Especially if they are introverts. Extroverts do better, but often have hidden difficulties masked by their outgoing personalities.
Certainly I was never very popular in school, and for a long time there was a feedback loop between peers finding me arrogant and annoying and me becoming even more arrogant and annoying in defense.
But then my family adopted 4 special-needs kids, and I learned that being smart wasn't enough for dealing with everything in life, and also that I wasn't half bad at some of the other stuff: I made a perhaps-surprisingly good big brother. And then I went into the IB program for high school and for the first time personally knew people who were definitely smarter than me (if only in some fields, I told myself). Both experiences were very helpful in teaching me to have an identity outside intelligence.
But as far as relating to people in general, it's not as bad as you might expect. For one thing, almost everyone I know is smart. My parents, my near-age biological brother, my wife, my kids (so I tell myself, but they're too young to know yet really), and most of my friends are all of well above average intelligence.
And overall I find that humility and real (or adequately feigned) interest make interacting with almost anyone pretty workable. For humility, I try to remember that I'm smart through no merit of my own: it's a gift of God (or chance, or the inexorable unfolding of the big bang as you like) through genetics and environment. Of course I participated usefully in my own intellectual growth, but there are any number of sad failures of application and tenacity to count against me in that column, too. For interest, like so many things, it's about faking it till it becomes real.
I agree, humility and genuine respect is absolutely critical to relating up and down the chain of both IQ and command. That said, sometimes you have to think if life wouldn't be easier if everyone had the IQ of a 3 year old. At least then innovation would come naturally, and everyone would learn to share.
A high-IQ person is going to have difficult socialization early in life, and be behind the curve on a lot of social milestones. However, this becomes less important as a person gets older; most people would consider it a good thing for a 40-year-old to be mistaken for someone in his mid-30s.
My IQ's about 150 and I've definitely had a problem with girls I've dated not taking me seriously (to the point where I've had to dump them) because I'm 25 and my "number" is in (gasp!) the low single digits, as if not having done a Sherman's march in my 20s were something to be embarrassed about. I'm sure that a significantly more insecure version of myself would internalize this and have problems, but actually I just look at these sorts of experiences as incredibly funny.
1. More women should be thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. Are they that unsure of their own judgment that they need to evaluate a man based on the imputed opinions of people they've never met, many of whom are in his distant past? I, for one, like finding a great girl who men have underrated in the past.
2. A low or high number of sexual partners has, in general, a lot more to do with lifestyle and values than ability.
And what we learn from evolution is we should laugh at should too. My theory: should is a gambit to control you on the part of other people trying to win in the game of evolution.
Thus, a woman benefits by selecting a loyal man rather than a promiscuous one. For her to marry a loyal man with strong genetics (e.g. an attractive man with a limited sexual history, indicating a low disposition toward promiscuity) is optimal. A woman who disqualifies men because they've had a low number of sexual partners is never going to accomplish this.
Anyway, the obsession over the number of past sexual partners means nothing in an evolutionary context, since the whole concept is a social construct. Pre-numerate cave dwellers would have lost count pretty quickly.
Anything's reproductive "goal", in any times, is to show up a lot in later generations. Promiscuity and particularity both show up as strategies in humans and broadly beyond. Anybody studying reporductive strategies many generations later will have a strong survivorship bias in their results.
A woman who selects a man who isn't very promiscuous is unlikely to get her genes spread very far by her son(s). This trades off against the part of the story you tell.
Primitive strategies are none the worse for being primitive: though no guarantor of success, they're often adequate. thus the number of citations of a science paper is not a direct reflection of its quality, but not irrelevant either. I was surprised to discover that market traders, far from being tight-lipped about their strategic overview, spend a lot of time calling each other up when things were slow to ask what their competitors thought of the day's financial 'weather'. Google's Pageranks are similar. And so on.
It is true that a fairly non-promiscuous person will likely be a better parent and thus a desirable match. Nevertheless, some competitive genes don't hurt. Also commitment after experience is more interesting than commitment by default (see daily YC thread on how 'Windows users only like it because it came with the computer they bought').