On what basis do you dispute that this accurately describes effective female-sexiness-enhancing advice? Sure, men would enjoy it if she used it get sexual favors … but they wouldn’t enjoy it if she used it to get them to do non-sexual favors (with a false hint of the chance for sex).
Are you saying that even known-false sexual attention from attractive females isn’t enjoyed by men? Men pay for this at strip clubs and other places all day long.
No, that clearly isn’t what Silas is saying there. He is talking about hints that actually give a deceptive indication that sex is likely to be granted if favours are done. (To which I would always add a ‘shame on you if she fools you twice’ emphasis.)
No, that clearly isn’t what Silas is saying there. He is talking about hints that actually give a deceptive indication that sex is likely to be granted if favours are done.
Well, it wasn’t clear to me—especially since that would make it equivalent to men’s false declarations of love or resources to get sex… and the information allowing men to do that is just as available as the information that allows women to know they could false-promise sex to get resources.
And in both cases, the behavior is looked down on by society.
So, it would’ve been an odd interpretation for me to read into what he said, given that I was trying to interpret his evidence in the best possible light, not the worst one. ;-)
(i.e., refute your opponent’s strong points, not the weak ones)
Well, it wasn’t clear to me—especially since that would make it equivalent to men’s false declarations of love or resources to get sex…
I agree about the equivalence.
And in both cases, the behavior is looked down on by society.
I suggest that the ‘false declaration of love to get sex’ is frowned upon far more than ‘false hint of sex to get resources’. The treatment of the ‘victim’ in each case tends to be different too (the sympathy vs contempt balance is different).
I’m not sure which of Silas or your positions this claims supports since I’m not particularly attached to either. I argue that the significant asymmetry is different in nature to that being primarily debated here.
No, that clearly isn’t what Silas is saying there. He is talking about hints that actually give a deceptive indication that sex is likely to be granted if favours are done. (To which I would always add a ‘shame on you if she fools you twice’ emphasis.)
Well, it wasn’t clear to me—especially since that would make it equivalent to men’s false declarations of love or resources to get sex… and the information allowing men to do that is just as available as the information that allows women to know they could false-promise sex to get resources.
And in both cases, the behavior is looked down on by society.
So, it would’ve been an odd interpretation for me to read into what he said, given that I was trying to interpret his evidence in the best possible light, not the worst one. ;-)
(i.e., refute your opponent’s strong points, not the weak ones)
I agree about the equivalence.
I suggest that the ‘false declaration of love to get sex’ is frowned upon far more than ‘false hint of sex to get resources’. The treatment of the ‘victim’ in each case tends to be different too (the sympathy vs contempt balance is different).
I’m not sure which of Silas or your positions this claims supports since I’m not particularly attached to either. I argue that the significant asymmetry is different in nature to that being primarily debated here.