Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
If the email is registered with our site, you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password. Password reset link sent to:
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

How to seduce a woman  

Cyclin_Arts 58M
5 posts
7/1/2019 10:23 am
How to seduce a woman


The best first move is to be born handsome.
This is, however, not gifted to most men.
What to do, gentlemen?
Turn to the philosophers and novelists.

Arthur Schopenhauer reviled women, though he was a successful lover in his younger days.
In Schopenhauer, we find a man who examined the question of women with philosophical detachment.
Schopenhauer found it remarkable that men could actually desire women: “It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex.”

Schopenhauer’s cool observation of women allowed him to be as objective as any human can be about the subject of relations between the sexes.
He would remind us that the important point to remember is that sexual selection takes place at the woman’s discretion, and also that the operation of power is crucial in seduction.

Women occasionally pretend that men are in charge of seduction.
This amuses them greatly.
There is an apocryphal story of a lawyer who succeeded in having his acquitted of @#$% by placing an ink pot before the judge, and inviting him to dip his pen into it.

Each time the judge attempted to place his pen in the pot, the lawyer whipped it away.
Wile this is not a good defense in real life – probably. But while it is not accurate regarding @#$%, it is accurate regarding actual courting behaviour between the sexes.

A man who seeks to seduce women must be powerful, if he is to make the ink pot stop moving.

Simple misogynists believe that women are gold diggers. This is not true.

Power is the operative aspect to sex selection, but power is not reducible to money alone.

Raw physical power is one means for attraction. But the attraction does not have to be physical. Indeed, men have an advantage over women here.

A woman’s power principally resides in her appearance, but a man’s power does not have to reside in appearance alone.

A handsome face, as first noted, is useful, but it is not essential.

A man’s ability to wield power over other men through poetry, song, or mechanical skill is as potent as muscular power.

Theoretical knowledge, for example in mathematics, does not usually count in this regard. The salient point is that the man’s knowledge should confer social power.

Mathematics and philosophy rarely achieve this feat, although both are potent – possibly the most important – forms of knowledge.

Mastery in any field where the field’s social relevance is immediately apparent will win admiration from women, for it demonstrates a man’s social power and position.

money serves only as a proxy for power; it is significant in courtship in as far as it relates to social power. money alone is not enough. This is why bragging about a salary is not completely seductive.

It can, in fact, show weakness, if it is not supported by evidence of social power. Better to have money because you manage twenty men in an office than to have inherited the same amount from a wealthy relative.

A visible good with a high social worth, such as a fashionable watch, serves better in seduction than the abstract notion of money in so far as that social good grants its wearer social power.

If it is the wrong good, then the effect is lost.

And if the good is not supported by actual social power, then the long game is also lost.

Demonstration of mastery and social power are, therefore, the best forms of seduction.

A man who can demonstrate these capacities quickly rises in the estimation of the opposite sex.

This also explains why women are attracted to the archetypal bad boy.

Indeed, there are women who are attracted to serial killers.

Pity the inmate who was neglected in life outside, only to be bombarded with romantic proposals once he has been prosecuted for seven or eight murders.

These represent the most extreme cases of a general tendency.

Superficially, the bad boy appears to have less social power. He is probably without an influential job, nor is he master of a particular skill.

No fear (he rarely has any). The bad boy demonstrates his social power by disregarding certain social rules.

This is usually the prerogative of very powerful men.

Most men feel obliged to sedulously obey rules and regulations in order to seek advancement up a chain of command.

It is only the most successful men who feel that they can speak and act freely.

Donald Trump is a notable example of this trend.

The bad boy mimics this behaviour without the real power capital to back it up. His long run prospects are often dim, but in the short term he appears extremely powerful.

A seductive man would be advised to calculatedly break small social rules in front of a desired woman. This will cultivate the archetype of the bad boy without incurring the actual social sanction – otherwise known as the clink – that eventually catches up with the bad boy.

Bullying should not be confused with social power.

The bully carries a little of the social power that is desirable to women, but his conduct also belies weakness.

The bully is always making an effort to demonstrate his social power to others.

His power is not effortless; it is insecure, or practically non-existent. He is, of course, weak. He needs to bully in an attempt to demonstrate that he has social power.

This is why he will pick on weaker targets. He can neither stand nor risk the possibility that he will lose.

The man of social power is prepared to risk confronting an equally matched or superior opponent.

He may lose in such a confrontation while retaining his appeal to women.

This is because his appeal lies in his willingness to attempt action to increase or defend his power; it does not matter if the attempt fails, but it would matter if he backed down from a challenge by an equal or superior.

