Thorsten S.

I have always a list with the most important words and idioms in the local language with me. During my holiday in Norway as German I only used the local greeting because every attempt to use local language resulted in Hva sa du? and we switched to English effortlessly because ,as you say, of the very high level they have. Then I gave up, I do not need to make my holiday unnecessarily difficult.

If you look into yourself and see no pain, wonderful. But if there is pain, then there is pain...denying that is also not possible. You can reshape your response to the rejection and the pain from "This is the end of the world" to "She really was not the right person". But facts itself should not be reinterpreted.

"[...] because I believe that doing so shapes our thinking in a negative way." Erm, shouldn't we accept things as they are instead of trying to convince ourselves that something is so and so because it looks better? I am all for optimism...for things where you still do not know the outcome. But rejection is rejection, how do you reshape positively "I don't want you"? You cannot, it's a fact.

This is in the link you added.

@Spagirl "I don’t believe that is a universal truth." Perhaps not universal, but very, very prominent. Ostracism hurts. Ostracism from disliked people still hurts. Ostracism despite being rewarded for it still hurts.

@Jesse I must confirm Spagirl's message. Spagirl only mentioned the "It should not hurt" part, the accusation of acting childish is from apaul.

Seriously, I do not see any merit in this idea of trying to distinguish crush/love. Simply try to interact with the person (if welcomed) and see what comes out.

The strange idea that there is this inferior "crush" and only by knowing the person deeply you are able to transform it into "love" has a problem. If this would be true, real "dislike" is only justified if your "instant dislike" is confirmed by knowing the person deeply...it is the exact same argumentation. Problem is, neither men nor women are prone to allow a disliked person into their life just to be sure that it is really, really a dislikeable person.

There are millions of outcomes and the success/failure has nothing to do if it was a "crush" or if the people knew each other beforehand.

There are people who marry their "crush" immediately and are happy ever after, the perfect love. Rare, but it happens. There are people who grow cold on their crush almost immediately (especially if they show unacceptable behavior). There are people who marry their crush and find out that it did not work out as expected, so they divorce or engage in a destructive relationship.

Even the Ancient Greeks admitted that love is quite complex and already distinguished between Philia (friendship, compatibility), Eros (passion, limerence) and Agape (self-giving)). Thing is, they are all feelings and they are not in any way inferior. If you have a "crush" (we define it as limerence), it says exactly nothing how it is going out, positive and negative. What the relationship determines is the interaction between people and nothing else.

But once you are hooked, you are no better off than a teenager. This is the brutal truth, otherwise marriage swindlers wouldn't have it so easy with old and experienced people.

What I like on both Travel and History is the ability to view common human problems in both space and time. I have my sincere doubts from own experience that what is sold as "grown-up" behavior by people here in this epoch and culture is actually done. What you see is the more or less successful hiding of those conflicts, even before best friends. How do I know? Ask any shrink in confidence how much people are secretly struggling with unfulfilled relationships: It's a lot.

I think this explains it quite good, doesn't it?

Vexing. Dumb. Idiotic.

If you are very rational orientated: Love is terrible.

The computer has been run into the ground two times which is an unexplainable event for the computer.

Which is a viable strategy, I only disagree that the knowledge if someone is incompatible makes no difference.

Ah ok.

No, I am not this guy. Ok, if you ask that, sorry, now I understand your answer.

Uh....are we talking about "persistent" persistent?

Erm...did I drop a brick with a personal question?

I don't think it does not make much of a difference between crush or love on the unrequited (!) receiving side. So, can you relate to being on this side?

Or someone you know have been on the receiving side of unrequited love?

So, another attempt: I presume you have been on the receiving side of unrequited love?

Ok, I am also not really happy with the metaphor.

I mean a)

Perhaps it is a misconception about the word "hurt"? "Hurt" in the sense a) I am feeling quite an enormous amount of paint or b) you are striking me?

I am thinking you are overthinking this.

Happens all the time.

And what is the problem with that? You are going out, you don't see me and step on my foot. So you hurt me, but without intent. So?

I am just telling you that you are still hurt and that it is ok and normal. It is not a "personal attack" or another fancy rationalization. Rejection is ok, but it is uncomfortable for both sides, nothing more.

