What would you rather...

**sparkle_jello** · 08-10-10, 11:15 PM

Incognito, wrong would you rather... the other forum topic.

**Incognito** · 08-10-10, 11:40 PM

Whoops.

**jenniferx** · 08-10-10, 11:43 PM

yeah but so is ability in bed is it not?

**Incognito** · 08-10-10, 11:46 PM

^^^ Who are you responding to? I guess I should say, what comment are you responding to?

**jenniferx** · 09-10-10, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by Incognito

I agree, but I'll point out that the flip side of that coin is that a person becomes more attractive to you when you enjoy their other attributes, especially sex. If I had to choose between Selma Hayek, and my ok looking flat chested co-worker (and the conditions stated originally were true) I'd go with my co-worker. Sure her chest my be flat, but I can make that sexy in my own mind. Sure her hair may not be as long or wavy, but I'll enjoy it just the same and tell her how sexy it is. Remember, we're talking about someone who is so-so, not someone who is flat out unattractive. Bottom line is that I would take the so-so woman who is better in bed, hands down, in any lifetime. Plus you can always make someone look better with outfits, or makeup or something like that. To think of it in cooking terms, you can always make a great tasting meal LOOK better, but you can't always make a good looking meal TASTE better. Attractiveness is only superficial.

whoops! I meant to reply with a quote. but that is the comment i was referring to^^^. i guess my question was really pertaining to how people value attractiveness vs. sexual ability. "attractiveness is only superficial." I wouldn't really say sexual ability is a deep quality, or any less superficial than attractiveness.

**VincenzoG91** · 09-10-10, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by doppelgaenger

I'd go with the attractive one. Sex is nothing if she's so ugly you can't get a boner.

I agree. Also, since most of the relationship won't involve sex, I would rather be with the one who is easy on the eyes.

**Incognito** · 09-10-10, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by jenniferx

whoops! I meant to reply with a quote. but that is the comment i was referring to^^^. i guess my question was really pertaining to how people value attractiveness vs. sexual ability. "attractiveness is only superficial." I wouldn't really say sexual ability is a deep quality, or any less superficial than attractiveness.

While sexual ability isn't a deep quality it is something that won't get lost with time. Physical appearance does, and always will, change with time. For over 90% of the human population that change is for the worst. Also you can't readily see someone's sexual ability I wouldn't call it superficial. I am assuming that all other things are equal between the two women in this question and that all of those things are positive. If both were "the perfect woman" with the exception of one being average on the attractiveness scale yet awesome in bed, and the other was an 11 on a 1-10 scale but just laid there and took it I'd have to go with the average looking woman. For all of those who seem to think that physical attractiveness is more important, what will you do when that woman starts getting old, with wrinkles, and her breasts aren't perky anymore? That boring sex that she has will no longer be eclipsed by her good looks. What will you do then?

**girl68** · 09-10-10, 05:23 AM

I'll take the 6 for a bombshell in bed. Given that I love him a physically 6/10 will have emotionally turned into a 10/10 which means I really just scored the best guy ever through my own love goggles.

**MadMardegan** · 13-10-10, 02:02 AM

People can always improve in the bedroom.

You just have to figure out what that person is into and likes/dislikes.

I'd go with a girl I cared more for, sex would come second.

**Incognito** · 13-10-10, 02:23 AM

^^^Those weren't the parameters of the original question.

**MadMardegan** · 13-10-10, 03:17 AM

Ok, both girls have great personalities, the good looking one is bad in bed, the not so great looking one is bad in bed?

I'd go with the first one. She can always get better at it.

**Only-virgins** · 13-10-10, 12:08 PM

Big surprise that the requirements shift between the men and women here. Men are more visual, part of what makes sex good for us is HOW SHE LOOKS. So saying that a girl is ugly but good at sex is a bit of a contradiction.

**Incognito** · 14-10-10, 02:58 AM

Lets not read between the lines too much because then the question has no purpose. The question made no mention of an ugly girl either, simply an average looking one.

Besides that I don't agree with you at all. A friend of mine who is (was, he's dead now) pretty wealthy and good looking had so much sex it was ridiculous. He told me that a large percentage of the women who were awesome looking sucked in bed. They would just sit there and moan. They relied on their good looks to get them through everything, including sex. He said he hated that and never called any of them again. I think he even walked out on one girl in the middle of sex, lol.

**doppelgaenger** · 14-10-10, 03:03 AM

What the hell does it mean to look average? I've always wondered that. I'm a black and white kind of guy - a girl is either attractive or repulsive. Just because she's physically flawed doesn't mean she's right in the middle.

**Incognito** · 14-10-10, 03:06 AM

Ok, lets say you've got two girls standing next to each other. Both girls are attractive, but one makes your cock hard as soon as you look at her. In your world the other girl is average.

Thread: What would you rather...

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions