This is in no way intended as a grading of your responses, which were very interesting and revealing. There is obviously no single correct seduction in this matter. It is chemistry--what the individual seducer brings to the mix, with his strengths and weaknesses, and the particular victim at hand. But some of your comments and ideas stand out as effective to me, while a few seem based on some misconceptions. With that in mind, I would like to discuss a few of the main themes you all brought up:
- The Ethics of this seduction. Obviously I fall into the camp of all is fair in love and war, with a few limits that I would personally observe. This would be marriage, children involved, and a few other sticky matters. In this case, the young woman is not married, and the relationship is relatively young. Seduction almost always involves, at least psychologically, taking people away from their past, their attachments in whatever form. If we had to narrow our seductions to only those who are completely available, well, it would make things very difficult. As one person pointed out, it is not like you are forcing this woman to leave her boyfriend. You cleverly create a contrast between the two of you, over the course of the days or weeks or months of this seduction. And if done correctly, she leaves him for you of her own free will. She falls into your arms, you do not pull her. This could act as a wake up call to her boyfriend, who has probably fallen into the typical pattern of taking her for granted, and now a war will erupt, all healthy in my opinion. In this sense, you might be doing her a favor.
I will of course always respect people's opinions on this matter, their ethical choices, but to me the beauty is that in matters of love and seduction, we lose our normal sense of boundaries. Without a feeling of transgression there would be no seduction and life would be the less interesting for that. This is sex and love, not politics.
- Good victim/bad victim. Some people have said that a person who would stay in a stale relationship for that period of time has something wrong with him or her and they would not bother seducing such a woman. I find this rather odd. Everyone has weaknesses, flaws in their character. We are not moralizers, but seducers. She might be stuck in this relationship for many reasons that are quite human and understandable. She may want to be drawn out of herself and into the adventure you provide. Are you not aware of the saying still waters run deep? Have you never had the experience of being with someone who seems shy and closed, and who opens up as a result of your actions? Such targets, such seductions are often the best.
Many times the people who seem so exciting on the outside are really quite a bore once you get to know them. My point is to open your eyes and think of expanding your normal circle of seductions. A woman who is neglected by others, who many see as not so interesting, can often be the best target of all. Look at the subject of the New Prude in The Art of Seduction and the Choose the Victim chapter. I think people tend to be uncreative in this area, and base many of their choices on stereotypes or weird prejudgments.
- Being direct or indirect. In many ways, this is the key to the whole seduction and the discussion it brought about. People fall into two camps: the alpha male, be aggressive and bold style; and the haunting the periphery group. Some of this is personal, what an individual finds as their seductive style. But in general, I believe indirection is what is called for here, judging by what little we know of her resistances and defenses. And so in that light, I was intrigued by people who mapped out this possibility--throwing a party and not making a move on her, seeming ambiguous in the gender sense, working through the dog (pardon the language here), gathering more info on her through the friend of the friend. To me, you would want to plant some seeds in her mind, let some time pass, all of which gives you excellent room to maneuver in many directions, using your own style at the same time.
I would oppose this to those who would think of messing with the boyfriend, or boldly going up with some line, or making any kind of overt move on the first real encounter. To me that reeks of someone who is trapped in their ego, who is insecure, afraid of failure, and wants to hide it with the alpha exterior. A confident person is able to take a step back and play beta when beta is called for. Of course, this depends on being willing to take one's time. As I said in the setting up of the scenario, however, this woman effects you deeply, and so you are already seduced by her. You need to turn the tables and seduce her, which will require some patience.
- Friend to lover. This is a related issue to the indirection question. Many men seem adverse to this classic, to this brilliant form of seduction, equivalent to the counterattack. I find this very weak. If a woman relegates you to the friend category as a way to signal you are not love or sex material, that should in no way discourage you from the seduction. It is in fact a better way to disguise your future maneuvers. You give in to this, you become the friend, and you slowly alter this perception she once had of you, creating a powerful reversal. Believe me, I have seen it done and I have done it myself. You must never be discouraged by what someone thinks or sees in you. As Hannibal said, "I will either find my way or make my way." (This is not physical, but psychological.) You may think that it is the woman who has chosen to put you into this category, but in fact you control the dynamic by seeing it differently. You choose to be her friend and to slowly turn the tables. In this sense, I find the ladder theory very uncreative and limiting. A good seducer alters people's perceptions, does not take them as law.
- To enter her spirit or not. A less obvious theme in your responses, but an interesting one a few of you have thrown out. Whether to enter her spirit and defuse her resistance by seeming innocuous--sharing her tastes in film, in politics, in dogs.... Or, to play the exotic card and to be seen as something very different. I can see both methods working here. In fact, a combination of the two would be in order, but that requires some subtlety. You seem to share a lot of things in common, but you send the mixed signal that all is not what it seems and that there is something else about you that intrigues, that is dark, that is not what she is getting from her boyfriend. I like the mixed signals element in this seduction.
- Listen to women. I am always surprised by how the best ideas, the best arguments on these subjects invariably come from women, and so it is in this discussion in which a few women have joined in. This can be in the form of telling us what would not work on them, or in the case of bi and lesbian women telling us how they have worked things. Think of women as the enemy (ha ha), and you must know your enemy as thoroughly as possible. And the best intelligence comes from women themselves. The more women you know, the better a seducer you will be (and better human). So many times, as men, we do something and expect a certain response from the female, to be surprised to get the opposite response. We are locked in ourselves. We think women want this boldness, or this alpha demonstration, etc. We end up so wrong. That is what makes a Rake such a powerful seducer. He is invariably a man who has spent much time with women, understands their psychology (as best as a man can) and yet remains very much a man. Anyway, love is war and you must strategize according to the enemy. Having women friends will facilitate this. You can always then practice your friend to lover maneuvers on them.
Thoughts? Comment and Discuss here
Posted by Robert Greene at 12:04 PM