# Shallow nerds.



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

It was a surprise to me, when I started discovering that many basement dwelling classic nerd types were actually very shallow when it came to the opposite sex. I have been pondering it a bit, and I think I may have found the answer why.

These are the types who are too awkward socially to have many, if any experiences with real women. So when they begin to discover sexuality, they look to the absurd images of pseudo-femininity present in nerd culture. Comic book drawings of women, female video game characters, or even just celebrities who have airbrushed/altered photos, or very rare body types that make them look more like the less realistic images of normal women. 

So, they live with all of these fantasies of these types of women, then what girl who is willing to date a basement dweller is going to actually look this way?

I have seen it happen. I think this is a problem that people don't pay enough attention to - how unhealthy views on attraction develop. Of course this is just one example. 

Thoughts? Experiences? Ahem.. nerds?

EDITED> ***Not saying all nerds are this way. Its some, and because of the experiences some have. You all know I'm not one to generalize about entire groups of people. I say a million times a day that there are exceptions. And I sure hope so, because I really enjoy nerds.


----------



## Hiki (Apr 17, 2010)

Promethea said:


> It was a surprise to me, when I started discovering that many basement dwelling classic nerd types were actually very shallow when it came to the opposite sex. I have been pondering it a bit, and I think I may have found the answer why.
> 
> These are the types who are too awkward socially to have many, if any experiences with real women. So when they begin to discover sexuality, they look to the absurd images of pseudo-femininity present in nerd culture. Comic book drawings of women, female video game characters, or even just celebrities who have airbrushed/altered photos, or very rare body types that make them look more like the less realistic images of normal women.
> 
> ...



They are shallow because all they've had for years are superficifal pictures of whores to fantasize about while masturbating. The thing is, they have preferences with this, why did they pick the women who look like teenagers, the shallow crap?

Why are they not more into..curvy women?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

As a self-proclaimed nerd but who resides above-ground, I would like to say that not all of us have unrealistic expectations of women. =P I think what a typical nerdish person looks for in a women is dependent on how socially well-adjusted the person is, ie: how much contact with the outside world they've had. If you're a maladjusted nerd, it's not too late! Go out and meet someone new! Make it a habit to talk to at least 20 new people a day! It can be about anything, a hello, talk about your nerdish traits or hobbies or even talk about the weather. Being a basement dwelling nerd isn't a death sentence for your social life, it's up to you to take the bull by the horns and make your life happen! :happy:


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

I watched 16 Candles again recently, and this post made me think of the plot. Also that this notion isn't gender-specific. While far from a basement-dweller, Molly Ringwald's character was intelligent and grounded, yet she ends up going after the popular rich jock. The guy everyone wants, so she feels she should too.

The Breakfast Club has a bit of the same thing - Ally Sheedy _is_ the stereotypical socially withdrawn geek, yet in the end she ends up going for the popular athletic guy as well.

There are also the female equivalent of the stereotypical nerd who fantasize about characters from anime/manga series, fantasy adventure movies and that type of thing. I'm by no means trying to label all such women as having those tastes, but they're definitely out there.


----------



## MrRandom88 (Apr 1, 2010)

Promethea said:


> I have seen it happen. I think this is a problem that people don't pay enough attention to - how unhealthy views on attraction develop.


I think all guys ought to study a bit on how attraction develops (especially if they don't know how it really works)...obviously women know how guys develop attraction so they dont need to read up on anything haha


----------



## Hiki (Apr 17, 2010)

Yes. The status quo conquers most of the S types who have no depth about them, who can't look past what someone looks like.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

I wish I could remember the source of the story I once heard, about a boy raised in a civilization where sex before marriage was permitted, and they weren't even allowed to see each other nude. Now, keep in mind its only a story, to help illustrate my point.

So, in this city he lived in, the only nudity they ever saw before marrying, was in the nude statues. That was their perception of nudity. On the night of this man's wedding, he saw his wife naked. It was the first time he would ever see a woman nude, and he was turned off, because her flesh was soft, and there were fine hairs on her body. It wasn't what he had imagined looking at all of those statues. 

For people who are cut off from normal, healthy interactions, romantically, they develop unrealistic expectations as well. Not to this extreme in the story perhaps - but to an extent, yes.


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

Promethea said:


> It was a surprise to me, when I started discovering that many *losers* were actually very shallow when it came to the opposite sex.


FTFY.

I don't think it's fair to single out a specific group like that, even if that is the public sentiment. I certainly don't identify with "nerds" or "basement dwellers" but I think that if you had used a more prudent terminology to describe shallow, crass individuals who are either socially inept introverts (the stereotypical nerdier types you allude to) or the socially inept extroverts (the "caveman" jock type), that your statement would have been significantly better.

In answer to the question you should have asked, people who don't have _real_ experiences, regardless of whether it is from a lack of experience or from deluding themselves into thinking that they have mastered something they haven't, will _always_ be shallow. Why? Because either of these types are just defense mechanisms. One is an introverted defense, the other - false bravado perhaps - is an extroverted defense.


----------



## Hiki (Apr 17, 2010)

Spades said:


> FTFY.
> 
> I don't think it's fair to single out a specific group like that, even if that is the public sentiment. I certainly don't identify with "nerds" or "basement dwellers" but I think that if you had used a more prudent terminology to describe shallow, crass individuals who are either socially inept introverts (the stereotypical nerdier types you allude to) or the socially inept extroverts (the "caveman" jock type), that your statement would have been significantly better.
> 
> In answer to the question you should have asked, people who don't have _real_ experiences, regardless of whether it is from a lack of experience or from deluding themselves into thinking that they have mastered something they haven't, will _always_ be shallow. Why? Because either of these types are just defense mechanisms. One is an introverted defense, the other - false bravado perhaps - is an extroverted defense.


 There is no need to pick apart her statement.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Spades said:


> FTFY.
> 
> I don't think it's fair to single out a specific group like that, even if that is the public sentiment. I certainly don't identify with "nerds" or "basement dwellers" but I think that if you had used a more prudent terminology to describe shallow, crass individuals who are either socially inept introverts (the stereotypical nerdier types you allude to) or the socially inept extroverts (the "caveman" jock type), that your statement would have been significantly better.


I mentioned in my post that its just one example, and I thought that I'd said that not all of them are that way (or at least I meant to). And yes, I have connected 'nerds' here to these ideals because of the comic books, video games, etc that are in their culture showing unrealistic images of women. Yes, there are other types who have fucked up views for other reasons. I was being very specific here.

Now, unrelated to Spades's comment, I wanted to point out something that someone said about my avatar. Lol. Shes from the 'Promethea' comic book, and I don't really consider her to be one of the more sexualized comic book images. Really, I am having trouble deciding on an avatar, and it just came to mind because of my name. Tinman made me seem too aggressive. Apparently she does too though, and as a person who is very T, and an enneagram 8, I don't need more help in scaring people away. QQ Bawwwwwwww~ Promethea is so emo and off topic.


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

Promethea said:


> I mentioned in my post that its just one example, and I thought that I'd said that not all of them are that way (or at least I meant to). And yes, I have connected 'nerds' here to these ideals because of the comic books, video games, etc that are in their culture showing unrealistic images of women. Yes, there are other types who have fucked up views for other reasons. I was being very specific here.


Yes, I see that you were being very specific there (actually is seems like you are purposefully targeting a specific thread). But I was raising a point of debate: aren't jocks and any other variety of man also going to see - and in many cases act out - such things as well? This isn't something that is exclusive to an introverted culture, it's true of Western and American culture in general.

I actually feel it's a bigger part of _extroverted_ culture, but I think that introverted cultures get targeted because they are easy targets.

*Edit: *Also, you edited your post *20 minutes* after I posted, so don't try to play it off. It's rather disingenuous and I expect better from you.


----------



## mamuk (Sep 13, 2009)

MisterNi said:


> I think what a typical nerdish person looks for in a women is dependent on how socially well-adjusted the person is, ie: how much contact with the outside world they've had. If you're a maladjusted nerd, it's not too late!


by definition a nerd is socially mal adjusted, otherwise he/she would be a geek

jerk - stupid and mal adjusted
nerd - smart and mal adjusted
geek - smart and well adjusted


----------



## thewindlistens (Mar 12, 2009)

Eh, I don't know. Unrealistic images are everywhere in large amounts, not just in typically nerdy stuff.

Though the point you're trying to make is interesting, I think this has a lot more to do just with the general maturity of a person.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Spades said:


> Yes, I see that you were being very specific there (actually is seems like you are purposefully targeting a specific thread). But I was raising a point of debate: aren't jocks and any other variety of man also going to see - and in many cases act out - such things as well? This isn't something that is exclusive to an introverted culture, it's true of Western and American culture in general.
> 
> I actually feel it's a bigger part of _extroverted_ culture, but I think that introverted cultures get targeted because they are easy targets.
> 
> *Edit: *Also, you edited your post *20 minutes* after I posted, so don't try to play it off. It's rather disingenuous and I expect better from you.


Dude.. wtffffffffff. No. I said that I edited it in the edit thing so people would know that I edited it. You were right and it needed more clarity!


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

mamuk said:


> by definition a nerd is socially mal adjusted, otherwise he/she would be a geek
> 
> jerk - stupid and mal adjusted
> nerd - smart and mal adjusted
> geek - smart and well adjusted


The point I was trying to make was, being a nerd doesn't mean they're destined to be socially inept if they work at improving their social skills.


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

MisterNi said:


> The point I was trying to make was, being a nerd doesn't mean they're destined to be socially inept if they work at improving their social skills.


I think that she was suggesting that, according to your views, you are transcending the supposed boundaries. Hell, even just saying what you said makes you not a "mal adjusted nerd" lol. You deserve props for saying any and all of what you did.


Edit to correct incorrect third-party gender. Superfluous Ssssssssss just in case I missed some.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Yeah, we could get hung up on semantics all day. I know there are nerds who aren't basement dwellery losers. I meant perhaps the sub-type of nerd, perhaps a particular type of that sub-type of nerd. I don't think that all nerds are this way at all. And as I said before, yes, other types of people are prone to it, but I was pointing out something very specific here - because I think a lot of people don't realize this. And its something I have been made very aware of.


----------



## mamuk (Sep 13, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Yeah, we could get hung up on semantics all day. I know there are nerds who aren't basement dwellery losers. I meant perhaps the sub-type of nerd, perhaps a particular type of that sub-type of nerd. I don't think that all nerds are this way at all. And as I said before, yes, other types of people are prone to it, but I was pointing out something very specific here - because I think a lot of people don't realize this. And its something I have been made very aware of.


in a more serious mode Promethea, I do agree that some nerds wil have unrealistic views on the world, just because they are mal adjusted socially

and Spades, just guess in what category I will place you if you keep referring to me as "he" :crazy:


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

mamuk said:


> and Spades, just guess in what category I will place you if you keep referring to me as "he" :crazy:


:x The illiterate category?

Sorry, haha. Not sure why I made the jump that your avatar = dude poster. Haha, wow, I rarely do that. Ahem, I am sorry though. I will go add some letters in the appropriate places.


----------



## sumi (Dec 13, 2009)

I think part of the reason you see shallow nerds is because nerds have been made fun of all their lives for their appearances. That's one of the reasons they're called "basement-dwelling" - they dont feel comfortable anywhere but underground. But if they can sport an attractive mate around, that would change things quite a bit and make them less prone to being made fun of. So by being shallow, they're just trying to fit in for once in their life.

