Commenting Note: This post is not about how you are unable to get a date and you are sad about that. I sympathize with people who cannot get a date! Really, I do! You are welcome to fill up my inbox or askbox with all of the tragic tales of your inability to find a romantic partner! But if you try to do it in this thread I will delete your comment.
Someday this article will go down in history as the point at which “Nice Guy ™” ceased to mean anything.
I mean, seriously, what do guys who sexually harass you on street corners, your abusive ex, and Hugo Schwyzer Robert Jensen douchey male feminists have in common? Other than being men, interacting romantically/sexually with women, who think that they’re nice people while actually being assholes? I know Nice Guy ™ is confusingly named, but it doesn’t mean that, it has a very specific meaning, it means “men who feel entitled to sex with their female friends because they are nice.” Also, no one wakes up in the morning saying “today I’m going to be a misogynist pig because I enjoy hurting women.” They say “I know! I’m going to brighten some woman’s day by yelling at her to ‘smile’!”
But I’m not actually ranting about the continued misuse of the word “Nice Guy ™.” (That’s what Twitter’s for.) I want to look at this particular item.
The Aspirational Fuck Buddy
It’s just a sex thing and you’re not ready for a relationship. You’ve told him this. But he won’t listen. He doesn’t understand rule number one of taking your pants off is that you can’t fuck your way into a relationship.
Likes: Making you soup when you’re sick.
Dislikes: The fact that you are not his girlfriend and have told him that you should stop sleeping together.
Pop culture muses: The dude from 500 Days of Summer
Okay, maybe I’m missing something… but how the hell is that an example of misogyny? Look, you can genderswap it:
The Fucking Clingy Bitch
It’s just a sex thing and you’re playing the field. You’ve told her this. But she won’t listen. He doesn’t understand rule number one of taking your pants off is that you can’t fuck your way into a relationship.
Likes: Making you soup when you’re sick.
Dislikes: The fact that you are not her boyfriend and have told her that you should stop sleeping together.
Pop culture muses: Bunny boilers.*
See? Now it’s an item in an AskMen.com article.
People of all genders have casual sex with people and fall hopelessly in love with them or have casual sex expecting that this will mysteriously lead to A Relationship. It’s not a girl thing or a guy thing, it’s a people thing.
Which is not to say that it isn’t a gendered phenomenon. For one thing, the girl version does some kind of weird pseudofeminist “he’s in love with me! That misogynist!” thing, while the guy version is blatantly misogynistic.
I also think the whole business is rooted in some deeply toxic assumptions about relationships and sexuality. For one thing, it is incredibly fucked to expect that other people have to date you because you have a crush on them and are non-objectionable. It continues to be fucked if you’ve had sex with that person.
On the other hand, sex produces emotions in lots of people, including feelings of closeness and intimacy. Friendships (even casual friendships) often result in unintended crushes. I have no idea why someone would think “I’m going to have a friendship, and add an activity that results in a lot of people having romantic feelings for people they do it with, and this will mysteriously reduce the chance that someone will end up with romantic feelings.”
There’s this bizarre idea floating around that romantic feelings are a thing under one’s volitional control, and that if other people have feelings you do not like it is their fault somehow. (See also: poly people who open their relationship on the condition that you not fall for anyone else.) But the vast majority of people cannot stop themselves from having crushes when they have them. The label “casual sex” is not a magic salve that makes them able to.
Now, if you were sensible human beings, you would handle an unexpected unrequited crush like this:
Crusher: I have a crush on you!
Crushee: That’s awkward, I don’t have a crush on you.
Crusher: Well, in that case, I will have to stop having casual sex with you, because that would just make me sad that we’re not dating.
Crushee: Cool!
OR
Crusher: I have a crush on you!
Crushee: That’s awkward, I don’t have a crush on you.
Crusher: Okay. I’d like to still have casual sex with you then.
Crushee: Unfortunately, I don’t feel comfortable having casual sex with someone who has a crush on me.
Crusher: No worries.
OR
Crusher: I have a crush on you!
Crushee: That’s awkward, I don’t have a crush on you.
Crusher: Okay, I’d like to still have casual sex with you then.
Crushee: Neat! I’m free on Wednesday.
This is one of those multiple-choice type situations.
