I will define seduction as “a deliberate, calculated process or method that a person undertakes in order to elicit romantic consent from members of the opposite sex.” This is not necessarily for the sake of sexual conquest; it may be for the purpose of making the person fall in love. On the one hand, it might seem perfectly acceptable that a person do what is necessary to attract a mate; on the other hand, it can be viewed as manipulative and as violence done to the will of the seduced. Is it moral to treat attraction as a science of sorts and to consciously go about trying to draw people in by elaborate methods?
What kind of violence are you talking about being done to the will of the seduced? Unless it is rape, and then, yes, that is violent…it is rape.
Rape has nothing to do with seducation, as far as I am concerned.
When a man is trying to seduce a woman physically and emotionally, which is not rape, unless she says NO, NO, NO – then on some level I think though she may not be able to help herself, may feel out of control and helpless, that might presuppose to me that her body and her mind is actually enjoying the encounter and she is surrendering to him. Unless she tries to push him…and at that point, it does become violent and rape, if he doesn’t stop. Incidentally, women do also try to seduce men.
When a woman is seduced, chances are it is because she ultimately wants to be seduced, she is ready to be seduced…I am simply speaking as a woman now. But maybe I am wrong. 
I might look at you and smile with my most seductive smile and you are thus seduced. There is certainly no violence in that.
And we are talking about adults here, not an adult with a young person, as far as I am concerned. Two consenting or not so consenting (at first) 
adults.
Morally speaking, unless one or the other is hurt by it, i don’t think morals enters into it. Rape is another story altogether.
Yeah, I’m not talking about rape. When I mention that seduction can be seen as “violence done to the will,” I mean that given the manipulative tactics of the seducer the will of the seduced is held captive by the seducer, is it not? You say that in the encounter the seduced enjoys this and surrenders. OK, so perhaps the question is what manifestations or kinds of seduction are licit and what are illicit? For example, would it be moral if I were to deliberately use ambiguous language and actions to disorient a woman whom I desire? What about if I were to subtly cause her to feel inadequate so that her desire for me would be augmented? How about if I showed disinterest in order to lure her?
It seems that in seducing a woman in this manner I am deceiving her in some way, since my my outward presentation does not match up with my inward intention. When I tell the truth, my spoken word corresponds accurately to my interior word, right? When I tell a lie, my spoken word differs from the interior word in my heart. Is seduction a lie? Bear in mind, I’m not committed to this conclusion, but I’m interested in what you all think.
good topic post.
initially, upon limited reflection, i would be inclined to say that true affection and love is not predicated upon deception and manipulation. of course, everyone has their secrets which they keep to themselves, but that is not deception-- deception is, as you put it, “my outward presentation does not match up with my inward intention”. in this case, your intended and stated (or deliberately rationalized and semi-conscious) goal is to cause a belief or feeling to arise in the other person, without their knowing that this is your intention. likewise, manipulation would be similarly a intent to create or cause a belief/feeling to arise in the other person without their knowing it. deception involves a lie or untruth, but manipulation can easily employ only truths, or certainly a lack of lies. we can manipulate with HOW we present information, in what order, body language, etc… certainly some of these things are “lies” in a non-verbal sense.
either way, your question is a good one, and i reiterate my point that attraction or desire which is based on true and deep love for the other would not consider lying and manipulation noble or desirable means to your ends. seduction’s end is possession of an emotional or physical nature. certainly it is possible to manipulate or lie to another and cause them to truly LOVE you, and perhaps we all do this to some extent unconsciously (i would be open to considering this fact as likely a necessary part of human nature, at least inner nature)… regardless, however, the extent that we have conscious and direct control over our intentions and actions towards the other person, if we feel a deep, meaningul, true love for them, it doesnt seem like we would even WANT or ALLOW ourselves to apply force on that other person, unless they consented to that force.
seduction is probably a part of all mating ritual, for humans as well as any species, and even how we dress, what we say, what we order for dinner or what movie we take her to, these are all “seductions” if we stretch the definition a little bit-- but i think here you are referring to more seductions of a FORCEFUL nature, are you not? seductions relying on lies and overt manipulations; perhaps the line is too fine to draw around this distinction, but, as i said upon initial reflection only here, i am inclined to suppose that if your “goal” or source of intentions is a true human love based on mutual caring/honor/respect/understanding, then seduction would NOT be an effective means to this end, since the seduction itself would undermine and likely destroy the necessary precursors of honesty and good-will that true love rests upon (even if only within yourself)-- however, if your intentions or goals are just to mate, or to get attraction/recognition from another, then certainly seduction is a useful and perhaps often necessary tool.
does that make it right? i dont know. it would depend on your personal code of ethics. for myself, i do not consider such tactics desirable, and in my own life i try to pass up (consciously) opportunities at lies and manipulations when i realise that my only goal is to deceive/harm the other out of their will… i do this mainly because i recognize that in the end, these lies will come back to harm me and undermine my stated goals with the female, but also just because i FEEL that it is wrong. when in love or affection, the other person TRUSTS you, and i feel that this trust should be earned… and to me, it would be wrong to use this trust or good-will for ends which the other is unaware of or uncomplicit in. and certainly, if the other does not KNOW they are being deceived/maniuplated, then they cannot give consent or be complicit.
