I finished Sarah Barquinero’s novel The Smartest Girl I Know. It’s an excellent novel by a young Spanish writer about the complexities of the modern dating life. It’s even somewhat better than Jem Calder’s novel I Want You to Be Happy that explores the same themes. Barquinero is braver and more ambitious than Calder. She writes for a Spanish-language publisher and audience and can afford to be more straightforward.

Both novels address the weird myth that women’s sexuality is identical to that of gay men. Young women are desperately unhappy because they are forced into behaviors which are completely alien and uncomfortable to them. But they have no idea how to tell not only others but themselves that they don’t want a life of endless promiscuity with a rotating roster of no-name partners. They want love, a relationship, marriage, and children. Having to pretend that they don’t exacts a steep psychological payment.

Where both novels fail is in explaining the behavior of the male characters in their late 30s who are perishing of loneliness and self-disgust, yet remain unable to form a stable relationship with a woman. These are high-prestige men who have an easy access to a harem of eager, besotted, pretty, and much younger women. If you’ve met the type, you know that Barquinero and Calder are right. As they start pushing forty, these men are anything but happy. The descriptions of their alcoholism, self-hatred, and efforts to sabotage their careers depicted in both novels are very realistic. Neither book, however, explains why these men are unable to snap out of the self-destructive behavior.

I have no insight into these men either. It’s completely against my nature to be one of a platoon of eager young things battling each other for the attentions of one capricious dude. I understand what motivates the female platoon but these men are a mystery to me. The ones I’ve known who are like that are all on antidepressants and have serious issues with addiction. The lifestyle is not making them happy. At 20, yes, absolutely. They’re in paradise. At 40, though, not so much.

Calder’s novel doesn’t show it for reasons that I explained before, but Barquinero does make it clear that good, positive, serious men who do offer a serious relationship and a profound connection are often rejected by young women who are hoping to win the lottery by attaching themselves to a wealthier, more prestigious man. This is a bad gamble that almost never pays off, but that doesn’t stop anybody.

As a male author writing in English, Calder is forced to be a lot kinder to women than Barquinero is. In the Spanish author’s novel, young women prattle endlessly about feminism and female solidarity while treating each other in most atrocious ways, as they battle for a short-lived turn in a prestigious man’s bed.

12 responses to “More About Modern Dating”

  1. cliff arroyo Avatar

    “they don’t want a life of endless promiscuity”

    Longterm promiscuity is bad for anyone, mentally and physically but especially so for young women.

    “rejected by young women who are hoping to win the lottery”

    Monetization/commercialization of every facet of life is the bane of the modern age with far more downsides than positives.

    Like

    1.  Avatar
      Anonymous

      Not great for men either :/

      Like

      1. cliff arroyo Avatar

        “Not great for men “

        Yeah, they were included in ‘anyone’ though the nature of the not-greatness, especially longer term consequences, for them differs from that of women.

        Sex is an important part of life but again, balance is important, taking almost any single part of life and centering everything else around it rarely leads to good places.

        Like

    2. Clarissa Avatar

      I commend the writer for placing the whole novel within the framework of #MeToo. She shows that these young women feel raped, even though nobody did anything of the kind to them. But that feeling they have is not completely baseless. They engaged in sexual practices they didn’t want and most certainly did not enjoy, which is described very clearly, if a little too graphically, in the novel. They had a lot of unwanted sex with a lot of different partners, and they feel angry and resentful about that. Of course, I don’t for a second approve the persecution to which they subject male professors, but it’s unclear how we can prevent things like #MeToo from happening if we insist that this model of sexual relations is the only acceptable one on the society-wide level.

      What I find particularly curious in the level of literature is that young writers pretty overwhelmingly hate the modern dating culture and express that in their books. It’s the recently liberated 50-year-old female writers who are going rah-rah for this sexual culture. Of course, once you are past the age of fertility, the stakes become extremely low. It’s the young women who pay the heaviest price for this. As evidenced by fertility rates that are such a sore subject in Spain that you can reduce a whole room full of female academics to tears by mentioning it.

      Like

  2.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Christianity, obviously, has some things to say about that. Nobody is listening, and it seems like in leftward circles, attaching any idea to Christianity means people rush to do the opposite thing.

    I ran across an interesting model among the earnest neopagan crowd, that I wish more people would adopt, because it would save so much damage and heartache. It’s too politically taboo to say women are different from men, or even that promiscuity is immoral. The model lays out a morally neutral framework for keeping your partner count low: we all have both a physical body, and an etheric/energetic body. Sex partially fuses people on the energetic level, so every partner leaves a bit of their energy on you (and you on them) for some period of time– I think it was supposed to be a few years. From this standpoint, you don’t have to make any moral judgements to come to a sane conclusion: being careful about partners is framed as a matter of energy/aura hygiene. The explanation went further to say that people engaging with many partners in too short a time were basically shredding their aura/energy-body, leaving bits of themselves scattered all over, and that this would ultimately lead to poor physical, mental, and spiritual health.

