Celebrity crushes

[ToeInTheWater]

I’d tend to agree with Cat’s definition of a celebrity crush on the surface, although I suspect that she wouldn’t agree that some of the real-world examples I’ve given have come from people who share the same definition. Pretty much everyone I’ve discussed crushes with has put them in similar to identical terms as Cat. They’re harmless fun, nothing lustful (at least not real lust since they don’t know the person, which somehow makes it okay to have romantic to pornographic fantasies about them, even though the same people would agree that doing the same thing while watching porn is wrong), not obsessive (although that’s a loaded, subjective term that can mean anything from someone like Cat who just devotes a small amount of time each day, etc. to someone else who sleeps with crush-adorned body pillows, etc.), and done with the full consent of one’s spouse (or at least behind their back because what they don’t know can’t hurt them).

Gordon Sims, I don’t think ANYONE on this topic has stated that it’s okay to have pornographic fantasies about a celebrity crush, Cat included. She has also made it very specific that she does not do anything behind the back of her husband (or vice versa). So how can you say that your “real world examples…come from people who share the same definition”? But you keep insinuating that the people who defend crushes on this forum must be just like your “real world examples”, and, therefore, must be committing sin. Even when they have specifically state they don’t act the way your friends do.

As for the porn example, no one is defending porn here, but I could easily apply your argument, that “people use the same defenses for X as some do for porn, and porn is wrong, therefore X is wrong”, to people who dress up in lingerie or use sex toys for “harmless fun” to “spice up” a marriage.

Now, while these behaviors certainly can be the subject of debate, I don’t think there’s any specific Catholic teaching banning them in the bedroom. But I could use the same argument against them as you do against celebrity crushes, and therefore insinuate that people who use lingerie and sex toys are just as sinful as those who use porn. I won’t, though, because this would be unfair.

I tend to agree with Bruised Reed when she states:

It’s not the crush that is wrong, it’s the type of fantasizing and lust that is wrong.

Of course, you seem to firmly believe that the word “crush” to describe admiration of a celebrity includes “fantasizing and lust” BY DEFINITION, and therefore, having a crush is always wrong, and if a fan’s admiration of a celebrity doesn’t include “fantasizing and lust”, then it is wrong to call it a crush.

And there I think is the reason for the impasse, and the reason I doubt anyone will change their minds here.

BTW, I DO think that crushes, in some people, can be a near occasion to sin by objectifying the celebrities involved, and treating them as mere objects to be used for our emotional kicks. Certainly, the people who actually make “lists” of celebrities they want to sleep with I think are objectifying them, but I think this would be sinful even if there was no lusting or sexual arousal involved.

However, I just can’t bring myself to state that crushes are a sin or near occasion to sin for EVERYONE. (Indeed, I’ve noticed that even GS hasn’t actually come out and accused Cat of sinning, even though he’s made a whole bunch of subtle insinuations that she is.)

 

[lerapt78]

Among the standard definitions of the word “crush”:

2 crush
noun
: a strong feeling of **romantic **love for someone that is usually not expressed and does not last a long time
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crush

informal
A brief but intense infatuation for someone, especially someone unattainable or inappropriate: ie; she did have a crush on Dr. Russell
oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/crush

I identify more with GordonSims’s position. What some others refer to as a crush, I think of as platonic admiration. I have an intense admiration and love for Christ, but I’d feel pretty weird saying that I have a “crush” on Him.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

A lot of the disagreement in this thread has been along the lines of, “Your fantasies/the object of your fantasies is wrong, while mine is okay.” I disagree. I believe that any lustful and/or romantic fantasizing that’s not about your spouse is wrong.

I think it’s more of what you think is romantic or lustful. Plus, a crush doesn’t have to include any fantasizing. A crush is involuntary; fantasizing is active and can be innocent or sinful.