But those models are all based on the assumption that “I don’t want to date you” is sufficient reason not to date someone. Unfortunately, a lot of people are under the impression that you’re not allowed to not date people unless they’re Bad People. If you refuse somebody, then you’re a horrible person grinding their beautiful romantic heart under your heel– unless, of course, they’re an entitled misogynist or a psycho clingy bitch, in which case they’re Bad People and you’re allowed. (This is actually the flip side of the “if I have a crush on you you have to date me!” assumption.)
To sum up:
- People do not have to date you because you have a crush on them.
- Most people can’t control whether they have a crush on someone.
- Not wanting to date someone is a perfectly good reason not to date them.
*I have BPD, I’m allowed to make bunny boiler jokes.
The problem is, you’re just far too reasonable to be engaging in this debate! Because, of course, you are absolutely right. Possibly a missing factor is that maybe the people who want to be able to label these behaviours as misogynism or ‘bunny-boiling’ (depending on the gender of the crusher/crushee) are also caught up in the whole being-a-victim-will-make-me-interesting culture. So they fact that their love and friendship lives are a little more complex than they want can’t just be because love lives are complex and head-doing a lot of the time, it has to be because they are being oppressed by some systemic gender bias. Which is kind of offensive to the people who are actually genuinely being oppressed by systemic gender biases, of whom there are still plenty…
I think part of the problem is that a lot of people write this stuff from a position of, I guess I’d call it ‘relationship privilege’ – maybe they’re not Don Juan or whatever the female equivalent is, but they’ve had plenty of relationships, get asked out often and find people often receptive to them asking the person out, etc. They may have periods when they’re involuntarily single, but never for very long.
But for those without those privileges, who aren’t “conventionally attractive”, who’re weird, who’re socially awkward, “I just don’t want to date you” is exceedingly frustrating. It’s no big deal if you come across compatible partners weekly or more, like most people, but if even finding a potential parter only happens once every few years, it’s devastating and apparently random (in that one person’s inner psychology is largely a mystery to others, and possibly even to themselves in some cases). IMHO that’s where the Nice Guy resentment starts – desperation. Being rejected repeatedly doesn’t turn someone into a Nice Guy without the necessary prerequisites of desperation and loneliness. The misogyny is a consequence, not a prerequisite.
Depressingly, it’s like a job search – you can do everything in your power to make your resume exceptional, but if the hiring person has some vague criteria on “fitting into the department” that you don’t meet, you’re not going to get the job. If you get 3 interviews a week, no biggie, you can just shrug it off. But if you get one interview every two months, that seemingly capricious rejection can be devastating.
I’m not saying anyone is obligated to date anyone else, just that there seems to be a surprisingly large lack of understanding of the exact origins of the Nice Guy and an unsurprising lack of sympathy for a condition which is, when you boil it right down, nothing more than a defense mechanism. And that folks should be more aware that not everyone in life has a limitless cornucopia of dating options before them. “But why not?” may seem demanding, entitled and priveleged, but when you’ve been rejected repeatedly over many years, with no or precious few brief acceptances, it’s a perfectly legitimate question – what is it the cause of their interminable loneliness?
I’ve been happily married for almost 5 years now, but I still remember the pain of the time before then, the desperation that eventually led me to tolerate a borderline-abusive relationship for 5 years, thinking it was the best I could do, until my now-wife rescued me. I can’t look at any of these Nice Guys without thinking that, but for some fortuitous meetings, that could have been me.
The fact that you are not his girlfriend and have told him that you should stop sleeping together.
Maybe the woman in this example should ACTUALLY STOP sleeping with him then? I don’t understand telling someone “we should stop sleeping together” and then continuing to do so. That seems like a headgame even if she didn’t know the guy had a crush on her.
This near-aromantic asexual continues to have a hard time wrapping their head around topics like these. Must. Learn. To empathize. With people who want a relationship and can’t get one.
An unfortunate, common, unhappy, and still reasonable option in the multiple-choice:
Crusher: I have a crush on you!
Crushee: That’s awkward, I don’t have a crush on you.
Crusher: Okay. I’d like to still have casual sex with you then.
Crushee: Unfortunately, I don’t feel comfortable having casual sex with someone who has a crush on me.
Crusher: Well, that blows. I’m going to go home and whine about it on my blog. Also, I know it sucks, but I’m not sure I can handle the emotions of spending time with you right now. Between not getting to have the relationship with you I want, and losing the awesome sex we were having, it’s just too upsetting. I don’t blame you, it just sucks.
I’ve also noticed that the discourse on Nice Guy ™ phenomena has been gradually getting more and more focused on the worst possible non-nice guys not excluding the moderately OK but still too entitled ones.
Am also not sure how useful ‘entitlement’ is to describing Nice Guys and some other sorts of possibly patriarchal people who cannot get dates.
1. Sometimes seems a bit hypocritical. You sometimes see language from women or non-binary people who are not conventionally attractive that seems vaguely like an entitlement towards being seen as attractive or being able to have sex partners. That doesn’t mean that there is no difference, just that it seems a little iffy sometimes.
2. It’s epistemologically risky; can encourage people to tell any frustrated man that he is a terrible person for wanting to be able to find a lover.
3. There seems to be some equivocation between three very different cases.
a) The Nice Guy ™ feels that he is entitled to sexual favors from the specific person who he gave nonsexual favors to, quid pro quo. Obviously wrong, because to enforce this would be rape. People who get to this point tend to be really nasty and/or misogynistic.
b) The Nice Guy ™ feels that he is entitled to receive sexual favors from at least one person in the world, (since there is someone for everyone). This is far less serious, and may be self-consistent for a metaethical system that believes in entitlements (as opposed to the semi-consequentialist worldviews of many feminists.)
c) The person (this no longer really counts as Nice Guyism) is really frustrated and feels that they are encountering unfair obstacles in finding lovers or sexual partners. They may believe that something screwy is going on and that they are getting the short end of the stick, or that their very real loneliness is being ignored by people who are trying to rework the dating culture (which includes feminists.)
I have a confession to make.
Seven years ago, when I was 23, I was a Nice Guy. I had a huge crush on a woman who had come out as a lesbian, but I didn’t care — I was entitled to not only Hawt Sex (with her, or anyone else I fancied, really) but also a close, caring, mutually beneficial relationship. And why? Because I was, of course, So Amazingly Awesome — I could speak in complete sentences, provide practical and unsentimental advice, and I had Original Ideas.
I was an idiot. What’s more, I was a prick. It took a couple years, but I grew out of it (I hope).
Granted: getting laid for the first time (with someone else — yes, I DID move on, grudgingly) helped immensely. It took the pressure off. It allowed me to explore some of those burning questions I had about what sex was like, what women were like with their clothes off, and what I needed from a relationship — all questions to which neither society nor porn provides answers. I wasn’t in so much of a goddamn hurry afterwards.
After a couple of years and many relationships, I looked back and realized what a PRICK I had been. How ignorant and disrespectful and entitled and self-indulgent I had been.
The trick to not being a Nice Guy? Respect.
Respecting people takes practice. It means listening. It means asking how they feel and caring about the answer. It means communicating directly and politely, without passive-aggressiveness, saying what you mean and owning it. It means learning how to respect people, on both an individual and collective basis. It’s hard work, and you can’t do it because you think you’ll get a reward. You have to do it for its own sake, because you want to be respectful.
As I said: getting laid, satisfying that burning curiosity, helped. I can’t speak for everyone, of course, but I can’t help but feel that if society had some sort of… I dunno, “noob pit*” for adolescents and post-adolescents (male or otherwise!!!!) with regard to sex, some way to slake curiosity and answer questions and take the pressure off, to boost confidence and reduce the burden of anxiety associated with finding a relationship and/or sex partner, I feel that there would be fewer Nice Guys.
I dunno, I’m probably just projecting.
*Noob pit: MMORPG term for an area in which newly created characters run around doing easy quests and learning the mechanics of the game.
@Cliff Pervocracy: Assuming the woman in the example is still physically attracted to the man, that sounds just like plain old akrasia to me, as in people who say they should stop smoking/start going to the gym/eat less/stop procrastinating/whatever and then they don’t.
@MCA: I don’t think that’s the full story. I’m still unsuccessful romantically, but I no longer resent the world for that. So I’d say that lack of “relationship privilege” is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Nice Guy™ism.
@Engineer Krause: Yep. For example, I used to be a Type b) and/or a Type c) Nice Guy™, but I can’t recall ever being a Type a) one.
Wow… This is exactly what happened to me in a nutshell. I did hold onto the hope a little longer than I should have, but mostly kept it to myself. Does that make me a bad person?
@Cliff Pervocracy, I think the person in the example /did/ stop having sex with the other, topherwise the ponit is kind of destroyed.
i guess i can’t see the point of having even casual sex with someone i don’t have at least a bit of a crush on. maybe i’m not having casual sex at all?
