Talk:Seduction

message: This article should reflect both male and female strategies.  Since both men and women can use seduction it's a good idea to ensure the article has useful information for both.
-Anonymous suggests How To Succeed With Men be linked to for women.  
: I suggested not, it is just a page of commercial links not even related to the website's name. 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '04 comments 

message: Flirting is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: PhilipO, good that there is finally an intelligent discussion on this subject.  All links except for the NYTimes link have been removed as per your request.  Although that makes it impossible for the reader to actually find a reference to the communities mentioned, but perhaps that can be redressed on the "Seduction Community" page if that article is allowed to remain?
I believe multiple editors have put this content back into the page.  If the majority believes that this information would be better organized in another way or on an additional page or pages, make the constructive suggestion and please avoid -- indiscriminate -- deletion.  The articles which you (PhilipO) have authored are about Roches department stores, a video game and a fantasy role playing game -- and these are not considered indiscriminate or promotional content?  Perhaps it's the way the information is organized or presented that needs improvement?  Please make suggestions, so we can improve the site!
The film Wedding Crashers makes references to the community in question.  Did you see the film?  Perhaps you missed them.  For example, they freely use terms like "cockblock" and "wing" which originated in the seduction community discussed in Neil Strauss' book and on the Internet sites mentioned.  The other two films Hitch and Magnolia are also directly related to the community in question, and may be of interest to those who see those films.  So why not link to them?
This particular author has no intention of directing traffic to any web site or web page in particular.  (I didn't create the Seduction Community page, but when I discovered it, I removed the blatant commercial references and errors, and then rewrote and improved the page.)  If you have a better suggestion about how the information can be presented, please say so.  Any links you find objectionable can be removed, but you do need to help us find alternative ones if they do serve an informational purpose to the reader.
:OK - the links to the commercial sites have been removed. I appreciate the act of good faith - you are quite correct that this topic is wide open to abuse. The related article Seduction Community is still littered with links, and I don't believe that article will remain with them in place.
:The issue I have with the edit in question in Seduction is that it is simply saying this "If you want to know how to hit on women, there are plenty of sites on the 'net that purport to tell you how to do it." I really feel this is of questionable value - the same could be said about more or less anything. However, if a consensus is reached that the edit stays, that's fine with me. I will not be reverting it any further as it stands. Cheers. --PhilipO 06:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What trend? The trend that there are communites of the web dedicated to men seducing women? There are communites about everything on the 'net. They don't necessarily deserve mention in Wikipedia. My comment stands on its own. Those links do not belong in this article - Wikipedia is not a link farm. However, as always, the community's view takes precedence and I think it is with the removal of those links. --PhilipO 07:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Objective autoritative content

message: What's wrong with providing links to the major seduction sites, and mentioning the movies where the entire subject is hitting on women? This page is meant to provide an encyclopedic level of information on the subject it's named for. How could the entire community of people who practice this as a sport and artform not fall under that heading? To provide comparison, Parkour, Soccer and Painting all provide at least a few links to websites with important information related to parkour (such as the websites of the people who founded it, and the biggest online communities), soccer, and painting respectively. 
BTW, I get the impression that PillipO, and presumably others, don't believe the seduction sites know what they're doing in the first place, and so don't belong here. Is that (their effectiveness, not whether you believe in it) true, or false? Black Carrot 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Not that they are supposed to tbe the same thing, both articles seem to duplicate a lot of content. Merge (or fix) - Jack (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not merge. How long shall the suggestion be up for debate? No-one has voiced their support and the tags has been up for more than a month. I motion that we now conclude that there will be no merger and remove the tags. Dubidub 20:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This article is repeatedly target to vandalism.  At what point should it be locked (if that would even help) and does anyone know where that policy is covered? Andrewski 16:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should only be locked when there is content that does not specifically relate to seduction, or any topic that falls within it. If there is an original photographic or other visual depiction of any type of seductive behavior, it should be allowed.The Educated 10:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessarily pornographic pictures should not be included.  I don't have rapid access to the guideline which states that, at the moment, but it is there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: had far less education than many of you; however, I do frequently feel as though many people do employ complicated far too often, complex, far too little.  &, it is my impression that "complex" is less complex than "complicated".
I am sorry if I've excessively "complexed" the issue, or if I have too much of an "emotional complicated".  I have, on several occasions, resided in "apartment complicateds".  Obviously, I do have many complex complicated complications, & complicated complexes on computer communication computations {& captology [< http://captology.stanford.edu >]?}.  My brain does get stuck.
hopiakuta ; [[    { %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  } ;]] 22:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have 