Oh, I could give a lot creepier examples of obsessive crushes than the body pillow. I just didn’t want to go there. Obsession doesn’t have to mean an extreme behavior. It can be something minor that is done regularly/repeatedly or compulsively. A few years back there was an online game I played obsessively. I only spent 10-15 minutes on it each day, but it was every single day at the exact same time (it was also before anyone else in the house woke up so nobody was even aware I was doing it). Nothing harmful and it didn’t interfere with the rest of my day, but that didn’t make it any less an obsession.

Obsessive and compulsive are two different things and both indicate something pathological. Again, the word is used hyperbolically and ironically, and if you think what you did was obsessive then no wonder you think the way you do about crushes, etc. Maybe you feel guilty about spending your time that way when you could have praying or something but regular, planned, and enthusiastic gaming is not obsessive.

“Devote” is a fairly neutral word. It just means that you spend time on an activity. It can be used in a stronger sense but that wasn’t my intent. I simply meant that she (by her own admission) spends a certain amount of time each day on a specific activity. By itself there’s nothing wrong with that, but when you combine it with fantasies and shrines, I think it’s problematic.

Since you seem to really be bothered by the fantasy part of it let’s skip over that…no, let’s let that take a backseat to the “shrine.” What if the shrine is a TARDIS? What if the fantasy is being a companion? Welcome to Nerdville. It’s not a problem. It’s fun. It’s fantasy. It’s a welcome respite from reality. Do you understand that fantasy can mean Disney and Dr. Who? If so, stop talking about fantasies like they are nasty by definition.

But why is crushing over the teenage babysitter creepy and crushing over Taylor Swift or Elsa from Frozen not? If I’m confining my fantasies to long strolls on the beach, staring out over Paris form the top of the Eiffel Tower, etc., how is that any different than if I replaced her with Robert Blake or Pocohantas? As I’ve said before, I think it’s disingenuous to find fault with one and not the other.

If you don’t get the difference then I think it’s a very good thing you are so opposed to crushes, etc. You are wise to avoid them.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Gordon Sims, I don’t think ANYONE on this topic has stated that it’s okay to have pornographic fantasies about a celebrity crush, Cat included. She has also made it very specific that she does not do anything behind the back of her husband (or vice versa). So how can you say that your “real world examples…come from people who share the same definition”? But you keep insinuating that the people who defend crushes on this forum must be just like your “real world examples”, and, therefore, must be committing sin. Even when they have specifically state they don’t act the way your friends do.

I didn’t say that anyone here was saying it was okay to have pornographic fantasies. I said that people I know in real life who, when talking about celebrity crushes define them in the same, or nearly the same language that Cat uses, have also described some of their fantasies in pornographic terms and say they’re okay because the celebrities aren’t “real” people (as in people they know personally) so the lust isn’t real either, which makes it all okay. I think there’s a lot of relativism going on here to help define some fantasies as okay while separating them from the bad, not-okay fantasies.

As for the porn example, no one is defending porn here, but I could easily apply your argument, that “people use the same defenses for X as some do for porn, and porn is wrong, therefore X is wrong”, to people who dress up in lingerie or use sex toys for “harmless fun” to “spice up” a marriage.

Now, while these behaviors certainly can be the subject of debate, I don’t think there’s any specific Catholic teaching banning them in the bedroom. But I could use the same argument against them as you do against celebrity crushes, and therefore insinuate that people who use lingerie and sex toys are just as sinful as those who use porn. I won’t, though, because this would be unfair.

If someone was using sex toys with or dressing up in lingerie for someone other than their spouse, I’d say that would be an apt comparison.

Of course, you seem to firmly believe that the word “crush” to describe admiration of a celebrity includes “fantasizing and lust” BY DEFINITION, and therefore, having a crush is always wrong, and if a fan’s admiration of a celebrity doesn’t include “fantasizing and lust”, then it is wrong to call it a crush.

