Yeah, even geeky girls care about the physical

[Els]

...I don't understand why you think 'female geeks' should have absolutely no 'physical requirements' in their men, when you (self-proclaimedly a 'male geek') launch into long conversations about how old, obese, farty, lacking in makeup, glass-wearing, slow etc, they are. Actually, I don't understand many other things about you as well, but this kinda takes the cake.

[Els]

From my experiences, and what I've heard about, a geek girl would rather be with a very good looking guy who doesn't match any of her geek hobbies, instead of being with an average to slightly below average guy that can geek out.

 

There are some who don't. We aren't terribly common, but we do exist. The catch, here, is that those who don't aren't terribly interested in someone like the OP (who can't seem to utter 5 words without trash-talking women, and is very much as superficial as the women he trash-talks about). So the OP is probably in the position of a fish who'd just dug his gills out because he wants to live on land - can't survive in air without lungs, can't survive in water without gills.

[Mme. Chaucer]

...I don't understand why you think 'female geeks' should have absolutely no 'physical requirements' in their men, when you (self-proclaimedly a 'male geek') launch into long conversations about how old, obese, farty, lacking in makeup, glass-wearing, slow etc, they are. Actually, I don't understand many other things about you as well, but this kinda takes the cake.

 

I KNOW. I asked about this myself, but got nowhere near a direct explanation.

 

OP - please clarify.

[somedude81]

It's no different from the geeky guy trying to bring a Penny into his group of geeky friends to become the king of the geeks...the geeky girl will try to bring her own GQ knight to reign as queen of the geeks...

What's a Penny? Unless you mean this girl? Just to prove how big of a geek I am by that being the first Penny I think of

 

And no, I never cared about being king of the geeks, or wanting some hot geek girl to show of. A non-ugly geek girl is enough for me.

 

There are some who don't. We aren't terribly common, but we do exist. The catch, here, is that those who don't aren't terribly interested in someone like the OP (who can't seem to utter 5 words without trash-talking women, and is very much as superficial as the women he trash-talks about). So the OP is probably in the position of a fish who'd just dug his gills out because he wants to live on land - can't survive in air without lungs, can't survive in water without gills.

Meh, I don't care about the OP. In fact I don't even remember what the first post was about, and I haven't even looked at this thread since my last post was made.

 

As for what I said above, that is what saddens me the most.

 

Geek guys want a geek like he is.

 

Geek girls usually end up wanting some fantasy male.

 

As an example, geek girl I knew thought the ideal/hottest male was Solid Snake. She was 22 when she said that. The most recent fantasy girl that I thought was the hottest/ideal was Sailor Venus, back when I was around 15.

 

SMH

[Pompom]

You sound like being fellow geeks should be enough to want an intimate relationship and like any rejection would be only about things she posted she didn't like. I've skipped emails from men for as little as their chin being weak (gives a shy/weak impression, though I know it's not necessarily true), or for being total Jersey Shore-type "Guidos" (yuck) while of course, I don't put that on my profile - "please no underdeveloped chins, thank you", errr...

Shared interests do not make a person attractive. I'm in the Lion King fandom, but that doesn't mean I expect good sex and lovable personality from every fellow fan.

Also, people here setting standards on who is or is not a geek, is ridiculous. I see a lot of thinking inside a very small box here. Which would be grounds for rejection from me.

 

Being geeky doesn't mean that a person will not have personal tastes of attractiveness..

AMEN.

 

Being a "geek" or any subculture, doesn't equal having no standards or being incapable of combining one's interest with others, including the real world, unless your subculture goes hand in hand with some mental issue. Being a geek is like being goth, vegan or religious, it's a choice of hobby and interests and if that gets in the way of your grasp on reality, well, that is extremely unattractive and sees me running the other way.

 

A shared interest in a fictional character won't trump physical attraction -

And AMEN again.

