How would you describe the basic elements of seduction?

Dan_Today said:

This is not the first time I've been told I'm overthinking things, believe it or not.

I am thinking about the topic of seduction in relation to a story, but I'm mostly wanting to discuss with people here for the sake of having the conversation and bouncing some ideas around. I'm not trying to advocate for breaking seduction into steps; I think I used the numbered list as a way to open the conversation.

Click to expand...

I still think you’re approaching this incorrectly. And I strongly reiterate: read some stories, preferably some longer and better-written ones. This is a wheel you needn’t reinvent, mostly because a bunch of different types of wheels can work.

Your very question is predicated on some concept you seem to have that there’s a “right way” or a “wrong way” to describe this. Be assured, there isn’t. You can’t post a laundry list and ask about “elements of seduction,” and then blithely repudiate that list and claim you don’t necessarily believe seduction has any elements.

There’s organic prose, and then there’s write-by-numbers. Both can be successful, but one is insipid and unworthy of effort. I feel your “approach,” numbered or not, will lead you to bad prose.

And please, for God’s sake, have a moderator merge your two identical threads. It’s supremely annoying that you posted two, and that they’re now in the same subforum.

‘‘Ello, darling. Yer a bit of a looker, ain’t cher? Does yer muver know yer art and abart? No muver? Oh, well that makes it easier, done it? Anyway, you got any plans for later? No? Oh, good. Well, look, I’m just off for a bit of a bevvy wiv the lads. Knuckles is up fer sentencing t’morrer. Thought we’d give ‘im a proper wet send off. But if yer still here later – and yer not too elephants – maybe you an’ I could get together. Know what I mean?’

And they both lived happily ever after.

Voboy said:

I still think you’re approaching this incorrectly.

Click to expand...

You may be right that I'm approaching this incorrectly. My post could have been more perfect in several ways. But I had to approach it somehow, and the way I'm approaching it is the best I was able to come up with.

Voboy said:

. . . read some stories, preferably some longer and better-written ones.

Click to expand...

I'm always up for a story. Recommendations?

Voboy said:

This is a wheel you needn’t reinvent, mostly because a bunch of different types of wheels can work.

Click to expand...

I'd describe what I'm trying to do with this thread as attempting to strike up a conversation about the nature of the different kinds of wheels. In the OP, I did leave room for differences based on who is seducing who, gender-wise. I see your point, now, that I could have opened that up more, to differences based on a much larger set of factors. (I also could have been more specific about the exact type of story my list of four was referring to.)

Voboy said:

Your very question is predicated on some concept you seem to have that there’s a “right way” or a “wrong way” to describe this. Be assured, there isn’t. You can’t post a laundry list and ask about “elements of seduction,” and then blithely repudiate that list and claim you don’t necessarily believe seduction has any elements.

Click to expand...

Technically, you're right.

However, I did try to make it clear in the original post that I was starting the thread in the spirit of asking others how they would describe seduction. I wasn't posting in the spirit of trying to claim that my list of four is indisputable. I even say in the original post that I don't feel like the list of four actually works.

That said, I suppose that I do still feel that there is some essential features of seduction. I'm not claiming that I know what those features are in some universal sense. The responses I've gotten on this thread prove to me that I don't know much about how different people describe the features of their ideal seduction scenario. But I still can't shake the feeling that there must be some essence. Ah well, maybe there isn't.

I like how you put it in your earlier post:

Voboy said:

Forgot to add that seductions happen differently in different stories. Different characters and situations will dictate different kinds of approaches.

Click to expand...

I'm curious to know if you think that different kinds of seduction would include nonsexual seduction, as Oggbashan mentions in the (unfortunate) other version of the thread.

oggbashan said:

Seduction is the art of persuading someone to do an act they wouldn't have considered doing but for the seduction.

It happens in many human activities. Advertisers rely on it to sell products. Car manufacturers for decades have been selling lifestyles, not cars. Drinks are advertised not on their particular taste but on the feeling that drinking them is supposed to produce.

Politicians try to seduce the voters into supportin their party, often by portraying their opponents as unattractive.

I think the most important tool for any form of seduction is rhetoric - the art of persuading someone else, with words, that they should do something because...

The reasons might not be genuine. Rhetoric appeals to emotion, not logic.

Click to expand...