to lie or deceive is a force upon another, as you say a “violence against their will” (very good way of putting it, btw, nice job 
)… this type of force runs counter to the good-will and openness/honesty/caring which love is based upon, so it would seem that such seductions are not effective or desirable in situations with those whom we love.
god is dead… we invent right and wrong to be what the mob (errr… I mean democracy) decides…
seduction can be insidious…
I will tempt you with riches beyond your wildest dreams…
you don’t have to lift a finger…
we’ll just take that which belongs to somebody else…
all in the name of justice and fairness and equality…
steal with me…
and you thought you’d get to keep that which now belongs to the “state”?!?
fool…
-Imp
imp, i believe he is referring to more romantic seduction, the love or lust relations between two people romantically, and not socialist economic theory. thats my pretty strong impression of the OP, but ill let him speak for himself.
there is no morality…
your body belongs to the state as well…
-Imp
Seduction can be an honest way of arousing sexual attraction, even when a relationship is primarily based on mutual respect and understanding. It is not the method, seduction that makes the moral difference, but the one who is seducing. Compare: a poisonous fruit and a wholesome one can both be really appealing, attractive, seductive. But they are so differently. A poisonous fruit will be overstated in colors, like a seducer/seductress out for the conquest alone will appear and behave exaggeratedly seductive, to compensate for it’s lack of nurturing qualities.
Experience teaches, I think, and changes taste - someone who has learned to know wholesome fruits/mates will grow to react to unhealthy ones with natural disgust.
To be honest, all communication is usually manipulative to some degree, why draw out (sexual) seduction as special…?
Anyway, I’d say that as long as a seducer does not present too distorted a representation of his or her socio-sexual fitness and long-term intentions (if any) to their prospective mate then, its all good.
But then we’re really just talking truth/untruth.
Obviously, the gentle art of the “cosh to the back of the cerebellum” school of seduction is morally to be frowned upon. As is ambulance chasing and putting knock-out drops on your nipples.
the promise of momentary pleasure blinds one to the lifetime of slavery…
not until you’re married…
who needs marriage now? the state will provide…
slavery comes in many packages…
the connection isn’t so subtle…
-Imp
Are you married Imp…?
happily
-Imp
Then we are happy slaves. Singing in our chains. But then could we ever really meaningfully say such…?
Is a square enslaved by its four sides…?
I rather think that a square is “completed” by its four sides.
That which by its very nature, at least to me, feels complete, is never enslaved, Tab.
I suppose my problem might be with the use of your word “violence”. It’s a very strong word and perhaps should be defined first, in regards to your view of it.
Yes I said this, and perhaps I will rethink that. The missing link here though would be the attitude of the woman both before and after the fact. And I am certainly not saying that the end justifies the means.
Speaking as a woman 
- if I could possibly feel inadequate, and being human, there are times I am capable of feeling adequate - but that certainly wouldn’t be the way to lure me, whether feeling inadequate or self-confident in myself. But this is not about me. But it just might work for another woman, in which case I might say it is both pathetic and underhanded and sleazy. Get it? 
For a man to deliberately cause hurt and make a vulnerable woman doubt herself because of his own selfish and self-interested needs, that to me is an unethical man.
Showing disinterest to lure a woman will and can work, but then where is the violence in that? Perhaps I am immoral 
because I don’t see what is immoral in this. These perhaps are the games people play, women also play them with men, and perhaps you can say that they are manipulative, in one sense, but does that nevertheless make them immoral? To me, no. I think it would depend on the degree and the judgment to which one is capable of holding himself morally responsible for an act. This would be different for all people I think.
One’s sense of morality can be and is very strange. indeed, I think sometimes. One might find lying utterly immoral, no matter what the reason, but on the other hand, would have no problem gossiping (even in truth) and destroying the reputation of another.
Again, I think it all comes down to degrees. And yes, you would be deceiving her in this sense. And it all depends on what your intention is. You can be honest with her and tell her you would like to have sex with her but then your intention is to leave her, and give her the opportunity to make the decision or not. Then at least she could make a decision as to whether she wants to be seduced by you, play the game and ultimately surrender to you. And in this way, your spoken word corresponds to your interior word [world].
hmmm - This one sort of has me stymied. I would have to say both yes and no. If a man realizes that a particular woman is such an innocent and so vulnerable that she does not know that having sex does not mean a lifetime commitment and that he could leave her in a heartbeat and she would hurt then because of it, then I would say that that seduction would be a lie. A lie to me is when one is “clearly being deceived”. On the other hand, some of us would prefer to be lied to, in which case how deceptive can that be - who is doing the deceiving then?
And of course, there is always one thing to remember - the tables can always be turned on the man and he may become slave to her unintentionally.
There are plenty of women who look for a rich sugar daddy to pamper them. Their game is seduction, but their end goal is not romance-in fact, both seduction and romance are just a means to something else-his money. Same applies to high-end escort girls, although the game is more transparent. They play the whole seduction/romance game and I’m sure the men know it is a lie, yet they have no problem with it. Men want romance and are even willing to pay big money for a “pretend” romance/ a well-played out lie. Essentially, men deceive themselves and pay the other (actress) to help them to deceive themselves.
