What do you think of "seduction community" or "game"?

cuddlecakes

New member
So much of it is misogynistic/MRA/redpill bullshit that I kind of intentionally ignored it, but the problems in my relationship have made it pretty apparent that there's some truth to it.

The least annoying version I've found is this couple's: http://marriedmansexlife.com/welcome-and-orientation/ Instead of the usual "stop being nice and turn into an alpha male asshole and women will drop their pants for you", it says that "alpha" and "beta" are traits and that the ideal mate expresses some of both, and it's tailored for long-lasting relationships instead of getting laid at clubs.

This sounds pretty contrary to the usual poly advice:

(2) Talking is a terrible way to get your partner to make the changes you want. You cannot change your partner by simply talking to them. You can however change yourself through your own actions, and your partner can make changes in response to your new actions.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Re:
"Talking is a terrible way to get your partner to make the changes you want. You cannot change your partner by simply talking to them. You can however change yourself through your own actions, and your partner can make changes in response to your new actions."

Hmmm. To me that sounds like a plug for passive aggression. Your partner doesn't necessarily know what you want them to do just by observing your actions. But there may be something to the idea that communication isn't *always* the missing element.
 

icesong

Moderator
Staff member
Some of the points there were interesting, but that forum was SO pro-monogamy that I couldn't keep reading it without rolling my eyes.
 

FallenAngelina

Well-known member
I see his point about not talking. Talking is way overrated in the poly community and widely held up as the panacea for all relationship ills. Talking does have its benefits, but I think the author is getting at the idea that changing ourselves (which he identifies as action) has a much deeper and lasting effect on our relationships than does notifying a partner of a problem and requesting a change in him/her. Working on our own perspective and beliefs before we set out to talk will have us approaching the situation from a changed viewpoint and our partner responds to the change in us. We don't need to talk, talk, talk in order for people to sense and respond to our inner change. Talk, talk, talking without having first worked internally just results in more of the same. Our partners appear to be responding to our words (and admittedly can change their behavior in the short term according to our verbal requests) but long, lasting, satisfying changes in relationships come from the partners sensing the changed perspective in the other. We definitely do not need long drawn out and repeated talks to affect positive change in a relationship.
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
I see his point about not talking. Talking is way overrated in the poly community and widely held up as the panacea for all relationship ills. Talking does have its benefits, but I think the author is getting at the idea that changing ourselves (which he identifies as action) has a much deeper and lasting effect on our relationships than does notifying a partner of a problem and requesting a change in him/her. Working on our own perspective and beliefs before we set out to talk will have us approaching the situation from a changed viewpoint and our partner responds to the change in us. We don't need to talk, talk, talk in order for people to sense and respond to our inner change. Talk, talk, talking without having first worked internally just results in more of the same... changes in relationships come from the partners sensing the changed perspective in the other. We definitely do not need long drawn out and repeated talks to affect positive change in a relationship.

"We don't need to" should perhaps be stated as, "I don't want to."

And

Changing our behavior to avoid talking can be read as, "I've run out of fucks to give, so I am just gonna do what I want, and you can take it or leave it, buddy."
 

FallenAngelina

Well-known member
Changing our behavior to avoid talking can be read as, "I've run out of fucks to give, so I am just gonna do what I want, and you can take it or leave it, buddy."

I'm not sure I understand. Avoiding problems isn't what I was getting at. Rather, I was making the point that if a person approaches another with the intention of getting the other to change behavior in order to change the relationship, not much actually changes.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
I tend to think of productive communication as a negotiation. Both parties offer to make changes for each other, and try to arrive at a mutually-agreeable compromise.
 

YouAreHere

Well-known member
I tend to think of productive communication as a negotiation. Both parties offer to make changes for each other, and try to arrive at a mutually-agreeable compromise.

Agreed. My point in talking is not to change my partner, but to communicate the way I see or feel about things, and therefore to try to come to an understanding. It also involves *listening* (which is part of "communicate, communicate, communicate") in order to try to understand his POV, and maybe meet in the middle.

If we can't meet in the middle (or the "middle" is a bit skewed toward one end), then at least we have some sort of insight into how the other person feels, so we don't run roughshod over their feelings.

Changing my behavior without communicating doesn't give my partner any ability to *know* that I'm having difficulty with something. And, to be honest, sometimes the things I would change aren't always the best solutions. :p
 

YouAreHere

Well-known member
Agreed. My point in talking is not to change my partner, but to communicate the way I see or feel about things, and therefore to try to come to an understanding.

