[mettamage]

> IMO "seduce" has the negative connotation that you are somehow manipulating a "target"

Hmm in pickup artist lingo, sure. Though that perspective has been eclipsed by all the <insert color> pill people anyway.

But the concept of seduction has a long history before that, so I think that that particular view is way too narrow. To seduce someone is to entice, make them fill with anticipation, and so on. I feel certain female seducers, that have a social media presence about it, explain that part relatively well.

[FooBarBizBazz]

I think my sense of the word "seduce" predates male "pick up artists". My intention is to speak from the cultural mainstream.

Consider also uses like, "do not be seduced by fascism".

Or:

> Pope Francis: ‘The devil is a seducer’

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/12/27/pope-franci...

...

I am a little curious what you mean by

> that perspective has been eclipsed by all the <insert color> pill people anyway

though I think I get the general idea; the culture has moved on since the early 2010s.

...

> To seduce someone is to entice, make them fill with anticipation, and so on. I feel certain female seducers, that have a social media presence about it, explain that part relatively well.

I see no contradiction with what I am saying, apart from (a) the (orthogonal) emphasis on the emotional state being cultivated in the target; and (b) that these speakers are unapologetic.

Certainly I have seen efforts to reclaim "seduction" as a kind of "girl power", but there are a few issues with it. The biggest -- and I know this norms on a particular kind of relationship, but I will do so -- is that it primarily makes sense to cultivate this as a "skill" if you plan to have a large number of short term relationships. For many reasons, including the theory of repeated games, I think this is not good for the individual or for society. Instead I would encourage the formation of lifelong pair bonds -- which, yes, has sexy/fun aspects of

> entic[ing], mak[ing] them fill with anticipation

but I think that would be a little further from the archetypes of the word "seduction".

...

If we are looking for a word with positive connotations, I would be a little more comfortable with a gender-neutral use of our other word, "charisma".

[o11c]

> The devil is a seducer

This use is strongly derived from the sexual sense. E.g. the Bible is full of "Thy Maker is thine husband, and you are cheating!"

Maybe someone more versed in Latin than I am could look up "seduco" in pre-Christian contexts?

[lo_zamoyski]

In short, "seduce" comes from the Latin "seducere" meaning to "lead away, lead aside or astray" [0]. The meaning is not specifically sexual.

[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/seduce

[o11c]

I know that the word was used in non-sexual contexts, but was it really original or by analogy like it often is today?

And that source seems wrong when claiming sexual use is modern, since it absolutely is used in sexual contexts in Latin, e.g. in Augustine's Confessions.

[lo_zamoyski]

> it absolutely is used in sexual contexts in Latin, e.g. in Augustine's Confessions

How is it used, and are you referring to the original Latin, or a translation? Since seduction includes sexual seduction by virtue of its generality, he could have used the word to mean sexual seduction specifically. If the context is clear, you can omit the adjective. Given that Augustine does talk about his sexual decadence prior to his conversion, I can imagine him using the unqualified "seduce" to mean the specifically sexual, which would be apparent from context.

[thaumasiotes]

> This use is strongly derived from the sexual sense.

This appears to be a pure assertion on your part, justified by nothing.

> Maybe someone more versed in Latin than I am could look up "seduco" in pre-Christian contexts?

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...