Everyone of those things is irrelevant when compared to the ability to make a girl weak at the knees with desire. Without desire, even the most technically competent lovemaking is unexciting. This is the secret to why geeks do not, and never will make good lovers.
You seem to be implying that all geeks are unattractive. Maybe the word is a little confusing. If you take it to include physical appearance, then we need another word that doesn't. In other words: I've met enough people with very powerful minds and better than average looks to disprove what you're saying.
I think most of these are sort of wrong, especially when taken unqualified. Sure, geeks aren't interested in the stereotypical alpha-male kind of status, but they can be quite obsessed with intellectual status. Sure, they may not have bad sexual habits, but they can have annoying social habits (e.g., frequently offering unwanted advice, nitpicking factual correctness, exhibiting clingy beta-male behavior, etc). Sure, they might be good at a variety of intellectual endeavors, but geekiness is also highly correlated with a lack of athletic aptitude. Etc.
I suppose my point it that being a bad lover (or, more generally, a jerk) is an equal-opportunity social role.
11 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 53.3 ms ] threadI wish they were no flaw in that argument :)
And, oh btw, agreed 100%!
Also, I'm a computer programmer, and I have bad concentration.
Not like the article is any better.
Really? ... Really?
I suppose my point it that being a bad lover (or, more generally, a jerk) is an equal-opportunity social role.
Geeks are also people, and not perfect.