In his last post, Mike said, “But, if you are simply filling a void with fantasy it makes no sense to me that the fantasy has to be a real person.” I guess he’s right, but that’s a big conditional. I think what his statement really means is that he and I differ about something much bigger than whether or not it’s necessary to know the object of a “crush”. Because for me, the two key words in Mike’s statement–”void” and “fantasy”–have little or nothing to do with crushes.
I suppose that if you conjure up a crush on a rock star or a fictional character, there’s a bit of both involved. After all, if your attention is fully focused on a real-life partner, you’re not likely to take time and attention away from that to build an imaginary relationship in your mind. And if you’re focused on someone you don’t know, then fantasy is a key element because there’s nothing real to focus on; you have no day-to-day interactions or experiences to form the foundation of your crush. I think that’s common–possibly the most common approach to “crushing”. It’s a nice diversion, it’s safe and (perhaps above all) it doesn’t require any effort whatsoever. But it’s not what I was talking about in my crush post. Not even close.
No, I was talking about something that exists in the real world, not as a romantic relationship but as a real-life interaction. It’s not dependent on fantasy; it’s all about enjoying the things that are really happening: witty banter, a smile that cuts through the early-morning winter darkness, encouragement that means just a little more than it would coming from someone else, the pleasure you take in watching him “perform” at whatever it is that he does best. It’s not about what-ifs and if-onlys–it’s about the little crackle of positive energy that comes from what is.
Of course, that can’t happen with someone you don’t know, because there is no “what is”. There are no interactions to enjoy, no pats on the back to revel in, no moments when you see his eyes sparkle in response to something you’ve said. In my mind, that’s what a crush is. Just like having an exciting new friend, only sexier. And there’s no reason it can’t be the candy sprinkles on an already-delicious frosted cupcake–no void required. A crush, just like a romantic relationship, can and should enhance an already full life. Another person–real, fictional, acquaintance or lover–can’t fill a “void”. That’s just painting over the cracks with diversion.
[...] post: Life, Love and Online Dating » Blog Archive » Crushing in the Real … Share and [...]
This sounds more like a confusion of semantics. What you are describing sounds like a flirtation, something that can go horribly wrong if taken too far, whereas a crush from afar is a harmless bit of fantasy that would never be taken further. I also think men are more inclined to crush on some celebrity or person who isn’t going to be met in real life, someone who can be admired from afar where women tend to crush on their co-worker or the cute bartender, people who could easily turn into more than just a fantasy.
Jen, you’re opening up a whole new can of semantic worms with this comment, because Mike and I use the word “flirt” very differently. Mike says he’s uncertain whether or not a woman was “flirting with him” when he’s trying to decide whether or not she’s interested; I say of course she was flirting, but that’s not the real question–the real question is whether or not she means anything by it. Some people flirt because it’s just the way they communicate. Some people flirt because they’re in a profession in which they make more money if they do. There are probably as many reasons as there are people.