Tags
attraction, biology, brainwashing, men and women, morality, opinion, seduction, sexual agency, sexual politcs
Seduction is a fine subject for a hot and steamy August. It is an interesting word, one that has rather pleasant connotations on the surface. It simply means to enchant, charm, entice, and to lead. When you trace the origins of that word back far enough however, you soon encounter some other root words, like treason, treachery, and deceit.
Today the modern definition has combined the two concepts so to lead has come to mean, to lead astray. To seduce has come to mean to charm someone down the wrong path. It carries the implication of deceit and manipulation with heavy sexual over tones. Culture, mores, history, and human sexuality, have all played a role in giving us our modern definition.
In the days of old, women as a group were not perceived as the primary seducers, as a temptress full of wiles and deceit sure to lead men astray. Ironically that is a more modern concept. Traditionally only men were perceived as being capable of seduction, while women were all pretty much thought innocent and naive, under the protection of fathers or family until marriage. Men often dreamed about Sirens luring men to their doom or mermaids enticing sailors into the deep, but these things were not the way of the world. They were a way for men to try to relieve themselves of a burden, of moral and sexual agency, of the responsibility they were forced to carry for both themselves and for women. This was serious business, men were sometimes killed for having “seduced” the wrong woman.
Somewhere along the path of history, men managed to off load this burden of personal sexual agency, by transferring the load over to women. Women became the seducers, sure to trick and deceive men, who surely could not be blamed or held accountable for having sexually succumbed to feminine wiles. Christianity and culture did manage to affirm this idea in people’s heads. Eve herself was transformed into a temptress who seduced Adam into eating the forbidden fruit, rather than a victim of Satan’s deception. This contradictory archetype of Eve as both innocent and naive enough to have been deceived by Satan and yet also seductive, clever, and manipulative enough to have seduced Adam, still persists today in some circles.
Like many things within our culture what it all boils down to is a dispute over sexual agency and responsibility and who holds it, men or women. It has to do with attempting to avoid accountability and to pass the buck back and forth. You see evidence of this sexual confusion, these contradictory archetypes, in the modern world. Women are encouraged to empower themselves sexually and yet women are also being perceived as having so little personal sexual agency, there are consent laws on college campuses where men are now being burdened with having to prove not only that they themselves consented, but that she did too. Women no longer have to prove rape, men now have to prove consent.
We can forget equality here, these are very gender specific ideas. Recently I saw a poster where a couple of college kids were going drinking with the warning for the guy, “remember, if she has been drinking she cannot give consent and you could be charged with rape.” They are both drinking! His drinking however, does not relieve him of owning full sexual accountability for both of them to the point of criminality. Her drinking simply relieves her of any sexual agency or accountability. She is now deemed incompetent due to alcohol, while he is deemed extra competent due to alcohol. He has once again returned to his archetype as the male seducer and she his helpless victim. Predators and prey.
Conversely on the other side of the aisle, you will find attempts to hand all the sexual agency back over to women, to portray her as the seductress once again, as if all sexuality is entirely her fault because of what she was wearing, where she was hanging out, how she looked, as if men are simply helpless victims of women and easily led astray.
This is always what is at the heart of sexual politics, a gender competition over sexual agency and which gender owns the blame. The blame/shame game. Sexual matters can carry heavy shame that people rarely wish to be held accountable for, men or women. When we plan to blame the other person, we often must first dehumanize them, demonize them, so they become an appropriate receptacle for our own shame. It’s interesting to me, in our so-called open-minded culture where anything goes, sexual shame does not appear to be diminishing, but rather increasing.
Personally I’ve never been too interested in such silly games, but this is a serious thing in the world and now shapes much of our modern politics. As far as I am concerned in the year 2015, men and women both have total sexual agency and full responsibility for their own actions. I realize that biology is a bit different between men and women, that men are often far more captivated by the physical, more visual, but just the same, when it comes to simple sexual attraction, both genders have full agency. Nobody falls victim to another’s charms and simply loses their mind and moral agency.
Seduction in the context of sexuality seems almost innocent to me for that very reason, we are not truly vulnerable to manipulation and deceit based only on physical attraction. We may wish to try to claim that is true, but it is not. Seduction in a purely sexual and physical way really means nothing more than to enchant, charm, entice, and to lead. Whether one allows themselves to be led or not is entirely one’s responsibility.
There is another edge to seduction that concerns me far more than seduction in a sexual context however, and that is when we enter into the realm of the psychological and emotional, of brainwashing and mind control, for the purposes of deceit and manipulation. This concerns me because these are the kinds of things people are truly vulnerable to because they slip in under the radar, leaving us unaware of what is happening and completely lacking personal agency. What we cannot see and reason our way through, we are powerless to resist. Advertisers do this, they play on our emotions, they push those biological triggers and before we know it we’ve been seduced into buying some product we didn’t even know we really wanted.
Anybody who doubts the power of seduction for the purposes of cultural manipulation should consider that less than a hundred years ago, humankind didn’t even have toothpaste or much interest in oral hygiene at all, and yet today to do without is unthinkable. Not that toothpaste was a bad idea, but it does speak to how easily seduction and manipulation can completely alter human behavior.
We see seduction being used today in politics, in education, in cultural mores. I watch these little tricks being used to manipulate people, to direct human behavior. One trick you often see being used is to gin up controversy. Dirty laundry sells and it is an unfortunate fact of human nature, but we’ll all look towards the train wreck to see what all the fuss is all about and shortly thereafter, start taking sides, drawing our tribal alliances. Something else people are vulnerable to are those we perceive as victims in need of our protection. Everybody wants to rescue a victim, to be perceived as a champion for the down trodden.
Sometimes it seems as if the media is just one endless loop of seduction after another. That’s what they do, that’s how they gain viewers. These tools of seduction are marketing ploys often used in political campaigns, in cults, advertising, the media, to sell books or products, and in education.
I really wish we could get over the sexual politics, the constant gender competition over seduction and perceived sexual agency, because we as a people have far bigger fish to fry. It is not so much men and women seducing and leading each other astray that is the problem, but rather the world stepping up its game for the purpose of manipulation and deceit, to lead us all astray.
The dangers of that should be obvious, if we are all being seduced, manipulated, and deceived, at that point, can any of us truly claim to have any moral agency of our own?
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Thorough as promised! I really like the approach you took to develop how the idea is used in society at large.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In the words of Emeril Lagasse … BAM!!
You hit the proverbial nail on the head here. I too wish we could get over the sexual politics, the constant gender competition and the seduction of the human mind, but sadly, it’s a never ending power struggle that seems to be getting worse by the day.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Spot on! That’s exactly what I thought (never would have thought of quoting Emeril Lagasse here but it works…). It won’t stop and it becomes more and more a tool of power used in the wrong way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting post on so many levels. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lord thundering, youse on a roll this morning IB. Ha! You’ve been seduced mi’ Lady. And what you have been seduced into is believing in the evil manipulation of humanity. That is a very handy narrative that just happens to relieve us all of the responsibility for our own actions. I’ll give y’all a shining example. Food manufacturers do taste tests with their target customers and then adapt the formulas of their offerings to give us what we want for taste. So, over the years cereal manufacturers have come to realize that North Americans love the taste of salt. So, they added salt to their cereals – lots of salt – to the taste of their customers. As have many other food producers. Here in Canada we have laws that require food to be labeled with % of daily recommended intake of a list of ingredients – salt being one. The other day I picked up a submarine sandwich and checked ingredients before buying it and found it contained 162% of the recommended daily intake of salt- one sandwich. I put it back. Anyway, back to the cereal manufacturers. So, they give us what we want and we buy it. The same cereals – for instance Raisin Bran – have only a tiny fraction of the salt in Europe that they do in North America, because Europeans do not like as much salt.
This is not because there is some evil cabal of industrialists rubbing their hands in glee and cackling because they have fooled us all and are taking our money – it is because we are getting what we WANT. We have devised and perfected a commercial system that supplies our every need – and isn’t that what we all want? – to go to the store and immediately put our hand on exactly what we desire? Well, it turns our that – surprise! – what we want isn’t always good for us -both in our diet and in our other desires. But we have this huge system we have carefully tuned to give us what we want – not what we need. We would be the first to scream if businesses refused to give us our desires and instead forced us to buy what was good for us. All sorts of arguments about freedom of choice and not judging and the nanny state would fly and the courts would agree and lawsuits would abound. We will not tolerate being given what is good for us – only what we desire.
