It's only mean if you 1) lead him on and encourage his crush, or 2) stop hanging out with him if his crush ends or he turns gay or something. It is possible for guys to move past their crush and become a non-crush friend. It's also possible that his affection could grow and grow until he can't cope with the unrequitedness, but that wouldn't be your fault.
It is possible for guys to move past their crush and become a non-crush friend.
Yeah, get really fat, or maybe tell him about the severe burning sensation of your latest herpes outbreak. Otherwise, that "move past their crush" thing doesn't happen very often.
I dunno gswift, the herpes conversation would mean I was talking to him about sex, and that's probably bad.
Otherwise, that "move past their crush" thing doesn't happen very often.
Oh come on, you just get another crush.
Alameida, if he's not even moping and you enjoy his company, keep the coffee coming. He has no expectation of anything developing, but he feels good being around you. What problem?
But no, don't talk about sex.
#3
True, and you also run of the risk that he'll respond with "really? me too!". Bad times.
Oh come on, you just get another crush.
Getting another is not the same as moving past.
Doubtful that he will move on. Most likely he is just waiting for his chance to come, that you will realize that he is the right guy after all.
If anything he is the one with the suspect motives in the encounters, not you.
Oh, whatever. Does he know you're married? Then it's not like he has that many illusions about what's going on (unless he's insane, which is possible). Just don't encourage the crush, which I'm sure you're not. I'm in the opposite position, having had many male friends that I had crushes on, and it's totally fine. Like you said, it doesn't kill one. Of course, I'm filled with self-loathing, so take my advice with a grain of salt.
I'd say it's fine, unless he's likely to go all postal and take out Husband X, which would be bad.
of course he knows I'm married! he doesn't strike me as the postal type, though he is peculiarly intense. but dude, I'm talking about having coffee with my new AA friends. I'd say half the guys give this impression of barely supressed rage or crazy. they ain't going to AA because they're so damn well-adjusted.
Maybe one should be extra gentle w new AA folks?
otoh, I guess gentle could mean "don't reject him" too.
Most likely he is just waiting for his chance to come
HAHAHAHA.
Okay, I have a question (being completely unqualified to answer Alameida's). What do you all mean with this "lead him on" stuff? I mean, specifically. I've heard people talk about how someone "led them on," but it always seems a lot like sour grapes after they've gotten to the point where they realize that no, their crush is not suddenly going to recognize their devotion and fall madly in love with them. I mean, isn't that Alameida's question? Is coffee "leading him on"? Is it only leading him on if she asks him to coffee? Or is it fine to ask him for coffee as long as she doesn't talk about sex? Or what?
Having been a "male friend like this" many, many times I would say: no, you are not being mean. The moping around having a crush is as fun for him as for you.
waiting for his chance to come
ATM
Sometime between college and graduate school I had this brilliant revelation: hanging out with pretty women is an end in itself. As long as I kept repeating that to myself, it was easy to be in these nowhere-going relationships, which I had a lot of.
Anything you can do to push this boy to this realization will help him.
I sympathise with what B.PhD is saying in 12. 'She/he led me on' is, more often than not, often just a complaint coming from sour grapes.
On the other hand, I do know a couple of people who do, sort of, get off on leading people on. People who have devoted admirers that they feed just enough with flirtation or hints at sexual availability to keep them interested and who definitely get off on the flattering attention. Of course, some of these people are just incorrigible flirts who have a quasi-sexualised relationship with everyone -- and in that sense, innocent of any specific 'leading on' vis a vis a particular person.
But I know, or rather have known, others who are kind of into keeping their little admirer hanging on and are, at least on some level, aware they are doing it.
I'm a great believer in friendship across gender lines. It's no meaner than an intra-gender friendship -- there are always differences in feeling, agenda, etc.
Whether someone is/was 'leading on' is going to have to be a fact specific inquiry. I'd say that the "tort" has three essential elements: (a) exploitation of the crush to obtain non-sexual benefits (help with moving furniture might qualify, for example); (b) beyond what the crusher would do without an expectation of the relationship moving towards a sexual (or at least mutually romantic) dimension; (c) and the leader is perfectly aware of (a) and (b), and has no intention whatsoever of moving even a single step towards a sexual or mutually romantic relationship. The typical disappointed crusher is mindreading when it comes to (c), and one can't prove the case simply with mindreading. Doesn't mean it's not true -- sometimes the grapes really are sour -- just that no one needs to accept the claim as proven.
Applying the law to the facts, it seems to me that coffee-with-admiration is OK, so long as one doesn't know that the crusher has unrealistic expectations.
I think the definition of 'leading on' in 17 is too strong.
People can lead someone on just because they like the attention. I think (a) is non-necessary.
Off the top of my head, I can think of people I have known in long term relationships who have a 'friend' they know has a crush on them, where they do, to some extent, encourage that crush -- either because they like the attention or because it's nice to have a fallback option, for example, if the relationship they're in breaks down. Other people may have an ex-partner who they've no intention of getting back together with, but who they allow to believe that it's a possibility -- again for similar reasons.
These all seem to me to be cases of 'leading on' -- even if slightly different from the 'unrequited crush exploited for direct gain' described in 17.
There are worse sins, mind you.
[You can tell I am bored at work]
In this particular situation, I don't see what the problem is.
Having coffee with someone who's company you enjoy -- even if you know the person has a wee bit of a crush on you -- seems perfectly fine.
So long as you're not talking about this guy, 'meida.
I have certainly seen the classic case of a girl leading a guy on. It was absolutely dreadful. She had no intention of sleeping with him or bonding with him any further than was required to suck all the joy and pleasure out of his life.
I think leading someone on requires intentionality on the part of the leader. If a guy feels led on and the woman in question was just being friendly, that's his problem.
mrh: sure, but what then constitutes the requisite intentionality? I know someone has a crush on me and I hang out with them and have long personal conversations and then...it's OK as long as I don't make him help me move? it's not OK if I believe this is causing him to crush out worse? what? I'm asking because I do feel that in the past I have encouraged this kind of thing to some degree, not because I'm evil but because it was gratifying to me in some way or gave me an emotional outlet of some kind or just generally stroked my ego. otoh I think I have had about 2 close male friends who didn't have kind of a crush on me. am I supposed to just ditch everyone when they start looking soulful? and why do my gay female friends never act so hinky? they tend more to the outright teasing "c'mon, play for the other team" type of thing, rather than the moping.
Yeah. The problem with making it about intentionality is that as soon as you've asked yourself the question ("Am I leading this guy on?")and don't immediately then go off and shun the person, in some sense you've formed the intentionality.
My instinct is that there really isn't anything wrong with it, in terms of cruelty to the guy crushing on you. (Harking back to the recent infidelity conversation, I do tend to think that this sort of thing is how people get in trouble: having someone attractive hanging around wanting you can be a bad place to be in if you've got any vulnerabilities in that direction, but if that's not a problem I wouldn't worry about whether you're being cruel to the guy with the crush.) (Within the limits laid out in CC's 17.)
Bitch, that's a great question. Actually, I did once make a crushing male friend help me carry a wardrobe upstairs, but he was just there at the time. But I did stop hanging out with him shortly afterwards, and I felt retroactively guilty about the wardrobe.
Your soulful guy friends are (a) possibly hoping for a mercy fuck, and to get one of those, you have to appear to be suffering; or (b) thinking of you more as object-of-desire and less as a separate person with her own intentions, whereas your gay women friends have probably been subjected to both treatment (a) and (b) and know what a drag it is.
You haven't given us all of the relevant information (e.g., are you the one attractive woman who has ever talked to him). I think the general question is whether you're treating him like a friend or a pet.
Okay, I'll cherry pick the easy part--your gay friends are loose and easy because it's not about them. "Oh well, guess she's not gay," vs. "She doesn't like me! I'm a failure as a person!"
Hi there,
(I've been lurking with intense enjoyment since the incident of the "Fuck you, clown" poems.) At the risk of sounding all navel-gazing-y, I want to add that being the crush-ee isn't always good for one's character. That peculiar combination of vanity and guilt, plus a little too much reliance on someone who is not, deep down, your friend--well, it produced a distinct deterioration in me, at least. (Although perhaps I am a bit baser than most people) And bouncing ideas off of someone who is going to say that you're brilliant merely because they want to sleep with you! Not good at all. In fact, I have one friend (on whom I used to have a crush, but who never realized that I did) who is, from the far end of the country, intensely nostalgic for our former "friendship"...that is, the "friendship" where I hung on his every word and supported all his endeavors unquestioningly. He just can't understand why he has trouble finding another such "friend"...which of course interferes tremendously with finding real, regular friends.
Although of course a really light-weight situation without any moping (Or pining! There shouldn't be pining, either.) is probably harmless to all concerned.
I have encouraged this kind of thing to some degree, not because I'm evil but because it was gratifying to me in some way or gave me an emotional outlet of some kind or just generally stroked my ego
See, I think this would count as leading on, in the negative sense. I think once you detect this happening, you're obligated to overcompensate in the other direction, with distant friendliness.
(To be clear, I'm not shaking my finger here -- I've done the same thing, and it's rarely done out of malice. I just think it's reasonable to expect to have to moderate your behavior towards someone you know is crushing on you.)
Hi there,
(I've been lurking with intense enjoyment since the incident of the "Fuck you, clown" poems.) At the risk of sounding all navel-gazing-y, I want to add that being the crush-ee isn't always good for one's character. That peculiar combination of vanity and guilt, plus a little too much reliance on someone who is not, deep down, your friend--well, it produced a distinct deterioration in me, at least. (Although perhaps I am a bit baser than most people) And bouncing ideas off of someone who is going to say that you're brilliant merely because they want to sleep with you! Not good at all. In fact, I have one friend (on whom I used to have a crush, but who never realized that I did) who is, from the far end of the country, intensely nostalgic for our former "friendship"...that is, the "friendship" where I hung on his every word and supported all his endeavors unquestioningly. He just can't understand why he has trouble finding another such "friend"...which of course interferes tremendously with finding real, regular friends.
Although of course a really light-weight situation without any moping (Or pining! There shouldn't be pining, either.) is probably harmless to all concerned.
(Deepest apologies for the double post. Keyboard is wonky today)
overcompensate in the other direction, with distant friendliness
Or with mercy fucks!
It's really all about how seriously your friend is about crushing on you, isn't it? A playful crush is one thing, really believing he might one day get some sweet, sweet lovin' is something else. You probably shouldn't encourage the latter.
Agree with 28/30. Alameida, do you think that could be what's bothering you? Although you're in a different position, being married. I think the danger's worse when you're a single crushee who doesn't want to reciprocate. Then the crushee can stand in for the real thing. Danger.
Also, hopefully this is a tangent rather than truly off-topic, but don't people think this much more commonly happens to women than men? That is, unrequited crushes that don't resolve themselves too fast? Does changing the gender of the crushee/crusher change your views?
At the risk of sounding frivolous, I'm going to suggest you maybe need to lighten up about this situation, not because you shouldn't be thoughtful and considerate towards this guy, but because if you start sending out signals of self-consciousness, there's a danger he'll misinterpret them. Try to ignore the crush. Keep your personal boundaries at a comfortable level, and just treat him like any nice guy you haven't known very long.
As long as it's coffee and not coffee, you can't be held responsible for his hopeless romantic fantasies.
You say, "Do you want a cup of coffee?" and she says, "Yeah, okay." Then sex is on, yes? Doesn't always work, though. If the President of Burundi says do you want a cup of coffee...
in that case it's probably just coffee.
In regards to 25, is a treatment (a) having a mercy fuck hoped of one, or hoping for a mercy fuck from, or being mercy-fucked by Alameida. Because I think it's the the third, and that therefore when you say "know what a drag it is" you're impugning alameida is whatever the feminine analog of cocksmanship is.
35 strikes me as sound.
treatment (a) is the dramatization of suffering, in hopes of evoking mercy. You just wish it was the third so you can joke about it.
There is nothing less merciful than a mercy fuck.
You are NOT a bad person, Alameida.
Crushes are usually far more about the person doing the obsessing than the object of said obsession. If it weren't you, it would be someone else. It's not mean to him to ignore his silly pretend affection if he's an entertaining person to be around otherwise. Just make it clear he has no chance in hell and whatever Sorrows of Young Werther scenario he has in his head is his own problem.
39: Feigning confusion to enable poor attempts at humor is a tradition around here, or at least a tradition in my mind.
Nobody's suggesting Alameida's a bad person. She's one of the most humane and generous author functions on the internets, otherwise she wouldn't be asking for advice in this situation.
Alameida, it was someone like you who brought sin into the world.
Easy. I'm not even a Catholic, but I know these things anyway.
I think 33 is right. Of course, I have self-interested reasons for arguing that leading someone on can be perfectly fine, depending.
I disagree with the use of the word "pretend" in 42.
44 I actually meant to change that to 'not mean to boys' after previewing, but forgot. Oops.
Anyway, we all know that she was really the one who talked Adam into gnoshing on the apple. It's all her fault!
