If you persuade a young woman with the generosity of gift-giving, and engage in sexual intercourse with her, that is seduction ..
yes.. and the lowest of the low, mankind’s (and womankind’s) refuse, could be found trawling the whorehouses. Today, their descendants frequent such haunts as the stripclub, the brothel, and for the most distinguished among them - Seeking Arrangements.Throughout human history, some of the most masculine, powerful men were strong providers for the women in their lives - wives, daughters, mistresses...
Society's elite usually had first pick of beautiful women. They were not distributed to the paupers with silken tongues professing love, but to the royals with silken sheets adorning beds.
No, because if the paupers even looked at them they would be dead lolSociety's elite usually had first pick of beautiful women. They were not distributed to the paupers with silken tongues professing love, but to the royals with silken sheets adorning beds.
Do you think there's a clearly defined difference between pickup and paying for actual prostitutes?
Because you have to put the boundary somewhere. You can't just say 'everything is an exchange of value' and lump it all together.
What Chase wrote above is the best way to see the difference - if a woman is keen to sleep with you only because of financial gifts then it's not seduction. And when you start throwing money at her, how can you be sure you know what her motivations are?
You can see why many of us draw the line with sugar dating on the other side - because when you go in your jeans and t-shirt, take a woman for coffee, escalate and then to bed, there's no chance it was anything but an actual seduction, because money is in no way involved. She either wanted you or she didn't, and you were the only reward.
No, because if the paupers even looked at them they would be dead lol
This comparison is just laughable, we are in 2022 for fucks sake
Unless you are a sheik who craps oil rigs in the toilet every morning, this is a ridiculous statement.
Societie's elite can kiss my hairy ass.
I don't need to use material status nor power as weapons to have sex with beautiful women.
Pretty sure I'm in a much much happier place than those pedophiles and child molesters, thank you very much.
After the conquest, Genghis Khan took for himself the most beautiful women. He liked women with small noses, rounded hips, long hair, and a beautiful voice.
He measured women with points. If a woman‘s score was too low, he gave her to his lieutenants.
He preferred to sleep with the wives and daughters of the defeated enemy rulers.
His soldiers believed he had extraordinary sexual prowess. A belief which he promulgated, since he had sex with multiple women every night.
Genghis’s love life included raping and concubines. However, on the other side of the coin, he showed a lot of respect and love towards his wives, especially Börte, his first wife.
Genghis and Börte’s parents arranged their marriage when they were around ten years old. He married her when he was sixteen years old. Shortly after the marriage, the rival Merkit tribe kidnapped Börte.
In the Mongol steppes, it was a common practice to steal women from another tribe and marry them. Genghis’s father stole his mother from the Merkit tribe many years earlier. By kidnapping Börte, the Merkits had retaliated to the Genghis’s tribe.
However, Genghis was no ordinary man, he attacked the Merkits and saved Börte. By then, they had held her prisoner for eight months and had raped her many times. Soon after Genghis saved her, she gave birth to a son, Jochi. Genghis acknowledged Jochi and treated him as his own son. Nevertheless, the widespread belief that he was not Genghis’s biological son persisted.
Genghis respected and followed the advice from his wife Börte. Mongol men listened to their wives, they believed a smart wife prevented them from making stupid life decisions.
Börte became the Grand Empress of the Mongol Empire. Only sons by Börte were Genghis’s legitimate descendants.
In Mongol society, polygamy was acceptable if you could afford it. Genghis certainly belonged to the category of wealthy men. He had six wives.
Reactive much, we were making fun of seduction gurus that are suppose to teach how to attract women by exchanging sex for sex vs exchanging sex for material resources into some type of seduction angle cause they get at discount or backwards rationalize pay for play.... imagine a mma teacher rationalize why pull out a gun in a one on one ring fight... I am personally pro prostitution under certain circumstances.I see that this thread has degenerated into ad hominem / mocking of sugar dating. It's unfortunate that we really can't have a serious discussion about all kinds of dating behaviors, as I thought this was a site dedicated to discussing dating in general. But the mere mention of resource exchange in dating seems to bring out virulent opposition in people who have dedicated their lives to extracting female resources from the mating game with minimal expenditure on their part as a man - despite the fact that throughout human history mating has traditionally been an exchange of resources from male (resources and status) to female (youth and fertility) and female to male.