Now that we are getting what we desire, are we justified in charging those who give it to us with seduction? It has to be pretty blatant for me to use that word. For instance we would have to be given something we really didn’t desire and convinced we did desire it – for instance selling swampland in Florida to unsuspecting tourists as prime vacation land.- before I would say we were seduced. When we are given precisely what we desire, I cannot in good conscience call it seduction. Please don’t buy into the narrative that we are victims IB when we are getting our desires.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Interesting Paul. A little cocaine added to our Coke to get us all hooked, food robbed of nutrients but made more affordable, these things are not all simply us getting what we asked for, they were deliberate deceptions, seductions designed to steer and manipulate human behavior,sometimes motivated by profit and sometimes by politics.
To make matters even more complicated we now have a whole pharmaceutical industry driven by profit and yes, everybody wants a little magic pill to cure what ails us, but how much agency do we truly have when we are hit relentlessly with seductive advertising and pseudo science? Something that often fascinates me is how the word for pharmaceuticals comes from pharmakeia, the same word for witchcraft. Drugs and potions were often used by sorcerers in various forms of court intrigue in order to bypass people’s personal agency and sneak under their ability to reason. Christians often get caught up in this idea of witchcraft having something to do with rebellion and women dancing naked under the moonlight, when in fact it is far more closely related to us being relieved of our personal agency by the powers that be.
Rather then claiming we are not victims of seduction, I prefer to just state that you will be brainwashed, you will be seduced. So chose your seduction wisely. The idea that people are not easily influenced by the forces of evil is one of the greatest deceptions and seductions of all time.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yikes! You are well and truly into this aren’t you IB? First of all, Coke has only in modern times become a “thirst quencher” – it was originally marketed as prescription medication for the treatment of pain and depression – which is why it had cocaine in it. And that was before cocaine was known to have the negative effects that it does. At the time 7-Up was likewise a medication and contained lithium for the same reasons. Both were available only by prescription from a doctor. Please don’t use that as an example of how we are being “seduced”. It is an urban myth – they were originally prescription medications.
Manipulating human behaviour is pretty easy when all you have to do is give people what they desire.
You use “witchcraft” as if it is a dirty word. More often than not, those behaviors were actually Wiccan – a very old and honored worship of the natural world.I am sure you know that many current “Christian” behaviors are actually from Wicca. For instance our “Easter” – the celebration of the resurrection of Christ – is actually Eostre , a celebration of the fertility goddess from the 7th century. That is why the chocolate and bunnies and chicks – fertility symbols. Oh, and this is not technically non-Christian, by the way as the First Commandment actually says “Thou shall have no other Gods before Me.” – it does not say, thou shall have no other gods.
I’ve worked and been trained formally in business most of my life and it is my personal experience having had access to and observed both the ownership and the executive of major organizations, that the vast majority of the time products and services are offered based solely on what the customers want – and failure to do so will result in a loss to the competition who will offer customers what they want. I will agree that upon occasion, that manipulation and/or seduction is used – yet that is the exception not the rule. And that is determined solely by intent IB – when the business is convinced they are satisfying consumer demand – that is NOT seduction or manipulation. When they are giving something disguised as a product fulfilling a desire – which actually does not,or there is an ulterior motive , then that is manipulation. And that happens far less than you seem to think.
I am here to tell you from my personal experience that we are not the hapless victims we would like to believe we are. That is far too easy IB. We are doing this to ourselves – WE are our own worst enemies. There is seldom a “they”. More often than not, we are getting precisely what we desire when we desire it. There is no one else to blame.
LikeLike
“I am here to tell you from my personal experience that we are not the hapless victims we would like to believe we are. That is far too easy IB”
I don’t think that’s easy at all, Paul. In fact, I think one of the most challenging things we can do is to have an honest look at human nature and examine our own vulnerabilities.
