Skills Vs. Looks
 

I was just wondering--what do you find more important, the skills your lover possesses or the looks of your lover? I used to think it was the look but now, older and wiser, I know it's all skill! Now, don't get me wrong, of course there has to be some sort of initial attraction and I'm not talking about a person who would totally physically turn you off, but as I grow into it I find sex is really about the brain and not the crotch--well, not as much as it used to be! :)

Just to clarify, do you mean skill in bed? Or are you referring to the ability to replace the garbage disposal or wire up a telephone jack?

Sorry! Skill in bed! D'OH! :smack:

What's wrong with having both? (says the reclusive, Kaczynski looking bumbler )

Oh well, my most useful skill is probably upgrading the computer or figuring out why the DSL stopped working. I'm sure the other areas are nothing to write home about. ;)

I'd like to dutifully report that I can both lick a computer problem and lick a...

Oh...sorry. Getting a little out of line, there.

Well, it's a safe bet that the looks will change (for better or worse, it could happen) as years go by. Skill probably wouldn't. But before skill is assessed, I think ability/desire need to be looked at. If he can't get it up or she never wants to, then how much skill would be totally moot. :D

pretty good around the house then eh?... nudge nudge... winks as good as a nod to a blind bat eh?

Griff--is it safe to say your wife's a goer?

I think it's vital to be physically attracted to the other person - this keeps the passion high throughout the course of the act. The more attracted I am to someone, the more I enjoy giving them pleasure. The more pleasurable it is for them, the more exciting it is for me.

Attraction is based on a number of factors - not purely physical. Personally, I go for kind-hearted intellects with a wacky sense of humor. I also like dark hair and I have a thing for broad muscular hands.

Sexual skills are a very important part of the mix. I need to be with someone who has motivation and techniques on par with my own. A mis-match either way diminishes the experience. There's nothing more amazing than being highly aroused and completely going for it with someone who is in the same state. When both of you are totally in the moment, allowing any inhibitions to go by the wayside - this is the best and most satisfying type of experience.

Ahhh, it's all about chemistry/physical attraction. Keep it superficial is my motto! :D Actually, the best worst lover I ever had was a man I fell for the first time I ever heard him speak. We were at a meeting and he was sitting behind me, so I hadn't noticed him until he was called upon to talk. He was so droll with the best self-deprecating, dry wit. I turned around to see who was talking and damned if he didn't look just like Robert Redford in his younger days! The combination of looks and wit absolutely captivated me. I knew he would be no good for me and I knew I didn't give a damn. What a merry chase that was! My current SO also captured my heart across a crowded room, but in rather a different manner. I was at an open mike at a coffee shop and he got up on stage and began to play classical guitar like Segovia. One rendition of "Recuerdos" and I was a goner. So is that looks or skill? Hmmm... Let's just say he has things he can do with his hands and leave it at that! ;)

You can't force attraction but skills can be learnt. I'll leave it at that.

The content of the package is more important than the wrapping ...

Looks don't mean much in the dark. And even with the lights on, looks don't last forever. My wife happens to be super good looking, but that's not why I'm with her. She's not too skillful either. I didn't get to find out until after we were married. This is only due to inexperience. That's ok. It just means I'll have to make sure we do it a lot so I can teach her the ropes.....and blindfolds....etc... :)

are we saying they are mutually exclusive? i think either one works just fine, depending on the momentary need. when you put them together - now it is time to watch the sparks fly.

now why couldn't we have had these discussions in my philosophy classes... :D

I personally can't separate the two. For me, any perceived "skills" seem to be entirely based on my attraction in the first place. I mean, I've only ever been with one guy who was decidedly unskilled--as in, pain and discomfort for me and not one iota of enjoyment. All the others were pretty damn similar when it came right down to it--but my enjoyment of things fluctuated widely, based on my overall attraction to the person. Maybe it's just because I'm a chick and it's all mental for me anyway.

Actually, I prefer pizza! (semi-inside joke) :D

Think there's a point there somewhere. If it's just about 'skills' you might as well wank. If not, attraction (not necessarily looks) dictates the level of (perceived) enjoyment. Maybe the better looking they are the better you think you're doing in terms of picking a better evolutionary partner - secretly you want your kids to be as successful as possible so choose a mate with the best genes (so Levis have a point).

Sorry I know that's an obvious thing to say but this is the philosophy corner...

I've had great looking men who had the skill of a hyperactive bull in a china shop and not so good looking men who knocked my socks across the house.

It's not about looks vs. skill, it's about attraction AND WILLINGNESS to please.

What Science?
 

If looks were all that mattered, blind people would be incapable of erections and people at masked balls wouldn't get it on. Skill also matters very little. It is the stimulus that counts. If you are an aural person, what matters is a good voice or dulcet tones. If you are tactile, their hair, skin and body and the way it feels will matter. This all differs from person to person. The only real barometer of worth in a partner is how they make you feel. You could date the most gorgeous girl in the world and she could make you feel like shit or you could be with a fifty eight year old burn victim who cries during orgasm and feel like a million bucks. Either way, once eye contact is made and interest is established, it is simply a mix of evolutionary imperative and how special and valued they make you feel, coupled with the surprise of realising that feeling certain things for a person makes you capable of doing more than you otherwise could. Couples exist because they enable each other, not because they have killer tits or give great head.




But if she doesn't call me Daddy, no sale.

Why am I not surprised?

It's about more then either skill or looks. A lot of factors go into a good relationship, only a small part of it having to do with the physical intimacy.

My Human Sexual Behavior prof put it best ... "the most important parts of intimacy in a relationship occur above the shoulders."

But this prof never got laid, right? :)

Actually, he was brought up on charges of sexual misconduct by several female students.