By this definition, writing a post on a forum is a kind of seduction, too, since when we write, each idea or image or plot point is, among other things, an attempt to persuade the reader to absorb it and to continue on to the next one. I suppose it depends on some broader definition of seduction, which may be beyond the scope of the thread, but still seems like it could be a fruitful realm to explore. What do you think?

I suspect part of the issue is the gendered element. If a guy initially expressed little-to-no interest in my seductive wiles (*snort*), I wouldn't persist, and I don't think many women would. That's just not what we learn at girls' training school.

The other problem is that any seductor worth their salt doesn't have a 'game plan' - they respond to the seductee. So I don't think there are any basic elements beyond 'pay attention' - that's the most seductive thing of all.

KimGordon67 said:

I suspect part of the issue is the gendered element. If a guy initially expressed little-to-no interest in my seductive wiles (*snort*), I wouldn't persist, and I don't think many women would. That's just not what we learn at girls' training school.

Click to expand...

Yes. Thank you. I think I could have made the OP much more about these types of differences. I was somewhat fixated on a specific type of story.

KimGordon67 said:

The other problem is that any seductor worth their salt doesn't have a 'game plan' - they respond to the seductee. So I don't think there are any basic elements beyond 'pay attention' - that's the most seductive thing of all.

Click to expand...

I sure do love when people pay attention to me, or to my little thread.

rjordan said:

I was married to my second wife for 26 years. I seduced her many times during that time. In fact, I highly recommend it as an inexpensive way to prolong a marriage.

At no time was there any doubt that sex was the intent and would be the outcome. But that wasn't the point. The point was the thrill of the game. I wasn't trying to convince her of anything or get her to do anything. I was just expressing my desire for her in a titillating game for both of us. She would return the favor on some occasions and seduce me. The whole point was the seduction, not a sexual goal.

Click to expand...

Thanks for adding this, R. It helps clarify things. Of course, I would love to know the details, the exact words and things. I'm nosy and the world wants to know!

oggbashan said:

Seduction is the art of persuading someone to do an act they wouldn't have considered doing but for the seduction.

It happens in many human activities. Advertisers rely on it to sell products. Car manufacturers for decades have been selling lifestyles, not cars. Drinks are advertised not on their particular taste but on the feeling that drinking them is supposed to produce.

Politicians try to seduce the voters into supportin their party, often by portraying their opponents as unattractive.

I think the most important tool for any form of seduction is rhetoric - the art of persuading someone else, with words, that they should do something because...

The reasons might not be genuine. Rhetoric appeals to emotion, not logic.

Click to expand...

Hi Ogg,

I quoted you in Version #1 of this thread. I thought you might like to know. I was trying to apply your comments to the idea of (nonsexual) writing being a kind of (nonsexual) seduction.

Why is there a Version #1 and a Version #2? It's a long story. Mostly my fault. But they both have some good conversion going so I hope they can just stay like this until they peter out.

Edit: The two different versions of this thread have been combined.

Dan_Today said:

Hi Ogg,

I quoted you in Version #1 of this thread. I thought you might like to know. I was trying to apply your comments to the idea of (nonsexual) writing being a kind of (nonsexual) seduction.

Why is there a Version #1 and a Version #2? It's a long story. Mostly my fault. But they both have some good conversion going so I hope they can just stay like this until they peter out.

Click to expand...

The General and Politics boards show examples of how not to seduce by posts. Many demonise or abuse those with opposing views. They don't attempt to persuade people to change by logic or rhetoric. They show hostility and contempt.

If only they would try to suggest that their political party has a more sensible attitude to X - whatever X is - or that extreme statements by individual politicians are not representative of the majority opinion within a party and should be ignored - then they might persuade. It is unlikely they would seduce or persuade the fanatics on the other side but those fanatics are not the people who decide elections. Elections are won or lost by the votes of undecided people who are open to persuasion or even seduction. The farther a political party gets from the centre ground the less electable it becomes.

Rhetoric has been a powerful tool for thousands of years. Cicero's Verrine orations, even though never delivered in court, are strong examples. Much more important in history was Cicero's continued condemnation of Mark Antony as an enemy of Rome, and Octavian (later Augustus) as Rome's saviour. Neither statement was true but Cicero persuaded the Roman Senate that they WERE true.

Winston Churchill's rhetoric during WW2 was effective in supporting the morale of the British people during the dark times when we were losing everywhere. He seduced people into thinking we could win when a sensible assessment would have suggested that was very unlikely.