If one does not believe they are capable of being victimized, seduced, then one can never avail themselves of the forgiveness available for allowing such a thing to happen to them. If one does not believe they can ever be deceived, one can never be wrong.
I would much prefer to believe we live in a world ruled by nothing more then cause and effect and that we get precisely what we desire. However, I have seen little evidence of that being true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I believe I can be victimized – I just don’t think it happens as often as you suggest IB. More often than not, my problems are of my own creation because of my choosing what I desire rather than what is good for me. This is likely going to have to be a topic where we agree to disagree. There is no way to objectify this or measure it as manipulation is a matter of intent on the part of the manipulator. In fact it is not uncommon for us to accuse others of manipulation and for them to deny it – begging stupidity. For instance when Coke tried some years ago to change the formula to New Coke and it blew up with petitions and demonstrations, etc. The amount of publicity was so huge as to be unpurchasable. When the president of Coke was accused of manipulating the media deliberately by changing the formula to get publicity his response was : “I really wish I was that smart.” It was a matter of intent. His intent was to increase sales by giving the customers a new taste that he was sure they wanted. It turned out he was wrong – the customers wanted to keep the old taste. In the meantime he was accused of manipulation when it really wasn’t.
You know Christ’s reaction to victimization – turn the other cheek. Put your faith in God, not in the works of man. Or as Proverbs 7 says: “4 Say to wisdom, ‘You are my sister,’ and to insight, ‘You are my relative.’ ” I wouldn’t think that acting as a victim is much the intention of Christ – to the best of my knowledge He doesn’t speak in a positive way about victimization at all in the bible – basically saying , rise above it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm, you know Paul, there’s a bit of a paradox woven throughout this discussion, where both things are actually true at the same time. I know you’ve read many of my anti victimization posts, so you know I’m a big fan of taking personal responsibility, because that’s where our power lies. Even for those who are truly victimized, the fastest path towards healing is to let go of that victim status and take back control and responsibility. In the process of doing that however, we have to acknowledge that we are vulnerable, that we are not always in control of all things at all times.
There’s a saying I really dislike, “I’m Captain of my soul and king of my destiny.” Those are comforting words indeed, but they don’t really take into account that stuff happens, like ice bergs. If we don’t acknowledge that we are vulnerable to ice bergs and that we are not the biggest, baddest ship on the sea, than our ability to actually exercise some genuine control over our own lives is called into question.
LikeLike
I suspect I know what you mean IB. It is likely the definition of the words that is causing the difference of perspective. Let me use myself as an example and see if we can agree. I had colon cancer. I could have blamed a lot of things, could have been angry, could have regretted, etc. I didn’t – I accepted that I had cancer and could die and kept a positive attitude and worked within the range of what was available. I think this is what you are referring to as being “victimized”. In a way it shares some qualities but has a very different emotional focus. It shares the qualities of complete acceptance of the situation, of an inability to affect the fact if not the outcome, of a certain lack of control of the direction; what was done was done TO me, not with or for. From there though, what I felt and did diverged from victimization: I blamed no one – there is no “why” , it just is; I was positive and lived with no regrets; I did not allow the cancer to be the focus of my life – it got the attention required to deal with it, but not the focus; I did not control the disease but I controlled my reaction to it – my thoughts and emotions.
I suspect that therein lies our disagreement: you are terming “victimization/seduction” as that which occurs that is beyond the control of the individual. For me that is the first part of the definition but how the individual reacts determines whether it really is victimization. I do have control over how I perceive this occurrence – I control the direction of my emotions and my thoughts and when I choose to follow the teachings of Christ and throw off the mantle of this physical world, I am no longer a victim. I still had mobility, was relatively pain free, had sufficient appetite and energy to go about my daily business, and could and did go on with my life. I used my physical body to do my will within the limits of the disease.
The strength of personality it took to do that is minuscule compared to what some have to endure. Here is a clip from the life of a young 14 year old who lives just a few miles from me. I wasn’t even aware of his suffering until Belinda over at Idiot Writing https://idiotwriting.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/so-we-got-it-bad/ did a post on him. Watch this and think about how good you and I have it:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If one does not believe they can ever be deceived, one can never be wrong.”