Dude what do you think if the women said no to this dude? Take a guess... causation correlationI don't consider myself or any of my friends on that same level, despite being financially successful. My point with this statement is to show that, yes, historically, providers with wealth and resources typically had more access to higher quality woman than men without resources.
Look at Ghenghis Khan, the great conqueror (no, I'm not comparing myself to him). What I find fascinating is that in his society of marauding invaders, there was a clearly established hierarchy of men who would rate and distribute conquered peoples' women based on this hierarchy.
In some ways Ghenghis Khan was the world's greatest pickup artist. He slept with more women than any man could imagine. What were his methods? Simple, he was the most dominant man in the room at any given time, and he took things by force. He seduced them with violence:
Ghenghis Khan was a man who has done more with women than any pickup artist on the forum could dream of. He slept with concubines, with slaves, with conquered women, with women in his social circle, and married and supported many. He was the ultimate alpha male provider.
Dude what do you think if the women said no to this dude? Take a guess... causation correlation
I think you have a too loose definition of seduction. It has something to do with arousing desire in another person. Rape is not seduction.That's my point. In this situation, Ghenghis Khan became the greatest seducer the whole world has ever seen. His method of seduction? Violence, power and wealth. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
But we don't do that in modern society, of course. I wouldn't want to seduce in this way! But my point is, basically, that there are always different methods to accomplish the means.
And you can't invalidate all of Gheghis Khan's sexual exploits as "fake" because they weren't traditional seduction. Tell his 16+ million descendants that their existence is the result of fakery.
seduce[ si-doos, -dyoos ]SHOW IPA
verb (used with object), se·duced, se·duc·ing.
to lead astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; corrupt.
to persuade or induce to have sexual intercourse.
You are overstretching this definition. No one uses the word seduction in this context.The definition of seduction according to dictionary.com is:
So anything that is used to persuade or induce someone to have sexual intercourse is seduction. That can be smooth talking, that can be gift-giving, that can be violence.
You are overstreching this definition. No one uses the word seduction in this context.
You should read Tristan and Iseult.So let's just be honest and up front about what everyone on here is all about, and it's subset of seduction in which the seducer uses only smooth talking, and charm to induce intercourse. These men had their place in society for much of human history, but they always played in the shadows of the really dominant, powerful, wealthy men of history. It's the Casanova sneaking out of the princess's bedroom... the man who uses purely words to seduce a woman is usually seen as no more than a fucktoy, if that. A high quality woman will only ever "belong" to a man with power, wealth, or a violent disposition. Because that man has the ability to destroy a Casanova with his resources and his dominance.
Wrong see this is my point with you... I asked you what are you doing in this forum, you said to find a girlfriend... but you are bad with women and seduction... you pay for sex.. and you don't want to learn but to teach... teach us how to aquire resources to pay for play but shut the fuck up kj about seduction..you are clueless...bro there are sugar daddy boards and only fans go there with your none sense.... again we are here to exchange sex for sex, no sex for $. If I am you take a break from all that pay for play your mental hardware is fuckedSo let's just be honest and up front about what everyone on here is all about, and it's subset of seduction in which the seducer uses only smooth talking, and charm to induce intercourse. These men had their place in society for much of human history, but they always played in the shadows of the really dominant, powerful, wealthy men of history. It's the Casanova sneaking out of the princess's bedroom... the man who uses purely words to seduce a woman is usually seen as no more than a fucktoy, if that. A high quality woman will only ever "belong" to a man with power, wealth, or a violent disposition. Because that man has the ability to destroy a Casanova with his resources and his dominance.