[lbo-talk] Writing and sexual attraction: was "Ann Coulter shut up"

joanna 123hop at comcast.net
Fri Dec 9 10:22:57 PST 2005


Bitch | Lab wrote:


>
> It's not surprising is it? Men trade on that all the time. They're not
> necessarily fabulous, but if they have your kinda politics or your
> kinda _fill in the blank_ then they're hawt, hawt, hawt.

Well, the fact is women don't go to bed with men for their looks. The Romanian proverb has it absolutely right: "Men don't have to be handsome, they just have to be a little bit better looking than the devil." If we slept with people for their looks, we'd all be lesbians.


> It's probably a good thing for most of us, who are probably not
> exactly movie stars, that someone will find us attractive for our
> intellect, wit, charm, humor. eh?

And then, there is also such a thing as sex appeal, which has nothing to do with looks. One of the best Romanian poets, Nina Cassian, was famed for her awful looks -- she used to joke that she looked like Dante -- but when she walked into a party, she could walk out with any man there, and often did. My mother was one of her friends and I saw her off and on until my twenties. She had fairly masculine features and an unprepossessing body, but she had a lively, passionate intelligence and she was direct, forthrightly sexual, and playful in a way that must have been very attractive to men.


> All in all, though, it's probably not helpful to reduce a woman to her
> looks, something we rarely, if ever, have done with a man on this
> list. I remember Angela being a little peeved years ago, back in 1997
> or 8, when the list was a newborn. Men were dissing Madeleine
> Albright's looks as well.

We "reduce" men based on certain traits as well; they happen to be traits that have less to do with looks, but men might consider those unfair too. But, you're right, a man's ultimate condemnation of a woman often turns on her fuckability and whether they're right or not, it serves to remind all of us that we exist and are valued in terms of the degree to which we can satisfy male desire.


> Women have to deal with these things in a way that men don't. We've
> evidenced that in this conversation. It's not that men don't deal with
> it at all, but men aren't usually told, as Yoshie's been told on this
> list, that she couldn't possibly be a good lay because of the way she
> interacts with men on the list.

Well, I wonder if that were true if the list was 95% women rather than men. Because the thing is we "know" most people on this list based on their writing and what we think that reveals about them and, if the list were mostly women, I could imagine the subject becoming one of general speculation. For example, based on wit and charm (and other ineffable qualities) as exhibited in writing style, Doug, ravi, Dwayne, and Chuck G would top my beddable list, followed closely by Miles, Leigh, Mike B, Justin and a few others (based on their kindliness and fine spirit).

It would not be true to say that men who are good in bed are also good writers; but arguing from experience, there has been a very good correlation between men who write well and men who are fun to bed. So there. I have not had enough experience with women to say whether that holds true for them as well.

Joanna



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list