Talk:Limerence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

From Talk page on "Infatuation"

Infatuation -> Limerence: a real word redirects to a neologism... something's wrong with that picture. --Joy [shallot] 01:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a neologism, but it's one that is i) not super new, ii) not found only on Wikipedia, and iii) seems to have gained a certain amount of usage - Google shows 1,330 hits, some on serious pages (e.g. Yahoo health pages). Now, maybe the article should be at Infatuation, with a redir from Limerance, but if so someone needs to look at it to make any needed changes in the article text. Noel (talk) 14:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, I'm not arguing against the existence of the article on Limerence. I'm saying that infatuation should be relegated to non-existence (and an automatic link to wiktionary) because it's not the same thing. --Joy [shallot] 14:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Differences Between the Topics

That's fine with me; I'll delete the redir in a little bit. Noel (talk) 23:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, there are a number of pages which reference infatuation, and this page seems to describe that as well as limerence. Should we try and make a real infatuation article (perhaps using in part e.g. the last paragraph from this), or what? Noel (talk) 17:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since nothing had happened with this in four months, I've replaced the redirect with a {{wi}} link to Wiktionary. Angela. 02:01, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

First Piece of Talk

(date not conveniently ascertainable)

I'm not sure that the pain of being in love is that it is not reciprocated. isn't being in love inherently painful? it's not a comfortable emotion, but its consolation is not someone else feeling that for you, but that someone else in the world can mean so much to you. i think it should be valued for its own sake.

Is love ever really reciprocated anyway? it seems to me such a miraculous, rare occurrence that the chances of two people feeling that way about each other seem amazingly small. i suppose if i am in love with you, i will respond in a way that may very well endear myself to you, but there always seems likely to be an imbalance. i think it was la rochefoucauld who said that in any relationship there's a lover and a beloved.

Thinking of love as a thing that needs to be reciprocated rather than a good in itself is dangerous. a positive, valuable emotion risks being contaminated if it is made conditional on something in return. "i love you, but i'll be miserable if you don't love me back" is not the most generous of statements. there's something childish about the idea that love has to be reciprocated. having someone in love with you isn't a right, nor is it the best thing that could happen to you. loving someone is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.10 (talk • contribs) 16:58, March 20, 2004 (UTC)

The user above said: "it seems to me such a miraculous, rare occurrence that the chances of two people feeling that way about each other seem amazingly small." This affirmation is garbage, in my opinion, because of the existence of propinquity and the propinquity effect caused by propinquity. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

You old romantic, you!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.139.11 (talk • contribs) 05:37, August 7, 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you have to remember that we aren't talking about love. It is clearly stated that love is NOT the same thing as limerence. There is a thing called love, and there is another thing called limerence. So read the article before you blurt out some crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.12.228 (talk • contribs) 13:46, April 15, 2006 (UTC)

Well to be fair to me, and I think we should, I don't think when I wrote the above that statement was in the article.. talking of crap by the way, I saw a magazine yesterday called Total Carp. I wasn't sure if it was a play on words! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.139.11 (talk • contribs) 05:37, August 7, 2006 (UTC)

Last commenter is probably a non-limerent.

I'd say that there's a 99% chance that the person who said, "thinking of love as a thing that needs to be reciprocated rather than a good in itself is dangerous" is a non-limerent (according to the theory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.207.86 (talk • contribs) 09:26, June 19, 2004 (UTC)

What I think is that that person is ignoring the existence of the propinquity effect. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Try this song...

For anyone currently feeling limerent, try listening to the song "Waiting For A Star To Fall" by the band "Boy Meets Girl". It only seems to intensify the feeling... Let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.46.236 (talk • contribs) 10:17, September 11, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of band 'Limerence' removed.

Sorry, dude. Your band isn't famous, and doesn't satisfy any of the requirements established to have an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Pteranodon (talk • contribs) 19:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Why I edited out van Gogh's ear.

Since it seems to be quite unusual for people to give pieces of their ears as gifts, I have assumed that it was van Gogh's infamous ear that was referred to. There are many explanations of why he cut off part of his ear, several of which are sufficiently plausible that it cannot be reasonably assumed that any one of them is true. (At the moment, I am partial to the idea that he was trying to compensate in a symbolic way for the crimes of Jack the Ripper.) I substituted one of the risky and/or self-destructive behaviors that are more typical and more unambiguously associated with infatuation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.95.87 (talk • contribs) 14:51, June 29, 2005 (UTC)

Love and Limerence

I've been reading Tennov's book on limerence, and I think it could easily be condensed into an article. It should be separated from the article on infatuation (it shouldn't be a redirect, they are different things). This article should only be about Limerence as defined by the creator of the term, since no real work has been done on the specific subject since that book. I don't know what to do with the other things in this article when I edit it, though. abexy 09:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The New Article

I finished work on the article, and I've put it up. It is essentially a summary of the second chapter of Tennov's book. I know the section on distinguishing limerence from other emotions needs to be expanded, but I think I'll leave that up to other people. Also, I don't know what to do about the Spoken Word. abexy 20:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Abexy, I like the finished product! If I get a wild hair I might work out how to do the read-aloud part. ~ Renee

I, too, like the finished article, although I disagree with the fact that the author made up a word, seeing as this phenomenon has to be as old as humanity itself. It is certainly not new and does not need a new word, but a good description of an intense infatuation. Lue3378 05:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While being infatuated with a person is part of limerence, its basic component is actually basic desire. I think by creating a new word allows it to be identified specifically rather than be attached to any past connotations or simple meanings of a word. Tennov said in the opening to her book that infatuation has a lot of negative meanings that come with it, when limerence is not inherently negative. Perhaps I should add more about why a new word is needed? abexy 06:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Book review

I added the link to the book review again because I think it is important to have some analysis of Tennov's work. If anyone has another source that is more thorough it would be useful. abexy 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Sounds interesting.

About the recent changes

Sadi Carnot changed the opening of this article recently. He changed the definition, making it incorrect. Limerence can be mutual, it can develop between two people at the same time. A good portion of Tennov's work is dedicated to the interactions between two people who have limerence for each other. It is not something that just comes at the end of a relationship. In addition, her work is not based completely on Stendhal's book, but rather off her own research, polling and interviews over a decade. I'm going to change the article back now. abexy 01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

abexy, let's compromise and work together on the introduction. There's no need to do complete reverts. We can put our heads together and make a good introduction. Compared to all the other books on the psychology, science, or chemistry of love, limerence is by far the most ambiguous. We need to make the article informative in a way that makes a distinction between the topic of "love" and the topic of "limerence". Is this agreeable to you?

If so, we can not simply say:

• limerence = passionate love
• limerence = falling in love

I have read over 50+ similar books on love, and this word by far is the most irritating; in that it is referred to all over the place, but yet it is not defined distinctly enough so as to let the read go away with the feeling that they understand it. Let's work on this. I will make a couple of changes now; then read through the book more today and tomorrow.--Sadi Carnot 14:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, limerence is used very ambiguously. It has a specific definition of the reaction, as outlined in the basic components. That is the clear definition. The problem with the immediate introduction is the same as why there needed to be a new word: there is no clear terminology for it in English. Also, the reason it is so broad is because the limerent reaction is so broad, it extends from the first gentle feeling all the way to consummation or heartbreak, and beyond. This is why I had such trouble with my original introduction. I do like that new introduction which you wrote. abexy 20:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Here's a part I thinks should go in somewhere:

It is limerence, not love that increases when lovers are able to meet only infrequently or when there is anger between them.^[1][2]

References

1. ^ Tennov, Dorothy (1979). Love and Limerence. Maryland: Scarborough House. ISBN 082862864.
2. ^ ibid (pg. 71)
3. ^ Capellanus, Andreas. (1969). The Art of Courtly Love. New York: W.W. Norton.

What does everyone think?--Sadi Carnot 11:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a section should be added about intensification through adversity. I had most of the information on it under the Course of Limerence, but it should have its own section. The second paragraph in the Limerent Reaction section could be moved there as well. abexy 19:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but maybe just call the section: intensification mechanisms; because there seems to numerous ways in which limerence can be triggered to increase in intensity, not just by adversity.--Sadi Carnot 21:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am proposing to split up the love page; see Talk:Love (to vote).--Sadi Carnot 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In love =/= Limerence

Why should "in love" redirect here? This article is about the state we call "in love" as described in a book, as seen by one certain scientist, not as it is widely accepted. "In love" should be seperate.

Correct you are. Changed redirect to love.--Sadi Carnot 23:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Organization of the Article

The article structure has been moved around, for the better I think. The components of limerence are now under Components instead of Distinctions. I also think moving the origins to a separate section is for the best, since explaining what it is and where it came from in the introduction is a little long. And the basic components belong in the introduction, since they are the basic components. I think the article ought to cover what limerence is before it goes onto describe how limerence theory was developed. abexy 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Abexy, I feel your intentions are good; however, the opening section is now too long. We have to remember that we are writing on a computer screen. The user is supposed to be able to see the table of contents on the opening screen. The goal is to make the opening section quick, catchy, and to the point. We want to get people to read what we write. If the opening section is too long, it will tend to turn the typical reader off. See any other Wiki article for comparison. --Sadi Carnot 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood, I moved them back to the Components section. I cannot find a better way to present them than in bullet format, but I still think it would be good to have them in the introduction. Seeing those basic components is what makes most people realize exactly what is meant by "limerence." abexy 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A recommendation

This shouldn't say anything about Plato's God-given true belief. It is full of philosophical assumptions that very few (if anyone) would understand, especially if I am right about its skeptical connotations. dragonlord 03:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes informatin is dangerous for the masses. Better to not mention it at all than risk someone benefitting from it.(sarcasm) Who are you to say don't mention it because they won't understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysianfields (talk • contribs) 21:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am a person who has reasons for my opinions. This is what it said: "True love" must involve an understanding of a person on a fundamental level, which is unlikely to reside in the fantasy of a crush unless one postulates an empathic connection or accepts Plato's concept of God-given right opinion.. This is an opinionated statement. It may be stated using fuzzy terminology in order to hide the fact that it is opinionated. This website is supposed to have objective information. --dragonlord 05:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game

I just lost the game :( FredTheDeadHead 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) "Welcome to the club. Thanks, all, for an excellent article. 18 months to 3 years? Damn, that wasn't my original plan. -E

More

I feel the page requires something more, though it explains the topic nicely. --Bhadani 10:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Passion and Infatuation

Move to Passion

The article on the Christian Passion belongs at Passion (Christianity). This article should be about passion, the emotion, and may include, but not be exclusively defined as Limerance - based on "the research of Dorothy Tennov,[sic - no article?] beginning in the mid 1960s." Apparently she "interviewed and surveyed over 500 people on the topic of romantic love." A regular Kinsey. -Ste|vertigo 01:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But limerence is not passion. Limerence is a specific state of mind as defined by Tennov's research. It may have similarities, it might be a part of passion, and passion might be a part of it, but they are separate concepts. Tennov wrote about the emotional phenomena she called Limerence because there was no other word for it in the English language. I do not even think passion should redirect here, that is not what this article is about. abexy 09:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

concur with abexy. Shouldn't the move request be decided on by now? Icemotoboy 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I also concur with abexy. If one chooses to interpret the concept of Limerence as some sort of subdivision of "passion," then that's one's own choice. However, there is very clearly nothing in this article stating that passion and limerence are synonymous, or even related. It's not even SPECULATED upon. I see no reason why such a move would be beneficial or necessary. Rabid Behemoth 04:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for keeping and not moving, largely on the grounds provided by abexy and Rabid Behemoth. --Atemperman 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Infatuation

I KNOW this has been discussed before, but I can't find my way around here anyway. I'm looking to translate this article into Danish. Normally, I wouldn't ask for help here, but "Limerence" seems to be an invented word, whereas "infatuation" in Danish is "forgabelse" and as so I would be able to translate an article on infatuation. Therefore I'm raising the question again since I couldn't understand what was decided last time. Is it possible to write an article on infatuation? --Lhademmor 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two reasons this isn't titled Infatuation: 1) Limerence isn't infatuation. 2) This article is about the findings of Tennov's research and any additional information gathered on the topic since then. I do not know Danish, but my suggestion would be just to call it "limerence." Though I'm sure that word would sound different in the Danish context than in English. abexy 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But if Limerence isn't infatuation then why does infatuation redirect here? --Lhademmor 11:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Because whoever made the redirect doesn't understand what I said above. Also, no one has gone to the trouble to write a separate entry for Infatuation. abexy 01:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Limerence: Why not just 'romantic love' : Non-limerents and love

The reason that the book is not titled 'romantic love' but a new word was invented is because of Helen Payne. Payne worked on the project with Tennov and at a certain point after an outburst of Payne it became clear that she had never experienced 'romantic love'. Out of respect for her, and all the other non-limerents (est 10% of the population?) ,a new word had to be found. "there was no way around it a new term had to be found", page 15, Limerence (1977) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.188.31.198 (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Limerence as a Concept vs. Verifiability

The way I see it, the notion of limerence is basically unverifiable. Some people almost unfailingly feel every aspect of it while others are confused by the very thought of its existence. There's really no scientific, medical or legal evidence of its existence, or nonexistence. So, why is the page cluttered with so many banners regarding lack of sources and such? You'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate study on the subject with any sense of proving or disproving the information contained within, unless the information is blatantly unprofessional and written terribly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.151.174.208 (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case then the article should be deleted. This violates both the original research clause and the verifiability clause of Wikipedia's rules... in short, if it isn't verifiable, then it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Pianoguy (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is the standard used to determine whether an article should exist or not, about a quarter of the entries in wikipedia should be purged. Be careful what you wish for. William J Bean (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of inexplicable hostility directed towards the very existence of this article. Yes, I agree it should be cleaned up and perhaps shortened. And I agree that some of the more extreme physiological aspects of this phenomenon strike me as a little far-fetched. But the claims of skeptics that this topic doesn't even exist is patently illogical. Not only does the concept seem to be founded on an extensive psychological survey, but many readers confirm that the article is of great value in describing their own experiences--in direct contradiction to the "Low Importance" rating assigned by some arrogant expert. Given all that, why not set aside the arrogance and help improve it? A glance at the evaluation comments suggests that the number one improvement would be to bolster the article with citations from other sources. This is not my field, so I'm not going to do that, but surely someone can. Chairease (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pianoguy ur a damn idiot i can quote you another two section clauses that would justify the existance of the topic which i applaud. keep working on it, Limerence can be proven scientificaly the problem is that not enough reseach has been caried out of the who topic of love, limmerence is part of love, so buy acknowledging love you must akcnowledge that huge desire towards a person that love brings along : i.e. limerence. yes you can have limerence without love. i.e. huge desire without knowing the person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.16.168 (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Chairease said: "There seems to be some sort of inexplicable hostility directed towards the very existence of this article. Yes, I agree it should be cleaned up and perhaps shortened." ..and was right on....and i think this 'inexplicable hostility' has something to do with projection, denial, past psychological wounds regarding 'love', etc, etc that contribute to the intellectual dishonesty regarding whether or not this article should be deleted. also, whether or not something is 'verifiable' or not is VERY subjective. and i think the whole argument that something is not 'scientific' and/or 'verifiable' is a highly suspicious argument. also, i think limerance is very much 'verifiable' (whatever that is supposed to mean). as you will note on this discussion page, many people (and much to my chagrin i must admit that i personally have experienced this mental state described in the 'limerance' article) attest to having experienced the 'symptoms' of 'limerance' ....even going so far as to say that the article described their symptoms to an uncanny degree.

IMO, this article should not even be close to being considered for deletion from wikipedia. being a counselor who works with adolescents and their families in crisis at a mental health hospital, i see the negative and painful effects of 'limerance' on a weekly basis. this article helps further an understanding of this perplexing phenom. of human existence (that we all have experienced if we are honest).

i sincerely hope that the wikipedia admins. do not give in to the 'inexplicable hostility directed towards the very existence of this article' and delete this article, as it would do a great disservice, IMO, to the aims of wikipedia specificlly and the study of the human condition in general. --Username22 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Limerence is very real, a complete cognitive obsession with a person you intensely desire. You think about them all the time, at home, at work, at school, in bed, etc., you are extremely shy around this person, but your emotions are melting inside for them. Of course it exists, to say otherwise is utter ignorance. Hasn't anyone on here ever felt it for somebody?--Metalhead94 (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Although this concept may seem (to some) to be frivolous, irrelevant or insubstantially documented, anyone who has experienced limerence will recognize this phenomenon immediately, and will confirm that it is qualitatively different from infatuation, unrequited love or less intense (translate: less obsessive) forms of romantic love. The distinction provided by this nuance in our understanding of the dynamics of "love" and "romance" is extremely valuable, and I personally am glad the decision was made to keep this entry in as much as discovering this conceptual framework has significantly deepened my understanding of my own experience. Zoejazz (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above post. I have personal experience of limerence, and can confirm that it is entirely different from love and does exist in its own right, even though those who haven't experienced it won't be able to relate to it at all given its irrationality. I've had limerent feelings and been in (mutual) love with the same person, in that order, now I am no longer in love with them (since we broke up) but the limerence still hasn't fully subsided. For the record, I have a extraordinary ability to reason and think rationally, so don't dismiss limerence as being confined to "magical thinkers" or those with their "heads in the clouds" etc. 128.243.253.108 (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a mental health professional working with young adults and use this article often to help people work through attachments that are facilitated by limerence. slightly disturbed that there is some talk of deleting this article, although a fairly surface analysis of one's desire to get rid of this article would reveal said desire is rooted in past wounding around love/attachment (as someone speculated above). 10-16-14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.11.130 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Infatuation

Several people have asked lately why infatuation, along with other things, redirect here. The main reason is because no one has written articles for those yet. They should not redirect here. Excluding that most links to infatuation are not using it in the "I'm oh so in love with this person" sense, such as the Star Trek references it has. But let me explain why limerence is not infatuation, or at least why there should be different articles. Limerence is an attempt at a study into the nature of romantic love, it has a specific definition. Moreover, it can have low levels. The course of limerence is not always an arching to intensity and then puttering down and it does not work like clockwork. Infatuation is an intense feeling of a person to anything. It needs its own article. That said, yes, this article needs, more than anything, some psychologists to edit it. It needs to be free of the people who want to write what they feel. It needs people who have studied personal romantic relationships to come in and put this article in its place. At the very least, it needs people doing research into the subject even if they are not experts. That way, we will have informed editors instead of people who change things because they feel it should be different. Oh, and maybe should someone archive the talk page? abexy 09:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi abexy and everyone, should the entire talk page be archived in one big wad or sectioned off? I'd copied some older entries (2004-2005, with stray 2006 comments) in my sandbox as an example and am working on others as I get a chance. I kept it sandboxed for now pending feedback, rather than just trimming the talk page without warning. Let me know what you think. Jaguara 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done (falls over) Jaguara 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but if not for the link from "infatuation", I never would have known about limerance. (Safepassage 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

I can see *your* point :) but that still leaves us with no article on infatuation and a link to an article that makes it sound like limerence is the proper term for what we call infatuation -- a word and concept that predates limerence by a lot. I think there should be an article on infatuation, which could include a link to the limerence article. They really aren't the same thing, and limerence appears to be more theoretical than scientific.

--Lauriellen (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Limerence can be used to describe an apparent infatuation to material things, I don't know where you got that you couldn't. In my opinion, I think there could be a separate wikipedia link for the infatuation (or limerence) of non-living things, but I don't see it happening until there is more research on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.224.58 (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not support split. Check definitions: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infatuation http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/limerence and maybe support adding the relatively simple definition to the disambiguation page for Infatuation. phocks (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Because the article on Unrequited Love gives an estimate as to how many people are affected by that in their lifetime, can a similar comment be added to this article, too, as to how many people percentage-wise are affected by limerence in their lifetime?75.57.133.102 (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessarily complex language

I'd like to discuss how NOT to write an article:

In "Limerence" under "Game Playing" the below is written:

"No matter how intensely reciprocation is desired it cannot simply be requested. To ask is to risk premature self-disclosure. The interplay is delicate, with the reactions of each person inextricably bound to the behavior of the other - or at least so in the mind of the Limerant."

Why does one have to use such complex vernacular that eliminates 90% of the readers of Wikipedia? Did you score well on your thesis?

"Reciprocation of feelings cannot be requested, and the thought of the other lingers in the mind of the Limerant."

Your use of complex language makes your knowledge inaccessible, and your point lacking. Please, Keep, It, Simple, Stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.203.97 (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold up here. If this is supposed to be a resource on our culture, check out the chat room where limerence is being discussed. It's called Tribe.net in the Limerence Experienced tribe. Instead of meaning "being in love" or "falling in love", as Dorothy Tennov intended, the meaning has morphed. I interpret what those people are talking about to mean a couple things, either "having a romantic love relationship with someone who is inappropriate to be in a romantic love relationship with" or "having fallen in love with someone while not being available to have a romantic love relationship with that someone." As pointed out above, the way Dorothy Tennov wrote leaves the reader with plenty of room for misinterpretation as to her meaning of limerence. I think they're using it to describe falling in love with the wrong person, the phenomenon that currently has no single word to describe it. I write this knowing that chat rooms are full of people who lie, but these conversations seem sincere. with a common theme regarding their grief and/or shame over their feelings.75.57.137.158 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors, how about a statement be added, something like, "Along with Dorothy Tennov's explanation of her new word meaning either being in love or falling in love, current usage includes "the moment one realizes they feel a romantic love attachment for another person along with a feeling of the same intensity that they are the wrong person to feel that way about"? That's what I'm getting out of the above conversations and looking at the chat room. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.137.158 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not always the case, however. Limerents do not necessarily feel that they have fallen in love with the wrong person; they express grief because their culture/religion/personal ethical code is such that they are prevented from pursuing the LO if one or both people are married, in a relationship, in a position of authority, in a distant country, identifying as different sexual orientations, etc. But regardless of logic and attempts to be rational, a limerent mind views the LO as perfectly right/compatible in all respects. The limerent brain wrestles with this problem, trying to tie the intense, pervasive, involuntary feelings into a workable solution...hence the fantasies and cognitive obsession with OCD-like symptoms. At the same time, shame is expressed because (in unrequited situations) these feelings may, and frequently do, result in the violation of internal ethical codes, vows made in marriages, and standards of personal dignity, among other things. Not because the limerent wants to cheat, wants to leave their marriage, wants to stalk their LO, or wants to violate their own sense of self-worth, but because he or she feels unnaturally compelled to do these things, at times against their conscious will. In this sense it is almost like an addiction (to the chemical cocktail/high produced by the brain) or something on the OCD spectrum. I would also like to stress that although limerence can be sparked in a moment, I think it should be emphasized as a process, with specific stages--and is rightly worded and elaborated on as a "reaction" in the current article. The romantic relationship may be nonexistent, but the experience is very real and the loss of cognitive control is terrifying at times, with possible serious consequences in all areas of the limerent's life. I believe this, more than anything, is what distinguishes limerence from love or infatuation. Limerence is a cognitive and emotional extreme which has a deep, widespread effect on the life and wellbeing of the limerent.

I have no studies that prove these things and realize that this admission invalidates what I am saying in the eyes of some readers. But I am offering years of personal experience with this state and have consulted for years with other limerents on Tribe.net; I know that what I am putting forth here is an accurate representation of what most limerents experience, whether this is formally documented or not. I urge more interested parties to take the time to consider what is being discussed in the Tribe.net forum, Limerence Experienced. There are intelligent, informed, and articulate people there who are trying to make sense of limerence, just as we are in the face of little research. There is a wealth of untapped information that could shed new light on this article. Osiyeza (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? http://limerance.tblog.com/75.57.91.248 (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How about using the definition from "Sex in the Bible: a new consideration" by J. Harold Ellens, which gives as it "being in love with love and involves being addicted to the idealized notion of the lover that one has conjured up in one's own mind and heart." Is that a verifiable source?75.56.63.218 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that Wikipedia was intended for the functionally illiterate. Let me rephrase that passage so you can understand:

"Og want Grog. No can tell Grog. Grog can say no."

--Callumny (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Pronunciation?

I'd never heard of this word - nor, it seems, have dictionary.com, chambersharrap.co.uk or yourdictionary.com (Webster). My question is - how is it pronounced? Lim-eh-rance or Lyme-rance (I don't speak IPA) would appear to be the best guesses. Tonywalton ^Talk 20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I came onto this page to post the exact same question - while I found the article very interesting, I couldn't keep from reading it as "lime-rence" throughout, though I would hazard a guess that this is not the correct pronunciation. It seems a truly bizarre word to choose for a concept - the article gives no details on it's etynology. Miasmic (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

According to [3], Tennov just made it up, so it has no etymology. 174.6.73.206 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I heard a radio broadcast, and it was pronounced lim-eh-rance.75.57.81.248 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the way English generally works we tend to break words up so that a syllable has a consonant ending if that is possible. "Lim-er-ence" would be my guess. English tends to link the final vowel of one word with the initial consonant of the next word. We say "toop ost" and not "to...post" unless we are being deliberately didactic, talking extra slowly in a noisy environment, etc. If the word were spelled "limerance" it would still be pronounced "limerence" because that is what we usually do with "-ance" word endings.

