seduction as dishonesty

[Tricialen]

That's an extremely common assumption! Most peoples do it, really. In the Western world, all cultural differences were attributed to primitivism-- untill Hitler used that reasoning as an excuse for genocide. Most people were sickened by that. It was generally agreed that "Primitive" shouldn't mean "Worthlesss." But the underlying assumption, that "different" means "primitive," is hard to eradicate.

Tricia assumes nothing. Tricia said that men will be men and women will be women in every culture, every country, if it were not so mankind would not be here. Why are people soooooooooooooooo _______? Don't misquote me. No where did I say that. And how did Hitler get involved?

I NEVER said that cultural differences were attributed to primitivism. You people are getting to be ridiculous.

Back to the original question. No, I do not think it is dishonest to attract a MATE or male using sexual appeal. Everything else here is just crazy.

And that's all I have to say about that. Except that I do respect everyone's opinion, it's just too bad that sentiment isn't returned.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Back to the original question. No, I do not think it is dishonest to attract a MATE or male using sexual appeal. Everything else here is just crazy.

And that opinion, I one hundred percent agree with!
I do feel, however that those details, of what makes sex appeal cannot be so universally stated. It was the "
Strong men" comment that bothers me, and that's because-- well, for a lot of reasons. But as it happens, these things are exactly what my job is involved with right now, and I feel llike an over-full old-fashioned floppy disk with research information! I'm outlining the history of anthropology, for one thing. It kinda makes me want to blow up my head sometimes.

Male attractiveness, at least in the first 'attention-getting' stage is still about either virility or the ability to provide. This has been well developed in studies that show that married women will 'stray' with a man whose facial features show strength and aggressiveness but will prefer to remain with the man whose softer features indicate that he's high in vasopressin and likely to stick around to take care of the kiddies.

The Sun King was showing off his wealth in his clothing. Today, a man can show off is wealth with a Ferrari or a Rolex or whatever. Even the most conservatively cut suit, if bespoke, sends the same message. And in our culture, wealth connotes virility. The wealthy CEO is a dominant male (most of the time. Even a female CEO is still a dominant.)

The African is showing off wealth because that much makeup and dolled up clothing costs a bunch. He also dances to show his strength and virility. To each culture its own way of expressing the same thing. Only the methods differ.

Now once the woman's attention is secured, then personality becomes a much more important feature.

See, you're making those assumptions based on your own cultural norms. because finery here in the US costs money, you figure the yellow ochre and black-dyed homespun that the Wodaabe men use with such imagination and skill are expensive. They call themselves "Charm dancers" and it is, pure and simple, a beauty pageant. Their virility is not the issue.

Ol Leroy, at fifteen, was a ballet dancer. His court formalised what we know as ballet, that bastion of *cough* pansy men in leotards *cough*
The wealth in his clothing was a given. EVERYONE's wealth was a given in the court of the thirteenth Louis, his father. That was his mommy, in fact, she paid for the music and the choreographer and the costumery. If you look at the older painting of him, he's not only showing off an outrageously expensive pair of silk stockings, but a very fine pair of gams filling them.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

If they don't have free will on marriage do they have it on divorce ?

Depends on the culture.

 

[wafflemtl]

Depends on the culture.

OK because if you want to compare track record you need to have the same options.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

*Snerk!*
I'm talking about people in the U.S. from traditional cultures who had their marriages arranged by their parents with mates their parents had known from childhood. They live here and could get divorced just as easily as we do but find it unnecessary because their mating was done intelligently, instead of emotionally.

 

[cloudy]

*Snerk!*
I'm talking about people in the U.S. from traditional cultures who had their marriages arranged by their parents with mates their parents had known from childhood. They live here and could get divorced just as easily as we do but find it unnecessary because their mating was done intelligently, instead of emotionally.

