You can’t get to those feats with good looks alone. This guy was rizzing [1] as hell when he was in his prime!
[1] Rizz: from the word charisma. As I understand what it means: being amazingly charismatic towards your romantic interests in order to start a conversation with them and ultimately seduce them. It’s similar to the word game in that sense. Younger people seem to use the word rizz nowadays.
IMO "seduce" has the negative connotation that you are somehow manipulating a "target", whereas "charisma" is more positive; it means your behavior attracts positive attention -- that people find you compelling and interesting, that they will want to follow your lead. (Granted, in concrete terms these may not always be so different -- but to say that is to accept a cynical frame.)
I understand "rizz" as entirely a short form of "charisma" with all the same connotations -- in which case I wouldn't focus it to "romantic interests" or to the goal of "ultimately seduce[ing] them" -- but it's possible that younger people use "rizz" differently than I use "charisma".
The word "charisma" is a little gendered. You are more likely to hear a man described as "charismatic" than a woman. A woman is more likely to be -- well, honestly, the word would probably just be "hot" (or "sexy" -- as used here for Garibaldi), which would place a lot more emphasis on appearance; though to focus more on behavioral aspects, one might hear (I'm reaching here) "effervescent" or "fascinating". I suppose "magnetic" is also an option, though that seems pretty gender-neutral to me.
The slang "game" you mention seems intermediate in connotation to me. The meaning is closer to "ability to seduce", but the connotation is not quite so negative. The implication is that "the game" is simply part of life, neither good nor bad; it is what it is.
Of course, the connotations of "rizz" or "charisma" are less sexual overall. Possibly some amount of what I'm calling "positive connotations" or "negative connotations" simply reflects that, and our society's Judeo-Christian negativity towards sex (which in "conservative" places forces LGBT people at least a little into the closet; and in "liberal" places survives primarily for straight men, the bastards).
Put another way, "charisma" or "rizz" is work-safe, indeed desirable in a CEO (and will likely be rewarded in most employees); whereas "seduction' is not work-safe.
> IMO "seduce" has the negative connotation that you are somehow manipulating a "target"
Hmm in pickup artist lingo, sure. Though that perspective has been eclipsed by all the <insert color> pill people anyway.
But the concept of seduction has a long history before that, so I think that that particular view is way too narrow. To seduce someone is to entice, make them fill with anticipation, and so on. I feel certain female seducers, that have a social media presence about it, explain that part relatively well.
> that perspective has been eclipsed by all the <insert color> pill people anyway
though I think I get the general idea; the culture has moved on since the early 2010s.
...
> To seduce someone is to entice, make them fill with anticipation, and so on. I feel certain female seducers, that have a social media presence about it, explain that part relatively well.
I see no contradiction with what I am saying, apart from (a) the (orthogonal) emphasis on the emotional state being cultivated in the target; and (b) that these speakers are unapologetic.
Certainly I have seen efforts to reclaim "seduction" as a kind of "girl power", but there are a few issues with it. The biggest -- and I know this norms on a particular kind of relationship, but I will do so -- is that it primarily makes sense to cultivate this as a "skill" if you plan to have a large number of short term relationships. For many reasons, including the theory of repeated games, I think this is not good for the individual or for society. Instead I would encourage the formation of lifelong pair bonds -- which, yes, has sexy/fun aspects of
> entic[ing], mak[ing] them fill with anticipation
but I think that would be a little further from the archetypes of the word "seduction".
...
If we are looking for a word with positive connotations, I would be a little more comfortable with a gender-neutral use of our other word, "charisma".
I know that the word was used in non-sexual contexts, but was it really original or by analogy like it often is today?
And that source seems wrong when claiming sexual use is modern, since it absolutely is used in sexual contexts in Latin, e.g. in Augustine's Confessions.
My understanding is that you are correct that "rizz" comes from "charisma", and when used as an adjective it's pretty well used the same (although there may be shades of difference I'm simply missing), but notably "rizz" also gets used as a verb in a way that "charisma" does not.
> "charisma" is more positive; it means your behavior attracts positive attention
More of an affect that induces positive feelings that inspire devotion or a desire to follow.
> our society's Judeo-Christian negativity towards sex
Christianity, certainly not Catholicism, does not have a negativity toward sex. That's a trope that's reinforced by both the sexually deviant and the prudish in their own particular ways.
Rather, if one takes the time to understand the moral presuppositions of Catholicism in this regard (which are not "sectarian", if you will, but fully accessible to ethics sans any appeals to revelation), you learn that what is recognized as vice are abuses of sex and the sexual faculties, which, where sexual seduction is concerned, is absolutely the case.
As I posted elsewhere, "seduce" is from the Latin "seducere" [0] meaning "to lead away, lead aside or astray". In this case, it involves, through the exploitation of another's weaknesses, the suspension of the rational faculties of another through the enticement of the sexual appetites for the purpose of obtaining something you should not, because it is immoral (think Mata Hari), or would not if the person were in full possession of their rational faculties. The use of sex to accomplish such an end itself entails the further abuse of the sexual faculties, as it frustrates the end(s) of the sexual faculties.
There absolutely is a sexual ethics. Being a sexually moral person isn't "sex negativity". On the contrary, only people who live sexually moral lives are able to truly enjoy the beauty of sex. The persistent lie that human beings easily believe is that you can "cheat" morality, but all this demonstrates is a profound misunderstanding of the good.
He has mad game, holy hell.
You can’t get to those feats with good looks alone. This guy was rizzing [1] as hell when he was in his prime!
[1] Rizz: from the word charisma. As I understand what it means: being amazingly charismatic towards your romantic interests in order to start a conversation with them and ultimately seduce them. It’s similar to the word game in that sense. Younger people seem to use the word rizz nowadays.