I Knew This Already
Posted on May 1, 2003 Posted by John Scalzi 12 Comments
Good dancers make good lovers, says survey
I have nothing to add to this except to note that Krissy and I met because she saw me on the dance floor and liked the way I moved. Oh, yes.
Absotively posolutely true. The dancing:sex dead giveaway, that is…I’ve never seen you dance, but I trust Krissy knew what she was doing. I don’t think men who stand there with arms crossed demanding that they “DON’T DANCE” know what they are really saying to a woman.
What about how women dance being an indicator of their abilities (or lack thereof) in the bedroom? Blatant sexism, that is.
I dunno… that kind of survey seems awfully prone to getting exactly the answer you expect, because the people being surveyed generally experience the world by experiencing what they expect. It doesn’t even seem to have any particular consistency…
Good dancers are the best lovers, except:
The ones who properly learned to dance,
The ones who dance vigorously and are confident of their abilities,
The ones who are not confident of their abilities and don’t have the bravado to fake it
So… which guys are sending the “I’m a sex-machine” message again?
Okay, so I’m defensive, ’cause to some extent I think of myself as a “flashy, over the top” dancer, but, seriously, like with all media reports of science, I believe it about as far as I can throw their sample population without aid of machines. Picky picky me, I’d like to have ANY indication that they tried to extract the truth rather than the women’s bias.
That article should read something like, “Better dancing show to be effective in attracting women through promise of better sex.” or maybe “Women believe there is a link between sex and dancing.” I love irresponsible science [reporting] just like I love oozing herpetic sores.
That would be me.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
Wow. Tee hee. Sensitive folks out there tonight.
I’m going to regret replying, but I’m killing time waiting for a phone call so what the hell.
I’m sure it does also apply to women for some men who are perceptive to that. (I have the song “something in the way she moves…” in my head right now.)
And Scott, seriously, the poll was taken by what was it? Phone4U? Or something like that, and was listed under quirky news stories. I don’t think it was ever trying to be scientific.
Personally, I think it has to do with not so much your prowess as a dancer = your prowess in bed. If that were the case, I’d have to go out in vain chase down a bunch of gay guys. It has to do with movement as a factor in attraction. Dancing is an excellent way to display that movement. Movement reflects personality, attitude, sensitivity, style and grace. Dancing can also be a way to tap into how a person is going to relate to you physically. How they touch you or don’t, with how much pressure, how they react to you touching them. Casual movement like dancing or just walking down the street together is the foreplay of foreplay. Lots of women get a wealth of information from that, I’m not sure if as many men are perceptive to that.
And a guy who dances vigorously with confidence in their abilities is not the same as a guy who dances flashy and over the top. Whole different vibe that I can’t explain but you know it when you see it.
“And a guy who dances vigorously with confidence in their abilities is not the same as a guy who dances flashy and over the top.”
True. The latter is dancing to be seen dancing; the former is dancing to enjoy the dance. And that’s what’s attractive — the guy who is enjoying the moment and the pleasure derived from it, hopefully with a willing partner.
Well… chasing gay guys is generally considered less useful for women ’cause even if they are sexual superstars, they’re probably not gonna display this strength for you…
And for the record, I’m not specifically denying the connection, I’m mostly just making sour faces at the article. I don’t know who phones4u is, and I don’t know if Ananova is ever taken seriously, and I certainly don’t expect stories cross-posted in “quirky stories” and “sex life” to show up in a scientific journal… but I get huffy about things said with an air of authority that specifically trade on people not understanding why the conclusions are tenuous or even assological (science generated in the ass) of the experts or reporters.
If that article were written in such a way as to not be misleading, it would be ignorable, which tells me that it profits explicitly from falsehood. My dander rises (again, grain of salt for personal defensiveness).
“True. The latter is dancing to be seen dancing; the former is dancing to enjoy the dance. And that’s what’s attractive –”
Well, to -my- eyes, the folks who dance to be seen generally just aren’t as good’a dancers as the ones who seem to basically enjoy it. Or maybe my “indignation filter” chomps points off of their score… Maybe the amount of energy I’ve invested in dancing, and watching other people dance is a sign of failing…
Oh well, time to go to the nightclub (I’m not kidding).
Darn. I thought the topic had to do with Lap Dances.
I, too, thought it meant something like ‘Strippers make best hookers’.
Geez. I really gotta get outta the gutter.
Why? It’s kinda nice in here. New things come floating by to attract my attention … Only need to look up – no need to worry about failing … People never accuse you of being “high minded” … Failure really *isn’t* an option …. The neighborhood won’t depreciate … Smog days are not tough to handle.
It’s not so bad. :)
A psychiatrist once asked me if I was troubled by indecent thoughts.
I told him I rather enjoyed them.