You know, I disagree with you here. I interpreted the issue in that scenario as a crossing of boundaries. The woman in this scenario has clearly articulated that she doesn’t want a romantic relationship, and she maturely set a boundary for herself. “But he won’t listen.” The man is crossing that boundary by refusing to listen to her. It isn’t about the man having feelings. It’s about believing that those feelings are a reason to ignore her stated desires and try to ingratiate himself with her.
Yes, but the boundary violation seems not to be getting resolved. It is being assumed that simply deciding to not violate the boundary is enough to ensure there will never be any problems. A (possibly implicit) request to renegotiate the boundary is simply being ignored rather than accepted, denied, or denied resulting in breakup.
Yeah, I think most of us stopped paying attention to Jez when they made made fun of domestic violence (http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have). Others, when they reposted videos of rape victems without their consent (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/10/this-week-in-horrible-journalism-jezebels-rape-photos/). Getting Hugo Schwyzer to start writing their articles would’ve been my quit moment, if they didn’t already somehow have even worse writers in the first place. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13Y6aHtOPbE)
If you asked a Men’s Right Activist to start a feminist blog, it would be indistinguishable from Jezebel.
“If you asked a Men’s Right Activist to start a feminist blog, it would be indistinguishable from Jezebel.”
That.
But even before they really went off the rails, there was something very…judge-y, maybe, about them that bothered me. Like, they were tearing down the Hollywood Impossible Ideal Woman and replacing her with their own Ideal Woman, who was still just as narrow and just as impossible to be.
That and alternating “Body-Positivity! Love the body you have!” with “HOTTEST NEW FASHION WEEK PIX; OMG THOSE MODELS” at a dizzying speed.
ooooohhhhh nooooo. An MRA would be much worse.
Incidentally: Theory on the friendzone narrative: People complaining about friendzoning are sometimes complaining more about a failure to acknowledge/validate/even just freaking notice their erotic desires or the strength thereof, rather than complaining about the friendzoning itself. . Of course, they usually only have themselves to blame and often become angry and/or misogynistic about it.
“People complaining about friendzoning are sometimes complaining more about a failure to acknowledge/validate/even just freaking notice their erotic desires or the strength thereof, rather than complaining about the friendzoning itself”
If that is the case then the Admirer is both assuming the Admiree is a mind reader, and making it the Admiree’s responsibility to deal with the Admirer’s feelings. You shouldn’t have to acknowledge or validate (or even notice) someone’s erotic desire for you – it’s THEIR desire, not yours.
If the Admirer is doing things they perceive as romantic gestures, but the Admiree is either (a) not perceiving is that way or (b) being willfully obtuse as a way to avoid the conflict of rejection. I don’t think there is any reliable way to know which is true in a given situation, but either way the way to solve the problem is to ask the Admiree out directly. (And if someone is really sure that the answer is option (b) and they aren’t willing to ask directly, they should just take it as a rejection and back off).
@theLaplaceDemon. Seconding. I don’t really know what I should do other than ignore it, if I strongly suspected that a friend had the hots for me and I didn’t have the hots back. Should I SAY like “Just so you know, I’ve totally noticed that you have the hots for me; sorry, don’t feel that way about you.”? Wouldn’t that just be massively awkward? And wouldn’t there be a terribly HIGH risk that the friend went “NOOOOO that’s not TRUUUUUUE how DARE you assume such a thing, you’re SO full of yourself you!”,
I think someone who don’t say anything about their feelings because that would be embarrassing would be likely to feel even more embarrassed if the object of the affection brought it up like that, and then shout out something akin to the above out of sheer embarrassment. And then there would be MASSIVE AWKWARDNESS for EVERYONE involved.
Dvärghundspossen, RE: “Should I SAY like “Just so you know, I’ve totally noticed that you have the hots for me; sorry, don’t feel that way about you.”? – why not rather check it with friend concerned as an assumption: I have this awkward feeling of you having hots for me, could it be or is it something else? The thing here is, that if you really feel that your friend has hots for you it is already awkward, talking about it might be even more awkward but it is the only way of actually resolving it. P.S. Being open and sincere about various kind of awkwardness in sex and relationships seems to me one of the most powerful things in feminism.
@Justinas: Okay, you could phrase it better than I did… And yeah, like captain Awkward is fond of stating, people should use their words.