message: Something should be done about the sexism of "womanize" & "womanizer".
A man {&/or a woman, &/or a[n] hermaphrodite} might seduce a woman, or multiple women, or another man, multiple men, hermaphrodite[s].  There might be multiple persons simultaneously seducing, &/or being seduced.
Therefore, what word, term, phrase, might "womanize" evolve into?  That question is, certainly, directed @ those readers who believe in evolution.
hopiakuta ; [[    { %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  } ;]] 22:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz 88.72.0.86 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[womanizer]] ; [[seduction]] 

message: There is an interesting book, written by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory (1984)  .
:Austerlitz 88.72.0.86 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seduction (abuse) of children 

message: Can someone create a Seduction disambiguation page, which would include this entry AND the following (I don't know how). Thanks you ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_%28band%29  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TyCamden (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation - Disambiguation page needed 

message: I don't want to amend anything as I haven't been involved with this article, and there has been a lot of discussion, but the first sentence as it stands makes no sense.
In social science, seduction is the process of deliberately enticing a person to engage.
I would assume the end of the sentence should be something like sexual intercourse, or an activity that they are loathe for moral reasons to engage in, but those are just my general opinions, and I don't know what Social Science has to say about them. Snorgle (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your useful feedback! We have adjusted the structure of the article by moving the history section. We will now develop the article and include your suggestions for improvement. JanWac (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately we did not create the history section and so are unsure what the appropriate citations are. Please can the appropriate citations be added or the material will be removed. We have provided and checked all other necessary citations. The biosocial model section now has the appropriate level of detail. --JanWac (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your review and suggestions! We didn't write the introduction, however you make a good point and therefore we will see if we can improve this. We have moved the history section to near the top of the page. We also endeavour to add a subsection on long-term strategies. --JanWac (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your suggestions and review! We have moved the history section to near the top of the page. We endeavour to include long-term strategies as a subsection and will try to incorporate your ideas for improvement when editing this page further. --JanWac (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your feedback and thoughts on this page! We have now added more links to the 'use of seduction in sexual relationships' section. We will try to incorporate your other suggestions when editing this page further. --JanWac (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your suggestions! We endeavour to add a long-term strategies sub-section shortly and will take your suggestions into consideration when making further edits. In many cases it may be more appropriate for further in depth information to  be found on other topics using the citations and links from this page. This is because we want to ensure our page is clear, concise and remains 'on topic'. We will provide brief explanations where appropriate to ensure understanding. --JanWac (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New introduction

message: Add a link to Seduction (band) to for crying out loud. Jidanni (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Seduction (band)]] 

