In an effort to avoid doing homework I should be doing, I am instead going to write about the silliness of crushes.

Now, I say silliness, but in all honesty I think there is something healthy, necessary, and adorable in one's ability to "have a crush." I myself began to wonder if I wasn't dead inside because I didn't have one for well over four years or so. When you find yourself liking someone--wanting to get to know them, see them, spend time with them--it rejuvenates you to some degree. I also find it intensely annoying, but I think it shows that the tender emotions are alive and well.

What is it about us that causes us to crush? This is the question I find myself pondering. Is a crush different than being in lust, or in love for that matter? In my late teens and early twenties I pondered the idea of love at first sight to a painful degree. It seems that when one discusses love, or the one (if there is just one) you cannot avoid the discussion of whether you believe in love at first sight or not. And if you develop a crush but not immediately does that cheapen whatever connection may arise from there? If you don't immediately want to be close to someone does that mean that any longings or urges thereafter are less sincere? Finally, is having a crush the same as having lust? Or is lust always a crush, but having a crush not always lust?

This is the problem with higher education, I can wax philosophical on just about anything.

But this is an issue I haven't given much thought, at least not in a good five years or so. Having a crush, certainly talking about it, is thought of as a young person's urge--I think. Certainly drawing your name and someone else's with a heart around it is juvenile, but what about seriously considering the feelings and where they come from? Is it immature because it's a crush, or something not enough adults do for fear of being laughed at? I figure I might as well have at it since my tolerance for being laughed at is so high, and I think someone ought to do it.

We'll start with the crush/lust dynamic. I think you can lust without a crush--this seems obvious by every person that has ever wanted to sleep with someone, but didn't necessarily want to date or know them. I don't know that you can crush without lust, however. What is a crush if it doesn't involve sex, after all; wouldn't that just be friendship? And how do we account for crushes that arise later in a relationship and not immediately; I don't think a feeling is less real or viable because it was lacking an immediate connection. And that brings me to love at first sight.

I don't think I believe in love at first sight. I have certainly felt an (almost) overwhelming lust when seeing someone; I have also felt an undeniable urge to get to know a person or spend time with them. But I don't think I would call this love. Even when things work out and you do end up dating or what-have-you, it doesn't seem in my experience that the initial emotion would qualify as love. It is romantic to think of love at first sight as real, and, perhaps, one could claim that connection at first sight is real, but is love possible in an instant? Or, perhaps it is always love at first sight because even if you've known a person for years you find yourself in one moment, unexpectedly, loving them and seeing them anew for the first time? That I could believe.

I think the biggest thing that has my thoughts in a bind, however, is telling the difference between true like/lust/love and being lonely. Sometimes when you're lonely enough you seriously contemplate romantic thoughts where you never would if things were different. Naturally, if things weren't the way they are they would be different, but my point here is that is it possible to trust such feelings when such loneliness is present? And, if you are desperate, lonely, whatever, how do you know when something that started in that situation became something real or recognize it for the filler that it is? On the flip side of this I have to wonder how often romantic tendencies are brushed off because a person is happy in their solitude. Having a crush or any variation thereof is annoying--you find yourself thinking on a person, wishing to see them, wanting to talk to them and suddenly the island of you just isn't enough any more. That is so darn frustrating when you are a loner like myself. In that case, should one pay more attention to a crush that has gotten through the layers of solitude, or does it just mean that everyone like someone from time to time? I seem to have nothing but questions for you today.

I know what a healthy relationship should look like, but I'm not sure I know how one would feel. I certainly haven't had one in my adult years and now, the older I get, the more I flounder as I consider how to progress. Certainly there are some rules that clarify things for me--never approach anyone in a relationship or that you think would be perfect if he just changed a little. These are easy rules to follow, but don't necessarily stop the feelings themselves. That in turn leads us to the ultimate question of how does one shake an unwanted crush? I've been asking that since high school and I don't think I know of anyone that has an answer. I think that is why the book He's Just Not That Into You annoyed the crap out of me. It doesn't matter if he isn't into me; it doesn't matter that logically I know that. The problem is that I am into him. Of course, being able to vocalize to myself that I should wait for someone who is into me helps put things in perspective, but these tender emotions still persist. Did I say I was glad I wasn't dead inside?

Frankly, life is so much easier when you are the person you can be instead of working at being the person you want to be. That's pretty much the only nugget I have garnered from this contemplation on crushes. There is a positive side to all of this, though: all-in-all I'm significantly less insane than I was in high school. At least I've got that going for me.