Before Eve birthed all her children, and thus indirectly birthed all of our ancestors, Eve's transgression first reproduced itself into Adam. According to Genesis, she gave him the fruit (of knowledge, fwiw) and he ate. Adam took it and ate. Period. So, according to Genesis, Eve was deceived by the serpent. Adam just did what Eve wanted. Now, let's stop and ask what might be a new question about this familiar story.
Whose failure is worse, there?
To the point, Eve fell because she was tricked. Adam fell because... well, we don't really know why. Without inventing details, it's probably safest to consider that Adam fell mainly because of their intimacy. Eve gave him the fruit. He ate. And why should he not have? According to an old joke, Eve did all three things a wife can do to please her husband. She came naked. She brought food. She didn't block the TV. (Laugh, y'all. My mom once told that joke to my wife! I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!)
In all seriousness, one of the most misogynistic things about the ancient world is that women often got blamed for men's lust. 'Don't dress that way, girls. You know we can't control ourselves.' As often as this still goes on it's simply unacceptable male domination, and shameful to blame women for what is only our struggle. On the other hand, it's also natural and obvious that a healthy degree of modesty can be helpfully prudent for everyone's sake.
Of course, I bring this up partly to note that such themes were on Paul's mind earlier in the passage at hand (v.9-10).
In the real world, immodesty is relative, but abusive overreactions to any particular breach of standards are inexcusable. Whatever strikes the right balance in addressing practical issues of modesty, it's equally true to say one-on-one situations require a similar degree of wisdom and prudence. I don't care how liberated we get, nobody in any culture or age should mentor an individual of the opposite sex in an intimate context! It just shouldn't be done.
In all this, we're trying to find the connections between real life, Genesis, and whatever Paul said. A key point, I'm suggesting, may be that Adam's fall was essentially brought about by extreme intimacy. Therefore, even though Paul doesn't seem to spread blame very evenly in his rhetoric, the point may be implicit. After all (as with debates over modesty) it is common for double standards to be couched in blaming language, isn't it? But however unacknowledged in polite company, the true facts are usually common knowledge. In this case, it seems likely that such a subtext might have been especially obvious to men and women of a patriarchal culture.
Paul's likely implication: The fact that Eve's disobedience spread to Adam was the failure of Adam, and the partial result of intense one-on-one intimacy.
To be continued...