- I read two of Hiroko Oyamada’s novels this week, The Hole and Weasels in the Attic. Despite their brevity, these tales lingered in my mind, leaving me entranced and unsettled. Both works explore the shadowy realms of marriage, unveiling the enigmatic, and uncomfortably ambiguous, dynamics within the central couples. Oyamada comments on the shrinking Japanese society and the mounting pressures to marry (and procreate). This weight, coupled with the heavily gendered expectations — especially the undue expectation surrounding womanhood and parenthood the female characters had to endure — left me inundated with moral and existential dread as I turned the final page.
- There are stories when I read them, I secretively yearn for more conflict between the main characters. Like when I read Normal People, I wanted more miscommunication to happen between the characters so that the story keeps rolling. These two books are not those types of stories. Internally, I hoped for the conflicts to cease, or at the very least, find resolution. But Oyadama carefully avoids bringing the relief of looking at the problem straight on, opting to leave matters unresolved. Curiously, this absence of resolution reminded me of the water in which I swim: male privilege. I’m convinced that it is through experiencing, first-hand, what not to do in any given situation that one can glean insight into the right course of action. In other words, through the process of elimination. Being in a relationship with B, I often think about how I can be a better person, or a better partner, whatever comes first. I’ve realized it’s a lot more helpful to think about what behaviors would ensure misery.
- I remember talking with B last month about the qualities we seek in romantic partners. Not having much experience in romantic relationships myself, I was taken aback by her comprehensive musings on the subject. Yet, upon reflection, it made perfect sense — women face greater risks in entering deep relationships, for it is from the male side that relationship abuse often arises. B told me a list of characteristics she looks for in men: physically active, emotionally stable, older age (an interesting one), socially not awkward, shared sense of humor, and somewhat okay-looking.
- Unlike B, I have never thought of a catalog of qualities when considering a potential partner. I’d actually intentionally not think about concrete qualities because I believed that what makes one love another is inherently abstract. I thought it is the abstraction that keep romance romance, and that treating love like a math problem is the fastest way to fail in emotional resonance. It’s like that “I know it when I see it” phrase — I know what love feels like, but I can’t put a finger on the ingredients. If I found myself drawn to someone, then so be it. I saw no purpose in peeling back the layers one by one. But after having that conversation with B, my thinking has changed. I’m now convinced that love is never abstract. I do think people are not variables, but love does not adhere to a person. Love comes from the nature of particular qualities, from things I tend, things small enough to know and love. It’s sending the risky text and getting an even riskier reply. It’s telling secrets at 3 AM. It’s memorizing your coffee preference. It’s the surprise visits. It’s the I miss you texts. It’s the harmony of an old soul and a young spirit. The older I’ve become, the more clearly I understand love’s involvement in partiality. It can never live in abstract thinking.
- Given I have all the time in the world after graduating, I’ve found myself compelled to put together a list of qualities I look in romantic partners. I think they can easily be extended to people in general as they encompass the qualities that define a good person. These attributes, influenced by what I have observed and learned from B, are threefold: (a) highly attentive people who can read between the lines, (b) emotionally stable people who know how to own stress, and (c) someone who has low-to-moderate adventurousness.
- Starting with (a): these people can read a text message and notice the other person is making themself vulnerable there. This is someone who would check the alarm every morning and makes sure I set a reasonable amount of time to commute, and not the 30 minutes I think I need, and then would come wake me up with warm lemon tea. Love keeps increasing over time as you feel more grateful for that person. Next (b): these people are generally happy, and are able to mitigate emotional distress. I’ve seen cases where someone with emotional instability being grueling not just to their partner but also to other family members like children. It is better to avoid people who have a problem with everything, people who start throwing tantrums when something just doesn’t go exactly the way they want it to. It feels much safer when we’re around people who are flexible, resilient, and easy-going. Last (c): these people are more likely to be faithful than highly-adventurous, novelty-seeking partners. They can give you that rock-solid feeling of your family and home and things that matter being taken care of. These are the people who can make you forget your phone. Not that high-adventurousness is a bad thing, but in a monogamous relationship, this trait might draw away the attention from the relationship to other new, interesting things. This might make one feel neglected and unimportant.
