Collegiate Times

HE SAID:

Crushes are nice because they are probably the most idealistic stage in any relationship. They are generally composed of a mixture of delirium, ignorance and facts based off observations. One need not look any further than one's own feelings on the outset of a crush to this concoction of emotions: You don't even need to really know the person and they make you happy. Where does that kind of thought-generated euphoria ever exist again in the relationship and to that level?  

During the crush stage, you really don't have to worry about anything that might tarnish your interpretation of your target - including your actual target. They still have that mystery that can be easily molded to tickle whatever curiosity the crushee might have. For girls, it's that point where the guy still has it all. Before you find out about the unpaid credit card bills, the still very present ex-girlfriend, and whatever other hidden baggage might be lurking behind "happily ever after." And for guys, well, guys are just funny about crushes because the more attracted they are to their crush, the more willing they are to overlook such petty details.

There really is no downside to just having a crush. Of course, if you're like most girls out there, you enjoy making life unnecessarily difficult for yourself. Which is why girls with about 77 percent of their crushes (Google "crush statistics" and keep looking for those numbers) will go after targets they can't have. Maybe it's the thrill of being challenged with smashing a current, healthy relationship like a set of glass pins in a bowling alley, or maybe it's lusting after someone old enough to give you a play-by-play of the Ford administration, but girls pine after some pretty weird candidates.

Neglected in such instances are the all-too-easy and obvious choices that would probably make you happy, but offer no challenge, no possibility of rejection. I will not go any further in honoring the atypical "good guy" as he's apparently not worth your time anyway. Instead, it's ol' Gerald for the win.

I think, and there's no way for me to be certain of this, that women choose these incredibly odd selections to become infatuated with because they enjoy the distance. They figure it will actually never transpire, and if their crush does evolve into something more, it will be a total surprise. This seemingly unobtainable task works well for a lot of girls in crushes as it creates a distance between the actual feelings that could potentially be in jeopardy and reality. So the girl may run the risk of never actually being hurt; dually there is a lack of satisfaction and pretty much no sense of progression. To fill this new void that has been created by the satisfied old void, girls will use the infatuation as an unending source of material for discussion. Initial personal jokes about the subject will be made, followed by putting the personal jokes in some other scenario, from that crappy scenario will come a whole new set of personal jokes and so forth and so on until either the subject dies or the girl gets amnesia. Here's a terrible example and also how I apparently think women talk:

Girl1: Oh my god, have you ever seen Gerald dance?

Girl2: Yes! Imagine if he lived in the '70s.

Girl1: He'd be like disco Gerald.

Enter the phrase "disco Gerald" which will be used until another, better suiting phrase comes to pass. Give it a few hours.

A girl's crush is seemingly more complicated than that of a man and his crush. Maybe men have really just become that physically unattractive to women to the point that they are forced to find new and different characteristics to value in guys. If that's true then that's unfortunate  to say the least. The situation sounds pretty difficult. Good thing I don't have to worry about it.

Continue Reading: 12 Next »