Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Article Poll

Poll Women...
are a total mystery to me
constantly coming on to me
think I'm nothing but a love machine
aren't as much fun as Quake
You sexists! I *am* a woman!
Who cares? I'm gay.
[ Results | Polls ]
Comments:766 | Votes:5224

Uncle Robin's Advice for Lovelorn Geeks

Posted by Roblimo on Sun Oct 24, 1999 11:00 AM
from the everybody-loves-somebody-sometime dept.
"How do I find a woman like her?" I often get asked this question by young computer dudes who meet my lovely wife, Debbie, and wonder how an old ugly guy like me managed to get hold of such a wonderful woman while smarter, studlier young guys (like them) seem to strike out with every female they meet. These lonely youngsters all seem to think I must have a set of magic rules for attracting females. And guess what? I do. Click "Read More" and I'll share them with you.

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
  • Re:This is kidding by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @10:07AM
  • very, very intelligent. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:57AM
  • he's being honest, not PC or hypocritical by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:01AM
  • Re:How to meet the perfect girl? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:51AM
  • Re:Can we make this into a HOWTO? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:10AM
  • And, utterly without scientific merit by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:11AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:30AM
  • Girl Hack! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:35AM
  • Re:Women. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:25AM
  • I don't know about yours by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:50AM
  • How to meet the perfect girl? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:43AM
  • Geek girls rock by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:20AM
  • Re:What about gay geeks? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:21AM
  • just kill yourself by Crow- (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:47AM
  • Meeting the perfect girl is so simple! by Mark Edwards (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:00AM
  • Cant change her by nlucent (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:28AM
  • Re:Dates for us younger geeks. by Micah (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:20PM
  • Re:Dates for us younger geeks. by Micah (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:31PM
  • True love: The key is here by Micah (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:32PM
  • Re:Dates for us younger geeks. by Micah (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:45PM
  • Re:Dates for us younger geeks. by Micah (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:48PM
  • Re:He Obviously Missed Their Anniversary by Skamille (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:18PM
  • Re:How to pick up on chicks, by roblimo. by Roblimo (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:35AM
  • Low volume INTP list by rodent (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @08:57PM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by J. J. Ramsey (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:02AM
  • That was an easy poll answer to pick by silver (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:10PM
  • Re:Shouldn't be computer illiterate, though by DaveTerrell (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:02PM
  • Different People, Different Lovers. by j.e.hahn (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:06AM
  • The "Geek dancer" syndrome by coats (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:56AM
  • That's a sexist article if I've ever seen one. by Kabby (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:11AM
  • Re:Disagree Completely by tzanger (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:30AM
  • It's the same as with software... by mortis (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @05:33AM
  • Female slaves by citmanual (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:46AM
  • God damn it, Roblimo by Q*bert (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:16AM
  • self confidence by schematic (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:25AM
  • Re:what a useless waste of a post. by Anarkhia (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:28AM
  • Not very funny, nor correct. by Radagast (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:08AM
  • Truer words... by moonboy (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:35AM
  • Coming Soon from O'Reilly: _Women in a Nutshell_ by acb (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:28AM
  • Way Too Complicated by Ralph Bearpark (Score:1) Wednesday October 27 1999, @08:07PM
  • Re:Signal/Noise ratio from women by mvw (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:26PM
  • Goffman Rocks by pafein (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:44PM
  • i think my approach works better by perfecto (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:48AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by dattaway (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:20PM
  • Right on. by blalor (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:26AM
  • Amen Brother! by Pengveen (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:20AM
  • Re:How to pick up on chicks, by roblimo. by Pengveen (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:22AM
  • Broader definition of "geek" by Just Some Guy (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:31AM
  • A Woman's Perspective by Phyre (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:17AM
  • Re:what about this by Anfo (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:53PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by newt (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:33PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by newt (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:27PM
  • Re:is this really "news"? by Mawbid (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:07AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by xdroop (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:42AM
  • Silent Majority by **SkipKent** (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:32AM
  • Making Girls Like You by morbid (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:11PM
  • Barf by drix (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:48AM
  • Maby a man page? by The Creator (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:21AM
  • B*S by Nicolas MONNET (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:05AM
  • nicely put by nicedream (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:31AM
  • Also a geek girl, and agreeing w/ you by anneke (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:30AM
  • Gray's Geek Rule-O-Love by Gray (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:16AM
  • I wish more people thought that way by sreilly (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:41AM
  • Amen by geek (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:01PM
  • This is great by DrZaius (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:58AM
  • Is this really necessary? by zyzko (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:05AM
  • You have to listen too by Nagash (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:00AM
  • Who Died and made you mr LOVE? by Hoe (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:22AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by mellon (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:37AM
  • Confidence and Honesty... by Driph (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:30PM
  • Re:I hope.... by scottj (Score:1) Wednesday October 27 1999, @02:24PM
  • Re:I hope.... by scottj (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:59PM
