International I Hate Sports Club

There was one article in today's Daily Express that nearly caused me to collapse from shock. The stereotype about women being more attracted to the athletic, braindead egoists and jocks is not true - turns out they actually favour geeks with more technical knowledge and understanding of gadgets! I'm always under the impression that the chicks won't come your way unless you have an air of excessive self-importance about you, or of course, an impressive physique. Maybe I am wrong! So, I've scanned the article for you all to see:



Well, not all geeks are so lucky as to be liked or even merely acknowledged by the women, such as yours truly, but it has been a pleasant surprise for me to see that women won't just go for the guy with the biggest biceps or the biggest head, in an egoistic sense. Perhaps there might be a chance...

Best regards,
i_like_1981

I don't understand, everyone should take pride in their appearance. There should be a balance between mental, physical, and social ability. Not one or the other.

Safety, your comment is a little vague. Just for the sake of communicating clearly and actually having a dialogue, would you please elucidate. Are you objecting to any of i_like_1981's comments, or are you questioning the attitudes of others?

Like, the article said that "only one in three women prefer men that take pride in their appearance." I'm saying that there should be a balance between how much physical exercise you get, and how much mental exercise you get. Like, a balance between strength and intelligence. Rather than being more intelligent than strong, or vice versa.

Safety wrote:Like, the article said that "only one in three women prefer men that take pride in their appearance." I'm saying that there should be a balance between how much physical exercise you get, and how much mental exercise you get. Like, a balance between strength and intelligence. Rather than being more intelligent than strong, or vice versa.

Well, I have arthritis in both knees and ankles.

When I was 4 years old, I was in a car accident and my left knee was crippled up as a result.

When I was in grade school, I was suspended from school because I failed to climb a rope in the gymnasium.

Oh! Never mind that I was passing all my other academic subjects such as science, math, history, reading, social studies, etc. etc.

NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Climbing a rope was more important. Athletics was more important! To Hell with academics.

Sorry, but I had no choice but to concentrate on being more intelligent rather than physically strong.

Being athletic was not an option for me.

Academics was the only option I had, but that was taken away from me.

So . . . . . . . FUCK WHAT YOU JUST SAID!!!

OK???

From personal experience, I'd say this is untrue and that women really are saying that because they don't think they are shallow, and that in theory they prefer the kind of guy they described, yet in real life, it's bullshit. Then again, I'm just in high school so maybe that changes.

Speaking as a confirmed gym rat who has committed himself (i.e., myself ) to a bodybuilding program, I must say that Fat Man does have a point. Athletics is not an option for some people (such as him) through no fault of their own; and it certainly should not be mandatory, as it historically has been in mandatory sports-centered P.E. The "healthy mind in a healthy body" concept is a nice ideal, I suppose; but that's not the way most people live their lives. I couldn't care less if a man makes a living as a professional athlete and lets intellectual pursuits in his life slide anymore than I do if a nonathletic man devotes himself to a science and never joins a health club. That's their business and nobody else's. After all, we live in an age of specialization. Besides, some of the most anti-intellectual institutions in this country are those junior high and high schools that perpetuate a social climate that denigrates bright students.

By the way (yes, as I've said before), both Fat Man and another member of this forum (who was born with a congenital eye defect that deprived him of depth perception) were required to take P.E., even though they were physically handicapped -- which, as anyone with even half a brain should understand, defied common sense. Yes, you could regard this as ancient history since it happened to those of the "baby boom" generation instead of your own; but it really did happen. I've noticed that so many of those who think that all students should be forced to take P.E. do not favor P.E. reforms that would provide genuine fitness programs for nonathletic kids instead of cramming sports down their throats. This is an exercise (pun intended) in hypocrisy.

Earl wrote:Besides, some of the most anti-intellectual institutions in this country are those junior high and high schools that perpetuate a social climate that denigrates bright students.

This is one thing that really infuriates me. Schools are meant to be sanctuaries of learning, where children are sent to learn and develop knowledge on a wide variety of topics and subjects to give them a good understanding of the world. Yet those who are most eager to learn and appreciate the value of academics are often pushed to the side in a school hierarchy whereas morons who are good at throwing a ball, but have no interest or aptitude in academics, are always the ones on top and who the school takes pride in showcasing. It's always the athletic yet dimwitted jocks that get preferential treatment off everybody, including the teachers whose teaching they value very little, and the intelligent, reserved students are always the ones who can expect to receive hell for even minor indiscretions. Why would schools allow those who care most about learning to be made second-class citizens? Why are the great minds of the schools always the ones to be crushed? Why do teachers and principals always value above all others the students who really couldn't give a flying shit about excelling in academics? The schools are doing exactly the opposite of what they should be doing - supporting the smart and cracking down on the dumb.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

I've read that girls prefer nicer men when they're older because they're better at holding long-term relationships, but they prefer the more muscular, alpha male when they're younger.

Safety wrote:I've read that girls prefer nicer men when they're older because they're better at holding long-term relationships, but they prefer the more muscular, alpha male when they're younger.

Yes. It's all about what's best for them, isn't it? Women are often very self-centered.

Look at it this way: in high school they'll go for the athletes and egoists and completely disregard the nerds. They know that dating the nerds will be a real social danger zone for them and would probably result in mocking comments made by popular boys and other girls so they aspire to go for the most popular boys in order to avoid ridicule.

However, when high school's over, the athletes become the dating danger zone for the females as they often flunk their exams or drop out before them, and therefore will not be able to qualify for university entry which is the doorway to a wider opportunity for employment and better jobs. Only at university/college will the nerds get some sort of a chance, as they'll often be the ones to hit the books and will end up bringing in higher salaries than some burned-out high school football star who's probably going to end up flipping burgers somewhere.

I suppose this is just the transition girls make from becoming ditzy teenagers to grown-ups. They need to get a man with more than muscles and athletic ability, but one who's got the prospects of a more than healthy wallet for them to milk. Football players and jocks who enjoy picking on the nerds in high school and getting all the hot girls - let me tell you this: make the most of it while it lasts, because before you know it, those "hot girls" of yours will be in the arms of those you once belittled while you're bagging their groceries!

Sadly things like this did not happen with me. Oh well, at least there are some geeks out there who really did turn the tables on the jocks.

You know, having said all this, it feels like I'm American now.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Would it be awkward to ask if any of you are married/dating someone? I'm just curious to know who's actually in a relationship. I'm not dating anyone at the moment, unfortunately ):

Well, not gonna lie -- I'm not.

Safety wrote:Would it be awkward to ask if any of you are married/dating someone? I'm just curious to know who's actually in a relationship. I'm not dating anyone at the moment, unfortunately ):

I've been happily married to the same woman since 1979; and we have two wonderful daughters (both of whom, incidentally, have been disturbed by some of the comments that have been posted in this forum).

Earl wrote: I've been happily married to the same woman since 1979; and we have two wonderful daughters (both of whom, incidentally, have been disturbed by some of the comments that have been posted in this forum).

I don't think there hasn't been anyone here who hasn't felt that way or at least most of them who read enough of the forums, whether its the jocks or some of the other members losing their composure.

Nope, I'm in not in a relationship. And to be honest, I have no clue whether or not any girls want to be in a relationship because I rarely ask a girl out due to a low confidence level that I blame on years of physical and verbal abuse by jocks. It's simply not something I can overcome, I simply have little self confidence and it is because of assholes that I've had to deal with for a long time and the messed up social system of children and adolescents. See that Nick? Psychological abuse actually can damage a person, wow, what a surprise!