confessionsofafakegeekgirl - Tumblr blog

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

hi guys! this is a comic i made for a final in my comics in literature class. we had to do a research paper on a topic we’d discussed in class and then accompany it with a comic with a relevant subject. my paper was about hyper-sexualization of women in comic books, but i decided to broaden it out here as well as personalize it and make myself the subject and discuss something i’ve been subjected to in the convention circuit and on the internet as well as thousands of other women, as well as give a cue to thought about how the comic book industry as well as the video game industry and even just media in general (all of which are male dominated) push such ridiculous pressures onto girls and women.

also, it feels kind of silly to have to add this since i hope it’s obvious, but i am very aware that there are men that don’t subscribe to this attitude, and am incredibly grateful that these issues are brought to light to people other than the ones that are subjected to it. 

anyway haha i have literally been staring at this for 9 hours i don’t even know which direction is up anymore. thanks for reading!!!

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

Fake Geek Girl Confession #6

I really don't mind the Comic Sans font.

I don't necessarily LIKE it. I just don't mind it. I don't really get all the hate. It's legible enough and doesn't make my eyeballs bleed.

-- The Wife

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

if you really think that you need to be “anti-social justice” you should really take a second to look at the world outside of this website

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

Fake Geek Girl Confession #5

I think some comic books are boring.

This shocking opinion is probably my very most controversial, but it's sadly true. When I was very little and raiding my brothers' collections, I just couldn't understand what they saw in them. Admittedly, of what they had, Transformers was the best of the bunch, which is probably saying a lot.

Thing is, I have a lot of comics from many different eras. I pick them up, and some I enjoy. I especially like them when they're particularly cheesy and silly, like Johnny Storm *burning the beard* off of derelict-hobo Namor's face. I enjoy laughing at the absurdities. Of course, I still haven't made it all the way through the comic with said Johnny Storm shenanigans. Because it's 90% text, small text, and just not particularly interesting.

So, I have experience with them. I have comics from the major houses, smaller companies, big names and virtual unknowns. I've learned that I don't much care for DC. All their super-heroes are too goody-goody and perfect. I'd rather read a Daredevil (silly as he is!) where Tony Stark makes a drunk, long-haired, mustachioed appearance than read yet another comic about Batman's battle with the Joker that he simply refuses (on principle) to kill. Plus I find Batman to be pedophilia style creepy.

Anyway, point is, I don't have the same breadth of knowledge of comics that many males do. I sometimes don't know how to pronounce certain character names (is it Th-A-no-ce or Th-an-oce or some other type of pronunciation? I just don't know! And I'm too lazy to bother looking it up). I get confused by the inconsistencies (is Steve Rogers's middle name "Grant" as it sometimes shows on Marvel items, or is it something that starts with an "M" like it shows in the comic I have?). I'd honestly just rather watch the cartoons.

So, if/when I encounter a "real" fan, and I'm unable to PROVE my geeki/nerdiness by reciting comic facts and histories, I will be shown to be the Fake Geek Girl that I am. After all, what does it matter if I've seen the 1990 Captain America movie with the Italian Red Skull? What does it matter if I've actually sat through the INCREDIBLY low-budget 1994 Fantastic Four movie? If I can't cite chapter and verse, I'm a phony.

This is my confession and I must again beg the Geek Gods for forgiveness.

-- The Wife

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

Yes, it certainly does. It’s why the roads to any form of equality or understanding between different groups (be that racial, gender, nerdly, etc.) are such long ones. Because they’re always littered with the ignorant, immature, naive, and/or foolish who probably, on some level, mean well, but just don’t know any better.

The messages will sink in eventually. They always do.

— The Wife

probably the most accurate representation of “fake geek girls”

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

First, whether I find html bolded lines to be unpleasant to read doesn't really matter, does it? I don't see why I should have to explain it. I choose not to emphasize things that way, but I don't complain when others do. I don't have to change my writing style or preferences for other people.

Second, there's nothing for me to "learn" from this other than that a lot of people have difficulty with reading comprehension. You are never going to convince me that a man is entitled to a date solely because a woman shares some interests with him. You will never convince me that turning someone down for a date negates a girl/woman's right to enjoy the interests of her choice. You will never convince me that physical attractiveness is unimportant to a romantic relationship. You won't convince me of any of those things, because those are stupid, shitty things to believe. Entitled assholes believe things like that.

