Seduction

Seduction is the process of deliberately enticing a person, to engage in a relationship, to lead astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; to corrupt, to persuade or induce into engaging in sexual behaviour. Strategies of seduction include conversation and sexual scripts,[1] paralingual features,[2] non-verbal communication,[3][4] and short-term behavioural strategies.[5] The word seduction stems from Latin and means literally "leading astray."[6] As a result, the term may have a positive or negative connotation. Famous seducers from history or legend include Lilith, Giacomo Casanova, and the fictional character Don Juan. The emergence of the Internet and technology has supported the availability and the existence of a seduction community, which is based on discourse about seduction. This is predominately by "pickup artists" (PUA). Seduction is also used within marketing to increase compliance and willingness.[7]

Not to be confused with Subduction.
This article is about the process of enticing or attracting a person sometimes to engage in sexual behaviour. For other uses, see Seduction (disambiguation).
"Seducer" redirects here. For the painting by Magritte, see The Seducer.
Don Juan in Mozart's opera Don Giovanni, a painting by Max Slevogt

Seduction, seen negatively, involves temptation and enticement, often sexual in nature, to lead someone astray into a behavioural choice they would not have made if they were not in a state of sexual arousal. Seen positively, seduction is a synonym for the act of charming someone—male or female—by an appeal to the senses, often with the goal of reducing unfounded fears and leading to their "sexual emancipation." Some sides in contemporary academic debate state that the morality of seduction depends on the long-term impacts on the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, and may not necessarily carry the negative connotations expressed in dictionary definitions.[8]

History
The Proposition (1872), William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825–1905).

Seduction is a popular motif in history and fiction, both as a warning of the social consequences of engaging in the behaviour or becoming its victim, and as a salute to a powerful skill.[9] In the Bible, Eve offers the forbidden fruit to Adam. Eve herself was verbally seduced by the serpent, believed in Christianity to be Satan; later, Chapter 7 of Proverbs warns of the pitfalls of seduction. Sirens of Greek mythology lured sailors to their death by singing them to shipwreck; Cleopatra beguiled both Julius Caesar and Marc Antony, Dionysus was the Greek god of seduction and wine. Famous male seducers, their names synonymous with sexual allure, range from Genji to James Bond.

In biblical times, because unmarried females who lost their virginity had also lost much of their value as marriage prospects, the Old Testament Book of Exodus specifies that the seducer must marry his victim or pay her father to compensate him for his loss of the marriage price: "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

The Book of Judges in the Old Testament describes Delilah seducing Samson who was given great strength by God, but ultimately lost his strength when she allowed the Philistines to shave his hair off during his slumber.[10]

Delilah cutting Samson's hair, c. 1460

Use in sexual relationships

Males and females both implement the strategy of seduction as a method of negotiating their sexual relationships.[11] This can often involve manipulation of other individuals. This is primarily based on desire, normally physical, as well as attraction towards them. Popular phrases often used include; ‘the language of love is universal’.[12] These phrases help to demonstrate the extensively pervasive and ubiquitous strategy use within love and relationships amongst humans. Individuals employing such strategies often do so subconsciously and will merely report the feelings and thoughts that they subjectively experienced and are colloquially comparable to ‘attraction’[13] or 'love'.[14]

Research has indicated that seduction could substitute or equate to a form of collapsed or condensed courtship.[5] Evolutionary psychology suggests that this form of sexual enticement can be used in order to cajole desired individuals to engage in sexual intercourse and ultimately reproduce. This behaviour is also aimed at persuading someone to develop a short-term or long-term sexual relationship with them. Males declare that they adopt the strategy of seduction statistically more frequently than females.[11] From an evolutionary perspective this is due to females’ higher parental investment and the lack of guarantee of male parental investment.[15] Females therefore need to be seduced more prior to engaging in sexual intercourse. Men more commonly wish to engage in more frequent short-term mating,[16] which may require this strategy of seduction used to access the female for intercourse. However, this finding has been contradicted by non-verbal seduction results which indicate that females have more control within this area.[12] Other potential strategies individuals employ to gain access to a mate include courting or having relatives select mates for socioeconomic reasons.[12] Ultimately, both males and females have reported preferring seduction above all other strategies, such as the use of power or aggression, for making a potential partner agree to sexual intercourse.[11][12]

