Couple of questions about "crushs"

LesPaulPlayer · 06-16-2009, 01:13 AM

So, I have a theory. I think that for the most part a "crush" is based on physical attraction alone. I think that is considered lust. So. is having a "crush" wrong?

Don't get me wrong physical attraction is a big + and in my opinion something needed in a relationship. But all these kids saying they have a crush on people they hardly know is wrong to some extent I think.

I'm not saying I have never had a crush (But I know the person and I don't just see them and think "hey I really like them then get all freaked out) and I'm not saying this to be a jerk I'm just wondering other peoples opinions.

So?

**Rainer.** · 06-16-2009, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesPaulPlayer

I think that for the most part a "crush" is based on physical attraction alone.

You would think that, but it's not necessarily true. You can develop a crush on someone you have not been previously physically attracted to.

Also, a crush isn't the same as lust. It's more along the lines of an intense longing/obsession. You want to develop a relationship with this person, which is distinct from just wanting to have sex with them.

Also, Jacob had a crush on Rachel:
Genesis 29
Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. Leah had weak eyes, but Rachel was lovely in form, and beautiful. Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, "I'll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel."

LesPaulPlayer · 06-16-2009, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainer.

You would think that, but it's not necessarily true. You can develop a crush on someone you have not been previously physically attracted to.

Also, a crush isn't the same as lust. It's more along the lines of an intense longing/obsession. You want to develop a relationship with this person, which is distinct from just wanting to have sex with them.

Gotcha.

But still I think that for the most part the 18 and under group of kids/teenagers/you adults. base most of their "crush's" on physical attraction alone especially when they don't know them.

I know exactly what you are saying though

OiBoyz · 06-16-2009, 01:39 AM

Well, if you don't know them, what else can you be attracted to but what you can see? Physical attraction isn't wrong in and of itself. I think it moves to lust, when it becomes obsession, and your thoughts cross a certain line. Who of us hasn't been there?

LesPaulPlayer · 06-16-2009, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Well, if you don't know them, what else can you be attracted to but what you can see? Physical attraction isn't wrong in and of itself. I think it moves to lust, when it becomes obsession, and your thoughts cross a certain line. Who of us hasn't been there?

Exactly. thats my problem thats the part that is wrong imo. You can know them, many people choose not to and just hide their thoughts which in turn become lust.

conceived in fire · 06-16-2009, 01:45 AM

I've always thought crushes were essentially infatuation, and they may or may not be based on physical attraction alone. There's a difference between being attracted to a pretty face and lusting over that person - it's all about not allowing your mind to go there.

I don't think having a crush necessarily means you're more likely to lust over that person (compared to a real relationship).

musaclover · 06-16-2009, 01:46 AM

That's true... but... normally when you start out, most people look at the physical features of the other person. When they think they like them because they like their physical attractions then that is just lust. But, knowing the person who you have never been physically attracted to could be considered a 'crush'.

**Rainer.** · 06-16-2009, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesPaulPlayer

Gotcha.

But still I think that for the most part the 18 and under group of kids/teenagers/you adults. base most of their "crush's" on physical attraction alone especially when they don't know them.

I know exactly what you are saying though

I think physical attraction does play a role, but physical attraction isn't necessarily lust.

You can think "That girl is beautiful" without thinking "I want to get in her pants..."

LesPaulPlayer · 06-16-2009, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conceived in fire

I've always thought crushes were essentially infatuation, and they may or may not be based on physical attraction alone. There's a difference between being attracted to a pretty face and lusting over that person - it's all about not allowing your mind to go there.

I don't think having a crush necessarily means you're more likely to lust over that person (compared to a real relationship).

I guess I don't think it's wrong to be physically attracted but I think it is very VERY easy (especially for guys) to let our minds wander. I think this is a good argument for dating also. being to young can put you in a very bad position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by musaclover

That's true... but... normally when you start out, most people look at the physical features of the other person. When they think they like them because they like their physical attractions then that is just lust. But, knowing the person who you have never been physically attracted to could be considered a 'crush'.

Like I said most of the "kids" (I use the term lightly) don't just have a crush because they think they will like them. most of it is based of because he/she looks good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainer.

I think physical attraction does play a role, but physical attraction isn't necessarily lust.

You can think "That girl is beautiful" without thinking "I want to get in her pants..."

Very True

but like I said above it is very easy to let our minds wander. especially at a young age

musaclover · 06-16-2009, 01:55 AM

But even so... physical attraction happens to everyone. Sometimes it's a big part ... for those who think it is and sometimes it just depends on the personality of the person.

OiBoyz · 06-16-2009, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesPaulPlayer

I guess I don't think it's wrong to be physically attracted but I think it is very VERY easy (especially for guys) to let our minds wander.

Girls do it too. And trust me, age doesn't have that much to do with it.

musaclover · 06-16-2009, 02:00 AM

I would have to agree with that one!

LesPaulPlayer · 06-16-2009, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Girls do it too. And trust me, age doesn't have that much to do with it.

I didn't say girls didn't do it but the numbers prove guys are more sceptible to things like that.

age has almost nothing to do with it. but at the very least you are more mature.

LesPaulPlayer · 06-16-2009, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by musaclover

But even so... physical attraction happens to everyone. Sometimes it's a big part ... for those who think it is and sometimes it just depends on the personality of the person.

I said in the OP that physical attraction is a very big part for alot of people. I'm saying that most "crush's" are based on that alone, and that is wrong

OiBoyz · 06-16-2009, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesPaulPlayer

I didn't say girls didn't do it but the numbers prove guys are more sceptible to things like that.

Well, never having been a guy, I can't really compare. What I can tell you is that it's not just a male problem. I think it's probably pretty close.

As far as age and maturity... I'm fortysomething, and I struggle with this at times every bit as much as I did at 16.

The difference that maturity makes is that you don't think you're going to die if the other person doesn't notice you. At 16, you're absolutely sure you can't live without that person. And twenty years later you don't even remember their name.

I don't know if it's a problem that goes away when you marry, but if you're single for a significant amount of time, it is an ongoing issue. At least it is for me.