Sexy vs. Seductive

Remember a few months ago when instead of arguing about masks, we were fighting over how sexual the Super Bowl halftime show was?

After JLo and Shakira performed, everyone I know went on social media to either praise them or say "Look at these stripping hookers corrupting my football-watching husbands."

Okay, I'm being hyperbolic, but not by much.

At the time, I was still attending a writing group (in person) and when the topic of the show came up, the group was split right down the middle between "They did a good job!" and "Stone them to death in the town square."

"But they weren't being seductive," I said, thinking I was dismantling the idea that these women were up there for the benefit of anyone but themselves, "They were just being sexual."

I saw quizzical looks from everyone.

Maybe it's the fact that I was an actor/playwright among prose writers, and they had never been yelled at to "COME UP WITH A VERB," but to me it seemed cut and dry.

One of them looked at me and said "What's the difference?"

"Between sexy and seductive," I said, "One you do for yourself, one you do for other people."

They had never had to put to them like that.

And I didn't invent it.

I was once in a play where I was supposed to be seducing another character.  The director kept telling me to seduce the other actor.  I thought that's what I was doing.

"No, Kevin, you're trying to be sexy.  I don't need you to be anything.  I need you to do something.  It's about what you want from her.  It has nothing to do with you or how you are."

Now, set aside the fact that I'm about as sexy as one of those unnamed Muppets that stands behind Gonzo, and understand--

This was a huge relief to me.

The idea that I didn't need to try and fake being sexy to do what the director wanted me to do was liberating.  Because they made it clear that not only was there a difference between being sexy and seductive, but that being seductive really had nothing to do with sex.

Mike Nichols posited that tons of scenes in theater and film are either seductions or negotiations, and that goes well beyond anything where the characters end up in bed together.

Seduction is just about using a certain set of tactics to get someone else to do what you want them to do.

That didn't look like the Super Bowl show to me.

It was just two women having a great time and inviting everyone to have it with them.

Ever since acting in that play, I think about the difference between sexy and seductive when I hear men talk about women and what they wear and how it's somehow supposed to get a reaction, because if they're wearing it to look sexy, then the logical train of thought is that they must want sex.

But if you put a pin in that idea (because it's idiotic, for one thing), you can also look at it theatrically and say--

Well, if sex is what you want, and you were looking for an interesting action to get that thing, 'dressing sexy' wouldn't fly.  No good director would sign off on that.

You could charm the person.

You could flirt with the person.

You could flatter the person.

But see how all of that involves you engaging with the other person.

The critics of the Super Bowl show argued that the presence of poles (called stripper poles, because all poles are stripper poles, apparently) meant that JLo and Shakira were "stripping" (even though no clothes were coming off at any point) and that was inappropriate for kids to watch, even though if your kids know what a stripper pole is, I think that says way more about what you're letting them look at on the Internet rather than how they're being corrupted by two women older than their mothers.

And even if they were stripping, so what?

Stripping (or exotic dancing) could be considered seductive, I guess, but again, it's pretty passive.

And objective of stripping is not sex, it's money.

You think JLo was trying to telegraph to an audience of millions that she needs your dollar bills?

I don't think.

Here's why I think remembering all this might be useful--

If we understand that women (or anyone for that matter) need to engage you in order for you to assume they might be interested in you, it might change how we think of sex and dating.

It means that we wouldn't be able to make assumptions based on what people wear or how they're behaving on their own, and it would also acknowledge that while sexy and seductive are two different things, so are sexy and sex.  One is a way of being, and the other is a thing, and you can be a certain way without ever approaching the thing that way of being is associated with.

In other words, I can dress up like an 80's rocker and hold a guitar, but that doesn't mean I want to be Richie Sambora, unless I can be him when he was married to Heather Locklear, because then, yes, I would like to be Richie Sambora.

The idea that if we want to feel sexy, there has to be a motive attached is really troubling.  What's more troubling is that if you don't know what it looks like when someone doesn't want something from you, it's likely you won't know when they do.

If you think seduction looks like scantily-clad women dancing and singing and having a great time, then you're way more vulnerable to someone who knows how to use active strategies to get what they want from you, whether it be sex or money or love or trust, and that's downright dangerous.

What I'm saying is--

JLo and Shakira don't need anything from you, you moron, they were just having a good time.

And if you think about it, that might have been the last time any of us had fun, so--

I think a lot of you owe them an apology.