 

I am a geek according to the last 2 bullets in Definitions on Geek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I take care of my appearance, I appreciate reality, I love to get out, I despise stereotypical self-neglecting recluse gamers and otakus, I work, I function, and I have standards for a partner which have NOTHING to do with my or his being geeky. I simply manage to realize that the geek in me is not everything. I used to have a way weaker grasp on that latter thing, and what was I? A disgusting 160 kg otaku with greasy hair obsessing over anime all day and carrying a katana while walking the dog, and I swear, if Dr. Who ever picks me up with his Tardis and we accidentally end up back there, I will kill myself.

 

Real world FTW! Occasional escapism FTW! Obsession GTFO!

[Els]

 

Meh, I don't care about the OP. In fact I don't even remember what the first post was about, and I haven't even looked at this thread since my last post was made.

 

As for what I said above, that is what saddens me the most.

 

Geek guys want a geek like he is.

 

Geek girls usually end up wanting some fantasy male.

 

As an example, geek girl I knew thought the ideal/hottest male was Solid Snake. She was 22 when she said that. The most recent fantasy girl that I thought was the hottest/ideal was Sailor Venus, back when I was around 15.

 

SMH

 

Well, the geek girls I know are generally fairly average-looking girls who are currently in relationships with fairly average-looking guys. Interestingly, every single one of those girls 'lacks' one physical criteria or another that you have stated as your requirements - one is above 30, the other has short hair, both of them have A-cup breasts, and the third one who has larger breasts is slightly overweight. But those guys don't seem to mind either - one is engaged to her fiance, another is married, and the 3rd has been with her bf for a few years now. Those guys have 'flaws' as well - they are hardly the fantasy guy - but they all seem very happy with each other.

 

Your friend may desire Solid Snake all she likes, but I highly doubt she's getting him, so that's really her loss.

[GoodOnPaper]

Geek guys want a geek like he is.

 

Geek girls usually end up wanting some fantasy male.

 

Never underestimate such a woman's interest in the chemistry associated with an "opposites-attract" pairing. In graduate school this realization hit me like a ton of bricks and I never understood it. I always took a more pragmatic approach, figuring that the type of girl I would meet and associate with in the course of my daily life would be most suitable for a relationship with. I was surprised by how many women seemed to compartmentalize and completely separate their daily life from their dating life.

[USMCHokie]

What's a Penny? Unless you mean this girl? Just to prove how big of a geek I am by that being the first Penny I think of

 

Penny, from the TV show Big Bang Theory, played by Kaley Cuoco. But Inspector Gadget's niece is a close second.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Dear OP -

 

Since this is a community, and you put this out here for community participation, I really would like to have an explanation from you.

 

Why do you have an issue if "geek girls care about the physical" when you spend time in this very thread berating the physical characteristics of women yourself? YOU care about the physical, right? Why would you expect women not to?

 

Physical attraction is important. So is personal compatibility, and "liking" something doesn't really add up to that.

[somedude81]

Well, the geek girls I know are generally fairly average-looking girls who are currently in relationships with fairly average-looking guys. Interestingly, every single one of those girls 'lacks' one physical criteria or another that you have stated as your requirements - one is above 30, the other has short hair, both of them have A-cup breasts, and the third one who has larger breasts is slightly overweight. But those guys don't seem to mind either - one is engaged to her fiance, another is married, and the 3rd has been with her bf for a few years now. Those guys have 'flaws' as well - they are hardly the fantasy guy - but they all seem very happy with each other.

 

Your friend may desire Solid Snake all she likes, but I highly doubt she's getting him, so that's really her loss.

Elswyth, there isn't any point in specifying breast size if everybody is Asian.

 

You also live in a completely different culture and part of the world than I do.

 

Yes, her desiring Snake was her loss, but it was also mine as well.

Never underestimate such a woman's interest in the chemistry associated with an "opposites-attract" pairing. In graduate school this realization hit me like a ton of bricks and I never understood it. I always took a more pragmatic approach, figuring that the type of girl I would meet and associate with in the course of my daily life would be most suitable for a relationship with. I was surprised by how many women seemed to compartmentalize and completely separate their daily life from their dating life.

