's house without me before any prospect of living together or marriage. I haven't lived at my parents' house for more than two weeks since I was 16, and I've been (mostly) financially independent for two years. I have a friend, something of a big-sister figure, who is separating from her husband after she put him through school (and it apparently took him something like 10 years to finish). This isn't cool. Self-respecting adults need to be involved with other self-respecting adults, not Lost Boys (or Lost Girls, for that matter).
Re:what a useless waste of a post. (Score:2)
Re:Woah! Downright wild!!! (Score:2)
Re:Women. (Score:2)
How can you tell an extroverted software engineer?
He looks at your shoes when he talks to you.
Re:This is kidding (Well, this here is serious...) (Score:2)
Being opposed to ethical anthrocentrism isn't a Luddite view, it's the only one in keeping with science and logic. And understanding that certain technologies have a negative environmental impact, and preferring the development of those that don't, isn't a Luddite view, it's the proper application of scientific and technical knowledge for the best long-term benefit.
Combining science, logic, long-term thinking, and compassion is no threat to the human speicies - it's the only hope our species has for survival.
(Since this has nought to do with lovelorn geeks, if anyone wants to discuss these points further I suggest e-mail - remove "spambefuddler-" from the address above.)
One satisfied geek girl.... (Score:2)
I think too much attention seems to be focused on finding someone. You've gotta be able to enjoy life on your own before you can enjoy it with someone else.
I am a geek girl in a happy relationship with a geek guy. We both spend time doing geeky stuff, but we know when we need to spend time with eachother too. (to be redundant, I must reiterate... just because we are geeks, doesn't mean we are inconsiderate bastards).
As with many geeks, my high school experience was not a terrible success. I had friends, but I was certainly not a desirable candidate for the gf role. So what? I learned a lot of cool stf, and made some good friends.
When I came to university, I didn't look to find an SO... I looked to find friends. And being in the minority of a cs program at univ, all of my friends are guys. They are equals. And one of my friends became my bf. It wasn't a forced manhunt, it was a natural attraction between two equals, two individuals, two multi-talented-interesting people. And that's why it works so well. We can respect eachothers headspace. We are friends.
The things I wanted fufilled weren't rigorous or difficult. I wanted an equal, who treated me as an equal, who was fun to be with, and made me smile. Someone I just felt really good being around. That sort of natural attraction that can't be manufactured. Intelligence and personality were truly the most important.
There are other geek girls AND non-geek girls like this. If someone is really worth being with, they won't care that you don't look like the ideal wo/man. And you'd be surprised how attractive most people really are, once you drop the idea of prefection. ;)
---
Clueless? (Score:2)
"Many" geek girls are unloving, inconsiderate? Many PEOPLE are like that. But most? All? The implication in the original article was that ALL geek girls are like that. Thus, criticism in the post to which you responded.
So many men are looking for a selfless handservant, who doesn't take, only gives. Point: Those women will BORE YOU given time. Sure, I give, but I also take. And I can take it if he spends a majority of his life at the computer, but I'll yell at him if it means he's neglecting me.
The "evaluation via nude appearance" thing is satirical; I won't bother.
The "women"/"girls" problem: the atuthor of the article used these referents, which may imply that he sees the women you can't get as mature and the girls you can get as immature, not yet fully females, etc.
Dumping an woman who finds you unattractive...how do you know she does? And wouldn't this be related more to other problems? And why would she be with you if she didn't want to?
Maybe Robin's personal preference IS to act nice to geek girls in case they grow nice breasts. But are these words to live by...for all of us? Or just for him? If it's just for him, then why is he telling us to do it? And if it's for "us," then what's a female geek to do "I must, I must, I must increase my bust"? (Oh, by the way, you may notice that the girl, Jessica, whom he wished he'd gotten, was a geek. Breaking Rule #!, Robin! None of them uppity geek chix!)
No. Nobody's perfect. But the author of the post to which you responded was pointing out the hypocrisy/contradiction among the implications of the pieces of advice in the article.
The "void" thing -- no judgments here. Some people are happy alone, some aren't, some are dependent on others for happiness, or so they believe. Men, women, all of us. But Uncle Robin's advice simply feeds/buys into the stereotype that women are like this, that we need men for happiness.
And yes, we can ignore his advice. And we should, some of it, because IT'S BAD ADVICE. Sure, some of it's good, some of it's bad. Many of the critics here have acknowledged and praised the good advice in the article. What's wrong with criticism? One post may criticize, another may praise, even by the same poster. It has a valid place in Slashdot discussions, in any discussion.
Re:Utterly utterly offensive (Score:2)
By the way, the endless comparisons of women and computers/software were really asinine. Fancy box? Not open-source? Please.
Re:top 10 dangerous ideas (Score:2)
overtone is outdated and frankly a bit sexist.
I think people need to lighten up. A good dose of sexism is fun and healthy... as long as it is taken somewhat lightly.
Sure, I am sexist, I admit it. I think there are inherent differences between how men and women behave and react to certain situations. Those differences can be funny, and there is no reason to pretend they do not exist.
I also feel a need to, and enjoy "protecting" the women I date.
I still believe in "ladies first", and when walking arm in arm, the man should walk on the street side. I will open doors and shiver in the cold after giving away my jacket. Maybe it potrays a sense of fragility that is not present for woman, but I enjoy doing these things... call me a caveman.
I like bitching about women and their ways, and I enjoy hearing others bitch about men and their ways. I like going out with the "guys" on occasion... and then being made fun of for the stupid things we do. I also enjoy making fun of her when she goes out with the "gals", and the stupid things they do.
Sexism is fine... as long as there is mutual respect.
Re:...you were being serious? Not At All! (Score:2)
Sorry if I offended you, Roblimo's post had the same sort of generalisations - yet made some valid points.
