Analyzing Your Girlcrush
Carey Mulligan, Current Object of My Girlcrush Affection
A girlcrush is, as the name makes clear, a crush on a girl. Usually a star, but not always. For instance, when I first moved to Austin, I totally had a girlcrush on my now-friends CBD, KW, Rebecca, and Katie. It doesn’t (necessarily) have to do with looks; it might have something to do with admiration (of fashion, intelligence, general wit, etc.) Ultimately, a girlcrush, at least in the sense in which I’m describing it, doesn’t communicate that you want to make out with your crush….you just want them to be your BFF and wear your best friend half-necklace and have sleepovers and share closets.
Sometimes, a girlcrush is rooted in a very particular role. I’m not girlcrushing on Carey Mulligan nearly so much as I’m crushing on her character in An Education, Jenny. Part of this has to do with Mulligan’s relative lack of high-profile roles — I mean, who knows, maybe I’ll like her as Michael Douglas’ daughter in Wall Street 2? — but I’ll readily admit that my specific attraction to her is all about her transformation into a sophisticated, if naive, young woman in 1960s Britain; I love her hairdo, I love the way she interacts with Rosamund Pike, I feel profoundly moved and sympathetic with the choice she faces between scholastic achievement and prominence and freewheeling, potentially damaging passion.
But extra-textual components can be a deal-breaker. For instance, I rather loathe her real-life boyfriend, Shia LeBoeuf. But I like her new short pixie haircut, and I’m willing to stomach Mr. Transformers, so long as they can act endearing, at least in public, as depicted over at Lainey Gossip.
But girl crushes can also be far less role-specific in scope. I want Rachel McAdams to come over right now and drink a glass of wine with me and dish on The Gos. I want Emily Blunt to come and discuss 19th century British literature. I want to rewind to the 1930s and be snobby and wear pants with Katharine Hepburn. I’m girlcrushing on these womens’ overarching star images — not on a specific character (although I’m pretty sure that Queen Victoria and I would totally get along).
Maybe Emily could teach me how to wear things on my head.
But this collection of girlcrushes should tell you a tremendous amount about me. Or, rather, it should reveal a pretty straightforward image of the type of woman — and ‘brand’ of femininity — that I favor in a friend. Intelligent, sophisticated, vulnerable, vivacious, articulate. But that’s pretty staid, right? I can’t just want to be friends with people rather like me, only prettier and with better hair?
And that’s where the secret, or at least (somewhat) subversive, girlcrushes come to the fore. For example: you know who I really love? Britney. Always have — in part, I’m sure, due to her cultivation of the image of high school wholesomeness that I attempted to promulgate as well back in the halcyon cheerleader days — but also because I want to take care of her. Especially during the worst days, I wanted to get her on birth control, get her away from KFed, and retreat somewhere to make her safe. Irrational, sure. I mean, the girl, as best explained by Chuck Klosterman in “Bending Spoons with Britney Spears,” isn’t so much vapid as totally freaking oblivious to the mechanisms of fame, not to mention her place within them. I want to give her a friend-t0-friend Celebrity 101 lecture in which I inform her as to the ways in which her image has been formed — and has nothing little to do with her ‘actual’ self, so she can stop reading US Weekly when she goes to get a pedicure (and gets photographed doing it).
Lainey Gossip often frames this sort of affection in terms of wanting to give a girl friends — even if that friend is not you. Lainey, for example, admits to a complicated relationship with Jessica Simpson, in which she basically just wants to have someone, other than Ken Paves or her father, to help her out with life decisions, tell her when she’s dating a douche, and not let her wear bade jeans, just the way that a group of girlfriends would. This is a variation on the girlcrush, somewhat related to my feelings for Britney, that we might call the ‘girlpity.’ You don’t resent that girl so much as just wish she had the same sort of support system that allows you to be a functioning human being.
Importantly, girlcrushes are different than idolizations. You can’t be best friends with your idol. As such, while Angelina Jolie totally enthralls me, I don’t want to be her friend. Not only would she judge me, but I’d probably cower in her presence. She, like Dietrich, Garbo, Liz Taylor, and Grace Kelly, is an Alpha in the world of celebrities; I only aspire to friendship with the J.V. Alphas. To idolize is to place on a pedestal — and from that height, you’ll never be able to have a decent sleepover, let alone share a bottle of wine.
So why air my private affections? My own affections obviously matter very little. What I’m trying to get at, then, is the way that even the most ostensibly rational of us, at least when it comes to stars — I teach and analyze them on a daily basis, afterall — are subject to the sways of affect, identification, and emotional connection.
So think about your own girlcrushes. What do they say about you — and your needs, ideas of friendship, and desires? What are your obvious and less obvious choices? And how does this work differently, if it does, for male mancrushes? Please comment below — I’m fascinated to find out.
29 Responses to “Analyzing Your Girlcrush”
TOTALLY get that line about the alpha girl crushes - i wouldn’t wanna be friends with ang either! even sandra bullock, the epitome of the girl next door, would be an alpha in my book. but in terms of “we would totally be friends in real life” girl crushes (maybe just in my head): drew barrymore. kate winslet. katherine heigl. natalie portman. jennifer gardner. (dang. hollywood needs more asian sisters!)
Speaking of Britney Spears, have you seen the South Park episode on her and fame? Hilarious and sad and true.
My girl crush right now is Marion Cotillard. I just adore her so much. She has the most innocent beguiling face that just exudes warmth and comfort. She is french and drop dead gorgeous, but both those things are balanced out by her hard work in which you can see her blood and sweat (La Vie En Rose), and so those things do not become threatening as they usually would, if that any sense.
With all young french actresses, there is almost an “Amelie” effect. In which I always imagine them as quirky and completely relatable persons, but also magical, even in their “ordinariness”. It is the character obviously.
It’s really interesting how movies can completely shape the image of an entire country and it’s people.
With boys, to me, if I could become friends with them — if the guy could conceivably be with me in real life — then all attraction goes out the window. So it is the complete opposite with men. The unattainable is who I have crushes on when it comes to men. Not the ones who could be my friends. Wonder what that means.
ps: Here is the link to the South Park episode, the entire episode can be watched at this link:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1202/
I have very distinct girl crushes on Kate Winslet (wanna have a ‘we love our fleshy bodies’ day with her), Jen Aniston (wanna have a ‘we are survivors’ day with her), Jessica Simpson (see reasons for Aniston love), and Maggie Gyllenhaal (seemingly infinite reasons, including familial ties). So, even though I’m in a committed legal/life relationship, I apparently want a friend to confirm my inner/outer beauty via their own healthy body image and want to have a bunch of survivor friends. This probably signals a need to be helpful and fuses so well with my general distrust/dislike of men (even though I’m married to one). And maybe I also want one friend who’s a bit like me in the end: found a good guy, got settled, has amazing career and stunning hair. I don’t have the latter two, but whatever
My man crushes seem to be based on their roles: Aaron Eckhardt for being cute and playing roles like his biker-with-a-heart-of-gold in Erin Brockovich; Christian Bale for being a badass vigilante in Batman (I also like his Batman voice); Jake Gyllenhaal for just being boy-next-door-adorable and making mental illness seem okay in Donnie Darko; and more and more, Matt Damon just for being a fun actor who takes cool roles that even my girl-movie-loving self wants to watch.
Dream girls’ night out: Emily Blunt, Connie Britton, Lauren Graham. Fun, laid-back, wry, intelligent, independent. Maybe Reese Witherspoon, because I’d like to imagine that she’s not as uptight as the media portrays her, but she might be too Alpha.
After reading your post, I honestly sat here at my computer desk, trying to think of the last time I’ve wanted a female actress, her character, and/or her star image to come “over and drink a glass of wine with me.” And the answer is, I’m sorry to report, never.
I certainly admire Kate Winslet’s acting and movie selections, Julianna Margulies’s composed portrayal of Alicia Florrick in THE GOOD WIFE, and (like you) Mulligan’s equisite transformation in THE EDUCATION (also like you, I am NOT pumped to see Mulligan play [what appears to be] a traditional female role in WALL STREET 2.) But I don’t think I’ve ever wanted to get to know these women/girls in ways unrelated to stardom, acting, movies, etc.
Perhaps it’s because I’ve always had more guy friends than girl friends? Perhaps I’m too realistic? Yikes, does this make me weird?
I don’t think it makes you weird — it might just indicate that what you desire in a friend or confidant are not visible via 2-hour characters or star images. Does that make sense? While someone like Kate Winslet can radiate ‘trust’ to some people, I’d say that since you have no actual *proof* of trustworthiness, it might be hard to feel a feeling of wanting to be friends with her.
