[Mogura]

Hell, I know a lot of guys that automatically assume that if a chick is hot then she must be great in the sack.*

I wonder if women have the same line of thinking...

*Of course, this gets debunked with experience...

[katatonic]

I don't. I also don't think experience means that they are good at sex.

To be good at sex you need to know what turns your partner on. Communication is the key to good sex. You can have all the experience in the world (and be good looking) and still not be able to give a girl an orgasm if you don't know what she likes.

[Jade333]

No. Being sexually experienced helps but it doesn't make you great in the sack if all you've done is sleep with people the same way without gaining some sexual knowledge. Plotthickens makes some good points in her previous posts, men sometimes think their dicks are magic wands when it comes to female orgasm. Unless you take the time to learn what your opposite wants and likes, it's not going to work out so well. They just climb on top and thump away like a machine for two minutes and think they're the best lover you've had.

[Selene]

Trick questions cannot be answered with certitude. So I shall say this: general opinion has it that attractive men are boring in the sack because they seldom have to work for it.

[Seriously]

No

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hell, I know a lot of guys that automatically assume that if a chick is hot then she must be great in the sack.

What? Not we don't. We assume just the opposite. Where have you been?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	I asked my dad a few years ago “Hey dad, why do fat girls give better head?” This is when he told me that they will work a lot harder to keep their man. A model can get whoever she wants...

[Seriously]

Exactly it's the same with dudes the uggos work harder. And if they have a small dick it's even better.

[g20]

I think the whole subject is a grey area. while we all like good sex you have to ask yourself; "would I prefer a super model that just lays there or have shamu rock my world?".

[blueback]

I don't think they can be separated that neatly. It doesn't seem like it's possible to give someone a good sexual experience if they aren't aroused. Sure, you might be able to physically get them to orgasm, but good sex is as much mental as it is physical, so an orgasm doesn't necessarily say much.

[linstiks]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think they can be separated that neatly. It doesn't seem like it's possible to give someone a good sexual experience if they aren't aroused. Sure, you might be able to physically get them to orgasm, but good sex is as much mental as it is physical, so an orgasm doesn't necessarily say much.

yes, not all young people realize this

[searches89]

I don't know if I'd agree w/ the correlation you describe . I would think it would have to do more with the fact that someone that is physically attractive turns them on more, and I think it's entirely possible to be turned on sensually (based on visuals) without assuming they are good in the sack.

[Citroen]

Absolutely not. Blast. Where in the heck do we bring feeling/connection into this or are we just talking about primal needs?

[PRBori]

No. Attractive men are physically attractive and their ability to be good lovers does not interfere with one wanting to simply be with them. Being with a sexy men is more of a confidence thing than anything else. To know someone highly sexy is attracted to oneself is simply appealing. To be able to say, I tap that just like men do is fun.

Plus there is always the what if it works portion of it. If they were fully available, fully into oneself, and great at sex, then it will be like hitting the jackpot.

[AliceFoster]

Yes.
It's the natural thought/instinct I have even if I can rationalize differently.

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hell, I know a lot of guys that automatically assume that if a chick is hot then she must be great in the sack.* I wonder if women have the same line of thinking... *Of course, this gets debunked with experience...

I think you assume that you'll enjoy being with the person, not that they necessarily have massive skills. Just really liking someone can automatically increase the excitement and enjoyment considerably (as long as they aren't too out of sync with you).

[Irreligiosity]

Yes, but logically so. A more attractive person is more likely to be confident, and is more likely to have opportunity for sex. The other party would undoubtedly be more aroused for the more attractive person than the less attractive person.

Is this a rule?.. No.. Is it a logical conclusion yes.

---------- Post added 08-21-2012 at 01:50 AM ----------

Even from a evolutionary point of view it would be beneficial for party A to have a bias towards party B if s/he is more attractive because it is indicative of better genetics.

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by Irreligiosity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, but logically so. A more attractive person is more likely to be confident, and is more likely to have opportunity for sex. The other party would undoubtedly be more aroused for the more attractive person than the less attractive person. Is this a rule?.. No.. Is it a logical conclusion yes.

Its the "Opportunity for sex" = "Choice to have sex, and investment in improving sex"? that is the question.

I know a decent number of women who have had a fair number of partners... who still have no skills (from what seems to be a lack of natural appreciation or desire for sex itself, and just seeing it as an expression of a connection - "I open myself to you" isn't quite the same as "I want to have fun")

[Irreligiosity]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I know a decent number of women who have had a fair number of partners... who still have no skills (from what seems to be a lack of natural appreciation or desire for sex itself, and just seeing it as an expression of a connection - "I open myself to you" isn't quite the same as "Lets have fun")

I would say it is much harder for a female to become 'good' at sex than a male to become 'good' at sex. Generally the person doing the fucking has more opportunity to learn than the fuckee. Like I said though it is logical that a more attractive person is better at sex, and it is thus a stereotype which usually have truth to them.

[Zsych]

Plenty of attractive girls aren't good at sex - because they don't think they have to be.

I agree that being the main actor helps... also in making sure that you yourself can enjoy it more.

I think religion and social training get in the way of a lot of women really being open to or wanting to have great sex.

[Irreligiosity]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think religion and social training get in the way of a lot of women really being open to or wanting to have great sex.

While I agree.. Do you think there is an underlying evolutionary reason for women not being promiscuous? If my whole goal in life is to spread my seed, and I can't be sure that my partner is being monogamous then I would be wasting resources on someone else's offspring. So there is an incentive for our species to develop some way to suppress female's sexual promiscuity..

[Yuri]

Nope. It depends on the man's self-confidence.
Being cocky is a clear sign of insecurities (and probably bad sex skills), though.

[thod]

We first need a scale to measure how good someone is at sex. Then we need a scale for attractiveness. We can then look for a correlation between the two. It seems absurd to me to suggest attractive people are naturally good at sex. This would be like suggesting they are naturally good at tennis. Thus it seems we are suggesting that attractive people become good at sex via practice. This too can be analysed. Are attractive people more promiscuous, as in more partners in their lifetimes? Do they have sex on a more frequent basis?

	To be good at sex you need to know what turns your partner on.

Do you have a toolbox for this? I am looking for the hundreds of possible actions I could perform on a partner, noting their reaction to each. This would enable one to build a profile. For example, women that like to have their ears rubbed also tend to like having their toes pulled.

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by Irreligiosity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	While I agree.. Do you think there is an underlying evolutionary reason for women not being promiscuous? If my whole goal in life is to spread my seed, and I can't be sure that my partner is being monogamous then I would be wasting resources on someone else's offspring. So there is an incentive for our species to develop some way to suppress female's sexual promiscuity..

Actually I do suspect that. With supposedly around half of women never experiencing orgasm, its quite possible that humanity has not selected in favor of the promiscuous, sex oriented, woman. Women needed to hold on to their men, but sex is not the only tool they had.

[Mogura]

	Originally Posted by Yuri To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nope. It depends on the man's self-confidence. Being cocky is a clear sign of insecurities (and probably bad sex skills), though.

Many people cannot distinguish one from the other...

[Uber10]

Just like shoes, if she wants them she does not care if it hurt her feet