Human mate poaching

Seduction is related to human mate poaching.[17] Human mate poaching refers to when either a male or female purposefully entices another individual who is already in an established relationship into sexual relations with them. This is akin to the definition of seduction in the introduction. This is a psychological mechanism which had unconscious and conscious manifestations, that in relation to evolutionary psychology has been adaptive to our ancestors in the past and has continued to be functional in modern society.[17]

Human mate poaching is a form of seduction, and can be used as a short-term and long-term mating strategy among both sexes. Moreover, there are associated costs and benefits to poaching. Schmitt and Buss (2001)[17] investigated the potential costs and benefits across sexes in relation to human mate poaching. Costs for women engaging in poaching behaviours include unwanted pregnancy, transmitted infection and diseases, and insecurity about provisions (shelter, food, and financial security). However, the associated benefits include emotional support that she may not be receiving from her current partner, and access to 'good genes' that the male possesses, such as facial symmetry.[18] Potential costs for males engaging in mate poaching can include resource depletion, violence and aggression from the female’s current partner, who takes part in mate guarding behaviours (behaviours used to protect their mate from other potential males or females). The associated benefits for males include increased sexual variety, access to physically attractive mates, and non-committal copulations.

Evolutionarily speaking, we are derived from our reproductively-successful ancestors who managed to solve the adaptive problem of finding a mate with the required characteristics needed at that time in their lives, e.g., plenty of resources, physical attractiveness, and showing signs of honest fertility. Therefore, our ancestors would have deployed this tactic (for enticing a suitable mate), which remains in our psychology. Some evolved poaching behaviours may not be suitable for current environmental problems. Leftover by-products from human evolution, such as preferences for fat and sugar,[19] are not adaptive in western cultures at present, and thus similar poaching behaviours could still remain.

Strategies

Short term

In males

Short term strategies involved in seduction are associated with the dark triad,[20] however predominately in males. Short term strategies are those used by an individual to obtain a mate for a short term sexual encounter.[21]

The Dark Triad, proposed by Paulhus and Williams (2002)

The dark triad is made up of three personality traits, psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism and was proposed by Paulhus and Williams (2002) .[21] The three traits are exploitative in nature and are used for sexually coercive behaviours, useful in the seduction process. Typically these three traits are deemed maladaptive for the individual and society. Nevertheless, these traits have been found to be adaptive in an exploitative strategy in short term mating.[22] Dark triad traits are adaptive for an unrestricted sociosexuality and promiscuous behaviours.[21] The three traits are associated with impulsivity, manipulative behaviours and lack of empathy. These personality traits would be useful in seducing a partner for a short term encounter.[22] From an evolutionary perspective, these would have been particularly beneficial to our ancestral males who wanted to increase their reproductive success, through seducing many women and therefore increasing their chance of passing on their genes. These particular traits may be used as a tactic for increasing success in mating.

The dark triad traits are seen more in males where the parental investment is lower. Through being able to have numerous copulations with many women, this will increase the likelihood their genes will be passed on, so only investing the genetic component during intercourse. Whereas, a woman has to invest time and a lot of energy in carrying an infant and looking after him/her for many years subsequently.

In females

The triad of traits, ancestrally would not have been adaptive for women, this is because, females were and still are less likely or less willing to engage in casual sex,[23] because of the lack of certainty of resources to provide for her and her offspring.

Additionally, there are other potential considerations of the implication of short-term strategies. Males cannot employ such strategies without there being willing females to engage in sexual intercourse within a short-term relationship with them. Therefore, benefits from engaging in multiple short-term matings must also exist for females. These matings enable females to practice and enhance their skills, specifically within attraction and seduction.[24] This often occurs during extra-pair mating when females have sexual intercourse with males other than their husband.[24] There are potential benefits for females to engage in these matings, including the ability to acquire more resources. For example, females are better able to access meats, goods or services in exchange for sexual intercourse or if she were to give birth to a child whose father has better genes than her husband.[25] Females use these short-term matings to hone their mating and seduction skills and increase their protection. This is because males often provide increased protection against other males exploitation or from non-humans for the females they mate with and their offspring.[26] However, this willingness to make the first move towards seduction and engage in a sexual relationship may be subtle.[27] For example, females may simply stand close to their target.[28]

