The “Crushing” of Human Connection

I’m a huge fan of the romantic crush. Be it women I know in real life, actresses I see on TV, or women whose creative work I admire, mine has been a life spent juggling multiple crushes at any one time. This affinity for crushes has worked out well for me because my true love is the single life I’ve built brick-by-brick over 38 years, and never the two have met. Being energized by romantic feelings as well as single life is, in my opinion, a phenomenal combination.

Because of my affinity for crushes, I’m also fascinated by how we’re taught to behave with respect to them, and how they serve as a window into the soul-sapping ways romantic love and sexual monogamy can be practiced.

Googling “romantic crush” serves as a perfect framework for getting at the root of our culture’s problems with crushes. Renowned therapist Dr. Wikipedia gives us the definition of “puppy love” and says “puppy love, also known as a crush, is an informal term for feelings of romantic love, often felt during childhood and early adolescence.” Lesson one: crushes are for children. Having them as an adult, particularly ones that last months or even years, signals a streak of immaturity or living in a “fantasy world,” and preoccupation with them is likely hindering the formation of “real” relationships.

This lesson, however, is just an opening salvo in dissuading adult crushes. The real onslaught comes further down in the Google search in the form of articles like one published in Bustle on July 8, 2020, called “A Guide To Romantic Crushes & When They Could Hit The Danger Zone.” The article summarizes five stages of crushes, from “harmless” to “code red.” Lesson two: if you’re in a romantic relationship, crushes must be stopped or heavily policed. Otherwise, they could ruin your life.

Photo by Edwin Hooper on Unsplash

Let me ask you, if something as harmless as an ego-boosting crush threatens to upend life as you know it, where is the “danger zone” located, exactly? Is it with the crush, or is it with the relationship structure in which you exist that expects you to carry any feelings you have for someone other than your partner with guilt and fear? Is it with the crush, or with your partner, who wields that relationship structure as a tool of emotional extortion, sometimes for years, by reminding you of that time someone other than them had the audacity to find you sexy, and you had the fucking audacity to like it?

I find all of this especially hard to accept given the affirming ways which I’ve come to view crushes in my life. My goal with a crush is not to date them, get them in bed or replace their partner, if they have one. I’ve never once done any of those things. My goal is to translate my feelings for them into actions that affirm and encourage who they are as people, all while expecting nothing in return. My “reward,” so to speak, is knowing that I said words or took an action that made someone I like happy.

If that sounds strange, I don’t blame you, because that’s very likely not the typical crush story you’ve seen in the culture. A perfect example of this comes from one of the most popular TV shows in the US in the past 20 years, “The Office.” The love story of Jim and Pam is one of the anchors of the show throughout its nine seasons, and the first few seasons are spent building to the moment when Jim tells Pam that he’s in love with her. She at first rejects him as she’s engaged to someone else, which prompts Jim to leave town, only to be back in a subsequent season, after which they are soon married and have a child.

The story of Jim and Pam highlights crush lesson three: if you have one, you will have to “resolve” it somehow or it will devastate you. The feelings resolving themselves of their own accord, or being put in context, really aren’t presented as options. Jim, after all, moved to ANOTHER STATE when he was initially rejected. What this tells viewers is that an unreciprocated crush or love is so devastating that uprooting your entire life is the necessary and proportionate response.

The other serious issue I have with Jim and Pam’s relationship is something quite common to these types of stories. Jim, in confessing his love to Pam, was basically saying this: I have built up all these strong feelings for you and the only way I can resolve them is to make you “mine.” This is one of those things that at first blush sounds “romantic,” but, at least for me upon quiet reflection, seems more than a little fucked up. Do I draw a direct line between that kind of pervasive cultural mentality and the seemingly unending problem of intimate partner violence overwhelmingly directed at women? You bet your ass I do.

These three lessons about crushes we hear time and again — that they’re childish, they must be stopped or heavily policed, and that they will wreck you emotionally if they’re not “resolved” — do one more thing that I find truly unfortunate: they foreclose yet another opportunity at human connection.

Photo by Austin Kehmeier on Unsplash

When I read one “advice” column after another that tells people to shut down a relationship that makes them feel seen and feel good because it’s a “threat” to their primary romantic relationship, I see yet another line of evidence of how romantic, sexually monogamous relationships are ravenous monsters that devour everything in their path and ultimately cause people to become more disconnected from others.

Look at the ground that monster has already covered: its convinced untold numbers of people that, somewhere out there, their financial, domestic, and sexual partner as well as their best friend is all wrapped up in the same fucking person. That is certifiably insane, and we need all the narrative re-framing we can get our hands on to push back against that insanity.

I’m hoping that re-framing romantic crushes as positives can do its small part in that effort. And to all my crushes out there, wherever you are: I’m so happy you are or have been in my life. Each of you has made it better. Please keep being you.

…

Not a Medium member? Subscribe here for $5/month or $50/annually and I’ll receive half your member fee. Thanks for your consideration!

—

This post was previously published on medium.com.

***