What is real seduction?

Anyway, my question is:
can shagging around with other horny people actually be regarded as "seducing"? I mean: what's the effort one puts in such circumstances?

Traditionally, 'seduction' denotes artful persuasion with a view to congress; 'persuasion' being the operative word. It involves an element of discrimination (usually mutual) between 'prospect' and 'prospector', and requires a modicum of 'baseline' adversity (e.g. sex with a nun, where her religious convictions impose celibacy; sex with someone who, but for the vicissitudes of inducement, would deem themselves 'out of your league'; sex in a war-zone; et cetera).

I would, however, contend that although 'to seduce' in its verbal form necessitates an 'active process' as undertaken by an agent toward an 'object of seduction', it is entirely possible to be seduced by way of latent factors introduced into a motivation-equation (e.g. power, wealth, abs, whatever; though typically something enticing hedonism at the expense of stoicism) without any 'active' component attaching thereto: 'seduction' merely as a transition undergone by a subject, if you will, rather than that practised by the aforementioned 'seducer'. The art of seduction, as such, derives crucially from a conscious effort to effect the latter: by intentionally demonstrating power; deliberately flaunting wealth; knowingly exhibiting abs, and so forth.

Typical seductionists are good at persuasding others to do the no-pants-dance (sex). Particularly if the conquest involves a challenge or taboo of some sort.

Although seduction may be an active process, it is possible to feel attracted to someone due to other factors (factors leading to pleasue that's usually requires the person to throw caution to the winds).

Attraction is just a state of mind. Seduction therefore try to trigger this reaction by "intentionally demonstrating power; deliberately flaunting wealth; knowingly exhibiting abs, and so forth."

Traditionally, 'seduction' denotes artful persuasion with a view to congress; 'persuasion' being the operative word. It involves an element of discrimination (usually mutual) between 'prospect' and 'prospector', and requires a modicum of 'baseline' adversity (e.g. sex with a nun, where her religious convictions impose celibacy; sex with someone who, but for the vicissitudes of inducement, would deem themselves 'out of your league'; sex in a war-zone; et cetera).

I would, however, contend that although 'to seduce' in its verbal form necessitates an 'active process' as undertaken by an agent toward an 'object of seduction', it is entirely possible to be seduced by way of latent factors introduced into a motivation-equation (e.g. power, wealth, abs, whatever; though typically something enticing hedonism at the expense of stoicism) without any 'active' component attaching thereto: 'seduction' merely as a transition undergone by a subject, if you will, rather than that practised by the aforementioned 'seducer'. The art of seduction, as such, derives crucially from a conscious effort to effect the latter: by intentionally demonstrating power; deliberately flaunting wealth; knowingly exhibiting abs, and so forth.

Watch Cruel Intentions. That's seduction. Pulling someone in a club is just mutual horniness.

Watch Dangerous liaisons, or indeed read the original book, which Cruel Intentions is based on, for a much better version of seduction by a very wicked, bad man (John Malkovich is brilliant-far superior to Ryan Phillippe), anyway enough from the film critic... I agree on the last point, shagging someone you met in a club is horniness, definately NOT seduction!