That is really odd. It's almost like they want to live in two different worlds. I definitely agree with your pragmatic approach.

 

Penny, from the TV show Big Bang Theory, played by Kaley Cuoco. But Inspector Gadget's niece is a close second.

Hah, now I know what you are talking about. I watched a couple of episodes but got so turned off because that girl is too hot and there is no way in hell she'd ever date the guy with glasses. I think the episode I watched had another of the nerd guys dating a really hot girl as well.

 

It was all so fake.

[GoodOnPaper]

Why do you have an issue if "geek girls care about the physical" when you spend time in this very thread berating the physical characteristics of women yourself? YOU care about the physical, right? Why would you expect women not to?

 

Not the OP, but I'd like to chime in on this philosophical trap that is thrown out there a lot.

 

When I was single, I'd look around and estimate that about 2/3 or 3/4 of the girls in my dating age range were physically attractive enough for me to date. However, actually landing first dates was extremely difficult. Let's say, 1 out of 10 tries -- that's very optimistic and I was always conscious about not going "out of my league" -- so 90% of women felt that I wasn't attractive or otherwise good enough to date while I felt that 67-75% were attractive enough to date. That discrepancy is very hard to stomach. Yes, there is the philosophical argument that I have no right to be upset about a million girls rejecting me if I would reject even one, but it's just not realistic to live like that.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Not the OP, but I'd like to chime in on this philosophical trap that is thrown out there a lot.

 

When I was single, I'd look around and estimate that about 2/3 or 3/4 of the girls in my dating age range were physically attractive enough for me to date.

 

I truly believe there is a significant disconnect here. I don't know any women who think along the lines of "what percentage of the men are attractive enough for me to date?"

 

Certainly, most of us have parameters or standards, if you prefer - for example, some women only are attracted to tall guys, or won't date a man who isn't established in his career, or passionate about something, or exciting socially, or similarly educated to her, or of her religion or culture, etc.

 

But when it comes to attraction, either we are or we are not for the most part.

 

The "standards" are moot if the attraction is not present. And the attraction is very amorphous. Most of us easliy bypass a super handsome man for a less handsome one with whom we "spark."

[Els]

SD, not going to get into the 'are your requirements common or not?' discussion again. My point wasn't about that. My point was that everyone has physical 'flaws', and the people who are able to see beyond just that will want someone who doesn't care about theirs either. Hence, there are 'geek girls' who are fine with 'average-looking guys' with physical 'flaws' of their own (short, or balding, or a bit of a belly, etc), but those girls don't want a guy who prioritizes physicalities either. That is all.

 

Not the OP, but I'd like to chime in on this philosophical trap that is thrown out there a lot.

 

When I was single, I'd look around and estimate that about 2/3 or 3/4 of the girls in my dating age range were physically attractive enough for me to date. However, actually landing first dates was extremely difficult. Let's say, 1 out of 10 tries -- that's very optimistic and I was always conscious about not going "out of my league" -- so 90% of women felt that I wasn't attractive or otherwise good enough to date while I felt that 67-75% were attractive enough to date. That discrepancy is very hard to stomach. Yes, there is the philosophical argument that I have no right to be upset about a million girls rejecting me if I would reject even one, but it's just not realistic to live like that.

 

The huge logical flaw here is that 90% of girls that you were attracted to enough to ask out rejected you. That is a huge bias. For all you know, the entire 33% that you are not interested in might have agreed. The same goes for the girls who rejected you as well. You might be the 33% that they aren't interested in, and the 67% of guys that they ARE interested in aren't interested in them. Who knows? Regardless, it's pointless to go by percentages, especially as they are colored by your own estimates and which girls you notice to begin with.

[xxoo]

Not the OP, but I'd like to chime in on this philosophical trap that is thrown out there a lot.

