AP Lang Summer Work 2017 discussion

Heinrichs has an interesting take on seduction. Normally, I associate it with . . . well, you know. But in the book he reframes it to mean "manipulated with consent." Not sure I agree, but it is an interesting take. What about you?

Heinrichs' take on "seduction" is interesting as he does not associate it with its common sexual connotation, but instead he approaches it as a type of manipulation. Using the term this way is different, but the way he molds it to fit the situation allows me to agree with it. On page 9 of the revised edition, he states, "He sized me up and changed my mood; he seduced me, and to tell you the truth, I enjoyed it." In this sentence, he tells the reader that his attitude toward the Ford changed in a positive way as he, "...enjoyed it," which is undeniably the act of seducing.

Conversely, Heinrichs writes "how the Food Industry uses techniques identical to that of the p*** industry-overmilked sound, very little plot, and good-looking characters, along with lavish close-ups of firm flesh and flowing juices." Does this drift into the other side of seduction? Yes, quite a bit actually, but it does it job. It creates a desire to act; plants seeds of wanting. So not only does it manipulate a person, the person subject to the techniques gives in willingly. Granted it could be worded differently: a person likes to believe that they were not manipulated and simply saw the positives out weigh the negatives.

I agree with Heinrich's take. Seduction shouldn't just be associated with attempting a partner to go to bed with you. The author states that "seduction is manipulation." I bet all of us already knew that, but Heinrich connects it with other everyday subjects. He was "seduced" by a cars salesman, but it was because of the way the salesman "manipulated" Heinrich into wanting the car. This is not at all sexual. He was not seduced by the man himself, but the man's use of rhetoric.

Heinrichs' take on seduction is definitely very thought-provoking and is a far cry from what people are normally accustomed to, considering the fact that the typical essence of the concept of seduction is eminently sensual. Evidently, the typical definition of seduction does involve compelling manipulation. Heinrichs solely applies the concept of manipulation without any sexual implications to common ubiquitous scenarios that may occur every day. Heinrichs writes, "Seduction is manipulation, manipulation is half of argument, and therefore many of us shy from it. But seduction offers more than just consensual sex. It can bring you consensus." Referring to everyday manipulation as seduction sounds utterly strange. However, knowing the context behind why manipulation can be perceived as seduction leads me agree with Heinrichs' views.

Typically, when you hear "seduction," you would imagine and relate it to a sexual concept in which one entices another. However, in "Thank You for Arguing," Jay Heinrichs opens up a new perspective on seduction as he introduces the idea of the involvement of consented rhetorical manipulation. As mentioned on page eight of the book, he states, "Seduction underlies the most insidious, and enjoyable, forms of argument. Seduction is not just for sex, either." According to the author, an argument's goal is to reach a consensus, and with the use of manipulation (and therefore, seduction), one can achieve that. Just as Heinrich explained how he was "seduced" to buy the Ford car, he describes the whole scene: the action of how it was done, and his feelings as he was being manipulated into doing what the man at the car lot wanted him to do. "He sized me up and changed my mood; he seduced me, and to tell you the truth, I enjoyed it.... It was a consensual act." As demonstrated from this, the act of seduction does not necessarily have to connect to the sexual idea of the word. Heinrichs' take on seduction has changed my views to one in which I can agree upon.

I think what Jay Heinrichs proposed is quite an interesting idea. We, as humans and especially teenagers, are expected to almost shun the idea of seduction or at least be expected to see it as inappropriate. However, Heinrichs opened my mind a bit by showing that it isn't limited to just sexual actions. He tells that seduction is manipulation and manipulation is half of an argument. He shows that it brings a consensus. He shows that seduction in real life situations has a similar meaning to those of sexual ideas and to use that to our advantages in arguments. He also provided evidence to his theory by bringing in real life examples like a salesman seducing him into buying a car. I'm not sure if I completely agree with it's entirety but it is very interesting to think about.

Not going to lie, Heinrich's unceasing, constant mentioning of seduction (the commonly perceived type of seduction, rather) was quite off-putting at first glance. But as the book proceeded, his take on seduction and sensuality started to make a bit more sense to me. I mean, shame on me for thinking rather lewdly to begin with. Of course, I didn't think it was necessary for him to overly milk sex several instances in this book, but it was... intriguing to say the least. I began pondering about the connection between seduction in real life situations and actual "sexy times."

Heinrichs' take on seduction definitely differs from what I originally believed what seduction meant (the dirty kind), but after further reading, I believe his definition isn't necessarily wrong. Heinrichs' example of being seduced by a car salesman really helped me realize that the term "seduction" has a much broader definition than "to convince another to do dirty stuff." In his example, you can use normally romantic words to re-word his situation. For example, you could say that the salesman charmed or "wooed over" Heinrichs into willingly buyng a garbage car. The fact that the act of persuading can be described with other words associated with romance means that "convincing" and "seducing" are interchangeable terms (However, I believe seducing conveys a stronger action, as someone can be begrudgingly convinced to take an action, but can't be begrudgingly seduced into doing something).