Are psychopaths better in bed?

So this was startling: On a list called "10 Signs Your Man (or Woman) Is A Psychopath," #5 was "Great Sex." "Those who have been with a psychopath often say it's the best thing they've ever experienced," I was informed. "A psychopath goes out of his way to please you."

It's the old stereotype: bad boys are better in the sack. Those nice boys just don't put gravy on your biscuit, honey.

Problem is, that didn't really fit with the psychopaths I'd seen in action. Some of them were stellar in bed, almost addictively so. Yet others were really great at the "sweeping women off their feet" part, but turned out to be mediocre or unresponsive in the sack, caring more for their own needs than their partner's. They got by because they manipulated their partners into wanting to please them, but there's a difference between that and actually being good betwixt someone's nethers.

And then there's the skittery problem of diagnosing psychopaths in the wild. I mean, how are we diagnosing psychopaths? Was this a scientific survey? No, it was 1,300 blog readers self-diagnosing their ex-boyfriends, all of whom presumably turned out to be jerks. And I'm a little leery of that - I'm sure every one of those exes were manipulative jerks in some way, but there's a large gap between that and a person clinically diagnosed as "lacking all sense of guilt or empathy."

No. I'm willing to bet that sociopaths run the same gamut of sexy satisfaction as normal people, and this article's just playing into old sexy-vampire legends of "The man who can kill your body can own your body."

So what's happening here? Self-selection, one suspects. Let's try a new theory:

You're more likely to stick around if someone hands you earth-shattering orgasms.

Sex is the grease in the wheels, baby. There have been plenty of times that Gini and I were furious with each other, but our kept us, ahem, coming back. Because even if a relationship is dissatisfying, degrading, and dismal, an hour-long romp that musses your hair just the way you like it is at least one bright spot. And it's easy to confuse that sort of lubetastic shenanigans for love, because someone just made your body feel sooooooo damn good, how could they do that if they weren't there for you emotionally?

But no. Some of the most memorable sex I've had has been with people who turned out to be completely incompatible with me. They say the heart wants what the heart wants; well, the genitals also have their own agenda. Access to the genitals is, hopefully, gatewayed by the heart, so often there's a lot of overlap - if you're sleeping with people you find repugnant to your soul, you're probably doing it wrong.

One suspects that if we could delicately separate this concept of "love" from the concept of "physical satisfaction," you'd find that all sorts of surprising people might be sexually compelling. You just wouldn't want to wake up next to them in the morning. So you don't bother. Which is good, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to go start popping open loathsome men like Cracker Jacks on the off-hand chance they're your Kavorka Man.

Yet it does mean that people tend to slur that distinction. Good sex often inspires fondness... even when it really shouldn't.

And those sexy sociopaths, well, one suspects there may have also been unsexy sociopaths who just didn't cut the mustard bedwardly. But they weren't around long enough to do damage! The reason all these smoochable Hannibal Lecters seem to be boudoir-omnipotent is because they were the ones who were so good at sex they rode this "good sex inspires fondness" exploit into an extensively damaging relationship.

I'd posit the sign is not "Good sex is the warning sign of a psychopath," but rather "Good sex means you're way more likely to stay with a guy." And if that guy's a psychopath, well, you're in trouble. But we silently discard all the "good guy, good sex" cases because they're not of interest, and we silently discard all the incompetent psychopaths who might have wormed their way in to do damage if they were just a little more skilled at oral.

Nah. I'm saying #5 is the same old story that tells us that good sex is linked to danger, as a subtle way of slut-shaming. The only way you can satisfy yourself, goes the subliminal impulse, is to find an evil man. For only evil men could master this evil skill.

Good men blow their lovers' minds, too. They just don't get the PR.

So what's the real lesson here? "If someone's mastered your horizontal mambo, be careful. Love is not sex; sex is not love."

Which is, I think, a little nicer than "Those orgasms may have been a killer's orgasms!", don't you?