BUT I want to point out that being the object of the affection doesn’t necessarily mean you’re any more confident or better able to handle the situation by using words than the person whose affection you’re the object of. I started to write a long post where I ranted about the times I’ve been in this situation; guys crushing on me but not saying anything about it, and then deleted it all since Ozy wrote in the beginning of her post that zie didn’t want personal tales of woe in the comments section. I will just say this much: I do NOT think any of these guys were misogynist or anything. I do NOT think having a crush on a friend and being too insecure to say anything about it makes you a bad person. I cannot stress enough how much I DON’T think so.
What I want to say is merely that if they can blame insecurity for not initiating an honest conversation about their feelings, so can I. Because I felt SUPER AWKWARD in these situations, and had NO idea how to handle it all. And therefore I ended up just pretending like nothing as long as I could, until everything just broke down in a big shit-storm of embarrassment.
Actually, I feel like an enormous advantage of being in a monogamous marriage is that everyone knows that I can’t date anyone, so I’ll never have to deal with any such horrible situations again. Intellectually I know that I’m never obligated to date anyone or have sex with anyone if I’m not interested in them, but in praxis I’ve always felt like an evil bitch when not reciprocating some nice (I mean this literally) guy’s feelings.
@Justinas -
Speaking up and facing the awkward head-on when you suspect someone has unrequited feelings for you that they aren’t acting on is certainly a good practical solution, if you feel up for it – but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still the Admirer’s responsibility to communicate, not the Admiree’s. The Admirer is not justified in being upset because their feelings were not acknowledged by the person they are crushing on.
More to the point, the Admirer must be prepared for the Admiree to not reciprocate their feelings!
If you’re an Admirer, and you communicate (clearly, honestly, and politely) that you have feelings for the Admiree; and if the Admiree says, “Sorry, I don’t feel the same way about you,” then you, as the Admirer, must be able to say, “Okay, I respect that. It’s your prerogative,” and mean it — no sympathy ploys, no false-acknowledgement-whilst-you-wait-to-win-the-Admiree-over. Just turn your romantic attention elsewhere.
I find it helps to remember that a lot of the time, when you’re dealing with an Admiree you don’t know very well, hope has caused you to inflate the possibilities out of proportion. You only know someone will be perfect for you when you are with someone who is perfect for you (or at least, as close as we get in life).
” the Admirer is both assuming the Admiree is a mind reader, and making it the Admiree’s responsibility to deal with the Admirer’s feelings. You shouldn’t have to acknowledge or validate (or even notice) someone’s erotic desire for you – it’s THEIR desire, not yours.”
I… agree with everything above. And everything here would be a lot better if people would just talk about it. That said, a lot of the times I’ve seen friendzone complaints (sometimes borrowed offense) it was people who seemed not to react to somewhat traditionally Romantic stuff. I particularly agree with the issues about people being too resonsible for other’s emotions. Captain Awkward analyzes this stuff pretty well.
@if you feel up for it – absolutely. I agree I was wrong in stating the suggestion to speak up as something ‘a responsible person would do’. It is really not the admiree’s responsibility. Sorry for that.
I think communication is the responsibility of both parties.
If you know that someone is interested in you, then you should talk to them about it. Or, at the very least, ASK about it.
Communication between people in any sort of relationship, whether romantic or not, should be open and honest. If you know (or think you know) that someone is into you, and you pretend you don’t know, then you are being dishonest in your communication.
Now, at the same time, it’s quite possible that you don’t know. Behaving as if you don’t know when you don’t know is just normal. But knowing (or suspecting) and behaving as if you don’t is as dishonest as admiring someone and not informing them.
I can imagine not being able to bring yourself to tell someone, either that you like them, or that you think they like you. And that in and of itself, should not be seen as making someone a bad person, or irrespnsible, or anything like that.
The ideal is that you are able to talk to someone about your feelings. If you’re too nervous, or you’re afraid of rejection, or what have you, and you can’t bring yourself to admit those feelings, that doesn’t make you a bad person. It is an action which is dishonest, but does not come from a character flaw. It does not make a person dishonest, but it does make the action so.
If that is the case, and the other person DOESN’T Have such issues, AND they actually do know, I see it as no less dishonest to pretend that you don’t know. Perhaps it’s done out of fear of hurting the person, or out of nervousness, or out of fear of losing them as a friend. Those are all good reasons.
However it remains an equally dishonest action. One that does not make you a bad/immature/deceitful person, but it is an action which I cannot see in any way other than being equal to not telling someone when you think they do have an attraction to you.