Finally, these are specific things about the post that I didn't understand in context:

the problem presented in this comic is someone who despite being a geek (This is unrefutted) does not date ‘geeks’ due to not passing the physical attractiveness bar

Which is more the point that *I* was trying to make, not the point of the comic. The people defending the idea behind the comic as accurate rather than facetious have all claimed that the girl would choose not to date him because she doesn't really have those interests. I'm the one who pointed out that the interest may be physical, as that is a huge point behind the "fake geek girl" phenomenon. That was followed immediately by:

The implicatin is that a geek girl is, depsite her trying to speak contrary, just a girl with different interests.

Which is the claim that others were making -- she wasn't REALLY a geek/nerd, and the rejection wasn't based on physical appearance but on the girl's "fake" status. Unrelated to appearance on either party, which is the claim that "SDA" was trying to make by claiming that the comic offered no distinction of appearance.

This seeming contradiction confused me, in that I wasn't sure that I was adequately or accurately understanding the point that THIS person was trying to make.

That was then followed by:

In your attack on the comic you have tried to reframe the issue into one about fake geek girls and yet CONFIRMED the accuracy of this comic (beyond the time travel obviously lets be real) by stating anger entirely based on the apperance of the character and nothing about his character, which one can complain about due to the sheer creepiness of taking little girls through time travel to date you

Which, based on the initial possible contradictions, rather than assume it was simply a case of another person who lacked basic reading comprehension skills, I attempted to clarify. Because, as I've said, I have no problem with the comic. It's a facetious take on the absurd "fake geek girl" idea, and not something I was attacking in any way. For a variety of reasons (wording, spelling, grammar), I thought it was possible that the misunderstanding was caused by poor communication related to language, because either a) the comic was dealing with appearances, which I addressed, or b) the comic was dealing with fake interests, which I was arguing against and one would negate the other, not "confirm" the other. Unless, of course, I'm to assume that the criticism of "fake geek girls" is really that they DO like nerdy stuff, but that they don't like unattractive guys? Again, confused, so explained in a hopefully clearer way and asked for clarification.

I fear you are, like many I speak to, going against your own objective. (I should be named something involving hindsight then, oh well).

Since I wasn't sure that we were even talking about the same "objective," and I'm not sure what naming himself/herself "hindsight" would solve, I took this, again, as a sign that we might be dealing with a language barrier.

Also of problem is your retort, its a good idea not to assume things about peoples lives until given, do you know who I am, can you honestly say that you know what me or SDA actually ever had to deal with? It’s vain and arrogant to assume otherwise

I didn't understand what this had to do with anything anywhere, and the word choices again made me suspect I simply wasn't understanding the totality of the post.

I wish you use this knowledge to better yourself, maybe next time you will be able to respond to something with less negative responses directed at yourself.

And here I wasn't sure if the poster was trying to berate me for my self-deprecating comments, or trying to warn me that people would respond to me negatively. Either were possible, though I suspected the latter. Although even THAT doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because I was told that *I* am the one being mean,so why would I be worried about the responses that *I* am getting? Especially when most of the dickwads responding claim that they're being somehow respectful! *snort*

I think I'm just too sarcastic, too often, and no one knows how to deal with me when I'm serious. Basically? If I say "genuinely" I'm pretty much being genuine. My condescension and sarcasm are pretty blatant. I'm not a subtle person.

-- The Wife

P.S. The reference to "The Tone Police" and "go fuck yourself" was about another post and a self-appointed internet policing group that told me I was being MEEEEEAN because I said that if someone thought men were ENTITLED to dates, they could go fuck themselves. The similarity in names was somewhat coincidental, but obviously intentional on my part.

probably the most accurate representation of “fake geek girls”

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

Well, now wait a second -- I specifically said that I wasn't sure that *I* understood the point that THEY were trying to make, and explained why. I made it clear that I wasn't sure I was understanding their message, and why. I then went on to clarify my point.

I don't know about you, but I don't consider ESL to be an insult, and I don't consider asking someone to clarify themselves because of lack of understanding to be condescending. If anything, I could understand if you were to try to insult my intelligence by claiming that I SHOULD be able to understand the point.

It's possible that English is their first language, in which case I've made clear that I still don't understand what was being implied, as it seemed to be different than what was actually being discussed, and gave an opportunity for clarification. How is that "tone policing" someone? Damn, first I'm accused of being mean, then -- when I actually TRY to be nice -- I'm accused of condescension. And then told that my choice of emphasis should be chosen for how it would appeal to others. Is it so terrible that I dislike using html in posts and I hate having bolded lines in text. It hurts my old-lady eyes!

-- The Wife

probably the most accurate representation of “fake geek girls”

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

no one thinks your not a geek, we just dont think you being a geek makes any of your actions less shallow or objectionable if you thought geeks got along play a game of LoL or something, you'd find evidence contrary

You’re right — no one actually thinks I’m not a geek/nerd. It’s called being facetious. I’m accepted as a geek/nerd, despite the fact that I don’t fit all of the stereotypical geek/nerd arbitrary rules. But, I’m well past the point of being relevant to the argument. My daughter isn’t, though. My son isn’t. And I don’t want them being treated poorly by bigots who think that they have the right to dictate what they can have an interest in based on whether or not they’re willing to date EVERY person that asks them out!

I’m curious, since the “shallow” and “objectionable” claims have been made a couple of times now… what, exactly, is so shallow or objectionable about what I said? No, really. I really, really, really, wanna know how it is “shallow” to NOT SETTLE for dating someone that you DON’T FIND ATTRACTIVE. Is that really a thing? That people think that you automatically have to date anyone who asks you, even if you have no physical attraction to them?

Is it that I said “cream of the crop”? Look, I’ve said it before, I consider myself to be of average attractiveness. *I* am NOT the cream of the crop. Oh, deal lord, though, there are some that are! Have you SEEN Jensen Ackles? That man is beauty incarnate! And there are some that… well… they just aren’t. There are some I would consider the bottom of the barrel of attractiveness.

True story: Uncle Walter and I went to a clothing-optional/adults-only party. People of all shapes, sizes, colors, nationalities, etc. There was a man… maybe in his late 40s? Not TOO old. He was wearing BLUE LAME CAPRI LENGTH OVERALLS. He was NOT wearing a shirt. He was wearing deck shoes and striped knee socks. This was how he chose to highlight his body, which was a body I did NOT find physically attractive. Now, in an environment like that, people aren’t usually overly picky about who they hook up with. That’s sort of the point. But everything in my body rebelled at the sight of that man. Does that make me shallow? Because this man was NOT someone I wanted to have sex with? I would have talked to him. I might have had something in common with him (doubtful but possible). But to me? To me, he was fugly. And I didn’t have to SETTLE for sex with him. But you know what? Fugly to me he may have been, but he still got laid that night! And I think that’s AWESOME! Because he shouldn’t have to settle for someone who doesn’t WANT to be with him!

So tell me how, PLEASE, it is wrong to NOT WANT TO DATE (and, by extension have physical intimacy with) SOMEONE THAT YOU DO NOT FIND PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE???? I just don’t understand it!

Would someone really WANT a person to date them even though they didn’t find them physically attractive? Wouldn’t that be, oh, I don’t know, MISLEADING? A bit of a “bait and switch” so to speak? “Sure, I’ll go on a date with you, but since I can’t even imagine kissing you, let alone letting your genitals near mine, we’re never going to become a couple in the long term.” That seems MUCH crueler than simply saying “No, thank you” to a request for a date!

Moreso, though, as in relation to the original topic, how does finding someone unattractive and choosing NOT to date them *invalidate someone’s interests*???

I’ve never believed that all geeks/nerds get along. No one gets along with EVERYONE (except for Uncle Walter. Everyone who gets to know him likes him), and there will be disagreements. I’m cool with that. I don’t mind disagreeing with someone. Hence the fact that I’ll respond to moronic statements when I see them. Well, in as much as they’re related to the topic I feel like discussing. I don’t bother poking through tags to find said idiotic statements. I just happen to catch some when they’re in the tags I DO follow.

So, there is that.

— The Wife

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

Your blog is cancer

Aw! More “hate” mail! I’m clearly hitting some nerves…

The beauty of being an adult? Of having lived long enough to understand life and to come to a degree of self-acceptance and self-confidence? Is that I really don’t give a shit what you think. Isn’t that funny? The whiny/bitchy complaints of other people? They just don’t matter!

Those things that seem like fantastical “insults” to someone like you? Are laughable to an adult. It’s genuinely funny. Because you’re someone who was upset enough by something I said (how DARE I try to empower girls!) to come to my “cancerous” blog and send me a message, just to let me know you don’t like my blog.

That only makes sense to an immature mind. Really. It’s pointless, a complete waste of time and effort.

You’ll figure it out eventually. Or not. Some people never grow up.

— The Wife

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

Oh, dear. I made a terrible faux pas in continuing to post on a topic that is central to my blog, in the same theme and style that I've posted in since the beginning. Goodness, gracious, I'm just making all sorts of mistakes, aren't I?

Seriously, though, did you really miss the ENTIRE CONVERSATION that you jumped into so violently? The comic that the conversation was centered on? Let me clarify for you, since you so greatly lack reading comprehension skills. This is what I wrote:

"So… attractive female, presented with a stereotypically unattractive male. Attractive girl isn’t interested in an unattractive boy. So the girl must be a fake, right? Because if a person who is the cream of the crop isn’t interested in fishing the bottom of the barrel, then there’s something wrong with HER."

Are we to genuinely believe that you don't believe that there are differences in attractiveness? You truly believe that all people are EQUALLY attractive? Well, now, we know that's not true because you posted a photo of yourself followed by this statement:

I’ve been told I’m a 10/10 by multiple men!

Ooookay... so you DO believe that people can find someone attractive or not, right? Because you clearly place value on the rating of attractiveness that someone else has granted you. Keeping that in mind... to some of us? You're just not our type. To some people? You're not a 10. I don't think you'd be considered ugly, but, get this!, you're not gonna be a 10 to everyone! And if someone doesn't find you attractive? They are not REQUIRED to go out with you! Because, here's the thing, *sexual attraction is important to a romantic relationship!*

I'll say it again, for the obviously slower kids: If you don't find someone attractive, but you share an interest with them, you still don't have to settle for that person. You can WAIT to find someone you share interests with AND find physically attractive!

Moreso, get this!, it *doesn't make you shallow* it simply makes you picky! It's YOUR BODY. You are ALLOWED to be picky!

I'm sure, though, that you've gone on dates with each and every person who has ever expressed an interest in you, right? Even if they didn't have good personal hygiene, or they reminded you of someone who once treated you poorly (though I'm sure no one has ever treated you poorly, right?), or simply because you looked at them and felt absolutely no physical interest whatsoever.

I know this will come as a surprise to you, but those are judgments that people are SUPPOSED to make when choosing a mate/partner. When you spend decades lying in bed next to someone, it's important that the person you are with is someone that you not only enjoy spending time with, but someone you ALSO want to kiss when you wake up in the morning.

Here's another free lesson for you, something you really will learn eventually, but I'm giving you a head's up: Being one of the "beautiful people" or a "10/10" or whatever you want to call it, doesn't guarantee you a romantic partner, and being ugly to one person doesn't mean you're ugly to someone else. Consider this: Danny Devito has been happily married for over 30 years. Angelina Jolie has been divorced twice. Looks don't guarantee you happiness, but when you settle? You're almost guaranteed to be miserable.

Wait for a person you like AND you wanna bang. It's worth it.

-- The Wife

Fake Geek Girl Confession #4

I have turned down dates because I did not find the person asking attractive — DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE “GEEKS” OR “NERDS.”

At the time, it never occurred to me what a heinous, “fake geek girl” crime this was. After all, I (clearly wrongly) assumed that when choosing a romantic partner, attraction was part of the deciding factors, whereas when choosing FRIENDS, appearances did not have any relevance. After all, aren’t we expected to, like, KISS our romantic partners and stuff? But we don’t have to make out with our friends, do we? Either way, apparently a REAL “geek girl” will date ANYONE who asks her out (assuming that person is a geek or nerd), whether she has any desire to taste the inside of their mouth or not. Because the ONLY deciding factor as to the desirability of a geek/nerd is their interests. Sexual attraction is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. And EVERY male is ENTITLED to a date with a girl if they share geek/nerd interests!

It wasn’t until some lovely people showed me the error of my ways that I’ve come to this understanding. Sadly too late for the boys that I declined dates with in the past. But rest assured, I have learned my lesson and been punished accordingly! I would NEVER have understood what male geeks/nerds are entitled to if it weren’t for the articulate, well thought out arguments of so many. Arguments like:

it is shallow and superficial to turn someone down for a date if you aren’t attracted to them.

it is pretentious to recognize that you don’t have to SETTLE for any date solely because someone asks.

considering sexual attraction to be an important quality in a potential mate makes you a fucking idiot.

if you are unwilling to date any and all nerds/geeks who ask you out, you are a self-absorbed little brat who is hideous on the inside.

believing that you don’t have to SETTLE for any and everyone who asks you out makes you a “struck up broad” who is undeserving of children, lest they grow up to be a “bitch” like you.

bitch. Just bitch.

you are batshit insane if you don’t agree that it’s okay to disregard a woman’s interests if she turns a guy down for a date.

feeling that you shouldn’t have to date someone you are not attracted to makes you vapid and shallow, and you should cry.

bitch. Again.

twat. Just twat.

believing you have the right to turn someone down for a date makes you a fucking idiot.

cunt. Just cunt.

if you continue to believe that men are not entitled to date women solely based on shared interests, then you lack moral fiber and are pond scum.

tattling to the self-appointed thought police. No, really. They’ll tattle on you because you use a naughty word.

it is vain and arrogant to consider yourself attractive enough to not have to SETTLE for someone that you are not personally physically attracted to.

This is a small sampling of the well-thought-out, articulate, meaningful, and convincing arguments you can expect to be met with if you have the *unmitigated gall* to say that women should have the right to choose who to date or have sex with. Consider my mind changed!!

All joking aside, here’s the real deal: NO ONE’S value as a human being should be judged based on their appearance. EVERYONE can have value, regardless of what they look like. But there is NOTHING WRONG WITH TURNING DOWN A DATE. For ANY reason. If you don’t want to date someone, you don’t have to. Ever. That goes for men/boys as well. If you are judging someone’s value as a person on their appearance, you’re a bigot. If you are choosing not to DATE someone, or have a ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP with someone based on their appearance, that is NOT bigotry. You are allowed to find someone ugly or attractive. You should not treat them poorly because of it. But you are not required to date someone that you find unattractive — and someone that YOU find attractive might find YOU to be unattractive to them. It’s the way it is. Otherwise we’d all be fighting each other for the exact same mates.

There is someone out there for you. Actually, there are MANY someones out there for you. If it doesn’t work out with one person, there’s someone else to try with. What that means is: if you don’t find someone physically or sexually attractive, you don’t have to hook up with them. You can choose to spend time with them or not, but you’re not required to date them. Anyone who tells you differently can go fuck themselves.

— The Wife

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

Fake Geek Girl Confession #4

I have turned down dates because I did not find the person asking attractive -- DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE "GEEKS" OR "NERDS."

At the time, it never occurred to me what a heinous, "fake geek girl" crime this was. After all, I (clearly wrongly) assumed that when choosing a romantic partner, attraction was part of the deciding factors, whereas when choosing FRIENDS, appearances did not have any relevance. After all, aren't we expected to, like, KISS our romantic partners and stuff? But we don't have to make out with our friends, do we? Either way, apparently a REAL "geek girl" will date ANYONE who asks her out (assuming that person is a geek or nerd), whether she has any desire to taste the inside of their mouth or not. Because the ONLY deciding factor as to the desirability of a geek/nerd is their interests. Sexual attraction is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. And EVERY male is ENTITLED to a date with a girl if they share geek/nerd interests!

It wasn't until some lovely people showed me the error of my ways that I've come to this understanding. Sadly too late for the boys that I declined dates with in the past. But rest assured, I have learned my lesson and been punished accordingly! I would NEVER have understood what male geeks/nerds are entitled to if it weren't for the articulate, well thought out arguments of so many. Arguments like:

it is shallow and superficial to turn someone down for a date if you aren't attracted to them.

it is pretentious to recognize that you don't have to SETTLE for any date solely because someone asks.

considering sexual attraction to be an important quality in a potential mate makes you a fucking idiot.

if you are unwilling to date any and all nerds/geeks who ask you out, you are a self-absorbed little brat who is hideous on the inside.

believing that you don't have to SETTLE for any and everyone who asks you out makes you a "struck up broad" who is undeserving of children, lest they grow up to be a "bitch" like you.

