Slashdot Mirror
Salon on Geeks and Sex
Runna^Muck was the first to write to us about a new Salon article discussing the sexual climate in Silicon Valley. Not nearly as good as other articles on the subject, this feature covers everything from Geeks & their dominant tastes as well as why foreign workers don't get lucky.
You mean that women are real and not just in pictures?
if ($article =~ /completely_pseudocode/) { /completely_english/) {
$ok = 1;
} elsif ($article =~
$ok = 1;
} else {
This mixing gets annoying and hard to read, doesn't it? The comment is not the code. English doesn't get mixed with pseudocode well.
}
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Upgrade GirlFriend 1.0 to Wife 1.0
Last year a friend of mine upgraded from GirlFriend 1.0 to Wife 1.0 and found that it's a memory hog leaving very little system resources available for other applications.
He is only now noticing that Wife 1.0 is also spawning Child Processes which are further consuming valuable resources. No mention of this particular phenomenon was included in the product brochure or the documentation, though other users have informed him that this is to be expected due to the nature of the application. Not only that, Wife 1.0 installs itself such that it is always launched at system initialization, where it can monitor all other system activity. He's finding that some applications such as PokerNight 10.3, BeerBash 2.5, and PubNight 7.0 are no longer able to run in the system at all, crashing the system when selected (even though they always worked fine before). During installation, Wife 1.0 provides no option as to the installation of undesired Plug-ins such as MotherInLaw 55.8 and SisterInLaw Beta release. Also, system performance seems to diminish with each passing day.
Some features he'd like to see in the upcoming Wife 2.0:
I myself decided to avoid the headaches associated with Wife 1.0 by sticking with Girlfriend 2.0. Even here, however, I found many problems. Apparently you cannot install Girlfriend 2.0 on top of Girlfriend 1.0. You must uninstall Girlfriend 1.0 first. Other users say this is a long standing bug that I should have known about. Apparently the versions of Girlfriend have conflicts over shared use of the I/O port. You would think they would have fixed such a stupid bug by now. To make matters worse, the uninstall program for Girlfriend 1.0 doesn't work very well leaving undesirable traces of the application in the system.
Another thing -- all versions of Girlfriend continually popup little annoying messages about the advantages of upgrading to Wife 1.0
*** BUG WARNING ****
Wife 1.0 has an undocumented bug. If you try to install Mistress 1.1 before uninstalling Wife 1.0, Wife 1.0 will delete MSMoney files before doing the uninstall itself. Then Mistress 1.1 will refuse to install; claiming insufficient resources.
Relationships are hard work. Most people don't put the time necessary into developing/maintaining a relationship.
:)
I think the article is missing the point. It's not a problem of geeks not having sex, it's a problem of geeks having difficulties forming non-computer based relationships. People don't tend to react the same way twice to a given action. This tends to confuse most geeks. You can't walk up to a non-geek, press here, say this, kiss, and hop in bed with them. Seinfeld put it best -- "When it comes to sex, men are like firemen. Always ready. Women are like fire. Not always there when you want it, but when the conditions are right, the result is magical."
I've been married for a spell now, and I have three kids. When my wife and I started dating, we did not hop immediately into bed. We had to get to know each other first.
Sex is mutual concent between two people. Build the relationship and they will come.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
It strikes me all the pseudocode is there just to cover up the lack of real material in the article. Yes, some high-tech workers don't have sex high on the priority list. It happens in Silicon Valley and I've seen it happen in Michigan (not a jab at the Geek Compound; I have friends in Michigan parts of this article describe). So some geeks like alternate sexual methodologies. So? I think that the article would have fit in one page without all the bad (and sometimes buggy) pseudocode.
In fact, I'd have to argue that various bits of alternative sexuality don't have precise protocols. Not being into all the alternatives I cannot comment on them, but I don't think there's a big book of algorithms for going about alternative sexual practices. It's just that high-tech workers know what they want. They're not about to go and not communicate their needs because they think that doing so would be filthy. We know what we want, not that we have a precise checklist.
I'm trying to figure out if all that pseudocode was really there to be cute and stylish, or if it was to conceal the lack of susbstance. But this is Salon, so both answers may be correct.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Instead, I think the problem is that geeks, especially computer geeks (a group to which I belong), tend to get VERY drawn up in their work, and sort of shut out the rest of the world.
To illustrate that point, we should note that geeks don't "get" enough of in their day-to-day lives often...it's not just sex....it's also: nutrition, sleep, and nearly everything else that gets in the way of accomplishing goals. Driven people make sacrifices and many geeks make sex one of their sacrifices. Add to that the culture shock of Geeks-on-Visas and you have a real fouled up situation.
just my $0.02.