...or not. But it's something to think about.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

sumi said:


> I think part of the reason you see shallow nerds is because nerds have been made fun of all their lives for their appearances. That's one of the reasons they're called "basement-dwelling" - they dont feel comfortable anywhere but underground. But if they can sport an attractive mate around, that would change things quite a bit and make them less prone to being made fun of. So by being shallow, they're just trying to fit in for once in their life.
> 
> ...or not. But it's something to think about.


I have definitely seen instances where they are the type who longs to be a part of society, so they end up nodding and agreeing with the masses of shallow people. Good point.

I guess that I meant the ones who aren't necessarily trying to fit in, but just find their own reasons to have shallow, fucked up views of attraction.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Promethea said:


> basement dwellery


Forsooth, thou hath no equal in thine basement dwellery!



Sorry. I just HAD to do that XD

But yeah, I think people have fucked up views regardless. How are these cave dwellers GETTING these unrealistic images? Because somebody makes them. Why are they made?

To me it seems like this: "Reality is not like this but people who experience reality know this so we just putz around for the fuck of it. And to make money. Because people buy this shit, you know, because they like it or something."


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

sprinkles said:


> Forsooth, thou hath no equal in thine basement dwellery!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lmao.

And yes, I can see that point. Why do people like the things they like though, and would they like them as much being presented with other options. Just because a thing exists doesn't make it right, and when life imitates art; then art imitates life; then forms feedback on and on, it becomes even more distorted. So, I believe these days we have what has grown into very distorted images. Women in media weren't nearly as distorted decades ago. Abnormal is being made the norm, turning people off the real deal.

Who desires it in the first place to begin the spread of it? Who knows? But these days, its mass marketed, and people are trained to respond to it because of the sexual stigma attached.


----------



## mamuk (Sep 13, 2009)

Promethea said:


> I guess that I meant the ones who aren't necessarily trying to fit in, but just find their own reasons to have shallow, fucked up views of attraction.


thus not really smart, in my book that would demote them to jerks

through improving their social contacts nerds can become geeks

however I don't think any need to be permanent states, even original geeks can gradually morph into jerks

It's probably also a question of being primarily matter attached or people attached. I for that matter will always remain a nerdy geek at best, I rather solve issues then sort people out :laughing:


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

mamuk said:


> through improving their social contacts nerds can become geeks


Enough of them need to find a good balance, cause tragically, I'm attracted to these creatures. :frustrating:


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Lmao.
> 
> And yes, I can see that point. Why do people like the things they like though, and would they like them as much being presented with other options. Just because a thing exists doesn't make it right, and when life imitates art; then art imitates life; then forms feedback on and on, it becomes even more distorted. So, I believe these days we have what has grown into very distorted images. Women in media weren't nearly as distorted decades ago. Abnormal is being made the norm, turning people off the real deal.
> 
> Who desires it in the first place to begin the spread of it? Who knows? But these days, its mass marketed, and people are trained to respond to it because of the sexual stigma attached.


Yeah.. and I seem to have an interesting situation because I'm an isolationist type but I don't go for this mess, so some times I wonder how other people do. >.>

I'm more interested in the reality which is actually out there rather than some view that anyone sells me. Some things do have an appeal to me in one way or another, but I don't go so far as to substitute it as a new preference over what is actually realistic. It's actually a bit disturbing to me that there is so much fantasy and sensationalism out there, like real life is just shit and not good enough. -.-

Personally the main reason I isolate myself is because I get tired of all the superficiality and noise and concrete and falsity. I honestly could give a fuck about having the latest car or pair of shoes which are being crammed into my face 24/7


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

Promethea said:


> And yes, I can see that point. Why do people like the things they like though, and would they like them as much being presented with other options. Just because a thing exists doesn't make it right, and when life imitates art; then art imitates life; then forms feedback on and on, it becomes even more distorted. So, I believe these days we have what has grown into very distorted images. Women in media weren't nearly as distorted decades ago. Abnormal is being made the norm, turning people off the real deal.


How many "decades ago" are you talking about? When the media was just a single radio station? I don't mean to sound pedantic, but for Western culture for the last several decades - if not century - the "norm" for a woman's waist-to-hip ratio has always been approximately 0.7 with a range of 0.68-0.72. This is, physiologically, what the last ~100 years (or more) of human beings have been accustomed to.

I was actually just watching something on the Discovery Channel which mentioned the same thing. If I can find it I will let you know.

But otherwise, yes, I agree with you that popular culture is creating a feedback loop to feed off of. The images, however, really aren't that distorted from the "norm" that we've developed over quite a long time (probably since corsets were invented, given that was their ideal). I think as a society we've just allowed women to open up more both socially and be represented more within our culture.

For further interested reading, people might be interested in just what exactly people tend to look at on the human body - regardless of whether it is acknowledged consciously.


----------



## mamuk (Sep 13, 2009)

sprinkles said:


> Yeah.. and I seem to have an interesting situation because I'm an isolationist type but I don't go for this mess, so some times I wonder how other people do. >.>
> 
> I'm more interested in the reality which is actually out there rather than some view that anyone sells me. Some things do have an appeal to me in one way or another, but I don't go so far as to substitute it as a new preference over what is actually realistic. It's actually a bit disturbing to me that there is so much fantasy and sensationalism out there, like real life is just shit and not good enough. -.-
> 
> Personally the main reason I isolate myself is because I get tired of all the superficiality and noise and concrete and falsity. I honestly could give a fuck about having the latest car or pair of shoes which are being crammed into my face 24/7


do you believe there is one reality? what is real to you, isn't necessarily real to me? 
it's not what happens to you but what you think of it that can make you suffer" 
A pat on the back can be humiliating to one and a thrill to another


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

mamuk said:


> do you believe there is one reality? what is real to you, isn't necessarily real to me?
> it's not what happens to you but what you think of it that can make you suffer"
> A pat on the back can be humiliating to one and a thrill to another


That's subjective interpretation. If you jump, you move. If you haven't moved, you haven't jumped. But moving does not mean that you did jump, because there are other ways to move.

THAT is part of reality. If something only ever exists on paper as a drawing, the extent of its reality is the fact that it is a drawing. How you feel about it is up to you but if you have expectations of finding it elsewhere, then those would be unrealistic expectations.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

this is why i never got too into all the "nerdy" things i've tried throughout life


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Spades said:


> How many "decades ago" are you talking about? When the media was just a single radio station? I don't mean to sound pedantic, but for Western culture for the last several decades - if not century - the "norm" for a woman's waist-to-hip ratio has always been approximately 0.7 with a range of 0.68-0.72. This is, physiologically, what the last ~100 years (or more) of human beings have been accustomed to.


Decades ago. Compare marilyn monroe to kiera knightely and the other skeletons. In today's media she would be deemed a 'fatbitch.'


----------



## mamuk (Sep 13, 2009)

sprinkles said:


> That's subjective interpretation. If you jump, you move. If you haven't moved, you haven't jumped. But moving does not mean that you did jump, because there are other ways to move.
> 
> THAT is part of reality. If something only ever exists on paper as a drawing, the extent of its reality is the fact that it is a drawing. How you feel about it is up to you but if you have expectations of finding it elsewhere, then those would be unrealistic expectations.


Isn't most interpretation per definition subjective? what's your point?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

mamuk said:


> Isn't most interpretation per definition subjective? what's your point?


What was yours? I didn't see one. Even if "most" interpretation is subjective, that "most" makes it still worth specifying. So, point? None that I see.

You were saying something about pats on the back and one reality, as if the two are mutually exclusive things. They are not. Next question?


----------



## calysco (Jan 23, 2010)

Yeah- it's all about expectations and what you're used to. Since I was virtually a loner for the most part as a child, I read a lot of manga and watched a lot of anime and so my standards for guys were very unrealistic. 

I recall thinking that everyone I met was ugly (including girls) and it wasn't until _after_ I had graduated from high school that I began thinking that people didn't look too bad. 

However, this is only because I was told repeatedly by other people (friends) that certain features look attractive and I eventually believed them.


...And on a somewhat random note, your topic also reminded me of those twilight die-hard fans


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Decades ago.


Still subjective.



Promethea said:


> Compare marilyn monroe to kiera knightely and the other skeletons. In today's media she would be deemed a 'fatbitch.'


1. Since when did you care what other people think? I can understand questioning their perspective, but now it sounds like you're distraught that other people's views are infringing on your own. You're you, who cares about everyone else?
2. Marilyn Monroe was apparently five-foot five-and-a-half inches and 115-120 pounds. That sounds spot on to today's norms. When I figure out how to calculate a waist-to-hip ratio I'll add them below.



Marilyn Monroe Bio said:


> Height: 5 feet 5 1/2 inches
> Weight: Varied, 115 - 120 lbs.
> Measurements: 37-23-36 (Studio's Claim); 35-22-35 (Dressmaker's Claim)
> Source: http://www.marilynmonroe.com/about/facts.html


Keira Knightley (whose name I did not know how to spell prior to this) is apparently 5'7" and probably 110-115 at her lightest. One site suggests she is a minimum of 115. You make it sound like they both can't be beautiful... even if they are slightly different in height and weight (which I think is negligible here). Either way, they both seem to artificial for my tastes. So if anything, Knightley is an improvement on that "image" of women.


*Edit:* By the way, Marilyn Monroe's WHR, if taking 23"/36", is 0.638r, which is very low. I found one site which says that Knightley's measurements are 32A-22-33 , which when taking 22"/33" is actually higher at 0.66r. So not only does Kiera Knightley have fuller hips than Monroe, but she has smaller breasts (which are the superficial stereotype that most people associate with relative attractiveness).


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Spades said:


> 1. Since when did you care what other people think?


What people think matters when it effects their interactions with others, and that is what this is about unless I completely misread something (and I don't think I did)


----------



## mamuk (Sep 13, 2009)

sprinkles said:


> What was yours? I didn't see one. Even if "most" interpretation is subjective, that "most" makes it still worth specifying. So, point? None that I see.
> 
> You were saying something about pats on the back and one reality, as if the two are mutually exclusive things. They are not. Next question?


Sprinkles, don't get your knickers in a twist, I was not trying to make a point, merely trying to understand what reality means to you. Earlier in this thread there was talk about realistic and unrealistic views. As I was considering what is real, your post popped up, where you say:

"I'm more interested in the reality which is actually out there rather than some view that anyone sells me".

that triggered my first questions to you. By your answer I got the distinct impression you were trying to make a point, but it eluded me, so I asked, what's your point. 

and you have a point re. "most" so I will get specific, All interpretation is per definition subjective. :crazy: and before I go on making points.. time to go to bed. 
Catch you next time :laughing:


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> What people think matters when it effects their interactions with others, and that is what this is about unless I completely misread something (and I don't think I did)


Hm, that sounds vaguely familiar. As though it's a summary of what I said in your "Eye Contact" thread.



Spades said:


> Audible or visual *feedback* is immensely important when _being communicated to_, much less when communicating to someone else.
> 
> Again, I don't see this as a "right" or "wrong," but it has very serious social implications that some people seem to ignore for their own sake.


Feedback, here, is obviously the effect that the "interactions with others" produces. So the same theory should apply to both, yes? Because they both do have very serious social implications.

Did I just bait you from another thread? Oh yes I did!  <3 ... And yet you dismissed me in the other thread. =(

I wanted to post this height/weight chart as well just for reference for you all.