I think that at the root of this there seems to be some kind of fear, not of rejection but of… something else. People seem to be able to take rejection easier than they can take asking the question unambiguously, or something. I don’t know.
I dunno, Steele – I don’t see “dishonesty” as the big problem here. I think that 1) Not talking about a one-sided crush can, in some situations, be a good solution for both parties, and 2) It is not the Admiree’s responsibiliy to manage the Admirer’s emotions. The Admiree did not MAKE the Admirer have a crush on them, and the Amdmiree should not have the responsibility of managing the Admirer’s feelings.
Also (warning: tangent) I sort of take issue with the idea that you “should” be 100% open in all your friendships. You can still be great friends with someone and draw boundaries around certain topics. The idea that 100% openness and honestly is necessary for Real Friends* strikes me as Geek Social Fallacy territory, where friendship is this all-or-nothing state.
*it is okay if you only want to be friends with people who are very open and honest! but let’s not assume that applies to all people.
TheLaplaceDemon, could you, please, elaborate on this one “1) Not talking about a one-sided crush can, in some situations, be a good solution for both parties”. As for the number 2, the feeling that your friend might have a crush on you is your feeling and to talk about it with your friend is a way for you to deal with it. There might be other ways to deal with it, but I still don’t understand why being open about it can endanger friendship?
For the second part, I’d say it is not about being “real friends”, it is about being very close friends. I sure agree, that some friendships are not as close to talk about romantic feelings. But in case they are, when where does this fear come from? Why could your close friend abandon you, because of asking about zir having a crush on you?
1) Depending on the particular relationship between two individuals, talking about a once sided crush (where Person A has a crush on Person B, but B does not have a crush on A) may not be a good, productive solution. Maybe Person B is in a committed LTR, or has a sexual orientation that is incompatible with Person A. Or maybe it’s just clear that Person B is not interested in Person A. For some friends, Person A might confess their crush to Person B, and the two of them will figure out a set of boundaries that maintains their friendship but allows A to move on and B to not feel smothered. Or maybe Person A will decide not to talk to B, and to just give themselves a little space from B until they get over their crush. Depending on A and B’s personalities and the dynamic of their friendship, either of these could be good solutions. Just because “talk about it” is the best solution most of the time doesn’t mean it should be dogma.
“As for the number 2, the feeling that your friend might have a crush on you is your feeling and to talk about it with your friend is a way for you to deal with it. There might be other ways to deal with it, but I still don’t understand why being open about it can endanger friendship?”
I don’t think I was speaking very clearly here – I was using the word “feeling” in two different ways, and it made everything more confusing than it had to be.
When I said “the Amdmiree should not have the responsibility of managing the Admirer’s feelings” I really meant “d the Amdmiree should not have the responsibility of managing the Admirer’s EMOTIONS.” The way I interpret the situation you outlined above (please correct me if I’m wrong) the word “feeling” would be interchangeable with “suspicion” or “deduction” or “rational conclusion.”
Re: Endangering friendship – I’m not sure what you are referring to there. None of my posts had anything to do with friendships being in danger. I don’t say that the Admiree is not responsible for the Admirer’s feelings because I’m worried about their friendship, I say it because I’m concerned for the Admiree’s autonomy and the Admirer’s entitlement.
And again, I’d like to state that I don’t think there is anything bad about either party talking about the situation. Talking about those sorts of things is often very good and productive! But the Crushed-Upon person – the Admiree, or Person B above – does not have a RESPONSIBILITY to bring it up. They did not make the Admirer have a crush on them, and they do not owe the Admirer anything due to said crush.
Thank you, I now see what are some of the good reasons not to talk crush over. As for ‘endangering friendship’ I guess I was referring to Dvärghundspossen comment for that part, not yours, sorry for mix up. Re: “the word “feeling” would be interchangeable with “suspicion” or “deduction” or “rational conclusion.” – not really. I meant the possible feelings of uneasiness or awkwardness that might be when person B notices changes in person A behaviour and rationally concludes that it is due to A’s crush. So it seems fair enough for me that B might initiate conversation about the A’s probable crush on B not as a problem to fix (not even to mention that B shouldn’t be seen as a ‘fixer’) but as a matter which arose in their relationship that affects both. Although, I now see how the option to wait and observe how these feelings further goes are also available. To talk over every uneasiness or awkwardness might be more of OCD than super-honesty. So, yeah, talking is a valid option, for some people in some cases but there also other viable options available.