Keep in mind, I’m not the only one including fantasies as an essential feature of crushes. The big difference is that others are defining their personal fantasies as appropriate and lust-free, while saying that my examples (even when I clearly state that they’re the exact same sort of fantasies) are creepy and inappropriate. If it’s impossible for me to have a lust-free fantasy about a porn star, stripper or the office floozie, then how is it possible for someone else to have a lust-free fantasy about Fabio? If my fantasies about the babysitter, my son’s girlfriend or those young girls playing volleyball at the beach are inappropriate, why are someone else’s exact same fantasies about the guy from the Old Spice commercials and George Clooney okay? I can’t be the only one seeing the disconnect here.

BTW, I DO think that crushes, in some people, can be a near occasion to sin by objectifying the celebrities involved, and treating them as mere objects to be used for our emotional kicks. Certainly, the people who actually make “lists” of celebrities they want to sleep with I think are objectifying them, but I think this would be sinful even if there was no lusting or sexual arousal involved.

However, I just can’t bring myself to state that crushes are a sin or near occasion to sin for EVERYONE. (Indeed, I’ve noticed that even GS hasn’t actually come out and accused Cat of sinning, even though he’s made a whole bunch of subtle insinuations that she is.)

I believe that most crushes, by their very nature, are initiated by a physical attraction. Married or not, I can’t see how romantic fantasies about someone for whom your primary interest is based on a physical attraction can’t be seen as a near occasion to sin.

 

[jimmy]

And don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m stymied over the fact that, in a Catholic forum, you’re one of the very few agreeing with me.

Bruised Reed, I believe that any fantasizing that takes away from your relationship with your spouse is wrong. To be clear, I think there’s a big difference between saying so-and-so seems like an interesting, down-to-earth individual and you’d like to have lunch with him, and staring starry-eyed into space while fantasizing about it. The only person I get starry-eyed over is my wife.

Jimmy, I know what the answer to your question will be, but one has to ask, if it’s okay to pin up photos of Robert Patrick, Robert Stack, Ariel, Belle or whoever, if the only pictures available to you of your celebrity of choice are of a risque nature, then for the sake of logic and fairness, shouldn’t it be okay to pin those to the cork board? Again, I know what the answer will be, but doesn’t that illustrate my point?

I just really like their work. I can take a guess at what the answer would be too, but it seems rather hypocritical to make a distinction between what is risqué and what isn’t in this situation. After all art that portrays a naked woman isn’t unacceptable according to the Catholic Church. If it is alright to have a body pillow of Robert Patrick, why not the playmate of the year? Either way you are spooning an image of someone other than your spouse.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I am curious whether it would be alright for the husband to hang the images from Maxim magazine on his wall because he likes the actress? How about the playboy centerfold? Is it alright for a husband to put her pictures on his wall or his screen saver?

Playboy? Nope. Maxim? Probably not, guessing from the cover.

I also wouldn’t put up a picture or wallpaper of guy with his Adonis belt featured. But I might have something like this:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...ogOwvk3z6n5bzH2IjKvEUFufvmOr2tA85oLciSKBG9SsK
Steven McRea

 

[Bruised_Reed]

(…)

Keep in mind, I’m not the only one including fantasies as an essential feature of crushes. The big difference is that others are defining their personal fantasies as appropriate and lust-free, while saying that my examples (even when I clearly state that they’re the exact same sort of fantasies) are creepy and inappropriate. If it’s impossible for me to have a lust-free fantasy about a porn star, stripper or the office floozie, then how is it possible for someone else to have a lust-free fantasy about Fabio? If my fantasies about the babysitter, my son’s girlfriend or those young girls playing volleyball at the beach are inappropriate, why are someone else’s exact same fantasies about the guy from the Old Spice commercials and George Clooney okay? I can’t be the only one seeing the disconnect here.

(…)

What exactly are you doing with the girls playing volleyball? Are you playing volleyball with them? Understand that sounds hilarious. It’s pretty on par with my wanting to talk to an actor about their role.

Or are you playing footsie with them? Gross.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I believe that most crushes, by their very nature, are initiated by a physical attraction. Married or not, I can’t see how romantic fantasies about someone for whom your primary interest is based on a physical attraction can’t be seen as a near occasion to sin.

