1. Rather than parse whether or not declarations of love and intimacy were au-
thentic, I join with analysts who are interested in what these performances mean
in practice (e.g., Brennan 2004; Faier 2007).
2. An analysis of medical, scientiﬁ c, and government discourses reveals the
shifting production of categories of homosexuality but does not go far enough
to explore how these discourses shaped the experiences of ordinary people
(Donham 1998; Robertson 2005). While discourses profoundly aﬀ ect ideas and
practices, people think and act at the intersections of discourses (Yanagisako and
Delaney 1995: 18).
3. See, for example, Abu- Lughod (1986), Abu- Lughod and Lutz (1990), Boell-
storﬀ and Lindquist (2004), Klima (2004), Lutz (1988), Lutz and White (1986), M.
Rosaldo (1980, 1984), and R. Rosaldo (1989). In particular, Abu- Lughod and Lutz
(1990) have highlighted that sentiments are socially produced during moments
of exchange, rather than as emotions waiting to be expressed. In a similar vein,
Boellstorﬀ and Lindquist (2004) as well as Klima (2004) point out how the social
construction of emotion can oﬀ er a useful lens for understanding economic
4. Feminist scholars have highlighted how discourses of love and intimacy
often disguise underlying issues of status along the lines of race and class that
inspire partner choice. Similarly, Marxist feminists have argued that heterosexual
women may be expected to provide domestic and emotional labor in the name of
love, which renders their work invisible. Throughout this scholarship, analysts
emphasize how cultural assumptions about love and intimacy have shifted dra-
matically over time.