|
|
Saturday, August 21, 2004
|
|
ASK skippy, PART SEVEN
The barristerlicious Sadie asks this most interesting question,
Will you please address the myth that women cannot be both hotties AND good in bed?
In your case, Sadie, I would imagine that the myth is just that. A myth.
I've had this theory for awhile now but I'm not sure that I've ever posted it (and with the obliteration of most of my archive, I have no way or checking.) Whenever I've discussed this theory with women, misunderstandings occur, feelings are hurt and my chances of getting laid diminish even further. It is in that spirit that I'll clarify who this theory applies to right up front.
Several of the women that I've discussed this theory with are beautiful. Really, really attractive. In fact, smoking hot. This theory does NOT apply to them. Girls, I'm sure that you're just fine in the sack. Some of you I imagine to be fantastic. If you only knew what I do to myself when I think of just how good you really are, you'd never see me in the same light again. You'd probably think long and hard about shaking hands with me, too.
So, if I've had this conversation with you before, I wasn't saying that I thought you were a lousy lay. I apologize for any confusion. You may now reconsider fucking me.
This applies exclusively to the freakishly beautiful women out there. Those that you see and aren't quite sure that they actually exist, so attractive are they. If you see a woman on the street that looks like she was airbrushed into existence, even though you're pretty sure she wasn't, that's the woman I'm talking about here. Supermodel quality broads. Halle Berry or Cindy Crawford, circa 1987 (since no one has seen Cindy since 1995, I can't include her currently. For all I know, they keep her in a iron mask in a basement somewhere these days.)
I'm convinced beyond any measure of doubt that women like that are lousy lays.
I can't tell you this from personal experience or anything. You've all seen my face. Jesus, I'm thrilled when anyone with a vagina expresses sexual interest in me at all. Growing up, I was sure that my sex life would consist entirely of the scenes everybody remembers from Deliverance and Pulp Fiction. And I would have been grateful for that!!! So I can't personally attest to the correctness of my thesis. Of course, not being 11 million years old, I can't personally attest to the veracity of the theory of evolution, either. But based on the evidence, I still believe in it.
The foundation of my theory is male psychology. If my female readers are unfamiliar with it, or merely naive, I'll lay that out here. You see, men will do things for women in exchange for the privilege of sexual intercourse with them. If a man wants sex with a woman, he'll buy her dinner. If he would like sex with her in the future, he'll buy breakfast. This scale graduates until eventually she gets really neat things, like a house.
Most women understand this, at least intuitively. Accordingly, they'll venture to impress a man. That everyone eventually wants a free house is elementary. In the ordinary course of events, this involves making the sex itself, shall we say, memorable.
Ordinary women understand this as a basic fact of life. Achieving goals requires work. That free house isn't really free. It took years of being personable, looking good and being sexually memorable. It also required years of seeking out that man who would buy the house, and the regrettable incidents along the way. This is the reality for women just as the decades of ball breaking work to make the mortage payments is for men. Decrying this is like railing at bad weather. Being indignant won't make it any less real.
The freakishly beautiful don't understand this. It is not their reality. They might modestly pretend that it isn't the case, but it is. As unfair as it seems, the more attractive you are, the easier life is. This is because people will do things for you, and the more attractive you are, the more that will be done for you. Recent scientific studies have actually shown this. More allowances are made for the attractive than are made for the ordinary. Career paths are easier as well. This can be demonstrated by looking at the local news. The people you see are extremely well compensated for doing little more than being able to read a teleprompter and look good.
This also goes a long way in explaining why the less attractive a person is, the less likely they are to be shallow. The unattractive have to develop other traits and qualities to be rewarded, both societially and sexually. Ordinarily, such people will have to hone their intelligence or develop an engaging personality. As this essay demonstrates, I'm incredibly shallow to ever develop this theory. I'm also ugly in ways rarely seen outside of science fiction, I'm not particularly bright, and as you've probably noticed by now, I have a horrible personality. That's where the counter on the upper right comes from. Indeed, there are exceptions to almost every rule.
The more attractive a person is, the more likely they are to lack real empathy, be unreasonable and have little incentive for compromise. This is because their life experience is so slanted by the rest of society clearing the way for them because they're "pretty." Hollywood is a perfect example of this. The ugliest personalities have the world kissing their asses all their lives for little other reason than their physical beauty. In most cases, it certainly isn't talent.
Men aren't celebrated for being particularly quick learners. The more attractive a sex partner, the more convinced a man will be that the sex was good, even if it wasn't. And we can delude ourselves in this way for awhile, too. But not forever. Eventually, we will realize that this beautiful creature is just lying there as we do all the work. I'm not suggesting that this is even the woman's fault. It's like the Simple Life. Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie don't know how to prepare their own meals because they never had to learn. In their case, this is a condition of wealth. In the case of the women I'm discussing, it's a condition of beauty. Generally, people only truly learn what they have to. This is why scientists are bad with plumbing and plumbers are bad at developing nuclear weapons. That both involve some measure of physics and mechanical theory is beside the point.
I'm astonished when people are saddened by the "tragedy" of Halle Berry's love life. She has now had two marriages in a row dissolve due to the infidelity of the husbands. Why do you suppose that is? Does anyone really believe that these men cheated with men more beautiful than Halle Berry? Of course not. In the wake of each marriage, several have said, "Why would someone push aside a great steak for a hamburger?" I would suggested that, at least sexually, Halle Berry was actually the hamburger. The most intensively prepared hamburger ever, sure. The most beautifully presented hamburger in the history of fast food. But hamburger none the less.
If any of my female readers have gotten this far without their heads exploding from frustration or fury, I congratulate them.
You may begin screaming now.
Permalink
|
|
|
| |