He got around ...

So he was using the "below the shoulders" technique. That above the shoulders thing dint work for him either.

Sounds good though.

Wolf, you know the most interesting people. But I have to agree with the guy--the only thing is, as he himself must have realized, all that mental stimulation can lead to an awakening of all the naughty bits.

Oh, Wolf, stop being so predictable! :D

You first.

I second that! What were we talking about? ;)

Ok--skills and looks are NOT exclusive but if you HAD to go with one or the other???? and don't give me this "skills can be taught" thing because, sometimes, they just can't be. I'll end there on my prepositional phrase.

Thank you.

no, sometimes skills can't be taught. a willingness must be there. most people are driven by physical attraction and then the missing component is willingness.

if you have someone who is willing to and dedicated to pleasing the other, looks quickly fall by the wayside and skill can be compensated for.

*i'm not talking about complete troll-like appearance. just 2 average looking people*

Well, OK. I assume you define "Looks" under the physical attraction / chemistry department? Just "looks" alone is pretty superficial. So a guy looks like Brad Pitt, that alone wouldn't necessarily make him attractive to me. In the example I gave above of the Robert Redford look alike guy, it was his words that first drew my attention and made me turn around to do a double take. If he'd been speaking like Gomer Pyle or something, I wouldn't have been interested, no matter how handsome he was. If you could broaden "looks" to include the way he speaks, the things he says, that certain light in his eyes, the whole black magic/chemistry thing; then, yeah, I'd say "looks" are the most important thing. Skill as a lover is just going to follow naturally if there's enough mutual chemistry involved, so it would be almost a given in such a case, wouldn't it? Like the Cowboy Junkies song goes, "the beautiful is not chosen; the chosen becomes the beautiful."

Weeeell....I guess I am extrapolating here. I met a guy and thought nothing of him until my friend noted how beautiful his eyes were---then, and ONLY then, I started to notice him---he would never have been my first choice as "one of the greats"--but, man, he WAS one of the greats. Based on eyes ALONE.


My incredible superficiality is duly noted.

i think you just like where his eyes were. right between his steering w..., i mean ears.

Lookout, I like it whenever I can get you to talk dirty!!! Remember?? You used to be a sex beast--don't let the election take all of it out of you, man....

:doit:

eh?? used to? my sheep still think i am.


did i say that? :blush:

Some people love sheep.


i, myself, am not one of them; however, I do not discriminate betwixt love. Love is...love. good for you, you perv. :biggrin:

We have a word for people like you up in Colorado - it's baa'aah! OK, now that I got that bad pun out of my system... :blush:

Brianna, your story of the guy with the great eyes is a great example of paradox. If mere looks had attracted you to this guy, you'd have hit on him the moment you set YOUR eyes on him, without waiting for your friend to point him out. People pass us by everyday, something has to happen to make us rest our attention on any given one. Your girlfriend had to comment on the guy which probably got you curious about him, so you started talking to him or whatever and - ZING! - you discover this amazing chemistry as you gaze into his eyes and exchange pheromones. In my example, I walked into the meeting where "Robert Redford" was sitting rather late. I must have glanced around at him while I was looking for a place to sit, but he didn't draw my attention until I heard his voice behind me. So, I think "looks" are only a small component of the very complex equation which equals attraction.

BTW, I always tell my SO that he has the most INCREDIBLE EYES! And he does, too. I see his essence reflected out of them. And, no, keep your hands off! He's mine! :D

Skill and looks are important but I am currently viewing things from the other side. My most recent X deemed them to be too important and he was trying to be overly what he called, "erotic". He started to remind me of a sleaze. He had it all. Skills and Looks.Too much for my taste........He went from hot to ..ok you think your hot get over it. Point being, skill and looks are great but I think it should be backed up with some semblance of character. I'm thinking of a personality vs skill scenario....do you really even notice or care about minimal visual flaws if these two things are in line? If they are graced with personality, skill, and charisma and you are still worried about looks i'd say you are not looking hard enough. (And by skill i'm saying out of the bedroom too) So that's my not so sex-educated opinion....and i'm sticking to it.
:p If you Had to go with one or the other? My ...my....why in the heck would you do something like that?(I think some boyfriends in high school tried to make me decide the same thing) :D
...................
don't want no gigolo........................... :greenface

"Chicks only dig guys with skills. Like nunchuck skills, or computer hacking skills.." -Napoleon Dynamite says it all.

Oh, if only everyone lived by the words of Napoleon Dynamite this world would be.....uh...umm....kind of scary, but very funny!

I'm staying out of this one...

no.. I lied.. I'm not staying out of this one...

I'm not an unattractive man, sure no robert redford to be sure, but I do get looked at alot (and not usually in that 'get away from me' sort of way') and I am farily in tune with other peoples desires and physical/emotional states.**

I've been in alot of relationships, and there is a profound difference between the two, so long as we're going between the purely chemical (phermone/something else*) driven. where as some of the most intense 'experiences' I have had have been with the phermone (or whatever) driven.. the most satisfying was from the emotionally driven. not that they aren't exclusive of one another mind you. the rare combination of the two is almost as elusive as the unified theory ( IMHO).

lastly it is more the mind or the 'soul' of a person that will define if a relationship will last more than a farily short period.


* I don't know what to call this 'electric feeling' that two people can have, I have however experienced it.. heh.. that's why I guess this woman and I got engaged 2 times.. the reality of the situation though is that we didn't live in a vacuum ( tried it though.. breathing got to be a bit on the difficult side ;) ) whatever it is though if someone figures out a way to bottle it... let me know


**other than the aforementioned (annoying traits thread) sometimes completely oblivious