message: I found it interesting that this text appears
Seduction, seen negatively, involves temptation and enticement, often sexual in nature, to lead someone astray into a behavioral choice they would not have made if they were not in a state of sexual arousal. Seen positively, seduction is a synonym for the act of charming someone — male or female — by an appeal to the senses, often with the goal of reducing unfounded fears and leading to their "sexual emancipation".[citation needed]
Clearly this is biased because The positive viewpoint is being attacked as being possibly biased or having no source, yet there's no question about the former content. For example, it says that seduction in Latin means literally to lead astray. ok, where does it say that?
This paragraph in itself is really polarizing the two when really both sides involve temptation and enticement. It's just that, it is true that women (which is typically though of as seduction targets, and this article supports it. See above complaint about sexism) often have unfounded fears based on mass media. This really requires no citation. Merely requires thinking it through. See process below:
Woman: I shouldn't meet a guy I don't know, I could get raped/murdered/etc.
Me: How do you know you might get raped/murdered/etc.?
Woman: You see all the time on the news young girls lured by online predators or men to their demise.
Right there: Proves it. There will NEVER be a case where a woman says "because I was born with that innate knowledge not to talk to strangers" no, in fact it's WELL documented and OBVIOUS that we, as modern day humans, teach our kids not to talk to strangers. The answer will always be that they learned it from an someone or something of influence to them. Whether it be friend, family, television, the news, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6020:10A:24:239C:6DC7:C34 (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed only for the non-mainstream viewpoint 

message: Hi! There should be a short section on the seduction definitions and terms by Max Weber. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Max Weber]] section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Seduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060901144641/http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/booksfathersfirsten.shtml to http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/booksfathersfirsten.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, 
I am working with a few other University of Warwick students on this page and we are interested in looking at this from a scientific viewpoint, so would like to remove the sentence ' Seduction as a phenomenon is not the subject of scientific interest.'
Many thanksLauraHarris (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific interest  

message: Hello,
I think it would be appropriate to remove the few sentences in the history section that need verification from other sources. 
Many thanks
LauraHarris (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing section that doesn't have verification  

message: Hi, this was a very informative article, extremely interesting to read. I have some suggestions to further enhance your article:
* Perhaps adjust the structure of the article so maybe put 'history' before discussing strategies. 
* Ensure that all statements you make are cited; for example in the History section, the paragraph starting with 'Seduction is a popular motif in history and fiction, both as a warning of the social consequences of engaging in the behaviour or becoming its victim, and as a salute to a powerful skill' needs a citation. 
* The biosocial theory of seduction has been set out very well so it is clear to read, it may be interesting to find out how this theory came about in a bit more detail.
* Human mate poaching is an interesting section; it may be worth including an external link to further information on this topic. 
Overall, a great read and apart from these suggestions, there is nothing else to add!
Rhearattan (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your useful feedback! We have adjusted the structure of the article by moving the history section. We will now develop the article and include your suggestions for improvement. JanWac (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately we did not create the history section and so are unsure what the appropriate citations are. Please can the appropriate citations be added or the material will be removed. We have provided and checked all other necessary citations. The biosocial model section now has the appropriate level of detail. --JanWac (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review  

message: Hi, I really enjoyed your article – just have a few suggestions you may consider:
* Good introduction – I like the inclusion of both positive and negative sides of seduction – you imply the article will provide balanced information on the topic. I would just suggest that you include citations in the introduction, for example where you have defined the term ‘seduction’ and when describing academic debate (show the evidence for where you got this information) 
* I really like the section on human mate poaching, but maybe just explain the 'associated costs and benefits' a bit more, and add in more cited sources, e.g. at the end of the second paragraph to show where you got your information from.
* Another thing I would suggest is putting the ‘history’ section for seduction at the beginning of the article as opposed to later on- perhaps after explaining the use of seduction in sexual relationships would be a good point to introduce the history of seduction and how it evolved to be used in relationships today. 
* Below the strategies section, there is mention of short term and a really detailed explanation with plenty of citations – I think that’s really good, but perhaps mentioning long term strategies would also be useful and give a better overview of the topic.
Other than that not much else I could suggest for improvement – it’s pretty balanced throughout and a good read!BhavyaDutt1 (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your review and suggestions! We didn't write the introduction, however you make a good point and therefore we will see if we can improve this. We have moved the history section to near the top of the page. We also endeavour to add a subsection on long-term strategies. --JanWac (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 2 

