Seduction

Her imagination is limited and curiosity is castrated. She doesn't want to "know god" like many christians claim. Because to know god, would be to realize, understand, and learn about the concept of god.

Seduction is not about learning, understanding, and knowing. It is about mystifying the known, shrouding the obvious in mystery, and redefining blandness as fantastic.

Obfuscation

This is the word for it. What is a god? Take the christian god. The christian god offers certain possibilities to His adherents and faithful followers. What are some of these offers and promises? Love. Eternal life. But these promises have a cost.

Seduction has a cost. The cost is usually sex. This is why sex sells in the media, and almost every commercial today, relies on sexual connotations to sell completely unrelated products. Buy this toothpaste, and you'll get laid, guaranteed. Buy this item, and you will assuredly have more sex. It is no coincidence that capitalism and commercialism relies too much on sex. Sex is commonplace. Sex is something commoners both want, and are familiar with.

Commoners, stupid people, manimals, cannot think or learn or know or understand, outside of a certain range of human knowledge. It is "not allowed". People are made to fear certain questions, words, terms, and concepts. For example, a "racist" evokes negative emotions. Why?

Because certain concepts are seductive, like love and god, others are not, like racism, homophobia, and hate.

Æon wrote:

Her imagination is limited and curiosity is castrated.  She doesn't want to "know god" like many christians claim.  Because to know god, would be to realize, understand, and learn about the concept of god.

The impossibility of ever knowing feeds imagination.
She will eagerly read, but it is what hasn't been written that will consume her thoughts.

Quote :

Seduction is not about learning, understanding, and knowing.

But being seduced, is.

To god, as the seducer, the interest is in mystique, veiling.
To "her", as the seduced, the interest is in uncovering.

Quote :

Obfuscation

This is the word for it.  What is a god?  Take the christian god.  The christian god offers certain possibilities to His adherents and faithful followers.  What are some of these offers and promises?  Love.  Eternal life.  But these promises have a cost.

Seduction has a cost.  The cost is usually sex.  This is why sex sells in the media, and almost every commercial today, relies on sexual connotations to sell completely unrelated products.  Buy this toothpaste, and you'll get laid, guaranteed.  Buy this item, and you will assuredly have more sex.  It is no coincidence that capitalism and commercialism relies too much on sex.  Sex is commonplace.  Sex is something commoners both want, and are familiar with.

The cost is not sex. It is the yielding of power.
The seduced wants the ideals it has imagined.
The seducer wants ownership of the seduced.
The seducer will imprint into the seduced's mind, will become the object of an obsession, will consume the seduced. The seduced will belong to the seducer. That is the cost. Sex is nothing.

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the lord your god am a jealous god...

What and who is seductive?

What, is an objective question. For example, gold and diamonds are seductive to people. But these are objects. Their seductive value represents the desire and demands of the person. Objects can seduce insofar as they are valuable and provide uses for subjects.

This is why comparing the gravity between the earth and moon is an obfuscation of seduction. Objects seducing objects, objects seducing subjects, subjects seducing objects, and subjects seducing subjects.

Seduction has context. Mostly, people refer to themselves. And people represent men and women, sexual seduction, is primary. It is not the perceived value of a golden ring. It is the perceived value of children, produced by coupling.

A man is attracted to a woman, because he wants sex, and seduction can unlock wombman's sexuality.

A wombman is attracted to different values of men. Some men are more or less attractive, for different reasons. But females aren't in it for the sex, the same way males are. For males, sex is primary. For females, sex is secondary. And often for both, children are an afterthought. It is rare in people that understand sex has consequences, and will result in children. Most people are ignorant of this fact. As children do not realize their choices in life have consequences. They do not know, nor understand, nor want to understand, that sex produces children. Another life.

Basing seduction on value and utility, especially of objects, is superficial.

Ideas offer possibilities. And people live their lives around possibilities. Your life is a possibility, maybe even a certainty. Isn't your life probable? Aren't you probably alive?

The quality of the possibility is what seduction is about. It is not enough that life is possible. What is most seductive, is that people can live a "better" or even a "best" life.


The unexamined life is not worth living.