Rob's valid points were to be yoursdelf, and not to set standards too high or you may be overlooking a perfect girl for you simply because she does not look like the girl of your dreams.
My point was to the girls, that you can not sacrifice your own independence for a man, and that there are some men out there, perhaps Rob included who need a woman to care not just about them, but for them. These men are what I was refering to as Mama's Boys.
Also the point about a bar as a meeting place, the bar can be a fine place to dance, and even have a relaxing drink - but it is not a place to meet a lover or a partner. You want to meet a person when you are of clear mind to genuinely assess thier character.
And with regards to the statement about men all wanting to sleep with thier female friends - that was obvious in its lack of sincerity. Friends make the best lovers - and best mates. There is a trust there. What that waas is a parody of the "you are such a good friend
The last couple lines should have made the parody of the whole thing more clear, but still there was a point there. If you feel you are lacking in self-confidence and you decide to play the part, self-confidence often follows. Same with when you are out with friends, if you are having an awfully dull time, act like you are having fun, and soon enough, you will be.
It is a simple little axiom, but we reap what we sow, if you want a fun loving, self-confident partner, you are more likely to find that partner if you are fun-loving and self-confident.
Who you are attracts a certain type of partner. I am sure a man like you will have no trouble atracting a woman who likes a creative, secure man.
After all, you must have confidence to admit being a mama's boy!! - Just kidding.
--
Re:Utterly utterly offensive (Score:2)
--
Matt Singerman
How long can I make this post..? (Score:2)
And will I follow suit after Sig and dispense with my karmic powers..? Hmm. So, enough with the pointless rhetoric:
(warning: this post was inspired by Sig's request and done out of total boredom.. if you read this post, you do so at your own risk)
To be quite honest, I'm not looking for anything in the ``geek community''. That would be referred to as ``limiting my options''. I look for females in the general population of humanity. I know, it's scary, and difficult to narrow down, much less make a decision, but after a while your filters are pretty finely honed. ;)
First I should begin by saying that unlike some others, my first love is not hacking. It's creative thought. I do a lot of writing, though only when I feel moved to for some reason or another. With regards to song lyrics or poetry, it's only when I'm feeling especially emotional (my best stuff is rather depressing, but hey). I also like developing game worlds, characters, creatures, just about anything that has to do with the inner workings of an rpg. Naturally this is an extension of the fact that I used to like writing stories more than I do now. :)
That said, it is indeed a necessity that the person I am likely to want to spend a significant amount of life with would have to share a number of interests with me. It sort of has to be that way, or else you can't really relate to one another. However, those who really have no other interests besides programming are true computer geeks, and really need to get a life. And yeah, there's a big difference between hackers, programmers, and computer geeks. =P (for me, personally, I wouldn't want a programmer (or related term) because the other key topics of interest for me are more of a requirement, and if they were a programmer or whatever on top of that as well, we'd probably be too damn similar.. which is not so good.. disclaimer: this has never been tested in practice, only in theory)
I am most attracted to those women who take a great interest in creative things, such as writing, roleplaying (I can even deal with those who like to play Magic, even though I personally detect the game ;) -- especially White Wolf stuff, and anything else that involves being imaginative. I also happen to be extremely emotional, and have a rather off sense of humor. So another requirement is that the woman in question sort of has to grasp my sense of humor (which is exemplified by the fact that I've seen Army of Darkness between 500 and 1000 times, and am still not sick of it.. how I managed to find a woman who has done the same is really mind-boggling.. other good examples would be Squee! and JTHM by Jhonen Vasquez.. both are really good), and must be supportive, patient, and understanding.
And since my tastes are rather rarified, and I'm also rather sensitive, I have trouble dealing with women who are overly abrasive, or uncaring. I like nice, sweet girls. This is not to say that I mind profanity (who the fuck does? you can, however, get too vulgar at times.. I don't like to feel ill ;), or that I'm some sort of prim and proper type (actually, I prefer those who are rather daring, and am a classic example of a good number of ``counter culture'' values). Perhaps this part is too hard for me to explain?
However, while I disdain the thought of chasing after other hacker types, I must admit that anyone who is completely clueless with a computer is not likely to be someone I can relate to on a long-term basis. They don't have to be some sort of uber geek who sits around on the Internet for extended periods of time amassing huge collections of.. ok, screw that explanation. Point is, the girl should at least be familiar with a computer as a user. I don't care if they can program the damn thing, but.. you know. (after all, I spend a good deal of time with my computer, so I might be bothered by the idea of a complete and total lack of interest/cluefulness with regards to what I'm doing.. it's sort of boring to be excited about something you saw on the net and have no one to say anything about it to :)
First and foremost, however, I expect honesty. I'm almost unnaturally direct and honest about just about everything, and I don't take well to being lied to. Truth and honor.. things that are too often forgotten in this world of ours. Broken promises and out and out lies are the two most common reasons for me ditching a girl. ;)
To sum it up, intelligence and personality are the two key ``umbrella'' qualities. As long as the woman is ``cute'', it doesn't matter too much how attractive they are physically, because attractiveness is determined by their overall personality (which is not overshadowed by their appearance unless they are flat out repulsive.. this is an unfortunate fact.. I wish it weren't so, but the truth is there). Basically, I sort of need someone with whom I can actually talk to (``dumb'' girls (or guys, for that matter) simply aren't very intellectually stimulating, and a long term relationship.. it's just not there..), and who actually cares about me (duh).
Ok, screw it again. I'm tired of explaining this (you can tell I didn't write this in a linear fashion.. hee hee). I'll just sum up my general thoughts of the article with a couple of key points: You should find someone who appreciates you for who you are, and whom you appreciate for who they are. You find who you are meant for, you don't change others or yourself to suit the other. The puzzle fits together, or it doesn't. Plain and simple. Having around a half to 2/3 or even 3/4 the same common interests is ok. Having less or more.. probably bad. You want to be able to relate to one another and also be interested and intrigued in one another. You want to be with someone you can talk to, not someone with whom you feel like you're talking to yourself.
