Pet Peeve o' the Day
It's okay, girlie, you're not a carpet muncher. (free registration required to read)
A nationally respected newspaper has deemed it necessary to assure mainstream heterosexual women that having a "crush" on another woman doesn't necessarily mean they're dykes.
Oh puh-leeeeeeeeeze...
Okay. I understand that one can hardly expect The New York Times to trumpet, "You may swing both ways, and that's peachy!" But not even a single mention of the Kinsey scale? Not one suggestion that, even if a "girl crush" passes the platonic school-girl stage to something more adult and physical, it's PERFECTLY NORMAL for someone who's straight 90% of the time to have sexual feelings for a member of the same gender? And if, heaven forbid, a woman ACTS on those sexual feelings, she can still (if she so desires) go on to have a happily heterosexual life?
Fer fuk's sake, I do not understand the point of this article at all. This must be the Times' idea of titillation.
I consider it insulting to bisexual women, and may write a letter to the editor to that effect.
A nationally respected newspaper has deemed it necessary to assure mainstream heterosexual women that having a "crush" on another woman doesn't necessarily mean they're dykes.
Oh puh-leeeeeeeeeze...
Okay. I understand that one can hardly expect The New York Times to trumpet, "You may swing both ways, and that's peachy!" But not even a single mention of the Kinsey scale? Not one suggestion that, even if a "girl crush" passes the platonic school-girl stage to something more adult and physical, it's PERFECTLY NORMAL for someone who's straight 90% of the time to have sexual feelings for a member of the same gender? And if, heaven forbid, a woman ACTS on those sexual feelings, she can still (if she so desires) go on to have a happily heterosexual life?
Fer fuk's sake, I do not understand the point of this article at all. This must be the Times' idea of titillation.
I consider it insulting to bisexual women, and may write a letter to the editor to that effect.