Wow, so I guess you must think all those Justin Bieber fangirls are sinning too? Even the 8 year olds? I guess you think all the parents of girls who have plastered their walls with Bieber posters, should be tearing them down, and if they’re Catholic, urging their wayward children to go to confession? All the girls I knew in elementary school and junior high who innocently said they wanted to marry (insert celebrity of the month) and have his kids were sinning, then? Because of course marriage involves SEX, hence all these girls must have been seriously fantasizing about SEX?

(And before you bring up all your friends who started having sex at age 12, I realize SOME of them may actually have been lusting over their crushes, but I seriously doubt ALL of them were. Some of them didn’t even know what sex was at the time; one being my own sister, so I’m pretty sure my assessment of her knowledge of sex at the time is pretty accurate.)

I think the problem here is that you are equating romance to sex. And while I hate being stereotypical, this does seem to be a rather stereotypically male approach to this topic.

As a former little girl (now woman) who did have crushes myself, It IS possible to have “romantic” fantasies without any sexual component. There are even asexual people who are NOT aromantic, and actually have romantic relationships, even without feeling any sexual attraction. You may find this hard to believe but if you browse some asexual forums you will find such people.

Indeed, I’ve noticed that most of the posters who think “crush = lust” are men, and perhaps (even though you’ll probably howl about double standards), if most men can’t crush without lusting, then maybe they should avoid them. But I still don’t see enough proof that this is the case for all men, or all women.

At least you’re being consistent in labeling ALL crushes “near occasions to sin”, I totally disagree with you but at least you’re consistent.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I think it’s more of what you think is romantic or lustful. Plus, a crush doesn’t have to include any fantasizing. A crush is involuntary; fantasizing is active and can be innocent or sinful.

The bulk of the examples and definitions in this thread have included fantasies, and the examples of fantasies offered have largely been objectively romantic. If you’re not acting in some way about your crush, I’d have a hard time believing it’s a crush, as opposed to just acknowledging the person exists. You may not consider romantic fantasies about someone for whom you have a physical attraction to be lust, but the two things sure smell the same.

Obsessive and compulsive are two different things and both indicate something pathological. Again, the word is used hyperbolically and ironically, and if you think what you did was obsessive then no wonder you think the way you do about crushes, etc. Maybe you feel guilty about spending your time that way when you could have praying or something but regular, planned, and enthusiastic gaming is not obsessive.

I had a fixed, regular routine that I followed without fail. I’m not saying it was a major obsession, but it was at the very least a compulsion, especially once the game got to be repetitive and boring. There was no enthusiasm there, but I never missed out on playing it every day.

Since you seem to really be bothered by the fantasy part of it let’s skip over that…no, let’s let that take a backseat to the “shrine.” What if the shrine is a TARDIS? What if the fantasy is being a companion? Welcome to Nerdville. It’s not a problem. It’s fun. It’s fantasy. It’s a welcome respite from reality. Do you understand that fantasy can mean Disney and Dr. Who? If so, stop talking about fantasies like they are nasty by definition.

Having decorations in your house doesn’t necessarily constitute a shrine. Daydreaming and fantasizing, as I pointed out a little early, are not inappropriate by default. Having a shrine dedicated to, and fantasizing about your crush are not things that I can picture as appropriate no matter how you present them. Oddly enough, you have no problem seeing how inappropriate some of my examples are.

If you don’t get the difference then I think it’s a very good thing you are so opposed to crushes, etc. You are wise to avoid them.

