A question of sexual greed . . .

This question completely misses the point. I don't consider sex with an attractive person to be inherently better than sex with an ugly one, nor sex with three people better than sex with the same one three times.

I would choose the three ugly people. I would tie them up, gag them, place hoods over their heads and pretend they were supermodels.

If I can't have the two at the same time I guess I'd go for the supermodel. I mean wife! Did I say supermodel, I meant wife, definitely wife. Yes. Wife. *ahem*

This survey is using two separate variables (attractiveness of person and number of sexual partners) along one axis (the three survey questions) and therefore is meaningless. A better set of answers that would cover the "quantity vs. attractiveness" issue would have nine possible results instead of three.

Have sex with my husband, who is a very attractive person in my eyes.

jonathan - I don't agree. I think the survey author is just asking us to compare how much we like quantity of partners versus quality of partner.

bill: Why do you consider attractiveness to determine "quality of partner"??

Busted!

It's one measure of quality - it's the measure the survey author seems focused one. I make no personal judgment as to its merits. I guess I should have said "compare ... quantity to 'looks'".

Good save!

bill: If you really want a quantity vs. "quality" then you should explicitly ask the question, not obfuscate it, i.e.: rank, in order of preference: Sex with three attractive people, with three unattractive people, with two attractive people, with two unattractive people, etc. You may go entirely for attractiveness, regardless of number of partners, while it appears mandy is in the quantity camp. The fact that the survey only has three of those answers makes it flawed.

ILJ: What are you talking about, pray tell?

very- he was talking about bill!

I don't know... I think the relatively close results of this survey indicates that it did tough upon an interesting aspect of human nature. I'm a bit surprised that more people did not answer like me.

Very - I was giving a little play-by-play on your exchange with bill regarding why he equates attractiveness with "quality of partner." I thought he extracted his foot quite well don't you?

Looks are less important than who they are; passion counts most in the sack.

hillbilly?

I'd much rather have sex with my SO. On the other hand I think that my SO is pretty and high quality, why would I settle for just quality, beauty or quantity when I can have it all?

This survey really has no meaning for me. Neither physical attractiveness nor quantity of partners determines how good sex is.

I would rather have sex with someone I care about, no matter their looks.

I most enjoy having sex with someone I love; appearance and quantity have little to do with that.

jonathan - will you be making that survey, then? :)

mikecap: It would be too much of a duplicate.

I pick option one, assuming it's understood as attractive/unattractive to me personally. I've already done the other two options

Perhaps the quantity vs. quality survey would really only have two options... As in, "rank the following for importance in your sexual preference: 1) attractiveness of partner(s); 2) number of partner(s). Then other options could be added as well...

Laetitia Casta!

I am not greedy. I would pick the first choice but I don't like supermodels.

Looks are not the most important thing to me, but given these options I'd choose the attractive person because I'm not into quantity. I'd pick one of these two...(as if they'd have anything to do with me!) Seven of Nine
Scully (Not the greatest photo of her, but all I could find in a pinch.)

SueBee: you have a thing for Seven, too?! I so lust after her. Lion even bought me a cardboard stand-up almost-life-size poster-thingy of her! She's pretty much the only reason I ever watch Voyager!

Enheduanna - Funny thing is, when I see her out of character, she's not as attractive to me. She's gorgeous, but there's something appealing about that Borg thing she's got going on.

SueBee--I know what you mean. Although she was definitely hottest at the very beginning, when she was more Borg-y and all grungy and dirty and messy...

*faints*

You know, I don't think I saw any of those older episodes. Maybe I better rent the tapes!

I'm actually not sure how old the episodes are--I saw them about a year ago, but they could have been in reruns. But I think she's a fairly new character. (By "the very beginning" I meant when *she* first appeared.)

I'd have sex with a very attractive person but definitely not a model. I don't find male models attractive although a few female ones are.