Recent studies on sexuality have deconstructed 'Seiai' (or romantic love) on an analytical basis that treats sexuality and love separately, focusing mainly on the former. Homosexuality has also become a common subject in contemporary sexuality studies. In this paper, I investigate intimate relationships between women of modern Japan, including those containing lesbianism. However I do not discuss such relationships as a matter of general sexuality, as the reality of the relationships shared among women of the day is not yet well known. Male homosexuality in modern Japan has been made considerably clear. On the other hand, we do not yet know how the concept of lesbianism in modern Japan was formed, how it functioned, and what types of relationships were associated with it. In this paper, I examine discourses about intimate relationships between women from the end of the Meiji era to the beginning of the Taisho era. I discuss what types of relationships are indicated and that the discourses between these women are really over sexuality. At the beginning of the investigation, I look at some close relationships between women described in the journal Safuran. Safuran was founded by Kazue Otake, a member of an earlier journal called Seito. Seito and its leading figure Raicho Hiratsuka were oriented towards heterosexuality. We cannot define the close relationships found in Safuran simply as the same as the homosexual relationships found today. I argue that the process of building relationships was understood as something sexual in accordance to their reference to western sexology. The discourses in the period mentioned above pay much attention to intimate relationships between women. A double suicide committed by two graduates of a girl's school pulled the trigger. People came to call such relationships 'Dousei-no Ai' (love between two people of the same gender), and tended to recognize it as a matter of sexual desire. Nevertheless, it was 'excessively-radical friendships' that gained more attention within the discourses. In other words, when criticizing women's homosexuality, authorized commentators were eager to classify friendship under the dichotomy of normal/abnormal, while the topic of sexuality was disregarded. What they then put stress on was to mould women in socially acceptable oriented affection.