 

When I was single, I'd look around and estimate that about 2/3 or 3/4 of the girls in my dating age range were physically attractive enough for me to date. However, actually landing first dates was extremely difficult. Let's say, 1 out of 10 tries -- that's very optimistic and I was always conscious about not going "out of my league" -- so 90% of women felt that I wasn't attractive or otherwise good enough to date while I felt that 67-75% were attractive enough to date. That discrepancy is very hard to stomach. Yes, there is the philosophical argument that I have no right to be upset about a million girls rejecting me if I would reject even one, but it's just not realistic to live like that.

 

It seems that for a lot of men, generic "woman" is sexually attractive unless there are turn offs.

 

While for a lot of women, generic "man" is not sexually attractive unless there are turn ons. Women have biological reasons to be choosy.

 

There are a lot of potential turn ons, and it is far from about just the physical, although looks can be a turn on!

 

It probably isn't that you aren't attractive enough. She might date someone equally physically attractive if he had another "turn on".

[Badsingularity]

attraction is very amorphous. Most of us easliy bypass a super handsome man for a less handsome one with whom we "spark."

 

This is what I'm always trying to tell guys who are not doing well with women.

 

There are ways to create that "spark" or "chemistry" with women that will trump looks alone.

[xxoo]

As confusing and discouraging as the women's experience of attraction is to men, consider how confusing and discouraging men's experience of attraction can be for women:

 

She is sexually attracted to less than 1 out of 20 men at university.

 

Her boyfriend is sexually attracted to 15 out of 20 women at university.

 

Is he with her because he wants her? Or just because she was the one to say "yes"? Could she be replaced by 75% of girls on campus? Is she special in any way, as he is special to her?

[Badsingularity]

As confusing and discouraging as the women's experience of attraction is to men, consider how confusing and discouraging men's experience of attraction can be for women:

 

She is sexually attracted to less than 1 out of 20 men at university.

 

Her boyfriend is sexually attracted to 15 out of 20 women at university.

 

Is he with her because he wants her? Or just because she was the one to say "yes"? Could she be replaced by 75% of girls on campus? Is she special in any way, as he is special to her?

 

It's always good to try and see things from both sides. It allows for a better connection and understanding between men and women.

[rainfall]

 

(Btw MOST if not all women are FAKE geeks. They are never deeply into the details of our subjects. Most of them are just attention whores)

 

 

 

This isn't true. I am a geek and a girl. I love Joss Whedon, MMO games...( actually most video games), sci-fi and most other "geeky things". I'm not in it for attention. Actually if I wanted attention I would probably act like I don't like alot of these things since alot of people seem to think there is something wrong with being a nerd or a geek.

[irc333]

There is quite a large debate on whether or not these men who aren't attractive to women, are not doing anything TO attract women...when in fact, a woman can simply not be attracted, and there's nothing a man can do to CREATE that attraction.

 

Apparently, there are PUA's out there that said if a man could ONLY create attraction from a woman, he'd be in like flint.

 

But I disagree that attraction, like magic, can simply be created. Either it's there or it's not, and no amount of doing certain behaviors would attract said woman.

 

I know a guy that won't date red heads, don't matter how HOT they are, he simply doesn't have an affinity for them.

 

I say "affinity" because, they can still be obviously be attractive, but just a red head.

 

A hair color on a woman simply cannot be UNattractive, if she's got a body of a Hawiiain Tropic Swimsuit model.

 

Great, she's a Hooter's waitress....but...she has red hair...a dealbreaker. I cannot simply fathom how my friend would consider this a deal breaker.

 

To me...that's obviously unrealistic...and I don't think that has nothing to with attraction.

 

Die her hair blonde, and he'll go bonkers when she enters the room....go figure <shrug>

 

 

I truly believe there is a significant disconnect here. I don't know any women who think along the lines of "what percentage of the men are attractive enough for me to date?"

 

Certainly, most of us have parameters or standards, if you prefer - for example, some women only are attracted to tall guys, or won't date a man who isn't established in his career, or passionate about something, or exciting socially, or similarly educated to her, or of her religion or culture, etc.

 

But when it comes to attraction, either we are or we are not for the most part.

 

The "standards" are moot if the attraction is not present. And the attraction is very amorphous. Most of us easliy bypass a super handsome man for a less handsome one with whom we "spark."

