Fisher writes of bachelors .... "Their approach to gastronomy is basically sexual, since few of those under 79 will bother to produce a good meal unless it is for a pretty woman."
This was one of the most enjoyable essays in the series and represents of the reasons I like Fisher so much; she's not only knowledgeable about food, she understands the motivations that lie beneath the sum of a meal.
I love her rules for conduct in this piece, too, that she considers it her honest duty to ascertain said bachelor's "direct or indirect" approach and then let him know ahead of time of his chances at bedding her. It makes her a frankly appealing woman of the world, not the type to toy with a man's feelings through a three- or five-course courtship and then leave him cold.
(As in "A," she notes her ability to hold her liquor in a self-conscious manner. Did she drink a great deal in the context of a gourmet diner? Is it a postwar cocktail-hour kind of norm? Or did you get the feeling she wrestled with the bottle on a personal level?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I really liked that essay, too. I enjoyed the fact that she evidently was not shy about claiming sexual pleasure for herself, along with gastronomic pleasure. She sees the two as intimately linked, obviously. And there wasn't a male manipulation that was not completely transparent to her. She puts a nice twist on that old notion that women are expected to put out after a man treats them to a nice dinner.
And what about the converse? What reasons does a single woman have for serving a man?
Good question, Ben. I think cooking for a man, more so early in a relationship, creates the impression that she's serious and wants to settle down, aka, showing off her domestic skills for him. I don't think that's the right impression to have, but I think that's what people assume. So it's a loaded gun.
Post a Comment