I don’t think that’s true, IB. People act against their own better judgement/best interest all of the time. People aren’t “seduced” by donuts, under the deception that they believe donuts are actually good them. They choose to eat them even though they know they are bad for their health. That doesn’t mean people are never deceived, misinformation and manipulation are everywhere, but I don’t believe it’s anywhere near so clear a dichotomy.
(fwiw, Paul…salt isn’t really that bad for you, unless you are salt-sensitive. Most healthy people can easily regulate a relatively high salt intake. It’s simply excreted)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yum, salt. Ha! I know you are right Liz but we still hear all this media attention to our unhealthy salt intake. I have a theory that the early settlers in North America had to salt provisions heavily to keep them from spoiling over the winter months. I suspect we have been genetically acclimated over the generations to now prefer salt in our diet. In Europe there are much shorter distances to year round crops – because of the Gulf Stream warming of the environment – so such heavy salting to preserve is not as necessary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Choose your seduction wisely’ eh.
Not a bad observation. Heck, I’ll step up and say it was a darn good one 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are flat out wrong about women not being considered seducers in “days of old”. What about the story of Samson in the Old Testament? Or the myth of Sirens?
https://notequalbutdifferent.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/beware-the-siren-song/
LikeLike
The myth of the Sirens was just that, a myth, a legend, a bit like a fantasy, an unexpressed desire, rather then a reflection of what was actually happening within the culture.
Kind of interesting, but all through human history, Delilah was simply perceived as foolish, naive, not unlike the archetypes of Eve, also just rather foolish and easily led astray. Delilah doesn’t become our modern stereotypical temptress until 1877 when the opera Samson et Dalila is produced. If you look at many of the old paintings and depictions of Delilah, she is not portrayed as a seductress at all.
I’m not saying that women never seduced anyone, or that we are all innocent and foolish, I’m saying that the cultural perceptions of women have changed due to sexual politics.
LikeLike
As I said in the post I linked to, myths endure for a reason – and that is that they say something about real experience. To simply dismiss it as “just a myth” shows a lack of willingness to see reality. The whole premise from which you are operating is false – that women were not considered seductresses “in the old days” and that men somehow foisted this characteristic of themselves onto women. Your argument is hinged on falsehood.
This is akin to a basic precept of feminism, which can be seen in most of their tenets: women may be doing wrong, but the men or a man made her do it. On the one hand you say we are all responsible for ourselves, but on the other, you blame men for making women appear to be seductresses. How did men manage this feat?
On the third hand, maybe it was the patriarchy that projected the seduction meme, which rightfully belongs to men, onto women.
LikeLike
“…but on the other, you blame men for making women appear to be seductresses.”
I actually do no such thing. There is no blame anywhere in this post. It is simply observable historical fact that the culture changed how it perceived women.
Women of old were considered property, even during biblical times, and therefore incapable of having agency. Men who seduced women were thought to be committing a property crime, hence the fees and fines for doing so.
LikeLike
OK Would you mind explaining Proverbs 7 then? Yes, it’s a story and metaphorical, but the best metaphors use things from life that people can understand and relate to, right?
LikeLike
Proverbs 7 is a parable with many layers to it, but in it’s literal context it is being told to remind men that they have full sexual agency. In fact, that is my very point! He is a youth, a young man void of understanding, being used as an example of why it may not be such a good idea to hand your power over to a woman and perceive her as a seductress and yourself as a powerless victim.
You have to choose, either you perceive women as harlots or you “Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman.”
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying although I’m not really jiving with the idea that she is a seductress due to his perception of her. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade rather than pretending it’s a shovel.
I shall have to think about this some more. In the meantime, I was reading this and thought it interesting, perhaps you will too: http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/ministry-leadership/counseling/8447-beware-the-seductress
LikeLike
Hmm, interesting article. This popped out at me, “Christian men have somehow been lulled into a stupor sexually. The false sense of men’s sexual entitlement that motivates them to engage in pornography, masturbation and other wrong behavior leaves them easy prey for the seductress. ”
That “sexual stupor” has a whole lot to do with the shift in our culture where women are now presented as two dimensional sex objects rather then actual people, allegedly holding all the sexual power as the evil seductress and men as her prey.
It’s a far cry from, “Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman.”
So in effect, men have been seduced by the world, sold a bill of goods that is harmful to them.
Acknowledging that fact is not the same thing as denying that seductresses exist or implying that women are never deceitful or manipulative.
LikeLike
The portrayal of the seductress and her “victim” in the piece linked by Lena is, well, interesting. She is painted as nearly demonic, and he a walking innocence, who just finds himself, completely accidentally, in a strip club, or watching porn, or surfing the web NOT AT ALL seeking attentions of strange women, pinky swear!
What’s particularly astonishing is that, as he engages in those clearly sexually motivated activities, he appears to have no clue about his motivations. It is as though he’s found himself in a strip club mistaking it for a grocery store, or chatted up strange women on the web asking for directions to church. And that porn he’s spent the last four hours watching? He was totally convinced it was a tutorial on engine replacement for his Ford Focus.
I mean, c’mon.
Such whitewashing of responsibility and apportioning blame for one’s transgressions exclusively to the “seductress” is both laughable and dangerous, and, probably contrary to its intention, does not paint men in a favorable way.
LikeLike
Quick not, IB. You make some good points along the way here, but Proverbs (OT wisdom book) writes pretty extensive warnings to men about the power of seductresses.
LikeLike
Ooops. Didn’t see Lena’s cpmment when I wrote mine. Another thought. Historically and in the Bible from to the NT (Paul warned that young widows needed to remaary quickly lest their wantonness get them into mischief),we were viewed as quite the temptation.
The Victorian era ushered in the idea of the wife/ woman as the “angel in the house”, pure and virtuous, only corrupted by ignoble men. I suspect this is the historical context you were drawing on. It’s quite modern, actually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not to mention, a lot of what we think the Victorians were like is generally erroneous and not based in reality. I’m no historian, but I at least know enough to know what I don’t know. 😉
I’d wager the lower classes didn’t particularly view women as angels and if you lived in London during the industrial revolution it was a LOT of work getting the soot off everything daily, not the pampered existence most of us live now or the upper class SAHM idea people tend to trot out (hey, where’s your wet nurse!) But that’s probably veering a bit off-topic so I’ll leave it at that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The Victorian era ushered in the idea of the wife/ woman as the “angel in the house”, pure and virtuous, only corrupted by ignoble men. I suspect this is the historical context you were drawing on.”
Actually no, the Victorian era is a deceptive one. While the “angel of the house” may have been one archetype, brothels and prostitution were through the roof, perhaps more prevalent than any other time in history. Victorian times were ruled by unbelievable perversion and really gave birth to the idea of women as seductress, a state of being that only noble ladies and a few pious religious women could ever hope to escape.
LikeLike
This has become quite the topic! I saw Kate’s post on it too.
“It simply means to enchant, charm, entice, and to lead.”
The thing with this though, if you use the more cutesy meaning—it still means to LEAD. Is this something women should be doing? Leading their men? That is what stinks of femdoming to me. Rather than, “How to seduce your man”, its “How to lead your man”.
Then again, when you say this:
“Whether one allows themselves to be led or not is entirely one’s responsibility.”
True enough, if a man is willing to be led or seduced or even craves it, then that is on him. Some men truly do enjoy being lead and having the woman take charge in the bedroom and otherwise, so I guess to each their own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I go away for the day and I miss out on all the fun! 🙂
We took a trip to Niagara Falls, which I mostly planned as I was the one who wanted to go there. We had a really nice time, but, after we’d seen the sights, Mark decided it was time to go. I could have stayed longer and I was a bit grumbly about his decision that it was time to leave. I generally really enjoy his leadership, but, it still takes some getting used to after having been the leader of myself and my daughter for five years on our own before him. So, when we got back to the car, I realized I was feeling too leaderish. I handed him the keys and let him take over. Not only did I feel relieved of being in charge, but, since we were on the same highway that we took home from the airport when he first arrived, he decided it would be fun to find the restaurant where we had our first date. I found this incredibly romantic. He tried to get us the exact same booth, but it was already taken. We sat at the one right next to it. We reminisced about that evening and I could not believe how detailed his memory of it all was. Had I stayed in my grump about him leading, I would have missed that whole experience and the fun it was sharing it with my daughter!