A life worth living, is a seductive idea. Is your life worth living? Probably not.

Æon wrote:

Seduction has context.  Mostly, people refer to themselves.  And people represent men and women, sexual seduction, is primary.  It is not the perceived value of a golden ring.  It is the perceived value of children, produced by coupling.

A man is attracted to a woman, because he wants sex, and seduction can unlock wombman's sexuality.

A wombman is attracted to different values of men.  Some men are more or less attractive, for different reasons.  But females aren't in it for the sex, the same way males are.  For males, sex is primary.  For females, sex is secondary.  And often for both, children are an afterthought.  It is rare in people that understand sex has consequences, and will result in children.  Most people are ignorant of this fact.  As children do not realize their choices in life have consequences.  They do not know, nor understand, nor want to understand, that sex produces children.  Another life.

Basing seduction on value and utility, especially of objects, is superficial.

To base it on sex is also superficial.

Justify your claim.

You make this claim on behalf of your perspective. Aren't you a wombman? Don't you own one? Isn't it empty? How many children have spawned from it?

Go on, make a point about superficiality.

An elderly man or woman who is past the age of fertility is still susceptible to desire.

I'm unconvinced.

Seduction is an offering, of possibility, choice, freedom. These possibilities are often lost on the seduced. The seduced is taken by an idea, but, doesn't understand it. The seduced is a consumer of ideas, not a producer of them.

To produce ideas, choices, possibility, freedom, requires a need. What need does this fulfill, to produce ideas?

If you cannot answer this question, then our correspondence is ended in this thread.

Offering people choices, freedom, that they lack the imagination or willpower to conceive, fulfills a need.

Which need?

Æon wrote:

I'm unconvinced.

Seduction is an offering, of possibility, choice, freedom.  These possibilities are often lost on the seduced.  The seduced is taken by an idea, but, doesn't understand it.  The seduced is a consumer of ideas, not a producer of them.

The seduced is at the same time the consumer and the producer of ideas.
The seducer needs little more than merely hint in one direction or another. The seduces does all the rest.
The possibilities desired need not be real, as long as they remain possibilities. To the seducer the task is to become the object, and to the seduced is to objectify.
The seduced conjures up all that he desires, and personifies that ideal in the seducer.

Quote :

To produce ideas, choices, possibility, freedom, requires a need.  What need does this fulfill, to produce ideas?

If you cannot answer this question, then our correspondence is ended in this thread.

A better phrasing of the question, one that Mo also asked today:
We know what the seduced wants/needs. What does the seducer wants/needs?

My answers can be deduced from previous musings in this thread. I could type them here in stupidese, but they are worth so much to me... I can't seem to be able to part with them. I may need compelling

No, the seduced does not produce ideas.

You have added nothing to this conversation.

You are welcome.
*tips hat*

aeon probably did not intend that pun.

I think I will not explain it.
Good one though. I could not have done better.

It is very obvious who produces ideas, and who does not.

It is very obvious who can add philosophical content to forums, instead of subtracting it.

Females tend to add "fluff", spewing a lot of words with no relevance, meaning, or intent. Women speak just to hear their own voices.

I'll elaborate in stupidese. Just for you.

Here, let's say I am actively trying to seduce you.
I don't know what appeals to you. You are a blank state to me and I am to you.
Obviously I cannot seduce you with ideals that don't appeal to you.
Through some brief interactions, I, if I am to be a skilled seducer, should attempt to read what appeals to you.
What I read from you is already in you. You produced that idea.
I would then hint that I may or not possess those ideals.

An even simpler example.
If I tell you that I have green eyes, I may make you interested if green eyes appeal to you. If green eyes do not appeal to you, I have shut down the possibility of being your ideal, thus I cannot seduce you.
If I simply say that my eyes are beautiful, you, in your own mind have an image of what a beautiful eye is supposed to look like. You will picture my eyes as green.
It does not matter if my eyes are indeed green. What matters is that I became the personification of your ideal. In your mind, my eyes are green.

And the pun was that "nothing" is Elizabethan slang for female genitalia.

"You have added pussy to this conversation."

tehehe

Let's remain true to our coarse and into be thwarted by distraction that just want to settle for the sensation.
Let us set as our goal understanding self, and the sensations which we experience as self, and are most intimate to us.
There is a risk, here, no doubt, for any awareness might lead to more suffering, as it always does, whereas surrendering to sensation, emotion, the animal, the primal, is easy (path-of-least-resistance), does not only constitute a reduction in a starting cost - since it has been inherited and so paid for already - but also promises a surrender to the simple sensation of pleasure.
Simple because it is easy, primitive, something any animal can experience as part of its inherited essence.

There is, of course, an added cost.
Just as when an animal an no longer be gratified by the simple feeding of need, and its easy surrender to impulse, so too does awareness reduce pleasure by understanding its source and its mechanism.

Consider the human practice of dance, with its metaphysical, existential and, most obvious, sexual connotations.
Not only does it become problematic for a mind aware of this, but it also becomes less satisfying, in its primitive sexual forms, for such a mind.
Same applies for such pleasures as music, and food....and sex.

For the simple mind, immersed in the sensation, unaware of the connotations, an innocence makes it more willing to indulge in the impulse to display.
Here the term "innocence" is used in place of ignorance, since I do not believe any willful act is innocent, since it is motivated...and the consciousness of the mind acting on the motivation is insignificant.

For example...an animal does not understand why it feeds. it has no awareness of the existential implications. it acts on instinct, on impulse. It feels a needs, a sensation, man can call need, and it reacts to it.
Only a self-aware creature, such as man, can question this impulse, and even suppress it, control it, or contradict it...asceticism or denying hunger until death, to make a point.

Awareness for the animal is superfluous, even detrimental to its spontaneous impulsiveness.
Same applies to its sexual urges, which, for most mammals, come once a year, to reduce the implied risks/costs involved for a method evolved within more unforgiving environments.
The cow need not know that copulation leads to gestation or birth...not even that the offspring is being harvested for an other species, to feed upon.
A bovine is impulsive, instinctive...it simply surrenders to need, and feels pleasure in fulfilling this need.

Similarly, a simple human, is an easy victim of impulse, and fits in well in a consumer, materialistic, hedonistic society.

To simplify a mind you must teach it to ficus on the immediate.
What is immediate: gratification of a need that does not have to be understood.
The inability to cope with any degree of suffering beyond the immediate.

This turns a human into a bovine.

The focus on the immediate takes on the form of pleasure being an end.
The mechanism of gratifying a need, becomes the end in itself.

Hedonism, and materialism emerge as ideals, human conventions.

Sex becomes a toy, a distraction, hobby, a choice one indulges in and then indulges in another flavor. The culture of recycling objects/objectives, and retaining a constant sense of need...of dissatisfaction.

One buys, fucks, drinks...eats...one throws away.
Chooses another...and another.

Because the method is not understood the means becomes an end, where the end keeps on shifting. This is how you lead cows to the grass or the water.

When a clock is hungry, it goes back four seconds.

That's right, you cannot seduce what you don't know. You have to learn about the target first, the seduced, the victim. You have to learn about what appeals to her. Women usually seduce men by identifying a beauty marker, an ideal, and representing this ideal to a man. Men prefer some women over others, based on particular looks. These are sometimes called tastes or preferences. A most beautiful type of female has greater flexibility in her appearance. She can mimic most of the highest beauty ideals. She is in high sexual demand.

But you're misguided about the production of ideas. A producer of an idea, is not taken nor seduced by his own ideas. Because he already recognizes them for what they are. If I produce apples, by farming apples, then other apples from other farms, are not as appealing necessarily. I compare the familiarity. What is the quality of this apple to the other? Males produce ideas in this way. Men compare ideas with each other, competitively. Because males want to have the best and most successful apple farm. My apples should be the best.

These apples are the most seductive, the highest demand. They are the best.

Same for ideas.

As it pertains to this thread and seduction.

Because the simpleton, the cow, focuses on the end, and has no understanding of it as a means....because means for it must mean ends....a confusion arises.
Taking itself as an example it assumes that the other is seducing her, for her means, when the actor may be indifferent to her, as an individual cow, or hyena, or jackal.

A hunter, out to look for prey, may attract hyenas, or jackals, that follow him around, hoping for a morsel....
This does not mean that the hunter intentionally wants these creatures following it around, when its prey is an other.

What if the hunter's prey is not even organic, but an abstract?
What if the hunter hunts for clarity, understanding, and captures prey as part of this means towards an end?

A short question
A man can understand and relate to a cow, and a pig, and a hyena....but can any of these creatures relate to him?
He can delve into his psyche, his nature, and imagine himself so simple....can they do the same and imagine themselves more complex?
Do the jacks and hyena's understand the difference, or do they, taking themselves as an example assume that the hunter is satisfying the same need they are, simply because he hunts and throws away the catch?

Go further.
A seducer preys on impulse, but an impulsive act is not the end. What it signifies is the end.

Exactly

Women do not understand an arena of masculinity where females are no longer the ideal, such as wisdom in philosophy. Or truth for the religious. Or data for the scientists. In purely masculine arenas, where women are excluded, their vanity rejects the idea that men are focused on something other than women. In this case, ideals.

This is the difference between object and subject. Man is focused on an object, in this case, producing ideas, to satisfy his own desires. And this has nothing to do with the subjectivity and vanity of women. Because ideals do not revolve around women, exactly.

As with the farmer, apples are a source of food, to feed himself first. Although a successful apple farmer may get lots of money for his apples, wealth, prestige, public adornment, even a wife and family. These are all secondary to the primary fulfillment. The farmer eats apples, and these apples nourish him.

Same for ideals, ideas, the intellectual pursuit of philosophy.

How hunter-gatherers turn to farmers.

Because the hunter gatherer must understand his environment and the creatures populating it, no matter how alien form himself they are, he becomes adept at hunting.
Slowly he realizes that he can cage the prey and have a ready supply of what he needs, without having to go out foraging and hunting.
But, in the process, he loses some of the thrill of the kill.

The cow, at home, does not offer the same thrill as the bovine it kills in the woods.  
He keeps the cow, stabled, as he forages for what he is looking for, without having anything specific in mind.
And what if the cow feels like it is she who is manipulating him into feeding and housing her, if the hunter has a certain supply of milk, and calves, and meat?

A cow is a cow. she only knows feeding, fucking, drinking...as an end in itself.
She surrenders to impulse, and that's why she's easy.

The hunter may turn into a farmer, simply because it's so damn easy....but he still forages and goes out into the wood to find some elusive creature...something new.
His appetite is never satiated.
He does not make drinking milk and eating cow flesh his end.

He only wants to be master of cattle to free himself to forage and hunt further.
He enjoys walking in the forest, because it keeps him on-edge, alert, aware...alive.

Let cows find meaning in the pleasure of feeding and fucking and drinking water....so what?
Let them find purpose in the end of immediate gratification.
Cows will be cows.

A man wants to stay hungry.

Want to hear a two-legged hyena cackling (laughing)....stay quiet and listen:

phoneeeee wrote:

Go further.
A seducer preys on impulse, but an impulsive act is not the end. What it signifies is the end.

The manimal who told the hunter that eating meat was the end, and beauty was an end, now speaks to him about signifiers and symbols....and means.

This is how a manimal tries to keep up with the source of its food.

Vultures circle around prides moving...knowing that the pride's efforts will result in them feeding on the scraps.
This is how wolves became dogs....and bitches.

Notice how laconic she's become...how she fears exposing her simplicity.
How she tags along, unable to resist....and who cares how she justifies it to herself, or to others, to save face?

A scavenger must be extra quiet.
A hunter is careful not to startle her, and stimulate the fight/flight mechanism.
He wants her to tag along, until she's his, and only his, bitch.

So says this old-goat.

Dear please don't break I sweat. I can rephrase it for you.

A seducer preys on impulse, but an impulsive act is not the pleasure. What it signifies is the pleasure.

You evade.

Tell me what it signifies.

You try, so hard, scavenger.
Take a step forward...be my pet.

The seducer will tell the seduced:
"It is not you I want. What I want is to know that I have you."

I will tell you nothing.