[somedude81]

As confusing and discouraging as the women's experience of attraction is to men, consider how confusing and discouraging men's experience of attraction can be for women:

 

She is sexually attracted to less than 1 out of 20 men at university.

 

Her boyfriend is sexually attracted to 15 out of 20 women at university.

 

Is he with her because he wants her? Or just because she was the one to say "yes"? Could she be replaced by 75% of girls on campus? Is she special in any way, as he is special to her?

Considering how most men have to ask out a ton of women to finally get a date, yes, he is with her because she was the first to say yes.

 

Does that mean the she be replaced and isn't special, no.

[irc333]

I am also resolving in the fact ,that some people have left their criteria SO stringent, they could very well wind up dying alone.

 

Not to sound like a drag or anything, but it is possible.

[xxoo]

There is quite a large debate on whether or not these men who aren't attractive to women, are not doing anything TO attract women...when in fact, a woman can simply not be attracted, and there's nothing a man can do to CREATE that attraction.

 

Apparently, there are PUA's out there that said if a man could ONLY create attraction from a woman, he'd be in like flint.

 

But I disagree that attraction, like magic, can simply be created. Either it's there or it's not, and no amount of doing certain behaviors would attract said woman.

 

I know a guy that won't date red heads, don't matter how HOT they are, he simply doesn't have an affinity for them.

 

I say "affinity" because, they can still be obviously be attractive, but just a red head.

 

A hair color on a woman simply cannot be UNattractive, if she's got a body of a Hawiiain Tropic Swimsuit model.

 

Great, she's a Hooter's waitress....but...she has red hair...a dealbreaker. I cannot simply fathom how my friend would consider this a deal breaker.

 

To me...that's obviously unrealistic...and I don't think that has nothing to with attraction.

 

Die her hair blonde, and he'll go bonkers when she enters the room....go figure <shrug>

 

Your are giving an example of a man feeling attraction for a woman, based on hair color.

 

What about a woman? Do you have any understanding of how women feel attraction, or not, for a man?

 

Considering how most men have to ask out a ton of women to finally get a date, yes, he is with her because she was the first to say yes.

 

Does that mean the she be replaced and isn't special, no.

 

I understand that.

 

But women who are unsuccessful in dating might not see it that way, based on their own experiences with men.

 

My point is that perspective matters. For men who are successful in dating, women's discriminating nature is a good thing. They appreciate that.

 

Similarly, for women who are successful in dating, men's indiscriminate attraction is a good thing--because it makes her all the more special when she rises to the top and he commits to her.

[GoodOnPaper]

 

Is he with her because he wants her? Or just because she was the one to say "yes"? Could she be replaced by 75% of girls on campus? Is she special in any way, as he is special to her?

 

Is he REALLY that special, though, if she suspects that he's with her because she said "yes"? From his perspective, if he thinks that none of those 75% of other girls would actually be interested, then she actually couldn't be replaced.

[xxoo]

Is he REALLY that special, though, if she suspects that he's with her because she said "yes"?

 

Yes, she can be over the moon for him, even if he isn't that into her. These are the women who report feeling "settled" for, while their boyfriends clearly want "hotter" women, and grow more an more bitter about men.

 

From his perspective, if he thinks that none of those 75% of other girls would actually be interested, then she actually couldn't be replaced.

 

So her appeal is tied to whether or not others want him. Can you see how that is far from reassuring or flattering?

 

We all want to be wanted for who we are--no matter what other opportunities come knocking!

[GoodOnPaper]

So her appeal is tied to whether or not others want him. Can you see how that is far from reassuring or flattering?

 

We all want to be wanted for who we are--no matter what other opportunities come knocking!

 

It's a big Mobius strip. As guys, we're supposed to "stay in our league" -- like the OP is trying to demonstrate with the geeky-guy/self-proclaimed-geeky-girl scenario -- but at the same time fall madly in love as if we are not restricting ourselves to any "league". What's the way out?