By the way even if it’s because I’ve been really busy in real life it’s not just embarrassing not to answer everyone’s comments. Your comments are a constant source of inspiration as well.
Case in point. In comments to my post about Gold Boars about distressed Wall Street financiers having to “give up” their “high-end girlfriends” because such relationships are supposed to be only about money, Biscuit of One Biscuit Hound said
My husband and I were JUST talking about this last night, but in regards to sexual prowess. A conversation that stemmed from my last blog post, not the news article you’re referring to. He said that when he sees an unattractive man with a beautiful woman, he assumes that the guy must be really good in bed, or the woman wouldn’t be with him.
That “must be good in bed” thing comes up a lot about both men and women. The guess comes more often from men, I think, but I know women sometimes say it as well. There are a couple of problems with it. I’ll get the trivial ones out of the way first before getting to my point.
The first problem is that women aren’t always good at assessing what’s visually attractive to men about other women. As Biscuit hints in the rest of her comment, something like, I dunno, boring clothes and confidence trumps expertly selected attire and no confidence. Similarly men seem particularly bad at assessing what makes other men attractive to women. For instance women mention men’s forearms a lot and I’m pretty sure most men never consider that. Same with smell. Same with conduct, which seems to have more to do with honest reaction which is very different from being a Nice Guy™! And yeah, yeah, there are other more obvious “intangibles” like personality, sense of humor, overlapping personal experiences or history, money, and, of course, compatible neuroses. :-)
But really, the paradox of “must be good in bed” is that assuming that “good in bed” is the non-visible criteria sort of begs the question because… if obvious attractiveness is so critical how does the allegedly unattractive person get a chance to demonstrate it?
[Speaking of busy in real life, I’ll be traveling to the eastern seaboard for an elderly relative’s funeral. Posting may be light, though not non-existent, till Wednesday. —fl]
Submitted by 2419 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-09-29 06:41.
Exactly! If a person does not otherwise meet your criteria for "doable," how do you ever find out if you actually enjoy doing them?
Wait...is it poor form to agree with myself?
Submitted by 2419 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-09-29 16:55.
That's the first time I've read any mention of other women having a thing for men's forearms. I thought it was just me. It's one of the very few good things about riding the bus - you're up high enough to see all those forearms at the 12 o'clock position on the steering wheels of the passing cars.
What an irretrievable dork I am.
Submitted by 2419 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-09-29 19:31.
I've heard the forearm thing a lot, also thighs, butt, etc. So I'm not one of the believers in the proposition that straight women don't objectify straight men. But I DO have a real beef with the idea that "sexual prowess" matters in the absence of the ability to PROJECT it conclusively, via traditional masculinity, which is, as I keep groaning, a performative set of social conventions. Or, in short, quiet competence isn't enough by itself, which leads back to the origin of The Game. It seems that being good at sex in the absence of wider social signals of your desirability results in really good sex with someone you'd be having sex with ANYWAY, rather than a boost to your general attractiveness to the opposite sex. But I live in an area and a social circle with really strict definitions of "hot" that 99% of humanity can't meet, and The Game look askance at "intangibles" (except $), considering them "rapport-building" efforts that aren't "really" seduction. The only interesting thing about all of that is that some devotees of Game think outside it, and bear watching.
Submitted by 2419 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-09-30 06:00.
This is such a wonderful post. With the thoughts discussed and tips shared -- it is simply helpful and informative to people sharing the same sentiments. I simply love this post!
Anyways, I would like to invite you to also check out http://www.nakedtube.com -- you might find it interesting and helpful. Cheers!
Submitted by 2419 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-09-30 09:25.
Perhaps an explanation to the paradox you end with is the (obviously mistaken and simplistic) idea that overweight or unattractive women, at least, will be good in bed because they have to try so much harder to prove their worth, while thin, attractive women can just coast by on looks rather than, say, give a good blow job. So maybe some men will go for women they don't find attractive just because they EXPECT that person to be good in bed? I mean, Alec Baldwin references this phenomenon on 30 Rock, so the belief seems at least slightly widespread.
Submitted by 2419 (not verified) on Thu, 2008-10-02 23:12.
I often think when I see a good looking woman with an unattractive man that he must be good in banking.
I do not know what to say to the reverse.