Julie Ann was a big-time tease

[deleted]

That's not quite the type of answer I was looking for. I was looking for a more technical answer, based on some of the scientific theories of love. For example, one such theory is Robert Sternberg's triangular theory...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love

...but there are other classifications as well.

The definitions you gave are based on attributes of length of duration and excessiveness, but such attributes don't define the basic type of love that is involved. For example, using the triangular theory, Julie Ann seems to feel both intimacy (as in friendship) and passion (as in physical attraction), which then places her type of love in the category of "romantic love," which is essentially no different than the love felt by an older woman. All that is why I tend to believe the word "crush" isn't a valuable concept, that it is mostly used only as a discriminatory term to disparage the feelings of younger people, and that it could theoretically apply to any age group.

As related to the film, this theory suggests the only difference between Julie Ann's feelings of "romantic love" and full-fledged "consummate love" is what Sternberg calls "commitment," which is basically faithful marriage, but Ned seems incapable of commitment to anyone, even his wife. But Julie Ann's admiration seems to be on a par with Shirley Abbott's admiration. Both of those females moved on to other males only when each of their relationships with Ned was not consummated with commitment, in Julie Ann's case because Ned didn't know about her affection, and in Shirley's case because their affairs presumably became too inconvenient for Ned.

I can't say for sure that this is what screenwriter Eleanor Perry had in mind; but interpreting the interactions between Ned and Julie as if they were real-life events, I'd say that Julie was sending Ned reasonably clear signals that she wanted him to initiate sex with her right then and there, the two clearest signals being her reclining on the ground for a substantial amount of time, and her turning the conversation to sexual matters (the stories of the exhibitionist man in the apartment window and the stranger who kissed her in the elevator). When Ned didn't respond promptly and directly to those signals, she in turn--in the classic female behavior pattern--lost interest in having sex with him, and lost a substantial amount of respect for his masculinity. Ned made it even worse with his somewhat pathetic schoolboy-like proposal to accompany her at all times outside her home and her office (a proposal that also drew attention to his unemployed status), and with his slightly silly speech about "protecting" her in some unspecified way.

Part of this would've been, I think, a generational misconnect. Ned obviously had some experience in seducing women, but his ways of doing it were ways that mostly belonged to the thirties, forties, and fifties, which would've worked fine on women closer to his own age but which would've made a poor impression on a twenty-year-old in 1967 (which is the year when the film presumably takes place, judging by the January 1967 date on the magazine that the character Shirley is reading by her pool near the end of the film). Julie is very likely in tune with the sixties Sexual Revolution, a phenomenon that Ned seems to have not quite caught up with; and she may well be on the Pill, so that nothing much is standing in the way of her and Ned's immediate sexual congress even though they obviously have no condoms with them, nothing in fact but the swimsuits they're wearing.

I'm not saying that a sexual initiative by Ned would've had a 100% chance of success. And I'm certainly not suggesting that he should've forced himself on Julie in any way. All I'm saying is that he should've taken the initiative, and accepted whatever result ensued.