Drawing upon her rich
experience of life, Prudence (Prudie to her friends) responds to questions
about manners, personal relations, politics, and other subjects. Please send
your questions for publication to [email protected]. Queries should not exceed 200 words in
length. Please indicate how you wish your letter to be signed, preferably
including your location.
Dear
Prudie,
I am employed in a
leadership position where I meet a lot of different people a few times a year.
I have real problems remembering names. Have you heard this one before? I've
tried several ways to compensate. The one that works best for me is to review
the list of names I should know and visualize their faces. But I still
fail.
So my
question to you is: What is the best way to handle the introduction of somebody
whose name you should know but don't when they join a small conversational
group you're with?
--Sign me,Bill From La
Jolla
Dear
Bill,
Far worse than picking up
the wrong fork is stumbling around with an introduction. But take heart, you
have a lot of company falling into this particular social pothole.
Prudie does not
recommend an association technique. For example, years ago a certain woman's
name would not stay in Prudie's memory. The woman wore crazy hats--often
sporting fruit--so "Carmen Miranda" seemed a useful aid ... until Prudie
addressed the woman as "Mrs. Miranda."
You are luckier than most in
that your elevated position gives you something of a pass. Many individuals
will assume that you meet so many people that name recollection would be tough,
at best. Actor Robert Wagner (R.J. to people who could remember his
name) got around this by calling everyone "Pallie." This stunt only works,
however, in direct address, and is no help with introductions.
Prudie is willing to blow
her cover and offer you her trick: When stuck, just say, "Tell me your
whole name," implying (alas, fraudulently) that she remembers one name, but not
both.
Happily,
most people pick up on someone's difficulty and introduce themselves. When
nothing happens to relieve the situation, you can say, forthrightly, "I'm so
sorry, your name has gone right out of my head."
--Prudie, forgetfully
Dear
Prudie,
I have
long wanted to ask your advice concerning a problem that is certainly not new
to me. I have been in a committed relationship with a man for four years. We
have everything going for us, and I feel it's time to marry. It seems to be the
next logical step. We've been talking about this for over a year, so this is
not a new subject. Last week we had a huge fight about our relationship and
getting married. It ended with him storming out and me crying. My question is:
If a man keeps saying he's not ready to marry, is this his way of saying "I'll
never marry you"? In other words, should I just move on?
--Impatiently
Waiting
Dear
Imp,
Oh dear, the beloved is
having trouble with his feet. They're cold. It's the old commitment problem,
which seems to afflict more men than women. The goings-on you describe sound
like a cross between psychodrama and dating, never good for the nerves. You
have these options, as Prudie sees it: You can stick it to him and force a
decision; you can coast along and see if he starts to feel more "ready"; or you
can make a deadline--spoken or unspoken--at which time you will either call a
caterer or tell him it's been lovely.
What some women have done,
though Prudie doesn't recommend it, is to make the beloved jealous with other
men. This is sometimes effective in extracting a proposal, but it is also a
little like lassoing a calf, and who wants a groom one is dragging to the
altar? The dilemma on whose horns you ride is that sometimes "not ready" means
just that, and at other times it really does mean "not you." The hell of it is
that often the real meaning is unknown to the gentleman himself. As one of the
French philosophes put it, "Men and women deserve something better than
each other."
If things
work out, do let Prudie know so that she can wish you mazel ton ... tons
of luck.
--Prudie, hopefully
Dear
Prudie,
So one of Prudie's
"hot
buttons" is the government's failure to provide clean needles to addicts?
May I suggest you take your finger off the button, calm down, and review the
history of Vancouver's 10 year experiment doing just such a thing.
The
results are not encouraging. The number of addicts has risen, and the
percentage infected with AIDS has gone from around 3 percent to 24 percent, if
memory serves. Compassionate sounding ideas do not always pan out; it's good to
look at the evidence and be willing to change your mind if necessary.
--Concerned but
Skeptical
Dear
Con,
Your giving Prudie the
needle, pardon the expression, is understandable. As with all studies, there
are opposite findings to be offered. Alas, it is the nature of the statistical
beast.
Your figures for the
Vancouver study are correct, but there is no way to know if the number
of users would have gone up without a needle exchange. Some experts have also
quarreled with the design of the Vancouver program. The complaints have to do
with the low limits on exchanges per addict, and poor timing. That is, the
crack epidemic had just taken hold, and according to the Toronto Sun ,
injected cocaine and crack use often require 30 to 40 needles a session. With
impaired judgment, a guaranteed result with injected drugs, one would not know
how many or whose needles one was using.
Prudie
thinks it best we agree to disagree, and err on the side of humane
considerations.
--Prudie, agreeably
