SimuLord said:
I'm one-dimensional because I expect my significant other (much less a potential spouse, who I'd spend the rest of my life with and raise kids with) to be educated, well-rounded, and well-spoken on a wide variety of topics other than video games? That's "shallow" to you? It says more about you than about me that you find expecting the best and requiring someone to have a comparable intellect before seriously considering settling down with them to be worthy of scorn.
I never said that. I said you're shallow because you expect your girlfriend to have a wide-verity of high brow topical pieces to keep you entertained. There's a difference. You don't need to have similar intellect to be compatible.
SimuLord said:
I will, however, make exceptions on the whole well-educated thing---if the girl is so sweet, domesticated, great with kids, excellent cook, submissive in and out of the bedroom, and warm-hearted that she may not be able to do much for the kids' education but she will do wonders to nurture them and see to their growing up in a loving, supportive home, I'd marry a girl like that.
I know this may sound silly, but since when is it your job to educate your children on every subject known to man? I understand that having a good background is important but isn't it far better to have the above mentioned wife simply because she'll instill actual values into your children which is something public/private education cannot do? Considering you'll see your children for a very few amount of hours a day, it seems far better to be able to teach them practical lessons they can't learn from a book rather than trying to cram American History 101 down their throats. Kids don't need teachers for parents, they need parents! But that's off-topic, really.
SimuLord said:
But when I date girls like that they tend to be intimidated by my wide variety of conversational topics and threatened by my female friends who spark that ever-thirsty-for-knowledge side of myself to the point where those kinds of girls usually break up with me (sample breakup speech excerpts: "You're too good for me", "You make me feel like I can't keep up", and "I'm sorry, I know you're a great guy and I really do love you, but I'm always going to feel like you settled." Seriously.)
So you do a shit job as a boyfriend, then? I mean, really, saying that every girl you've ever met has told you "you're too good for me" means that you're not supporting them enough. It's a basic skill that many men lack and I can see that you do as well. It's all fine and dandy that you want to go seek out broader horizons with your friends, but when you turn around and can't even say three things to whom your dating because "she just doesn't get it" just shows how terrible a conversationalist
you are, considering your horizons broaden only "upwards", for lack of a better term.
SimuLord said:
But hey---if video games are the end-all be-all of your hobbies, by all means expect your significant other to share your passions. But if all a girl can talk about is gaming, she's quickly going to run out of things to talk about with me and the relationship's going to fall apart.
Now, I never said gaming was the only thing I liked, nor the only thing I have had in common with women. My point was that you're condemning video games as something of a low brow entertainment and very limited in the ability to be a good topic of conversation and/or interest you share with your significant other, when in fact it's one of the broadest topics possible. It involves literature, fine arts, history, technology, politics and so on. To say that video games are not as redeemable as, say, the Civil War, which is a finite topic that
can run out of topical merit, is absolutely absurd.
SimuLord said:
Plus, basing a relationship on shared interest in popular media assumes your tastes aren't going to change---my ex-wife and I had similar tastes in games and music when we were dating, but my constant desire to branch out away from the simple things I liked when I was younger vs. her complete inability to do so (she wasn't very bright) meant that after five years of marriage we didn't have anything in common anymore. Whereas the friends I have made over the years based on shared intellectual curiosity and willingness to discuss the deeper elements of the human condition...well, the oldest such friendship has taken up literally over 85% of my life. Because Elinor and I were cut from the same cloth, we never outgrew each other since we always learned from each other.
Actually, it assumes either your tastes will not change or that your tastes will change with the times. Some people do continually keep up with popular culture and are interested in it for the more anthropological means of it, regardless if they realise that's what they're doing. Also, just because someone "isn't bright" doesn't mean that's why their tastes don't change. My tastes haven't changed for quite a few years now while others have far changed wildly. I just know what I like and while I can take interest in other things and add to my list of "stuff I like", thast doesn't mean my core interests will ever swap out, simply be added to. If you hadn't decided what your interests as a human being were at that point, then obviously you were unfit to have such a relationship with a stable individual, interest wise. "Dynamic" doesn't mean "smart", either, and that might be what you're looking for.
SimuLord said:
My friend Kathy and I have been known to spend four or five hours on the phone just talking about the Civil War (although her knowledge of it runs circles around mine, but she indulges me because I'm pretty adept at reminding her of 19th century firearm technology.) If not for the fact that we're separated by 2,000 miles of ground (and she's horribly hung up on her ex), a mighty fine romance could come of such ready conversation.
Except if it was going to happen, you'd make it happen. Distance means nothing if something is between two people. I've learned that. She's a friend because she can engage you on an intellectual level, but is a poor lover because I can almost garentee that's about all she can do. I might be wrong and my comment is purly speculation, but again, distance means jack all if you turly love someone. Romance isn't about conversation, I'm sorry to tell you. It's far deeper than that and while intellect certainly can help pass the time, it doesn't spark attraction nor can it replace such a bond.
But it is hard to keep such things a secret, for some reason, I feel... What do you think?