Quoting my own post to emphasize this... my metamour occasionally has difficulty with the way I communicate things, because she interprets that communication as me asking for her to change in order to make me feel better. Maybe this is the way HappilyFallenAngel interprets this, as well.

I don't communicate for that reason, and in fact, I get a bit tetchy when people change their behavior as an automatic response to my having difficulty with something and wanting to talk about it. I *want* to work through my issues and not have other people do the work for me. I just need to communicate what I'm feeling or thinking so that it's clear that this is something I'm working on, and not something that I'm having zero trouble with.

Okay, done quoting myself now. :p
 

FallenAngelina

Well-known member
I *want* to work through my issues and not have other people do the work for me. I just need to communicate what I'm feeling or thinking so that it's clear that this is something I'm working on, and not something that I'm having zero trouble with.

I'll quote you now and say that this is exactly what I was driving at, YAH. I did this very thing just last weekend and the combo served to move my experience of our relationship to a new, better feeling place.
 
Last edited:

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
I'm thinking seduction community/game is more about "tricking" (maneuvering?) the girl into doing things your way ... whereas in common poly culture, the idea is to understand each other better, and trust each other to want to help meet each other's needs.
 

cuddlecakes

New member
Some of the points there were interesting, but that forum was SO pro-monogamy that I couldn't keep reading it without rolling my eyes.

Well that's the point of the website. http://marriedmansexlife.com/2014/06/is-monogamy-making-you-unhaaaaappy/ Usually this stuff is for single guys to attract and bang a million women, but his approach is to use the same concepts to keep married couples together. I wish there were an egalitarian/feminist/poly-friendly version of this stuff, though. Like a lot of it is not male/female specific, and goes both ways.

We are animals and we are attracted to each other for animal reasons even if we don't realize it, and learning what they are and using them to make each other more attractive is a good thing.

it says that "alpha" and "beta" are traits

I meant that they are "behaviors", not traits, and I can't edit that post now.
 
Last edited:

icesong

Moderator
Staff member
I wish there were an egalitarian/feminist/poly-friendly version of this stuff, though. Like a lot of it is not male/female specific, and goes both ways.

We are animals and we are attracted to each other for animal reasons even if we don't realize it, and learning what they are and using them to make each other more attractive is a good thing.

Yes, I 100% agree with this, and that was sort of the viewpoint I started reading the site from - the hmm, even if I don't agree with the monogamy bias, are there interesting things here? And I still suspect there were but I couldn't sift through enough of the (in my worldview) bull to get to them.
 

Norwegianpoly

New member
Sometimes, it can be good to avoid talking, or keep the talk very simple. It is possible to change oneself directly and others indirectly. Sometimes, even small changes I have made in my behaviour has had major impact on other people, including my partners. Not everyone likes to sit down and "talk about it". Generally, I like to have a wide selection of approaches to choose from. Not talking, just doing is one of the approaches I use. For instance, I might have talked to my husband that we need to tidy the house or do some other housework. He agrees, but still we are not moving. If I stop talking and just start doing stuff by myself, I soon find that he fillows. Or, if there has been a dry spell in bed, I don't neccesarily tell my husband I think we should get our statistics up, but I might start to act more sexual and most likely he will catch my drift etc.
 
Talking to negotiate changes in behavior *IS* extremely overrated. Too many people cling to the idea that verbal communication is some kind of cure-all for relationship ills. This is aside from conversations like 'call me when you're not coming home' and the like, where a partner simply doesn't know another partner's preferences.


Completely agree with NorweigianPoly - real improvements in relationships are found in self direction more times than not.
 

vanquish

New member
"Alpha" and "beta" are "behaviors".

In my opinion, all that alpha/beta stuff is complete horse hockey. It's definitely horse hockey when it comes to animals. Read: Everything you know about pack theory is wrong. It's not true at all.

And with human beings, it's just a douchey way to describe interpersonal relationships. Saying that everyone has both alpha and beta is basically a concession that the whole concept falls apart. We all are a mix of pushy and vulnerable, confident and yielding. It has nothing to do with alpha and beta.

I find that a mix of self-change and negotiation is better than one exclusively.
 

nycindie

Active member
Yeah, I always have to laugh when a guy starts talking about being an Alpha Male, or wanting to be one. What suckers. I pity them because they are so desperate, they will believe any crap that makes them think it will help them get laid. There is no such thing as Alpha Males in human beings! And the concept has long been refuted when it comes to animals, too.

Here is one guy's POV about it, at "The Distinguished Grizzly" blog: That Alpha Male Stuff Is Bullshit
 
Top