bitch. Just bitch.

you are batshit insane if you don't agree that it's okay to disregard a woman's interests if she turns a guy down for a date.

feeling that you shouldn't have to date someone you are not attracted to makes you vapid and shallow, and you should cry.

bitch. Again.

twat. Just twat.

believing you have the right to turn someone down for a date makes you a fucking idiot.

cunt. Just cunt.

if you continue to believe that men are not entitled to date women solely based on shared interests, then you lack moral fiber and are pond scum.

tattling to the self-appointed thought police. No, really. They'll tattle on you because you use a naughty word.

it is vain and arrogant to consider yourself attractive enough to not have to SETTLE for someone that you are not personally physically attracted to.

This is a small sampling of the well-thought-out, articulate, meaningful, and convincing arguments you can expect to be met with if you have the *unmitigated gall* to say that women should have the right to choose who to date or have sex with. Consider my mind changed!!

All joking aside, here's the real deal: NO ONE'S value as a human being should be judged based on their appearance. EVERYONE can have value, regardless of what they look like. But there is NOTHING WRONG WITH TURNING DOWN A DATE. For ANY reason. If you don't want to date someone, you don't have to. Ever. That goes for men/boys as well. If you are judging someone's value as a person on their appearance, you're a bigot. If you are choosing not to DATE someone, or have a ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP with someone based on their appearance, that is NOT bigotry. You are allowed to find someone ugly or attractive. You should not treat them poorly because of it. But you are not required to date someone that you find unattractive -- and someone that YOU find attractive might find YOU to be unattractive to them. It's the way it is. Otherwise we'd all be fighting each other for the exact same mates.

There is someone out there for you. Actually, there are MANY someones out there for you. If it doesn't work out with one person, there's someone else to try with. What that means is: if you don't find someone physically or sexually attractive, you don't have to hook up with them. You can choose to spend time with them or not, but you're not required to date them. Anyone who tells you differently can go fuck themselves.

-- The Wife

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

I'm going to try to respond to this, though it's tough because I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. To answer your question, no, I don't know you, so I can only base my judgments on what you say (type, whatever). In this case, I'm honestly not sure that we're speaking of the same thing, however I suspect that may be a language issue. Is English your first language? I'm genuinely asking, because of the grammar/spelling mistakes -- they are problems I often encounter when conversing with non-English speakers, and I always try to take the time to ensure that we're speaking the same "language" for lack of a better words.

That said, you seem to have missed the point (which, again, may be a language issue). I was never talking about the comic. As I've mentioned several times, the comics at Cyanide & Happiness are almost always facetious commentary. I was referring to the comment that "SDA" made, indicating that this was an accurate representation of the "fake geek girl" issue. Are you telling me that you believe that the comic IS an accurate representation of the REAL problem?

To clarify, are you trying to say that *because a girl/woman does NOT want to date someone who may or may not share some of her interests, she is not GENUINELY entitled to those interests?* That being disinterested in someone that is not physically attractive to her NEGATES her right to self-identify herself and her interests? Because the COMIC is "framing" it in the determination of appearance. The APPEARANCE is what the girl in the comic is apparently basing her judgment on. The boy is portrayed in a stereotypically unattractive way, while the girl is meant to be attractive (as that is the whole issue with the "fake geek girl" topic -- the idea that ATTRACTIVE girls are faking it). So, *in the comic* she doesn't want to date a boy that it is implied she does not find attractive. And she DOESN'T HAVE TO. But that doesn't make her "fake" -- it means that SHE DOESN'T FIND HIM ATTRACTIVE.

We -- human beings in total, no matter what their sex or gender -- ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DATE SOMEONE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ASK. WE ARE ALLOWED TO TURN SOMEONE DOWN FOR A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP, EVEN IF THEY'RE THE NICEST PERSON IN THE WORLD. FOR *ANY* REASON. Maybe the guy isn't ugly, but reminds her of someone who was mean to her. Maybe he looks like her brother. Maybe he smells. No matter WHAT her reason, he is NOT ENTITLED TO A DATE WITH HER, even if they DO share interests. Turning him down does NOT invalidate her as a person, and does not invalidate her interests.

And if you think otherwise, Go Fuck Yourself. Said solely for the benefit of "The Tone Police." If you believe that a girl/woman is somehow required to justify her interests if she's unwilling to date a guy who may or may not share those interests, just because that guy asks, then you're an asshole.

Clear enough for you?

-- The Wife

probably the most accurate representation of “fake geek girls”

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

OMG, I can't believe it! It's just such an HONOR to be nominated. I mean, of all of Tumblr, of everyone, I alone used the term "go fuck yourself." As, clearly, a blatant attack against someone directly. There wasn't any context or anything! I just said "Go fuck yourself" to someone and it was SOOOOO wrong.

Oh.... wait...

"Any asshole who thinks a woman isn’t entitled to that choice is a fucking moron, if not a flat out misogynist. Mostly, though, any guy who uses a woman’s right to turn him down for a date as an excuse to insult her and her interests isn’t a man and isn’t deserving of ANY woman’s time.

So… if that’s your thought process? Go fuck yourself."

Hm... well, either way, I said the words "go fuck yourself" so I am obviously wrong. I win ALL the wrong awards!

-- The Wife

P.S. I LOVE dicks.

probably the most accurate representation of “fake geek girls”

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

I know, I know! The horror! Telling someone that they HAVE VALUE and that they DESERVE TO BE TREATED WITH RESPECT is an *atrocious* thing to do. Telling women and girls that they have the RIGHT to CHOOSE who they date, that they do not have to date *anyone* who asks solely to validate their interests, is a TRULY terrible thing. I'm definitely pond scum. I can't believe I didn't see it before! How DARE I try to tell girls that they have RIGHTS over their own bodies and who they spend time with! How DARE I tell boys/men that they are NOT ENTITLED to be with a woman solely because she shares some of his interests.

This is the epitome of evil. Proof of my lack of moral fiber. Clearly. I cannot imagine how I've been so blind.

I humbly apologize for the *unforgivable sin* of trying to encourage girls and women to ACCEPT THEMSELVES, even if a boy or man tries to devalue them because they aren't interested in a romantic relationship.

I don't expect forgiveness, because *obviously* it's completely unacceptable for a woman to have those ideas! I mean, she might start to think she has OTHER rights, like the right to say no to sex, or the right to say no to marriage, or the right to choose to work or not. They get *whisper* ideas. That's never a good thing. Gaston said so.

Oh, wait. Never mind, I'm not a qualling fool-born gudgeon (heh I like that one), and I have more common sense than said gudgeon. So my understanding of the world is greater than a half-baked loaf of yeast bread without the yeast.

Basically, you'll grow up eventually -- and hopefully your intelligence will catch up.

Ciao!

-- The Wife

probably the most accurate representation of “fake geek girls”

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

All this. Though I hate that you seem to feel the need to validate your "geekhood" or whatever. It's just odd to me. When I was 15 and dating this one guy, we were like the nerdiest couple EVER, but I didn't have to SHOW him my 300 baud acoustic modem before he consented to date me. And even though he liked Pyroto's Mountain, I didn't, and it was okay -- I was still a nerd. :-P

-- The Wife

probably the most accurate representation of “fake geek girls”

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

Tell yourself whatever lies you have to, little one. You're trying to use it now to validate your point. You dress in a way that makes you feel attractive, you take photos of yourself that make you feel attractive, and no matter what the reason for it is, you're using the appeal that you feel that you have -- apparently the validation of your self worth by men, but hey, whatever works for you! You know what feeling good about yourself does? It makes you more confident. It makes you feel better in your interactions with people of any gender or sex. That is, get this, *using your sex appeal* -- maybe not to manipulate (though some women do), but because it's *how human beings function with each other.*

The problem with dealing with so many young, immature people, is that they don't have enough knowledge of the world, or self-awareness, to recognize their own stupidity. I get it, I do. I was once that naive. It's just something that comes with being a teenager/young adult and having all of your life experiences be micro-oriented and self-limited. Time passes and while getting older can suck sometimes, what it gives you is a perspective on the world that is broader than your bedroom. You'll get there eventually.