All in all, ``Roblammo'' brought up some good points, and a lot of poor ones. I won't bother going through the article line by line, however.. I just don't have the time and/or inclination. Ha! (I'm not even editing this post.. fear)
Ok, look, for all you lamers.. (Score:2)
..see that second sentence next to "News for Nerds"? The one that says, yeah, "Stuff that Matters"? You'll note that this doesn't say "Stuff that Matters to", say, "Kitsune Sushi". I may not care about half or more of the "crap" that gets posted to Slashdot. It matters to someone, though, or else it wouldn't have gotten posted. Not everything on this site is news. Or do you think Ask Slashdot is all about the latest uber geek news? heh.
heh. (Score:2)
"Homogenius": a deft play on words, or a spelling error in desperate need of correction? You be the judge.
Seriously, though, I have to disagree that geeks as a group compare to a certain kind of milk. =P It all depends on the chemistry of your personality, really. I, for example, enjoy all sorts of creative thought, love to write (poetry, prose, song lyrics, whatever), roleplay, drool for long periods of time while playing around on the net (er.. oops.. didn't mean to add that one), etc. I would probably think myself to be in some sort of hell if I fell in love with someone else interested in programming, but brilliant, creative women.. That I can relate to.. and enjoy doing so.
I'd like to assert that if you're looking for someone who just looks good, getting into a relationship with that person is a bad idea. After all, if you're only interested in the material, and that feeling is probably being reciprocated (or else the girl/guy is a sucker), then you probably don't want to be mutually exclusive. =P
They do..? *falls out of his chair, woozy, starting to look a little ill..* Personally, I don't need nor want a rocket scientist, and so long as the girl is "cute", I'm not likely to obsess over aesthetics. After all, I'm looking for personality, not just.. well, heh. The thing I find most distasteful about looking for dates in the real world is you're obviously going to be drawn to who you find the most attractive, which is rather unlikely to be the person who's personality you're going to find the most agreeable, compatible, attractive, etc.
Your wish.. is my command.. This could take a while, however, so I'm not going to include it in this comment. ;)
Shouldn't be computer illiterate, though (Score:2)
There is a danger in having a girlfriend who knows next to nothing about computers: they don't understand why you need to spend so much time behind the monitor. They feel a little alienated and somehow as if the computer deserves more attention than them. The author says that you should look for a woman that is willing to accept that you spend these long periods of time, but I can tell you that those are far and few in between.
Also, if they don't know/care, it can be difficult for them to understand your world. And who ever said that other coders (your girlfriend in this case) are your competitors. I don't consider my other geek friends my competitors... Of course, it's true that she'd be likely to be busy with her own things, and there'd be even less time toghether.
Still, I agree with a lot of things in this article. Looks aren't everything, and I'd rather have someone who I could have an intelligent conversation with than some girl that is only beautiful.
Cheers!
Women more complex than even sendmail ? (Score:2)
Too scary for me to go near
Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this (Score:2)
But, I do have to say that most of everything that "Uncle Robin" I would agree with though. A lot of that is good advice. Some main rules: DON'T USE PICKUP LINES (there's nothing we hate more), just be yourself (we think its cute if your nervous
Overall, just be yourself, there's nothing better you can do than that!
Re:Utterly utterly offensive (Score:2)
> The ideal woman is one who selflessly meets your every needs.
Being in love with someone is being *willing* to selflessly meet your partners needs. This comes from within and isn't the terrible thing you seem to think it is.
That would be right, except that Roblimo advises one not to look for a geek girl because she'll be too busy hacking on computers to service your needs. Rather, find a girl willing to service your needs while you hack on your computers.
> Be nice to geeky looking girls, just in case they grow up and look good.
The moral of that story is "Be nice to everyone, 'cause that ugly duckling may just be the lovely swan
Don't you get it? This is precisely what he takes offense against: being nice to someone just in case they turn out to be good looking.
and don't do to others what you don't like them doing to you."
Yes, but this sentiment wasn't present in Roblimo's aritcle.
I hope.... (Score:2)
Incidentally, how does this apply to geek guys? If one is not supposed to date programming chicks who post on
Marissa, one of the many defenders of geek womanhood
Don't think so... (Score:2)
I'm having difficulty imagining a woman who would feel comfortable hearing something like that from a man she wasn't already seriously involved with. If you say something like this to a woman you've just met, she'll probably either be seriously creeped out or she'll assume it's a lame pick-up line.
I doubt Roblimo's article is really going to help anyone do better with women. You don't improve your social skills by reading about them. You just have to get out there and relate to real people and learn from your experiences.
this is sickening (Score:2)
Re:Women. (Score:2)
It's the old "She's smart for a woman, how'd she get that way" bit again.
Yes, I am introverted, but the coolest guys I meet are too. The best conversations I've had since Orientation all began "FreeBSD or Linux?" or "What'd you think of Ender's Game?", never "Where're you from?" or "What's your major?" I don't think I'm that threatening, either as a girl/woman or as a geek, so smile and say hi!
just my random thoughts...
Re:This is kidding (Score:2)
Re:Utterly utterly offensive (Score:3)
I definitely have a preference for breast size - I won't mention what it is. But my favorite breasts are my wife's. Not because they're large, medium, or small, but because they're HERS. Take hers and put them on someone else, and in the long run they're not interesting to me.
The point is that, if we're thinking, feeling people, we look beyond the superficial and fall in love with the REAL PERSON. We value who they are, and what they look like becomes less and less important, only important in that it is a part of them.