Actually, to be technical, divorces were even easier than modern divorces. In our culture, all the woman had to do was set her husband's belongings outside the door. Voila! Divorced.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Actually, to be technical, divorces were even easier than modern divorces. In our culture, all the woman had to do was set her husband's belongings outside the door. Voila! Divorced.

Yup. And then he moved back in with his mother's clan until they found someone else who would take him. In the meantime, he helped raise his nephews and nieces.

 

[emap]

Vol I don't think emotions are the reason for so many divorces lately, I think it is more along the lines of he's cute and hung I'll marry him.

Helps that divorce is not looked down on as strongly as it used to be, so there is less thinking involved with the selection. Which actually brings up a thought. Divorce was first come up with by a king I don't remember which at the moment so he could lose his current wife and marry his mistress instead. had to start up his own religion at the time. The part i don't understand, a king could get divorced 8 times and nobody bats an eye, but until pretty recently anybody else was ostracized. I'm not following the logic on that.

 

[rgraham666]

Kings were one of the most visible signs of God's existence until recently. They weren't kidding when they said 'The divine right of kings'.

And the King you mention was Henry VIII. The guy in ogg's AV.

 

[EmeliaBell]

Kings were one of the most visible signs of God's existence until recently. They weren't kidding when they said 'The divine right of kings'.

And the King you mention was Henry VIII. The guy in ogg's AV.

Yup, and he only divorced 2 wives. Two more he had beheaded, one more died of post-puerperal fever and the last one survived him.

To reply to the OP I'd have to say that no, it's not dishonest. I myself show off my charms to boost my own confidence and my feelings of having sex appeal. When I feel sexier and confident then I find it easier to relate to someone in that way and I feel I show the best of myself. When I dress up I do it at least equally for myself as for my mate/potential mates.
To be brutally honest people don;t generally find me attractive for my looks, they usually only start to find me attractive after they've got to know me a little. This would seem to suggest that the dressing-up really is for my benefit alone and also that men are less driven by appearances than is commonly portrayed.

~E~

 

[Safe_Bet]

Yup, and he only divorced 2 wives. Two more he had beheaded, one more died of post-puerperal fever and the last one survived him.

To reply to the OP I'd have to say that no, it's not dishonest. I myself show off my charms to boost my own confidence and my feelings of having sex appeal. When I feel sexier and confident then I find it easier to relate to someone in that way and I feel I show the best of myself. When I dress up I do it at least equally for myself as for my mate/potential mates.
To be brutally honest people don;t generally find me attractive for my looks, they usually only start to find me attractive after they've got to know me a little. This would seem to suggest that the dressing-up really is for my benefit alone and also that men are less driven by appearances than is commonly portrayed.

~E~

I've been thinking about this a bit and what you say bears out my conclusion. Even factoring in my required twist, it seems that "smart" guys/chicks value intelligence more that the conventionally "beautiful".

I am considered more conventionally "pretty" than my spouse Amy. She is much more "intelligent" than I am. If we are at a party (and I checked with her and she agrees with me) I will initially attract a "prettier" group of people than she does. But after an hour of conversation she will have a group of "smart" people regardless of how they look the I will have a less cerebral group. (which is why at this point I sit next to her and keep my mouth shut).

So the conclusion I draw from this is that the "bees" are drawn to the prettiest flower first, but if given the choice between pretty and better pollen/smart the smart "worker bees" prefer smart, the "drones" keep going for pretty.

 

[Vermilion]

I've been thinking about this a bit and what you say bears out my conclusion. Even factoring in my required twist, it seems that "smart" guys/chicks value intelligence more that the conventionally "beautiful".

I am considered more conventionally "pretty" than my spouse Amy. She is much more "intelligent" than I am. If we are at a party (and I checked with her and she agrees with me) I will initially attract a "prettier" group of people than she does. But after an hour of conversation she will have a group of "smart" people regardless of how they look the I will have a less cerebral group. (which is why at this point I sit next to her and keep my mouth shut).