*

EDIT:* I made this bigger and denoted who is what.
*Marilyn Monroe* - 115-120lbs (age 26; female)
*Keira Knightley* - 115lbs+ (she is like 23 and may not be finished with the whole becoming a woman thing whereas Monroe's weight is from when she was 26)
*Spades* - 115lbs (I'm a dude; included myself just for reference)


----------



## Molock (Mar 10, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Thoughts? Experiences? Ahem.. nerds?
> 
> EDITED> ***Not saying all nerds are this way. Its some, and because of the experiences some have. You all know I'm not one to generalize about entire groups of people. I say a million times a day that there are exceptions. And I sure hope so, because I really enjoy nerds.


I don't know if I count as a nerd but I'll have a go anyway. 

I have yet to be with a woman but I have never been attracted to Hollywood models, porn-stars, etc. I find they look superficial and lack character. I am actually revolted by the overwhelming majority of pornographic material... I have always been attracted to women who are down to earth, smart, and good-looking. What I consider good-looking has nothing to do with popular culture or what society considers beautiful. Also, good looks are nothing if her personality isn't great and if she isn't intelligent.

What is found on the internet is mostly garbage and anyone who thinks that it is even remotely representative of the real world needs a reality check.

I'll confess though, I do know some "nerds" who have stupid expectations of women and attractiveness in general. Sometimes I wonder if they are even capable of returning to the real world, even for a moment.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

mamuk said:


> Sprinkles, don't get your knickers in a twist, I was not trying to make a point, merely trying to understand what reality means to you. Earlier in this thread there was talk about realistic and unrealistic views. As I was considering what is real, your post popped up, where you say:
> 
> "I'm more interested in the reality which is actually out there rather than some view that anyone sells me".
> 
> ...


Sorry about that.

First of all, I was giving an anecdote of sorts. I didn't really have a specific point there. If I want to make a point I try to make it clear with reiterations if necessary.

I didn't know your reasoning for the question and I took it as a rhetorical question which you were already positing an answer for. Maybe I should have just answered the question but honestly, lately, the strange motivations of people confuse the hell out of me. I shouldn't have to worry about whether a question is actually a question. -.-

My brain hurts...

But yeah... I think there must be a reality which is composed of all the attributes in the universe. How a person feels may be a part of that reality, but what kind of part is it? Like some people can say they feel bugs crawling on their skin, while nobody else sees these bugs. So the feeling itself may be real, though the bugs themselves may not be.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Spades said:


> Feedback, here, is obviously the effect that the "interactions with others" produces. So the same theory should apply to both, yes? Because they both do have very serious social implications.


You say there is no "right" or "wrong" yet turn around and act as if the way you view the implication must be the correct way. I don't appreciate that.

An implication means something is implied. For example... to you, somebody not looking at you implicates that they are not paying attention - which may or may not be a correct interpretation on your behalf. So if you didn't mean it that way, perhaps you should have used different words.


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> You say there is no "right" or "wrong" yet turn around and act as if the way you view the implication must be the correct way. I don't appreciate that.
> 
> An implication means something is implied. For example... to you, somebody not looking at you implicates that they are not paying attention - which may or may not be a correct interpretation on your behalf. So if you didn't mean it that way, perhaps you should have used different words.


Indeed, and here "social implications" means the same thing either way. It is the implied meaning _to the group_, not the individual. It doesn't matter who the actors are, the point remains that if the majority perceives a certain implication, then that is the group's view. In this case "society" means "western culture" or however you would like that phrased.

Don't personalize a word to try to take it out of context. You know that "social" was a modifier for "implications." Stop only taking a partial, literal definition.

Either way, "social connotations" would mean the same thing. You can actually substitute just about any synonym in there for "implication" and as long as "social" is there in front of it you'll have the same meaning as what I outlined above.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Spades said:


> Indeed, and here "social implications" means the same thing either way. It is the implied meaning _to the group_, not the individual. It doesn't matter who the actors are, the point remains that if the majority perceives a certain implication, then that is the group's view. In this case "society" means "western culture" or however you would like that phrased.
> 
> Don't personalize a word to try to take it out of context. You know that "social" was a modifier for "implications." Stop only taking a partial, literal definition.
> 
> Either way, "social connotations" would mean the same thing. You can actually substitute just about any synonym in there for "implication" and as long as "social" is there in front of it you'll have the same meaning as what I outlined above.


So if you aren't a part of the group then you are fucked. Yeah I know all too well how that goes. Since when are we a hive mind anyway? Sheesh.

I guess it's really true that 'three men make a tiger'.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Spades said:


> 1. Since when did you care what other people think? I can understand questioning their perspective, but now it sounds like you're distraught that other people's views are infringing on your own. You're you, who cares about everyone else?


Stop trying to get personal. Its off topic and inappropriate.. and you just do it to be a fucking prick. Cut it out or I won't keep responding to this bullshit.



Spades said:


> 2. Marilyn Monroe was apparently five-foot five-and-a-half inches and 115-120 pounds. That sounds spot on to today's norms. When I figure out how to calculate a waist-to-hip ratio I'll add them below.
> 
> Keira Knightley (whose name I did not know how to spell prior to this) is apparently 5'7" and probably 110-115 at her lightest. One site suggests she is a minimum of 115. You make it sound like they both can't be beautiful... even if they are slightly different in height and weight (which I think is negligible here). Either way, they both seem to artificial for my tastes. So if anything, Knightley is an improvement on that "image" of women.
> 
> ...


Then we have read different bios. I have read that monroes weight was at 145. I'm not saying they can't "both be beautiful." I made a comment about how the standards have changed and you apparently totally missed the point. I also see a lot of speculation here and not fact.

"for most of the early part of her career, she was a size 8 and even in her plumper stages, was no more than a 10. I can tell you this from experience because a few weeks ago, I tried to try on her clothes."

These days they are often size 2 and 4. Considerably different if you know women's sizes.

Fact: the standard has gotten thinner, taller, and even more distorted looking with photo editing etc. Go do your research and stop squawking at me. First you tried to pull some shit saying I was editing my posts for malicious reasons, then you get personal. Makes me question the motive for this. Is it to come to a better understanding of something, or to just make petty digs. Reevaluate.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

I think you nailed it in your post. These Persons spend their time wrapped up in sci-fi for so long that they forget --or never learned-- how to interact with people. So, when they interact with a woman and realize they're not dating Bat-Girl or themselves, they become disillusioned because their range of interests are extremely narrow. While this may make a pity case for such an individual, I think it should be a wake up call that something isn't sitting too well with them.

I also think anyone who is actively seeking someone and isn't a well rounded individual is only setting themselves up for head aches.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I was a nerd for a very long time and still am to an extent. Actually I was so nerdy that I resented that some people called themselves "nerds" when they really weren't, they just did some nerdy things from time to time. 

Anyway, in my time as a nerd I hated women (I'm still misogynistic, for different reasons, but whatever), had no idea how to communicate with them -- they were basically a different species to me. And yes, I was very shallow. 

A long time ago I was told that pornography degrades women in the eye of the habitual user. I dismissed it at the time but I now believe it to be true. When your only connection with the opposite sex is fapping to some whore getting fucked on your screen, how can you be anything but shallow?

Flirting with depression motivated me to kick my self esteem issues. Luckily I was able to. As it stands, I can value women properly now (although, I find it easier to meet men who are worthy of my value, as I've said before, and as was taken as "ignorant sexism"), luckily. I'm only sad that I kicked my self esteem issues too late that I couldn't make more female friends at school, especially with some of the awesome acquaintances I had.


----------



## mamuk (Sep 13, 2009)

android654 said:


> I think you nailed it in your post. These Persons spend their time wrapped up in sci-fi for so long that they forget --or never learned-- how to interact with people. So, when they interact with a woman and realize they're not dating Bat-Girl or themselves, they become disillusioned because their range of interests are extremely narrow. While this may make a pity case for such an individual, I think it should be a wake up call that something isn't sitting too well with them.
> 
> I also think anyone who is actively seeking someone and isn't a well rounded individual is only setting themselves up for head aches.


LMAO well rounded being the key word actually :crazy: 
and now I'm really off to bed


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

I'm confused, are you complaining that people are dissapointed that nerds won't date them because they didn't want to spend time with nerds when they were developing what they are attracted to?

To be honest, I find this somewhat ironic...


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> I'm confused, are you complaining that some people spend time doing what they want with life or that people are dissapointed that nerds won't date them because they didn't want to spend time with nerds when they were developing what they are attracted to?
> 
> To be honest, I find the first point morally wrong and he second point somewhat ironic...


I was just pointing out an idea on why SOME "nerds", who one might think would be different from the typical shallow masses, are often just as shallow.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

Most people are shallow, including nerds. They aren't very much different from everyone else.

Perhaps it's a matter of expectations? Nerds are less physically attractive, so they're expected to date someone who's not physically attractive?

In my experience, a lot of women are realistic about the quality of men they can get (looks, brains, charm etc). They tend to measure themselves on a social scale and aim for someone around the same. The same mechanism doesn't seem to exist in men, or at least the ones I know. They just go for the best and try their luck. It's really a matter of going progressively down the ladder until one of the girls say yes.

Of course this is not the case for all men. But I've observed this phenomenon so many times that I begin to wonder how widespread it is.


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

Promethea said:


> I was just pointing out an idea on why SOME "nerds", who one might think would be different from the typical shallow masses, are often just as shallow.


Have you considered that you are identifiying for consequence without stipulating cause and then wrapping it up in subjectivity?

The cause is simple: Humans are shallow, regardless of sex, culture, wage or favourite colour.

Nerds are often rejected for the first 5-10 years of their young adult life only to find themselves to be very attractive people once they exit this time due to their wealth, growing attractiveness and potential as husband material. I'm sorry to say that after this period the nerd has scarcity value and not the female; this is merely rational and once people identify this, they will use it to their greatest advantage.

And why are people subjective: because people know that scarcity is fleeting and everyone wants their 5 minutes to oggled at.

I do not understand why you think nerds are any different to any other flavour of person, or why you might expect them especially to behave irrationally?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> Have you considered that you are identifiying for consequence without stipulating cause and then wrapping it up in subjectivity?
> 
> The cause is simple: Humans are shallow, regardless of sex, culture, wage or favourite colour.
> 
> ...


The whole thing started because of a conversation about personal experiences between a few people who had become very disillusioned upon making this discovery. I think the typical stereotype is that asshole mooks are the shallow jerks, not the nerdy types who seem more detached from society. I was looking at the reasons why they may be this way.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> Nerds are often rejected for the first 5-10 years of their young adult life only to find themselves to be very attractive people once they exit this time due to their wealth, growing attractiveness and potential as husband material. I'm sorry to say that after this period the nerd has scarcity value and not the female; this is merely rational and once people identify this, they will use it to their greatest advantage.


I observe the same arrogance in a lot of nerds who have "made it" in their 30s and 40s. I like nerds. I have a soft spot for them. Almost all my exes are nerds. But such arrogance doesn't do anyone any favours. Intelligence has to be coupled with some humility and social skills to be attractive to women.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

InvisibleJim said:


> Have you considered that you are identifiying for consequence without stipulating cause and then wrapping it up in subjectivity?
> 
> The cause is simple: Humans are shallow, regardless of sex, culture, wage or favourite colour.
> 
> ...


Sorry for stepping in, but:

Cause:


> So when they begin to discover sexuality, they look to the absurd images of pseudo-femininity present in nerd culture.


Consequence:


> unhealthy views on attraction develop


If you are going to try and say that unrealistic expectations are a good thing, then good luck with that.