Werd.
I actually find that many geeks are very understanding and considerate. Therefore many girls end wanting them as friends, not as lovers. This is a real problem, which I think geeks should think about.
Cool Cat - The HTML Editor for BeOS. Get it at: www.bebits.com
I think that if geeks expect that they will be able to find romance at work, there's nothing like an engineering company for that not to come true. Yeah, I guess it'd be nerdvana to have someone that actually understands what you do, but from my experience, that's probably not going to happen due to the abysmal M/F ratio.
But even more important, IMHO, is that you don't want to find romance at work. If something goes wrong, not only will you have the usual pressures at work, but now you've got that former someone there to just make life harder.
Not to mention that if you have a spectacular breakup, especially if the third party also works there, you'll be providing immense gossip fodder and other amusements for the rest of your coworkers. Well, OTOH, if it keeps morale up, why not?
Is this thing on? Hello?
I don't plan to answer the rather pointless barbs thrown at the communities formed around sexual alternatives, which seem to be there only so that he can draw clever but wholly bogus analogies between sex and coding. But it's certainly my experience that these communities provide valuable space where you can be clear and honest about desire without the usual embarrasment and coded messages that often end up meaning that no messages are sent at all, and this can certainly make it easier for those of us who don't find being suave and subtle comes naturally to get laid.
But the secret is that you don't have to be a sadomasochist, or polyamourous, or queer to join. All you need is a few brain cells to rub together, and a positive and open attitude about sex and sexuality. There are organisations that campaign around all issues of sexual freedom and fight negative attitudes that apply even to the very desire to have sex at all, and you can get involved even if you're monogamous, vanilla, and heterosexual. You'll meet lots of interesting and smart people and hear a lot of new ideas on the subject, and you'll certainly hear about new ways to combat the fucked-up memes about sex that this society promotes - and which, if you ask me, are the real barriers that stand in the way of more geeks finding the special pleasures of getting laid.
If you are a pervert, of course, what are you doing? Get in touch with the e-pervs in your area straight away - it's a great opportunity.
Remember, this is important - it's about the serious business of having fun.
--
Xenu loves you!
...but this one decimates it.
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
You all miss the point. Human behavior related to dating and sex always in large part determined by protocols. It can't avoid that -- instincts and culture always create some kind of protocol that determines the basics -- how complete strangers are supposed to start a conversation, how reaction can be judged, etc. Personality of every person determines, what actually is done, yet the basics are just as pre-determined as normal spoken language. There is nothing insulting to our human nature in it, strict rules of English language didn't make Shakespeare a worse writer than if he invented a language for himself, they provided means of expression. And just like people now have trouble understanding some thing in Shakespeare because he used slightly different language from modern English, cultural rules, involved in dating may be completely unknown or misunderstood by a person who comes from different culrural background -- especially from different country.
When people spend their whole life in the same or similar cultural environment they spend their childhood absorbing ("learning" won't be the right word) things that aren't completely based on instinct yet never are expressed in plain words. When any serious change of environment happens people always face the fact that environment changed and their rules don't work. People, unless they are very perceptive or interested in psychology, can't understand, what rules don't work -- they never "knew" rules that they apply in the first place. They get wrong ideas about what people are trying to express. My own main complaint for a long time was a tone, Americans use in their speech, smiles at completely inappropriate times, etc -- it looked like Americans allow themselves to be or look blatantly insincere with their friends and co-workers at the extent that I would consider to be a deep personal insult -- like if in the restaurant a waiter would bring me some dish that costs about $100 and supplied me with plastic fork and knife (no offence to people who didn't mean to insule me -- this is how they looked in the content of my, completely foreign for them, Russian culture).
Most of emotions, values and even behavior norms are universal (more universal than my spelling of "behavior" for sure). No self-respecting male geek (I am talking about men here) would tell a girl that he loves her, and be disinterested in her feelings, or would not try to make her feel comfortable. But the form, in which he would do that, or, even worse, form, in which he would try to start a conversation or judge first reaction to him, would unlikely match local cultural norms. Neither he nor girl would really understand it -- both are acting on things that never were written, expressed or explained to them, but both would feel discomfort in such a situation. In modern culture such discomfort is often expressed as that "chemistry" wasn't compatible (or, in subcultures that are not so fond for pseudoscientific explanations, "I have got a feeling that it isn't for me"), but this is wrong -- no "chemistry" unless it's some really noticeable stench of sweat, can be incompatible with everybody around, and no serious negative "feeling" can be derived from one minute of conversation with a stranger that behaves reasonably courteous. What we see here is plain and simple incompatibility of language, not some unreasonable expectations that human will behave like computer.