Improving attraction and seduction skills can also help a female with acquiring a better or more desirable male according to the ‘Mate Switching Hypothesis’.[24] This is because, females are able to assess their potential mate before committing to a long-term relationship.[16] Alternatively, according to this hypothesis females are also able to get rid of an unwanted husband through mate expulsion using short-term strategies, such as by seducing another man into a short-term sexual relationship.[25] Females may also be more equipped at deterring male partners from future infidelity, demonstrated by the ‘Mate Manipulation Hypothesis’.[24] This hypothesis suggests that females are able to use revenge to deter future infidelity. This can be achieved by a female partaking in a short-term affair, incorporating the use of seduction, with another male as a revenge tactic for her husband's previous affair, which aims to increase commitment of her intended long-term mate.[25][29] These hypotheses indicate the benefits for females of developing and expanding on their seduction skills within sexual relationships.

Long term

'Strategies are defined as evolved solutions to adaptive problems'.[30] Men and women differ in the adaptive problems that they face, and therefore deploy different strategies. Women strongly desire the resources and commitment that comes with paternal parental investment and therefore impose a longer period of time for courtship and use of seduction prior to engaging in a long-term sexual relationship. Women also spend time seeking and seducing men that are willing to invest and commit in the long run.[31] It is likely that exploitative strategies will not be used when seducing a long-term partner.[21] The traits associated within the dark triad (Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism) are not useful for long term mating strategies because they are negatively correlated with agreeableness, empathy and reciprocation, which are traits promoting a healthy relationship.[22]

Biosocial theory

Kenrick and Trost (1987) [4] have formulated a Biosocial theory of heterosexual relationships which encompasses several stages of seduction. This includes five stages of natural progression:

  1. Individuals identify a potential partner based on desired characteristics such as physical attraction
  2. Both individuals establish contact
  3. Other traits of the individual that are not necessarily explicit are analysed to determine fitness
  4. A physical relationship is established
  5. The relationship is either successful and progresses or discontinued

Within these stages, both individuals are interacting in a game which is never explicit, this is because if either individual were to be rejected this would damage their self-esteem. Therefore, when seducing, the overarching aims and goals are never vocalised to the other desired individual. This is sometimes referred to as paradoxical exhibition.[4]

The main goal of seduction whether it is active under conscious or unconscious mechanisms is to impress the desired partner and display positive characteristics that are likely to be attractive, and to repress undesirable characteristics.[4]

Non-verbal communication

Within the interactive seduction game, non-verbal communication is a prominent feature in accessing the desirable potential mate. The purpose of this communication is to reduce the interpersonal distance between the desired individuals.

Physiological features such as pupil dilation[32] are a salient cue, expressing attraction. Leading on from this, eye contact is a very notable sign of attraction. Although there are cross cultural differences in whether eye contact is used or not, in Western cultures, the duration of eye contact and the exchange between two individuals is important in the first stages of the biosocial model. Another non-verbal cue in the process of seduction are facial expressions. Smiling is considered another prominent feature in seduction,[3] as it signifies willingness to engage in a social interaction, and in the case of seduction, to participate in creating an intimate bond. These non-verbal behaviours become synchronised between the two individuals which can then lead to the last two stages of the biosocial model.

Paralingual features

Paralingual features are those associated with the voice, such as pitch, tone and rhythm.[2] These features of verbal communication change in different stages of the seduction process. Studies have shown that when initiating an interaction with a female, the seductive characteristics of the voice will begin with slightly higher pitch and increased articulation in the first meeting. However, whilst seducing, the paralanguage will alter gradually. His voice will eventually become softer with lower pitch and modulated voice. These characteristics of the voice are akin to those adults use when speaking to children, in infant directed speech. This is vocal exhibition, which has been found mostly in males. The aim of modulating the voice is to attract the desired female and become intimate.[2]

Marketing

Seduction within marketing is seen as the relationship between the marketer and the customer that converts an initial resistance into compliance and willingness.[7] The marketer seduces the consumer to change from one set of social agreements into another, often opposite, set of social agreements leading to satisfaction of at least one of the pair. Information is given, so as to have a desirable and predictable impact on a consumer’s decision process. Seduction differs from enlightenment, in that with enlightenment the information is given in order to allow the consumer to enable better decision making. The terms of the exchange are unambiguous.

There is debate as to how common seduction is used within marketing, with utility theory denying it would exist at all. Others believe in a sovereign customer, who is free to make their own decisions without being influenced by an outside agent.[33]

Seduction can be split into two separate forms, confidence games (con-game) and play [34] depending on the nature of the relationship developed between marketer and customer. In a confidence game, the unsustainable nature of the exchange is hidden from the consumer because their rewards of the exchange will not be what the consumer is expecting or desiring. The seducer defrauds the consumer by first gaining their confidence and exploiting certain characteristics. With play, the unsustainability of the exchange is not hidden from the consumer, the consumer plays along simply for the reward of playing, for instance an older child may still play along with believing in Santa Claus for the rewards. Within marketing, playing along with the seducer is seen as fundamental to the seduction of the consumer, with the consumer playing a role in the exchange. This is what makes seduction different from fraud, where the relationship is coercive in nature and the consumer has not shown any complicity.

Typology of ways to induce consumers to transact

Deighton and Grayson created a flowchart which asked five questions to determine the type of transaction.[7]

  1. "Are the terms of the transaction unambiguous?" If unambiguous and coercive, this leads the transaction to be either "theft by force" or "theft by stealth". If unambiguous, yet fair, then that is "trade with mutual gain". If the terms are ambiguous, question 2 applies.
  2. "Does the consumer enter a new social consensus?" If not, then this transaction is known as "persuasion". If the consumer does, then this leads to question 3. Transactions applying to question 2 on-wards are considered to be forms of marketing.
  3. "How broad-based is the new consensus?" If wide, the transaction is "socialization". If narrow, then question 4 applies.
  4. "Does the consumer collaborate in building the consensus?" If the consumer does not collaborate and gains are lost if the consensus fails, then this is known as "fraud". If the consumer does not collaborate and the gains are sustained if the consensus fails, then that is "entertainment". If the consumer does collaborate then this leads to question 5.
  5. "Are gains lost if the consensus fails?" If yes, then this is a "con game", if no, this is known as "play". Both con games and play are considered forms of seduction. Therefore, as long as the other questions are followed with the appropriate answer, it does not matter whether the gains are lost or not if the consensus fails as to whether the transaction is considered seduction.

Contemporary law
Frank Sinatra, 1957

English common law defined the crime of seduction as a felony committed "when a male person induced an unmarried female of previously chaste character to engage in an act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage." A father had the right to maintain an action for the seduction of his daughter (or the enticement of a son who left home), since this deprived him of services or earnings.[35]

In more modern times, Frank Sinatra was charged in New Jersey in 1938 with seduction, having enticed a woman "of good repute to engage in sexual intercourse with him upon his promise of marriage. The charges were dropped when it was discovered that the woman was already married."[36] The Internet has lately given rise to more open discussion on seduction and how to achieve it, symptomatic of this is the popularity of published books like The Rules for women and The Game for men.

Seduction is also associated with organized crime, particularly with the Italian-American Mafia, Russian mafia, Polish mob, and to a lesser extent, the Irish mob and Jewish mob. They often use attractive women from their gang in order to bribe, get money from, or damage the careers of male politicians, police officers, or government agents, as well as members of the general public.

gollark: Invent novel esolangs?
gollark: i.e. CraftOS, the CC OS thing, bootable on x86™.
gollark: Also, apparently someone made CraftOSOS?
gollark: I think they're all pretty cheap because mass production, so the only issues might be power consumption and complexity.
gollark: I see.

See also

References
  1. Littleton, H. L., & Axsom, D. (2003). "Rape and seduction scripts of university students: Implications for rape attributions and unacknowledged rape". Sex Roles. 49 (9–10): 465–475. doi:10.1023/A:1025824505185.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). "Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (6): 951–969. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. Andersen, P. A. (1985). "Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication". Multichannel Integrations of Nonverbal Behavior: 1–36.
  4. Kelley. K (1986). Males, Females and Sexuality. Theories and Research. New York: State Univ of New York Pr. p. 69. ISBN 978-0887063091.
  5. Givens, D. B (1978). "The nonverbal basis of attraction: Flirtation, courtship, and seduction". Psychiatry. 41 (4): 346–359. doi:10.1080/00332747.1978.11023994.
  6. Glare, P. G. (1982). Oxford Latin dictionary. Clarendon Press. Oxford University Press.
  7. Deighton, J., & Grayson, K. (1995). "Marketing and seduction: Building exchange relationships by managing social consensus". Journal of Consumer Research. 21 (4): 660–676. doi:10.1086/209426.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. Abbey, A. (1982). "Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females' friendliness?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42 (5): 830–838. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.5.830.
  9. Harmsel, H. T. (1961). The Villain-Hero in Pamela and Pride and Prejudice. College English. pp. 23(2), 104–108.
  10. "Judges 16 – English Standard Version". Bible Gateway. Archived from the original on 18 July 2017. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  11. McCormick, N. B., & Jesser, C. J. (1983). "The courtship game: Power in the sexual encounter. Changing boundaries". Changing Boundaries: Gender Roles and Sexual Behavior.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. Grammer, K (1989). "Human courtship behaviour: Biological basis and cognitive processing". The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies: 147–169.
  13. Lamm, H., & Wiesmann, U. (1997). "Subjective attributes of attraction: How people characterize their liking, their love, and their being in love". Personal Relationships. 4 (3): 271–284. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00145.x.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., & Robers, T. (1987). "True love ways': The subjective experience and communication of romantic love". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 4 (4): 387–407. doi:10.1177/0265407587044001.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. Robert, T. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection & the Descent of Man. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 136–179.
  16. Buss, D.M. and Schmitt, D.P. (1993). "Sexual Strategies Theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating". Psychological Review. 100 (2): 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204. PMID 8483982.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). "Human Mate Poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 80 (6): 894–917. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.894. PMID 11414373.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). "Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B". Biological Sciences. 266 (1431): 1913–1917. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0866. PMC 1690211. PMID 10535106.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. Eaton, S. B., Strassman, B. I., Nesse, R. M., Neel, J. V., Ewald, P. W., Williams, G. C., ... & Mysterud, I. . (2002). "Evolutionary health promotion". Preventive Medicine. 34 (2): 109–118. doi:10.1006/pmed.2001.0876. PMID 11817903.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). "The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy". Journal of Research in Personality. 36 (6): 556–563. doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00505-6.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). "The dark triad: Facilitating a short‐term mating strategy in men". European Journal of Personality. 23 (1): 5–18. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.650.5749. doi:10.1002/per.698.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., & Harbeson, C. L. (2011). "Mate-selection and the Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile environment". Personality and Individual Differences. 51 (6): 759–763. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.648.3614. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.025.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. Herold, E., & Mewhinney, D. (1993). "Gender Differences in Casual Sex and AIDS Prevention: A Survey of Dating Bars". The Journal of Sex Research. 30 (1): 36–42. doi:10.1080/00224499309551676.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). "Women's sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of extra-pair mating". Personality and Individual Differences. 28 (5): 929–963. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(99)00151-8.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  25. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
  26. Smith, R. L. (1984). Human sperm competition. In R. L. Smith, Sperm competition and the evolution of mating systems. New York: Academic Press. pp. 601–659.
  27. Grammer, K. (1989). "Human courtship behaviour: Biological basis and cognitive processing". The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies: 147–169.
  28. Perper, T., & Fox, V. S. (1980). "Flirtation and pickup pattern in bars". In Eastern Conference on Reproductive Behavior, New York.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. Greiling, H. (1993). Women's short-term sexual strategies. In Conference on Evolution and the Social Sciences, London School of Economics, London, England.
  30. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). "Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating". Psychological Review. 100 (2): 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204. PMID 8483982.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (Rev. ed.). New York: Basic Books.
  32. Tombs, S., & Silverman, I. (2004). "Pupillometry: A sexual selection approach". Evolution and Human Behavior. 25 (4): 221–228. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.05.001.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. Hauser, J. R., & Urban, G. L. (1986). "The value priority hypotheses for consumer budget plans". Journal of Consumer Research. 12 (4): 446–462. doi:10.1086/208529.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. Chadderton, C., & Croft, R. (2006). "Who is kidding whom? A study of complicity, seduction and deception in the marketplace". Social Responsibility Journal. 2 (2): 207–215. doi:10.1108/eb059274.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  35. Mary Ann Mason: From Father's Property to Children's Rights: A History of Child Custody Archived September 1, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  36. "Hollywood Behind Bars – Frank Sinatra Mugshot Archived 2012-09-04 at Archive.today – Women's seduction Archived 2016-08-13 at the Wayback Machine. Jonhs.com. 2007-02-01. Retrieved 2012-05-22.

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.