How Important Is Dancing?

[Glith]

He can't dance; his feet are too small.

...

[Perryville]

Whatever, Junior.

[Sanctuary]

Nah, I'm the sort of guy who finds ill-thought-out generalizations on an advice forum to be a little tedious.
IN GENERAL, moving your body to a musical beat has no correlation whatsoever to sexually satisfying a partner.

Wrong. Someone who dances well shows a certain level of self-confidence in himself and this will translate into the bedroom.

Likewise, guys who are shy on the dance floor will likely be just as shy in bed.

Also, to say that having good rhythm has no effect on sexual ability is a poor assumption to make considering that the very act of sex is rhythmic movement.

[Glith]

Wrong. Someone who dances well shows a certain level of self-confidence in himself and this will translate into the bedroom.

Likewise, guys who are shy on the dance floor will likely be just as shy in bed.

Also, to say that having good rhythm has no effect on sexual ability is a poor assumption to make considering that the very act of sex is rhythmic movement.

Wrong.
Dancing well does not demand self confidence. That's a rather lazy assumption to make. If anything, dancing badly all night entails a higher degree of self confidence. Did you know that Stephen Fry can't and won't dance? He hates it. Yet...he has performed in front of tens of thousands of people on stage over the years, in movie studios, given press interviews on countless occassions ....the guy isn't a shrinking violet. His distaste for dancing has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of confidence.

Guys being shy on the dancefloor in no way reflects their in-bed confidence. I'm sure there are plenty of porn stars who don't dance.

As for good rhythm, again, this means nothing for sexual ability.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who have no sense of rhythm, yet know how to please a partner. At the same time, I bet there are some 30-second-wonder drummers out there.

Sorry, but linking the 'ability' to dance to sexual prowess is rather naive.

[Sanctuary]

Wrong.
Dancing well does not demand self confidence.

Yes it does, I challenge you to prove me wrong.

That's a rather lazy assumption to make. If anything, dancing badly all night entails a higher degree of self confidence. Did you know that Stephen Fry can't and won't dance? He hates it. Yet...he has performed in front of tens of thousands of people on stage over the years, in movie studios, given press interviews on countless occassions ....the guy isn't a shrinking violet. His distaste for dancing has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of confidence.

^That has nothing to do with dancing requiring self confidence. Merely you have shown that you can be confident without knowing how to dance.

Guys being shy on the dancefloor in no way reflects their in-bed confidence. I'm sure there are plenty of porn stars who don't dance.

Generally, guys that are shy on the dance floor are shy in situations where they fear they may be judged, i.e. the bedroom.

As for good rhythm, again, this means nothing for sexual ability.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who have no sense of rhythm, yet know how to please a partner. At the same time, I bet there are some 30-second-wonder drummers out there.

My argument is that having a good sense of rhythm is a likely indicator of good 'sexual ability.' I did not say having no sense of rhythm makes you incapable of being good in bed. You're debating against claims I never made.

Sorry, but linking the 'ability' to dance to sexual prowess is rather naive.

There are certain elements of dance that can be related to sex. Not only that, but a good dancer exhibits a certain amount of creativity, and that creativity would probably translate into the bedroom too. It's not a stretch of logic to make the assumption that a good dancer is probably good in bed.

[Glith]

It's not a stretch of logic to make the assumption that a good dancer is probably good in bed.

Not a stretch of logic, no, just bad logic.

The two are entirely different forms of physical activity.

For starters, being a good dancer doesn't provide you with information about your new partner's sexual preferences, it doesn't make you a generous lover, it doesn't make you passionate, it doesn't mean you're immune to premature ejaculation or severe impotence issues, it doesn't mean you know what to do with your fingers or tongue, it doesn't mean you can go straight to seconds, it means nothing. The only correlation is movement of the hips. It's all just a fallacy.
I accept that some people find skilled dancers to be an attraction, but I don't accept for a second that their skill refects in any way their sexual abilities. Sex isn't just about hip movement I'm afraid.