  • Mailing this to Rob's wife by doomy (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:55AM
  • MODERATE THE ABOVE POST UP by Stradivarius (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:14AM
  • Re:heh. by Signal 11 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:35AM
  • Re:Shouldn't be computer illiterate, though by MisterClaw (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:32AM
  • From experience, I agree by Da VinMan (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:30PM
  • Ah! thank you! by chialea (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:13PM
  • Re:Question. by chialea (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:00PM
  • Slashdot readers must have a soft spot for women.. by The OPTiCIAN (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:27PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Accipiter (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:07AM
  • Women? Bah. Computers are FAR easier. by Accipiter (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:09AM
  • Re:Dating culture by Danny Rathjens (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:00PM
  • Re:Disagree Completely by Snarl (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:05PM
  • match.slashdot.org by Beethoven (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:11PM
  • Yes, BUT; by Peale (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:57AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by Wench (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:08PM
  • Utterly utterly offensive Swedish prissiness by CRConrad (Score:1) Wednesday October 27 1999, @08:59PM
  • Re:Shouldn't be computer illiterate, though by Loudog (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:03AM
  • Re:It's funny. Laugh. Really? by deeny (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:17AM
  • Re:Ok...try this one on for size... by deeny (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:29AM
  • Re:Yet More Wishful Thinking Love Advice by deeny (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:34AM
  • I can't agree by Beek (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:34AM
  • that's it! slashdate.org by Vesperi (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @02:24AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by alhaz (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:02PM
  • Re:as my father always says(married twice) by TBC (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:26AM
  • Re:Think outside the box. by Omnifarious (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:02PM
  • Re:Clueless? by Stiletto (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:58AM
  • Remarkably sexist. by Lx (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:40PM
  • Re:The Geek Female - Misrepresented. by Parity (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @08:03AM
  • Aaaah, thanks by threeJane[ltk] (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:53AM
  • Good Lord - and you were being serious..... by threeJane[ltk] (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:13AM
  • Just what the doctor ordered... by Sharkyfour (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:30AM
  • Re:Can we make this into a HOWTO? by Julius X (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:14AM
  • Re:Women? Hah. by Sloppy (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:22PM
  • Re:Clueless high-school guys, listen! by sith (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:44AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Watcher (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:17PM
  • Female backlash? by f1r3br4nd (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:08PM
  • finding women by thingie (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @10:15AM
  • Re:One secret! by braque (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:53AM
  • Some good points, some bad by Jason Cain (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:39AM
  • Re:Women. by garibald (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:42AM
  • Girls in Playboy by Processor AL (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:55AM
  • How to pick up on chicks, by roblimo. by Pyr (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:28AM
  • Re:How to pick up on chicks, by roblimo. by Pyr (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:32AM
  • Great article by TraCer00t (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:22PM
  • Re:is this really "news"? by Schmam (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:10AM
  • Re:Drue Miller, geek girl extraordinary by coreybrenner (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:58AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by coreybrenner (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:05PM
  • Love..... by SPiKe (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:55AM
  • Re:be yourself, dammit by SPiKe (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:59AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by QuMa (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:48AM
  • What Geeks Need. by the_tsi (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:59AM
  • Right on the mark. by zak (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:42AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by mezzo (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:01AM
  • What about emacs? by Enzo_Falzon (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:25AM
  • Here's some more tips... by vitaflo (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:32AM
  • Thanks, Rob! by YoJ (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:59PM
  • Top Ten Reason why Geek-Girls are better! by seer (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:58PM
  • Re:Disagree Completely by Forward The Light Br (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:27AM
  • Re:Finding the RIGHT girl isn't the problem... by laktar (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:54AM
  • Finding the RIGHT girl isn't the problem... by laktar (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:34AM
  • Re:Women? Hah. by divbyzero (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:37PM
  • Farce in the making? by Thranduil (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:29AM
  • Re:Your 1950's formula is crap, and here's why by JohnB (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @05:34PM
  • about the 50's dillemma by JohnB (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:43PM
  • HOWTO... by Ablar (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:00PM
  • Side note by [K]Ermit (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:26PM
  • women posting on slashdot are... by SKicker (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:47AM
  • Simplify. by SEWilco (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:19AM
  • Re:Shouldn't be computer illiterate, though by lightPhoenix (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:04PM
  • sub-geekdoms. by harmful (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:23PM
  • Geek girls are good! by arhawth (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:32PM
  • hello-ooo-oooo! this is satire, people by rp (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:54PM
  • People getting it right. by Trebonius (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:41AM
  • This stuff is valuable, folks.. by spyke (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:38AM
  • Re:Yet More Wishful Thinking Love Advice by RomulusNR (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @05:12PM
  • Re:He Obviously Missed Their Anniversary by Mock (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:54PM
  • Re:Well, here are some suggestions: by Mock (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:30PM
  • Re:Women. by Mock (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:45PM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by Mock (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:29PM
  • What a loser! by Sxooter (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:12AM
  • Re:is this really "news"? by Darkwind (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:52AM
  • Re:What about gay geeks? by CryptdotX (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:34AM
  • Re:Disagree Completely by CryptdotX (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:38AM
  • Re:Don't be a dick. by CryptdotX (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:36AM
  • What's the purpose of competition? by jpritikin (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:08AM
  • Re:help by Jeckle (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:02AM
  • Re:is this really "news"? by zuvembi (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:02AM
  • Re:is this really "news"? by zuvembi (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:06AM
  • Re:is this really "news"? by zuvembi (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:19AM
  • Great advice... by spectecjr (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:43PM
  • It's funny. Laugh. Really? by jpyle (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:19PM
  • Re:Women. by Lissell (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:12AM
  • Re:Women. by Lissell (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:03PM
  • Re:Women. by Lissell (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:12PM
  • Re:Women. by Lissell (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:26PM
  • Re:Question. by deacent (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:32AM
  • Humanities majors--huh? by morrigan (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:44AM
  • Female Authors on /. by miyax (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:29AM
  • what to look for in a woman by wutang (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:24AM
  • this geek girl nonsense by fromaggio (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:03AM
  • Time for a "Women" topic.... (nt) by MatriXOracle (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:09AM
  • Re:Women. by Alphix (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:37PM
  • as my father always says(married twice) by miahrogers (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:15AM
  • Well, here are some suggestions: by telos (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:26AM
  • Thanx for the help by Energy Flow (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:13PM
  • Re:offensive by cebe (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:49PM
  • offensive by cebe (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:27PM
  • Re:Cosmo??!!! by cebe (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:57PM
  • Re:I would like to see what Mrs. Debbie Limo think by Lucy Linux (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:44PM
  • Re:Women? Hah. by CharlieG (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @02:14AM
  • Ok...try this one on for size... by DoktorMel (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:12PM
  • Hah! by Foogle (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:21AM
  • Re:Hah! by Foogle (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:14PM
  • Re:Women. by Ventilator (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:07AM
  • Re:Glad it had the "foot" icon anyway by tomita (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:04PM
  • must you be so immature?? by TheAB (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:38AM
  • Re:The "Geek dancer" syndrome by mstra (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:30PM
  • Re:How to meet the perfect girl? by phantomlord (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:38AM
  • Re:How to meet the perfect girl? by phantomlord (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:02AM
  • Re:"Geek" girls by MarkCC (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @05:38AM
  • Looks by dfreed (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:10PM
  • Well said by VonKruel (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:31PM
  • Re:Also a geek girl, by CAIMLAS (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:51PM
  • Relative to personality by CAIMLAS (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:54PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Hobbex (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:03PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Hobbex (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:39AM
  • The balls in your court. by MartyJG (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:04AM
  • Re:He Obviously Missed Their Anniversary by galadriel (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @05:33AM
  • Yeah, I got some advice for all you lovelorn geeks by DingALing (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:03PM
  • You forgot about obsessiveness. by nin981 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:15PM
  • Re:This is kidding by spack (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @08:22PM
  • Re:One secret! by w3woody (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:48AM
  • Re:what about this by w3woody (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:54AM
  • Re:is this really "news"? by w3woody (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:00AM
  • Re:Cover all bases. by w3woody (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:05PM
  • "sexism is fine"? by MissionControl (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @07:30AM
  • i really hope... by miskomin (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:18AM
  • Hmm... can *I* give advice ? by The_Jazzman (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:12AM
  • A digest of my comments... by Kit Lo (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:54PM
  • Re:Finding the RIGHT girl isn't the problem... by Tia (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:48AM
  • fable2112's Token Rant(tm) by fable2112 (Score:1) Wednesday October 27 1999, @03:13PM
  • Re:One secret! by m3000 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:54AM
  • Re:I hope.... by pit_bull (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @02:04AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by [Dilbert] (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:47PM
  • Re:Women? Hah. by crm0922 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:31PM
  • Drue Miller, geek girl extraordinary by EdlinUser (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:38AM
  • That gives me a point to live !! by Manifest (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:40AM
  • Re:this geek girl nonsense by delphina (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:24PM
  • Re:comment from a vexed geekgirl by delphina (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:33PM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by redtoade (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:14AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by Freehold (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:37AM
  • About the geekyness thing by Freehold (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:07AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by Freehold (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:41PM
  • Re:Disagree Completely by dud023 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:42PM
  • Re:How to meet the perfect girl? by jemhddar (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:28AM
  • Re:Disagree Completely by GnrcMan (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:32AM
  • Re:You are messed up by Tackhead (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @01:40PM
  • refreshing! by claudia (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:36PM
  • Re:The Geek Female - Misrepresented. by llin (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:03PM
  • Real geeks don't need women by key nell (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:43PM
  • Open source people by xmedar (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:24AM
  • Re:Enough the propaganda already! by CrayDrygu (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:39PM
  • Nominated to the /. Hall of Fame by beulah (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:47AM
  • Re:What about gay geeks? by Field Marshall Stack (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:13AM
  • Book Deal by InsomniacsDream (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:55AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by InsomniacsDream (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:14AM
  • oh uh by truthgun (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:09AM
  • My two cents or so. by gnarphlager (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:36AM
  • Kind of sexist, don't you think?!? by sspiff (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:29AM
  • Chicks Dig Jerks by DrMaurer (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:40PM
  • FUD :-) by BorgDrone (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @04:34AM
  • The Geekette's Guide to the Opposite Sex by archfiend (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:08AM
  • Re:I'm not, and feel like replying today by Rhys Dyfrgi (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:48PM
  • qwerty... by cdlu (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:04AM
  • Re:"Geek" girls by cdlu (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:15AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by cdlu (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:07PM
  • Re:"Geek" girls by cdlu (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:36PM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by Kesh (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:16AM
  • Again, stereotyping the women! by sumana (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:57AM
  • Geek convert by sumana (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:58AM
  • "Research v. plagiarism" by sumana (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @07:05AM
  • Janet and Isaac Asimov? by sumana (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:40AM
  • Things to eat when it's dark... (FYI) by sumana (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:14PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by sumana (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:35PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by sumana (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:37PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Tassleman (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:37AM
  • "Geek" girls by Luke B. Bishop (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:29AM
  • Women == Microsoft? by TiberianSon (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:08AM
  • Re:How to pick up on chicks, by roblimo. by Nitrozac (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:15AM
  • Re:Ok...try this one on for size... by SwedishChef (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:31PM
  • Get into a sport (I suggest biking) by guisar (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:55AM
  • Well, actually.... by Evil Poot Cat (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @02:14AM
  • There are 600+ replies to this post... by Evil Poot Cat (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:30AM
  • Flowers by nuggz (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:30AM
  • Yes, women more complex than even sendmail. by locoluis (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:59PM
  • Get a maid and a hooker, Rob..... by Threemoons (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @07:39AM
  • Female Perspective by juno (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:18AM
  • Re:"Geek" girls by thopkins (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:59PM
  • ....Fate.... by Kit10 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:06PM
  • by Gkeeper80 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:25PM
  • Watch out by ben.b (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:33AM
  • by this point nobody reads these late posts, but.. by eries (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:43AM
  • Oh god... this is ugly. by np-complete (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:04AM
  • Re:Women. by Atri (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:23PM
  • Re:Women. by Atri (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:32PM
  • Why I'm a 'flop' with the ladies by decipher_saint (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:56AM
  • Re:Why I'm a 'flop' with the ladies by decipher_saint (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:30PM
  • My observations by npherno (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:19AM
  • 4 of the same poll? by chocolatetrumpet (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:32PM
  • I think the same advice holds for 'geek girls' too by cananian (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @07:17AM
  • Re:offensive by B1FF (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:54PM
  • The rule is there are no rules by Allnighterking (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:20AM
  • Here comes 2 pennies... by Dijital (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @04:39PM
  • Well, some geeks have a bit different problem.... by MyNameIsJonas (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:26AM
  • Here's a story - not really but ... by Lexi_the_linux_girl (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:02AM
  • I would like to see what Mrs. Debbie Limo thinks . by Lexi_the_linux_girl (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:42AM
  • Re:Broader definition of "geek" by nieveh (Score:1) Sunday November 07 1999, @01:00PM
  • The Magic Rules by MoodyLoner (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:22AM
  • To being happy and content - Good Work!!! by GrateTaste (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:14PM
  • Re:Disagree Completely by G27 Radio (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:39AM
  • Dating culture by aUser (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:35AM
  • Women and Geeks by FuzzyAzurePenguin (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @07:39AM
  • To be a Geek or Not to be a Geek by FuzzyAzurePenguin (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:16PM
  • Corn, cheese, and associated food related stuff. by Steevil (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:48AM
  • what a useless waste of a post. by adrn (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:57AM
  • What little credibility roblimo had is lost by Ciannait (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:20AM
  • They're Definately Complicated by connorps (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:06AM
  • Be wary by krh (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:08AM
  • I'm not, and feel like replying today by DebtAngel (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:58PM
  • This is a really good joke!!!! by thelopez (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:06AM
  • Re:Don't mix "child free" with "committment free" by Rares Marian (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:42PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Maul (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:19AM
  • Re:what about this by diadian (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:29AM
  • Re:Ok...try this one on for size... by treat (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @05:40AM
  • Re:Imitating Body Language -> Building Rapport -> by treat (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:33PM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by treat (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:01PM