Seduction starts with words. Actions, situations and yes - alcohol - can add to the process but words are the most important part.

SamScribble said:

‘‘Ello, darling. Yer a bit of a looker, ain’t cher? Does yer muver know yer art and abart? No muver? Oh, well that makes it easier, done it? Anyway, you got any plans for later? No? Oh, good. Well, look, I’m just off for a bit of a bevvy wiv the lads. Knuckles is up fer sentencing t’morrer. Thought we’d give ‘im a proper wet send off. But if yer still here later – and yer not too elephants – maybe you an’ I could get together. Know what I mean?’

And they both lived happily ever after.

Click to expand...

The time: early 1990s, very early days of The Web.

My friend in northern California found an online forum for sufferers of a certain genetic disorder that afflicted him. He conversed with many, including a lass located half the continent away. They talked of their common ailments. They exchanged webcam images of their conditions. Then of their genitals. Then he moved in with her in Nebraska and they spent the rest of their lives together.

Moral: Share common interests, and seduction is straightforward.

Dan_Today said:

I'm always up for a story. Recommendations?

Click to expand...

Shameless self-promotion. If my style seduces the reader, then this story eventually gets to a seduction (after a slow start in the first two parts, which are more mood pieces than plot driven). The third, longer part settles in for the duration...

https://www.literotica.com/s/the-floating-world-1

In the movie The Tao of Steve, the main character is an overweight thirty-something kindergarten teacher who is surprisingly successful at seducing women. He has a three-part philosophy for seduction: 1) show no desire toward the object of your desire. Then 2) do something excellent in her presence. Then 3) retreat.

I've always thought it was a funny idea, but that there was something to it. I don't see many stories here, however, that are written with this pattern of seduction. It might be interesting to try one, though.

The main problem I see here is that today we have no idea what seduction really is. Instead we equate it with Rohypnol or something similar. Seduction is not force, though the bumper sticker slogan flingers would like everyone to think it is.

Seduction is the ART of wooing someone. As an art form it's fluid and there really isn't any set of rules. Writing seduction in literature is complex because the author must write the contents of the act of seduction as well as the reasoning behind the offering and the seeming rejection by the one being wooed. And then one must continue the story despite the rejection to the happy ever after conclusion.

What you as an author should strive for is incorporating the elements necessary to captivate the reader into wanting to read more about the characters involvement emotionally as well as intellectually. If the story is about the seduction (See eg: Rostand's play Cyrano de Bergerac wherein Cryano woos his cousin Roxanne through helping Christian attempt the same.) then incorporate the mental aspects as well as the physical into the story line.

Writing about seduction should be writing about the activities which comprise the wooing as well as the angst by the one being wooed despite themselves. Angst requires mental dialog and emotional conflict or turmoil. Seduction is about overcoming this internal uncertainty. Sometimes it's about creating the uncertainty so that the leading character can be the one to resolve it favorably. Also note that sometimes the one being wooed can instead be the one who is actually doing the seducing. Go watch some old Cary Grant or Audrey Hepburn movies to see some illustrations of this technique.

TRUE seduction is a test. The seducer being tested to see if they are serious or just playing with someone's feelings. The seduced is being tested to see if their apparent indifference is really rejection. It is a game most of today's society no longer knows how to play. Also note that seduction is NOT "flirting". Flirting is a game with no seriousness behind it and all of the action on the surface for everyone to easily see. Seduction is the exact opposite; serious and almost all of the intent and action hidden to all except the one being seduced.

HisArpy said:

TRUE seduction is a test. The seducer being tested to see if they are serious or just playing with someone's feelings. The seduced is being tested to see if their apparent indifference is really rejection. It is a game most of today's society no longer knows how to play. Also note that seduction is NOT "flirting". Flirting is a game with no seriousness behind it and all of the action on the surface for everyone to easily see. Seduction is the exact opposite; serious and almost all of the intent and action hidden to all except the one being seduced.

Click to expand...

It took me several posts in parallel threads to try to say this.

rj

There's no such definition of TRUE seduction at all. The role and attitude of the seducer can be broader than that. A TRUE seducer doesn't have to give a flying fuck about playing with the seduced's "feelings." A seducer just moves toward the goal of getting the seduced willing to be taken. The seducer's attitude can be (and most likely is in most cases) purely self-centered.

sr71plt said:

There's no such definition of TRUE seduction at all. The role and attitude of the seducer can be broader than that. A TRUE seducer doesn't have to give a flying fuck about playing with the seduced's "feelings." A seducer just moves toward the goal of getting the seduced willing to be taken. The seducer's attitude can be (and most likely is in most cases) purely self-centered.

