> 
> Men Who Use Computers Are The New Sex Symbols Of The `90s
> 
> by Scott Adams (scottadams@aol.com)
> 
> I get about 100 e-mail messages a day from readers of my comic strip 
> "Dilbert."  Most are from disgruntled office workers, psychopaths, stalkers, 
> comic-strip fans -- that sort of person.  But a growing number are from women 
> who write to say they think Dilbert is sexy.  Some say they've already married
> a Dilbert and couldn't be happier. 
> 
> If you're not familiar with Dilbert, he's an electrical engineer who spends 
> most of his time with his computer.  He's a nice guy but not exactly Kevin 
> Costner. 
> 
> Okay, Dilbert is polite, honest, employed and educated.  And he stays home. 
> These are good traits, but they don't exactly explain the incredible sex 
> appeal.  So what's the attraction?
> 
> I think it's a Darwinian thing.  We're attracted to the people who have the 
> best ability to survive and thrive.  In the old days it was important to be 
> able to run down an antelope and kill it with a single blow to the forehead.
> 
> But that skill is becoming less important every year. 
> 
> Now all that matters is if you can install your own Ethernet card without 
> having to call tech support and confess your inadequacies to a stranger whose 
> best career option is to work in tech support. 
> 
> It's obvious that the world has three distinct classes of people, each with 
> its own evolutionary destiny:
> 
> Knowledgeable computer users who will evolve into godlike non-corporeal 
> beings who rule the universe (except for those who work in tech support).
> 
> Computer owners who try to pass as knowledgeable but secretly use hand 
> calculators to add totals to their Excel spreadsheets.  This group will 
> gravitate toward jobs as high school principals and operators of pet 
> crematoriums.  Eventually they will become extinct. 
> 
> Non-computer users who will grow tails, sit in zoos and fling dung at 
> tourists.
> 
> Obviously, if you're a woman and you're trying to decide which evolutionary 
> track you want your offspring to take, you don't want to put them on the luge 
> ride to the dung-flinging Olympics.  You want a real man.  You want a 
> knowledgeable computer user with evolution potential. 
> 
> And women prefer men who listen.  Computer users are excellent listeners 
> because they can look at you for long periods of time without saying 
> anything.  Granted, early in a relationship it's better if the guy actually 
> talks.  But men use up all the stories they'll ever have after six months.
> If a woman marries a guy who's in, let's say, retail sales, she'll get repeat 
> stories starting in the seventh month and lasting forever.  Marry an engineer 
> and she gets a great listener for the next 70 years. 
> 
> Plus, with the ozone layer evaporating, it's a good strategy to mate with 
> somebody who has an indoor hobby.  Outdoorsy men are applying suntan lotion 
> with SPF 10,000 and yet by the age of 30 they still look like dried chili 
> peppers in pants.  Compare that with the healthy glow of a man who spends 12 
> hours a day in front of a video screen. 
> 
> It's also well established that computer users are better lovers.  I know 
> because I heard an actual anecdote from someone who knew a woman who married 
> a computer user and they reportedly had sex many times.  I realize this isn't 
> statistically valid, but you have to admit it's the most persuasive thing 
> I've written so far. 
> 
> If you still doubt the sexiness of male PC users, consider their hair.  They 
> tend to have either:  (1) male pattern baldness -- a sign of elevated 
> testosterone -- or  (2) unkempt jungle hair -- the kind you see only on 
> people who just finished a frenzied bout of lovemaking.  If this were a trial 
> I think we could reach a verdict on the strong circumstantial evidence alone.
> 
> I realize there are a lot of skeptics out there.  They'll delight in pointing 
> out the number of computer users who wear wrist braces and suggest it isn't 
> the repetitive use of the keyboard that causes the problem.  That's okay. 
> Someday those skeptics will be flinging dung at tourists.  Then who'll be 
> laughing?  (Answer to rhetorical question:  everybody but the tourists.)
> 
> Henry Kissinger said power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.  And Bill Clinton 
> said that knowledge is power.  Therefore, logically, according to the U.S. 
> government, knowledge of computers is the ultimate aphrodisiac.  You could 
> argue with me -- I'm just a cartoonist -- but it's hard to argue with the 
> government.  Remember, they run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 
> so they must know a thing or two about satisfying women. 
> 
> You might think this was enough to convince anyone that men who use computers 
> are sexy.  But look at it from my point of view:  I'm getting paid by the 
> word for this article.  I'm not done yet. 
> 
> In less enlightened times, the best way to impress women was to own a hot 
> car.  But women wised up and realized it was better to buy their own hot cars 
> so they wouldn't have to ride around with jerks. 
> 
> Technology has replaced hot cars as the new symbol of robust manhood.  Men 
> know that unless they get a digital line to the Internet no woman is going to 
> look at them twice. 
> 
> It's getting worse.  Soon anyone who's not on the World Wide Web will qualify 
> for a government subsidy for the home-pageless.  And nobody likes a man who 
> takes money from the government, except maybe Marilyn Monroe, which is why
> the CIA killed her.  And if you think that's stupid, I've got 100 words to go.
> 
> Finally, there's the issue of mood lighting.  Nothing looks sexier than a man 
> in boxer shorts illuminated only by a 15-inch SVGA monitor.  If we agree that 
> this is every woman's dream scenario, then I think we can also agree that 
> it's best if the guy knows how to use the computer.  Otherwise, he'll just 
> look like a loser sitting in front of a PC in his underwear. 
> 
> In summary, it's not that I think non-PC users are less attractive.  It's 
> just that I'm sure they won't read this article. 
>