  • Re:Question. by treat (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:51PM
  • Re:Question. by hcannon (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @05:31AM
  • If Microsoft made Women by geeklawyer (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:44AM
  • Re:He Obviously Missed Their Anniversary by enol (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:07PM
  • Imitating Body Language -> Building Rapport -> NLP by reason1024 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:05AM
  • Re:The Geek Girl's Ideal Geek Guy. by hypatia (Score:1) Sunday October 31 1999, @01:36PM
  • Re:The Geek Girl's Ideal Geek Guy. by hypatia (Score:1) Monday November 01 1999, @01:21PM
  • The Geek Girl's Ideal Geek Guy. by hypatia (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:43PM
  • Re:Bottom Line: Money (& Competition) by hypatia (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:11PM
  • Emacs & men; they're pretty similar: by hypatia (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:28PM
  • Slashdot != (GQ || Details || et.al.) by Technik~ (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:43AM
  • heh, Respected Cow-Orker by DJ Easy Dick (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:40PM
  • Dates for us younger geeks. by trekkie2001 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:56PM
  • Re:From experience, I agree by trekkie2001 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:04PM
  • Re:Dates for us younger geeks. by trekkie2001 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:07PM
  • Re:Top Ten Reason why Geek-Girls are better! by trekkie2001 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:13PM
  • Why, thank you.. by Kitsune Sushi (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:19AM
  • blame the lesbians! by mcdade (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:00PM
  • take this advice in moderation by crackerjc (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:24PM
  • Re:What about gay geeks? by bluescreen (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:23AM
  • The basics by fhwang (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:35PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by colnago (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:49AM
  • Girls are easy! by dedicke (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @05:57AM
  • Great article, and OH so true! by Krezel (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:11PM
  • I just want to be friends... by sbryant (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @02:03AM
  • Geeks for geeks? Sure, why not... by whocares (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @01:36PM
  • Re:Flowers by matts.nu (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @01:09AM
  • what about this by NachMan16 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:35AM
  • Re:Shouldn't be computer illiterate, though by werd life (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:13AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by lange (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:17PM
  • Re:The Geek Girl's Ideal Geek Guy. by TGR (Score:1) Saturday October 30 1999, @03:15PM
  • Re:The Geek Girl's Ideal Geek Guy. by TGR (Score:1) Monday November 01 1999, @05:38AM
  • Re:The Geek Girl's Ideal Geek Guy. by TGR (Score:1) Tuesday November 02 1999, @12:45PM
  • /. == 1999, Roblimo == 1951 by peterarm (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:29AM
  • Probably not... by Mr. Hankey (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @11:38PM
  • good point... by bla (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:56AM
  • Poor Debbie by Admiral Lazzurs (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:30PM
  • Re:Clueless high-school guys, listen! by haroldK (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:37AM
  • A Codger's Six Rules for Attracting a Woman by Anonymous Codger (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @02:43AM
  • Re:just kill yourself by fidel (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:33PM
  • Re:Women. by fidel (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:09PM
  • Take up cooking... by SIGFPE (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:30PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by FortranDragon (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:30PM
  • Bug in the bugfix by bero-rh (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:33PM
  • This doesn't work... by bero-rh (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:45AM
  • Re:I hope.... by elfbabe (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:28AM
  • Re:The Geek Female - Misrepresented. by Harri (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:09PM
  • Re:Question. by Harri (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:22AM
  • Re:Women. by Harri (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:30AM
  • Re:Dates for us younger geeks. by Harri (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @02:31AM
  • Re:hmm... by astock (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:42AM
  • Great article. by bencc99 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:29AM
  • Interesting article! by browser_war_pow (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:54AM
  • Re:"Geek" girls by Spire (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:00AM
  • Re:Clueless high-school guys, listen! by Eraser_ (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:41AM
  • Re:good point... by Mike Micelli (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @01:25AM
  • Find and Replace by imataion (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:13AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by brianm9 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:51PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Stiggy (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:24PM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by adrn01 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:39PM
  • Girls by BlueQuark (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:34PM
  • Re:Pig by twitter (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @11:53AM
  • advice for lovelorn geeks by webdoyenne (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @09:51AM
  • Re:Glad it had the "foot" icon anyway by Captain Lloyd (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:34PM
  • Re:Dates for us younger geeks. by DrHannibalLecter42 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:05PM
  • Re:is this really "news"? by Tau (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:02AM
  • its hard (no pun) by HarveyNeon (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:04AM
  • Re:How to meet the perfect girl? by HarveyNeon (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:12AM
  • Re:This is kidding by lilo (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:25AM
  • Re:B*S by cd_smith (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:38AM
  • In defense of geek girls (and gay geek guys) by harlows_monkeys (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:32AM
  • I will try this. by Nexeslad (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:12PM
  • Re:Think outside the box. by PeeOnYou (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:37PM
  • Re:This is kidding by PeeOnYou (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:46PM
  • Geek girls by jonojono (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:14PM
  • Re:Women? Hah. by gromm (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:41PM
  • Re:How long can I make this post..? by gromm (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:51PM
  • comment from a vexed geekgirl by photondancer (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:43PM
