A scrap from yesterday's conversation.

[randomness]

Sex is communication. If someone is a bad communicator out of bed, it's unlikely they'll be a good communicator in bed. Possible, but unlikely.

Edit: A number of commenters have drawn a distinction between verbal and non-verbal communication, and assumed I meant "verbal=out of bed"; "non-verbal=in bed". That is not what I posted. I do find it noteworthy that people make that assumption.

Comments

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

samuel r delany wrote up some very interesting autobiographical stories describing rather a disconnect there. i think they were in "the motion of light in water" if you'd care to read a dissenting view.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I seem to remember reading it at some point, but it was years ago. I should go and see if I can find a copy again.

[choirsoftheeye.livejournal.com]

Delany's take on sex is very, very interesting. (I've been slogging through Dhalgren at fairly slow pace for months now).

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I really like his work. I also find his take on economic class and welfare intriguing.

But he can be a slog sometimes.

[choirsoftheeye.livejournal.com]

:), I find him to be very readable when I pick him up, but I've been busy and the plotline is so nonlinear that my desire to pick it up is much more akin to my desire to pick up a nonfiction book or a book of short stories. There's no urge to find out what happens.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i think his autobiographical stuff is more accessible, certainly than "dhalgren" :)

[drwex]

That does not match my experience at all. In particular, there are people who are crapTACular at communicating with words, whose communication without words is excellent.

people have different styles.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

You mistake my meaning.

I am not saying that people who communicate badly in words cannot communicate non-verbally.

I am saying that people who are bad at communicating tend to be bad at communicating regardless of the venue.

I class people who are good at communicating non-verbally as people who are good at communicating, so it's not surprising to me that they're good at communicating in bed. I've known a few people who are quite inarticulate who are good at communicating non-verbally; that's no surprise to me. Nor is it a surprise to me that they can communicate non-verbally in many contexts.

[drwex]

then your statement is tautological, since by definition they communicate well.

I think I understood your meaning and disagreed on the basis that the change of venue may allow some people to communicate in ways that they're good at whereas other venues do not.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I disagree, both on the tautology and your analysis. You are saying something different, with which I actually agree.

Here is a rephrase of what I was saying:

If you find that someone is a lousy communicator, do not expect them to suddenly become a good one if you change venues.

[drwex]

I got that. I disagree. As I said originally, it doesn't match my experience in several ways nor does it match with what I understand of interpersonal theory.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

It's fine that you disagree but my post does match my experience. Perhaps we are working from different theories.

I do interact with people a lot non-verbally out of bed, so I think I get to see a lot more of that that aspect of their communication style before I sleep with them.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

As in my reply to drwex; I'm specifically not drawing a distinction between verbal and physical communication.

I'm drawing the distinction between people who are lousy communicators, verbally or physically, and people who are good communicators.

I have also been blessed in my associations with people who are good verbal communicators in bed, as well as being physical communicators, but that's another story.

(Although I admit that may be one reason why I don't draw the distinction between forms of communication; I often do a lot of verbal communication during sex as well, so it never occurred to me that people would assume that "in bed" = "non-verbal".)

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I think that's more of a societal shame/propriety thing than a communication thing, and as such it can be overriden with practice.

Definitely.

I do think it's telling that people connect communication during sex with non-verbal communication; there's certainly a lot of it, but the lack of verbal communication during sex is, as you say, something of a societal assumption.

Moreover, we're speaking on LJ, so simply because of the venue there are a disproportionate number of people here who are verbally articulate, so there's an obvious assumption that people out of bed generally communicate with words; this isn't as true as this sample set might assume.