This would lead to a direct diminution in his power, and so his attractiveness.

The ideal contrast to the bully is with the military commander. Women, we all know, adore a man in uniform; but it is not just the uniform they adore.

They adore a man’s capacity to command. The competent military commander does not need to bully his men. Their obedience is taken for granted, and partly rests in their admiration for their commander – if he has gained their respect.

The military offers the most transparent manifestation of social power in our society.

It is, consequently, intoxicating for women.

The competent commander stands above the bully because he genuinely commands.

He has few doubts that his orders will be obeyed. Self-confidence in the command of power is extremely attractive.

This is also a component of being a gentleman. The gentleman is a man who has considerable power, but refuses to use all the power at his disposal at all times.

He is prepared, for example, to defer to people lower on the social ladder to him on occasion. This is because he is so confident in his power and position that he can afford benevolence.

Power should not, therefore, be confused with simple brashness or pushiness.

Equally, it is important to work out whether a man is being a gentleman in withholding his power out of grace, or whether he simply too weak or cowardly to exercise power at all.

There two further aspects to seduction that are worth considering for the man who wishes to become adept in this field.

The first aspect is merely an adjunct to power.

It is to speak in such a way as to evoke feelings of compassion or sympathy in the woman for the man.

This amounts to the well worn ‘pity fuck’ scenario.

The term ‘pity fuck’ is not entirely accurate, however.

We usually despise those we pity. We pity, for example, the homeless. We revile them because they make us feel pity. We cannot stand being made to feel sorry for someone; it gives them a certain power over us.

Therefore, the person who evokes pity in a woman is unlikely to receive her attention.

She will, in fact, despise him.

But there is truth in this method.

This technique might better be described as the ‘compassion fuck’.

It was, apparently, a favourite technique of the Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuściński. His biographer describes how Kapuściński preferred to seduce women by telling them tales of his impoverished childhood.

He would describe how his poor father would wrap him in a sheepskin coat tied together with wire. This was how little Kapuściński survived the coldness of winter. If he caught a cold, the little boy had turpentine slathered on his chest.

In reality, Kapuściński’s family were relatively well off. He did not suffer much privation as a .

The important point in this technique is that it does not diminish the man’s power in the present.

Tell a woman a hard luck story about the present, and the man presents himself as weak. He may become a subject of pity, and so become contemptible.

But if the man seems reasonably together in the present, the contrast with his early difficulties serves to magnify his appeal now.

He has come through the difficulties. He stands before her reasonably intact. His survival is a testament to his power. When she imagines his former vulnerability, there is a pleasing contrast to his current powerful state.

He deserves compassion and sympathy. Maternal instincts are awakened in the woman.

And so, apparent vulnerability and weakness are transmuted into strength.

The unifying factor in these approaches lies in creating in the woman’s mind the impression that she, and she alone, can offer something unique to the man.

Women, as Schopenhauer observed, are intensely mimetic. We know this because women predominate in fashion and gossip.

We also know the intense distress that arises in women over the question of accidentally wearing the same clothes as her friends.

The very tendency to be acutely aware of her social environment, combined with a sensitivity to the needs of others, leads a woman to feel insecurity as to her own uniqueness.

She is always wanting to be like other people, but she fears becoming identical to them.

Constant attention and sensitivity to what other people want or are doing leads a woman to have a weaker sense of self than a man.

This is probably partially why women are more susceptible to illnesses, such as anorexia, that involve a disconnection between the body and self.

It is, therefore, extremely important to cultivate in a woman the impression that she is absolutely unique.

The great fear for a woman is to be regarded as commonplace.

The mistake frequently made by men is to compliment a woman on her appearance.

This is not sufficient. It is, actually, counterproductive.

This flattery merely increases a woman’s sense of common placeness.

She is acutely aware of the strengths and weaknesses of her contemporaries.

She watches them closely all the time.

If her clothes are to be appreciated, these must be appreciated with specific reference to how her clothes differ from those worn by other women. A generic comment in this regard will not be taken seriously, a woman already knows that she and her contemporaries are in the grip of the latest fashions.

Nor will she be deluded by merely being told that she is very pretty. She will, instead, feel devalued and cheapened. Prettiness is quite common, and she is quite aware who is prettier than her anyway.

Further, women are quite used to being evaluated on their bodily appearance alone.

They are aware, as we all are, where a person’s eyes are wandering.

We feel a divide inside ourselves between the mind and the body. This is an illusion, but it is an illusion that feels true almost all the time. We will, therefore, feel that to be appreciated for our body alone is not to be appreciated for the ‘real’ self within us.