People can do whatever the hell they want, I know I do, but if I start going after things which don't even EXIST let alone aren't REASONABLY ATTAINABLE, I would consider that unhealthy. And if they grow out of that by whatever means, as you claim happens, they would be different - different person, different story.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Who cares if I'm attractive to women or not. I was arrogant as a nerd and I will remain arrogant, hopefully to my last breath. Arrogance is the refusal to surrender your superiority. I would never give up any part of what I consider my personality to be more attractive to the opposite sex.

(To be fair, I'm not 30 and I haven't made it yet  I shall probably be even worse when I have...)


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

Rouge said:


> I observe the same arrogance in a lot of nerds who have "made it" in their 30s and 40s. I like nerds. I have a soft spot for them. Almost all my exes are nerds. But such arrogance doesn't do anyone any favours. Intelligence has to be coupled with some humility and social skills to be attractive to women.


I think if you were to map out all of the social groups you could identify a period of relationship arrogance at some point in time.

What you should be wary of is falling into the falacy that one group will buck the trend. People are generally very astute at negotiating; what they will view, as a good deal for themselves: and I do not think that anyone does not do this to a point. We are wrong to expect them to be better than us as this is hypocritical, they are simply asking what they others take for granted.

Generally it is simple, if a nerd finds himself having scarcity value he can pick and choose, just the same as the 18 year old cheerleader or the jocks did at high school or the hipsters at college. It is up to those they deal with to draw their lines at what they are willing to 'give away' in terms of time and resources to have a relationship. It is generally a relationship supermarket; not a relationship charity.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> I think if you were to map out all of the social groups you could identify a period of relationship arrogance at some point in time.


No I don't agree. A lot of NF types are people pleasers. They give and give and have trouble taking. They don't think of themselves as superior to their partners.



InvisibleJim said:


> People are generally very astute at negotiating; what they will view, as a good deal for themselves: and I do not think that anyone does not do this to a point. We are wrong to expect them to be better than us as this is hypocritical, they are not to simply ask for what they others taking for granted.


This is a very cold and calculating approach to relationships. I also don't think this is the way a lot of people see it. Or that it is a healthy way.

If we are always looking for the "best deal" and our social value increases along the way, we'd always be dumping our partner for a younger and better model. But this is clearly not the case for most people. Relationships take time to build and you can't have the same kind of relationship with each new person. In this way, it doesn't mean a relationship with a "trade up" in whatever superficial way you define it will always be better.



InvisibleJim said:


> Generally it is simple, if a nerd finds himself having scarcity value he can pick and choose, just the same as the 18 year old cheerleader or the jocks did at high school or the hipsters at college. It is up to those they deal with to draw their lines at what they are willing to 'give away' in terms of time and resources to have a relationship. It is generally a relationship supermarket; not a relationship charity.


What I meant was, these nerds have an inflated idea of themselves. A lot of women don't find them as attractive as they think they are. This is from the perspective of a woman who's considered attractive and hit on time and again by these nerds.


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

Rouge said:


> No I don't agree. A lot of NF types are people pleasers. They give and give and have trouble taking. They don't think of themselves as superior to their partners.
> 
> This is a very cold and calculating approach to relationships. I also don't think this is the way a lot of people see it. Or that it is a healthy way.
> 
> ...


My position is simple, I chose not to factor unhealthy or healthy into it because this is subjective; I believe that groups of people (not individually) do behave very rationally and therefore they are best to choose what is healthy/unhealthy for them and what is required to meet their expectations.

The example of this is 'nerds like unrealistic women'; healthy or not is not for me to decide what people like or dislike, they are much more capable of doing that themselves and similarly so deciding if it healthy or unhealthy for them.

My past experience with NFs have taught me a very simple lesson: NFs are rational about relationships, NTs are rational about their interests. Balk at the honesty of it if you will, but remember it is merely a reflection of how you believe these people are degrading what you view as your scarcity value as they learn how to value their own because they reveal they do not wish to get a sucky deal (in their view).

What you are indicating is that you both value yourselves higher than the other does; this position will always be irreconcilable if both parties dont see giving an inch as a valuable thing to.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

To give an idea why I don't find arrogant nerds with poor social skills as attractive:

I am often spoilt by men who want my attention. They go to great lengths to ensure I'd see them again. When they turn up for a date, they're in a shirt that fits and shoes that are cool. They take me somewhere nice, open the doors, pay for dinner. They try in their own ways to be funny and charming, and find common topics that will engage my interest. Some even walk me home and send me sweet goodnight messages.

Contrast this with a nerd who makes me feel I should be grateful that he'd spend time with me. Without any consideration to whether I'd enjoy myself with him. And with poor presentation and conversational skills to boot.

Which one do you think I'd see again?

It's easy to overlook weaknesses. But not poor attitude. After all, attractive girls also have their pick of men to go out with.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Rouge said:


> To give an idea why I don't find arrogant nerds with poor social skills as attractive:
> 
> I am often spoilt by men who want my attention. They go to great lengths to ensure I'd see them again. When they turn up for a date, they're in a shirt that fits and shoes that are cool. They take me somewhere nice, open the doors, pay for dinner. They try in their own ways to be funny and charming, and find common topics that will engage my interest. Some even walk me home and send me sweet goodnight messages.
> 
> ...


 I don't understand. Why is arrogance mutually exclusively by the sort of male you describe as desirable? It's not impossible to be both. In fact I'm pretty sure if I was dating somebody I would behave in the way you described as desirable because that's, as far as I'm aware, how you're _supposed_ to act. Many of the arrogant people I know are exactly the same.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Who cares if I'm attractive to women or not. I was arrogant as a nerd and I will remain arrogant, hopefully to my last breath. Arrogance is the refusal to surrender your superiority. I would never give up any part of what I consider my personality to be more attractive to the opposite sex.
> 
> (To be fair, I'm not 30 and I haven't made it yet  I shall probably be even worse when I have...)


Confident and self-assured, or arrogant? Arrogant takes on a nasty attitude, not just a self-assured one. And I haven't observed a bad attitude from you.

[/derail]


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Confident and self-assured, or arrogant? Arrogant takes on a nasty attitude, not just a self-assured one. And I haven't observed a bad attitude from you.
> 
> [/derail]


 I find it very difficult to draw a distinction. I have always thought arrogance to be the opposite of humility. I don't see being polite -- holding doors open for people, saying please/thank you etc, as being contrary to being arrogant. If it is, perhaps I am wrong.

Actually, clarification: possibly I am arrogant towards people who I do not see as deserving of my respect. in fact I think this is likely.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> My position is simple, I chose not to factor unhealthy or healthy into it because this is subjective;


I disagree.

Unhealthy relationship = failure, breakup, heartache
Healthy relationship = success, happiness

This is how it is measured and not subjective as you put it.



InvisibleJim said:


> I believe that groups of people (not individually) do behave very rationally and therefore they are best to choose what is healthy/unhealthy for them and what is required to meet their expectations.


But rationality has to be realistic for it to work, right?



InvisibleJim said:


> The example of this is 'nerds like unrealistic women'; healthy or not is not for me to decide what people like or dislike, they are much more capable of doing that themselves and similarly so deciding if it healthy or unhealthy for them.


Indeed, who cares whether they'd ever find a partner who wants them back if they can continue to live alone in their fantasies?



InvisibleJim said:


> My past experience with NFs have taught me a very simple lesson: NFs are rational about relationships, NTs are rational about their interests. Balk at the honesty of it if you will


It's funny how often I hear NFs complain about past relationships with self-absorbed men who don't know about giving anything back of themselves. I wish they're as rational in relationships as you think they are.



InvisibleJim said:


> but remember it is merely a reflection of how you believe these people are degrading what you view as your scarcity value as they learn how to value their own because they reveal they do not wish to get a sucky deal (in their view).
> 
> What you are indicating is that you both value yourselves higher than the other does; this position will always be irreconcilable if both parties dont see giving an inch as a valuable thing to.


Nah, I don't see people as superior or inferior. But whether I enjoy spending time with them. In other words, how I _feel when I'm _with them. Not everyone takes the same kind of cold calculation on relationships- perhaps that's how arrogant nerds don't do as well as they think they should.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I think I am sitting in the middle of an argument *again.* I wish this would stop happening.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I find it very difficult to draw a distinction. I have always thought arrogance to be the opposite of humility. I don't see being polite -- holding doors open for people, saying please/thank you etc, as being contrary to being arrogant. If it is, perhaps I am wrong.
> 
> Actually, clarification: possibly I am arrogant towards people who I do not see as deserving of my respect. in fact I think this is likely.


What I see as arrogant is the attitude is that _you_ should be chasing me because I am more desirable than you are. Not about you having as much as I am on the date. Therin lies the difference.


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Stop trying to get personal. Its off topic and inappropriate.. and you just do it to be a fucking prick. Cut it out or I won't keep responding to this bullshit.


I'm just asking what your views are and where the evidence is. Mysteriously saying "I have recently seen proof of this omg, but I'm not going to tell you" isn't conducive to a discussion. You stated your opinion, I'm asking you to validate it with something other than personal, anecdotal evidence that may or may not be subject to bias.




Promethea said:


> Then we have read different bios. I have read that monroes weight was at 145. I'm not saying they can't "both be beautiful." I made a comment about how the standards have changed and you apparently totally missed the point. I also see a lot of speculation here and not fact.


I provided detailed evidence as to my view; despite that you had contributed none to support your own view until then. I'm also pretty sure that my point was clearly made: the standards really haven't changed that much. Our "icons" of the '40s and '50s are within reasonable limits of our "icons" of the present. I'm not saying this is necessarily proper, but I have yet to see you support *any* of what you said. So yes, *you are speculating*. I'd like to bring some fact into this. Sharing your sources would be a great help.




> "for most of the early part of her career, she was a size 8 and even in her plumper stages, was *no more than a 10*. I can tell you this from experience because a few weeks ago, I tried to try on her clothes."
> 
> *These days they are often size 2 and 4*. Considerably different if you know women's sizes.


Okay, I'll bite. I don't know how women's sizes have changed between now and then. But here's a comparison: Nike shoes are now labeled as being at least a half-size larger than before - or compared to some competitors. So does this change over the years for women's clothing as well? Has it all ready?

For instance, I just typed into Google: "women dress size change" and guess what the first website was? It's on vintage clothing sizing with an example using Marilyn Monroe. Does this illuminate more into why a size 12 then is now a size 4? Should I mention that if a contemporary size four corresponds to a vintage size 12, that your "no more than a 10" example is actually a size 2? Just like our contemporary icons?

And here is yet another site that says "vintage size 12" is equivalent to a contemporary size 4.




> Fact: the standard has gotten thinner, taller, and even more distorted looking with photo editing etc. Go do your research and stop squawking at me. First you tried to pull some shit saying I was editing my posts for malicious reasons, then you get personal. Makes me question the motive for this. Is it to come to a better understanding of something, or to just make petty digs. Reevaluate.


I'm trying to understand your reasoning, but you continue to fail to provide any sort of sources. Plus, the information you do have, seems to match up with mine pretty well ... I'm beginning to wonder why you're taking offense.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Rouge said:


> What I see as arrogant is the attitude is that _you_ should be chasing me because I am more desirable than you are. Not about you having as much as I am on the date. Therin lies the difference.


 Oh, I see. Have you been on a date with someone like this... would you mind describing it if so? It sounds interesting.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Oh, I see. Have you been on a date with someone like this... would you mind describing it if so? It sounds interesting.


