How to Tell the Difference Between a Squish and a Crush?

[Scase]

So I'm curious, can anyone explain to me the emotional difference between a crush and a squish? I'm having trouble, because I can't tell whether I am interested in the few people that I have unexplained emotions about in a platonic friendship sort of way, or a crush sort of way. I know the feeling of a crush for the most part, there are people who I obviously have feelings for, but after my most recent breakup I've been more focused on friendships than romance, so other than a select few which I don't see as anything more than "Oh she's cute sorta crushes", I'm not sure what of the emotions I'm feeling are more than just wanting a friendship with people. 

Thanks, 

Scase

[malacat]

Quoiromantic here! So I probably can't help you differentiate between a crush and a squish because I myself can't tell them apart.

 

I am not comfortable doing a lot of things that people would consider romantic (e.g. holding hands is really intense for me). This means that what might be considered romantic is really similar to what is platonic. And the definition of romance is really vague, so that doesn't help.

 

The good thing is, I don't have to be able to tell the difference, nor does anyone else. The most I have been able to figure out is "wow I like this person! They're pretty and nice and I want to be friends, and also maybe go on dates without a lot of romantic stuff".

[Star Bit]

Some people do experience light crushes that mirror squishes (i.e. just a desire for emotional closeness), so it can be hard to tell , but squishes fade away after the desired bond is met and crushes don't. 

[Scase]

33 minutes ago, malacat said:

The most I have been able to figure out is "wow I like this person! They're pretty and nice and I want to be friends, and also maybe go on dates without a lot of romantic stuff".

This sounds fairly accurate to what I've come across at this point!  Thanks for your input!

 

3 minutes ago, Star Bit said:

Some people do experience light crushes that mirror squishes (i.e. just a desire for emotional closeness), so it can be hard to tell , but squishes fade away after the desired bond is met and crushes don't. "

This sounds fairly accurate, but I know I've experienced much deeper crushes before, so I guess maybe it's something that may just have to develop over time! Thanks!

[Star Bit]

"Oh she's cute" crushes aren't crushes. That's either aesthetic recognition; where you recognize who looks good, or aesthetic attraction; a pull to look at someone due to looks (like a captivating sunset). Either way it's completely platonic.

[NoLongerActive1234]

It is hard to say, the best advice I could give is to spend more time with the person in question to become better friends and then it'd be clearer with time if you view them romantically. If you do you'll know and if not well then you still have a great friend.

[Scase]

17 minutes ago, Star Bit said:

 

"Oh she's cute

 

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I'm typically not super attracted to aesthetics (though obviously there are some people who I deem beautiful by appearance) for me to consider someone cute is rather a large statement for me, because typically it means I've talked to them enough to know that I connect with them on an emotional level. Their personality is cute, so to speak. 

[Star Bit]

On 5/15/2017 at 5:18 PM, malacat said:

The most I have been able to figure out is "wow I like this person! They're pretty and nice and I want to be friends, and also maybe go on dates without a lot of romantic stuff".

Not wanting to do alot of romantic things doesn't mean it's a squish. There are low-key romantics.

 

@Scase Someone's personality being cute isn't nececerily romantic attraction either. It can just be finding someone (platonically) charming. It could also be emotional attraction.

 

List of attractions:

Spoiler

 

There are 6 types of attraction. They're all typically felt with romantic attraction (and why there can be confusion between attractions) but they aren't needed to make it valid. All of them can be felt separately, without romantic attraction, and in different combinations. The desire to act in a certain way can also be separate from the attraction (e.g. sexual attraction with no sexual desire/desire to act on it, or romantic desire in general with no romantic attraction).

 

·   Sexual attraction - the impulse to have sex with a specific person; to give/receive genital involving things from them. Synonyms are sexually alluring, sexually appealing, sexually enticing, sexually tempting, etc.

·   Romantic attraction - an emotion; so it doesn't translate well into words, but it can be inadequately put as soft/warm/fuzzy feelings with some degree of fixation (at least in comparison to one's normality with others). This is the base requirement, but some people also have a physical reaction to the feeling and others don’t (i.e. butterflies in their stomach, heart rate increase, blushing, etc. [though those can also be symptoms of platonic nervousness]). Others may react mentally with a dreamy mindset, anxious euphoria, infatuation, romantic fantasies, etc. And others may feel it light enough (compared to the norm) that there is no clear line between crushes and wanting emotional closeness.

