“Best friends” are a surprisingly recent phenomenon, Jaya Saxena writes. ⁠ ⁠ In the mid-to-late 1900s, feminist movements championed female friendships, leading many women to assign particular importance to them. Today, the term “best friend” is still widely used. But most of us don’t naturally fall into friend pairs. Seeking them out, then, can lead to hurt—if we choose one friend over another, if the best-friend designation isn’t reciprocated, or if we don’t have a closest friend but feel that we should. “For those who do have one, prioritizing them could mean turning away from other, potentially fruitful friendships. And relying on one person for all of your emotional needs creates a lot of pressure: No one is available to be a great friend 100 percent of the time ... Afraid of losing our closeness, we might call someone a ‘best friend’ as a kind of protective incantation, a declaration of our commitment that comforts us but doesn’t leave much room for complexity—or change. When a friendship inevitably evolves and ‘best’ doesn’t fit anymore—at least not in the same way—it feels less like growth and more like loss,” Saxena writes. ⁠ ⁠ In recent years, friendship is arguably enjoying greater appreciation than ever. People understand more and more that their emotional needs cannot all be met by a romantic partner. But as we champion the power of friendship, many of us still view it with a very monogamous mindset: that one of our relationships should be the primary one, and that its status should be unwavering over time. The fact that people are questioning heteronormative romantic preconceptions suggests that our friendship norms can evolve, too. “Ultimately, it’s not our friendships that need to change; it’s how we talk about them,” Saxena continues at the link in our bio. “We can and should have people who are close to us, whom we can confide in, whom we trust with our tenderest selves. It just doesn’t have to be a competition. No one has to be second best.”