message: This is a very well written article with clear and concise information. To improve it further, there are a few suggestions which may help:
* The overall structure is well laid out, although it may be best to put the history of seduction at the start of the article. This way, readers can see how opinions and literature on seduction have progressed through time
* In the Use of seduction in sexual relationships, it may be helpful to add another popular phrase for the readers to understand the theme of attraction in relationships. However overall this section is detailed and well researched. 
* Some additional citations may be needed throughout the text, for example when stating “men more commonly wish to engage in more frequent short- term mating.” This will provide readers with credible sources should they wish to research the topic further.
* The strategies section only includes short- term information. Whilst the layout is clear, it may be more effective to change the title to ‘Short- term strategies.' An alternative option would be to also include long- term strategies, to provide greater detail and a comparison between the two factors. 
In summary the article is well organised and an interesting read! Simi95 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestions and review! We have moved the history section to near the top of the page. We endeavour to include long-term strategies as a subsection and will try to incorporate your ideas for improvement when editing this page further. --JanWac (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your feedback and thoughts on this page! We have now added more links to the 'use of seduction in sexual relationships' section. We will try to incorporate your other suggestions when editing this page further. --JanWac (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 3

message: Hey guys,I really enjoyed reading your article, here are a few comments on it:
* A couple more in text links could be added in the use of sexual seduction for relationships section. Maybe just on 'Evolutionary psychology' and 'Parental investment' as these have good wikipedia pages that could explain them further. 
* Also in this section at the end it says 'male and females have reported preferring seduction above all other strategies for making a potential partner agree to sexual intercourse', maybe add in briefly what these other strategies are just to get a general idea for comparison. 
* I really like that you added in the section on mate poaching, although it could benefit from expanding more on seduction in regards to mate poaching. 
* I found the strategies section a bit confusing on what it was focusing on, it could possibly need more subtitles, or a different title just to make it clearer to the reader what the focus is for this section
* I thought the biosocial section was great and really made it really clear what seduction is and its process.
Overall the article is great and gives the reader a better understanding of seduction- you've done really well with it!
Isabel Nelson (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your feedback and thoughts on this page! We have now added more links to the 'use of seduction in sexual relationships' section. We will try to incorporate your other suggestions when editing this page further. --JanWac (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 4 

message: Hey, really enjoyed the article, awesome topic and has a lot of relevant information that links to a large amount of comprehensive topics. Here are a few thoughts of mine:
* Under the section on Strategies, the first sentence introduces the dark triad. It does become relevant in the next few sentences but it doesn't introduce the section well, I thought i was on the wrong wiki page!
* Also under Strategies, it's mentioned that the willingness of women to make the first move is subtle. There is a reference to back it up, but a brief summation of what kind of subtle mating skills females are using, nothing major, just for general understanding.
* Again, in Strategies, it isn't made clear what Mate Manipulation Hypothesis is and why it helps with women deterring men. Again, i see the reference, but a brief explanation helps a lot.
* Lastly, it might be good to add a section on seduction strategies for long term relationships, it may not have as much content but a mention and brief description would be good.
I hope these helped :)
Oliver Colin Arthur Butler (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestions! We endeavour to add a long-term strategies sub-section shortly and will take your suggestions into consideration when making further edits. In many cases it may be more appropriate for further in depth information to  be found on other topics using the citations and links from this page. This is because we want to ensure our page is clear, concise and remains 'on topic'. We will provide brief explanations where appropriate to ensure understanding. --JanWac (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 5

message: The second paragraph within the introduction makes some interesting points about the positive and negative connotations of seduction. However, these need appropriate citations and supporting research. 
--JanWac (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Citations 

message: The article was structured in a wrong way. The lede said: "Seduction has multiple meanings." This is not how WIkipedia works. Each meaning is described into its ofn artile, unless they are really close. Therefore I separated a small section into its own article, Seduction (marketing). 
I didnt read the article carefully, but if there are some other "multiple meanings" left, please do the same.- Altenmann >talk 21:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split