Just because your objection parallels my comment in form doesn't automatically make its content a correct refutation; and someone other than me has warned you that the tactic doesn't serve you particularly well.

I'm aware of how people get angry when their own argument methods are turned around and force them to think critically about the basis for their own beliefs -- though I don't think that's happening in your case. (The anger on your part isn't happening, I mean -- I do believe you are reflecting critically on your own beliefs, or at least are making a genuine effort.)

The point of me mimicking your form was not to be cute (although that was a neat side effect), but rather, to show that a simple reframing of the issue -- by highlighting different salient aspects -- would reverse the "obvious" answer to your question.

On one hand we have advice that is about body posture, and on the other hand we have advice that is about persuading yourself of things that are not true, such as thinking of an adult human as if they were a child.

You claim advice about body posture to be benign, while believing false, offensive things is obviously bad by comparison. (The latter is a strawman of course: the advice is to, like an actor, go into a different mindset in order to have a generating function for your actions, which turns out to be preferable by the "target" of it. The advice is not to believe that adult women are disobedient children as if it were some more objective or universal aspect of reality.)

Do you or do you not agree that "think of her as a child" involves changing your mental state, while "show cleavage and arch your back" does not?

Of course I agree, but this is a poor metric. Isn't it more important what the advice causes in the other party's mind? If "think of her as a child" generates actions, on my part, that the woman deems preferable, what does it matter that my mental state is changed? If a woman uses attire and posture that causes me to "think below the waist", isn't the impact on my mental state more important -- because of the diminishing of informed consent [1] -- than the impact on the woman's mental state?

Your reply above directs attention away from this difference and toward the supposed "history of success" of the first form of advice.

Because, as explained above, it's not apparent how that's a relevant metric or difference.

This is shifting the goalposts, if your intent is still to understand why the first form is more often objected to. Whether the advice is sound or not is a separate matter.

If the advice actually benefits women, that should negate any objectionability of the advice that is grounded on harm to women. Failure to speak frankly about the commonality of the kind of woman benefitting, while instead giving full weight to the supposedly-universal preferences of the most vocal feminists ... to me, that looks like a social failing.

[1] Yes, yes, I lose status by mentioning that this can happen, &c. C'est la vie.

someone other than me has warned you that the tactic doesn't serve you particularly well.

It isn't usually a successful tactic, which is somewhat of a shame, given that it can serve to demonstrate how a particular (mis)use of argument is flawed. People on average don't have the respect for consistency that I would prefer.

pjeby said:

Manipulating a woman's perception of attractiveness to secure short-term mating, on the other hand, is not in a woman's (evolutionary) interest.

Nope, this is outdated. I'll try to return to it, but there are actually a lot of hypotheses that suggest that some types of short-term mating were adaptive for females. See the good genes hypothesis, sexy son hypothesis, and Hrdy's work on female choice.

(Practically everything else you've said in this discussion is gold, btw, so I hope you'll forgive me for being brusque.)

Manipulating a man's perception of attractiveness in order to secure short-term mating is in a man's (evolutionary) interest.

Why would men have evolved to have perceptions of attractiveness that don't track (are more conservative, when not manipulated, than would be in) their evolutionary interest?

Also, I thought we were talking about normative interests, what's actually good for someone. Why are you bringing up evolutionary interests in the first place?

Also, you conveniently ignored the bit where both manipulations are enjoyed by the recipients. If I weren't so certain you sincerely believe in your biased perspective, I'd have to conclude you were deliberately trolling at this point.

This. Also the bit where both manipulations affect hardwired judgment mechanisms, of course.

You've got this backwards. Manipulating a man's perception of attractiveness in order to secure short-term mating is in a man's (evolutionary) interest.

You're filling in things that aren't there. A woman can use her looks to get non-sexual favors out of men, and the advice that gets her to that level of looks is widely and unashamedly given (though not of course the suggestion to use it for bad manipulation).

The advice that would get men to a comparable level of attractiveness (i.e. even using non-sexual manipulation goals as the standard), by contrast, is not widely and unashamedly given.

The parallel therefore holds, despite the difference in goals.