Believe me, I'm not offended by Robin's preferences. I'm offended that he considers them so important that, in an essay on what to look for in a relationship, he made them the subject of over half of what he wrote. And in that particular case, he was basically saying that you should be nice to the ugly, not because you should be nice in general, but because they might someday be good-looking. His reasoning follows that if you knew in advance that they'd still be ugly in ten years, you'd have no reason to be nice to them.
I got news for ya. In the long run, we're ALL ugly. In 10 years, 20 years, 30 years YOU will be the ugly one. After 20 years of gravity and infant feeding, those breasts won't be so pretty. If we're lucky, the majority of our lives will not be spent looking young and beautiful. If we're wise, those ugly years will still be meaningful, and we will not spend our time pining for the beautiful days.
Anyway, I guess you haven't been on a college campus and met those women looking for their "MRS". But that's basic biology and you don't seem to like that.
Not only have I been on a college campus and met those women, I've seen the result of those sorts of marriages in the long term. The current film "American Beauty" sums those marriages up extremely well -- full of empty accomplishments, missing most of what's really important in life.
To say that husband-hunting is the result of basic biology -- that's even more offensive than Roblimo, who simply took his personal preferences and assumptions about the world and applied them to everyone. To you, the MRS women aren't merely trying to satisfy a societal preference, they're hard-wired to do so. Doesn't it bother you that that very thinking has been used to excuse the very worst of all human behaviors in history?
Re:good point... (Score:3)
Debbie (my wife) is not a clueless bimbo ; she's a talented artist and an adept computer user. She's also a former Baltimore police officer who enjoys playing with guns.
I wrote exclusively about what a (geek) man might want from a woman. One of the women reading this might want to write a similar piece from her point of view. (E-mail me first to make sure it doesn't get lost in the submissions bin, okay?)
But that's enough /. contention for one day. I think I'll take Debbie out for an early supper at her favorite dress-up restaurant as soon as I finish washing the breakfast dishes. She deserves it. And besides, I love her and enjoy making her happy.
- Robin
Women. (Score:3)
Just a reality check for all of you out there. I'd like to hear what both sexes are looking for in the geek community... I suspect the answers will suprise both sides.
--
top 10 dangerous ideas (Score:3)
1. "don't waste your time on geek girls"
this holds two rather interesting assumptions - a) everyone who's reading this is either a) a heterosexual male or b) a homosexual female. as neither, I found the title quite striking. am I really a waste of time? my s.o. doesn't seem to think so, oddly enough.
2. "wouldn't it be nice if you found a woman who shares your interests? NO."
well, as you said in the post I'm responding to, you say your wife is a "talented artist and an adept computer user". apparenly she at least understands what you do, assuming that that's computers. one could also suppose that, forming a balanced, healthy relationship, you also share some interests of hers, perhaps in guns or art. while doing things outside of your normal sphere is healthy and interesting, see how long you can spend with a person who shares no interests with you. at least for me, that's not very long.
3. "She'd be obsessively coding or posting on Slashdot herself, and would brush you off when you needed her. What you really want is a woman who will be there for you when you get tired of staring at your monitor and need some loving, but will leave you alone and not demand your attention when you're busy."
rather one-sided, is it not? you reserve the right to interrupt her at any time, but you don't want her to do the same in return? I admit that this can be a problem in a geek-geek relationship, but I've seen it be even more of a problem in a geek-nongeek relationship. at least a geek understands when you're REALLY busy, and will keep you from working ALL the time, but allow you to get what is truly important done. it simply requires understanding.
4. "Men involved in activities that demand long periods of intense concentration (programmers, artists, writers, musicians, etc.) need women who will respect what they do and help them do it well, not women who compete with them."
so I am competition? for what? perhaps if a person is obsessed with being THE best at whatever she/he does, they would have a problem having a relationship with someone who also shared those interests. perhaps it is that person who has a problem, and not the geek commmunity at large. this is not a view I would expect in the nineties, but rather in the fifties. it harks back to the fear that boys have of meeting a girl who is better/smarter/tougher than they are, because they expect to be better/smarter/tougher by virtue of their sex. I, at least, look for a mate I respect highly, and if their proficiency is in my field, that is not a detractor.
5. "There are plenty of these women out there. They're as eager to find you as you are to find them."
the WWN would suggest otherwise
6. "instead of wasting your time on women with whom you cannot possibly build a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship"
who do you mean? the geek girls? I'd hope we are not to be dismissed from consideration so lightly.
7. "If I want to discuss PC hardware I do it with male friends, not with my wife."
I'd hate to assUme, but perhaps you have not had any sort of a relationship with a geek girl, including any sort of friendship. we may be "one of the guys" in some ways, but since we are certainly not male, I assume you're not referring to one of us. perhaps you will someday. we're not all bad.
8. "she'll let you know that, too (so you can dump her before you get too serious)"
if she finds you unattractive, she'll dump you, generally. no need for Macho Man to do it for her, so I would avoid jumping to conclusions.
9. "She took longer than most to develop in the chest department, but the results were worth waiting for."
as much as guys seem to be obsessed by breasts, I can't bring myself to believe you meant this as you phrased it. I don't agree with the general sentiment either, but you have a right to your opinion.
10. "Understanding women is harder than figuring out the hardest computer game, harder even than setting up a secure 200-client network running *BSD"
same goes for guys, you know.
now, many of your "life/relationship wisdom" nuggets are good ones, but quite a bit of the overtone is outdated and frankly a bit sexist. I'm not trying to insult you, that's just the way it looks to me, a geek girl of a younger generation. perhaps I've misinterpreted you, but that's neither here nor there.
I really do hope someone writes that woman piece, or even a balancing male piece, since many guys I know don't share many of your views (and brought this article to my attention becasue they were quite PO'd on my behalf).