Just a reminder that when women lead, they deprive themselves and their husbands of the opportunity to do things like this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, that’s a lovely story. “Too leaderish,” I like that! I can certainly relate. Letting go of that need for control really can lead to some good moments and pleasant memories.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is utterly superb well done!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, much appreciated.
LikeLike
Interesting. Still kind of leaves open the “she asked for it” opinion several of the men I’ve known have, but then what can you expect from Bubba?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, personally I think we should just slam Bubba’s fingers in a car door and call it good 😉
But if we are going to attempt to empathize with the fool, we could imagine how he perceives his own self, what a projection he is engaging in. Somewhere inside, he believes he is so awful that rather than gifting her with his pleasant self, he must blame her, declare her to be the enemy, and try to claim she deserved it. Deserved what? Him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! Poor Bubba. Not. Serves him right. 😉
An interesting post, touching upon the existence of free will — something we humans are perhaps too proud of, particularly since we are so rarely interested in (or capable of?) exercising it in our own lives, even as we like to heartily recommend it to others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He is retired now, and looking back on it all, he spent most of his time off in divorce court. Some men just don’t get it. A close look inside would tell them it could actually be them??? (deeply drawn breath)
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a great article! There are so many comments spot on up there. I feel I would simply repeat what already has been said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very interesting post, IB. It’s given me some pause for consideration, and that’s always appreciated (I like ideas that challenge me). Here’s a question though, reading the above you seem to link everything from social conditioning to persuasion under the blanket of manipulation/”seduction”.
Do you recognize a difference between persuasion and manipulation?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Here’s a question though, reading the above you seem to link everything from social conditioning to persuasion under the blanket of manipulation/”seduction”.”
I think that’s true to a certain extent. It can be either good or bad, depending on the intent. You can persuade, charm, entice, someone to rise to their higher self, for example, which would be a good thing. Or you could persuade them to do something wrong. To “persuade” however sounds much softer, it allows someone some autonomy, while to “manipulate” implies control and force. When we bypass somebody’s freewill, either through deception or manipulation, it begins to take on an immoral edge.
Something I often hear from non believers is that faith is about being brainwashed, indoctrinated. It’s become a bit of a joke, but yes I have chosen what kind of “indoctrination” I wish to be a part of. People are also manipulated, brainwashed, seduced, by watching TV or being confronted by advertising 24/7.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m seeing it all as a free will issue now. If God gives us free will so we can choose what is right, it naturally follows that we should allow other people the opportunity to choose what is right. Attempting to control every outcome is like what Lena said about people trying to do God’s work, and what right have we to interfere in that? It removes the other person’s free will and divides them from their route to God. If one passes through “guidance” and on to “control,” we are wrestling them into a course of action they should be allowed to choose for themselves.
(I will add the caveat that there are some instances with children where choices must be made for them.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I like this comment, Kate. It really is about freewill versus control, people manipulation versus allowing God’s will to work. There is a line we can cross there, where it becomes all about what we want rather than what God is doing in someone’s life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The nested replies confuse my noodle brain, so I’m just going to add my followup thoughts down here.
While the “angel of the house” may have been one archetype, brothels and prostitution were through the roof, perhaps more prevalent than any other time in history. Victorian times were ruled by unbelievable perversion and really gave birth to the idea of women as seductress, a state of being that only noble ladies and a few pious religious women could ever hope to escape.
I harbor no illusions about life in the lower classes during the Victorian era. However, it is usually the case that the archetypes drawn from the higher ups (note our American obsession with the “ideal” UMC lifestyle), are the ones that carry over into the preceding generations as perceived reality, mainly because those with the money drive the culture as well as the way it’s presented throughout history. The Victorian angel was the beginning of the idea of unquestioned womanly innocence in direct opposition to the Biblical narrative of all human flesh being sinful and of women being equally capable of evil and lust. Jezebel and Bathsheba spring immediately to mind. I’m not negating the sins of the men involved. Ahab and David are simply not relevant to the discussion as we are discussing women as seductresses.