Satyr wrote:

A hunter is careful not to startle her, and stimulate the fight/flight mechanism.
He wants her to tag along, until she's his, and only his, bitch.

The gracefulness of the predator("capturing" her at "just the right moment"), but is she always just prey(or rather, is she always to be "preyed upon")? Don't predators sometimes let their prey go?

Ha!!!

Classic.

Watch me ignore you.
Ready?
Get set...

Go!

Phonee is a lost child, found her way here, and looking to learn, but doesn't know her way back.

Or a vulture, looking for scraps, what's the difference?

Very few females realize the potential of applying philosophy, as a method of seduction, to the males of their desire. I always wondered about this, those female philosophers. Philosophy ought to be ideal for a woman to practice and engage. She lives a life of relative luxury, no social obligations, and can spend as much time as she wants, learning about life, people, and the world. But what do women do? What do beautiful women do? Yes, they squander their lives, an entire life wasted, on petty, superficiality. But so what? Life is about pleasure, is it not? For females, obviously so.

So there is a conflict of interest. Philosophy, although it can increase the ability of a woman to seduce any man she wants, as if her beauty is not enough already, maybe challenging. Painful even. It is painful to question yourself, doubt yourself, and actually learn about everything. Actual learning. Hard learning. Painful.

Questions can be painful. And this deters females from participating in philosophy, doing it. Producing ideas represents a stress and need. Men fulfill a need.

And this need is absent in wombman. Women do not need to do philosophy.

Women who seduce with looks alone, don't need ideas to increase their seductive power. Because they already have the power to seduce.


There, phonee, I do your homework for you. I chew your food up, before spitting it into your mouth. Men suffer, so women don't have to.

You may go now.

Satyr wrote:

Ha!!!

Classic.

Watch me ignore you.
Ready?
Get set...

Go!

Sorry, dear, but the damage is already done.

perpetualburn wrote:

Satyr wrote:

A hunter is careful not to startle her, and stimulate the fight/flight mechanism.
He wants her to tag along, until she's his, and only his, bitch.

The gracefulness of the predator("capturing" her at "just the right moment"), but is she always just prey(or rather, is she always to be "preyed upon")?  Don't predators sometimes let their prey go?

This is part of the feminine role-reversal, so as to save face.
It's how the more lacking find in the predator's need a Will to Power.

To use a more accurate metaphor....the canine, the wild wolf, being attracted by the hunter's scraps, will attach itself to the hunter's path, to his smell.
Then, to save its pride, it will accuse the hunter of purposefully casting meat away so as to attract it.

The hunter has no such intent, when he hunts and leaves behind the remains of the carcass, the skin and bones, the parts he no longer needs to be fulfilled.
The hunter, having perceived the wolf following it, and understanding how it is choosing the path-of-least resistance will not stop his own behavior, because he cares not if the wolf follows or not.
He is not hunting for the wolf, but for himself.
The wolf an only digest what the hunter has no use of.
The parts the humans no longer needs and so leaves behind because he is more discriminating.

He may even increase the amount of scraps he usually leaves behind....just due to the excesses of his own need to hunt.

Th hunter's original motive was not to attract wolves, jackals, bears, vultures, ants, wasps, spiders, so as to domesticate them; he simply went about doing what he naturally will do even if there is nobody following.
He is compelled by a different need than the one the wolf-bitch imagines, or can ever understand having only herself as an example.  
He will hunt, feed, and then discard what he does not require.
This will attract many scavengers.

Then, seeing the wolf coming closer, and closer, the hunter might come up with a use for the wolf...because he wants to make use of everything in his surroundings, and does not intend to waste the opportunity.

The wolf-bitch will be wary....both wanting and not wanting to give-up too much.
She is uncertain...careful....yet impulsive, spontaneous, instinctive.
To protect her own pride she will accuse the hunter of purposefully laying traps for the wolf....that the hunter was really hunting for her, all along.
Before she gives her self she wants the hunter to be reduced to something comprehensible.

In time wolf is domesticated, and it becomes a bitch.
Then hunter uses dog to hunt more efficiently.
They become a team.

Dog is kept safe, its basic needs satisfied....it now feels like it is using the human.
Role reversal.