Lea (real email: chialea@cory.eecs.berkeley.edu)
Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this (Score:3)
This was basically guy talk here, so don't read too much into it
If Roblimo was going to write something that would offend nobody, it would be at least twice as long and therefore twice as likely not to be read. (OK, OK, that's glib, but it's at least generally true.) He made some generalizations in the process of trying to quickly debunk other people's generalizations; to make them think about their own preconcieved notions by presenting them with other ideas. It's a Good Thing; I'm suspect Roblimo would be the last to claim that this was The Final Word on this topic.
The reader is expected to take the opportunity to, ummmm, I don't know what verb to put here, take? a Babe or Geek if the opportunity presents, but to look beyond that anyhow.
(Me? I'm extremely happily engaged to a zoologist, who has a basic understanding of computing but still has no idea why I get paid what I do for being a good webmaster. If I'd stuck to local geek girls, I'd have never gotten anywhere. More people need to realize that this may be true for them too. It's not necessarily true for everybody, but it is for some.)
Women? Hah. (Score:3)
Or, how many get crushes (on that goth girl at the next table at lunch (and convince themselves that's a perfect person since they have so much to talk about that's different and so much to share), and end up dating them for several months only to come to the realization that there's not a single thing holding the relationship together than "gee, this girl and I have nothing to talk about and nothing to do together, since we live in completely different worlds."
Geeks DON'T know what they want in a relationship, which is why most of their relationships blow chunks (or never even get started, for that matter). And a guide on "How To Be a Normal Human Being 101 by Roblimo, Master of Suaveness" isn't going to help them get to grips with the fact that the REAL secret to successful relationships is to:
GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GET OUT THERE AND START TALKING TO PEOPLE.
Things will happen from there. If you're in high school, sign up for clubs besides Math Team, Quiz Bowl, and the Honor Society. Join a sport (track is always recruiting), or the theatre group (and don't just be a techie, TRY out for a part, for Pete's sake), or anything artsy. If you're in college, go to meetings besides the comic/sci-fi/fantasy club. While Killer and Magic: The Gathering may be a great game to play on weekends, there are much more fun ways to be spending your time that involve the Real World.
-Chris
To those who are going to object to this: (Score:3)
So obviously it's not OK to stereotype men. But stereotyping women is fine and dandy? I don't think so, and evidently I'm not the only one. I did feel that the article was something of a slam against geek girls and against intelligent women in general, though I know it wasn't intended as such. In some ways, the fact that it WAS so unintentional makes it all the more dangerous IMHO. The Mars-and-Venus books and crap like The Rules make it very clear to women that if they have brains, they're supposed to hide them if they every want to catch a man (which is, of course, the overriding goal of all women, right?)
Having this perpetuated on Slashdot, even in fun, shows me (and apparently a lot of other
Think outside the box. (Score:3)
I'm currently living with my best friend. We've known each other for >10 years, and I've asked her out during that time, but she wasn't interested. She still ain't. Never will be. (You know the old saying, "if a woman don't sleep with you in the first 10 years, she probably never will?") Apart from the occasional hug of sympathy when Shit Happens, we've never laid a finger on each other. Certainly nothing sexual.
Now that we've hung out for 10-odd years, I can see it's just as well - a year or so ago, she told me she wanted to have kids someday, something which I find horrific. (Hey geeks, if you think women are buggy, try kids! If your pet dog knocked things over everywhere it went, and spent two years pissing and shitting all over itself, and thought that puking on your shoulder was a nice way to say "hello", you'd probably have it put down! Somehow when sproggen do it, it's considered "cute". Sigh.)
"So where's the sex?", I hear you cry. Gentlemen (and ladies, hey, these roles can just as easily be reversed), evolution provided you with all the equipment you require for orgasm. A hint: mix genitals and hands. Your built-in feedback system should take care of the rest.
Back to my platonic friend, roommate, and for lack of a better term, love o' my life. Having her around has been a breath of fresh air. Someday she'll find Mr. Right and move on. But in the meantime, my rent's been cut in half, and I have a dinner companion whenever I want one. When the day comes that she moves on, I'll happily revert to bachelorhood.
Happily? Yeah, happily. Fact is, there ain't too many women out there who don't want sprog, so the odds of me finding Ms. Right are pretty much nil. So I'm outa the gene pool. Big deal. Because of this, I can go to LAN parties, play Quake and Rainbow Six 'till all hours of the night, enjoy some smut when the urge strikes, and if I feel like "going caveman" and not bothering with showering or shaving for a 3-day coding binge, hey, so be it. Life is so hard.
So let's see the suburban minivan-driving, it-seats-6-sproggen crowd top that for a lifestyle? "Sorry, we can't make it to the opera tonight, couldn't find a babysitter. Quake? It scares the kids when I turn the subwoofer on. Pr0n? I get the real thing from my wife... um, but only on her terms. Code? I remember coding all night for the hell of it. Once. Now every time I get deeply into a problem, I'm interrupted by a shriek that could shatter jello. Bratleigh wants the bottle again, either that or I'm gonna be up to my elbows in baby shit... again. But hey, at least I found a girl. I'm happy. Really."
Want companionship? Someone to love? Find a good friend and make the most of it.
Wanna fuck? Wanking is cheap, readily-available, and it's guilt-free.
To put it another way - love and sex are the evolutionarily-developed bribes to make you go through the hassle of finding a partner and raising umpteen sprog to propagate your genes. But you're a homo sapiens, fer chrissakes. That's Latin for "thinking (wo)man". You've got a huge-ass brain. Why not use it to figure out a solution that gives you the joy of being with someone you love, the pleasure of all the sex you want, and the freedom that comes with not having sproggen? Where is it written that you have to sprog, and/or that you have to get your love and sex from the same source? If you can get 'em from the same source, great (and having a good friend is a good way to start anyways) - but don't worry if you can't.
