DELETED
- Thread starter TheNamlessGuy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's a pretty general guide, I know lots of geeks who are arrogant pricks and wouldn't fit this guideline at all. Just play any multi player FPS for an example.
But for the most part I can agree with it. Although it's probably because I've never been on a date before.
But for the most part I can agree with it. Although it's probably because I've never been on a date before.
ok... i may be a geek... but if i had a girl... i would easily put that aside for her.TheNamlessGuy said:
Well it's certainly describing a best-case scenario. Probably written by a geek hoping to enchance the reputation of his brethern. I know a fair few people who consider themselves hardcore nerds and they're actually fairly selfish, thoughtless people in relationships. Although the "he's not used to affection so when he gets it he appreciates it" theory is a good one, the scenario I've encountered is more often than not "he's not used to affection so when he gets it he has absolutely no idea what sort of behaviour is required". Of course, there are exceptions.TheNamlessGuy said:
LMFAO. Too many people are taking this seriously. whether it was supposed to be serious or not< I find it hilarious. Kudos to the author.
On the topic of MMO zombies... I used to be one. WoW was my drug of choice (that and weightlifting... wierd as hell I know). I had a couple girls, but I didn't ever pay em enough attention, simply because if I wasn't clearing AQ40 for the 600th time I was thinking it was good to go to the gym. Now taht I've quit my WoW habit and learned a bit of moderation for the gym, my current GF isn't complaining about the time I don't spend with her... but is some1 who has more time for the gym or their computer really some1 you wanna date?Rhade said:
Correct, sir! I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry at this. I guess I was just expecting 50 reasons in one-liner format which wouldn't be immediately cut down by the viewersSmartIdiot said:
'bluepilot said:
This thread is relevant to my interests.
It also scares me somewhat.
I actually meant more just to highlight that not all gamers, as articles like hers would sometimes imagine, are bursting with attention to give people that decide to show them some affection. Some couldn't care less, some might not give them the time of day (or enough) and some might not really be interested in a deep relationship. Articles like hers often paint the idea that geeks (though they rarely specify what that means to them, or where lines are drawn) quickly become lovable, affectionate pets when someone shows them attention they might not normally receive and/or crave.Ironsouled said:
This isn't always the case. I can think of another point to make, somewhat different though, but I'm not sure exactly how to intelligently express it right now.
This is quite...demoralizing? The fact that we are sterotyped to this degree makes me unnerved. Although I would kill for a better relationship with woman I am not so fucking grateful that a woman has graced me to never notice another again.
Also the "Plant him in front of a TV he'll be fine" makes us sound like...dogs. Easily distracted dogs...I thought we used that for the big muscley football types.
For the most part the paying attention to your needs is hit and miss. Same way a jock could pay attention to every one of your needs, a nerd could completely ignore him so he could get off and go back to playing COD.
Then again, ima nerd not a geek. So this doesnt apply to me hurah!
Also the "Plant him in front of a TV he'll be fine" makes us sound like...dogs. Easily distracted dogs...I thought we used that for the big muscley football types.
For the most part the paying attention to your needs is hit and miss. Same way a jock could pay attention to every one of your needs, a nerd could completely ignore him so he could get off and go back to playing COD.
Then again, ima nerd not a geek. So this doesnt apply to me hurah!
Thank Io, to have a girl come right out and say this! I read through that thinking "well, I'm a geek to a slight extent, but I also listen to indie music, I go clubbing, I watch the X Factor with my housemates, I do a lot of non-geek things". As it were. And I'll admit right now that I don't exactly have much luck with the ladies. But even so, this article just annoyed me. It's a complete over-generalisation. And besides, even if I wasn't a geek in any way, shape or form, I still would have the same approach to relationships as I do now. That is, to be a gentleman, remember that chivalry is by no means dead, always be polite, treat women with respect, basically just be a great guy and be yourself. And yes, I am a hopeless romantic. But being a geek, even only a little bit, does not affect that at all.JanatUrlich said:
I know alot of people are saying this is a satirical article but speaking as a girl the depressing thing is quite alot of womens magazines publish c*** like this regularly. I fit into alot of the qualifications for geek in this article and my boyfriend doesn't at all but he is definitely the better, more attentive lover.
It's all relative
It's all relative
Its not so much offensive, as it is arrogant and abrasive. And as they say arrogance and ignorance go together. Love and romance in nature is a truly complicated and multidimensional thing. This article comes off as, holier than thou, as if the geek shouldn't be an alpha or even an equal to the woman. And that just completely alienates so many things, it's not even funny. First of all, it is possible to be an alpha male and partake in gaming, scifi movies and other, as they call it "geek activiies". Likewise, it is possible to be socially awkward and play sports.
And the women know this. But if theres a dollar to be made or maybe 15 mintues of fame for a journalist, they will write shallow garbage like this in stuff like Cosmopolitan. The problem is, this article creates more complications and barriers in love, that do not even need to exist. Rather than focusing on labels such as geek, jock, punk, emo, etc... these writers should focus on less superficial things such as the qualities of a good lover. While there are some qualities that most women want, there will inevitably be many differences amongst other women.
And that being said, the article tries to relate to the geek, but it falls completely flat on its face, as it suggests the geek isn't an equal, but rather some lowly animal.
And the women know this. But if theres a dollar to be made or maybe 15 mintues of fame for a journalist, they will write shallow garbage like this in stuff like Cosmopolitan. The problem is, this article creates more complications and barriers in love, that do not even need to exist. Rather than focusing on labels such as geek, jock, punk, emo, etc... these writers should focus on less superficial things such as the qualities of a good lover. While there are some qualities that most women want, there will inevitably be many differences amongst other women.
And that being said, the article tries to relate to the geek, but it falls completely flat on its face, as it suggests the geek isn't an equal, but rather some lowly animal.
Jesus Christ, look at all these people taking this seriously. For fucks sake, what's wrong with you? I would quote everybody who seems to be offended by this short text and answer to them, but that would be pretty much every one having posted here.
Good lord... I always thought this community was smarter than that.
Good lord... I always thought this community was smarter than that.