But when you get down to it, part of the difficulty — and part of the reason that I wrote this post — is that we can’t exactly explain why we’re drawn to certain stars, whether male or female. It’s easy to explain it away as animal attraction, but it’s actually much, much more — in part to do with charisma, but also to do with the way a particular star’s image (or character) matches with our own ideological understandings of the world.
Colin Firth and Jon Stewart, on the other hand… =)
[...] your Girl Crush (Celebrity Gossip, Academic Style) - Nice new blog I just [...]
“I only aspire to friendship with the J.V. Alphas”
But what happens, when a J.V. Alpha grows into an Alpha in terms of fame and influence? Or can they ever evolve that way at all? Is it possible for a girlcrush to become an idol?
Hi Anne! I had you waaaay back in fall semester for History of the Motion Picture.
I thought I might contribute to this by stating that my ultimate girl-crush is Keira Knightley for some reason. I want her delicious boy-toy, Rupert Friend, and I want her onscreen kiss with Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean. She seems so hip that I’d love to hang out with her just to listen to her british accent. (I’d make her recite “The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain” over and over for my lame amusement!) I really loved her role in Atonement because I can relate to having an annoying little sister ruin my life. There is something so sad about that film, and I can’t help but tear up when her lifeless body is floating around in the flooded tube station.
I also love her in Pride and Prejudice because she is Elizabeth Bennet: Enough said there.
However, I don’t know whether to consider her as alpha or not, but I could picture us being bffs, hanging out in vintage clothing stores while I attempt to shove a sandwich down her throat. (I think her smallness triggers that thing you have with Britney in that I want to help make her healthy or something…not exactly sure what’s going on there…)
So in my world, Keira and I are buds and if we threw the poshest tea party we’d invite Kate Winslet, Tina Fey, Rosario Dawson, and Emma Thompson. We would all dog the girls we hate: Miley Cyrus, Kristen Stewart, and Amy Adams because they are either vapid, annoying, ridiculous, or a combination of them all.
Which brings me to this postulation: Why do I feel envious of female celebrities yet want to be their pal whereas some other girls who have things/people/attributes I desire seem completely repugnant to me? What influences whether or not I see an actress as a potential friend or foe? Any ideas?
The topic of girlcrushes resonates with my love of gossip and popular culture along with an academic interest in the effects of social networking/modern media and fan sites on one’s mental health. If I had to use myself as an example, in terms of a use and gratification approach, my motive for following gossip is for entertainment, integration and social interaction. Gossip blogs, such as LaineyGossip, or your academic approach to gossip unites me with others of whom I identify with, including celebrity girlcrushes. But due to the advances in technology, this identification and interaction, which adds to the formation of a parasocial relationship, is now taken further then before. I can twitter, follow, and email with bloggers, like you or Lainey, or even with tech-savvy celebs, but still these interactions, though they allude to a connection, are parasocial in context; I am not deluded of this fact. These new forms of interaction may reinforce the image celebrities present to me, or they may reveal a truer image of the celebrity (akin to your review of John Mayer), which could destroy the admiration.
In consideration of all this, when posed with the question of my girl crushes or someone I would want to have coffee with, it would be you or Lainey. I don’t know either of you, but the textual representation on your respective blogs seems authentic and this is what I identify with the most. But your actual selves could very well prove me wrong.
Oh man, I totally fantasize about hanging out with Lainey. She is absolutely a girlcrush. If I lived in Canada, I would absolutely attend one of the events that she hosts — and what’s the one when it’s all just for gossip? My memory is failing me, but that pretty much sounds like the best night ever. We’d basically be forming one giant gossip discourse community.
And we should totally have a drink. I’m totally accessible.
i think i most often have this relationship with athletes. I don’t especially want to date them, I just want to go to the bar with them and it is always based on these minutiae of data about what they’re “really like.” (Inexplicably, Sidney Crosby just seems really cool and I want to hang out with him.) A fascinatingly awesome example of this is the new blog http://zoowithroy.blogspot.com/ about a guy who just wants to go to the zoo with new phillies ace roy halladay.
in response to your twitter comment a moment ago about how popular this post is… I think it really taps into this issue of (though I dont really like the term) aca-fandom and the idea that we (and not just academics either!) can actually view and understand texts critically while still enjoying their artifice or what have you.