The really bad part of it is that no one seriously studied cultural norms of that kind -- people much more embarrassed to dig into "in what situation and how exactly it's appropriate to say 'how are you?' and demonstrate that the answer will be ignored" or "how is it appropriate to reject a guy, romantically interested in you while pretending to care about his feelings, so you wouldn't feel bad about yourself" than in any kind of sexually-freudian crap that ever was written in psychology books or was exchanged between psychoanalyst and patients. This mean, geeks, most of whom represent rather closed subculture, and especially foreign geeks, who represent completely different, sometimes hostile in their base cultures, have no means to learn them unless they will find a way to re-live at least teenage years immersed in this culture (as members, not as outsiders, like even local geeks are at their teenage years).
I understand that the approach that I have used here is clearly and blatantly geeky and definitely not compatible with an attitude, normal in this society. Still it doesn't make me wrong, and history knows a lot of cases when only this kind of approach succeeded in discovering (or expressing, or just in raising awareness) of problems that plagued the societies for decades. I don't know of any solution -- if I knew I would definitely used it for myself -- but I believe, people should realize that this problem exists, and try to solve it, not accuse geeks in "not being sensitive enough", suppress all thoughts of it, pretending that things are supposed to be that way.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Yes the article is highly annoying with it's pseudocode and it's jump from simple dating to prostitution and sex fetishes. I thought the best point was made early in the article, and has been said quite a few times here...
That is, even though a lot of geeks were geeks before getting into computers, many geeks became geeks involuntarily because they got into computers. There's a list of contributing factors:
1. Computers aren't something you talk about in a bar. Unfortunately for tech workers, their jobs are all but unmentionable in a social setting. There is a geek stereotype which contributes to this, computers AREN'T sexy, and truthfully most people who aren't in the know about computers are mostly intimidated by those who do. It's kinda like being in high school and talking to girls about your SAT scores... you can pretty much kill a conversation if you both discover that you scored 400 points above the person you're talking to.
2. Long, grueling hours. To have a successful social life, time needs to be put into it. However, most tech jobs would make you work the 25th hour of the day if such an hour existed. Friends and lovers don't magically appear. Hell, you have to put a good two hours into buying them if you need to. This is sad that our industry knows this and doesn't really do much about it. In five years everyone's gonna have a midlife crisis (at 26) and jump ship anyway, so they're slowly but surely pushing their workers away by doing this.
3. You get into it. Most tech work can pretty much suck you in and never let go. The way that everything is so complicated and complex, once you're on a roll you don't really want to stop. I mean, you can be "in the zone" for a whole six months if you're working at it 14 hours a day (10 hours on the job + 4 thinking about it in the shower or in the car or while making dinner). Hell, most tech work REQUIRES this if you're going to do a decent job at it. Most professions requiring such intelligence (doctors, scientists, mathematicians, whatever) have this problem, because you can't take your time with the work, otherwise you'll never get anywhere relative to where the world stands now.
4. If computers are easy and women are hard to understand, you probably will stick with computers.
5. That ungodly male:female ratio in Silicon Valley doesn't help much either.
In the end, a lot of this happens unconciously and most people are drawn into a life that they utterly despise and feel trapped by. It's the type of thing where you have to get out when you see it happening to yourself, but most tech people are then further drawn in by the threat of upheaval, the money, the addictive power of the net, etc. In the end, you just have to look out for yourself and keep your priorities straight. If you want a social life that badly, you'll do what it takes to get one - losing your job and moving out of the Valley is a small price to pay for love. There's tech jobs all over the place, and some probably pay more and don't overwork you. Or maybe not, but like I said it's a small price to pay. If you don't think that way at all, then you're probably NOT having a problem with your sex life and you're probably thinking that Slashdot's been going a bit too far with the sex articles...
To all those people who claim the article had no substance:
STOP RUNNING IT THROUGH THE PREPROCESSOR!
The proper way to view the article is with a web browser. You're not supposed to download it to article.c, and run 'cc -E article.c' to read the article. (and if you do, at least use the proper definitions for your situation, and remember that all comments will be stripped)
Anyhow, I thought it was a cute gimmick. And isn't that enough for Salon, sometimes?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'm a regular reader of Salon, and this article was pretty disappointing. They, and other magazines, have focused on this before, and it still remains a non-issue.
