![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Good Conversationalist
Mar. 5th, 2005 04:05 pmLately I've been considering the axiom about people who are good dancers. You know the one I mean; that good dancers make good lovers. Do you think that's true?
Leaving individual dancers themselves aside, do you think the mark of a good lover is in how he or she moves? I presume that's the point; if dancing is actually just mock sex, then presumably you would be able to tell a lot about how a person behaves sexually from watching this colourful display.
But I've been thinking about this and I think it sort of misses the point. First, because I'm fairly sure dancing is not in fact mock sex, and second, I'm not convinced that good sex can be summed up by a particular set of movement skills.
I therefore propose a new model. What if instead of watching a prospective partner for dancing skills, we watched them in conversation. A good conversationalist pays attention to their partner; they are simultaneously interpreting intonation, body language, and the content of the conversation itself without misinterpreting or getting distracted. A good conversationalist is always on the same wavelength as their partner. Listening and interpreting carefully and responding appropriately, the good conversationalist considers the possibilities of the conversation on the fly and can consistently take it in interesting new directions. The good conversationalist absorbs what their partner is saying quickly and efficiently; rather than merely shouting out pre-formed, practiced ideas and opinions, the good conversationalist takes what their partner has expressed and engages with it, thinking and expressing ideas that spring directly out of the exchange. A good conversationalist doesn't interrupt as a rule, but will break that rule should the interruption bring the conversation to a new and exciting pitch. A good conversationalist is sure of him- or herself and can say what they want to say without being pushy, rude, or overbearing. A good conversationalist does not lecture, drone on, or simply enjoy listening to the sound of their voice, but can, if their partner is interested, sustain an extended and interesting monologue. A good conversationalist would notice if a particular trail of the conversational path is getting boring or tedious for their partner and can quickly steer the conversation into more engaging territory. A truly great conversationalist senses which directions will be most interesting by sheer intuition as well as by a quick and accurate evaluation of their partner's body language. The good conversationalist never fails to provide fascinating, satisfying conversation.
It seems to me that this skill set would translate better into good sex than the ability to gyrate gracefully to music. Possibly this is wishful thinking.
Leaving individual dancers themselves aside, do you think the mark of a good lover is in how he or she moves? I presume that's the point; if dancing is actually just mock sex, then presumably you would be able to tell a lot about how a person behaves sexually from watching this colourful display.
But I've been thinking about this and I think it sort of misses the point. First, because I'm fairly sure dancing is not in fact mock sex, and second, I'm not convinced that good sex can be summed up by a particular set of movement skills.
I therefore propose a new model. What if instead of watching a prospective partner for dancing skills, we watched them in conversation. A good conversationalist pays attention to their partner; they are simultaneously interpreting intonation, body language, and the content of the conversation itself without misinterpreting or getting distracted. A good conversationalist is always on the same wavelength as their partner. Listening and interpreting carefully and responding appropriately, the good conversationalist considers the possibilities of the conversation on the fly and can consistently take it in interesting new directions. The good conversationalist absorbs what their partner is saying quickly and efficiently; rather than merely shouting out pre-formed, practiced ideas and opinions, the good conversationalist takes what their partner has expressed and engages with it, thinking and expressing ideas that spring directly out of the exchange. A good conversationalist doesn't interrupt as a rule, but will break that rule should the interruption bring the conversation to a new and exciting pitch. A good conversationalist is sure of him- or herself and can say what they want to say without being pushy, rude, or overbearing. A good conversationalist does not lecture, drone on, or simply enjoy listening to the sound of their voice, but can, if their partner is interested, sustain an extended and interesting monologue. A good conversationalist would notice if a particular trail of the conversational path is getting boring or tedious for their partner and can quickly steer the conversation into more engaging territory. A truly great conversationalist senses which directions will be most interesting by sheer intuition as well as by a quick and accurate evaluation of their partner's body language. The good conversationalist never fails to provide fascinating, satisfying conversation.
It seems to me that this skill set would translate better into good sex than the ability to gyrate gracefully to music. Possibly this is wishful thinking.