And yes, seducing a woman was often treated as property crime, but keep in mind that in the OT, when a couple committed adultery or fornication and the woman could not prove it was rape, the Law called for them both to be stoned (see Deuteronomy 22). So again, the Bible has always held women accountable for sexual sins and the giving into of our lusts.
As to the article Lena linked to, it has strong grains of truth in it. But I have recently come to understand the powerful truth written by the epistle writer James (1:14): Each of us is tempted when we are carried away and enticed by our own lusts. To succumb to the tendencies of our first ancestors is a strong temptation. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent. Y’all know the drill, and the right leaning sphere is full of what I like to refer to as theoretical sinners, who can only see themselves as righteous when compared to those evil seductresses.
Then the “other side” is committed to the narrative of the woman as good but for those bad men who either take advantage of her innocence or suppress her power. The irony of people claiming that women are just as powerful and capable as men yet simultaneously perpetual victims of men amuses me whenever I think about it.
No matter how you cut it, the Bible clearly and unambiguously presents women as capable and willing to use our charms for unrighteous ends. Thankfully we are also presented with the possibility of woman as capable of good.
Aren’t y’ all thankful that we will stand before a truly Righteous Judge?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Aren’t y’ all thankful that we will stand before a truly Righteous Judge?”
Amen, yes, most thankful. 😉
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Citizen Tom and commented:
Who are the best seducers of all? Do politicians rank near the top? Moviestars? Corporate CEOs?
Since we in Virginia entering the final stages of our 2015 elections and since the 2016 presidential election is starting to heat up, I think it is worth considering what it means to seduce or be seduced.
If you don’t think seduction is an issue in your daily life, consider the toilet. At one time no one used a toilet. Now? How were people persuaded that we all need to have multiple toilets in our homes? How did the EPA manage to persuade us that we should let government bureaucrats tell us how much water we can flush at one time?
What is the difference between being seduced and persuaded by rational argument?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank your for the reblog, much appreciated.
LikeLike
“It is not so much men and women seducing and leading each other astray that is the problem, but rather the world stepping up its game for the purpose of manipulation and deceit, to lead us all astray.”
Bravo! I completely agree. However I think that seduction may have reached critical mass. I think more and people are waking up to the idea that PR is in everything we hear and read. Nowhere is this more apparent than in housing, car sales, marriage rates, and children. Millennial’s, X’ers, and wise Baby Boomers (though to a lesser degree as they are retiring) are realizing that the prison of long term mortgage debt, auto loans, and the ancillary costs of children are not only unaffordable for most, but tools to keep you in debtors prison. Add men’s less than positive view of contemporary marriage, and you see that all rates are dropping in both financial and personal obligation. This is a good thing for human agency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for reading and for your optimistic outlook. Perhaps seduction has met a critical mass and this is good news for human agency.
LikeLike
Wow, brilliantly written. I enjoy reading topics like this because so many don’t want to talk about them. Nicely done and thanks for sharing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: My Picks Of The Week #33 | A Momma's View
Interesting presentation you made. I wish though you would have emphasized the root cause of seduction as Christianity identified when they try to teach us religious morals. That is the Seven Deadly Sins. We do not seem to emphasize moral awareness in our public schools to teach children to be prepared for the seducers they will encounter in life. Every point you made has been identified long ago as one or another of these Seven Sins.
I often wish our secular schools would have a mandatory school course to teach Wisdom since religious teachings are taboo in public schools. A wise person cannot be easily seduced. same a moral person.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a little late to the party here but great post! There are so many good nuggets but the one that stood out for me was your observation on the sad situation we have today of college women being led to believe they should take no responsibility for their actions and that all sexual misconduct is automatically the guy’s fault. This is SO backwards to the empowerment of women and it’s utterly ridiculous that so called feminists promote it. It’s a big problem like you say and I fear for the young people in my life and how they will be affected by such nonsense. Here is a link to a 5 minute video that perfectly sums up campus gender wars, I think you’ll enjoy it. https://freedomthroughempowerment.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/campus-gender-politics-101-what-every-freshman-needs-to-know/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for that link, that was fun to watch. It’s a real mess out there and I do wonder how young people will fare. The best advice of all, “think for yourself!” Amen to that.
LikeLiked by 1 person