This article examines the three stances arguers may take in relation to other arguers. It is not denied that a study of logic, of propositions, of symbols, of linguistic analysis, of the formats in which arguments are presented, and of the situations in which they occur should be included in any comprehensive study of argument. The metaphor on which the classification is based is a sexual one. One stance may be characterized by the word rape. That rape is an apt analogy for many communicative events not ordinarily thought of as argument seems clear enough. Some communicators are not primarily interested in gaining assent to warrantable claims. Instead, they function through power, through an ability to apply psychic and physical sanctions, through rewards and especially punishments, through commands and threats. Arguers can have the rapist's attitude toward other people, arguers can have an intent to rape, and the argumentative act itself can constitute rape. The argumentative rapist views the relationship as a unilateral one. A second stance may be characterized by the word seduction. Whereas the rapist conquers by force of argument, the seducer operates through charm or deceit. The seducer's attitude toward co-arguers is similar to that of the rapist. He, too, sees the relationship as unilateral. Although he may not be contemptuous of his prey, he is indifferent to the identity and integrity of the other person. Whereas the intent of the rapist is to force assent, the seducer tries to charm or trick his victim into assent. A third argumentative stance may be characterized by the word love. Lovers differ radically from rapists and seducers in their attitudes toward co-arguers. Whereas the rapist and seducer see a unilateral relationship toward the victim, the lover sees a bilateral relationship with a lover. Whereas the rapist and seducer look at the other person as an object or as a victim, the lover looks at the other person as a person.