As a final note - for anyone who suggests that being childfree is somehow "immature" or "selfish", might I recommend the comics of Nina Paley [ninapaley.com]?
Re:He Obviously Missed Their Anniversary (Score:3)
Show me a single self-respecting woman who would respond to this in a positive way!
Allow me to sum up roblimo's wife, as he described her:
She's there to hug him at his will, but leaves him alone otherwise.
She cooks his meals.
She rubs his shoulders.
She runs bath water for him.
She's no supermodel.
She has big breasts (or so I assume, since he made a big deal out of it in the Teenagers Take Heart: It Gets Better section
She redocorates too much, and roblimo doesn't like what she does
If I were his wife, I'd be pretty pissed right now, or have no self-esteem to start with. For her sake, I hope she doesn't see the article.
As for tactics on how to pick up chix:
Don't bother. Treat females with the same respect you give other humans. (For some of you, it may require a bit more.)
A novel concept: stay honest and try to show interest in things without microprocessors. (There is an entire world out there, and more beyond that!)
To sum up, be true. Don't lie, don't embellish. If you're looking for someone to love and respect you, you have to be prepared to do the same.
-noop
Debbie's advise for lonely Geeks! (Score:3)
btw, Debbie is always welcome in #aftery2k
Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this (Score:3)
Like a hardware and a software geek or perhaps a sysadmin and a programmer.
You can't have too much in common as to lead to competetiveness or boredom, but a common interest in a realm - but different aspects can be quite interesting. Take it from me - that is what I have, and it rules.
How about advice for the lovelorn geekettes? The single geekettes may like some advice too on how to find that man who doesn't mind thier passion for source code.
I would have to say the best advice I can give from my experience is find a man who does not need to be cared for or mothered in any way. Find a man who considered it a treat if you bake cookies - although you would have rather translated the recipie into perl for humor sake.
A man who needs to be cared for, and needs his dinner cooked for him or he will forget to eat, with not appreciate the time you spend programming.
Find a man who lives alone, without roomates. Never takes his laundry home to his mom, infact preferable lives in a different city than his mom. Mama's boys are looking for a girl who will take care of him just like mom did except with the extra of sex.
Don't go for the best looking man on the block unless all you want is a superficial cheating ego-maniac. Trophy boyfriends are for women like Melanie Griffith and Cher. They are just a waste of time. What women wants a man who takes more time getting ready to go out than she does. If a man is dressed to well, either his mama dressed him or his girlfriend does.
Also, if you are more of a programmer, do not date a fellow programmer. He WILL compete with you. Men are threatened by the possibility of anyone, man or women being better than they are. Any illusions of working on a program together are shattered the first time that either of you finds a flaw in the other's source code.
A programming girl needs a man who can cook his own annd even her dinner occasionally. Although two programmers may be able to afford fast food and takeout frequently, it is not the best solution.A man who has lived alone should be able to cook at least a few staples.
Meeting a man like this, an independent man, may seem like an impossible task. Here is a couple tips on how and where to find him. First of all he won't be at the bar. There are only two types at the bar, the vain ones who are looking for a one night stand, and the mama's boys who are too shy to talk to a girl. Let friendship be your guide, male and female friends are always willing to set up single friends. Become friends first, then later lovers. Men are more relaxed than women with making the transition from friends to lovers. You rarely hear from men the statement "You are such a good friend, I wouldn't want to ruin it by sleeping with you." Men want to sleep with almost all of thier female friends.
And teenage geekettes, don't worry, your self confindence with bloom, as will you body. I was flat as a board until I was 19. I look great now. The biggest advice I can give to a girl is if you don't have self confidence, fake it! If you saren't having fun, fake it! Self-selfconfident men are attracted to self-confident women.
And you don't want a mama's boy.
--
Re:is this really "news"? (Score:3)
Look. (Score:4)
Some of his advice did sound a bit "old school" or un-PC to some of you, but face it: there are both men and women out there who would be perfectly happy in such a relationship. They're not trying to oppress feminism, they're just trying to get into a "traditional" relationship, which may have been the way they've been raised. Personally, that isn't me, but the advice STILL APPLIES.
I've sought and dated a couple of "geek" girls in my time, and I doubt that I would intentionally seek out another. It's not that we didn't get along great or didn't have a good time while we were together, but these women didn't *challenge* me in the ways I wanted to be challenged. Now, I'm not saying that there *aren't* geek girls out there who can still geek it up but have an immensely healty appetite in other things, but in my experience a person tends to only have one major hobby, and if computers are it, computers are it. When you put two of these types geeks together in the same place for the rest of their lives, you (as a pair) tend to lack any desire to do anything else but geek.
Find a woman that's your *complement*, not your *supplement*. Nobody's perfect, and if you can find a partner that is strong in the areas you are weak, and you can accept and love each other despite (or by way of) those inconsistencies, together you can do anything.
THAT's the kind of relationship I want, and his advice applies.
I hope this is a joke... (Score:4)
It's like women are not even people to the author... just some kind of ``pleasure automata'' to serve, not dissimilar to those computers which give so much satisfaction. A few choice quotes:
``I want a wife who'll give me a blowjob, rub my feet, and have dinner ready for me when I get home from a long day of hacking. I'd like a wife who is my personal slave, because, hey, that's all marriage really is.''
How's that for a big sweeping generalization, (All glamorous women ``aren't worth it,'') coupled with objectification. (Women == software.)
Yeah, because really the issue here is how male geeks can get chicks without changing any aspect of themselves! Obviously our author can't think outside of his box...
``But you know, no woman would stand a chance of giving the same satisfaction as running a beowulf cluster,'' as if women and computers are even remotely comparable in some way.
``In fact, I originally though about GPLing our marriage, but wasn't too fond of the free distribution clause, so settled on a proprietary fork of BSD.''