What is it about that term ‘aca-fan’ that is so grating? I absolutely can’t stand it, even though it absolutely describes most of the research that I (and most of my colleagues) do. Can we come up with a better term?
By the way, I used to have a ridiculous platonic man-crush on the author of a series of Oregon hiking books who had an MA in English from Cornell and wrote the best descriptions. He also wrote a book about hiking all the way across Oregon and building his own cabin with his wife. And all I wanted to do was either have a beer or go on a long hike with him, not necessarily in that order. Somewhat different than going to the zoo, but I think it speaks to the ways in which we fantasize about interacting with a ‘celebrity,’ for lack of a better word, in a setting and scenario that would specifically fulfill our expectations/understanding of their image.
My girlcrush has been Anne Hathaway for YEARS (probably since Princess Diaries and hit a fever pitch when Devil Wears Prada came out). I would love to go shopping and drink overpriced lattes with her, find out what she saw in that Italian scamdouche, pick her brain about working with Meryl AND Julie…it would be fab.
Other less-lurvy girlcrushes: Halle Berry, Kate Winslet, Emma Stone.
I like the idea of having crushes on characters but not actors and vice versa. A particular example that comes to mind is Peggy Olsen. I have a big crush on the character, but have no interest in Elisabeth Moss. Perhaps it’s the Scientology thing.
That said, I take issue with the term “girlcrush.”
Principally, I take issue with associating this kind of fandom with the word “crush.” Essentially what’s being described as a “girlcrush” is more of a kinship or sensed affinity with female celebrities, the characters they play, or the intersections of the two in the cultivation of their personae. That ain’t no crush. For me, I associate the word “crush” as a verb. I want to crush someone. I want to be crushed by someone. I want to be left woozy and off-balance because of them, and vice versa. It’s a pretty sexual word for me.
This isn’t to suggest that same-sex platonic or fan relationships can’t be complexly erotic, but I’m not sure if the configuration of “girlcrush” being put forth allows room for such feelings and interactions.
Ultimately, I take issue with labeling someone a crush of any kind when you essentially *just* want to be friends with them because it seems like a way to proclaim a subversive fan position, but I’m not sure what it actually undermines. Other issues:
1. Marking someone as a “girl” crush seems heteronormative. By making the distinction, women are actually asserting they’re straightness. Their feelings are atypical to how they normally organize their love lives, real or imagined. “I’m usually drawn to men, but _______ is the exception.” It’s similar the use of the term “man-crush,” save for the presumed indications of age.
2. Marking someone as a “girl” crush seems to at once infantilize adult female sexuality and suggest that girls don’t have deep, complicated sexual desires. Speaking for myself, I know that wasn’t the case at 11 or 26. I’d imagine I’m not alone.
3. Speaking of girls, crushes are often seen as something childish, embarrassing, or crazy. Thus there’s something secretive and aberrant about crushes that we should explore. It might help us to understand fandom’s more abject dimensions. I come to this opinion now as a bemused adult who really wishes she’d “get over” her recently reignited obsession with Jeff Buckley. “I should know better,” she says mockingly.
4. The distinction between girlcrushes and idols (or Alphas) is troubling to me. I understand what is meant, as I thought about Parker Posey and Chloë Sevigny after reading this post and concluded, “I can’t have a crush on them. They’re too cool for school. They would *not* reciprocate.”
But the idea of creating such a hierarchy seems to denigrate more successful actresses and keep more “approachable” celebrities (re: B-listers) in reach. Also, to reiterate Nastja’s question, what happens when a celebrity ascends? Angela Jolie and Reese Witherspoon *became* A-list, after all.
And what about having crushes on celebrities because they’re A-list, because they’re Alpha? Isn’t their power and fame part of their allure? This is where Angelina Jolie might be an obvious choice for some. But as dictated by the strictures of what a “girlcrush” is, she can’t be one because she’s intimidating and unapproachable. Immortal, maybe. And that seems silly.
To me, the more subversive thing to do would be to not make distinctions. For example, I could say I have a crush on someone. As a woman in what at least appears to be a heterosexual long-term relationship, one might assume that I have a crush on a guy. But if I disclose that I have a crush on Maggie Gyllenhaal (and Rashida Jones, and Paget Brewster, and Michelle Rodriguez, and Linda Cardellini as Lindsay Weir, and Leisha Hailey . . .), it shifts expectations of the word “crush” and my sexual politics.
Both you and K make excellent points concerning the ways in which both the phrasing (and my general explanation) of ‘girlcrush’ is limited. When I was writing this post, I was definitely aware of the potential for girlcrush to connote non-heteronormativity.
What’s fascinating, then, is the fact that I in no way made up this word — it’s definitely in general parlance, both in terms of ‘girlcrush’ and ‘mancrush’ — as a means of communicating generally non-sexual attraction to someone (e.g. wanting them to be your friend). First, I think the reason ‘girl’ is used is, quite simply and unfortunately, because ‘womancrush’ is clumsy to say. I’m not kidding. Second, I’m wondering what other word is more appropriate to express non-sexual desire for someone to be near you. (I’m not disagreeing that crush is ill-used here; rather, I really don’t know — I have a “friendhope” on her?)
Part of the reason that I did *not* discuss girlcrushing as sexual is because I don’t, personally, feel that way about my girlcrushes. Which is not at all to say that feeling that way is bad, wrong, misplaced, etc. — but that the particular phenomenon I was attempting to describe was non-sexual. Of course, one might argue that have some sort of attraction to all the people we keep in our intimate circle, but that’s not where I wanted to go with the post. While, like Foucault, I absolutely accept that sexuality, desires, and denial/acceptance thereof are constructed through our interactions with pop cultural figures, I don’t think that that means that there’s necessarily sexual desire undulating beneath my own attraction to these women.
Finally, in hindsight, I think it’s positive to disassociate fandom from sex. The stereotype of fandom is that of a phenomenon rooted in sexual desire, especially when discussing women and their (cinematic) fandoms. Highlighting the ways in which women admire other women isn’t denying that sexual fandoms exist, but it does complicate and challenge the predominant image of female fandom.
I get what you’re saying about using the term “girlcrush” because examples like “womancrush” or “friendhope” would be awkward. Words are malleable and meant to be played with. But words are also open to criticism and discourse — see the ongoing back-and-forth about the usage of “douche” at Bitch (which lead to an official statement favoring the term) as but one recent example. I especially think we need to think about words like “girlcrush,” as they have become part of the lexicon. What does “girlcrush” really mean? What does it endorse?
But what about the inability to find the appropriate word for something? Do there always have to be words to succinctly convey every idea? Is trying to find one or demanding that there be one an admission of privilege? Rather than say I have a girlcrush on Amy Poehler, what is wrong with simply saying “I want to be friends with her”? What power structures reveal themselves when we try to bend words to express our opinions and beliefs, especially when they’re ultimately normative ones?
Also, I agree that we shouldn’t always look at the sexualization of fan objects (another problematic term) when discussing fandom. Fan engagement is varied and shouldn’t be presumed as *just* (hetero)sexualized (hello, music geeks don’t all want to sleep with the band). But I still bristle at the use of “crush” to convey a fan’s platonic feelings, especially in this case.
[...] in District 9 The Antagonist as Corporation - Part 2 An Education The Young Ladies of Toronto Analyzing Your Girlcrush Inglorious Basterds Inglorious Basterds: The Review A Serious Man A Serious Man: Sound and the Coen [...]
Girl crush/ man love also reflects who you are and how you see yourself at any given moment. Why do you consider Angelina Jolie to be too “alpha”, probably because you don’t see yourself as one and would feel threatened or intimidated by her. You want to have a glass of wine with Rachel McAdams or talk literature with Emily Blunt because they project personalities that you can associate with. Both are successful but low key and attractive but in a girl next door way. Things that you may relate to in several ways and find appealing.
I agree with the last few comments in that I’m confused about how you are defining Alpha females. In looking at the actresses and characters you list, I can’t help but notice that they are all traditionally feminine - both on and off screen. Personally I would say I only crush - and I agree with Alyx that I feel weird about the term “girlcrush” - on Alpha females. In crushing on Michelle Rodriguez and Katee Sackhoff (my whole reason for watching BSG) I’ve realized I like my ladies like I like my men - embodying qualities and physical statures traditionally defined as masculine. Would these crushes be considered Alpha females? Is this term based on a lack of traditional feminine qualities in an actress - or is it related to their status within Hollywood?
Also I think it would be beneficial to open the conversation to include crushing on stars because you want to be like them - which sounds like your definition for the term “girlcrush” - BUT also crushing on stars because you want to be with them . . . in a fantasy sexual sense. Focusing on the former, while denying the latter, leaves little room for analyzing queer connections and complex desires with fandom . . . especially for fans who identify as heterosexual cisgender women.