That’s the thing, though. I want you to explain the difference to me. You are positive that there is a huge difference. I’m just as positive that there’s no fundamental difference between the two. The only differences anyone has been able to offer is that this person is sinful so any crush must be sinful by default, or that person is someone you know personally so any crush must be a near occasion to sin by default. However, there’s no fundamental differences between Robert Guillaume, Jenna Jameson, the 15-year-old cheerleader two doors down and my divorcee coworker who doesn’t own a bra and seems to have lost the two top buttons on each and every one of her shirts. So why are you so insistent that a crush on Robert Guillaume is almost invariably good, while a crush on any of the last three is disgusting, creepy and wrong? The basic feelings and actions are the same. The fantasies are the same. Yet you see a difference. So please explain to me why one is okay and the other three aren’t.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Wow, so I guess you must think all those Justin Bieber fangirls are sinning too? Even the 8 year olds? I guess you think all the parents of girls who have plastered their walls with Bieber posters, should be tearing them down, and if they’re Catholic, urging their wayward children to go to confession? All the girls I knew in elementary school and junior high who innocently said they wanted to marry (insert celebrity of the month) and have his kids were sinning, then? Because of course marriage involves SEX, hence all these girls must have been seriously fantasizing about SEX?

(And before you bring up all your friends who started having sex at age 12, I realize SOME of them may actually have been lusting over their crushes, but I seriously doubt ALL of them were. Some of them didn’t even know what sex was at the time; one being my own sister, so I’m pretty sure my assessment of her knowledge of sex at the time is pretty accurate.)

I think the problem here is that you are equating romance to sex. And while I hate being stereotypical, this does seem to be a rather stereotypically male approach to this topic.

As a former little girl (now woman) who did have crushes myself, It IS possible to have “romantic” fantasies without any sexual component. There are even asexual people who are NOT aromantic, and actually have romantic relationships, even without feeling any sexual attraction. You may find this hard to believe but if you browse some asexual forums you will find such people.

Indeed, I’ve noticed that most of the posters who think “crush = lust” are men, and perhaps (even though you’ll probably howl about double standards), if most men can’t crush without lusting, then maybe they should avoid them. But I still don’t see enough proof that this is the case for all men, or all women.

At least you’re being consistent in labeling ALL crushes “near occasions to sin”, I totally disagree with you but at least you’re consistent.

I actually discussed childhood crushes a few pages back and said they’re a natural part of growing up. However, for the most part we’re not children here, so I’ve been confining my comments to adults who engage in celebrity crushes.

I’d have to disagree with your statement that most of the posters equating crushes to lust are men. I believe all the ones who equated the examples I gave (porn stars, babysitters, etc.) to lust (or at least being creepy and inappropriate) are women. I don’t know if their take is that men are incapable of having a lust-free crush when it doesn’t involve nuns or cartoon characters, or that nobody could possibly have a crush on someone sinful without being sinful themselves. I think it’s a mix of both. However, the overwhelming message seems to be “my crushes are good, your crushes are bad, just because.” My assertion is that the object of a crush doesn’t constitute a fundamental difference. My point isn’t that since fantasizing about Robert Reed is fine then fantasizing about that porn star must be okay as well; it’s that so many on here are able to recognize that fantasizing about the porn star is wrong, yet it’s no different than fantasizing about Robert Reed, so if that’s disordered (particularly within the bonds of marriage), then fantasizing about Robert Reed is as well.

 

[jimmy]

is a man crush the same as a regular crush (the only difference being analogous to the difference between a square and a rectangle)?
Is bromance the same as romance (the only difference being analogous to that between a square and a rectangle)? Is bromance actually romance or is it just an imitation or something similar?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

If you’re not acting in some way about your crush, I’d have a hard time believing it’s a crush, as opposed to just acknowledging the person exists. You may not consider romantic fantasies about someone for whom you have a physical attraction to be lust, but the two things sure smell the same.

That is the issue; I think you and more crush-friendly posters are fundamentally opposed where this is concerned.

Still, I must ask; if your definition of “crush” is “romantic fantasies about someone for whom you have a physical attraction”, and you equate this to lust, then why are kids exempt from the accusation of lust? Simply because they are too young to do so? Or do you define a childhood or teenage crush differently than an adult one?

