At the risk of bringing the wrath of others down upon my hapless head, I offer the theory that good dancers *are* good at sex; I hasten to add that good conversationalists are very likely to be good lovers. The implied distinction being that sex is something you *could* have with anyone with whom you experienced a mutual attraction and that a lover is someone with whom you'd like to share not only sex but also a whole lot more.
I think that someone can be a bad dancer and a good conversationalist; this (by the theory under discussion) makes them a good lover, even though the same theory says that they would be 'bad' at sex...the translation here, for me, is that I just think that one can be bad at casual/gratuitous/meaningless sex but a still be a wonderful lover (that would be that great conversationalist who dances poorly). And this is, when you think about it, not a bad thing at all. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-05 11:14 pm (UTC)I think that someone can be a bad dancer and a good conversationalist; this (by the theory under discussion) makes them a good lover, even though the same theory says that they would be 'bad' at sex...the translation here, for me, is that I just think that one can be bad at casual/gratuitous/meaningless sex but a still be a wonderful lover (that would be that great conversationalist who dances poorly). And this is, when you think about it, not a bad thing at all. :)