K, this last bit about wanting to be like them/be with them reminds me of a certain person’s admission of buying a trench coat because she wanted to be like/be with Judd Nelson’s John Bender in “The Breakfast Club.” Yes yes yes.
Building on the comment I just posted in response to Alyx, part of the reason that my particular ‘crushes’ are feminine is because my attraction to them isn’t rooted in what I desire in a partner; rather, it’s rooted in what I (generally) look for in a friend. While I count a diverse swath of women, some more feminine than others, as my friends, my very closest friends are, indeed, quite stereotypically feminine — much like Blunt, Mulligan, and Adams.
My particular ‘tastes’ aren’t meant to be indicative of girlcrushing in general, however. As I point out, just like some people are drawn into friendships with people that they want to nurture, so too are they drawn to celebrities, such as Britney or Jessica Simpson, that they want to take care of.
And as for fantasy sexual sense — see above. I think that would be a really beneficial and necessary corollary to this discussion, but it wasn’t what I was attempting to evoke, for better or worse.
I do always squirm a bit at the term girlcrush and at the term mancrush — I feel like they’re sort of up there with saying “no homo” at the end of a declaration of affection. Girlcrush usually implies a straight woman’s usually platonic attraction to another woman. Ditto mancrush implying a straight man’s platonic attraction to another man. It’s like saying “I like these people, but, you know, not in a gay way.” And, that may be true, but it also undermines any disruptive or unstraight (to borrow a term from Gay L.A., which seems appropriate here) potential these attractions might have.
Absolutely, Carly. Above, I was searching for a term that could connote the fact that this attraction was platonic, but perhaps part of the beautiful ambiguity of the term is that it allows for the suggestion of homoerotic attraction. But you’re right to point out the way in which it likewise shuts down potential queering of affection — I’m also reminded of discussions, on The Wire, in groups of friends, about “I’d go gay for him/her,” which both limits and inoculates the potential of such desire.
A few thoughts:
Can what you desire in a partner also be what you desire in a friend - and vice versa? I’m confused as to why this distinction is being propped up, with one set of characteristics for the one and another set of characteristics for the other.
Along the same lines, I’m still unclear what “alpha female” means, and how this affects your ability to read alpha actresses or characters (who may not read as “stereotypically feminine”) as friend-able?
Finally in response to your response to Carly - my only concern is that you rob the term crush - even girlcrush - of that “beautiful ambiguity” by feeling the need to outline your heterosexual use of the term. If you’d wanted to keep the term ambiguous you could have said I have (girl) crushes on these actresses - and left it at that. But by explaining your use of the word (“Ultimately, a girlcrush, at least in the sense in which I’m describing it, doesn’t communicate that you want to make out with your crush….you just want them to be your BFF”) you leave no room (what-so-ever) for the mere “suggestion of homoerotic attraction.”
K, it’s not letting me respond directly below to you for whatever stupid wordpress reason. What I was trying to communicate in my response to Carly is that, yes, I should have just left it at ‘girlcrush’ and let the ambiguity stand — even *if* I, personally, didn’t necessarily feel sexually attracted, the important thing was the existence of the ambiguity, not only in application to me, but for all uses of the word. Does that make more sense?
Second, as far as alpha females, it’s not that they’re masculine, or not ‘typically’ feminine. They’re just intimidating, which is not at all the same as non-feminine. Indeed, sometimes a tremendous amount of femininity can be what intimidates me, or just an attitude. Some of them are ice-queens, some are just larger than life — more on the ‘extraordinary’ side of the extraordinary/ordinary dichotomy that structures are star images.
And I don’t think that what is desirable in a partner and desirable in a friend have to be mutually exclusive. Many things — such as a sense of humor, wit, honesty, intelligence — are, for me at least, essential in both. But there are certainly others attributes that differ. I personally don’t desire a partner who will gush with me over gossip. But again, I’m not saying that someone else wouldn’t.
Chloe Sevigny is my biggest girlcrush. I want to badly to go shopping with her at cool little vintage stores. And perhaps, after a glass of wine at a hip bar, I might just um, make the evening not be so platonic? Yes, I am a straight, married, mother of 2, but Chloe-and my big crush on her-makes me question those categories a bit. Just a bit.