I’ve dated my share of highly intelligent women, and while in theory it means “someone I can converse with” or “someone intelligent and well read enough to explore ideas with” in practice it means “someone I can converse with, and who will not challenge me”.
People like the challenging conversations and debate in theory, but no matter how politely you undertake a conversation if you challenge a woman’s beliefs at some point I’ve found they often take it very, very personally, and look on it as an personal attack of sorts no matter how arm’s length you try to structure the argument, or what rhetorical distance you assume. People think they are “intellectuals” are often heavily invested in thinking they are right and do not handle dissent all that well.
There’s nothing wrong with this as people should probably date people they agree with, but just be aware this “intelligent partner” notion often has hard limits.
This is code for they want a guy that will sit there and listen while they talk, because they find talking intellectually stimulating. Listening, not so much.
The sad thing about this metaphor is that the person being rescued isn’t the star of the production. She’s just a prop for the star.
As for the OP, there are some really freakin’ cynical answers here. I wouldn’t assume anything negative about someone seeking intellectual stimulation in a partner. When I was in my teens I dated a guy with zero intellectual curiosity - and swore never again.
[QUOTE=Bosstone]
But for me the dividing line isn’t between “let me check the plaque” and doing a compare and contrast on Matisse and Van Gogh, but rather between “let me check the plaque” and “who cares?”
[/QUOTE]
This is the best answer. It’s not even about being super-intelligent, just having that thirst for knowledge and exploration.
[QUOTE=astro]
I’ve dated my share of highly intelligent women, and while in theory it means “someone I can converse with” or “someone intelligent and well read enough to explore ideas with” in practice it means “someone I can converse with, and who will not challenge me”.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t mind being challenged, but personally I don’t want a relationship with a pedantic asshole. Some people who fancy themselves as ‘‘just playing devil’s advocate’’ are in fact complete jerks about it.
Oy vey!..You must be a woman (no offense, I love women), but not only did you miss my point and take it personally (I said people, that includes men), but you also put Bosstone in your quote, check the name again, sweetie, the Train said that, Bosstrain, as in me. Also, the female role in a movie would be a starring role, but I was being more general and not referring to just the one style movie, nor was I limiting that statement to one gender. BTW, that metaphor is extremely accurate, hollywood has done a lot of irreparable damage to society as a whole, they’ve broken down morality, widened the division between the sex’s (when MALE and feMALE’s are one and the same), and made violence an acceptable part of daily life.
The line between “I like being challenged” and “pedantic asshole” is both slippery and vanishingly thin in debating substantive topics or positions that women have emotional investments in. Women “like being challenged”, but only to a very limited point, and have greater difficultly (I’ve found) in not taking an argument personally. If you attack their argument, you are attacking them. I think most men have found the wisest course is to steer clear of these issues and keep their mouths shut. You get much further that way.
Interesting thread. Where I live (Midwest US) my women friends and I just long for a guy who isn’t so immersed in all things sports that all other interests are shut down. It’s so common here. I do understand that sports is the language guys speak. I don’t hate sports; I’m indifferent. When it’s all-consuming and you can’t shift out of the topic, you are a social dunce.
Attending or watching a sporting event now and then: fun.
Spending every waking moment dedicated to watching, reading about, talking about sports: boring.
If your range of intellectual curiosity is limited to that one topic (or any other one topic, really) then you’re not someone I wish to date or hang out with. If you will only eat in restaurants that have big screen TVs in all the corners, tuned in to ESPN? I’m done. It’s over.
That tends to go for either gender. Also, you have to keep in mind that there’s typically a difference between stimulation and challenge. Stimulation keeps you active and engaged; challenge pushes your limits. Home is not really a place I want my limits pushed on a regular basis–it’s the cozy, inviting place where I want to put the external challenges of my life on hold and focus on things that interest me and make me happy.
The things that interest me and make me happy tend to lead to conversations about things most people would consider intellectually stimulating–books, music, art, medicine. I would be bored to tears with someone I couldn’t have these sorts of conversations with. But I would also be bored to tears (and greatly annoyed) by coming home to a big involved debate about little piddly-ass damn opinion all the time.
I do not disagree with you one bit, that’s why I put the “don’t challenge me” note in my first post. Most women (not all) are mainly interested in the socially entertaining aspects of “intelligent conversation” not in having their opinions confronted or questioned. If a man is willing to lapdog it conversationally with a witty little bark or observation he’ll be fine, and that’s what most guys do.
Funny, I actually usually assume “intellectually stimulating” to be synonymous with “intellectually challenging.” When I see the former, I figure the person using it is saying they want their match to be as smart or smarter than them.
Most of that comes from a highly intelligent but somewhat unpleasant ex-friend who decided I wasn’t as smart as her and therefore not worthy of respect.
Bingo. I think that this is mostly what women mean when they say they want intellectual stimulation. If all a guy can talk about is sports, getting drunk, and getting laid, he’s not a very interesting date. And if all a woman can talk about is how rotten men are, makeup, and celebrity gossip, I don’t find her a very interesting companion, either, and will avoid cultivating her as a friend.
To me, “intellectual stimulating” means someone who has depth and who can express that depth conversationally.
They don’t just talk about events, things, or other people. They talk about ideas and concepts that provide insight into how the gears in their head turn.
Non-intellectually stimulating people generally stick with talking about things that are either right in front of their faces and directly related to the topic already being discussed. Someone with depth can pull something out of the mind, out of the blue, and talk about it with ease. Conversations with them are less likely to be dull because they know how to keep it fresh by changing the subject or nudging the conversation in new directions.
They also ask questions. If you say “I’ve been living here for 18 years,” they don’t just say “Oh, okay. That’s cool.” They’ll make an thoughtful observation about that and then ask followup questions. “Wow, 18 years is a decent period time. Do you consider yourself basically a native then?”
astro, I don’t know many people–men or women–who want to actually be challenged everytime they express a semi-weighty opinion. Especially in the early dating phase. That’s the time you’re trying to decide if you and the other person understand where each other are coming from. You’re trying to establish whether you think in similar ways and have similar values. If someone wants to play devil’s advocate everytime you express a view about politics or something else, it gets in the way of figuring all that out. Debates should be delayed until its clear that both people respect each other’s intelligence, and most importantly, it’s obvious that you’re challenging her only because it’s a challenge to you.
Do not disagree. That’s why men who are dating are wise to keep their yaps shut about topics where opinions collide, and stick to conversational niceties if they want to progress. A man’s ability to dance conversationally is generally more important to most (not all) women than his ability to do rhetorical heavy lifting.
Yeah, and I was a framer/carpenter, building all sorts of crap, and I call BS on that. I still managed to keep up with current events, try to have an educated opinion about the world around me, and still managed to read, and go out and do stuff to enrich my pea brain. I was dirt poor, but I could hold my end up in a good conversation.
. oh well, such is life.