How would you describe the basic elements of seduction?

*The two version of this thread have been combined. Thanks, Mods.*

I was thinking about seduction in stories. (For me, in this instance, I was thinking about a woman seducing a man.)

What does seduction mean to you?

Or, if you were to break the act of seduction down to its most basic elements, what would they be? (Doesn't need to be a woman seducing a man, could be any combination of characters. I haven't thought about how seduction may differ among characters of different gender identities; that would be good to explore here, too.)

Here's mine:

1. The character being seduced (the seducee?) should be uninterested at first and should be resistant and conflicted as the seduction goes on.

2. The character doing the seducing, a woman in my example, needs to express extreme horniness or desire in an unfiltered, unabashed, unapologetic, untamed way.

3. Either the woman character or the story itself needs to strongly suggest that the only "solution" to her desirous state is sexual engagement with the guy.

4. The woman needs to persist in her extreme desire in spite of the guy's reluctance to engage.

I can't shake the feeling that I'm missing something or that I haven't got it quite right. How would you describe the basic elements of seduction?

I don't think it has to be the way you describe it. In the best seductions, the seductee doesn't even know that the seducer is seducing them. The trick is to make them think it is all their idea.

Carnevil9 said:

I don't think it has to be the way you describe it. In the best seductions, the seductee doesn't even know that the seducer is seducing them. The trick is to make them think it is all their idea.

Click to expand...

Interesting. As I'm a little slow, can you describe that a little more for me or point me to an example?

.....

Admittedly, you've given it a whole lot more thought than I have. For me, "seduction" has been pretty simple.

1) A desire on the part of one party to have sex with another.
2) Taking a step in order to try to make that happen.

Whether it actually eventually succeeds or not doesn't change the definition.

If you hadn't specifically stated that what you wrote was what you considered the elements of seduction, I most likely would have thought it was something else. Specifically, plot elements.

Then again, a most cursory glance at anything I've written will prove if I ever had any idea what was going on in a seduction, much less how to seduce, I've long since forgotten.

There is no possible way that in reality you can 'break the act of seduction down to its most basic elements.' Not real seduction, anyway. Not if you mean by 'seduction' the act of ACTUALLY procuring someone's participation in sex when they previously never considered it a possibility AT ALL.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the word and what it really means - it DOESN'T mean getting someone to have sex with you who didn't ever consider the possibility at all not even SUB-CONSCIOUSLY. What it really means is to move the potential forward into a mutually acknowledge sexual incident before the other party suspected what was happening, and more or less surreptitiously until it was 'too late.' That's seduction. You can't really make a person have sex with you who doesn't want to - unless you want to engage in rape or as close as.

There aren't any 'most basic elements.' What works for one person is not guaranteed to work with any other person.

And there is so much dependent on the existing perspective and personality of the seducer's target.

I think I get your point though, Dan_Today - you seem to be asking what are the absolute key factors - or are there any key factors - needed to 'conduct' a seduction or to try it with the highest chance of success... That's what it sounds like to me that you're posing the question around.

And so if you're asking that, then no, I don't think the ones you mentioned are viable. Because they are merely underscoring selfishness - we already know or expect the seducer to DESIRE TO HAVE SEX with the target; that's a given.

Number one is try to perceive motivations the OTHER person (the target) has. And this is VERY complicated when it comes to mature people and sex, not so much younger adults.

I would say a fundamental of seduction - rather than a basic element of it - is it's sheer covert nature. A whole lot of preparation and totally unsuspected maneuvering must go on first... That's seduction.

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.

I don't think seduction is about sex. It may lead to sex, but that isn't the main purpose. Seduction is about seduction. The point of it is the seduction. It's a psychological exercise to build tension, to get closer and closer to whatever desire you are experiencing, yet prolonging the tension.

Women, in particular, learn to say, "No," when they really mean "Maybe, but not just yet." They use it as part of a real seduction where the point is to prolong the feelings of desire.

"No means no" is meant to set boundaries. It has nothing to do with seduction. Men, in particular, seem to be particularly dense about the differences in how No is used.

If the goal is just sex, "Wanna fuck?" is probably as effective as anything. When "seduction" is used to get to sex, it's more likely just manipulation.

rj

rjordan said:

I don't think seduction is about sex. It may lead to sex, but that isn't the main purpose. Seduction is about seduction. The point of it is the seduction. It's a psychological exercise to build tension, to get closer and closer to whatever desire you are experiencing, yet prolonging the tension.

If the goal is just sex, "Wanna fuck?" is probably as effective as anything. When "seduction" is used to get to sex, it's more likely just manipulation.

rj

Click to expand...

I think that "seduction" is the art (?) of persuading one party to do something they might not have wanted to, whether the 'seduced' (target) realises it or not.
Quite what that means in the modern day is open to debate, I think. What seems to be acceptable now would have been shunned (at best) in my youth.

An extra element that makes the seduction more dramatic/interesting/erotic is for the seducer himself/herself to have internal conflict about the seduction. The seducer is overcome by desire to seduce, but is conflicted in some way about it. Or the seducer is hampered in some way by something other than the seducee's reluctance.

In Pride and Prejudice, Darcy is overwhelmed by his love for Elizabeth and his need to woo her, but, at first at least, he is reluctant because of her lower social station and dodgy family connections.

In Gone with the Wind, Rhett is overwhelmed by love for Scarlett, but the circumstances of war and its aftermath keep getting in the way.

In an incest story, it works best if both parties feel and experience the taboo against it.

Conflict is what makes a story interesting, and to make it most interesting there has to be an internal element to the conflict for the main characters. It can't be one-sided.

No offense, but you’re overthinking it. It’s seduction. Breaking it down into a series of artificial steps is inorganic, and therefore to be avoided. Just start writing. If you’ve managed to invent interesting characters and can find half-decent dialogue for them to say to each other, it’ll happen.

If you want to know how any of us would describe it? Read our stories. That’s us, describing seduction.

ETA: Forgot to add that seductions happen differently in different stories. Different characters and situations will dictate different kinds of approaches, which is another indictment on the process of breaking it into steps.

I think the element that is missing in your formula is internal conflict, which is the most significant and dramatic form of conflict.

For instance, take the seduced party. I don't think the seduced party should be uninterested. If the seduced party is uninterested, then why would he/she be interested later? It's better instead for the the seduced party to be interested but also turned off. Think Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind. When she meets Rhett she's turned off by his behavior, but there's something genuine and masculine about him that she likes, nonetheless, and it's obvious from the start that they're meant for each other, because they're both greedy and selfish.

In the case of the seducer, conflict is good as well. The seducer should be driven by an overwhelming desire that he/she can't resist, but there should be some force they have to resist, nonetheless, be it internal scruples, societal pressure, other relationships, something.

In an incest story, for example, one party usually is more eager/willing to break the taboo boundaries than the other, but it's best if both of them experience that taboo, and the reluctance to break it, to some degree.

.............

You can get a nice little frisson going if part way through a seduction it's not entirely clear who is seducing whom. They both know they're playing the game, but who's leading? A bit like a tango, rather than a waltz.

KindofHere said:

Two shots of whiskey, one with a roofie. Oh yeah.

Click to expand...

Lack of consciousness, however, restricts the narrative possibilities.

..............

PuckIt said:

Admittedly, you've given it a whole lot more thought than I have. For me, "seduction" has been pretty simple.

1) A desire on the part of one party to have sex with another.
2) Taking a step in order to try to make that happen.

Whether it actually eventually succeeds or not doesn't change the definition.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think you're right that it's probably simpler than what I described in the OP. The only thing that I think is missing from your list of two is some acknowledgement that the seducer must want sex more than the other person, right? For me, if a character says to a long-time partner, hey, what do you think about going to the bedroom for some sexy time, and the partner says, sure, why not, I wouldn't consider that much of a seduction. I guess it doesn't seem like seduction if they're both into it from the start and nobody's playing hard to get.

PuckIt said:

If you hadn't specifically stated that what you wrote was what you considered the elements of seduction, I most likely would have thought it was something else. Specifically, plot elements.

Then again, a most cursory glance at anything I've written will prove if I ever had any idea what was going on in a seduction, much less how to seduce, I've long since forgotten.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I'm a little muddled as to whether I'm talking about a story or RL or what, so that comes through in my original comments.

Hey, if you can recommend a story of yours that includes a seduction, I'd take a look at it.

Desiremakesmeweak said:

What it really means is to move the potential forward into a mutually acknowledge sexual incident before the other party suspected what was happening, and more or less surreptitiously until it was 'too late.' That's seduction.

Click to expand...

I've heard people saying this, and I can't figure out what it means. Can you give an example or point to some example from stories or movies or something of how this plays out more specifically?

SimonDoom said:

An extra element that makes the seduction more dramatic/interesting/erotic is for the seducer himself/herself to have internal conflict about the seduction. The seducer is overcome by desire to seduce, but is conflicted in some way about it. Or the seducer is hampered in some way by something other than the seducee's reluctance.

In Pride and Prejudice, Darcy is overwhelmed by his love for Elizabeth and his need to woo her, but, at first at least, he is reluctant because of her lower social station and dodgy family connections.

In Gone with the Wind, Rhett is overwhelmed by love for Scarlett, but the circumstances of war and its aftermath keep getting in the way.

In an incest story, it works best if both parties feel and experience the taboo against it.

Conflict is what makes a story interesting, and to make it most interesting there has to be an internal element to the conflict for the main characters. It can't be one-sided.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of this to a point. I have another thread that's more about both people feeling conflicted in the lead up to some sexual engagement.
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=88257780#post88257780

In this current thread, I was thinking more of some of the stories where a married man is seduced by some sort of extremely sexy woman. Something that I've noticed about myself is that I respond sexually to that kind of story very specifically, for the same reason that I respond to some porn videos so viscerally. Basically, I think the fantasy of a woman who is expressing full-throttle desire and arousal (or at least pretending to), is a major turn on. There's a psychologist named Michael Bader who wrote a book called Arousal that talks a lot about this. I don't think he's right about all things related to sex, but I think what he says explains some things for me.

