Geek dating habits (my observations)

[azurelunatic]

The List is active again, on dating/sex habits, and cluefulness to common signals.

I will attempt to diagram what I think is likely a common attitude towards sex/dating/relationships from the viewpoint of the lesser-socialized geek (usually male) who doesn't consider themselves particularly attractive.

Desire: a long-term(?), stable, relationship, definitely with sex, and quite possibly low-maintainence (or scheduled-maintainence, as one does to a car in good working order (flowers == oil change?) rather than having to perform unscheduled/catastrophic maintainence (flat tires == sudden insecurities?) often). Does not like rejection. Is accustomed to rejection. Often has difficulty decoding the subtle signs that say "I am interested, please ask me out" unless the target explicitly says same. Would prefer to find someone quickly, without having to endure hideously uncomfortable one-on-one social situations only to find that they are not a prospect for anything more than same hideously uncomfortable one-on-one situations, or group time.

Failing that, wants to get laid. Desires: someone genuinely interested in them and their interests, with possibility for a friendship/relationship. Expects/dreads: someone who just wants to get laid and will insult them or deny having slept with them afterwards.

Comments

[ataniell93.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and I think unfortunately for a lot of these guys, most women want to be pursued.

I have refrained from saying this on the List, but a lot of the reason a lot of the men on the List get the LJBF (let's just be friends) is because they don't know how to/don't want to do what a lot of women want. This is not true of Padget, but it's true of a lot of 'em.

I sometimes get the vibe from the geek males that women should want what they're offering, as opposed to what we want, and the thing is, I'd rather be alone than be in a casual, buddy-buddy relationship without lots of romance/passion. And I don't share, which around here seems to be a distinct disadvantage.

Re:

[azurelunatic]

What might be useful onlist is a discussion of what things that some women do want (and don't want) and hints on how to figure out what a woman does want to see if the expectations/needs match up on both sides.

Re:

[amberfox.livejournal.com]

women should want what they're offering, as opposed to what we want
One of the things I like about geek guys is that the ones I've known tend to not play the automatic games the more "socialized" people do, so that it's easier to work out a variation of "this is what I'm looking for and what I'm offering, what are you looking for and offering, so we can see if we match up?" than with most other people. Of course, that could just be because I'm undersocialized myself, so I don't know how to read the standard social cues any more than they do.

I'd rather be alone
"To thine own self be true": going into a relationship with anything less would only be a recipe for disaster anyway.

Re:

[azurelunatic]

There are two ways of interpreting that statement.

One, the general way a geek-type would likely interpret it:

"I want what I want, and I am offering what I am offering, and I am not interested in negotiating what I am offering; I want someone who wants what I am offering."


The other interpretation:

"I want what I want, and I am offering what I am offering, and I believe that you, you specifically who I am speaking to right now, should desire what I am offering, regardless of what your actual desires are; I am not interested in listening to your desires/willingnesses, because I already know what they should be."


One of them is okay. The other one is very much not.

Re:

[amberfox.livejournal.com]

Um, yeah. Ick.

Re:

[ataniell93.livejournal.com]

See, I hate having conversations like that. It seems so...unromantic. That's the reason I originally went to the personals, so that I could just throw that up there on the net and then, when I actually met the person, things could be romantic and spontaneous.

But I found that guys don't actually read those ads, they look at the pictures and they write to the ones whose pictures they like even if they bear no resemblance whatsoever to the person she's looking for. I got so many responses from middle-aged white Christian men who wanted me to move into their suburban houses, it wasn't even funny. Despite the fact that my ad stated very clearly that I didn't want to get married (I didn't, then), have children (can't actually), or leave the City.

[sithjawa.livejournal.com]

One thing that I've noticed is that often geek guys won't go for geek girls, even if they're attractive. To me, this seems silly: "So, let me get this straight, you would prefer someone who is jealous of your taking time away from the relationship for roleplaying and coding over someone who would share those interests or at least understand them." "Well, um, yes." I think they want to feel less like geeks, without giving up any of the geekful pastimes. I always watch this with the air of someone watching a car crash in slow motion...

Re:

[wibbble]

/Finding/ geek girls, at least here, is a nightmare.

Yay for the internet, is all I can say. :o)

Re:

[azurelunatic]

There isn't room for much choosiness in the selection.

Re:

[azurelunatic]

I get the feeling that geeks dating outside geekdom are doing more of the 'pursuing a courtesan' thing than they are the 'finding a mate' thing.

Re:

[sithjawa.livejournal.com]

Possible.

Re:

[ataniell93.livejournal.com]

I don't know, not always. I really wanted to marry Hiroshi, who was definitely not-a-geek.

Re:

[intheblacklodge.livejournal.com]

I've generally noticed the opposite, that it's the geek girls who don't have any interest in the geek guys. I have various theories as to why this occurs, but it seems to be pretty consistent. I mean the only reason I finally found a girl who was interested in me back is because I gave up on finding a geek girl and let myself be open to non-geeks. Now I have a girl who is more into me than any other girl in the history of my life, and she is COMPLETELY non-geek, to the extent I thought we'd never ever get along when we first met.

Re:

[azurelunatic]

I suppose that I'm a rarity. I'm looking for a geek guy, I'm a geek girl, and I want a best friend to boot.

Re:

[sithjawa.livejournal.com]

I haven't noticed that at all, though I put girls who, while immersed in a computer game to relax from their physics research, complain incessantly about being around all these weird geeks who like roleplaying and stuff, into a different category.

Re:

[donaithnen.livejournal.com]

Um, you must know some strange geeky guys. Every guy i knew at mudd wanted to date a geeky girl, and i certainly did too. The reason why i ended up first dating a scripsie was because she hung out at mudd playing D&D :) (Well, that and none of the girls at mudd wanted anything to do with me)

And now that i'm dating a semi-geeky girl i'm doing my best to convince her to be even more geeky :)

Re:

[sithjawa.livejournal.com]

In retrospect, it may be that I know way more geek guys than geek girls, so statistically, I know some guys who do that. I dunno, just every now and then I hear a guy (who roleplays) say "I wouldn't date a girl who roleplays". It's like, "Whaaat?"

[wibbble]

As a geek guy, I have to completely agree with you here.

Before the E I went out on one date, although if it counts as a date or not I'm /still/ not sure. I had no idea how to read what she was trying to say.

Most guys figure this stuff out in the early-mid years of high school, but people like me don't, for various reasons. Once you get out of high school, it's expected that you'll know all those little signs and will, you know, have a clue.

Further, until it was all made explicitly clear, I had no idea that E had had any feelings for me at all. When I told her I had been expecting a polite rebuff. Similarly, I've written stuff and had E - while standing reading over my shoulder - giggle because I was 'flirting', leaving me being confused and going 'Huh? I am?! I had no idea!'

Of course, it could just be that I'm exceptionally clueless.

Re:

[azurelunatic]

I really, really need to help coordinate a series of video lectures on white-hat social engineering, then.

Really, that's what it is.

Black-hat social engineering, you've probably heard of.

White-hat social engineering should be translating "What I really mean to say" from Geek to Mainstream.

[intheblacklodge.livejournal.com]

Well this describes me pretty well, but the thing is, I don't care at all, and I don't think it matters. If I have to play "the game" to get a girl, she's not worth it. That's my philosophy, and it managed to land me one damn fine girlfriend.

Re:

[ataniell93.livejournal.com]

Please, please, can we not be insulting here?

Okay, so I'm not worth it, but you're not worth it to me, either, if I have to let you act like I'm your buddy (ugh, I hate that word).

Wouldn't it be nicer to say that we're incompatible?

Re:

[intheblacklodge.livejournal.com]

Who's being insulting?

[boojum.livejournal.com]

The desire for a low-maintenance/scheduled-maintenance relationship sounds worrisome. I won't say that that's not possible, but I will say that I've never seen a relationship start out working that way (Decade-long relationships may settle into something like that, but they've already done a lot of work to get there.) and I've seen a *lot* of relationships poisoned slowly by someone who isn't willing to do anything but background work on them. Sort of like cars: if the car starts behaving alarmingly, taking action on it is much more likely to keep the car in good shape than waiting for the next scheduled checkup or the next time you've scheduled to poke around under the hood.

(Also, once again I'm being confused by male-female interactions (arguments upthread), as I'm not sufficiently close to either side to understand what either of them are talking about. I want to be a high priority in a romantic partner's life. I don't want to (and don't) play games, but there are a number of things that can't just be braindumped (including things like trust and attraction, which I see as necessary parts of romantic relationships) and must be created over time via interaction, preferably honest and open and cooperative.[1] I am completely baffled by most clothing standards for just about anything, romance included. I tend to be clueless about whether other people are hitting on me or like me.)

[1] "The Rules" and similar things on any side of the fence are a good example of non-cooperative interaction, whether or not they're out-and-out lying.

Re:

[azurelunatic]

The argument seems to have been like this:

Guy: Statement that playing games is not his thing, phrased such that Az-the-Elder took exception to it.

Az-the-Elder: Interpreted the phrasing of the statement "not worth it" to mean that his position had been "Any woman who does not meet my standards is not a worthwhile person", and got understandably annoyed.

Guy: Actually hadn't meant that, had meant that he didn't consider it worth his time to pursue a relationship that he wouldn't be happy with the game-playing in.

Az-the-Elder: Likes consensual and cooperative game-playing where good fun is had on both sides.

Re:

[boojum.livejournal.com]

There seems to be an undertone (or maybe I'm just reading between the lines too much?) that the two of them are opposed in some fundamental sense, that there are no other sides. And, well, I am one, and a reasonably self-consistent one at that.

Maybe I need more sleep. Or some better way to track LJ discussions than the threaded webpage. I like the mailreader/newsgroupmodel much better than the LJ model.