Wednesday, October 21, 2009

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

So, womyn, if you'll stipulate that a necessary pre-condition for membership in the Men's Club** is a cavernous void in the space where one might think a heart should be, then you'll undoubtedly, during unrealistically optimistic times in your life, have launched energetic searches for the few men that don't qualify for membership. Vigorous screening, my dears, is the order of the day. In my line of work we like to organize our thinking with two-by-two tables, so I've developed one especially for this problem. I always say my own personal
sample size is not sufficient to draw any conclusions, particularly as it's scattered through far too many countries and cultures. But I'd say the good sex/likeable category (A) is at no more than 10 to 20%, optimistically. I've spent far too much time in the second (total pig) column, I have to admit. There are various reasons for that, not the least of which is my terrible fondness for "social research", meaning figuring out what on earth makes these bizarre, penile-bearing creatures tick. But more importantly, perhaps, it's a man's job to convince a woman that he's really in the sweetheart column, and many of them do quite a good job at the beginning. So don't beat yourself up too much if you only discover after the fact what his true proclivities are, particularly if you're operating in a new culture far from home.

To help reduce the time spent in column 2, I've come up with a few infallible rules:
1) Pretty boys will ALWAYS be bad in bed. They just don't have to make an effort because most women will go wild over them all the same. They are nearly always strong practioners of the quantity over quality approach, and I'm certain that many never find out what they're missing. They're solidly in box D.
2) The extraordinarily well-endowed, their attributes kept exclusively out-of-sight thanks to the stupidity of us over-socialized humans (a fact I lament every day), are in a special category. They're dangerous for two reasons: if you're having protected sex with them (and I really hope you are), it's almost a given that that very protection is turning them into porn stars (per The Size Post: Part I), forever hard, and you are dying of pleasure. I divide these men into two categories; there are those who just want to be loved for themselves, the poor dears, and not for their substantial members. Then there are those men who seem to see themselves as natural resources, to be carefully rationed. Despite the fact that you just had heavenly HOURS-long sex with this man, trust me on this, you're lucky if you get to see him more than once a month. Let's put it this way: the well-endowed are just not the giving type. They're almost always in box B.

My archetypal example of a well-endowed pretty boy (he's so Fraaahnch) makes me shudder in horror at the memory. It's a lethal combination. If I had followed rule number 1, of course, I would never have had this disagreeable experience... But again, operating outside my culture, diligently conducting social research, what was this girl to do? I can now confirm, this rule can be applied world-wide.

Coming soon: screening tests to protect against the well-endowed -- an unresolvable dilemma?

**As my ex always used to say, "one of our members will be contacting you soon".

No comments: