Talk:Limerence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

On Topic Once More

Well at least for now we can get back to talking about the nuances of limerene, rather than engaging in debate about the nature of the article itself.

I was shying away for a while, but once my psychology professor gave a lecture on it in one of our classes I decided to come back to work on the article. My professor also sent me some references to work into the article. abexy 10:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Curing limerence

Nowhere in this article does it say how to get rid of limerence. Fix please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.108.111 (talk • contribs)

Limerence isn't exactly a disease or mental problem to cure. And if it is, there might not be no "cure". That would be like asking people to put a cure for cancer into an article. UnDeRsCoRe 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

UnDeRsCoRe is correct. I don't entirely understand what needs curing. It's a natural psychological state, in theory, which appears the only way to get rid of it is to wait it out. abexy 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Closest thing I could find. I hope this helps. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny, but generally unhelpful. It is true, as abexy said that limerence must run it's course, but it is in the very definition of limerence that a situation like the seccond "suggesion" on the page linked by TGBacchus, not because of the implied aspect, but because of the aspect of reciprocation & commitment. sudoartiste 08:38, 7 November 2006 (PST)

A more serious suggestion is this: first arrange your schedule so that you don't encounter the object of limerence as often. Out of sight is a good first step towards out of mind, and like Hannibal Lecter pointed out: "we covet what we see every day". Next, acquire a crush on someone else. Kind of like using wine to wean yourself off of whiskey, but I think it pretty much works. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. You have to wait it out. It's not a matter of just aquiring another crush, and "out of sight, out of mind" doesn't apply either. Read Tennov's book. You'll find a few reference to people who had long distance limerence. All situations mentioned in her book are based of a minimun of three testimonials, so it's not just a matter of an individual abberition. Also, the chances of any truely limerent person aranging their schedules to avoid their L.O. are relatively slim. Once again, read Tennov's book and note the reference to (at least three similar cases of) a married woman getting a P.O. box to continue contact with her L.O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.247.116 (talk • contribs) 00:10, December 9, 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well... "Your mileage may vary", as they say. I've had limerences subside after I stopped seeing the limerent object every day. It still takes a while, but continuing contact with them will prolong it rather than help it dissipate, in my experience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some people reference "short term" on this page. 18 months-3 years minimun isn't short term. 100% pre-occupied thinking and extremity of feeling may last a brief time in the course of limerence, but the overall limerence can continue at a low level for a long time; possibly later spiking again one or more times. It's all based of certain conditions of uncertainty and hope. The innitiation may only be noticed with some passing thoughts, but it's continuation is reliant on a) time b) appearance of hope. Once hope fades, it's only a matter of waiting out the anguish, which may take quite some time if all hope of reciprocation is cut off too soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.247.116 (talk • contribs) 00:27, December 9, 2006 (UTC)

As to those who say the limerent are a minority, you are wrong. We're just under-represented because no one has taken sufficient time to do further research and get publicize their findings. The limerent community is not small, the comunity of limerence-aware people is small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.247.116 (talk • contribs) 00:27, December 9, 2006 (UTC)

What I Think

I think limerance can be both or either infatuation and love. I think the distinction can be no different than that between "sky" and "heavens." What is love but a term used to refer to a certain attraction that is defined by literature, poetry; song. It's an idealist descriptive. Limerance is a peculiar form of love, in that it can be differentiated from fraternal love or familial love. It is romantic love, as trite as that may sound. It's unique between people of different sexes, or maybe between two people of the same sex if they are homosexual (I don't know for sure, because I can't experience homosexual love directly). I'm guessing Tennov's observation that it must be between the limerent and a potential sexual partner is correct.

Trying to distinguish limerance and infatuation is futile. One might imagine that infatuation is something lesser, but both terms are conjunctive in any case, and the parameters of infatuation are undefined. Thus, the two are part and parcel. It's no different than trying to distinguish limerance and crystallization.

What is "romantic love" but limerance? The definition of limerance in this article coincides perfectly with literary, romantic notions of love. Consult Byron, Bon Jovi, Terrance, a medieval chanson de geste, or some Renaissance poet of the French court. They are, hackneyedly, two sides of the same coin.

A neologism? So? Every word is neoligistic at one point or another. Neologistics are relative. Limerance is not, relatively, that new, and it helps explain a certain feeling in excruciatingly correct detail. If a search for the term "infatuation" leads one to "limerance" then I say this is good and well, because a better discertation of infatuation cannot be found.

Yes, "Waiting for a Star to Fall" is exemplary of limerance, as is "Greensleeves" (look up the lyrics on Google) or Sheriff's "When I'm With You" or any of a number of pop love songs. They exemplify limerance well. Literature has been articulating this for a long time.

If you are a limerent, you will read this article and squirm. What you once thought was a unique, or relatively rare, occurrence of true romantic love emitting from you towards your limerent object will be laid bare. This article occasioned something of an existential crisis in me, because it scientifically dissected my feelings towards my past crushes. It stings and liberates. But, I am still convinced that it is not a bad thing. Of course, I can't help but believe this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SigLaw1893 (talk • contribs) 222:02, November 9, 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why identifying / empathasising with the other's feelings and limerence are mutally exclusive. I'm quite badly affected by limerence and can say with certainty that you can also be very concerned with the feelings of the limerent other. I also would like to see more about the connection, either cause of effect, with serotonin levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leica0000 (talk • contribs) 18:51, November 10, 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. As someone who does experience limerence for people of the same sex, I can tell you it is the same (at least as Tennov describes it). Tennov had a section in her book dedicated to what she called "homolimerence" but in my opinion, as well an article I've read looking at limerence and bisexuality, a distinction is unnecessary. Another thing I am happy you pointed out which is important, and I often forget about, is the pervasiveness of limerence in pop culture and music. With the definition of limerence in mind you just need to turn on the radio and hear how it plays out. I also agree that a scientific look at the subject and acknowledgment that many people experience it harms it in now way. After all the reading I have done on the subject, the feelings are still the same. In the old article there was some connection with serotonin levels, but it was unsourced and I could find no article addressing a biological basis for limerence, though there is a section in Tennov's book about it. I chose not to include it since modern reviews I have read of the book paint it as the most inaccurate part. abexy 07:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This talk almost literally leaves me dumb-struck, in panic, because it - at least in my own eyes, is totally founded in whatever "unfoundable" subjective truth that has apparently been so objectionable, and it scares me. I had always known my feelings had extended beyond what could be considered infatuation, in the sense that intrusive thinking, and constant associations with a limerent object never cease in me. There is no freedom within my own mind to resolve the choas that is ensuing. You can wake-up one late November evening, flushed with a cold-sweat and a migraine to go, asking yourself, quite simply, Why? I don't want to digress onward about my own personal experience, because the message has been made very clear amongst some of the other editors already. Limerence is indeed a peculiar form of love, and a regrettable one at that... It does offer a lot of comfort knowing that I'm not going insane, and that there is at least terminology, or some understanding of what could be happening to many of us. --Kemyou 12:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Infatuation

This article explains that limerance is "the name for an involuntary cognitive and emotional state similar to infatuation, posited by psychologist Dorothy Tennov, in which a 'limerent individual' feels an intense romantic desire for a 'limerent object'." When one clicks the link to infatuation, all they get is a DAB page with the only link being to a vague Wiktionary entry on infatuation. Limerance is also explained as "much longer-lived than feelings such as crushes, infatuation, romantic passion, and puppy love, enduring for months or even years." Again a link but no lead to infatuation. Infatuation and limerance are not synonymous nor interchangeable, therefore infatuation needs its own entry. I'm not a scholar or a shrink and my only insights on human behavior are made on real-life observations so I'm definitely not one to write an article about infatuation-- but there's plenty of well-spoken (well-writing?) folks here in WP who could do it. Jaguara 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So what is the difference between limerance and infatuation?

This article clearly states that limerance is different from infatuation, and yet the disambiguation page for infatuation points here. I consider that to be contradictory (i.e., this article states they are 2 different concepts, and yet the disambiguation page implies they are the same). The main article should clarify the difference between the two. 69.140.173.15 05:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Limerence in culture?

Can it be said that the main characters in Serendipity (film) were experiencing limerence with each other as their object? Siyavash 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if we tried to add all the places where it seemed limerence came up in pop culture we would have to make another article both longer and with more disputes in it that this one just for them all. abexy 09:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This Limerence page has been vandalized with completely unnecesary pictures —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.219.114 (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

What on earth are you talking about?

Recent Addition?

What's up with "New Relationship Energy." If this does apply, some sources need to be cited. Putting in a "please expand this section" and "sources needed" does not jusify posting a possibly unrelated and unsupported addition to this article. Do not use these tags as a crutch upon which to lean frail and sickly evidence.

Picture?

When I open up this page there is a huge picture of a vulva taking up the entire page. I think whoevever put it up should be banned from the site. Very bad vandalism.--Irish rover 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? Which page are we talking about? I see no vulva picture. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It was up there earlier. Later on, someone removed it. But, someone added new pictures to the bottom. Those were promptly removed as well. Maybe this page should be locked for a bit? 67.182.4.124 23:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Consulting the article history, I see no recent vandalism, involving pictures or otherwise. GTBacchus^(talk) 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw it as well. It was terribly disturbing and upsetting. It was definitely there a bit ago.

That's bizarre. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This needs a rewrite.

No, this needs a team of psychologists and a team of writers locked up in a room together working something out.

Failing that, we can at least start by defining "infatuation". Wherever we define limerence, it is defined as being different than infatuation. The link to infatuation is a redirect to limerence. Someone who has read the book needs to make it clear what Tennov means by limerence, as well as how it's different from what is usually called infatuation. We need to know how it is different from "crushes, infatuation, romantic passion, and puppy love"; these all link to limerence. We need to differentiate between the work of several people, and make it clear that their theories are by no means consensus. What I would eventually like to see is one article with several short sections on various theories. Agent_Koopa 02:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)