  • Re:what a useless waste of a post. by Emperor Cezar (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:21PM
  • Re:Shouldn't be computer illiterate, though by jgerman (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:17PM
  • Statistics vs. Desires by Ichoran (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:48PM
  • This is oh so true!!! by Big Geek (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:01PM
  • ;^) by Vegita (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:59PM
  • ;^) by Vegita (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:07PM
  • RTFM! by Vegita (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:36PM
  • You have much to learn young Jedi by asolipsist (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:04PM
  • Signal/Noise ratio from women by Kim0 (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:08PM
  • Good points... by pruckelshaus (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @03:00AM
  • Finally, a dose of reality - and GROOM Yourselves! by Black Dog (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:06AM
  • Absolutely! by Cactus_03 (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @06:40AM
  • A "Geek Woman's" POV by Almohada (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @12:22PM
  • Cosmo??!!! by Jasn (Score:1) Monday October 25 1999, @10:53AM
  • Re:what about this by include (Score:1) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:32AM
  • HOWTO pick-up women, important links: by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:57AM
  • be yourself, dammit by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:58AM
  • Re:What about gay geeks? by Roblimo (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:30AM
  • Re:is this really "news"? by Roblimo (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:06AM
  • Re:Women. by Bill Currie (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:21PM
  • Don't be a dick. by Skyshadow (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:07AM
  • Re:One secret! by Skyshadow (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:02AM
  • Don't listen to him! by pb (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:03AM
  • You are truly old school by Scott (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:07AM
  • dude by kfort (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:24AM
  • Bottom Line: Money by heroine (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:51AM
  • Completely, totally, utterly realistic. by Amphigory (Score:2) Monday October 25 1999, @04:06AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly paranoid by Millennium (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:20PM
  • Relationship Guides by mvw (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:44PM
  • Chicks like bad boys by geek (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @02:07PM
  • Re:B*S by scrytch (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:03AM
  • Glad it had the "foot" icon anyway by scrytch (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:17AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by Macka (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @10:04AM
  • Re:Ok, enough! by chromatic (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:09AM
  • Re:One secret! by Loudog (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:51AM
  • Re:Women? Hah. by Omnifarious (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:45PM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Stiletto (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:09AM
  • Can we make this into a HOWTO? by thegrommit (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:27AM
  • I think so by raistlinne (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:47AM
  • Re:Think outside the box. by crispy (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:42AM
  • He Obviously Missed Their Anniversary by InitZero (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:32AM
  • Lay of the stupid computer analogies already! by grappler (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:32AM
  • Woah! Downright wild!!! by grappler (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:48AM
  • Re:This is kidding (Well, this here is serious...) by f1r3br4nd (Score:2) Monday October 25 1999, @06:08AM
  • Re:This is kidding by SpacePunk (Score:2) Monday October 25 1999, @05:36AM
  • Re:The Geek Female - Misrepresented. by coreybrenner (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:45AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Forward The Light Br (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:23AM
  • Re:This is kidding by Dr. Zim (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:43AM
  • Don't mix "child free" with "committment free" by RebornData (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @03:54PM
  • Yet More Wishful Thinking Love Advice by RomulusNR (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @04:45PM
  • Re:is this really "news"? by zuvembi (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:34AM
  • One secret! by Montressor (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:29AM
  • Re:One secret! by Foogle (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:11AM
  • Ok, enough! by Skynet (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:38AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by Hobbex (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:28AM
  • Dare I say it? "Me too!" by fable2112 (Score:2) Monday October 25 1999, @05:43AM
  • Satire or not, it has some good points by fable2112 (Score:2) Wednesday October 27 1999, @03:24PM
  • Re:what a useless waste of a post. by m3000 (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @12:54PM
  • Re:Woah! Downright wild!!! by m3000 (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @01:10PM
  • Re:Women. by m3000 (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:28PM
  • Re:This is kidding (Well, this here is serious...) by Mr. Slippery (Score:2) Monday October 25 1999, @07:24AM
  • One satisfied geek girl.... by nano-second (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:34PM
  • Clueless? by sumana (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:35AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by sumana (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:59AM
  • Re:top 10 dangerous ideas by Rabbins (Score:2) Monday October 25 1999, @03:50AM
  • Re:...you were being serious? Not At All! by Lexi_the_linux_girl (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:58AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by apocalypse_now (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:59AM
  • How long can I make this post..? by Kitsune Sushi (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @07:31AM
  • Ok, look, for all you lamers.. by Kitsune Sushi (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:30AM
  • heh. by Kitsune Sushi (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:51AM
  • Shouldn't be computer illiterate, though by CvD (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:40AM
  • Women more complex than even sendmail ? by bug1 (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:40AM
  • Re:I'm a geek girl, and I have problems with this by redspice (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @09:32AM
  • Re:Utterly utterly offensive by gargle (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:42AM
  • I hope.... by elfbabe (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @08:11AM
  • Don't think so... by Mendax Veritas (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:56AM
  • this is sickening by cd_smith (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @06:57AM
  • Re:Women. by chocolate pi (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @05:46PM
  • Re:This is kidding by LIZX (Score:2) Sunday October 24 1999, @11:50PM
  • by Tony Shepps (333) on Sunday October 24 1999, @09:37AM (#1591830) Homepage
    (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.

