Today during lunch, my friend and I began to discuss the merits of the gorgeous woman. Not just the pretty girl, or the awesome chick, but the Playboy creation that nobody believes exists, until she is seen. Jaws drop, people stammer at her for attention, she becomes a snapshot in masturbatory fantasies to be used for years. I know one such girl, and I know how she engages in intercourse: she lies there. That's it. No jumping around, no oral sex, no moaning, no thrusting of hips. She lays there, granting access, but no more. No action. No fun. She is not very into sex, and sees it more as a tool and a necessary evil that everybody covets. She derives no pleasure out of it, maybe because she has already gotten her thrills by being adored. She doesn't have to worry about people running away, because they fought so hard to get there in the first place.

My friend said he dated such a girl, and he felt that she was aware that she was stunning, and that she was there naked was enough for anybody. She simply laid there and looked pretty.

So, this was not just a myth, I figured, about "fat" girls and small chested girls being better in bed. We girls who may be just as beautiful in our own ways act differently than those women who are aware of their power. We use different tactics. Instead of radiating our flawless skin or our crystalline eyes, we crack jokes and wax philosophical to snare our men. We follow up with careful blow jobs and much effort during sex. We figure that if we got you this far, we ought to make you well aware that we are worth the trouble. Beautiful girls already know that they are worth the trouble, it is broadcast to them on loudspeakers constantly. My gorgeous acquaintance cannot go into a drugstore or an airport restaurant without people coming out from around corners to look at her. I could disappear into the wallpaper or the background scenery with little effort.

Those girls can never do that in public, so they do it in bed. I wouldn't trade places for the world.

Generalizations are a pet peeve of mine -- especially when they cross the line and become stereotypes. It's said that you can't judge a book by its cover. This is true, but it works both ways. Just because the cover is attractive doesn't mean the book is any good. Likewise, just because the cover is attractive doesn't mean the book is bad.

Extrapolating from a single instance or incident is usually pretty dumb. What would the response be if someone said, "I know a woman with a great personality, but she's lousy in bed; therefore all women with personality are lousy in bed," or "I know a Christian who is a hypocrite, so all Christians must be hypocrites," or "I know a computer programmer who's an asshole, so they're all assholes." Yes, I know, in the last case at least they'd be right :)

The line of thought displayed here seems tangled up in envy, self-esteem and self-doubt. Envy is easy to understand. We'd all like to look great, or have Bill Gates' money. But when you combine envy with low self-esteem you often get this type of attitude: Many people choose to denigrate that which they want, but don't or can't have. Thus, they validate their own self-perceived shortcomings.

Of course there's another explanation. Perhaps to ease self-doubts regarding our sexual prowess we must blame our partner if things don't click. Hey, I'm OK, you're not. It's a lot easier to blame someone else than accept the possibility that we share blame.

This is nothing more than self-gratifying rationalization. It says more about who we are and our perception of ourselves than the person or group of whom we are speaking.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.