The fallacy of seduction

I wonder how many people, enticed by the notion of seducing someone, have truly understood the meaning of the word.

Thefreedictionary.com gives three meanings. Third is to “win over, attract”, second is “to induce to engage in sex”, and, first, and, primary meaning is “to lead away from duty, accepted principles, or proper conduct”. Primary meaning is also closely associated with “to lure”, with the only exception that “lure” means to entice with the promise of a reward, while “to seduce” offers no reward.

Let’s think about this one. Attract a [woman] with the promise of sex, thereby having her break all the proper etiquette and accepted behavior, yet offering her no reward for her troubles, save for excitement of the moment.

Wow. What a concept! I’m sure when summarized like that, no woman could or would ever resist such a tempting offer.

Yet, why? Why bother? A simple observation can easily single out ordinary curiosity and attraction for everyone. Don’t believe me? Re-read “The Hunchback of Notre-Dame” by Victor Hugo. Esmeralda was the most beautiful woman in town, and, Quasimodo, well, he was Quasimodo. A creature so ugly, his name became synonymous with the word “hunchback”.

So, history tells us that even the ugliest creature has something beautiful going for them, and, also, something that holds attraction for opposite sex. Then, wouldn’t it be a simpler path to discover that inner (and outer) beauty and learn to recognize those who admire these qualities in us?

Or, is it more believable to feed your brain with “this technique cannot fail”, or, “this is the surefire online opener!”?

Are we willingly deceiving ourselves, or, are we willingly allow charlatans to take our money, while feeding our sense of insecurity?

Will a “Bernie Madoff” have to happen before we realize “love/sex/relationship is a lot simpler than we believe”?