So the conclusion I draw from this is that the "bees" are drawn to the prettiest flower first, but if given the choice between pretty and better pollen/smart the smart "worker bees" prefer smart, the "drones" keep going for pretty.

This could lead to a whole strew of new experiments - Sociology and your self, how do people react to you

x
V

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

I think this is what Stella was referring to. It caught at my eye too when I read it.

It's the phrases "strongest men" and "make themselves appealing" that stuck in my craw.

If you're going back as far as you seem to be suggesting then there isn't any way a woman can make her hips wider nor breasts fuller. And I doubt very much weather women actually looked, they only had to make themselves available to fulfil their genetic role.

All the men would have to do is fight off (or around) the other men.

Push up bras, girdles, corsets, the list goes on

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

In response to the OP, I would offer a measured reply. On a philosophical level, I would say that I am at a point in my life where I do not any longer purposely play up my physical assets to win over a potential partner. I simply allow said assets to speak for themselves (or not speak at all, depending on their mood). Admittedly, I am a reasonably attractive woman (which is not something I had a lot to do with). So, on that score, I'm fortunate. But, as far as the 'mating game' is concerned (for lack of a better phrase), I guess we all use what we have to get what we want. Is it wrong? I don't think so.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

All seduction is essentially lying, isn't it? You're promising things you don't know you can deliver. You're asking the person to trust you when you don't really know if you're trustworthy. I mean, you know you'll try to be, but it's a gamble. That's part of the thrill of seduction and new love. It's fear. Are you being lied to? Are you yourself lying?

If you're not sure of what sort of relationship you desire with the person, then employing sexual body language and seductive hints would seem to be a normal part of your negotiations and exploration of the relationship and are not really dishonest at all, as long as they're not too vehement.

It's only if your designs on the person are definitely non-sexual that implying sexual promises is dishonest. Then you're teasing, offering something you have no intention of delivering.

 

[gauchecritic]

Push up bras, girdles, corsets, the list goes on

well yes, but they weren't available "one million years bc" despite what Raquel wore.

It's only if your designs on the person are definitely non-sexual that implying sexual promises is dishonest. Then you're teasing, offering something you have no intention of delivering.

But it goes on all the time zoot. In the office, in interviews, in negotiations.

I'm not saying anyone has ulterior motives but there's a hell of a lot of flirting in the AH that I would say is social rather than sexual.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

well yes, but they weren't available "one million years bc" despite what Raquel wore.
.

I would refer you to Elizabeth Wayland Barber's Women's Work and her discussion of the seductive possiblilities of the Paleo/Neolithic string skirt. I suspect it would create quite a stir at a party, possibly even in Chicago.

 

[neonlyte]

I would refer you to Elizabeth Wayland Barber's Women's Work and her discussion of the seductive possiblilities of the Paleo/Neolithic string skirt. I suspect it would create quite a stir at a party, possibly even in Chicago.

I'm not going if you're wearing one

Surely all seduction is dishonest - at the root. Seduction implies persuassion (?) and comes in all shapes, sizes, styles and sexes.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Persuasion/propaganda is not inherently dishonest. It can be but it need. I'll have to ask AH to trust me on this one but the best propaganda/persuasion is carefully managed truth. Never lie. Never, never, never, never! Just be careful how much of the truth you tell--or show!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Push up bras, girdles, corsets, the list goes on

Bustles, high heels, padding of various sorts...

 

[Safe_Bet]

Push up bras, girdles, corsets, the list goes on

What's a girdle?

 

[xssve]

"All's fair in love and war".

 

[xssve]

It's only dishonest if you promise and don't deliver.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm not going if you're wearing one

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr286/1oldsarge/160px-Egtved_Girl.gif
http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr286/1oldsarge/threads1.jpg

 

[Guest]

I am completely wowed by the responses to this thread. I am studying this weekend but every time I check back, more amazing responses show up.

Still haven't made up my mind though.

EDIT: And by God, if I promise, I DELIVER


Maharat