What would you rather...

[jenniferx]

A. Have an absolutely gorgeous/stunning partner but them being ehh/so-so in bed

or

B. Have an eh/so so looking person but absolutely amazing in bed

[Only-virgins]

what is eh/so looking mean?

I'll put it this way. I would rather have a 6/10 good sex partner then a 9/10 who sucks at sex. However below 6/10 I choose my right hand.

[Agape]

B . . . sex is supposed to be a mutually enjoyable activity - make it that way . . . and "eh/so" I'll take that as an average girl. If she's great in bed then that will make her ever more attractive.

[jenniferx]

oh! i forgot to mention though..both situations have equal emotional attachment

[Gribble]

I would take an attractive partner who is absolutely brilliant and fascinating to talk to and who, if so-so in bed, is willing to spend hours and hours with me improving.

[jenniferx]

okay BUUUT if they are equally fascinating and brilliant-same personality if that helps. just one is prettier and the other is better in bed. what is it going to be?

[WICKED THOUGHTS]

Well... ill take better in bed hands dwn. Oh! she better have a rocking body though :p

[jenniferx]

AHhhh!HHHh you guys can't have a win-win in my thought experiment. If she's amazing in bed she doesnt have a banging boddd! end of story

[Gribble]

Personality-wise the same? I'd take the banging bod. We can practice in bed until she gets it right.

I like having a beauty on my arm to drive my friends wild with envy.

[WICKED THOUGHTS]

Well, she got to have a bod thats fit if shes like great in bed. hahaha stamina baby! lmao But, fine... ill still take great in bed :p

[doppelgaenger]

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

[sparkle_jello]

I would go with the person good in bed. When you are initially with a person their attractiveness may be cool; however, after years with a person you are kind of used to how they look and it's not as important. I guess and example would be say you are dating a supermodel, like Heidi Klum, sure she's hot, but after five years with her you're like been there done that. The fact that they are good in bed makes it interesting.

[blent]

I'd go with the hotter one. That way i'll have more fun teaching her how to do it properly.

[sparkle_jello]

I'd go with the hotter one. That way i'll have more fun teaching her how to do it properly.

Man I am 28 years old, I do not have the patients to teach a man anything they should already know.

[Incognito]

I would go with the person good in bed. When you are initially with a person their attractiveness may be cool; however, after years with a person you are kind of used to how they look and it's not as important. I guess and example would be say you are dating a supermodel, like Heidi Klum, sure she's hot, but after five years with her you're like been there done that. The fact that they are good in bed makes it interesting.

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.