Also, re. mercy fucks: are Mr. B. and I the only couple in the entire world who ever say things to each other like, "honey, I could really use some pity sex tonight"?
That Ossian was really leading Werther on.
43: You mean people are just pretending? And here I was feeling so smug and superior.
Somebody needs to take a hard line here, and I guess it's going to be me. Reassuring oneself that one cannot be responsible for the erotic meanderings of the other person's mind seems like so much justification, especially when one is enjoying the effects of the other person's crush. It's one thing flirting with the coffee shop guy, but sustaining a fundamentally unequal friendship seems wrong.
Then, also, there are all the ways it can go very badly, some of which I've experienced personally, from just wondering whether you led the other person on, to feeling betrayed when the other person's crush ends, to feeling emotionally blackmailed into doing something you aren't sure you want to do.
There's nothing at all wrong in hanging out with someone who has a crush on you. In most cases you're not actually leading them on--absent unusual malice on the crushee's part, the other person will know pretty well that it's not a realistic shot.
Cutting off contact generally isn't the "kind" thing to do or anything. There's a reason they have a crush--they enjoy spending time with you. They'll either get over it in time, or eventually stop hanging out with you if they can't. Or they might make an ill-advised declaration of undying love, but you can go ahead and quit hanging out with them at that point. The only real issue is whether the crush is making you uncomfortable. Otherwise, there's no problem.
Or with mercy fucks!
Dude, keep it in your pants.
I'm pretty much with Jackmoron on this one. The fact that he knows you're married means absolutely bupkes. After all, this is one of your AA buddies, so it's a safe bet that this guy's ethics (and his perception of your ethics) are pretty situational at best. Perhaps you could have a candid conversation with him, laying out in stark terms that there's no chance in hell of you two scromping. But, barring that, I submit that you are playing with fire.
Others have made the same mistake. But seriously, what do you mean 'playing with fire'? His feelings are going to be hurt?
I submit that you are playing with fire
In terms of the risk to her, or to him? Like I said, if she feels uncomfortable about the guy's attraction to her, then it would be wise to dial down contact. However, doing so because you're worried about the guy is rather silly. You don't need to be choosing for them how they can best spend their social time. If they become more forward in expressing their interest, a candid conversation could be in order, but that's an entirely different sort of situation.
Well, I guess I'm assuming that "peculiarly intense" AA guy in Southeast Asian country X is prone to the same level volatility as a recovering addict in, say, Boston. Which is to say, a very very high level. So I don't think it's unfair to suggest that AA guy could engage is some Seriously Crazy Shit, if he suddenly feels wounded or betrayed.
Oh, honestly. Al's a big girl, and has been hanging with crazy people since childhood. I wouldn't worry that she's getting into a literally dangerous situation without noticing. The question is about whether she's being mean to this guy, not whether she should avoid him for fear that he's going to show up and boil her bunny.
Even if we're just talking about the guy's feelings, I think my point still holds. Based on all of the available info, AA guy is probably quite emotionally fragile right now. Shouldn't that be taken into account? Especially if the consequences of him being heartbroken could be severe (e.g., some kind of relapse)?
(e.g., some kind of relapse)?
Nuh-uh. Especially not Alameida's problem.
Well, if we have broad agreement on the following propositions -- (1) whatever happens to AA guy isn't Alameida's concern, and (2) AA guy clearly poses no threat to Alameida -- I guess there really isn't much of a dilemma here.
In a therapy and AA context, I think that we've been a bit quick to conclude that Alameida has no responsibility here. AA is not a random fun group, but a mutual-support group.
66: Fair point, but I don't think most people have been assuming that she isn't responsible for treating him decently -- just that allowing him to crush on her isn't, in fact, an injury to him.
66: What LB said. But also, it's important to note that in the AA view, nobody else makes you drink. If crush-boy were to relapse, and think mean old flirty Alameida made him drink, crush-boy would be feeding himself a line of bullshit. If the friendship is too hard for him, it's his responsibility to himself to pull back.
Alameida should be worrying about how all this makes her feel. If she starts to feel responsible for this guy's emotional wellbeing, she should consider taking a step back. Plenty of users also have co-dependency issues which can get them into just as much trouble.