/* I knew a geek who had sex once...*/
/* I knew a girl once... */
/* Story */
/* Two engineers are walking across campus, when a beautiful woman */
/* rides by on a bicycle. She suddenly vaults off of the bike and */
/* takes off all of her clothes, addressing the first engineer: */
/* "Take anything you want!" she pants lustily, standing naked. */
/* Without batting an eye, the engineer gets on her bike and */
/* pedals away, his buddy jogging with him. "Good choice" says */
/* the buddy, "The clothes probably wouldn't have fit you." */
/* End Story */
/* This may well be the poorest way */
/* of interjecting a thought that I've ever seen. */
/* It works for commenting, but at least the comments */
/* mostly relate quite directly to the code. */
/* In opposition to being a departure from the primary objective */
/* they provide further insight into the confusing aspects. */
/* There is no need to use these, as academia has their own version. */
/* They're called footnotes. */
/* Astonishingly, they're very seldom used to invoke anecdotes, either. */
/* -l */
Why aren't geeks having 'enough' sex? I don't know, but it might have something to do with long working days and lots of stress. Perhaps it has a little bit to do with a lot of greeks being 'fringed' as youngsters and not being into the courtship rituals. Maybe we just don't like people. Perhaps there are a fair proportion of geeks who, having hacked evolution, are not very eager to have their handy-dandy prehensile tails discovered.
This article wasn't even written as a social study, but was fragmented into near unreadability as a result of both the pseudo-code and the lack of flow invoked by the author. The only interesting point was the nod to culture shock and immigration.
This does not keep up with Salon's tradition of doing interesting social commentary. This article was bland and covered issues which people are familiar with from exposure to the canon of geek jokes.
Did Salon really do more than regurgitate the above, backing it up with the knowledge that, gosh gee, a lot of geeks really don't get laid too often?
The best way that this story could have been handled would be to look at the 'new' business and social environment and interaction in Silicon Valley. I know nothing about it, as I work as I work in Ireland -- mix business with pleasure, anyone? I'm curious as to just how people interact, meet each other and what not in an environment that seems insanely pressurised to me, from the congested traffic to the high rent and long hours.
When I'm really engrossed in a project, I know that my social interaction comes with the project team and, occasionally, bystanders, for the most part. Does this occur in Silicon Valley, as well, where friendships and romances arise from convenience? If so, I'm sure the same ramifications exist for work romances, but what's the social view of, say, a millionaire CEO dating his secretary?
For some reason, picturing some programmer millionaire dating his secretary seems much more innocuous to me than his Wall Street equivalent. The perceived innocence of geekdom? Another point they didn't touch on.
That's becoming rather addictive. I think that my next project will be commented in obvious, un-enlightening anecdotes.
With this cartoon.
We nerds can get chicks........it's all about self confidence. You could be ugly, broke, and bleeding from a massive headwound, as long as you've got balls you can get the girl. Self confidence shines brighter thatn any light saber, just don't confuse it for being brash.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
That with all that money, geeks are discovering the sordid world of prostitution, strip bars, and massage parlours. We all know that if you have enough money, you can get that girlfriend experience you were denied in highschool. I would guess this is a major market--I hope one of these sex operations goes public so I can invest in it, since it's gotta be the fastest growing industry in silicon valley.
> wanting them as friends, not as lovers. This is a real problem,
Relationships can come and go for the oddest of reasons. Friendships require far less maintenance and can also last a lifetime.
As one of the geeks that can't be bothered with the messiness and "analog"ness of sexual relationships (anyone remember that section of Hackers, by Steven Levy, that describes why the TMRCers never bothered with relationships?), I find a "just friends" arrangement ideal for me.
I'm presently rooming with one of my "just friends". We each have our own spaces; she to read and do research for her career, I to geek out and hack on hardware and software. We both work long hours, seeing each other sporadically during the week. Frankly, we're both too involved and interested in our careers to make time for a relationship (with each other or anyone else) and have sufficiently-differing longterm goals that a relationship between us would be silly anyway. If we want to have a bottle of wine and a good steak, however, we'll make some time and go out on the town to enjoy some the finer things in life, and neither of us has to worry about what happens after.
If you ask a woman out (whom you already know as a friend, we're not talking about strangers in a bar here) and she gives you the LJBF line - Let's Just Be Friends - it ain't the end of the world. She just might be sincere about it.
One more benefit of having a "just friend" - when you do get into a relationship with someone, you'll always have someone you can go to when you need a straight answer on something:
(Any similarity between that post and any conversations I've had is purely a coincidence. Honest. Guys, don't bother cleaning the toilet. Really. The Men Of Silicon Valley don't want your women, and none of them paid me $500 too add this paragraph.)