Those are some good points about the attractiveness/ fashionability distinction, and I made similar remarks to a different end. I'll have to think about that.

However, I can't but refer back to simple comparisons of the social reactions to advice, such as this:

"If you want to appear more attractive to men, show cleavage and arch your back." --> "Duh, already know that, of course that's how men are."

vs.

"If you want to appear more attractive to women, act dominant by ordering her around, thinking of her like a disobedient child, and generally making yourself appear scarce and unavailable." --> "Shut up!!! Shut up, you F***ING terrorist! Women are NOT like that, you worthless misogynist! You should be RESPECTFUL and DEFERENTIAL and give them lots of gifts. That's what we want, chauvanist. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go meet my boyfriend, who is such a jerk to me. I hope he's not late ... again."

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating the advice I paraphrased for men, but actual successful PUAs -- who would know what they're talking about -- seem to believe it, and the refusal to discuss such cases seriously is inexcusable.

which should screen off obedience being an issue; obedience isn't expected of adults.

It is expected by sexy adults. It is also often given to those same adults ;)

The specific bit of PUA advice we're discussing here amounts to paternalism. Showing cleavage doesn't.

No it doesn't. Someone would have to think of a different pejorative term. If they were into that sort of thing.

This is why people - men and women - object to the former more readily than to the latter.

People in general don't object to the former more readily than the latter. It varies drastically with personality type, sex and subculture. The people that most object to paternalism are male nerds while the people that (I expect to) most approve of paternalism are conservative religious women. I have seen each of those classes of advice condemned to different degrees in different communities that I have been involved in.

(Some men may approve of paternalism, but they are just wrong.)

Ouch. That sounds like just the sort of ideal that provoke outrage in the face of practical advice.

I am not a huge fan of paternalism myself. In fact, I have in the past ended a relationship with a woman because I just wasn't willing to be as paternalistic as she desired. I don't begrudge her that preference and certainly don't think she is just wrong for preferring a more paternalistic dynamic than I do.

On one hand, we have advice for male-to-female engagement that has a solid history of enhancing male attractiveness and which is enjoyed by females, and on the other hand we have advice that is about manipulating men's hardwired judgment mechanisms, thereby subverting their better long-term interests.

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

(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.)