I would tend to agree that a lot of stories are better when both partners are conflicted. But, for me as a reader, there's differences in my response to both partners being conflicted or one partner being conflicted. I do like the idea, though, of both people kind of trading off roles in a seduction.

Voboy said:

No offense, but you’re overthinking it. It’s seduction. Breaking it down into a series of artificial steps is inorganic, and therefore to be avoided. Just start writing. If you’ve managed to invent interesting characters and can find half-decent dialogue for them to say to each other, it’ll happen.

If you want to know how any of us would describe it? Read our stories. That’s us, describing seduction.

ETA: Forgot to add that seductions happen differently in different stories. Different characters and situations will dictate different kinds of approaches, which is another indictment on the process of breaking it into steps.

Click to expand...

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.

SimonDoom said:

I think the element that is missing in your formula is internal conflict, which is the most significant and dramatic form of conflict.

For instance, take the seduced party. I don't think the seduced party should be uninterested. If the seduced party is uninterested, then why would he/she be interested later? It's better instead for the the seduced party to be interested but also turned off. Think Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind. When she meets Rhett she's turned off by his behavior, but there's something genuine and masculine about him that she likes, nonetheless, and it's obvious from the start that they're meant for each other, because they're both greedy and selfish.

In the case of the seducer, conflict is good as well. The seducer should be driven by an overwhelming desire that he/she can't resist, but there should be some force they have to resist, nonetheless, be it internal scruples, societal pressure, other relationships, something.

In an incest story, for example, one party usually is more eager/willing to break the taboo boundaries than the other, but it's best if both of them experience that taboo, and the reluctance to break it, to some degree.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that uninterested isn't quite right. I like the examples your providing here, and I agree that especially the person being seduced could be conflicted even before the seduction begins.

I addressed your comments more in the other version of this thread. (I made a real mess of things by accidentally starting the thread in the wrong spot. Now there's two versions, both in Author's Hangout. D'oh!)

rjordan said:

Women, in particular, learn to say, "No," when they really mean "Maybe, but not just yet." They use it as part of a real seduction where the point is to prolong the feelings of desire.

"No means no" is meant to set boundaries. It has nothing to do with seduction. Men, in particular, seem to be particularly dense about the differences in how No is used.

Click to expand...

Alas, if men don't know that NO means NO, the result is rape. If she says NO and he respects her and stops, she can resume by saying, WELL MAYBE. But if he doesn't stop after NO, it's rape.

Hypoxia said:

Alas, if men don't know that NO means NO, the result is rape. If she says NO and he respects her and stops, she can resume by saying, WELL MAYBE. But if he doesn't stop after NO, it's rape.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Well said.

electricblue66 said:

You can get a nice little frisson going if part way through a seduction it's not entirely clear who is seducing whom. They both know they're playing the game, but who's leading? A bit like a tango, rather than a waltz.

Click to expand...

I like this a lot, especially when combined with SimonDoom's ideas. Thanks for the response. I like the playfulness.

I have a thread in Story Feedback where I mention a story that seems like it has a cat and mouse thing going (It's not a story I would normally read, but I was searching tags or specific key words and came across it that way). Anyway, here's what I said about it. The story is not playful, per se, but that's due to the scenario being rather heavy.

Dan_Today said:

This story,Margarete and Hans, is pretty different and I liked it quite a bit. The emotional cat and mouse game the two characters play is skillfully written. I think it's hard to write characters who have layered emotions and who relate to each other in complicated ways, mixing self protection with different kinds of little overtures to see if they should or can get through to each other in some hard-to-define way. I think this author pulls it off, though I would have liked the emotional complexity to continue more into the actual sex scenes.

Click to expand...

Here's that thread, in case you're dying to read it. LOL.
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1463869

...............

Hypoxia said:

Alas, if men don't know that NO means NO, the result is rape. If she says NO and he respects her and stops, she can resume by saying, WELL MAYBE. But if he doesn't stop after NO, it's rape.

Click to expand...

All true, but I specifically said "no means no" is intended to set boundaries. I has nothing to do with seduction. Unfortunately, a woman intending to slow down a deduction would say, No. A woman intending to set a boundary would say, No. Ambiguity ensues. A smart man would assume no definitely means no and stop if there were no further signs of interest.

There are endless complications in most actions dealing with relationships. That's only one of them. The potential for rape is very real, but I was limiting my remarks to what is seduction.

I don't pretend to know what the fuck I'm talking about when it comes to seduction or relationships with women. I do the best I can and protect my most vulnerable assets under that assumption I'm doing it all wrong.

rj

KindofHere said:

you missed the point - or ignored it - that RJ was making about seduction, not fucking.

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you.

Another thing that has bothered me is that a lot of what I'm reading here about seduction is really manipulation or even coercion. There's the idea that the seducer is trying to convince the seduced to do something they might not want to do or hadn't thought about doing.

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.

If you can get your woman's panties wet with just a little talk, she's likely to stick around. To me, that's what seduction is.

rj