How did crush come to be used to mean "an intense but usually short-lived infatuation"?

  • 2
    Kind of reminds me of someone that "smothers" someone with obsessive attention, interesting question.
    – eazar001
    Mar 6, 2013 at 5:59
  • 1
    All etymonline could say was that the first instance of the usage of "crush" in this sense is recorded in 1884. There isn't much about how it came to be such. Would really like this question answered!
    – Sayan
    Mar 6, 2013 at 6:49
  • I've always assumed that it had to do with hugging.
    – Hot Licks
    Oct 18, 2018 at 16:35

3 Answers 3


This is covered quite thoroughly in a column in The Globe and Mail by Warren Clements. Summarizing:

  1. The romantic sense of crush was first recorded in the 1884 journal of Isabella Maud Rittenhouse.
  2. According to Eric Partidge, crush might have been a variation on mash, since by 1870 mashed was a popular way of saying flirtatious or head over heels in love, and to crush something was to mash it.
  3. How did mash acquire that meaning? The Oxford English Dictionary shoots down one line of speculation found in an 1890 slang dictionary: the suggestion of a Romani word mash or masherava, meaning to allure or entice.
  4. Ernest Weekley’s 1921 Etymological dictionary of modern English observed that mash was “regarded as spoon-diet,” the sort of mashed pap one would feed to a person who couldn’t chew or tolerate regular food. He drew a link to the word spoony.
  5. To be spoony on someone had, since the 1820s, meant to be foolishly or sentimentally amorous, drawing on the earlier meaning of spoony as simple or goofy. To spoon with a lady was to make goo-goo eyes and whisper baby talk to her in the hope of future considerations.

Clements concludes:

This origin tale requires a couple of leaps of faith – crush to mash, mash to spoony – but as a story it hangs together.

The 1884 date is confirmed via etymonline:

1590s, "act of crushing," from crush (v.). Meaning "thick crowd" is from 1806. Sense of "person one is infatuated with" is first recorded 1884; to have a crush on is from 1913.

A relevant entry from the Routledge Dictionary of Historical Slang by Eric Partridge read:

mash. A sweetheart: 1882. Also MASHER. 2. A dandy: from ca. 1883;

v.t., occ. v.i. To court or ogle or (attempt to) fascinate a girl or a woman; not often used of a woman 'bewitching' a man: 1882, Leland, 'These black-eyed beauties' — Gypsies — 'by mashing men for many generations ....'; ob. Prob. ex the S.E. sense, to crush, pound, smash utterly, but perhaps, as Leland suggests, ex Romany mash (masher-ava), to allure, entice. Orig. (ca. 1860), U.S.

There are a number of other variants and phrases based on mash with similar connotations.

ODO's entry for masher corroborates this sense:

a dandy of late Victorian or Edwardian times.
North American informal a man who makes unwelcome sexual advances to women.


late 19th century: probably a derivative of slang mash 'attract sexually', 'infatuation', perhaps from Romany masherava 'allure'

(Unless the OED differs drastically from the ODO in this matter, the origin stated above contradicts Clements' claim that the OED does not subscribe to this theory.)

  • So a TL;DR version would say: "crush" has somehow replaced "mash" which meant infatuated by a woman. Sounds right?
    – Sayan
    Mar 6, 2013 at 6:56
  • @KeyBrdBasher Yes. Mar 6, 2013 at 7:37
  • 1
    I indeed have read through the entire answer and am sorry if my comment(s) suggest otherwise. I am just trying to understand the transition from "mashed"(which actually still holds good for infatuation) to "have a crush" rather than being "crushed".
    – Sayan
    Mar 6, 2013 at 8:03
  • 1
    @KeyBrdBasher I expect that the transition was from "my crush" to "have a crush" to "have a crush on". As etymonline notes, to have a crush on is from 1913. Mar 6, 2013 at 8:12
  • 3
    OED3 says "The alleged Romani forms mash , masherava ‘allure, entice’ cited by Barrère & Leland Dict. Slang (1890) appear not to exist in any Romani dialect."
    – Andrew Leach
    Mar 6, 2013 at 8:38

I can follow the "mash" to "crush" connection, but both the Romani and "spoony" etymologies for "mash" sound like stretches to me. I think it's more likely that "mash" is a derivation of "pash," the term school novels from the 1880s-1940s use for crushes, obviously short for "passion."

  • Hi Jennifer, and welcome to ELU! Can you provide any references for your suggestion, specifically mash -> pash and to reinforce "pash" as a shortening of "passion"?
    – Erich
    May 1, 2015 at 5:50
  • 2
    Ngram finds several uses of "a pash on", such as this one, which appear to confirm the use of "pash" to mean "crush".
    – Hot Licks
    Apr 13, 2016 at 19:42

In Madame Bovary (1856), Flaubert has a passage in Chapter five, Part two:

But the more Emma recognized her love, the more she crushed it down that it might not be evident, that she might make it less. She would have liked Leon to guess it, and she imagined chances, catastrophes that should facilitate this.

That could be a likely candidate for the origin of the word. It also seems more in concert with the way we use it today (as opposed to mash, which can mean the act of love making). Many in France and America were aware of the book (since it was so scandalous), and it may have seeped into the language around that time, possibly playing a role in Isabella Maude Rittenhouse's use of it later in 1884.

** However, Madame Bovary was translated into English in 1857, but that version is lost and was never published. The first published version (from which the above quote is taken) was published in 1886. I still think this is a possibility. In French the phrase reads "Le refoulait", "refoulait" translated directly means "repress", but with the "Le" added, it becomes "crushed".

  • That doesn't appear to be the same sense of "crush" as the one I recall from my younger years. (But keep in mind that Flaubert was my older brother.)
    – Hot Licks
    Apr 13, 2016 at 21:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.