The primary trouble with geeks meeting people is not so much any misunderstandings of social etiquette and (possibly lack of) associated skills, but the unwillingness to stop thinking of the external world in terms of a computer-related mindset. The above article does nothing to persuade its readers to move beyond the ``all the world's a computer and we are but its processes'' mentality, yet ditching such a fixed and limited schema is imperative not only for meeting other people who don't share such a schema, but for personal growth and maturation.
People (including women) aren't automata, there's no ``system'' for ``getting'' them, and instead of analyzing people and trying to find the perfect one, analyze yourself and change into the person who will attract people you're interested in.
There's much more to life than computers and /.
Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this (Score:4)
Cycles, bandwidth, disk space... important stuff like that.
Hmm. *ponder*
Going out with a geek girl as an excuse to upgrade the home network. Definite possibilities there 8-)
I couldn't disagree more (Score:4)
I'm married to a geek (my wife and I are both CS PhDs), and I couldn't be happier. I know many other such couples who are also happy. It is not a question of whether she uses computers, but whether she's on the same wavelength as you. Do you enjoy the same books? Can you hold each other's interest in conversation? Do you get the same jokes? Do you like the same friends? Having a close intellectual relationship, along with a close emotional relationship, can be very fulfilling.
I also find that my wife is more understanding when I do something a non-geek would consider just too wierd, like staying up until dawn hacking or playing with some new toy. She understands, 'cause she's been there.
Translation: if you are insensitive to your partner's needs, then you don't want a partner like you. We're agreed on that point, but on the same count, what would she want with you? Being a geek is no excuse for being insensitive.I find that my wife is more understanding when I do something a non-geek would consider just too wierd, like staying up until dawn hacking or playing with some new toy. She understands, 'cause she's been there. We cut each other some slack, 'cause we recognize when the other person is in that place. Also, we hack together. Each of us spends more time at the computer than a non-geek partner would consider reasonable, but since we have two linux boxes and DSL, there's no resource conflict, so what's the problem?
I can't begin to list the number of ways I find this offensive. Well, actually, I can, and will:Don't take ``Roblammo'' so seriously.. (Score:4)
I would like to take this oppurtunity to invite all of you to take one more look at the topic this was posted under.. What's that? It's.. humor..? That's right everyone! I'll agree, however, that if you take this article dead seriously, it's highly offensive. However, I don't think you should.
The Geek Female - Misrepresented. (Score:4)
The problem is that the article misrepresented "geek girls" in a poor light and it did so to a very large audience. Who, might I ask, are geek girls supposed to find a date with? Your "traditional" male is frightened of geek girls due to superiority/inferiority of intellect issues and now geek males have been informed that geek girls are undesirable.
This also begs the question: why can't geek girls be supportive, compassionate, and loving? The truth is that geek females range in their capacity to fulfill these qualities just as much as your geek male. Certainly there are geek males who are compassionate. It's the blanket condemnation of geek females that is problematic.
Another /.er made the statement that a woman needs to serve the geek in question selflessly because that's what love is about: being selfless. I won't dispute that - but the original article failed to make the point that a man need be just as selfless. Guys need to be willing to drop coding for a night because sometimes their partner needs them too. Love is about give and take, and both parties need to be willing to give.
George Will: Even the continents drift.
Utterly utterly offensive (Score:5)
Disagree Completely (Score:5)
Got to disagree with you there, Roblimo. I'll disclaim by stating that everybody has different tastes in what they're looking for in a SO, but here's my take on this one:
Find someone who can and will drag your ass out of your chair every so often. Find someone who you feel is on par with you - they don't have to know computers, but they'd better be able to hold the line in a decent discussion without all of this "well, I'm sure you know best" crap that some people seem to be stuck with (my experience is with women, but I know guys who are like this).
IMHO, the best lover and companion isn't someone who caters after you 24/7. It should be a tit-for-tat type deal; I wash, you dry. Hell, some of the best relationship moments I've had have even revolved around disagreements -- remember, competition is a Good Thing(tm). If she just lets you win all the time, you'll get soft. Of course, the caveat to this is that you both always have to know that, in the final analysis, you're always on the other person's side before anyone elses.
It's sappy, but the best example I can think of for this sort of relationship is from "Mad About You", that series with Helen Hunt and Paul Riser. Love each other, support each other, but most important: be one another's best friend.
----
Clueless high-school guys, listen! (Score:5)
But there's a trick to "getting girls to like you." It's not a magic potion or a pick-up line - nothing will make a girl like you. (It has to come from the heart.) But a girl can discover that they like you by getting to know you - and here's the tricky part. Be friends with girls first!
It's hard for a lot of guys, particularly guys (like me) who've, in the past, only ever struck out. But if you see a girl you like, and you want to give a relationship a chance at being real, you can't rush it. Strike up a conversation, spend time with her - and don't rush anything! Believe me, you can wait. You've done it in the past, haven't you?
The simple fact is, you wouldn't want to be intimately involved (and no, I'm not just referring to sex) with someone who you wouldn't want to be at least friends with. A relationship is about communication and openness, and those require trust - and you have to develop trust over time. Be friends with girls; not only will you gain knowledge about the way an extra X chromosome makes a human's mind work, but you might just find that people do, in fact, like you for who you are. It's not so big a jump from "She's my friend" to "She's my girlfriend," after all.
Re:Utterly utterly offensive (Score:5)
Truth is, I've goon from the shy nerd who coudln't get any, to a guy who has to pick and choose, all because of a little attitude adjustment called "REALISM".
Myth: As a man, we should forget about our own needs. The way to get respect from a girl is to treat them like a princess.