As for 'creativity', well I have a degree in art, I paint, draw, write, play music. As much as I'd like to say it was a reflection, it simply isn't. I was a good painter long before I became a good lover.

I know it's a great romantic thought that dancers, artists and musicians make great lovers, but it has no merit outside of Mills and Boon.

[Sanctuary]

I hope you realize that my point is not that being a good lover is a function of being a good dancer. But my point is that certain attributes that contribute to someone being a good dancer also contributes to them being a good lover.

The two are entirely different forms of physical activity.

No they're not - they both involve bodily movement, some form of synchronization with your partner, and someone usually leading. And you do both activities better if you're confident.

For starters, being a good dancer doesn't provide you with information about your new partner's sexual preferences, it doesn't make you a generous lover, it doesn't make you passionate, it doesn't mean you're immune to premature ejaculation or severe impotence issues, it doesn't mean you know what to do with your fingers or tongue, it doesn't mean you can go straight to seconds, it means nothing. The only correlation is movement of the hips. It's all just a fallacy.

I never said a good dancer will always be good in bed - I said it's likely. The problem with the counterargument that you posted above is that it can be used against anything I say and isn't really directed at dancing. I could've said being experienced and knowledgable makes you good in bed and you could've said nearly the same thing except take out the part about knowing what to do with fingers/tongue. I could've said knowing what your partner wants makes you good in bed and you could've said almost the same exact thing above to 'prove' me wrong.

The only correlation is movement of the hips. It's all just a fallacy.

You contradict yourself when you say they're 'entirely different forms of physical activity' but then you say here that there's correlation between the two because of hip movement.

I accept that some people find skilled dancers to be an attraction, but I don't accept for a second that their skill refects in any way their sexual abilities. Sex isn't just about hip movement I'm afraid.

I agree with you that sex isn't just about hip movement; no one is gonna be dumb enough to argue with that.

As for 'creativity', well I have a degree in art, I paint, draw, write, play music. As much as I'd like to say it was a reflection, it simply isn't. I was a good painter long before I became a good lover.

If you assume that dance and making love are two entirely different forms of physical activity, then my point about creativity becomes null.

I know it's a great romantic thought that dancers, artists and musicians make great lovers, but it has no merit outside of Mills and Boon.

Who the hell is that lol

But I'm fairly certain that if I went to parties, took 50 random people that were good dancers and 50 random people that weren't, the dancers (for the most part) would be better lovers.

[Glith]

No they're not - they both involve bodily movement, some form of synchronization with your partner, and someone usually leading. And you do both activities better if you're confident.

So, riding a tandem bicycle would mean that somebody is probably a better lover? Or Boxing? Or tandem skydiving?

The problem with the counterargument that you posted above is that it can be used against anything I say and isn't really directed at dancing.

That doesn't negate the fact however that every point in this instance was valid in the case of dancing.

I could've said knowing what your partner wants makes you good in bed and you could've said almost the same exact thing above to 'prove' me wrong.

And if you had said that, you would have had more of a point than your point about dancing.

You contradict yourself when you say they're 'entirely different forms of physical activity' but then you say here that there's correlation between the two because of hip movement.

If we're getting pedantic, using your argument, the act of kissing your child on the forehead isn't a totally different physical activity to snowboarding because they both entail the movement of your head, lungs and heart. Every act, no mater how far removed, can be linked at some level. The fact that sex and dancing both involve movement of the hips (albeit totally different actions) does not mean that both activites require a similar physical movement. If that's how being good at sex worked, people would be signing up for shot-put lessons.

Who the hell is that lol

The world's biggest publisher of romance novels.

But I'm fairly certain that if I went to parties, took 50 random people that were good dancers and 50 random people that weren't, the dancers (for the most part) would be better lovers.

And I'm fairly certain that wouldn't be the case.

Seriously, there is no connection. I mean, I could put forward arguments to say quite the opposite to what you're saying.

...Since dancers are self-confident, it just so happens that self-confident people are more likely to be selfish or arrogant than shy people, therefore they would be poor lovers as they'd be less giving in bed. Self-confident people tend to be less sensitive emotionally than shy people, therefore they wouldn't be as attuned intimately with the needs of a partner...