Mcmc, I don't think that you're right about AA. Pure individual responsibility isn't the main point. AA people are not allowed to blame others for what they do. But AA also denies that individuals are able to control their lives purelybut they're also expected to be supportive of other AA people. by self-control or self-discipline -- they're supposed to acknowledge their dependency and inability to do that as a starting point. In general, AA people are expected to be supportive of other AA people.
I have no real opinion about Alameida's actual case, but a lot of what's being said has been generalized up to the philkosophical level, and that's where I'm dubious.
It is not a woman's job to manage a man's emotional responses. Or any person's job, really.
No one's suggesting she should manage them. At most, a few people seem to be saying that she should be aware of potential emotional risks, and, if appropriate, minimize the chance of the risk going awry. I don't know why this is controversial. If I meet a woman who has been through an emotional meat-grinder and is feeling vulnerable, and then I sleep with her, knowing this will only make her feel worse when I never call again, I'm being a dick. Is that really controversial?
I thought places like AA discouraged intimate personal relationships for at least the first year, precisely because recovering alocoholics tend to be emotionally labile? Or am I confusing AA with something else?
69: Domineditrix is right about intimate relationships being discouraged in the first year. It happens all the time, though, and probably causes a fair amount of misery. But Alameida's just saying this guy has a crush on her, and jw is saying she could cause him to relapse? I think that's a little much. Presumably he's heard just as much as Alameida about the dangers of overinvolvement. Is he thinking about how his crushiness is affecting her?
Alameida should just continue to be mindful, especially if he is also pretty new.
That's just it, though: she isn't contemplating an intimate personal relationship with him. She's talking over coffee. Crushes happen all the time, everywhere, both with and without an AA context. It isn't the crushee's job to then break off even minimal contact (which, let's face it, a conversation over coffee certainly is).
Obligatory: you're all reading too much into this.
After all, this is one of your AA buddies, so it's a safe bet that this guy's ethics (and his perception of your ethics) are pretty situational at best.
Really, the most humane course is probably just to have the guy put down. Or at least shunned.
Hey, anyone know where I would email b-wo at if I wanted to do so?
You can find him in da clubMineshaft.
I have no opinion about the specific case, but I think that in an AA context Alameida's question makes sense, whereas in a normal context it doesn't really except in very extreme cases.
It seems that a lot of people here are answering the question on general feminist or personal-liberation principles, whereas it's a more specific case.
"whereas it's a more specific context" to avoid confusin with the earlier "specific case."
Thing is, if he's emotionally vulnerable (and I'm generalizing from nerdy geek guys), almost anything alameida does will be crush-worthy. She's beautiful, she's articulate, she's charismatic, smiling at him probably makes him have a crush. That seems a pretty low bar for her to have to cut off all contact or be leading him on, and it seems unfair to him, too.
It's just coffee. There is practically no risk of eye babies.
My sister who does rehab counseling (not AA) required the gorgeous ex-prostitute to wear shapeless outfits, quit wearing makeup, and quit flirting because she was disruptive of the group. The guys couldn't keep their mind on what they were supposed to be doing. My sister also had a hot-looking, seductive young guy who she had to knock down.
As I said, I don't know about the specific case, but I don't think that Alameida was unreasonable at all asking herself the question. I don't think that the standard feminist / personal liberation / answers cut it.
65: "Whatever happens to AA guy isn't Alameida's concern". That is not an AA principle. The guy isn't allowed to use Alameida as an excuse or alibi, but others are allowed to criticize Alameida.
The principles of absolute individual autonomy being assumed here are one of the things AA specifically rejects.
did she make the guy change the way he dressed to look shlumpy? get a bad haircut? I hear what you're generally saying, which is why I asked the questions, but I've got to say I object to "made her wear shapeless clothing and no makeup" on feminist/personal liberation principles. saying "hey, tone it down a little" is one thing. your sister sounds pretty harsh and I have to wonder, as I say, if she would have been as likely to order a man to alter his personal appearance for the worse.
She privately asked the woman to dress in a non-sexy way. The guy she repeatedly called on his narcissism in front of the whole group until he finally quit doing it. He held out for quite awhile.
The woman apparently had few ways of relating to guys except very heavy flirting, which outside the group could lead to anything. This wasn't cups of coffee.
Most of my sister's clients people are court-ordered and begin the rehab planning to game the system, so she can't take anyone at face value.
I don't think that men rely on looks so much in their game-playing. With the guy it was manipulative charm, and she did slap him down repeatedly.
I'm not supposed to know these things. I don't learn people's names or biographical data. She talks mostly in generalities.