Agreed, it’s too strong. I myself would not describe seduction as violence, but as a captivation of the will–which is different.
For my own part, I don’t identify free will with the basic agency to incline in this direction or that. That seems like an agency that is to some degree shared by most animals. Free will in the fullest sense, for me, is a state in which I am irresistibly enticed and drawn by the Good. I have no choice but to surrender. When I am free to pursue the Good then I am truly free. It is not an exercise in freedom to prefer a lesser good to a higher one: that’s just an exercise in ignorance or addiction.
So here’s my conclusion: Love itself is inescapably a form of seduction. Whenever some good thing excites, tempts, and lures our will, we are said to love it. The morality of a seduction is just the degree to which the seducer is truthfully worthy of love.
I see what you’re saying, and there are unfortunately men and women who do this a lot and for bad reasons. However, there is no seduction where there is no need. No one falls in love if they don’t need something in their life. A recognition of inadequacy is necessary, and so is the belief that this other person can fill that space. Don’t you think?
I think you are putting the cart before the horse here, are you not - even though I have to tell you more and more I am finding your Heart to be very attractive (and don’t worry, that’s no c’mon, as I am also as you are ) ah, but contradictions, contradictions. I think Augustine is speaking here about the initial encounters between a man and a woman, if I am correct, not about the deeply loving and spiritual relationship we may have with someone - afterwards.
Beyond that, and all of the everyday game-playing which people do to seduce one another, either emotionally, physically or spiritually, which I feel is instinctive, a throwback to our cavepeople days - unless one truly has the will, Love and inner awareness to rise above it - instincts can ambuscade us, can they not - and where would humanity be except for that – look to nature and how it works with the laws of attraction. I find nothing immoral in it, except for what i said above, if one knowingly sees the woman or the man as being vulnerable and capable of being hurt and still selfishly and knowing that they will love them and leave them, proceed to - and seduce them. That to me is both unethical and apathetic…redundancy here.
Augustinus:
Hmmm – captivation of the will you say. I will have to think of that. We never established whether all of this is taking place before the couple find themselves in bed together - sorry to be crass – or are we speaking of two people who are dating/on a date and/or getting to know one another. Perhaps seduction can also be viewed as a captivation of the senses. There are various ways in which one can be seduced. I can look at a beautiful sunset or a starry night or that first “oh my god” snowfall and become totally captivated by them, I absorb them into myself - I am absorbed by them, I am in flow - in other words, they seduce me. So perhaps you would be right about seduction being a captivation of the will. When we are allowing our brains to influence our senses and our outcomes, our will to overcome is denied it’s power to act or to step aside.
At the same time, one can say that looked at that way, seduction is neither good nor bad, it simply is something that happens to us, something that I might add is greater than ourselves, greater than our will.
I am not so sure that animals act within “free will” – I rather think that they act instinctively. Ergo, perhaps the “lower” animal which we as human beings all are, when acting instinctively, act without free will.
Hmmm…if you are “irresistibly enticed and drawn” doesn’t that sort of refute “free will”. To me it does but I will have to rethink this. Of course, this is simply a discussion which cannot have any conclusion, so to speak, ah the beauty of life and perspectives. Perhaps it is just a case of semantics what you are saying…and your words “I am irresistibly enticed and drawn by the Good” are, I must say, beautifully put. But that still reminds me more of instinct…as the bumble bee is enticed to the flower. Also sounds a bit like “seduction” to me. So perhaps that’s why I find it to be both poetic and beautiful.
Free will to me implies no instinct. It is based in logic, intuition, heart and inner awareness. It implies to me being aware of, for the most part, of both our conscious and unconscious desires and motivations, and acting to overcome them, to rise above them, thereby making a choice to act “freely”, inasmuch as this is possible for us humans.
I agree…up to a point - also without trying to sound amoral here, when you are truly free to pursue and choose also the bad, you are truly free too. Where is free choice when you cannot “see” opposites?
Yes, love as emotion is a form of seduction and always seduces us. It is our emotions which seduce us. But there is a greater form of love which albeit may feel emotional, at the same time, it rises above emotions and enters the realm of free will and spirit and soul. In that sense, it is the Soul that wills love, a different kind of Love. I would have to say that it is within our Spirits, our Souls, where our free will resides and takes shape.
We are all worthy of love – perhaps it is because we don’t know this that we act in the ways in which we do.
Is your use of the word “need” here necessarily a negative one? As human beings, don’t we all “need” - have needs? To deny this I think is simply fear within us, to deny our own humanity. Where would the human race be today without “need”? But I do understand what you are saying.
Turning this around maybe I can also say that seduction is more capable of happening when one does not recognize one’s own need. Perhaps when one attempts to be strong, seduction has a greater chance of happening to us. A tree in the wind which doesn’t attempt to be strong and which simply allows the wind to influence it, take it this way and that, is a tree which will survive and overcome, simply because it has that inner intelligence and awareness of itself.
Thank you, J