The French novelist Jules Reynard has the solution: “Don’t tell a woman she’s pretty; tell her there’s no other woman like her, and all roads will open to you.”

The attractive point about this seductive advice is that it is both effective and true.

Human beings are all unique in their messy psychological and genetic diversity.

There is no need to lie. The seducer can say this with all sincerity, quite unlike a phoney ‘line’.

But, of course, the best points to enumerate with regards to a woman’s uniqueness are those that are invisible: her consideration, her kindness, and her thoughtfulness.

These qualities, more rarely appreciated than her bosom or behind, constitute, in a woman’s mind, her ‘true’ self that really differentiates her from other women.

It is this differentiation she craves.

Men, by contrast, are usually aware that they only represent a type.

Orwell observed that beyond the age of thirty few people retain much sense of their uniqueness. We have met enough people at this stage to know a ‘type’ when we meet it.

This is why, of course, older people tend to spend less time on other people than the young. A mere glance tells them what a person is about.

It turns out that people are not as novel as we first imagine. There is little interest in meeting a type of person again and again.

The only aspect of ourselves that is mercifully (probably deliberately) obscured is what type of person we are.

We do not want to know that.

But we know we are a type.

This is less pronounced in women, who usually believe that they are unique.

They need, however, to be told so.

This is a rescue from the misery of common placeness: the constant feeling that she is copying someone else to keep up with the group, yet at the same time yearning for her own identity.

This is why women feel a great perpetual need to ‘find themselves’, read books about self-development, take quizzes in women’s magazines, and practise shallow psychologising.

When women say they are searching for ‘the one’, they do not mean a man. This is a projection of a search for their ‘self’.

The search is for a man who will tell them what they are. This is the oneness they seek.

The old billy goat Zorba is a character in literature who masters the art of making a woman feel that she is ‘one’.

Zorba is a man of perception rather than intellect.

Nikos Kazantzakis crafted the eponymous protagonist of his 1946 novel to serve as a contrast and educator to the story’s narrator, a young intellectual.

These two characters really represent two aspects of human nature: the intellectual and the perceptual.

In the novel, the two men work together to undertake a mining operation on a Greek island.

Everything about Zorba is earthy. He is an old rogue with a thousand unlikely schemes for money, women, and booze.

There is no rational planning or thought in his action. There is only the scheme.

A scheme is a very different thing to a plan; it is adjusted as required, and it forms on the fly. You only know it was a scheme in the first place when it has succeeded – or failed.

Zorba is a large quite delighted with the ongoing catastrophe of life. He neither expects nor demands order.

Accordingly, his approach to women is wise.

He seduces their landlady, a fading called Madame Hortense (Zorba dubs her ‘Bouboulina’), with outrageous compliments about her uniqueness as a woman.

He reminds her of her finest days, when several naval commanders vied for her attentions. He is not shy in using her former lovers to his current advantage.

This all takes place much to the chagrin of the young narrator. He is so young and romantic that he takes Zorba’s love making far too seriously.

Instead of allowing the lady a final seduction with Zorba, he insists on forcing a marriage between the two.

This is how the po-faced young romantics think at times.

They cannot see a seduction as an end in itself, a game played for the sake of the game.

Only young fools moon over their lost loves, or slit their wrists in apparent agony.

Men are more susceptible to this tendency. Women tend to be practical about a lost love. They are the practical sex in general. They will quickly find another.

There is, after all, a pressing reason in our bloody evolutionary past for them to do so.

Outside civilization, a woman without a man is vulnerable. If she loses a man to illness or violence then she must quickly find another without too many tears. Her life and safety depends on it.

Contrary to the young narrator, it is only when seduction takes place without seriousness that it avoids sentimentality and shallowness.

It is most possible, in other words, when love is a game. That does not mean it is not a serious game. We humans play many serious games, among these we include warfare.

But these are games nonetheless.

Self-confidence is a component of power. We are most self-confident when we are the least self-aware. We are at our least self-aware when we are at play.

And so it often happens that people crash into our lives unexpectedly, for we have seduced them by not even trying.

I am a naive man. I would never use any of the above techniques consciously.

I merely tell women the truth.

Let me assure you now that this is a strategy that can only result in the woman being appallingly angry and displeased.

The reactions really are quite spectacular sometimes. You really should be there. Ah, but I am afraid we may never meet.

The only consolation in my approach lies in brevity, along with the lack of any need to keep track of the lies sometimes necessary for seduction.

Become a member to create a blog