I kind of feel bad for you girls reading this and seeing "victimhood" because you haven't grasped that UNDERSTANDING doesn't mean COMPLACENCE. I have personally not suffered from the "fake geek girl" bullshit, because when I was a fledgling nerd, boys actually WERE happy to have girls who shared their interests and wanted to be friends with them! And we were ALL happy if/when it led to something else. I never had to PROVE myself, or validate my interests. I didn't have to deal with insecure asshats who felt that my lack of sexual interest gave them the right to insult me. I KNEW I DIDN'T HAVE TO TOLERATE BEING TREATED THAT WAY. I am SO sorry that you apparently believe that behavior is acceptable. I really am. I hope you come to realize that you are just as valuable as any male, and your interests are just as legitimate as theirs -- EVEN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DATE THEM.

How have I married? I met a person (who happened to be a man -- I was open to pretty much anyone) that 1) I was sexually attracted to, 2) was sexually attracted to me, 3) I shared interests with, 4) I shared life goals with, and 5) could tolerate me. Which isn't an easy thing, I'm quite aware. I could describe how I have children, but I feel like I'm not really the person who should be giving you "The Talk." I'll just say that it applies to both #1 and #2, and what I said before that IT IS INCREDIBLY EASY FOR A WOMAN TO HAVE SEX.

Every person should be able to find someone, whoever that someone might be, who can accept them that way.

I find it incredibly sad that, while I continue to extol the virtues of acceptance, of self-esteem, and of self-respect, so many of you are apparently choosing to JUSTIFY being treated like second-class pieces of shit. Maybe you feel like it's the only way that guys will accept you within the realm of your interests. Maybe you feel as if agreeing with misogynistic twunts is a way to be "edgy" or "cool" now that being "geeky" and "nerdy" is supposedly "accepted." I don't know what your reasoning is, or how you justify it to yourself. I just know it makes you a fucking moron.

As for the Legos, Uncle Walter takes MUCH better care of them than that! I do, however, occasionally step on Bakugan, which, while not as widely considered painful, is still fairly annoying. Though not, generally, fatally so.

-- The Wife

probably the most accurate representation of “fake geek girls”

[confessionsofafakegeekgirl]

I don't know what world you live in, but women CAN get laid. Doesn't matter what they look like, doesn't matter what they act like, sex CAN be an easily exchanged commodity. Women do NOT HAVE TO FAKE BEING "NERDS" TO GET LAID. This is simply a fact of life. It's not justification of it, it's not a judgment of it, it's a social commentary. It is TOO EASY for a woman to get laid, assuming all she wants is sex, for her to need to put forth the effort of PRETENDING to be a "geek girl" because it's supposedly "popular."

Of COURSE women use their sex appeal! OMG, are you people living in a bubble? We've been taught from infancy to use whatever we can, because we NEED every advantage we can get! We NEED to have some sort of control over ourselves and our interactions! The fact that we need to is disgusting, not because we use it, but because we've been made to feel as if it is one of the few advantages we get. SO FUCKING WHAT?

One of the very few things that we actually have SOME level of control of is our own bodies (aside from the ever-present risk of rape by assholes who feel entitled to TAKE what they want and random politicians and religious freaks who think they should have the right to control our bodies for us, of course). We have the RIGHT to CHOOSE who to bestow our bodies on. So do men! But women aren't complaining that men are "fake" and are not entitled to their own interests solely because said men aren't interested in THEM. *We have the right to like what we like, to have sex with whomever we want to assuming they're willing, and identify ourselves in whatever way we want, EVEN IF WE DON'T WANT TO DATE SOMEONE FOR ANY REASON.*

We DO NOT HAVE TO SETTLE FOR SOMEONE WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN TO VALIDATE OUR INTERESTS. *ANY* GUY WHO COMPLAINS ABOUT THAT IS A FUCKING BASTARD OF A WHINY WHINER AND NOT WORTH OUR TIME. *We do not have to fear being alone just because we don't want to put out to some guy because he claims to be a "nerd" -- because we can choose who to put out with! WE CAN AFFORD TO BE PICKY.

Any asshole who thinks a woman isn't entitled to that choice is a fucking moron, if not a flat out misogynist. Mostly, though, any guy who uses a woman's right to turn him down for a date as an excuse to insult her and her interests isn't a man and isn't deserving of ANY woman's time.

So... if that's your thought process? Go fuck yourself. I'll be over in my corner, happy in my own company, laughing my ass off at the whiny whiners who whine. I might laugh so hard that I cry, though, so there you go.

-- The Wife

probably the most accurate representation of “fake geek girls”