 

So if someone wants emotional closeness with someone they sexually desire, or a squish doesn’t go away after the desired bond if reached, then it's explicitly a crush. And if they don't react well to partners expressing romantically then they may just have low-key relationship preferences (reacting as such to over-reciprocation is normal). Partners having different romantic feelings/desires can be a breaking point for many, but it does not mean the low-key person does not feel romantically.

 

·   Aesthetic attraction - the pull to look at someone because of their beauty and/or mannerisms, which is different from just recognizing good looks/what’s aesthetically pleasing.

·   Emotional attraction - the fixation on someone because of their emotions (optimism, stoicness, etc.), and by extent personality. I would compare it to having a favorite character or admirance.

·   Sensual attraction - the impulse to have non-genital physical contact with someone specific.

·   Platonic attraction - (aka a friend crush or squish; a play on the romantic word crush) the impulse to further know or befriend someone specific. The desired bond can vary from being friends, to close friends, to best friends. It may include nervousness or admirance, and once the desired bond is reached the squish goes away.

 

·   And it's possible to find someone charming without romantic attraction. (look up charming's definition/synonyms for further clarification)

·   It’s also possible to feel queerplatonically about someone. A queerplatonic relationship (or one sided, a 'queerplatonic squish' aka 'queerplatonic crush') is a platonic relationship that has (or is desired to have) an importance/closeness stronger than the best friend norm and/or displaying platonic physical contact above the norm (so no sex or making out, but chaste kissing can be platonic depending on how it’s done). Some describe it as "super best friends." It’s also known as romantic/passionate friendship, life partner, Boston Marriage, and (same gender wise) bromance/womance (latter aka shemance, sismance, and less popular hermance), as well as less commonly known; heteromance (between opposing genders). They may or may not have monogamy, live together, sleep in the same room, have kids, or be mistaken for a couple. Romantics and Aromantics can have QPRs. An example would be Turk and JD from Scrubs. (other examples here)

 

(Some inaccurately include sex and non-platonic physical actions like foreplay under this term; i.e. say that it only means absence in romantic feelings, but those things are factually not platonic by definition so it's a misunderstanding. Every dictionary defines platonic as non-sexual, and a minority include non-romantic. Quasiplatonic; created for those who want to avoid the use of queer in queerplatonic, is also inaccurate because the prefix means the reverse. Aliplatonic has been a suggested alternative. If someone has a relationship that displays queerplatonically but one has romantic feelings and the other doesn't, then it's up to them on whether they call their relationship QP or romantic.)

 

[malacat]

2 minutes ago, Star Bit said:

Not wanting to do alot of romantic things doesn't mean it's a squish. There are low-key romantics.

Yes that is true. It could be considered "low-key romantic". For me I can't tell if "low-key romantic" from quasi-platonic and even sometimes from platonic.

 

Hence I prefer not to define whether what I feel is a squish or a crush.

[Star Bit]

3 hours ago, malacat said:

For me I can't tell "low-key romantic" from quasi-platonic and even sometimes from platonic.

Quasiplatonic doesn't mean what its creator intended. Factually it means the opposite of a queerplatonic relationship; "seeming but not actually being platonic". An accurate alternative would be Aliplatonic.

 

And queerplatonic is platonic, so there's no telling a difference there-- other than what is and isn't above the friendship norm. As for the difference between low-key romantic emotions and queerplatonic ones or a squish, that can be tricky. But one such difference can be the intensity in the fixation on that person, as well as the things desired to do with that person. (note low-key romantic relationship is different from low-key romantic emotions; so specifying emotions/relationship at the end is important clarification)

*added the list i wanted to include in my previous comment*

[Maul_Junior]

All the uses of the term "Squish" in here have brought back memories, and made me go google for a particular image (which fits Squishes rather well):

 

[Star Bit]

^ Yes, which is actually why I don't dislike the term. Without it I actually would.

[malacat]

9 hours ago, Star Bit said:

Quasiplatonic doesn't mean what its creator intended. Factually it means the opposite of a queerplatonic relationship; "seeming but not actually being platonic". An accurate alternative would be Aliplatonic.