Fact: Some relationships work great this way. But for those of us who don't buy the whole "give give give" deal, there are plenty of (IMHO) strong girls out there who will repect you more if you are honest about what you want in a relationship. If all you want is sex, say so. The ones who arent into that will slap you in the face and leave (good riddance) and the ones who are into it will respect you more for being honest and upfront about it. There's nothing more pathetic to watch a guy kiss a girl's ass while she cheats on him behind his back.
Myth: Finding a good girl is like playing the lottery.
Fact: Finding a good girl is more like shopping for a computer. You like games? Get the one with the fast 3d features. You more down to business? Get one that suits your needs. There are lots of girls out there. No matter what you look like or how much you make, you can still pick and choose. Just get off your ass and meet as many girls you can.
Myth: Girls have all the power when you are single and looking for a girlfriend.
Fact: Only if you _ask_ rather than _suggest_. This is the best advice I can give to geek guys wondering why girls always walk all over them. Never ASK a girl ANYTHING. The only power she has is the power you give her. Grow a backbone and some balls and they will see the change instantly. "Here's someone who is confident and knows what he wants," they will say, "I like him already."
Myth: There's always a way to "work it out".
Fact: If someone doesn't meet your needs, or if you don't meet their needs, the best thing you can do is get out of the relationship as quickly as possible. Staying in a relation that isn't satisfying is the best way for both to become bitter and resentful of each other.
Myth: There is just one special person for you, and you live your life to find that special someone.
Fact: There are lots of people that are compatible with you. Find the one or ones who you get along with best, and dump the rest of them.
I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this (Score:5)
But I have problems when "Uncle Robin" excludes entire female populations from consideration. When he says, no geek girls, and don't think too much about the really pretty ones either, isn't he going against the whole idea of considering people on their own merits, as opposed to group affiliation? Granted, "pretty" girls who spend a lot of time on their outsides sometimes, maybe often, have rotten insides. But how is it that a geek girl "competes" in an unhealthful way? Don't you want someone who can UNDERSTAND when you're talking about a problem at the office/boxen/latest Linux convention? Or would you rather have a very nice girl, who is clueless when it comes to what you DO 80 hours a week, fix you some cookies and run a nice hot bath?
I mean, come ON. I'm a (pseudo)geek girl. I have a geek man. We get along famously. If anything, I'm MORE accepting of his computer obssession because I share some of it. A woman who doesn't Get It may not Get You.
Just, all I'm saying is, don't just banish us from consideration with a flick of the finger because we're too much like you, or might compete for...for what?
Re:Imitating Body Language -> Building Rapport -> (Score:5)
If you thought this was smart, please avoid books on NLP and head straight for Erving Goffman, whom you can thank for ideas like "personal space." NLP (when yanked out of the theoretical realm and applied in genuine flirty-type social situations)is fraught with silly assumptions.
F'rinstance, if a girl was flirting with you, and you "intentionally match your conversation partner's state & style of communication," you are essentially emulating heteronormative female flirtation behavior, which might be endearing to a bi-punk-chick, but will almost certainly put off a girl who expects you to flirt in the manner of a straight boy, such as the old-fashioned girls cited in the article above.
(Furthermore, if your Jedi mind trick actually works on the lady, think of the shame when she finds your bookmark on the "how to get laid" chapter of your silly New Age concieve-of-the-human-mind-as-a-hunk-of-programma
If you really need to read about this sort of non-verbal social communication, head straight for _Interaction_Ritual_, by the aforementioned Goffman, for a chaper on (I think) "Embarassment and Social Form."
oh, and BTW: sorry for the anthro jargon. Heteronormative means basically "according to norms for straight people."
Re:Utterly utterly offensive (Score:5)
> Geek girls are incapable of being loving and considerate, and unloving and inconsiderate geek guys have to avoid that.
Sometimes the worst person for you is the one that is exactly like you. Anyway, he didn't make that claim about Geek girls.
> The ideal woman is one who selflessly meets your every needs.
Being in love with someone is being *willing* to selflessly meet your partners needs. This comes from within and isn't the terrible thing you seem to think it is.
> The proper role for the woman is that of handservant, who considers running your bathwater to be part of a "mutually beneficial" relationship.
That's _your_ claim (handservant). The point is to meet each other's needs. That's what is going to make the relationship work (among other things).
> One way to evaluate a woman is to take off her clothes and makeup.
Yes, it is. If those things are important to someone they'd better not pretend otherwise. If they do then the relationship is based on a lie. Just be honest that this is important. Then if that doesn't work for the other person you both can move on before you make each other's life a living hell.
> In bars, the females that are unattainable are called "women" while the ones that you are supposed to go after are called "girls".
He mainly used the word "women" so your comment is a strawman. Don't distort what he said otherwise you destroy your criticism. Unless, that is, you want to do a mindless politically correct troll.
> If a woman finds you unattractive, dump her as quickly as possible.
Why not? If she doesn't like you why force yourself on her? "No" is supposed to mean something is it not?
> Grown breasts are worth waiting for.
For some of us, yes. Others could care less. Remember, some of this is personal preference. Being offended by someone's personal preference is usually idiotic. It would be like saying you don't like someone because purple is their favorite color.
> Be nice to geeky looking girls, just in case they grow up and look good.
The moral of that story is "Be nice to everyone, 'cause that ugly duckling may just be the lovely swan -- and don't do to others what you don't like them doing to you."
> In spite of all of the above, imperfections are to be overlooked.
No, a relationship takes work and one of things you need to work on is making sure the other person can do the things they like in a relationship.
> All women are looking for a man to fill the empty void in their lives
The "all" is _your_ verbiage. If we use the accurate quote we would have a proper picture of what Roblimo really said. Which is very accurate. Anyway, I guess you haven't been on a college campus and met those women looking for their "MRS". But that's basic biology and you don't seem to like that.
We'll skip your last ad-hominem attack and put it down to sour grapes.