The Good Conversationalist

[ivyblossom]

Lately 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.

Comments

[venivincere]

Possibly this is wishful thinking.

It probably isn't. But both would be divine.

[cirakaite.livejournal.com]

I really, really hope not. But at the same time, it feels like someone who's a good conversationalist AND a good a good lover would just be too good to be true . . .

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Well, a good lover can be made; possibly a good conversationalist is born that way. ;)

[maruchina.livejournal.com]

I never thought about it like that, but that's surely how I select my possible sex partners. It's not just the movement - if you can't pay attention to your partner, to see if s/he's actually enjoying it, good movement is useless.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Well, first, I'll say that I always thought good sex was just the continuation of a conversation.

I think it depends on what you mean by a good dancer. I would say that all those cues you are looking for in a conversation you can see in dance, particularly old-fashioned partner dancing. Are they looking at you, paying attention to you, dancing with you? One can be a selfish dance partner just as one can be a selfish conversation partner.

Dance also reveals a comfort with your body, an understanding of space and where you are vs. the other person, that I think does carry over into the bedroom. So it isn't the moves themselves; it's more what they mean, what they can reveal. Make sense?

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Yes, totally. But what if you're a baptist?

*ducks*

[valentinemichel.livejournal.com]

Availability, openness, creativity. You raise very good points. And a bad dancer who's open may be able to be led by a good dancer. *g*

[goss.livejournal.com]

Aw dammit. I got the gyrating gracefully thing totally covered, but I seriously suck at the conversation skills. :b

[epistretes.livejournal.com]

I think a bit of both is the best answer - someone who can attune their mind to yours for the crucial moments but who can also move. After all, a bed partner that knows how to use their body is always a huge plus.

[practicallyfame.livejournal.com]

I'm glad to see you posting again.

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.

"Good lover" is entirely subjective, yeh know. :-P I've got a friend who is considered a "good lover" by most of her partners past and present, but I can think of some people who would not appreciate being beaten into submission, as she is a professional dominatrix. ;-)

Chemistry. I think people have the ability to be entirely different with certain people - sometimes things work, sometimes they don't... you never know when that clumsy inarticulate nerd finds the person they just *click* with and suddenly things are divine.

Or maybe I'm just being silly. Heh.

[february-sea.livejournal.com]

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. :)

[mattador.livejournal.com]

I think I would have to second this.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Oh, there's no wrath. I just can't dance, that's all. Us non-dancers just to cling to something, see.

[february-sea.livejournal.com]

I've a strong affinity for non-dancers. They pay spectacular attention to other things. It can be quite delicious. :)

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

I love that theory and completely agree. Have had some really good dancing horrible lovers. And my husband dances like a rabid chicken. No complaints. Nuff said.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Yay! Some agreement! That's what I was hoping for. :P

[nightbluesprite.livejournal.com]

*laughs at the rabid chicken image*

[soccerharry.livejournal.com]

My hubby-to-be definitly cannot dance, and I can. I make up for his non-dancing abilities. So I disagree with the statement, and agree with you!

(I love how it i says I would be wondeful at sex...the possibilities...)

[perardua.livejournal.com]

I really hope this isn't true, as I am a terrible conversationalist.

(I've never had any complaints in the bedroom, however, but now I am paranoid anyway)

[treehavn.livejournal.com]

What if you're just a lazy conversationalist?

[boniblithe.livejournal.com]

Are you planning on starting a fresh round of clubbing or something?

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

The baby seals are safe from me; no clubbing whatsoever.

[syianna.livejournal.com]

this was kinda ironic, since i just went clubbing last night ^^;

i think conversation is really the key to seeing how a person has sex, the ability to PAY ATTENTION to your partner(lover or converstionalist XD) and read signals is what its all about.

[dwyn-amaranth.livejournal.com]

This is all late, but I'd just read through the whole thing. And, with the comparison of conversation to sex, that list/statement of what a good conversationalist does....was really hot.

So yes, I agree. I rather have someone who can converse well in the way you explained, rather then someone's skilled bump and grind.