Click to expand...

Total miss.

HisArpy said:

Total miss.

Click to expand...

No, Pilot's right. He's talking about the Casanovas of the world. Masters at seduction, careless with their victim's feelings (however willing the victim might be). Welcome to room, said the spider to the fly. His or her (the femme fatale) success is inevitable; but they have prey, not an accomplice.

There is the other type (welcome to the dance, my darling). I suspect the more sophisticated seducer might be the rarer type.

An old bull and a young bull are wandering across the landscape.
They come to a hilltop and gaze down at a corral filled with cows.
The young bull is excited. He froths and grunts and wags his bullcock.
"Hey," he cries, "let's go down there, jump the fence, and fuck a cow!"
"Nope," says the oldster, "let's saunter down, talk awhile, and fuck-em all."

The "talking awhile" bit is seduction.

Seduction is a process, not a motivation. Once you have ascribed a motivation to it, you've colored outside the lines of a "TRUE" definition of seduction.

Seduction is mental. I might only be lifting a jug of milk out of the dairy section at the grocery, but if the hint of a smile on my lips and the playful remark I cast your way causes you to you to see me in a sexual light, watch out. You’re being seduced and you probably don’t stand much of a chance.

Charmolypi said:

Seduction is mental. I might only be lifting a jug of milk out of the dairy section at the grocery, but if the hint of a smile on my lips and the playful remark I cast your way causes you to you to see me in a sexual light, watch out. You’re being seduced and you probably don’t stand much of a chance.

Click to expand...

Full cream or skim?

.....

Sorry, wrong thread...

Get a big mixing bowl. Add half a cup of humor, a good amount of personality, a pinch of sarcasm and a bit of attraction to hold it all together.

Mix and watch the chemistry happen.

Be sure to preheat the oven. You'll want a hot situation to bake this cake.

electricblue66 said:

No, Pilot's right. He's talking about the Casanovas of the world. Masters at seduction, careless with their victim's feelings (however willing the victim might be). Welcome to room, said the spider to the fly. His or her (the femme fatale) success is inevitable; but they have prey, not an accomplice.

There is the other type (welcome to the dance, my darling). I suspect the more sophisticated seducer might be the rarer type.

Click to expand...

No he's not. He, and you, are talking about the wrong thing.

Seduction is an allure. It can be done by either sex toward either sex. It can be active, with flowers and poetry and such, or as passive as a momentary glance followed by a haughty dismissive turn of the head. The point is to attract, not conquer the otherwise unwilling.

Pilot doesn't get this. Instead he starts by saying that the definition is broad(er) and then immediately proceeds to limit it to the most narrowest of possibilities while proclaiming that is the only "TRUE!" definition. It's BS thrown by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about at all.

Nor is an appeal to Casanova any help here. Casanova, by contrast, merely followed the convention of his time where various elites enjoyed easy and frequent affairs and sexual flirtation and casual sex was common. His numerous trysts are well documented in his memoirs. There is NOTHING there to suggest that he was exceptionally well versed in the art of seduction and everything to suggest that he was actually not, given that he had to pay for sex and purchase sex slaves. This on top of the fact that he was continually in exile and on the run for his public criticisms of the church and royalty.

What Pilot, and you, fail to understand is that "womanizing" is not seduction. One does not need to seduce whores or sex slaves. Nor does one need to be particularly skilled in song or dance or sophistication during one's dealings with them.

Seduction is not about 1-night-stands. If that is what is sought, simply do as Casanova did, throw money around. Do this and you will find what you seek. If, on the other hand, one wants more permanence in one's love life, then one must realize that any such relationship requires involvement of the heart and soul. And that means one must seduce in order to attract a corresponding desire.

Yep, I certainly don't get it--or you, all that much, HisArpy. No worries, though. I don't care. Think you're full of beans on this. But that's not a new thought about your posts, either.

I'm sure other posters can figure it out. Personally, I think you're always trying way too hard to appear knowledgeable about erotica without actually having a clue. With only two stories here, you aren't exactly a major force in Lit. story writing.

Art, not process, and therefore endlessly variable. A meeting of eyes, a glance, a smile, a word. Short and quick, long drawn out, hesitant, sudden, any and every possible variation.