I honestly am surprised you are drawing a distinction. I’m sure that many of your friends and acquaintances, being so sinful and secular, were sexually active as young teens, so why are you giving their lustful teenage crushes a pass, while stating that crushes are a near occasion of lustful sin for all adults, married or not?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

The bulk of the examples and definitions in this thread have included fantasies, and the examples of fantasies offered have largely been objectively romantic.** If you’re not acting in some way about your crush,** I’d have a hard time believing it’s a crush, as opposed to just acknowledging the person exists. You may not consider romantic fantasies about someone for whom you have a physical attraction to be lust, but the two things sure smell the same.

Except I don’t acknowledge his co-stars in the same way. I’m probably not going to check their Twitter or Wikipedia page and if I do it’s because I followed a link. And, for the sake of perspective, I haven’t checked my crush’s in about 2 weeks even though I have a link on my home page yet I check the Twitter of a former crush daily because it’s routine. The former crush is a gay man. Can’t wait to see how you twist that.

I had a fixed, regular routine that I followed without fail. I’m not saying it was a major obsession, but it was at the very least a compulsion, especially once the game got to be repetitive and boring. There was no enthusiasm there, but I never missed out on playing it every day.

Nope. Not convinced. You had a habit, a routine similar to my checking Twitter I mentioned above. 10-15 minutes playing a video game sounds almost perfunctory to me.

I just spent less than 2 minutes reading 3 days worth of tweets and clicking links to pix on instagram. I’m such a devoted fan.

Having decorations in your house doesn’t necessarily constitute a shrine. Daydreaming and fantasizing, as I pointed out a little early, are not inappropriate by default. Having a shrine dedicated to, and fantasizing about your crush are not things that I can picture as appropriate no matter how you present them. Oddly enough, you have no problem seeing how inappropriate some of my examples are.

No, I meant shrine the way you mean shrine.

That’s the thing, though. I want you to explain the difference to me. You are positive that there is a huge difference. I’m just as positive that there’s no fundamental difference between the two. The only differences anyone has been able to offer is that this person is sinful so any crush must be sinful by default, or that person is someone you know personally so any crush must be a near occasion to sin by default. However, there’s no fundamental differences between Robert Guillaume, Jenna Jameson, the 15-year-old cheerleader two doors down and my divorcee coworker who doesn’t own a bra and seems to have lost the two top buttons on each and every one of her shirts. So why are you so insistent that a crush on Robert Guillaume is almost invariably good, while a crush on any of the last three is disgusting, creepy and wrong? The basic feelings and actions are the same. The fantasies are the same. Yet you see a difference. So please explain to me why one is okay and the other three aren’t.

Wait. You suggested above that don’t see your examples as inappropriate. Well, in this case you’ve changed the examples. You make a statement about something I said but use a completely different example. You have done this repeatedly throughout this thread. We still don’t agree on the definitions, and by the way I think most of your examples are “bad” as in lustful as well as inaccurate. The inaccurate part makes them difficult to discuss when I don’t agree with how you are using your example.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

is a man crush the same as a regular crush (the only difference being analogous to the difference between a square and a rectangle)?

A man crush and regular crush are very similar, except the latter is more socially acceptable and so while the latter can be a little more free flowing the former usually includes some macho posturing so it’s not perceived as gay, which is unfortunate.

Is bromance the same as romance (the only difference being analogous to that between a square and a rectangle)? Is bromance actually romance or is it just an imitation or something similar?

Nope, two different things. It’s unfortunate that two men enjoying each other’s company has to be given a silly name. I don’t think I’ve ever used the word and if I did I was being ironic and probably used air quotes. I usually just call it “being friends.”

I still remember when guys hugging each other was a big deal and kind of taboo. There were articles on it. Two men giving each other a full on hug that lasted more than a nanosecond made men, women, children and their pets, and sometimes livestock, uncomfortable. But now men can share real hugs and only people with long lists of bigotries flinch now.