Example:

I was working in a conglomerate. One of the Managing Directors from another division took a fancy to me. On Valentine's Day, he sent my boss to say he's available to take someone out to dinner and he'd like to go to a hawker center (cheap, crowded and usually dirty places in Singapore)










This guy didn't have the guts to ask me out directly. Either that or he was confident that I'd jump at the chance of spending time with him. No matter where he wanted to take me. Or that someone might have asked me before the day itself if I wanted to go out on Valentine's Day. I'm expected to ditch whoever to just go out with him.

I told my boss with relish that I had other plans roud:


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

All you have to do is go to any 'chan' (2, 4, whatever) and look around.

Or look at some of the demotivationals. Or some of the actual works which are out there, especially doujins. You'll even see crap on YouTube as well.

Though I will say that some people do buck the trend and present different body types and such, but they have a tendency to be trolled by the hamtards as well.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Oh, you live in Singapore; I see what you mean now (I spend 2~ of every 12 months a year in Malaysia). 

A hawker centre is a pretty shit place for a date, knowing some of the sort of restaurants an MD in S.E.A. can afford!!!


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Rouge said:


> To give an idea why I don't find arrogant nerds with poor social skills as attractive:
> 
> I am often spoilt by men who want my attention. They go to great lengths to ensure I'd see them again. When they turn up for a date, they're in a shirt that fits and shoes that are cool. They take me somewhere nice, open the doors, pay for dinner. They try in their own ways to be funny and charming, and find common topics that will engage my interest. Some even walk me home and send me sweet goodnight messages.
> 
> ...


She does have a point, why should someone respond to someone who isn't responding to them, not to mention not sparking interest. Also, women in most cases have more suitors than men do.

To sort of reiterate what I said, if a person's sole interests consist of space movies and comics, or they're so isolated that fit neatly into the stereotype of a group, anyone who is outside of it won't want to spend a lot of time with that person. I'm not telling anyone to change who they are, I'm simply stating, if you so dead set on being the number 1 star trek fan and nothing else, how could you not expect "outsiders" to question that.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Spades said:


> Mysteriously saying "I have recently seen proof of this omg, but I'm not going to tell you" isn't conducive to a discussion. You stated your opinion, I'm asking you to validate it with something other than personal, anecdotal evidence that may or may not be subject to bias.


Does every thread posted on this forum need to be backed up by scientific evidence? Yours sure don't all the time. I was asking what people think about an idea that I had. Its very common in threads. Also, why do you care so much? What is your personal investment in this?

The "omg" mocking shit needs to cease. You are trying to be caustic on purpose, and I see whut u did thar!




Spades said:


> the standards really haven't changed that much. Our "icons" of the '40s and '50s are within reasonable limits of our "icons" of the present. I'm not saying this is necessarily proper, but I have yet to see you support *any* of what you said. So yes, *you are speculating*. I'd like to bring some fact into this. Sharing your sources would be a great help.
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll bite. I don't know how women's sizes have changed between now and then. But here's a comparison: Nike shoes are now labeled as being at least a half-size larger than before - or compared to some competitors. So does this change over the years for women's clothing as well? Has it all ready?
> ...


So far as the sizes changing, the person who wrote the article had tried the clothing on and made no mention of this. Can you prove that they were failing to mention this, and that they hadn't taken it into account? No. I can't prove they had either, but since there was no mention of it, I will assume it had been taken into account. The article was actually busting the myth of her being a larger size than an 8 or 10. Since the focus was size, I'd think it would be taken into consideration. 

Now, have beauty standards changed since then? Yes. I think somewhere among the scathing shit, that is your question. And yes, they have. Were photos altered with photoshop back then, for example? You can try to get into a pissing contest with me about marilyn monroes dress size all day long, but its a waste of time when the actual bigger question is have beauty standards changed. The answer is obvious. Go do the research on that rather than vintage clothing perhaps.


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

Rouge said:


> Example:
> 
> I was working in a conglomerate. One of the Managing Directors from another division took a fancy to me. On Valentine's Day, he sent my boss to say he's available to take someone out to dinner and he'd like to go to a hawker center (cheap, crowded and usually dirty places in Singapore)
> 
> ...


You knew exactly what was going on but viewed it as 'below' your standards or level. Do you disagree?

I think that you are both arrogant. Boasting that you would not take any of these men back shows this implicity. Pride and arrogance are interchangable for the most part and people like to identify arrogance in others as 'bad' and pride in themselves as 'good'

I'm sorry that you feel burned by you meeting people who are as stubborn as yourself and then felt the need to label an entire social group using a few subjective examples... did you expect to meet people who were otherwise?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Arrogance –adjective
making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; *overbearingly* assuming; *insolently* proud.

Pride –noun
a becoming or *dignified* sense of what is due to oneself or one's position or character; *self-respect; self-esteem*.

Yes, a person can have self-respect without being an asshole. Sometimes there are just better words to express something. No, these two are not interchangeable.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

InvisibleJim said:


> You knew exactly what was going on but viewed it as 'below' your standards or level. Do you disagree?
> 
> I think that you are both arrogant. Boasting that you would not take any of these men back shows this implicity. Pride and arrogance are interchangable for the most part and people like to identify arrogance in others as 'bad' and pride in themselves as 'good'
> 
> I'm sorry that you feel burned by you meeting people who are as stubborn as yourself and then felt the need to label an entire social group using a few subjective examples... did you expect to meet people who were otherwise?


I think you are misunderstanding what arrogance is. Here, let's go roll around in some shit piles in a pig pen as a date! How about no? I should respect YOU more than that. See how that goes? Me to you.

Now if you demanded to be driven around in Ferrari or whatever expensive thing because you are worth no less than that, then that would be arrogant.


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

I hate to take the unpopular but correct stance that those who shout arrogant are simply identifying something they dislike about themselves.

I am happy to be arrogant on occasion; I'm also happy to live with that.

If you wish to live in the subjective bliss of your own perfection and a lack of ownership regarding your own standards and actions I will leave you to it. It's charming if totally ineffective.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> You knew exactly what was going on but viewed it as 'below' your standards or level. Do you disagree?


You don't understand. I didn't reject him because I considered him inferior. He's richer and more successful than I am and therefore the "rational" choice for a date on Valentine's Day. I rejected him because he had absolutely no regard for me- not where I wanted to go and whether I'd made plans earlier. He was arrogant enough to think what he wanted was all that mattered. Why would I want to waste time with someone so self-absorbed? Why would I even consider him at all attractive?

Why am I even explaining this???



InvisibleJim said:


> I'm sorry that you feel burned by you meeting people who are as stubborn as yourself and then felt the need to label an entire social group using a few subjective examples... did you expect to meet people who were otherwise?


Let's put it this way: most of my exes are nerds. Thankfully none of them had such an inflated view of themselves.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

InvisibleJim said:


> I hate to take the unpopular but correct stance that those who shout arrogant are simply identifying something they dislike about themselves.
> 
> I am happy to be arrogant on occasion; I'm also happy to live with that.
> 
> If you wish to live in the subjective bliss of your own perfection and a lack of ownership regarding your own standards and actions I will leave you to it. It's charming if totally ineffective.


My standards are quite flexible, actually. >.>

I'm not 'worth' any one particular thing. And hey, if I actually liked a guy and he said something like "I wanted to ask you out but the food court at the mall is all I can afford" I'd be quite happy with that in fact. I'm not going to draw some arbitrary line about what is and isn't acceptable to me, because in my own experience that just doesn't work. -.- And yeah I have boundaries but they are mobile ones.


----------



## calysco (Jan 23, 2010)

Might as well add in more details to clarify my viewpoint:

I was honestly rather shocked when I began actually having a life outside of gaming/comics/anime/books. As bad as it sounds, I was astounded at the prevelance of the unattractive people walking around. It's kinda like looking at McDonald ads and then getting the real thing. Or like how foreigners, who are flooded with American movies/music in their own countries, are astounded at the sheer amount of obese people when they visit America. I was also terribly disappointed in the world when I realized that the amount of attractive people was much, much less than I expected. 

I see physical features of a person as just physical features. I can call someone fat or ugly without intending harm towards them. It's just that I view these adjectives as merely adjectives- it doesn't necessarily completely define their person nor does it indicate their complete value as a person. Certainly, I will not maintain an interest in them if they don't fall within the brackets of what I deem acceptable but that doesn't mean that they are any less of a person than the next. 

I wouldn't say that the nerds who expect hot girls are shallow with bad intentions- them wanting hot girls isn't personally hating on those who aren't hot. I don't think they're arrogant for expecting hot girls, it's just what they expect because they're used to it. Nothing more, nothing less.



Also, this thread reminded me of this picture:


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

calysco said:


> because they're used to it


Maybe they shouldn't be. That would be what I'd call a 'skewed perception'. -.-

"I'm used to looking at these pictures and... shit you mean nobody actually looks like this?" <--- that. I can't understand how something can be so fraudulent that it actually shapes peoples worldview into something that isn't _real_.

But you already mentioned a case in point:


> Or like how foreigners, who are flooded with American movies/music in their own countries, are astounded at the sheer amount of obese people when they visit America.


You think that's just fine and dandy? Or what? _Would you not rather they have an accurate view to begin with??_


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

sprinkles said:


> Maybe they shouldn't be. That would be what I'd call a 'skewed perception'. -.-
> 
> "I'm used to looking at these pictures and... shit you mean nobody actually looks like this?" <--- that. I can't understand how something can be so fraudulent that it actually shapes peoples worldview into something that isn't _real_.
> 
> ...


I generally view people as being fully capable of making the destinction of what they wish to desire.. I don't view it as healthy to attempt to complain what someone likes or dislikes does not fit my perception of what their reality should be. There is no right or wrong in this merely opinion of what is better or worse and dissapointment regarding alternate perceptions.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

InvisibleJim said:


> I generally view people as being fully capable of making the destinction of what they wish to desire.. I don't view it as healthy to attempt to complain what someone likes or dislikes does not fit my perception of what their reality should be. There is no right or wrong in this merely opinion of what is better or worse and dissapointment regarding alternate perceptions.


Whatever all that pile of wordy vagueness means, it's probably wrong, if not circular. >.<

Just forget it. You didn't even address my point, but what I get from you is that it's ok if you think tomatoes are blue and made out of sea salt.

Ridiculous.


----------



## Wulfdot (Apr 14, 2010)

Your theory is based on the conclusion that they don't have enough social experience with actual women, but allow me to refute that by saying: Isn't it because women won't actually give them the time or day that they don't have these experiences. You're talking about a monster that the general population has created. I've been there, I know. When you're a nerd or geek there will come a time when you have to make a choice, and you have three choices. A) You back down, you accept defeat and rejection and become someone that others just use and abuse. B) You go crazy. You trap yourself in your own world and become very fond of the idea that everyone else is stupid and you're the smartest person there is. C) You quit taking shit and start taking whatever you want. You have the intelligence and the ability to do it you just have to focus it.

Two of those three choices are negative as hell, and the third has the potential to be negative. I had to face this choice in the second grade, early because I matured due to my home life, and I chose choice C. I realized that I wasn't living up to my expectations and that I wasn't going to be the type of guy who let people push me around. I'd already showed a sort of aggressiveness not found in other nerds. Oddly enough I still don't live up to my expectations [I'm a genius underachiever, what can I say?] but I also don't allow others to use me.

I almost went crazy, I got so close, and I believe that I am crazy but it's more natural. I think that the crazy I was born with helped me combat the crazy from choice B. [EG. Giving someone a cold to kill the flu.]

Anyways, my point is that you're subjectivifing a whole group of individuals when objectively they just doing what society created them to do. Society told them they were smart so they were outcast, Females told them that they were outcast so they were not good enough for them, and Jocks told them that they were not good enough so they were trash. Of course they will start looking toward superficial imagery to find their perfect match. Of course they want to go after the best toys. Why? because if they can get the most beautiful girl, if they can make the jock beg them for their job, they win.

Personally, I am also subjective and superficial. I could never be with a girl who is not up to par intelligence wise. Everyone is superficial about something, just ask yourself "What is your perfect mate like" then look back at your dating choices. Personally I have many perfect mates. I'm more of a "Doctor" type of guy who would rather have companions on the journey of life than actual mates.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Wulfdot said:


> Your theory is based on the conclusion that they don't have enough social experience with actual women, but allow me to refute that by saying: Isn't it because women won't actually give them the time or day that they don't have these experiences. You're talking about a monster that the general population has created. I've been there, I know. When you're a nerd or geek there will come a time when you have to make a choice, and you have three choices. A) You back down, you accept defeat and rejection and become someone that others just use and abuse. B) You go crazy. You trap yourself in your own world and become very fond of the idea that everyone else is stupid and you're the smartest person there is. C) You quit taking shit and start taking whatever you want. You have the intelligence and the ability to do it you just have to focus it.
> 
> Two of those three choices are negative as hell, and the third has the potential to be negative. I had to face this choice in the second grade, early because I matured due to my home life, and I chose choice C. I realized that I wasn't living up to my expectations and that I wasn't going to be the type of guy who let people push me around. I'd already showed a sort of aggressiveness not found in other nerds. Oddly enough I still don't live up to my expectations [I'm a genius underachiever, what can I say?] but I also don't allow others to use me.
> 
> ...


You don't have to interact with people to observe them and have an insight. The fact that women "don't want them" is no excuse for ignorance.


----------



## Wulfdot (Apr 14, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> You don't have to interact with people to observe them and have an insight. The fact that women "don't want them" is no excuse for ignorance.


That is ignorance in itself. You can't learn everything by observing. I love to observe people, but I know that if I hadn't actually had dating experience and only observed other dating people I would definitely be more superficial.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Wulfdot said:


> That is ignorance in itself. You can't learn everything by observing. I love to observe people, but I know that if I hadn't actually had dating experience and only observed other dating people I would definitely be more superficial.


Maybe you can't learn _everything_ but you can get a step up from knowing _jack shit nothing,_ and if you try to deny that, I'll say you are making excuses. Just to let you know ahead of time.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

Guys, I was an INTJ in my teenage years and a full-fledge nerd with straight As, bad hair, glasses, no dress sense and zero social skills. It was only when I hit university at age 19 then I could breathe and do something other than study- because I had finally made it to the course I wanted. Did I think that my superior intelligence entitled me to date the most popular and handsome guy on campus? Heck no. The first thing I did was to improve myself- grow out my hair, get a nice haircut, go shopping with my ESFJ gal pal, and learn how to apply make-up and walk in high heels. I even practised how to smile and make small talk (yes I was _that_ pathetic). All these paid out in spades. I was shortlisted by the seniors to join my hall pageant. I never had that sense of entitlement that some nerds had. I knew I wasn't in the same league as the popular boys and if I hadn't worked on myself, I would never have become the girl guys wanted to date.

Just my 2 cents on the matter.


----------



## Wulfdot (Apr 14, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> Maybe you can't learn _everything_ but you can get a step up from knowing _jack shit nothing,_ and if you try to deny that, I'll say you are making excuses. Just to let you know ahead of time.


I have no reason to make excuses. The only way that I'm superficial is that I like intelligence.

I never said you couldn't learn anything, as I said you can't learn everything. But allow me to twist your words a little, who are they observing? The Jocks and Cheerleaders who beat them up and reject them. So they start believing that in order to get a girlfriend they have to change themselves to be more fit, buff, and less nerdy. Would you rather them change themselves that way?

This stuff starts in early middle school. From then on you have to watch the "Hot Guys" get the "Hot Girls". The "Ugly Chicks" get no one except best friends, and the "Nerds" get nothing but other nerdy friends. I hate the laws of society, I fight against them, I've even written articles telling others how to avoid them. But the social structure is there and if someone who is seen as weaker and they believe themselves to be weaker (Nerds) sees someone who is 'superior' go after the "Hot Chick" instead of the "Ugly Chick", who do you think the nerd is going to go after? The ones that the OP is referring to will go after the "Hot Chick" because that will be a way to raise his 'street cred'.

So you're saying that they should learn distorted information. Instead of learn from experiencing actual relationships. In my way, learning from relationships, they will learn that women are not to be superficialized and that girls that are not typically accepted as hot have other qualities that make them just as good (or even better). While your way tells them to learn from the general population of idiots. Which tells them that in order to be popular and cool they must have a hot girlfriend.


----------



## Wulfdot (Apr 14, 2010)

Rouge said:


> Guys, I was an INTJ in my teenage years and a full-fledge nerd with straight As, bad hair, glasses, no dress sense and zero social skills. It was only when I hit university at age 19 then I could breathe and do something other than study- because I had finally made it to the course I wanted. Did I think that my superior intelligence entitled me to date the most popular and handsome guy on campus? Heck no. The first thing I did was to improve myself- grow out my hair, get a nice haircut, go shopping with my ESFJ gal pal, and learn how to apply make-up and walk in high heels. I even practised how to smile and make small talk (yes I was _that_ pathetic). All these paid out in spades. I was shortlisted by the seniors to join my hall pageant. I never had that sense of entitlement that some nerds had. I knew I wasn't in the same league as the popular boys and if I hadn't worked on myself, I would never have become the girl guys wanted to date.
> 
> Just my 2 cents on the matter.


Thank you Rouge, you just proved my point. The point I was trying to make to Sprinkles.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Wulfdot said:


> So you're saying that they should learn distorted information. Instead of learn from experiencing actual relationships.


I'll cut straight to the relevant point I am speaking on (I'm not even sure what the point of the thread is anymore) because it seems people are missing the plot:



> Comic book drawings of women, female video game characters, or even just celebrities who have airbrushed/altered photos, or very rare body types that make them look more like the less realistic images of normal women.


SO. If you plan to tell me, that the above is LESS distorted than getting out and seeing the _real population which actually exists,_ then I of course will tell you that you are wrong. And you would be indeed wrong.

And hey. If some guy wants a super model, and can actually get one, and they are happy, that's great. Not likely to happen unless the nerd becomes a famous nerd of sorts (how many _actually do_? can you answer that?) then it probably isn't likely especially if they never leave the house or show any kind of breadth in their interests.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

Wulfdot said:


> Thank you Rouge, you just proved my point. The point I was trying to make to Sprinkles.


But you didn't click on the purple button 



Wulfdot said:


> But the social structure is there and if someone who is seen as weaker and they believe themselves to be weaker (Nerds) sees someone who is 'superior' go after the "Hot Chick" instead of the "Ugly Chick", who do you think the nerd is going to go after? The ones that the OP is referring to will go after the "Hot Chick" because that will be a way to raise his 'street cred'.


As a nerd, I never went after the "Hot Guy". As mentioned, I knew I wasn't in the same league.

Later on, when I was more well-accepted and became a "Hot Chick" myself, I despised guys who saw me as a trophy. I can't give you self-esteem, go find it yourself. I certainly don't appreciate being made use of that way either, thank you very much.



Wulfdot said:


> So you're saying that they should learn distorted information. Instead of learn from experiencing actual relationships. In my way, learning from relationships, they will learn that women are not to be superficialized and that girls that are not typically accepted as hot have other qualities that make them just as good (or even better).


Fair enough. You're saying that people learn to become more realistic when they have more dating experience. I'd like to think this is true too.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Rouge said:


> Fair enough. You're saying that people learn to become more realistic when they have more dating experience. I'd like to think this is true too.


It's true, provided they are actually getting some form of experience.

It's funny. Maybe it's just me hanging around other adults that have _matured_ and maybe I live in some kind of weird place but it is rare for me to see anyone who is "hot" in the way we are talking about here (or at least in the way that was initially posited) I actually do _know_ some people and I look at people wherever I go and I see a whole lot of _average_. Heh I guess they call it average for a reason, don't they. I personally don't know of ANY married couple right now where both people are "hot" and none of them have women that are "hot".

Of course I have met some "hot" people here and there, I just don't know any currently. Mainly because, you know... people who are "hot" are not the norm.


----------



## Wulfdot (Apr 14, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> I'll cut straight to the relevant point I am speaking on (I'm not even sure what the point of the thread is anymore) because it seems people are missing the plot:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like how you're doing the same thing you yelled at Jim for earlier. You're not actually arguing with me, instead you're focusing your words into my mouth. Example: I never said that reading comics were less distorted. I argued that your way was distorted too. In fact I don't even believe I mentioned comic books in my argument at all. So, please, if you're going to debate against me, 'debate against me'.

No where in my original post did I say that the OP was wrong. Instead I offered her an example of how her and why her theory was correct. I've created a theory called Layered Realities, everything you see outside the actions that must be objective is subjective. The real population that actually exists project subjective superficial opinions. Comic books do the same thing. Both are distorted information because instead of being based on objectivity they're based on personal opinions, and if you disagree then you're a moron.

What you said was that they should learn by observing the subjectivity of social law. I told you in turn that it wouldn't change a thing because social law states that the hot girl deserves all the attention. So you're basically recreating the same monster, which brings me back to my original point that human beings have created the Shallow Nerds.

You again show your ignorance my subjecting them to stereotypes. Not all nerds stay in their houses, we're actually in an era where Social Nerds are booming. They're still subjected to the same social laws, damn I hate idiots who follow the norms of society, but are more social about it. Meaning they get rejected more often but probably have more nerdy friends.

You also show obvious bias to the Nerds. It is like you've been passed up so many times that you now hate them for not looking at you. If this is true than you and the nerds have something in common, you both want to be accepted. Maybe go up to them and ask them out instead of waiting, show them how a real women acts. That is the only way you will be able to cure them, because despite their shallowness they will quickly hope for the opportunity to have a girlfriend.


----------



## calysco (Jan 23, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> Maybe they shouldn't be. That would be what I'd call a 'skewed perception'. -.-
> 
> "I'm used to looking at these pictures and... shit you mean nobody actually looks like this?" <--- that. I can't understand how something can be so fraudulent that it actually shapes peoples worldview into something that isn't _real_.
> 
> ...


Yes- but see, the thing is, a person without frequent contact with the outside won't know that his perception of reality is skewed. You can't understand this because you've never experienced it before. You're _used to_ reality and so, of course you would find this perception ridiculous but as for the person who holds this perception, for all he knows, his perception is the only correct one. I don't think it's good to have an unrealistic view on life but more often than not, it's the person himself that has to find out on his own. 

For example, I used to have an friend who one day complained to me how one of her good friends was gossiping about her. To which, I immediately said, "Then she's not a friend. Cut her loose." She then looked shocked and said, "What are you talking about? All friends are like this." 

Now, none of my good friends gossip about me. I know that for a fact. Because I've experienced better friends than this girl has, my expectations and viewpoint of what friends should be like are vastly different from hers. She's always had friends who talked crap about each other (probably because she, herself, was the same) and so she couldn't understand where I was coming from. 

The people who understand that real women don't look like what you see on a .jpeg are like me in the example that I just gave- you've experienced enough to know what exactly is going on and how things should be like. The people who who have an unrealistic view of what women are like, are like that friend- their experience is limited, and so, their viewpoint is limited. However, once they've experienced the outside world enough, their viewpoint will change.

Also, to be honest, I tend to sympathize with these "shallow nerds" (probably because I am one though my grades are not strong enough to support this). The majority of them were first rejected by others when they were youth, and so it is not at all surprising to me that they would carry a suspicious attitude towards "real" people when they finally come into contact with the real world.

So my answer to your last question, "_Would you not rather they have an accurate view to begin with?" _is: Yes, but they can't. They're this way for a reason. You can only hope that they'll change themselves in the future but that's really up to them

...Er, wow. I just read the other posts, I know it sounds like I copied Wulfdot in my last two paragraphs but I did not.


----------



## Wulfdot (Apr 14, 2010)

Rouge said:


> But you didn't click on the purple button
> 
> *Sorry, Sorry.  I really should have.*
> 
> ...


xzsdsadsadsa


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Rouge's story sounds pretty similar to mine. 

I would say that being a nerd is a terrible thing that was pushed on to me by the comprehensive school system that mixes intelligent people with unintelligent people and pretends that there isn't a social pressure on not doing well at school. I don't rly like playing the blame game but I really do blame the comprehensive school system for alot of the problems in my life. If my parents had paid for my private education like they were supposed to (or if my dad had had his way...) I would be a much better person now.

The comprehensive (that is, state, i.e. non-fee-paying) education system in England has strong tendencies to outcast socially people who do well in school and to push them towards nerdiness and social exclusion. It's extremely damaging because it creates, during the formative years of mental growth, a situation totally the _reverse_ of real life.


----------



## calysco (Jan 23, 2010)

Wulfdot said:


> xzsdsadsadsa


She actually mentioned some posts up that nearly all, or all of her ex-es have been nerds. ...I think. My memory escapes me at the current moment. :| Studying for a midterm tomorrow.


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

Thanks for the clarity of thought Wulfdot. I'm trying to point out that people are upset that their subjective view doesn't match someone elses and then they are pretending they are being objective. I usually just throw in the towel when people bring up 2 or 3 cases to prove themselves correct and ignore the fact that these cases are steeped in ideas regarding their view of bad and good.

The only way to have a happy and successful relationship is to admit that there is something from each other that you want and that you are willing to mutually concede something to each other. Complaining 'Person Category X dislikes me! Why I think I'm perfect for them and they are just condescending because I dont meet their expectatins' is immature.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

calysco said:


> Yes- but see, the thing is, a person without frequent contact with the outside won't know that his perception of reality is skewed. You can't understand this because you've never experienced it before. You're _used to_ reality and so, of course you would find this perception ridiculous but as for the person who holds this perception, for all he knows, his perception is the only correct one. I don't think it's good to have an unrealistic view on life but more often than not, it's the person himself that has to find out on his own.


You're wrong. I fought my way out of the anti-social hole and made an effort to learn what was real. That is why I'm so strident about this: I did it, it wasn't easy, but I would not let myself have an excuse to give up.



> For example, I used to have an friend who one day complained to me how one of her good friends was gossiping about her. To which, I immediately said, "Then she's not a friend. Cut her loose." She then looked shocked and said, "What are you talking about? All friends are like this."


I'm seeing that a lot are like that, how one wants to handle that is up to them. I pretty much expect some level of gossip by now, if I like somebody enough I tolerate it to an extent but that's just me.



> Now, none of my good friends gossip about me. I know that for a fact. Because I've experienced better friends than this girl has, my expectations and viewpoint of what friends should be like are vastly different from hers. She's always had friends who talked crap about each other (probably because she, herself, was the same) and so she couldn't understand where I was coming from.


Count yourself lucky for having good friends, not everyone has them and some people would just rather not be alone.



> The people who understand that real women don't look like what you see on a .jpeg are like me in the example that I just gave- you've experienced enough to know what exactly is going on and how things should be like. The people who who have an unrealistic view of what women are like, are like that friend- their experience is limited, and so, their viewpoint is limited. However, once they've experienced the outside world enough, their viewpoint will change.


They have to go to the world - it doesn't come to them.



> Also, to be honest, I tend to sympathize with these "shallow nerds" (probably because I am one though my grades are not strong enough to support this). The majority of them were first rejected by others when they were youth, and so it is not at all surprising to me that they would carry a suspicious attitude towards "real" people when they finally come into contact with the real world.


I sympathize too, but lets not confuse sympathy with apathy. I care enough to try and deliver 'reality' when possible, rather than having these shocking discoveries... but of course if they won't see it, it's out of my hands but I can't say I didn't try.



> So my answer to your last question, "_Would you not rather they have an accurate view to begin with?" _is: Yes, but they can't. They're this way for a reason. You can only hope that they'll change themselves in the future but that's really up to them.


It is up to them, yes. But sudden wake up calls are shit to deal with. I wish somebody had told me what the real world was like - I didn't even know what other people were actually like outside of my school (let's just say this school was not an effective microcosm...) until my late teens and by then I was still acting like an 8 year old. I got ridiculed a lot. Some friends took me in and said "hey, it's like this" and that opened me up to a whole new world - I didn't agree with everything they said but I learned how to find my own way while interacting with other people at the same time. I still have a lot of problems with it too, but now I'm just considered 'eccentric' by most people I know in person rather than somebody who is totally oblivious to how things work.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> You're wrong. I fought my way out of the anti-social hole and made an effort to learn what was real. That is why I'm so strident about this: I did it, it wasn't easy, but I would not let myself have an excuse to give up.


 So did I, shouldn't that give you a greater understanding of people who _couldn't'_?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

wickeddesires said:


> Doesn't the female master species operate on a caricature basis for all that is their form and ideology. Thus becoming a shallow reflection (caricature of their true splendour).


Uhm. No. The answer is no. What percentage of women are models etc .. compared to the percentage who are not. The rest of us sure don't ask to be rated like porn when we are out buying our groceries, but because some people can't pull their heads out of there asses for one second and separate media fantasy from reality, we are all judged that way.

I never asked for people to appoint themselves beauty pageant judge, and I don't remember signing up to compete, but because of all the sexualized images of women in media, its become a sport to eyehump everything in public with tits.

At least I think thats what you are asking. :bored:


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

> I saw the den of clusterfuckery it evolved into and was like...wow


Mhm. That about rite.


----------



## Wulfdot (Apr 14, 2010)

My arguments are being distorted as if I'm defending the nerds instead of analyzing them, so now I will.

Quick Question to all the females of this thread bashing the nerd superficiality.











Who would you rather have as a boyfriend? My point here is that superficial imagery isn't only for Nerds, but everyone.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

Wulfdot:

*Than wouldn't it be more likely that they're no being realistic? If they don't react or want to believe those expectations. I haven't made the point of asking what is realistic to you? I know plenty of nerds with high standards who are of perfectly rational and sound mind. *

You're confusing being realistic in one area with being realistic about everything. And being rational in one area and being rational about everything. Just because nerds can be rational and realistic about certain decisions doesn't mean they're the same on the kind of women they *should* date.

As for being realistic, isn't it based on what's real and practical. If you "deserve" hot chicks, then why is it that they're not similarly attracted to you?

*It doesn't make them less realistic to go after the things they want, because if you never go after what you want then you'll never get what you need.

One of my favorite quotes from a fellow ENTP is "Shoot for the moon, even if you miss you'll land among the stars." Which is basically summed up as: If you stop thinking you can do something then you'll never be able to accomplish what you can do.
*
Doesn't this apply to things rather than people? For instance, you can come up with a plan to make lots of money. You might even become a millionaire eventually. But can you make someone to fall in love with you? Can _you_ make yourself fall in love with someone? You can make all the right steps but whether you feel something (or someone feels the same about you) in a totally different matter.

Even waving loads of cash doesn't guarantee love. Unless you want a woman who loves money rather than you. Even then, she will still leave you one day.

From the perspective of a woman, I'm always amused some why men don't consider what they have to offer on top of what they want. Like married guys who are old, balding, overweight etc. They can't offer commitment, looks, or even charm. They can run after me all they want. But the answer at the end of the day is still NO. There are simply some things in life you can't make happen.

*You see, that wasn't made clear so I apologize. What you said to begin with made it sound like you changed your personality so that males would like you. I know that most males wouldn't want to go out with the smart nerdy-ish girl over the dumb hot blonde. I agree with gaining skills. I don't agree to changing my personality for others.
*
I don't see why my desire to be liked by others- and my corresponding actions to please them- to be bad. Even if I've changed my personality a little to get along better with people, I am still happier, able to have better relationships, go further in my career etc at the end of the day. I'm not perfect. I'm not always mature. I see it as a tragedy to let my pride to over-ride any growth I can undertake to acheive a happier life. 

*Oh, I don't take crap like that from anyone. I don't try to change others so there is no reason they should try to change me. I had a girlfriend like that before, and I explained that I would easily break up with her if she ever threatened me like that. She did and I broke up with her in an instant. The only time I would change for someone is if I really really really loved them and I don't really love anyone right now.
*
Nah, I don't believe in changing myself for anyone either. But in changing myself so that I can have a happier life overall. If there're certain issues that always crop up between me and others, then this is a problem I need to work at. Otherwise, it will recur in my life again. Time to just get it over with so I have time and energy for other positive things.

*Because I don't try to change them. This is going back to putting me on trial when I am not the way the original poster describes. I'd I'm a neutral. I don't want to be controlled or control. I don't much care how others act as long as they accept me for who I am or tell me that they don't like me so I can move on to other people.*

I feel that happiness is really a balance of being who you are and getting along with others. You can't be a happy person if people are always saying bad things about you, doing things to twart you etc.

*I don't see compromising as changing personality traits. Compromising is about changing some superficial traits or getting rid of or gaining a new skill. [EG. Get rid of your old smelly couch or "stop debating me". Instead of 'stop being so egocentric!' Which would require that I stop being who I am.]
*
I don't know about being egocentric. If you never think about others (and only about yourself), it's hard for others to like or care for you. But I agree on compromising on some things and not your personality.
* 

**Actually, if you conform that means you stop doing something you use to do. Which is taking away your freedom.*

Conforming doesn't necessarily mean taking away your freedom. There are many ways to skin a cat. Like dressing up to be more attractive to men. I started wearing clothes that were more flattering. But I didn't force myself to wear pink, purple or other girly colours that weren't "me". Even when there are constraints, there can still be enough freedom to be yourself.


*You do have more dominate Fe than I do. My Fe, while supposedly my third, is my weakest function of the main four. Higher than quite a few functions but the lowest of the top four.* 

Yes, I have a higher desire to please others and fit in than you do. That's why we disagree on so many points.


----------



## calysco (Jan 23, 2010)

Wulfdot said:


> Who would you rather have as a boyfriend? My point here is that superficial imagery isn't only for Nerds, but everyone.


Random note here, but I gotta say, the anime guy in your icon is way hotter than any of the guys you posted up. I'd rather remain single and oogle at him than getting with any of these guys haha


----------



## Rayne (Apr 28, 2010)

I'm a nerd. I'm not shallow. I like girls without make up. Don't really know what else to say.


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

Rouge said:


> Yes, I have a higher desire to please others and fit in than you do. That's why we disagree on so many points.


So why do you think that everyone should change their perspective so that they fit in like you do? Personally, nothing is more repulsive to how I like to live; if reality is substandard then I will change it to fit what suits my own tastes. But by a similar notion I would never choose to alter someone elses perspective just because it does not fit my ideas and notions.


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> So why do you think that everyone should change their perspective so that they fit in like you do? Personally, nothing is more repulsive to how I like to live; if reality is substandard then I will change it to fit what suits my own tastes. But by a similar notion I would never choose to alter someone elses perspective just because it does not fit my ideas and notions.


I conformed. I explained why I saw it as a good move and how it hasn't changed the core of who I am. But I'm not insisting that everyone do the same. If you're not convinced about the need to be realistic and prefer to live in your fantasies instead, fine by me. I'll take it that we live in different worlds.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Wulfdot said:


> My arguments are being distorted as if I'm defending the nerds instead of analyzing them, so now I will.
> [photo]
> Who would you rather have as a boyfriend? My point here is that superficial imagery isn't only for Nerds, but everyone.




Alright. I'll bite. I personally, prefer nerdy guys. The muscular dude does nothing for me. 

Sorry. :/


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

Rouge said:


> I conformed. I explained why I saw it as a good move and how it hasn't changed the core of who I am. But I'm not insisting that everyone do the same. If you're not convinced about the need to be realistic and prefer to live in your fantasies instead, fine by me. I'll take it that we live in different worlds.


It's simple, the ability to change the world is always better than to have the world force you to change, welcome to one of the postulated MBTI trait flips between INTJ and INFJ.

INFJ -> ideas are subject to reality
INTJ -> reality is subject to ideas

I constantly challenge and change the world to meet my expectations; this works better than people think.


----------



## Wulfdot (Apr 14, 2010)

calysco said:


> Random note here, but I gotta say, the anime guy in your icon is way hotter than any of the guys you posted up. I'd rather remain single and oogle at him than getting with any of these guys haha


 Personally, If I were female, I would too. Oddly enough I always choose pictures that have similar [facial/body] features to my own. Which goes back to showing that I project myself (selfishly) onto reality and fiction rather then subjecting fiction and reality onto myself. Another good example of this is when I'm saying I have similar traits to a fictional character I will always go: "That fictional character is like me" instead of "I am like that fictional character".



InvisibleJim said:


> It's simple, the ability to change the world is always better than to have the world force you to change, welcome to one of the postulated MBTI trait flips between INTJ and INFJ.
> 
> INFJ -> ideas are subject to reality
> INTJ -> reality is subject to ideas
> ...


ENTP -> My ideas are reality and not subjected to any other reality. -> "I Rejects Your Reality and Substitutes my own."


----------



## calysco (Jan 23, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Alright. I'll bite. I personally, prefer nerdy guys. The muscular dude does nothing for me.
> 
> Sorry. :/


Allow me to give you a new selection then-

Who would you rather have as a boyfriend: 

*This guy:*









or 

*This guy?:*












Wulfdot said:


> Personally, If I were female, I would too. Oddly enough I always choose pictures that have similar [facial/body] features to my own. Which goes back to showing that I project myself (selfishly) onto reality and fiction rather then subjecting fiction and reality onto myself. Another good example of this is when I'm saying I have similar traits to a fictional character I will always go: "That fictional character is like me" instead of "I am like that fictional character".


Nah- I do the same. I can never understand cosplayers who purposely try to cosplay a character that they arent (Example: Fat caucasion guy trying to cosplay as Sasuke from Naruto.). I mean, I understand that they're trying to have fun, but I'm always horrified whenever I see them. (This is why I never went back to AnimeExpo after the first time I went.)

And lol- if I see an anime character that acts/looks like me, my normal reaction is: "Dammit. I hope no one thinks I'm ripping off her personality." and "Hey! We look the same!"


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

calysco said:


> Allow me to give you a new selection then-
> 
> Who would you rather have as a boyfriend:


I would choose neither. Both appear to be posing too much, indicative of perhaps a disingenuous personality. Also, I am probably twice their ages. You'd all see what I mean if I posted a photo of the last person I dated. Nerrrrrdddyyyyy. (And no, I'm so not pissing him off and posting his pix)


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> It's simple, the ability to change the world is always better than to have the world force you to change, welcome to one of the postulated MBTI trait flips between INTJ and INFJ.
> 
> INFJ -> ideas are subject to reality
> INTJ -> reality is subject to ideas
> ...


I can accept that we think differently.

Personally, I feel that happiness is a mix of what I would like to aim for and what I can realistically get. I don't go for the first guy who wants to date/marry me. But I'm also not kidding myself that I will get Christian Bale one day. I'm likely to get someone in between- a compromise between dreams and reality. I don't see this as bad, just the way to happiness.

One of my gal pals for instance is dating an ENTJ. He's tall, good looking, smart, successful etc. All of which she admires. But she complains that he's not romantic, tender, and thoughtful. But she's also not willing to settle for a feeler type who's less driven and not as successful as her boyfriend. She knows that it's not possible for a guy to be aggressive/competitive and gentle/sweet at the same time. But she doesn't want to compromise her ideals. No matter who she's with, she won't be satisfied with him at the end of the day. I feel that it's normal to want it all. But it's much easier for her to be happy to just decide which type she wants and deal with the flaws.

No one is perfect. You're bound to be disappointed if you expect people to be.


----------



## Rayne (Apr 28, 2010)

Finding one person more attractive than another is not being shallow. Being shallow is when you prioritise looks above everything else.


----------



## Fanille (Sep 3, 2009)

The title of this thread sounds like an oxymoron, but when I looked at the contents, I can't really say that I'm surprised.

I guess there's an expectation that just because someone isn't going out and banging bitches every night then they should be less superficial than the ones who do. But that isn't necessarily the case, at least when it comes to ideals regarding attraction.


----------



## calysco (Jan 23, 2010)

Graice said:


> Finding one person more attractive than another is not being shallow. Being shallow is when you prioritise looks above everything else.


Curious- but would you categorize girls who refuse to go out with men much shorter than them and guys who refuse to go out with women much taller than them as shallow? 

(Height seems to be very much a physical characteristic and part of the whole looks package.)


----------



## Rouge (Sep 6, 2009)

calysco said:


>


It's frightening how pretty this guy is :shocked: I'm not at all attracted to him.

Captain America in his underwear also looks gross. There's something very vulgar and cartoonish about him. It probably has to do with what he's wearing and his oversized muscles.

As someone who has dated guys that range from the nerdy to good looking, I have to say that the two that made me the happiest aren't conventionally good looking. One was in fact short and as my terrible friend puts it, stout. But he was very affectionate with me and we had so much in common. In contrast, one good looking ex cheated on me repeatedly and another was terribly self-centred and narcissistic (probably because people always paid attention to him and all he could think about was therefore himself). I'm not saying all good looking guys are the same. But I'll gladly trade in looks for lower maintenance in a man anytime.


----------



## Rayne (Apr 28, 2010)

calysco said:


> Curious- but would you categorize girls who refuse to go out with men much shorter than them and guys who refuse to go out with women much taller than them as shallow?
> 
> (Height seems to be very much a physical characteristic and part of the whole looks package.)


I would honestly consider it kind of cowardly. I think most people feel that way because they are scared that people might make fun of them rather than they don't find the other person attractive. So in a way I suppose it is kind of shallow but not in the typical sense.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Changing reality to conform to one's desires is all very well, but you'd have to learn some pretty sweet robotics to create something that looks and acts like the distorted female images we are discussing. Either that, or try to force a real woman into ridiculous plastic surgery and horrible shit like that, where you run into the pesky problem of her *rights.*

So yeah, changing reality to conform to such unrealistic desires_ is not actually an option_ in this case.


----------



## mamuk (Sep 13, 2009)

the only way to predict the future is by creating it yourself. Possibly F people are better in accepting the world as it is, whereas we T can see where we can improve? 

Give us grace to accept the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the *wisdom* to distinguish the one from the other.


----------



## mamuk (Sep 13, 2009)

aren't we all shallow at times. Just because nerds are so rational we judge shallowness harder in them possibly? 
The fable of La Fontaine about the ant and the cricket nicely makes this point. Maybe if you look upon shallowness as lighthearted it changes to a more accepting perspective.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

calysco said:


>


That's just wrong.

With all the exercises she must do to lug those around, I bet that if she got them reduced, she'd be the world champion of sit-ups.


----------



## Rayne (Apr 28, 2010)

Rouge said:


> Thank you Graice and Jib for the support :laughing: It used to hurt to be told that I didn't "measure up" when I was a teenager. But now that I'm in my 30s, I realise it doesn't matter whether I'm perfect. From past history, I'm capable of attracting a range of different guys regardless. And I remain confident that I will continue to do so.
> 
> I shudder to think that other girls- and guys- are being made to feel this way today. _You don't have to be perfect to be loved_. I don't understand why this message doesn't get emphasized enough in the media, or by parents, educators etc.


People should honestly stop thinking perfection exists. It doesn't. People are people. People aren't universally unattractive or attractive. They're just themselves. If more people just realised that I think they'd be a lot happier. I mean, there are some girls I just think are so amazingly pretty that my friends wouldn't bat an eyelid at. Some men like big boobs, some men like tiny boobs, some men like defined noses, some men like button noses. Just the same as not all women find the same kind of guys attractive.

It really does bug me when women try and emulate photo shopped pictures. They should just embrace who they are stop trying to be someone else.


----------



## AppleBite (May 5, 2010)

I didn't read this entire thread yet, but I have also observed the same thing. And it sucks for me because I've actually fallen for a couple of nerds, but I guess I'm not hot enough to grab their attention. Just recently I found out the nerdy math grad student I've been crushing on, likes someone else. It apparently only took one look for him to gaga over this girl. I mean, I don't think I'm that unattractive that even a nerd can't find me attractive. *sigh* Too bad I'm not a blue-eyed blonde with big boobs.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> That's just wrong.
> 
> With all the exercises she must do to lug those around, I bet that if she got them reduced, she'd be the world champion of sit-ups.


If she got them reduced, she wouldn't need a blanket _nor_ a pillow.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

^If I met her, I'd use those as pillows for when the cat decides to go mouse hunting.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Those things must collect a lot of crumbs. And finding tops that fit? Ha. Big boobs are such a pain.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Not just for the girl, but for my wallet. Seriously, how am I supposed to pay for all her medical bills associated with such huge er- tracts of land.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Why are you the one paying?


----------



## Rayne (Apr 28, 2010)

lol sexism


----------



## Staryu (Jun 28, 2010)

Jib said:


> I think that sucks.
> 
> Why do people become basement dwellers in the first place, or revert to things like anime/manga/fantasy/imagination for emotional support? When you masturbate, you're not judged; no one's criticizing you, no one's expecting you to perform, no one's making you feel uncomfortable, no one's making you feel self-conscious -- the list goes on and on.
> 
> ...


that was a very well written and beautiful post!


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

Jib said:


> I think that sucks.
> 
> Why do people become basement dwellers in the first place, or revert to things like anime/manga/fantasy/imagination for emotional support? . . . ..



Your whole post is quite a beautiful insight. 

I would say that people go "on porn" because man's reach always exceeds his grasp. 

It's also pretty natural, really. Did you hear about the experiments with the monkeys and the cherry juice? Researchers had trained monkeys to use cherry juice as a currency to get what they wanted. In one particular experiment they started trading cherry juice to see pictures of higher-status monkeys. Most news reports of this failed to point out that the monkeys were willing to spend a lot more of their cherry juice on pictures of these higher-status monkeys having sex than just by their lonesome. They were porn-addict monkeys.

Yes, the world is fucked up. It's a fallen place that doesn't make sense. It's unjust that people are judged for a part of their bodies that really means nothing functionally. But that's what we have to work with.


----------

