About a year ago I wrote a two-part article on the difference between Dominance and Seduction.

(Read: Part 1 & Part 2)

It’s a topic that fascinates me to this day. The main question that still remains for me is how it plays into game.

Let me take you down my line of inquiry…

I consider both Dominance and Seduction each “game philosophies.” The former might be considered push / direct, the latter pull / indirect.

Your game will gravitate more towards one of these or the other, however, for best effect you will ultimately use a combination of both.

You get your “game philosophy” based on natural inclination and upbringing. Some personality types, for instance, are inclined towards one or the other. But since Persona is not Personality, the ultimate factor is parental bonding.

Men get their dominance from their fathers, seduction from their mothers.

And the parent that has the most influence on the child tends to turn the child towards that form of “game.”

This is because we try to get that parent’s affection, and we calibrate / model accordingly. 

Some examples:

Dominant men want their sons to be dominant (albeit, not always vis-a-vis them). So unless this becomes so oppressive that they default entirely towards their mother in backlash, such men will model their father.

However, in absence of a father (tangibly or metaphorically) the son will focus on his mother instead. Given the nature of their dynamic and the nature of women, “seductive” approaches work best to get her affection. They are also likely how she will unconsciously train him to operate.

This can happen in healthy and unhealthy ways. Personal psychology in many ways determines how a person reacts to these dynamics — most guys raised by single mothers adopt a seduction-philosophy, but some cultivate a hyper-dominant philosophy instead to overcompensate.

I could explore this deeper but I think you get the picture.

Of course, not all guys with a “seduction philosophy” are good at getting women. Nor are all men with a “dominance philosophy.” There is a difference between one’s approach and their talent within it.

But the real question as far as I am concerned is — since seduction comes from women, is it a feminine approach to attraction? Is a man who uses it “less masculine” as a result?

I believe the answer is no, but it comes down to distinguishing strategy and tactics.

Dominance and seduction are fundamentally means to an end. You can get something directly, pushing through obstacles, or you can maneuver people indirectly into doing what you want. 

But if you have a vision and you are pursuing that vision, if your intent is to lead, then you are fundamentally orienting yourself in a masculine way. The ends justify the means so to speak.

Guys who use dominance to achieve dominance might be thought of as classically masculine. 

Guys who use seduction to achieve dominance are still masculine but not in a classical sense, as they may stylistically appear more feminine.

How do we know they are still in the realm of masculinity? Simple: based on how the women they pursue (note that word) respond. Which is by acting even more submissive.

Remember, when women seduce men, they make men act more masculine. That is because seduction is a tool to make people feel desirable, to feel important — it is psychological control.

Women want to feel desirable to men, so seductive men make them FEEL that way. They make them feel feminine!

(Dominant men do this too, but they implicitly force women into this role rather than guide them into it)

Contrast that with seductive women, who invariably make men feel like they are MEN. Like they are kings, like they are brave, like they command their woman’s heart.

It plays to the male ego, and every male’s ego has within it the desire to be strong and courageous. Whereas the woman’s is to be soft and worthy of sacrificing for.

One last thing before we finish this up.

While a man and a woman can both be seducers by nature, and both go after each other accordingly, this is less common than the norm… which is that one party is direct, the other indirect.

This is because two seducers dance around each other. It may be a fun competition initially, but it is a game that no one can win. One party must adopt the other role for things to develop. 

Controversially, this applies to the inverse as well. Two people who act only directly towards each other will eventually burn out attraction. One must become the seducer to bring more heat to the flame. (“Authentic communicators” hate this truth!)

Ultimately this tactical dance between dominance and seduction is what creates attraction, at least in Persona-sense. And it is natural as the dance goes on that the parties will switch sides. Just because one might be mostly a seducer it does not mean that he will not at times become tactically dominant; and she vice-versa.

Just because you’re right-handed, it does not mean you never use your left.

Anyway, enough for now.

If you want to work with me, we can talk more on such matters.

And more importantly, change your life.

Apply here: www.patstedman.com/application

– Pat

FYI – I only publish old emails on the website. To join the list and get the new, daily-ish ones, go here: www.patstedman.com/optin