Sorry it took me so long to respond, writing is difficult for me and you touched a very interesting subject -- the inherently non-consensual element of seduction. It's something I've been meaning to write about for a while. I apologize in advance that this is long!
Btw, I wonder why you link seduction to deceit -- for me, deceit does not come to mind at all when I think about seduction, I'm curious what you're talking about. For me, to seduce, in general, means to influence a person towards a (selfishly) desirable resolution of an internal conflict. Now, the internal conflict part is important! The person being seduced must want it (whatever it is -- sex, or some other thing), otherwise it's coercion, not seduction; but they also must have important reasons not to want it, thereby being conflicted. Usually the conflict results from either short-term gain vs. long-term detriment or from pleasure vs. moral wrongness (or both). Also, usually seduction implies influence without making the person change their mind about the involved reasons, but by clouding their judgement so that some reasons temporarily seem to outweigh others. (Maybe that's what you mean by deceit -- seduction almost always implies influence to make a choice the person will regret).
Important: non-consent does not come just from influencing the person towards a particular choice in the conflict -- since they are conflicted, any choice is consensual! No, the non-consent element comes from somewhere else. In the particular case of sex, the most common form of seduction is to make the person sexually aroused -- in this state the immediate desirability of sex often outweighs many other concerns. However, one cannot do it consensually, because the person obviously is going to avoid it! THERE! There comes the sexual assault!
Imagine the most common scenario: a guy is attracted to a girl, but he is married and monogamous and not a douchebag. So he is conflicted, but the desire to do the right thing outweighs his desire for the girl. Now, the girl might influence his decision thusly: she takes off her clothes ("No! Please, don't!"), approaches him, starts kissing him... He tries to push her away, but she puts his hands on her breast, whispers "I know you want it as much as I do..." after a couple of seconds, he is hers. Everything that happens after this is completely consensual! The kissing and groping was non-consensual, for a few seconds -- it was used as a means to an end, to gain consent to the sex.
Now, of course, the consent that came after the sexual assault does not justify the initial sexual assault. A funny thing is that, to many people, it does! Seduction is not usually seen in the same light as other sexual assault cases, because many people think that consent can be given retroactively -- if in the end he agreed, it doesn't matter how much he resisted at first. I disagree (and I suspect you do, too). Consent is determined by the reaction in the time of the event, it cannot be given (or withdrawn!) after the fact. (What one can do, though, is to forgive...)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 1/3/12 02:55 am (UTC)From:Btw, I wonder why you link seduction to deceit -- for me, deceit does not come to mind at all when I think about seduction, I'm curious what you're talking about. For me, to seduce, in general, means to influence a person towards a (selfishly) desirable resolution of an internal conflict. Now, the internal conflict part is important! The person being seduced must want it (whatever it is -- sex, or some other thing), otherwise it's coercion, not seduction; but they also must have important reasons not to want it, thereby being conflicted. Usually the conflict results from either short-term gain vs. long-term detriment or from pleasure vs. moral wrongness (or both). Also, usually seduction implies influence without making the person change their mind about the involved reasons, but by clouding their judgement so that some reasons temporarily seem to outweigh others. (Maybe that's what you mean by deceit -- seduction almost always implies influence to make a choice the person will regret).
Important: non-consent does not come just from influencing the person towards a particular choice in the conflict -- since they are conflicted, any choice is consensual! No, the non-consent element comes from somewhere else. In the particular case of sex, the most common form of seduction is to make the person sexually aroused -- in this state the immediate desirability of sex often outweighs many other concerns. However, one cannot do it consensually, because the person obviously is going to avoid it! THERE! There comes the sexual assault!
Imagine the most common scenario: a guy is attracted to a girl, but he is married and monogamous and not a douchebag. So he is conflicted, but the desire to do the right thing outweighs his desire for the girl. Now, the girl might influence his decision thusly: she takes off her clothes ("No! Please, don't!"), approaches him, starts kissing him... He tries to push her away, but she puts his hands on her breast, whispers "I know you want it as much as I do..." after a couple of seconds, he is hers. Everything that happens after this is completely consensual! The kissing and groping was non-consensual, for a few seconds -- it was used as a means to an end, to gain consent to the sex.
Now, of course, the consent that came after the sexual assault does not justify the initial sexual assault. A funny thing is that, to many people, it does! Seduction is not usually seen in the same light as other sexual assault cases, because many people think that consent can be given retroactively -- if in the end he agreed, it doesn't matter how much he resisted at first. I disagree (and I suspect you do, too). Consent is determined by the reaction in the time of the event, it cannot be given (or withdrawn!) after the fact. (What one can do, though, is to forgive...)
So, I think we are in agreement. Right?