I work with a wide range of clients from all around the world. It’s made me realize the ways men are both the same, in how women orient them — and different — in personalities, values, backgrounds.

Ergo, something I have to be constantly aware of is not to project my own beliefs onto others. I am there to teach guys the rules of the game, not to decide their victory conditions.

That said, there are occasionally objections not simply to the ends but the means.Such as in the case of seduction.

Seduction has connotations for being manipulative and amoral. It’s considered a “dark art.”

Which makes it for many men an undesirable tool in their attraction toolkit.

These guys have strong moral compasses, and don’t want to deceive or trick a girl. They just want to learn how to confidently and effectively attract her.

I respect the intentions, and for many guys I think it’s the right approach to take. Not only situation but your demeanor might mean dominance is better for you.

But I want to address the “amoral” aspect of seduction… because the arguments are bullshit.

People who claim that direct is always better than indirect don’t understand human nature, and moreover confuse “evil” with “unknown.”

Seduction operates in the shadows. THAT’S IT — and that’s why people don’t trust it. They can’t see it. But this has to do with their discomfort and fear rather than any sort of implicit wrongness.

Ask yourself: which is more amoral, raping a girl or tricking her into sleeping with you?

Of course, both are wrong — but is there even a comparison? Is dominance / directness by default more ethical than seduction / indirectness?


Ethics in attraction comes down to one thing:


Why are you doing the things you’re doing? Are you taking into consideration her best interests when you pursue her? I consider it of paramount important for men, for psychological and practical reasons, to avoid convincing girls to do things they’ll regret. Always look for the win-win — find the girl who’s down (there are plenty), and don’t position yourself as something for a girl that you’re actually not.

This isn’t as easy as I’m making it sound — even guys who mean well are frequently guilty of “negligent homicide” because they don’t understand their subconscious desires and beliefs.

(This is a benefit of working with me)

But the point is — none of this has anything to do with seduction, which is a TOOL.

Seduction is subtle persuasion. It’s speaking to people in a way that get’s around their ego’s defenses. It’s the equivalent of tunneling under a wall instead of scaling it directly.

Dominance is NOT inherently ethical, it’s just obvious.

And while it’s no doubt useful… what’s that expression? You catch more bees with honey.

People prefer ideas and emotions when they think they’re natural — when they believe they were their own. But the truth is ideas are almost NEVER our own. They are being influenced by our surroundings and backgrounds constantly. That you think otherwise is a sign of your ego.

The concern isn’t nudging people to think in a certain way, but nudging them to think in a way that will destroy them.

This is the difference between “Cruel Intentions” seduction and “Don Juan de Marco.” Or if you want something even more pure, “A Knight’s Tale.” The utilizer of seduction either has a positive or negative end goal.

After all, there’s nothing wrong with making a girl believe you’re the best guy for her if you are actually going to be that guy.It’s nonsense to think otherwise.

Remember that for every war won on the battlefield there was a whole other campaign in the shadows.

In some ways these latter “psychological wars” might have mattered more.

Dominance might indicate the strength of your frame. But seduction determines the frame of your opponent.

Don’t be afraid to go on offense.

And if you want some help calibrating that?

Apply here: www.patstedman.com/application

– Pat