Camille
Paglia was the point at which I fully picked up on the vibe.
The idea
that I was subtly being shamed had been daubing across my consciousness for a while.
The confusion was, to what purpose did it serve?
During the
conversation, I had made certain allowances, I admit.
At no point
did I back down, or defer to my hoary colleague, but I did allow certain
avenues to go undiscussed due to the obvious discomfort of the other
conversant.
My
considerations were thus: he is markedly older, and of a different culture of
time, and recently his daughter had passed.
I couldn't say he was fully outside the bounds of propriety—whatever they may be..
He is an
intelligent and mostly polite older man. He speaks his mind. A quality I have (usually)
enjoyed.
The
conversation—itself—spanned art, culture, memories, personal histories,
anecdotes on relationships, feminism.
Its conclusion, a disappointment.
Not only the
sense of entitlement in the assertion and request; the
method in which he attempted to steer the conversation.
An old
trick.
Confuse your
target—vacillate between compliments and criticism.
Offer
sympathies, then assert authority—demean gently.
Skirt the
edge of insecurity.
Make the approach, and your case.
The flustered quarry
seeks approval and submits.
A key
point may have been made by Paglia.
Men do
reveal themselves as the weaker [sex] in approaches such as these.
Are you sure you wouldn't like to share the tent?
I really
think I would enjoy holding your body against mine.
I just bet
you would.