And with a sinking feeling you realize that someone is interested in you...unrequited. You hope against hope that you are wrong, you minimize contact, you hope that somebody else appears on the horizon, that the other one loses interest, you try to give hints...but unfortunately often to no avail. Sooner or later the issue comes up and despite being innocent you feel very bad because you exactly know how it is on the other side. Giving the rejection feels like clubbing a seal pup. So no, I think you are trying to suggest "reasonable" behavior in a case where it simply does not work (3/3).

You are not "sad" or "disappointed", you feel that someone is pushing a big shard of glass slowly and continously in your heart. It hurts like hell. And you don't really have conscious/strategic thoughts, you are going automatic and try to escape before you burst into tears. This is also the reason why it is not easy to speak out even a polite rejection. Well, there is the one who is always there when you are present, who is totally interested what are you doing...who is behaving a bit awkward :/...and who has always those bright eyes...:(. (2/3)

Shaking head. This has nothing to do with "entitlement". During your first love you experience the quite unsettling feeling (especially if you are more intellect driven) that you have not a conscious choice, you cannot simply say "STOP". Your normal defenses which allow you to face rejection without loss of self-worth are down, you are vulnerable which is frightening. So your only options are either time (depending on how bad it is) or making an attempt. And if you are deeply in love and politely rejected...well, I try to describe it. (1/3).

Grrr, English....I meant "rejection", not "rebuke". Wrong word, I already meant the polite variant. "The OP should not be ‘hurt’ by any polite declining of a date." That is wishful thinking, even the most polite rejection always hurts. Not so bad, but still....

Strangely I think it does make a difference. Knowing that you are on the wrong side of the desired gender beforehand would spare you a hurtful rebuke and, even more important, it does feel less personal. Rejection always hurts and give a dent in self-confidence; if you know that it has nothing to do with your person, it is much easier to swallow.

Shouldn't that a parenting question on parenting.stackexchange.com?

@user4012 Gramski who?

Check your vocabulary. You even acknowledge that you can express your opinion (in contrast to your title), just don't expect that people are content with your opinion. Considering something unacceptable and racist != disallowed. And you are only a tiny part of the whites, so please don't speak for other people.

That gives me sperm and egg as first choice and existence/non-existence as second choice so that we have 4 possible outcomes that exactly define biological sex with no exceptions. If you say "fertile women" and "infertile women" I can now use the variants against you and ask what do you mean with "woman" ? XX chromosome, ovaries, sexual characteristics? Yes, it is totally unfamilar to define "biological sex" this way, but it is a complete and unambigous definition. [2/2].

@GeoffreyBrent I do in fact exactly that, I divide people in "infertile", "sperm carrier", "egg carrier" and "sperm-egg carrier". All those problems in defining sex occured because the attempts were going in the direction phenotype->gonad type->chromosomal which runs into the problem of 100 000 different variants giving the idea that sex is undefinable. So to refute this I only need a clean definition which has no exceptions. So I go from the direction "fertilized egg", look at it and see that I need a sperm and a egg. Both are necessary, both are not interchangeable. [1/2].

There is simply not such thing as "biological sex". There is. Either you have no (functional) gonads or you have functional testes or you have functional ovaries or you have in very rare cases both functional testes and ovaries. No exceptions. These determine (semen or egg) if you can conceive children and what hereditary dispositions are inherited. So your biological sex defines unambigously if and how you can procreate.

The fear of the OP to raise the issue was very convincly confirmed by Aron's answer :/.

And people who see those discussions are quite prone to proceed carefully because it has the tendency to blow up.

I have seen it many, many times, so my comment to Aron wanted to point it out. It really does not advance a point of discussion one bit. BDS as movement is politically diverse, it contains both left/right, Jewish/antisemitic people whatever.

So, I don't buy that line of argument that targets the emotional, non-verifiable accusation...from both sides.

You can only conclude it from obvious behavior (and History.SE experience shows that it is in fact very obvious).

@Inkblot Truth is that a lot of the BDS movement is really antisemitism in disguise. Sure, this makes it possible to dismiss arguments out of hand: Always argue with emotional insinuations and sweeping generalizations. Tell me, how exactly can you prove or refute that somebody who acts quite normal so far has no hidden anti-semitic thoughts? You cannot.