    I don’t think you’d even have to literally believe it to benefit from that way of framing it. Though I wouldn’t bet on it being wrong.

    Maybe even that is too woo for academic types. People need an off-ramp though.

    ethyl

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Clarissa Avatar

      Women are supposed to be the big winners of the demolition of the society created by the Franco regime. I’d like somebody to read this novel and tell me wherein lies the big victory. This is a novel written by a young, very liberal Spanish woman, and what it depicts is unlikely to be qualified as a win of any sort by anybody. And it’s one of an endless number of novels all depicting the same thing. Women were supposed to have gained some sort of freedom, but they got the opposite. They are enslaved by men who owe them nothing.

      Like

    2. oldcowboy3 Avatar
      oldcowboy3

      methylethyl

      “…people engaging with many partners in too short a time were basically shredding their aura/energy-body…”

      Well. the “manuresphere” idea is that human pair bonding hormones, dopamine and oxytocin, particularly the latter, can create a strong permanent preference in women. Basically possibly creating an alpha widow situation, while should a man commit, his testosterone level declines and a third hormone vasopressin creates strong long term bonding — better living through chemistry ;-D

      Like

      1.  Avatar
        Anonymous

        Honestly, however people need to explain it to themselves, if they can find a working metaphor that lets them make better life choices: do what works.

        ethyl

        Like

        1. oldcowboy3 Avatar
          oldcowboy3

          methylethyl

          LOL, okay, thought I had. Remember, us mere males sometimes do not fully grasp female thoughts regarding romantic novels, you know feelings and stuff, so we measure ;-D

          Like

  3. oldcowboy3 Avatar
    oldcowboy3

    LOL, Kid, the West has been increasingly self destructive for the past three generations. Perhaps if Calder and his ilk were to write a little less kindly, the women of Anglosphere just might wake the hell up. Mathematically, you cannot all be tens, half of you are a five or less. And while straight men essentially like the look, sound, smell, taste, and feel of women — gay males well, not so much ;-D

    Like

  4. Avi Avatar
    Avi

    Well, that’s liberation for you, innit? Western societies are reaping the fruits of a movement that started in the 1950s, exploded in the 1960s, culminated in the 1970s, was normalised in the 1980s and went mainstream in the 1990s. It has now become the default template through which most contemporary social mores and thought have to pass, including among conservatives.

    Liberation means exactly that, being loose and on the loose, no shackles, no chains, no limits: it’s the zenith of the Romantic imagination. You can do and be anything you like. The Romantics, however, never stopped to consider the high price there was to pay for the majority of ordinary people: isolation, loneliness, the collapse of social bonds – after all, the Romantic hero/heroine is superhuman and need not care for the trifles with which ordinary mortals concern themselves…

    Something that strikes me every time I go to Spain is the sheer level of outspokenness, especially among women. This is quite unusual for someone coming from Italy, and it is something remarked upon by many Spanish women living here – they find it incredible that to this day most Italian women still act in demure and “feminine” ways, which they consider patriarchal and oppressive. No Italian woman would be quite so brash, brazen and smart-alecky in her dealings with men, at work or in any other situation, because she is well aware that no man would want to have anything to do with her beyond the necessary professional interaction, unless she intends to join a lesbian commune. And the ostracization process would start with the other women around her.

    I wonder whether the national characteristics of the democratization process after Franco’s 40-year dictatorship have had something to do with the different outcomes in terms of women’s social roles and behaviours. Italy also had a very powerful feminist movement in the 1970s, with many original contributions (Carla Lonzi, Lea Melandri, Luisa Muraro come to mind) but this seems to have had no visible effect on society.

    Barquinaro’s female characters live in a world that is heaven for heterosexual men: infinite availability of young, fertile, eager partners, mmaybe not so easily discarded after MeToo, but an above-average intelligent man soon learns how to deal with that. As you so rightly point out, while this may work for homosexual men, it is totally meaningless for a woman.

    I’ll bring this to a close as it is already too long for a comment, but it is wise to remember that three liberation movements followed hard on each other’s heels in the Sixties: the women, the gays and the blacks. There must be a lesson there, somewhere.

    Like

    1. cliff arroyo Avatar

      ” Spain is the sheer level of outspokenness, especially among women”

      The first time I was in Spain (Franco was still a very vivid memory and on the currency) I noticed the same thing. I had been prepared for the idea of loud, verbally aggressive men but I hadn’t realized that so many of the women were the same way. Everyone paid lip service to the idea of women having demure eminine charm but never seemed to manage to pull it off. If they weren’t loud and outspoken they were charmless and sullen in a perpetual snit.

      I don’t think that can be blamed on progressivism (and IME Latin American women are much the same way, often more so).

      Like

Leave a comment