...all that would of course be rubbish, as there is simply no connection whether it be pro or con.

I just get tired of tenuous connections being made between unrelated actions.

As I said earlier, I have nothing to lose. I'm artistic, and with that comes the old cliche of artists being good lovers. I'm not saying they're not, all I'm saying is that if some ARE, it's nothing to do with their skill with a paintbrush, it's down to the fact that they've put in time learning how to be a good lover.

[girl68]

Funny you 2...

I disagree with Glith wholeheartedly. You're picking out exceptions to prove him wrong while he opts to generalize from the greater population.

Terrible dancers with no nack for the beat couldn't send me running faster. I'm not talking about mildly bad dancers I'm talking about the ones who go on so you think you can dance? and get laughed at.

Bad dancer, bad lover. I've actaully had a bad dancer bad lover. It was lame.

[Glith]

Funny you 2...

I disagree with Glith wholeheartedly. You're picking out exceptions to prove him wrong while he opts to generalize from the greater population.

Terrible dancers with no nack for the beat couldn't send me running faster. I'm not talking about mildly bad dancers I'm talking about the ones who go on so you think you can dance? and get laughed at.

Bad dancer, bad lover. I've actaully had a bad dancer bad lover. It was lame.

Yeah, I am picking out exceptions, because they prove that generalization doesnt work.

Bad dancers sending you running, well, thats your personal taste, fair enough.

As for bad dancer= bad lover. I didn't really want to go into personal experiences as they prove nothing to other people, but from my experience with a terrible dancer (she had absolutely NO sense of rhythm, she couldnt even tap along to a drum beat), it was totally the opposite.

My first long term relationship on the other hand was with a girl who admitedly wasn't a GREAT dancer, but she was good. The sex however, well, she should have just stuck to dancing.

As for other partners, well, I can't say I noticed their dancing skills. But, again, I'm yet to see any proof whatsoever that being a good dancer makes you good in bed, and my personal experiences and common sense dictate that there is no connection at all.

[girl68]

A generalization is just that it will never apply to everyone, the apply to the majority of people. How can your argue something everyone already agrees on!?

But I use my personal experience and you throw it out saying it proves nothing to other people. According to that your exceptions prove nothing becasue it proves nothing to other people.

[Glith]

But I use my personal experience and you throw it out saying it proves nothing to other people. According to that your exceptions prove nothing becasue it proves nothing to other people.

That's exactly why I said it before providing my own exceptions, because MY experience wont disprove your view, however I provided them nontheless to counterbalance your own and to show both sides of the story.

Generalizations don't in fact apply to most people. A generalization only applies to most people in the eye of the author. Unfounded generalizations plucked from thin air are of no merit to anybody. I could spout out any number of false generalizations myself if they're the new currency for proving points.

Unfortunately generalizations continue to be worthless and lazy, especially when faced with 'evidence' to the contrary.

As for arguing something that everybody already agrees on, I'm yet to see everybody agree.

[Perryville]

Sanctuary and Girl68. there are ALWAYS going to be geeks, whose sole enjoyment in life is practicing computer oneupmanship, by pointing out exceptions to every generally held truth. Glith.........we get it, yes there are people who are good in bed , who are terrible dancers.....Feel better now?

[girl68]

Your posts are not 'evidence' to the generalization held here.

[Glith]

Sanctuary and Girl68. there are ALWAYS going to be geeks, whose sole enjoyment in life is practicing computer oneupmanship, by pointing out exceptions to every generally held truth. Glith.........we get it, yes there are people who are good in bed , who are terrible dancers.....Feel better now?

Also, there will always be intellectually challenged people who resort to name calling when their weak arguments and childish assumptions fail to garner absolute agreement.
I'm afraid guesswork on behalf of a couple of members on a forum wouldn't really count as a "generally held truth".

Your posts are not 'evidence' to the generalization held here.

You're right, they're evidence to the contrary.