    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)

    by Roblimo (357) on Sunday October 24 1999, @10:13AM (#1591831) Homepage Journal
    Yep. The number of people taking my little light-hearted bit seriously *is* frightening, isn't it? I ran it by my wife before posting it. She found it funny, and I trust her judgement on such things more than I trust my own.

    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)

    by Signal 11 (7608) on Sunday October 24 1999, @06:25AM (#1591832)
    I would like to remind everyone that there is no universal answer for finding Mr. or Ms. Perfect. Even though geeks at large are a homogenious group, there can be no easy answer. Best advice I, and likely anyone, can offer you is to ask yourself what you're looking for in a relationship, and then set out to find someone that meets your expectations. Do you want somebody who's witty, charming? Or just looks good? Be realistic too - like shopping for your next computer you can't get all the peripherals and addons you'd like.. so keep in mind what you really need, and what "would be nice". Everybody wants Cindy Crawford with all the addons and a 180 IQ...

    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.

    --

  • by chialea (8009) <leak@cs[ ]u.edu ['.cm' in gap]> on Sunday October 24 1999, @05:07PM (#1591833) Homepage
    while I believe you meant it lightly, I'll join the crowd of people who are calling it dangerous. while you are older than many of us who are making our way out into higher education/the workplace, I don't think this excuses your frankly outdated views. yes, it's nice to be taken care of, and to take care of someone in return. however, your lighthearted advice doesn't quite conceal a few (probably subliminal) biases in your mind. I'm not trying to flame you, but in the interests of the women out there, you might want to take a look at what I have to say. I'm very interested in your response, so please email or post back.

    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)
  • by Jerf (17166) on Sunday October 24 1999, @07:47AM (#1591834) Journal
    I don't think that Roblimo was trying to dismiss entire populations with a wave of his hand, but I do understand why a few women have posted comments being upset at him about the perception that he is doing so.

    This was basically guy talk here, so don't read too much into it :-) The problem he is trying to address is that so many guys/men only look for geek women, only look for Beautific Babes, or, worse yet, only look for Beautific Geek Babes (wow... talk about long odds; I go to a fricken' huge university and there aren't more then one or two Beautific Geek Babes around here!), that they overlook the other 90% of the population. Constraining yourself to 10% of the population from the get go, and shrinking it from there to "decent girls" (and Roblimo's right to the extent that Beautific Babes have a negative correlation with a good personality, which makes things even worse), is not a good way to suceed in this scenario, and as a resul guys retreat into fantasy land of what things will be like Real Soon Now instead of taking the opportunities presenting themselves Right Now.

    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)

    by the_tsi (19767) on Sunday October 24 1999, @06:52AM (#1591835)
    Yeah, like most geeks know what they're looking for in a relationship? They may think that they want someone who's obsessed with computers, star wars, RPGs, but how interesting is a relationship like that going to be? And how many of them are going to come to that realization before they realize "wow, this chick slept with me, I think I'll marry her"?

    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
  • by fable2112 (46114) on Monday October 25 1999, @05:55AM (#1591836) Homepage
    People objected loud and clear (and rightly so!) to the "geek profiling" that occured post-Columbine. People ALSO objected to the stereotyping of "jocks" and other athletes.


    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 /. readers) just how far-reaching these stereotypes are. I'm fully aware that this article was supposed to be funny, but the "fun" was at the expense of the female /. readership, and that bothers me.

  • by Tackhead (54550) on Sunday October 24 1999, @08:25AM (#1591837)
    Maybe you don't need anyone anyway.

    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]?

  • by kilpatjr (65285) on Sunday October 24 1999, @07:37AM (#1591838)
    What?
    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
  • by Nitrozac (67775) on Sunday October 24 1999, @07:21AM (#1591839) Homepage
    I think it would be great to hear Debbie's story about why she picked you, and why geeks are great partners. Perhaps she could write an addition to this story giving geek guys and girls some insight?

    btw, Debbie is always welcome in #aftery2k :)
  • If a geek girl ands geek boy have divergent interests in the realm of geekdom, it can also make things less competetive.

    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.

    --
  • by PRSmith (106363) on Sunday October 24 1999, @06:45AM (#1591841)
    Well, I don't think it was patronizing. Unnecessary perhaps. The issues aren't a cultural anomoly in geekdom.... It's systemic. I don't think his article meant to challenge whether or not geeks were doable on the carnal adventure scale, but rather to point out (and thus reduce needless suffering) that the geek profile for wanting "geek girls" hurts you culturally as a defined social group of men. ..because you miss out, probably because ultimately you tend to declassify non-geek fielded female intellectuals as being less or silly or ___... you fill in the blanks. I like the concept of not being able to change source code... and just live with it. Okay, so he could have said... "Guys, quite you're whining... moaning and quite wasting your non-work lives on mainlining your computer 24/7... there be women in those trees, and a whole lot more fun than computers (no, say it isn't so!) in their own different ways.... Let it feel some way knew, and pleasurable. Signed, Phoenix : Female,artist/writer and recovering from two ex-geek husbands (guys of some note and coding fame!)
  • Look. (Score:4)

    by Fastolfe (1470) <david@fastolfe.net> on Sunday October 24 1999, @07:34AM (#1591842) Homepage
    I'm seeing a lot of posts here that I think are a but unfair against the author. Just because he's touting this as advice for the "Lovelorn Geek" does not mean all lovelorn geeks are his target audience. Naturally each and every "geek" will have his own level of social abilities and may or may not need any of this advice. Figure it out.

    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.
  • by The Finn (1547) <agrier@poofygoof.com> on Sunday October 24 1999, @07:32AM (#1591843) Homepage

    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:

    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.

    ``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.''

    Re Hot Babes:[...]
    I generally found them to be more trouble than they were worth. [...]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. [...]The best software usually doesn't come in the fanciest box, right? The same goes for girls.

    How's that for a big sweeping generalization, (All glamorous women ``aren't worth it,'') coupled with objectification. (Women == software.)

    And if the girl finds you unattractive, she'll let you know that, too (so you can dump her before you get too serious).

    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...

    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.

    ``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.

    [M]
    y 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[.]

    ``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 /.

  • > compete for...for what?

    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-)
  • by mouseman (54425) on Sunday October 24 1999, @07:59AM (#1591845) Homepage
    Don't Waste Your Time on Geek Girls

    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.

    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.
    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?

    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.
    I can't begin to list the number of ways I find this offensive. Well, actually, I can, and will:
    1. What you are describing is not a relationship of equals. Why can't you rub her shoulders, or cook meals for her? In my house, I do the cooking (because I enjoy playing with food) and my wife does the shopping (because she's the one with the car). But with most things, it's give and take. If I come home tired and sore, or destroy my body by spending too much time in front of the computer, she rubs my back. If she's the tired one, I pamper her. If we're both worn out and in need of pampering, we just cuddle together and order in food.
    2. Why the assumption that the creative, intense person in the relationship is necessarily male? Yes, I know, you're male, as are a majority of geeks, but there are geek women out there.
    3. Why the assumption that any woman who is your intellectual equal is "competing" with you? It sounds like you want a partner who will stand in your shadow, and not threaten your ego. Partners in a loving relationship don't compete, they cooperate, help each other, compensate for each other's weaknesses and add to each other's strengths. My wife is frighteningly smart, but I'm not threatened by that, because my wife isn't my adversay -- she's my ally!
    4. Using the word "girl" interchangeably with "woman" is offensive to many women. If you're trying to attract intelligent, interesting, secure (read "feminist") women, laying off "girl" and "chick" might be a good start.
  • by Kitsune Sushi (87987) on Sunday October 24 1999, @07:35AM (#1591846)

    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.

  • Advice can be taken or ignored. He didn't force you to accept his advice did he?

    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.

  • by Tony Shepps (333) on Sunday October 24 1999, @06:45AM (#1591848) Homepage
    Let's sum up:
    • Geek girls are incapable of being loving and considerate, and unloving and inconsiderate geek guys have to avoid that.
    • 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.
    • One way to evaluate a woman is to take off her clothes and makeup.
    • In bars, the females that are unattainable are called "women" while the ones that you are supposed to go after are called "girls".
    • If a woman finds you unattractive, dump her as quickly as possible.
    • Grown breasts are worth waiting for.
    • Be nice to geeky looking girls, just in case they grow up and look good.
    • In spite of all of the above, imperfections are to be overlooked.
    • All women are looking for a man to fill the empty void in their lives.
    • 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.
  • by Skyshadow (508) on Sunday October 24 1999, @06:52AM (#1591849) Homepage
    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.

    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.

    ----

  • by HoserHead (599) on Sunday October 24 1999, @07:12AM (#1591850) Homepage
    I'm still in highschool, though in my last year, and in the past two months I've met a girl that makes me happier than I've ever been - she's understanding, she's caring, and moreover, she likes me!

    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.

  • by Stiletto (12066) on Sunday October 24 1999, @07:51AM (#1591851) Homepage
    Congratulations. You've won the political correctness award. I guess you think you deserve a prize.

    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.

  • by sumana (66640) on Sunday October 24 1999, @06:48AM (#1591852) Homepage
    Okay, much of the advice is good. Be straightforward. Don't try to be something you're not. Don't be a jerk, even if you're interacting with a dork. Be careful about looking for (a) a mirror image of yourself or (2) the Human Barbie or (iii) trying to make her into something she's not, i.e., changing her instead of appreciating how she is.

    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?

  • by marcelmouse (74690) on Sunday October 24 1999, @08:57AM (#1591853)
    DISCLAIMER: I'm not a computer geek, really, but a social science geek. I rarely speak up on /. because my field of expertise is touched on so rarely. Lucky you! I'm in the middle of a ~5 year project studying flirtation behavior.

    The authors agree; they say that if you watch people talking who are receptive to each other, they share the same posture, gestures, and level of eye-contact. They also say that you can CREATE rapport by intentionally matching your conversation partner's state & style of communication.

    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-programmab le-silicon book.)

    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."
  • by FortranDragon (98478) on Sunday October 24 1999, @07:35AM (#1591854)
    Interesting way of quoting someone's words without accurately representing their spirit. :)

    > 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. :)









  • 276 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7