How do we say "deliverance?" "Dul" "i" "ver" "ence," no?P0M (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This article should be considered for deletion

From what I can tell, this entire article is based on the point of view of a single researcher, a POV which currently isn't supported by the wider scientific community. The article subsequently reads almost as a form of glorified marketing for the researcher in question; especially the make-up of the external links section points in that direction. The lack of notability, the complete lack of reliable third-party sources and the manner in which this article primarily appears to be a tool for giving self-published material a wider exposure cogently suggests that it needs to be deleted immediately. Malik047 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was considered for deletion last year Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Limerence, and the overwhelming consensus was keep. It has reliable third party sources - with articles in mainstream periodials such as Time Magazine, BBC News, The Guardian and USA Today, so therefore clearly meets the Notability guidelines. That it might be the POV of a single writer and not accepted by the wider scientific community is not a reason for deletion; reading the article this is clear to me. The primary source for the article is the book, but I am concerned that wikipedia editors may have introduced some original research in linking Tennov's ideas with some later findings in brain chemistry and this is difficult to see because not everything is cited. Edgepedia (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about the WP:OR brain chemistry. I removed the offending sections. -Verdatum (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Google scholar has a number of articles (reliable and not) related to this term [4] Edgepedia (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Limerence may ultimately mean little more than a term coined for sets of behaviors already associated with things like infatuation, love, obsession, etc., but I think it's a legitimate article as it describes Tennov's theories and her extensive research, and her work could shed light on what we know about love even if limerence itself is not readily accepted by the larger scientific community. However, beyond the first two sections, a lot of the rest of the article seems to state the author's position as fact, when I think it would be better attributed to her, and perhaps the article could be shortened and/or more references cited. Interesting talk page!

--Lauriellen (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The primary work, if I recall correctly, is not self-published material. It is not the product of a vanity press. A publisher reviewed the content and felt it worthy of publishing. However, the author's text is a primary source. Most of the content for this article should come from secondary sources, meaning other (reputable) sources, who are reviewing the work. While this may not presently be the case, it is the case that sufficient sources exist to make a decent article on this subject possible. Everything past that is an issue of cleanup, not deletion. I did a lot of cleanup when I encountered this article, and I'd love to see a lot more done still.

Still, I can understand the sentiment towards deletion, and if the article was in a far worse state, I could imagine supporting deletion as WP:RUBBISH. -Verdatum (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources:

Paper: The Periodic Table Model of the Gender Transpositions: Part II. Limerent and Lusty Sexual Attractions and the Nature of Bisexuality, by James D. Weinrich The Journal of Sex Research Vol 24 1988

Book: Romantic love and sexual behavior By Victor C. De Munck (p 96 onwards) (Describes the term as 'now famous')

Book: The Bluffer's Guide to Relationships By Mark Mason (p 22 onwards) (A defination)

However looking at the article I wonder if it would be improved somewhat by deleting sections 2 to 4. Edgepedia (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw the word Limerence on a Genome software and didn't know what it meant. I looked it up on the web and found this article. Very interesting. So if it's not a real verifiable word then why is it used in the software program that I have. Keep the article. It taught me something new today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.100.243 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This very existence of this article is bullshit & POV- Cambridge and Webster don't even acknowledge that this word exists. It's nothing but a trademark term invented by a typical fat-headed shrink, and is nothing more than a trademarked synonym for "infatuation". DELETE Sadsaque (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Pepé Le Pew

No mention of Pepé Le Pew as being the ultimate symbol of limerence? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not at all limerent. He pursues his targets, trying to get them to return his affection, but he sees rejection as a temporary setback and doesn't get upset about it.

I think that if someone doesn't view their feeling as a negative thing, even sometimes, then that feeling is not limerence. --68.160.205.114 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)