i was catching up on current affairs (i.e. reading US weekly and Lucky) at borders at stones today with jokey, and i came across this article about the sf dating scene. it was a boring read, but an interesting acronym caught my eye: "I started talking to a guy, who was not only too young but also GU (geographically undesirable, because he lived in Mountain View)."

although i will freely admit to having a superiority complex when it comes to being a san frncisco native, i've never necessarily marked a guy down for where he lived.

HAVE I?!?!?!

thinking back, it might be subconscious. my friends love to essentialize people based on where they grew up or what school they go to, but it's all a joke....right? is it really ok to judge a guy based simply on where he hangs his hat?

on second thought, i'm not sure if this writer labeled the guy as GU because Mountain View is so far from The City or just because it's Mountain View. one can be GU if one lives too far away; but one could also be GU if they live in a place that's, let's say, culturally impaired. but if the latter is the case, i'd say about 94% of American guys even qualify to be GD (geographically desirable), since only one city really gets respect from sanfrncscans, and there aren't that many guys who live in new york city. personally, the only other city besides nyc that i would consider GD is berkeley: oakland thinks it has more street cred than sf, san jose is too far, and all the other places in the bay are suburbs (enough said).

but this GU thing really got me thinking: as if guys don't have enough to be insecure about (not tall enough, not cut enough, bad dancer, bad breath, etc.), now they have to worry about whether or not they live in a GD place. it can probably be proven, though, that the further one lives away from a major metropolitan area, the less action one can expect. i mean, seriously, what would you say to a guy who said "Hey, come back to my place....in Mountain View"?