Most of the negative arguments against seduction have a few root causes. Seduction science is very disturbing.
First, it disturbs women because it's perceived as a shift in the roles and their power over the other.
Second, it disturbs men, at least some of them, because when read it from the armchair, looks just ridiculous.
Third, expert players ("PUA"s) are very often troubled people, who become expert because they have a great need for validation. Their writings can be perfectly valid and effective, but surrounded by tons of self-validation, so they cause aversion to the person rather than the content.
There is a mix of #2 and #3 in the reaction to your comment.
The problem is that the things written look rape when put out of context.
Abstractly, they are all forms of physical assertion. Nobody, except fools and rapists, would do them where inappropriate.
Putting the girl's hand in one's k is something that is effective in a very specific context.
Putting a a girl on one's lap is something that, again, is effective in a very specific context.
Both of them are not* done unless one expects a consenting reaction.
The key difference between physical assertiveness and rape is that the first is done with expected consensus, the second with expected dissent (so that force is involved).
The armchair critics are mixing the two, just because they don't have idea of how those things work in real life.
Regarding the general idea of seduction, that's a separate subject, and it's actually complex and multi layered.
Summarizing, seduction is at his essence psychological hacking. Asserting that it's bad the exact analogue of a non-engineer saying that hacking is bad.
To conclude, the guy writing the book is clearly psychologically troubled, and there are way better books than his.