In the first place, the word itself is unfortunately obscure, possessing
an ambiguity which we must resolve before we can proceed. I have
assembled an assortment of representative definitions, which follows:
Se-duce (se-dus) _v.t._; SE-DUCED (se-dust); SE-DUCING
(-dusing). [L. _seducere, seductum; se-aside_—_ducere_ to lead.
See DUKE.] I. To lead aside or astray, esp. from the path of
rectitude or duty; to entice to evil; to corrupt.
“For me, the gold of France did not _seduce_.”
—_Shakespeare_
—_Webster’s New International Dictionary_
Seduce, _v.t._ Lead astray, tempt into sin or crime, corrupt;
persuade (woman) into surrender of chastity, debauch.
—_Concise Oxford Dictionary_
Seduire: _v.a._ (du lat. _seducere_, conduire à l’écart. Se
conj. comme _conduire_). Faire tomber en erreur ou en faute par
ses insinuations, ses exemples.
—_Larousse_
Seduccion: Acciôn y effecto de seducir.
Seducfr: Engañar con are y maña, persuadir suavemente al mal.
—_Enciclopedia Universal Illustrada_.
Sedurre (Seduzione, n) Ridurre con vane o false apparenze al
nostre valere e al male.
—_Dizionario Universale delta Lingua Italiana. Petrocchi_
Verfiihrung; in geschlechtlicher Beziehung ein Mädchen
verführen.
—_Deutsches Wörterbuch ... Heynes_
It is obvious that these interpretations all suffer from a common fault:
they fail to reflect the modern ramifications of the word. As a matter
of fact, seduction is undergoing a great change.
The rudiments of the custom may be observed in the remnants of primitive
society that we are able to study. Certain aboriginal tribes practise
polyandry as an economic adjustment to the surplus of males.[1] With the
development of civilization we find that adaptation tends to take the
form of matriarchy, as in the United States.[2]
In the early days of our culture, seduction was practised upon certain
species of recognized placer in the social system, and thus attained a
certain grade of standardization. There were the seduced (always the
feminine sex) and the seducers (masculine). It would appear that with
the aforementioned rise of matriarchy this state of affairs is changing.
The predatory instinct of humanity is not confined to the male. However,
the line of reasoning suggested is too vast to follow in the limits of a
small volume, and I mention it merely that the student may think about
it at his leisure as he peruses the forthcoming chapters.
The extraordinary development of prostitution in the nineteenth century
prefaced the present phase with a last manifestation of the old social
attitude. Relying upon the assumption that the male seduces the female,
we are faced in this modern world with the undeniable fact that the
ranks of the seduced—i.e., the unprotected young women of society—are
also shifting and changing. The orderly arrangement which we have been
led to expect is breaking up. In former times our women were divided
into two main classes, or groups:
(a) Professionals (those who made a vocation of being
seduced)[3]
(b) Amateurs (those to whom the process of being seduced was a
side line).[4]
However in late years there has grown up among us a third class,
designated as (c), The only familiar term which has yet been applied was
coined by Doctor Ethel Waters, who invented for them the descriptive
appellation “freebies” in recognition of their independent stand in the
matter of economics and convention. These revolutionists have formulated
a philosophy which draws upon those of both older classes for its
sources. To be freebie, seduction is neither a means of livelihood, as
in the case of class (a), nor inevitable disgrace, as it is with class
(b).[5]
It is undoubtedly this school of thought that influenced the Missouri
jurist who, after a long and tiresome case of seduction, in which he
found for the defendant, made a pronouncement from the bench to the
effect that “There is no such thing as seduction.”[6] Although in my
opinion this statement is somewhat extreme for our purposes, it serves
to demonstrate the modern trend of sentiment.[7]
The modern social attitude had its prototype in the days of Cleopatra,
where, as every classical scholar knows, the women of the upper classes
exhibited an amazing independence. In Rome and Alexandria “the
professional courtesans were gloomily complaining that their business
had been hard hit by the fact that the ladies of fashion asked no
payment for exertions of a similar nature.”[8]
Taking these facts into consideration, we must admit that in the light
of modern improvement a new definition is required: one more in line
with present day practice. For the purpose of this treatise let it be
understood therefore that _seduction is the process of persuading
someone to do that which he or she has wanted to do all the time_.
-----
Footnote 1:
The Sexual Life of Savages. B. Malinowski.
Footnote 2:
Domestic Manners of the Americans. By Frances Trollope. New York; Dodd,
Mead and Company, 1927.
Footnote 3:
Recreations of a Merchant, or the Christian Sketch Book. By William A.
Brewer. Boston. See also Hatrack by Herbert Asbury, The American
Mercury, April, 1926; and The Brass Check. By Upton Sinclair. Pasadena.
Footnote 4:
The Beautiful Victim: Being a Full Account of the Seduction and Sorrows
of Miss Mary Kirkpatrick (National Police Gazette: 1862).
Footnote 5:
The Green Hat. By Michael Arlen.
Footnote 6:
Eddinger versus Thompson: Harris j.
Footnote 7:
For further exposition of juridical aspects of the subject see Die
Zivilrechtlichen Ansprüche von Frauenspersonen aus aus-serehelichem
Beischlafe: Hans Hochstein.
Footnote 8:
Personalities of Antiquity ... Arthur Weigall.