[personal profile] rm
The New York Times discovers the "girl crush" phenomena and manages not to be completely idiotic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/fashion/thursdaystyles/11CRUSH.html

19th century literature and social conventions are appropriately mentioned and so forth, but wow do I wish we could have a better name for the phenomena, which when termed "girl crush" serves to trivialize friendship the way we constantly do in this "just friends" world. Also, I feel the article really shouldn't attempt to address men at all, because it really leaves out a lot of what is going on in the culture on that front especially if you look at the move from buddy movies to these films about very serious non-sexual bonds between men (e.g., Lord of the Rings and the 8-bazillion essays it's spawned on romantic friendship/the new homosociality).

Date: 2005-08-12 09:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] heron61.livejournal.com
I wonder how many such relationships (as well as how many close "male-bonding" relationships would be at least occasionally sexual and more explicitly romantic in a less heterosexist society.

On a completely unrelated note, reading that article and thinking about similar close relationships that I've seen, I realized that I feel & act this way (with both women and men) - odd, but ultimately not all that surprising.

February 2021

S M T W T F S
 123456
789 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 15th, 2026 09:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios