I was watching the Today show w/relationship expert Dr. Gail Saltz. She said there's nothing wrong w/having harmless crushes now & again. The important thing is that you don't act on it. The betrayal comes in when the secrets are there & the lies.

I would think that if you have a crush on a friend, that friendship could no longer continue. If it's a stranger, the acting upon would be if you find out their name, where they live, personal information about them. That would be advancing the crush into more dangerous territory.

What do you all think?

(RRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiippppppppp) Sounds of the record player needle scratching record.

Whoa!!!


QUOTE"I was watching the Today show w/relationship expert Dr. Gail Saltz. She said there's nothing wrong w/having harmless crushes now & again. The important thing is that you don't act on it. The betrayal comes in when the secrets are there & the lies." END QUOTE


I don't agree with Dr. Saltz.

A crush left alone, without telling the spouse, is leaving yourself wide open to it developing further.

I would guess, most w/s before their affair thought that they too, could handle a crush.

The problem with this attitude is that the feelings sneak up on you and take their victims by surprise.

Once they have encountered these overwhelming feelings, all sense of right and wrong become mixed up.

So, IMHO, I don't think it is wise taking the chance of thinking you can handle a crush and not end all contact.

But then what do I know, I am just the betrayed spouse, that would never wish the pain of betrayal on any soul or person. (Well, maybe one, the o/w.) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I don’t completely agree with this…I don’t think there is such a thing as “harmless crushes” because, IMO betrayal always start in the thoughts and then progress through to feelings. IMO no person just wakes up some day and finds him/herself having a crush on someone out of the blue… Having a crush on someone (even if there are not lies & secrets involved) always involve some form of betrayal up to a certain level…even if the betrayal is just in thoughts and/or feelings.

I 100% agree with this. I’ve develop a “crush” on a friend over a period of 3 years and I had to end the friendship because of this and not allow myself to have a frienship with him again – even though I hadn’t physically acted on my feelings yet. And although I haven't yet acted on my feelings, I think the withdrawal I had to endure was just as intense & severe as a person who was involved in a full-blown EA and/or PA.

Thanks for the replies. I think I agree w/you both. Suzet, you & I are usually always on the same wavelength. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The thought that if the spouse doesn't know about it, than it's harmful is interesting. I know if my H came home & told me he had a "crush" on someone, I would be very hurt.

The issue is one of terminology.

From Dr. Saltz dating days (and mine), certain terms had very different meanings.

CRUSH=ATTRACTION

I think ANY healthy man or woman will find themselves ATTRACTED to any number of opposite sex acquaintances throughout their marriage. Her point is that we CHOOSE to act or not.

My STBXW had a "crush" on our ex-pastor. She had a "crush" on the UPS guy. She had a "crush" on Keanu Reeves. I had a "crush" on the Circle K girl, my opthamologist and Tyra Banks.

Neither of us acted on any of these and actually found them a bit funny (back then). There was no intent to act and sharing them was actually healthy (allowed me to be accountable to W about the Circle K girl).

Now, if you tell me it's not ok to have these perfectly natural feelings of attraction, then you're asking me to control something that I may not be able to...therefore I must lie about.

Lying is deadly to a marriage...much more so than a "crush".

So where is the line between EA and Crush? If the "crush" begins driving dishonest behavior, it has crossed the line. The "crush" in itself is relatively harmless.

Low

The definition of "having a crush" is: (ML correct me if I am wrong)

"Be infatuated with someone."

Infatuated = "Possessed by an unreasoning passion or attraction"

Passion = A powerful emotion, such as love, joy, hatred, or anger.
Ardent love.
Strong sexual desire; lust.

A crush involves intense feelings which are the start of the pheremones and endorphins that cause the "lust buzz" addiction.

NO SUCH THING AS A HARMLESS CRUSH.

imho <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

k

I'm gonna have to agree with LowOrbit on this one. I will NEVER be able to control who I am attracted to. My wife and I giggle at a harmless crush that I had on one of our pizza delivery girls. The crush isn't what hurts the M, it's acting on that crush. If both of you are aware of the crush and neither feels threatened by it then don't blow it out of proportion.

Besides the erroneous A=B, B=C, therefore A=C logic, I agree with what you are saying.

Other than taking some measure to physically destroy one's desire for the opposite sex, how do you propose that one avoid this?

It's a part of being human. It's how we choose to RESPOND that makes all the difference.

That was the point that Dr. Saltz was making.

BTW, I have seen Mel's picture...I think I have a crush on her too...

LO and Hopeful,

I was defining a crush as much more intense than a " slight attraction".

If you see the above as the same, then yes, you are correct.

To me a crush is an all consuming amorous feeling toward someone of the opposite sex that you keep hidden from that person.

And LO, that "erroneous" logic progression came straight from Webster's dictionary.

k

K's definition of a crush I would call infatuation- which is NOT harmless.

But my definition of a crush is more like LO and Hopefuls - like how I have this crush on Orlando Bloom - yummy <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Nothing secret about that!!! dreammmmmmmyyyyyyyy

So I guess it's all in how a crush is defined. I looked it up in 2 different dictionaries online & I got two different definitions. One was strictly attraction which would fit into LO's definition which would be harmless & human. The other was an intense attraction, an infatuation, which would be harmful. The latter is concentrating on another person instead of your S. The former could be "laughed" about w/your S. So I guess every couple should define what would be defined as a crush for themselves so they know when they are "crossing that line".

Maybe this has already been said –

If it would cause your spouse pain or embarrassment or hurt of any kind, it’s a Bad Thing.

If you feel it needs to be hidden from your spouse, it’s a Bad Thing.

If you would not engage in it with your spouse present it’s a Bad Thing.


BTW, controlling ones thoughts, not just ones actions, are even in the Ten Commandments.

With prayers,

That nails it for me too. My wife knows I have a crush on that girl in the underwear catalogue.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Exactly! If the “crush” (no matter how defined) causes a man or woman to have sinful and dwelling thoughts & fantasies about that person, then the “crush” is definitely NOT innocent or harmless anymore but actually have “crossed the line” into mental betrayal towards the spouse… Therefore, IMO, acting on one’s feelings actually starts in the thoughts. If you have “crossed the line” in your thoughts, then the “crush”, “attraction” or “infatuation” (or whatever you want to define it) have become harmful and a danger to the spouse and the marriage.

The following passage from the book ”The Purpose Driven Life” written by Rick Warren (a Christian & pastor) explains this very well:

It is not a sin to be tempted. Jesus was tempted, yet he never sinned. Temptation only becomes a sin when you give in to it. Martin Luther said, “You cannot keep birds from flying over your head but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair.” You can’t keep the Devil from suggesting thoughts, but you can choose not to dwell or act on them.

For example, many people don’t know the difference between physical attraction or sexual arousal, and lust. They are not the same. God made every one of us a sexual being, and that is good. Attraction and arousal are the natural, spontaneous, God-given responses to physical beauty, while lust is a deliberate act of the will. Lust is a choice to commit in your mind what you’d like to do with your body. You can be attracted or even aroused without choosing to sin by lusting. Many people, especially Christian men, feel guilty that their God-given hormones are working. When they automatically notice an attractive woman, they assume it is lust and feel ashamed and condemned. But attraction is not lust until you begin to dwell on it.

I think I agree a little with each one of you...go figure. But something in that first quote from Dr. Saltz caught my attention. It's the "harmless" part. A crush being "harmless" wouldn't necessarily depend on the definition of a crush, but the definition of "harmless", would it not?

Can you have a "crush" (an attraction, infatuation, whatever you want to label it) on someone without it affecting your marriage? I believe so. But it's what you choose to DO with that crush that defines whether it's harmful or not. Do you choose to act on it by allowing lust to develop in your mind and giving this "crush" an opportunity to take residence in your heart and mind? That is the territory that belongs solely to the Lord and to one's spouse (in whichever order or degree as defined by the person's individual faith, but those are the only acceptable possibilities), so allowing a crush to infringe on that territory is HARMFUL to one's marriage!

It isn't just a matter of whether "if" anything could happen. Having a crush on a Hollywood star isn't always harmless because retaining feelings about another person or even entertaining the "in a parallel universe where I wasn't married to Jim-Bob or Peggy-Sue, maybe I'd have a chance with Orlando Bloom or Nicole Kidman" thought could hurt the feelings of the Jim-Bob or Peggy-Sue you are married to. Aphelion stated well that if it causes pain or embarrassment to your spouse, it's a Bad Thing. Capital BAD.

Maybe I'm just restating what has already been said, sorry about that. Just ignore me, cold medicine is doing a number on me today...

Well said! I was basically saying the same thing in my previous post, but you've put it just so much more eloquently (especially the part in bold)! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

After I've developed my "crush" on XOM, I did the exact thing as in the quote above: I've chosen to act on it by allowing lust to develop in my mind and giving the "crush" an opportunity to take residence in my heart and mind. Therefore, as someone who has been there and done that, I can testify that this was VERY harmful to me, my marriage, my emotional & spiritual life my personal relationship with my Lord etc. These kind of "crushes" (where thoughts are allowed to spin out of control) are definitely NOT "harmless"...even if one never physically acting out on the thoughts and feelings. IMO, the sinful & lustful thoughts itself is the start of secrecy & betrayal towards the spouse.

Suzet, you detailed exactly how a "harmless crush" becomes harmful. Even without acting on it physically, you let a fourth party into your marriage and he crowded God and your husband out. In marriage, three (that third cord being God) is strength...four is disaster.

My children would probably be the first to tell anyone who would listen (because their father is really sensitive about it now and ribbing is priceless in my family...we're sick, I know <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />) that FWH had a MAJOR "crush" on Nicole Kidman. He didn't realize how much of a crush this was until after the A when he started reading about men's physical and spiritual responses to "other women" (mainly from reading Every Man's Battle), and it was then that he started to take note of how many of Kidman's movies he'd purchased without telling me. Seemed a little silly, but the count was ridiculous in comparison with his favorite MALE stars. Funny enough he always made a fuss over me "appreciating" Mel Gibson's talent...and his eyes...until I just came out and told him one day that he and Mel Gibson have the same piercing blue eyes!

Sorry, rambling today...

My H has a "crush" on Cameron Diaz. If he would dwell on that, I agree it would be harmful. So I think we're pretty much all saying the same thing. Suzet, I love the way you put things. It really gets me thinking. You're exactly right. The thoughts are where it starts. Then comes the action. Can we get away from those thoughts? Absolutely. But when we obsess about those thoughts & dwell on them, that's when we run into problems.

It's probably the way Dr. Saltz said it that made me think about it like this.

The last Crush I had that was harmless was an Orange Crush and I haven't had one of those in years. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />