• JustSo [she/her, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    Mite fuck around and regret posting this, but I generally think the idea of “boy crush” and “girl crush” are not really about sexuality at all.

    Unfortunately the rest of your post is implying actually rude insulting things about the DPRK, so I’m not trying to defend you as much as defend the concept of heterosexual non-sexual homosexual crushes. Because it IS interesting.

    Edit:

    I have not been able to stop ruminating on this and have come to the conclusion that the “non sexual” heterosexual “boy crush” / “girl crush” language is actually a reflection of internalised homophobia. When used in the way I’m thinking, it is used to express complex same-gender attraction, while maintaining a veneer of deniability which would not be necessary outside of a homophobic culture.

    Further more, I suspect it has dropped out of currency in the English language because we pioneered the phrase “no homo” to serve the same purpose.

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      18 days ago

      not only is it homophobic, it’s kinda infantilizing too right? It’s middle school level bullying, saying two people are gay together because you don’t like either of them. It’s only used in an insulting or patronizing way. I don’t think there’s a positive way to imply two people are secretly gay.

      • JustSo [she/her, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        18 days ago

        It certainly is in the context of the post we’re discussing.

        Its possible that my elder millennial exposure to the term allows me to be way more generous than I should be, since it is possible to converge on “boy crush” as an insult from first principles (lol) working forward from simple homophobia and juvenile attacks.