Nerdgasm Revisited

I seem to be somewhat focused on scientific discovery recently. I just wanted to provide an update on the geek situation. This week, I have had the opportunity to descend into the depths of a geek stronghold. I've seen a couple of men that would fall into the hot geek potential category. But there are more than just hot geeks there. I've discovered a cute boy next door type, a sexy player, and the entrancing alternative guy. But there are also horrors lurking, horrors that I had managed to block. Yes, they have nerds.

Nerds and geeks are very different. Geeks have obscure interests that border on nerd territory, but still manage to keep it together, have some social skills, and not manage to grate your nerves like nails on a chalkboard. The nerds are the pretentious, overbearing, socially retarded types that are completely oblivious to almost everything.

I don't know if it is just me, or if every teacher experiences this kind of weird draw for the nerds. They wait for me after class, just so they can talk to me a little longer. They tell me about their interests, recommend books, TV shows, and anime. They are really nice generally. It's so heart-breaking to meet them and know that they are good and decent people but they somehow are so oblivious to simple social behaviors that they have a difficult time. And even though I understand them, I still want to get as far away as quickly as possible.

A message for the nerds: there is hope. All it takes is finding someone to teach you how to relate to other people, and perhaps work on the clothes. That's it. Maybe we should start some kind of nerd rehab. Take the nerds, teach them to talk without sounding like the Comic Book Guy from "The Simpsons" and put them in some GAP-issued standard IT geek uniform. It's a slight adjustment.

Plus, think about the surge in the hot geek population. It's a win-win.

In the Interest of Science

I was talking with a friend the other day. See, I’m like a sailor on shore leave after six months at sea, most of the time. Life is like a banquet (as Auntie Mame says) and I'm one of the poor bastards starving to death. He said that a woman could join in on the banquet at any time. All she needs to do is stride boldly in to the banquet hall, and let people know she is hungry. The men will run to her, anxious to satisfy her needs.

I think the idea is laughable.

I don't believe that a woman's chances for getting sex are better than a man's. Here's the scenario: say I'm looking for someone in my office to satisfy my carnal desires. Do I have a better chance of finding a willing partner than the guy that sits two cubes down?

Men generally say, 'yes, women have better chances,' and since generally the women who are looking for sex are looking for men, it would stand to reason that it does mean a woman can have it whenever. But if this were true, women would never experience a dry spell. You could just put a sign up in your cubicle, "seeking a lover, apply within." I think it is much more complicated. Men think the pool of available women is smaller than that of interested men, and thus, statistically the chances are much better.

Women know otherwise. We've all gone without, and not by our own choosing. To suggest that a man will say yes just because the person offering has the correct set of genitalia has got to be false. Men select sex partners on the same standards, they want attractive partners, even if it is just a quick fuck. Plus, there are people who are in committed relationships who actually either respect (or fear) their partner.

So how do we test this theory? A social experiment in which we deploy the Vixens in various environments and gather statistical data on their success? It is a problematic idea to say the least, approaching strange men and asking for sex, especially if you don’t plan to follow through with each one that says yes. A survey perhaps? "Would you have sex with me? a) absolutely, b) perhaps c) never d) how much have I had to drink?" And then we would have to have a complementary team of men performing the same study.

What say you Vixens? Can we get it any time we want? What scientific principles would guide the study?

This just in, apparently Michael Phelps has been elevated to the status of male perfection

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/08/18/scisexy118.xml

I was skeptical of this article that states that short women with long legs are the most attractive. Since I'm a tall woman with long legs, I have some reasons to doubt it. But then I remembered that Cotton Candy fits that description, so I'll accept it as scientifically valid.

What I don't understand is how Michael Phelps relates to this at all. He may exhibit the build they are talking about, but damn, they leave very little to the imagination. Whoever wrote this article wants to have his baby, or at the very least, wants them a little taste of Mr. Phelps.

Ok, they do finally get down to the science, but I think someone would rather get down with a certain Olympic swimmer. For those of you that want to know, they key to being attractive is to be symmetrical. So if you can make that happen, you're in. And of course, remember that men like boobies. Science is amazing.