Example (Hiddles assists me again, with Zachary Levi):

 

[Gordon_Sims]

That is the issue; I think you and more crush-friendly posters are fundamentally opposed where this is concerned.

Still, I must ask; if your definition of “crush” is “romantic fantasies about someone for whom you have a physical attraction”, and you equate this to lust, then why are kids exempt from the accusation of lust? Simply because they are too young to do so? Or do you define a childhood or teenage crush differently than an adult one?

I honestly am surprised you are drawing a distinction. I’m sure that many of your friends and acquaintances, being so sinful and secular, were sexually active as young teens, so why are you giving their lustful teenage crushes a pass, while stating that crushes are a near occasion of lustful sin for all adults, married or not?

An 8, 10 or 12 year old doesn’t have the same understanding of lust, sex and marriage that an adult does. I believe crushes are one of the ways kids learn about and how to handle these things. If they take it too far, then parents should have the sense to intervene. There are plenty of things kids do that aren’t appropriate for adults. I’d hope you’d agree.

 

[jimmy]

A man crush and regular crush are very similar, except the latter is more socially acceptable and so while the latter can be a little more free flowing the former usually includes some macho posturing so it’s not perceived as gay, which is unfortunate.

Nope, two different things. It’s unfortunate that two men enjoying each other’s company has to be given a silly name. I don’t think I’ve ever used the word and if I did I was being ironic and probably used air quotes. I usually just call it “being friends.”

I still remember when guys hugging each other was a big deal and kind of taboo. There were articles on it. Two men giving each other a full on hug that lasted more than a nanosecond made men, women, children and their pets, and sometimes livestock, uncomfortable. But now men can share real hugs and only people with long lists of bigotries flinch now.

Example (Hiddles assists me again, with Zachary Levi):

Do you agree with the person above (I think it was toeinthewater) who said romance isn’t necessarily sexual?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Do you agree with the person above (I think it was toeinthewater) who said romance isn’t necessarily sexual?

Yes.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Except I don’t acknowledge his co-stars in the same way. I’m probably not going to check their Twitter or Wikipedia page and if I do it’s because I followed a link. And, for the sake of perspective, I haven’t checked my crush’s in about 2 weeks even though I have a link on my home page yet I check the Twitter of a former crush daily because it’s routine. The former crush is a gay man. Can’t wait to see how you twist that.

I’m not sure why you’d think that someone’s sexual orientation would be relevant. Physical attraction is physical attraction.

Nope. Not convinced. You had a habit, a routine similar to my checking Twitter I mentioned above. 10-15 minutes playing a video game sounds almost perfunctory to me.

I just spent less than 2 minutes reading 3 days worth of tweets and clicking links to pix on instagram. I’m such a devoted fan.

Without belaboring the point or going into further detail, I’ll stand by what I said.

No, I meant shrine the way you mean shrine.

I never said you didn’t. I said that decorations don’t necessarily equate to a shrine. However, I also said that having a shrine can be problematic, but that’s not necessarily on topic.

Wait. You suggested above that don’t see your examples as inappropriate. Well, in this case you’ve changed the examples. You make a statement about something I said but use a completely different example. You have done this repeatedly throughout this thread. We still don’t agree on the definitions, and by the way I think most of your examples are “bad” as in lustful as well as inaccurate. The inaccurate part makes them difficult to discuss when I don’t agree with how you are using your example.

And you still haven’t explained the difference to me. You and others have said that crushes and fantasies about people who are fine and acceptable are fine and acceptable, while crushes about people who aren’t fine and acceptable aren’t fine and acceptable. Why is that? What fundamental difference is there other than your personal tastes? Whether I’m talking about a porn star, stripper, lingerie model, teenage babysitter, coworker or any other example you want to throw in that you find creepy or unacceptable, I’d like a clear understanding of why the one is okay and the other isn’t. I don’t believe there are any fundamental differences between the people you hold up to be good, shining examples, and the ones you view as creepy, sullied, unwholesome examples. Like I said above, physical attraction is physical attraction. You can polish up the wholesome examples all you want, but at the end of the day there’s no fundamental difference between the feelings one has in a crush directed at any of these people. So if fantasizing about the babysitter or the porn star is wrong, then fantasizing about the Hollywood family man is wrong as well.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

An 8, 10 or 12 year old doesn’t have the same understanding of lust, sex and marriage that an adult does. I believe crushes are one of the ways kids learn about and how to handle these things. If they take it too far, then parents should have the sense to intervene. There are plenty of things kids do that aren’t appropriate for adults. I’d hope you’d agree.