 

And queerplatonic is platonic, so there's no telling a difference there-- other than what is and isn't above the friendship norm. As for the difference between low-key romantic emotions and queerplatonic ones or a squish, that can be tricky. But one such difference can be the intensity in the fixation on that person, as well as the things desired to do with that person. (note low-key romantic relationship is different from low-key romantic emotions; so specifying emotions/relationship at the end is important clarification)

Thanks for the clarification. "Quasiplatonic" might have an inaccurate literal meaning but if people use it to mean what the creator intended, that's fine by me.

 

[Real_dangerous]

On 5/16/2017 at 5:50 AM, Star Bit said:

 

 

 one such difference can be the intensity in the fixation on that person, as well as the things desired to do with that person. 

Well, I think that depends on the person. Some people get squishes that are more intense than crushes and vice versa. At least that's currently the case for me!

[The Dryad]

Personally, I think of "squishes" and "crushes" by intention and romance vs depth, does that make sense? I think that most sexuals get crushes, where they want a whole relationship and mostly aro aces get squishes that's like admiration mixed with aesthetic attraction.

[Star Bit]

8 hours ago, Real_dangerous said:

Well, I think that depends on the person. Some people get squishes that are more intense than crushes and vice versa. At least that's currently the case for me!

Squishes and crushes can certainly come in different degrees, so it is possible to have more intense squishes vs crushes. But to make sure, so your squishes fade away once the desired bond is reached? Because if not then they're not squishes but actual crushes.

 

4 hours ago, The Dryad said:

Personally, I think of "squishes" and "crushes" by intention and romance vs depth, does that make sense? I think that most sexuals get crushes, where they want a whole relationship and mostly aro aces get squishes that's like admiration mixed with aesthetic attraction.

Romantics and aromantics can get squishes; they aren't exclusive or more often on one than the other. Colloquially romantics call squishes a "friend crush". And what you described as a squish isn't a squish but emotional attraction and aesthetic attraction. Squishes are only an urge to befriend someone specific, normally to a specific degree of friendship, and then once the desired bond is reached the fixation goes away. Squishes can of course include emotional or aesthetic attraction, I'm just saying that's not what they are alone.

[Real_dangerous]

16 minutes ago, Star Bit said:

 But to make sure, so your squishes fade away once the desired bond is reached? Because if not then they're not squishes but actual crushes.

 

Well, I think that depends on the person (and perhaps on the squish themselves). Some people say that their squishes fade once they become friends, whilst others say their squishes have lasted way after they have become friends.

 

I think squishes are defined as wanting a close friendship whereas crushes are defined as wanting to date, marry and/or have sex. 

[Star Bit]

41 minutes ago, Real_dangerous said:

Well, I think that depends on the person (and perhaps on the squish themselves). Some people say that their squishes fade once they become friends, whilst others say their squishes have lasted way after they have become friends.

 

I think squishes are defined as wanting a close friendship whereas crushes are defined as wanting to date, marry and/or have sex. 

No to both paragraphs. If the fixation remains it's factually a low-key crush; some romantics only have an urge for emotional closeness (though for sexual people it's more explicitly a crush because they also desire sex with them). And crushes are not wanting dates or marriage; they're an emotion that may or may not include typical romantic actions or even typical feelings.

[Real_dangerous]

13 hours ago, Star Bit said:

No to both paragraphs. If the fixation remains it's factually a low-key crush; some romantics only have an urge for emotional closeness (though for sexual people it's more explicitly a crush because they also desire sex with them). And crushes are not wanting dates or marriage; they're an emotion that may or may not include typical romantic actions or even typical feelings.

The thing is, I currently have an intense squish on this girl for 7 years, and the description of "girl crush" seems to fit my situation better than the term "lesbian crush". I tried once questioning my sexuality and I never really felt like a lesbian or bisexual. I feel mostly straight. She also lives in a different country and my squish feels so intense I feel as though if I were to never see her again my heart would shatter. And yet despite all this I still haven't felt the urge to marry her or anything. I don't think I would even mind it if she had a boyfriend. I don't think I would really feel like this if I were to have a "light crush" on her. 

 

By contrast I have had intense and light crushes where I was mostly focused on dating and marriage.

[James121]

Easy. A squish is a made up name for finding someone attractive. A crush is a step further n that you fancy and have begun to like them