Alright then, what is the magic age at which a crush becomes a near occasion of sin? Since you stated you believe this is the case for all adults, regardless of marital status. Thirteen? Fourteen? Does it depends on whether the “kid” is prone to sexual sin in other ways? (I am fairly sure that in some of your other topics you have mentioned knowing people who were sexually active at those ages.)

Would you then say that your definition of “crush” as “romantic fantasies about someone for whom you have a physical attraction” applies to adults only, and that the kind of “crush” a child gets, is completely different from the kind of “crush” an adult gets?

What is the fundamental difference between a man your age crushing on a 15 year old, and the 15 year old crushing on a man your age? According to your own arguments so far, I find it just as arbitrary for you to make a distinction, as you do regarding others. Yet I suspect most people would say there is, even if the 15 year old is sexually active.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I’m not sure why you’d think that someone’s sexual orientation would be relevant. Physical attraction is physical attraction.

I just wondered. But what makes people attractive to me isn’t physical. It may capture my attention or interest but will not hold it. Celebrity or RL guy next door. A crush may be superficial but I’m not.

Without belaboring the point or going into further detail, I’ll stand by what I said.

Fair enough.

I never said you didn’t. I said that decorations don’t necessarily equate to a shrine. However, I also said that having a shrine can be problematic, but that’s not necessarily on topic.

Pictures on a fridge are not a shrine. A bedroom with posters covering every inch of wall space is not a shrine. BTW, if I had crushes on several pop stars or actors at once, does that make me slutty?

And you still haven’t explained the difference to me.

Because I don’t think I can if you don’t already have a clue. I really don’t. I’ve tried to define “crush” and you characterize it very differently; you might use part of my example but then twist it so it looks nothing like what I was describing.

You and others have said that crushes and fantasies about people who are fine and acceptable are fine and acceptable, while crushes about people who aren’t fine and acceptable aren’t fine and acceptable.

Not sure where I said that.

Why is that? What fundamental difference is there other than your personal tastes? Whether I’m talking about a porn star,

it would be difficult to enjoy her work without sinning

stripper, lingerie model,

ditto, although for the last one I can look at pages of men in underwear and :yawn: (unless they show off the Adonis belt, and I mean really show it off - I know my limits)

teenage babysitter,

creepy and if you don’t understand why, I can’t explain it

coworker or any other example

it happens, but if one is married, shut it down; if single, proceed with caution (workplace and all)

you want to throw in that you find creepy or unacceptable, I’d like a clear understanding of why the one is okay and the other isn’t.

I did my best for this hour. If I don’t have to delete this due to formatting, we may have to go another round tomorrow…or later today…whatever.

I don’t believe there are any fundamental differences between the people you hold up to be good, shining examples, and the ones you view as creepy, sullied, unwholesome examples.

I hope I just demonstrated that there is.

Like I said above, physical attraction is physical attraction.

Like I said, it isn’t just physical attraction.

You can polish up the wholesome examples all you want, but at the end of the day there’s no fundamental difference between the feelings one has in a crush directed at any of these people.

Um…well since we disagree on what constitutes a crush on a fundamental level…

So if fantasizing about the babysitter or the porn star is wrong, then fantasizing about the Hollywood family man is wrong as well.

And there it is. The fantasizing. Not on the same page there either.

I’m going to channel my inner Vamp!Willow and sign off…♪ Bored now ♪