Why is limerence so bad?

Page 1 of 6 [ 96 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,743
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

11 Sep 2016, 3:31 am

I've noticed that we've come to look down on limerence on this forum as though it's a phase only the most pathetic experience.

Some if the best lobe songs were inspired by limerence. Once of the kindest people I know has been known to wallow in limerence. Is it really such a character flaw?

Do we despise it in others because we want to root it out of our own hearts?

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

11 Sep 2016, 3:44 am

Because it's often based on the brief interactions with the subject
and 90% on fantasy.

It's love based mostly on romantic fantasies with a real person, but without any romantic interaction with this person.

In my opinion, it is a usually symptom of lack of mutual love in one's life - it is similar to one succumbing to too mcuh masturbation (which often reflects lack of real sex life).

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,534
Location: Houston, Texas

11 Sep 2016, 3:47 am

Don't think of it as bad. I am totally confused about the whole concept myself.

_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

11 Sep 2016, 4:00 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Because it's often based on the brief interactions with the subject
and 90% on fantasy.

Why is that bad?

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

It's love based mostly on romantic fantasies with a real person, but without any romantic interaction with this person.

Not really. When I experience this, it might be a lot of fantasy involved, but there is always a mutual interest. It's a kind of game that people will participate in instead of "asking out" or dating, and it will not continue without mutual interest. Also, when it goes well, it will end up as real romantic interaction and a relationship.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

In my opinion, it is a usually symptom of lack of mutual love in one's life - it is similar to one succumbing to too mcuh masturbation (which often reflects lack of real sex life).

Disagree. Masturbating instead of having regular sex does not necessarily mean you want the latter but settle for the former. It could also be that somebody is asexual, and only want the former. The same is true for limerence. These people do not necessarily want to date and ask out, and then settle for only admiring somebody. It could also be that they only desire limerance, observation, and the related game playing, and don't like dating or asking out.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

11 Sep 2016, 4:05 am

It is bad because it is a huge waste of time and leads to nothing.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

11 Sep 2016, 4:09 am

hurtloam wrote:

I've noticed that we've come to look down on limerence on this forum as though it's a phase only the most pathetic experience.

For me, limerence is the highest state of human existence. :mrgreen:

hurtloam wrote:

Some if the best lobe songs were inspired by limerence. Once of the kindest people I know has been known to wallow in limerence. Is it really such a character flaw?

It's no more a character flaw than neurodiversity is a character flaw.

hurtloam wrote:

Do we despise it in others because we want to root it out of our own hearts?

No idea about others, but I love it so I guess that means I cannot answer that one.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

11 Sep 2016, 4:19 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

It is bad because it is a huge waste of time and leads to nothing.

So you mean dating has a higher success rate than limerence? That may be true for NTs, but it seems like dating has a very poor success rate for many NDs, and in addition to being a waste of time that leads nowhere, it also leads to depression and negativity.

I don't view it as a waste of time even when it leads nowhere. My ultimate purpose with limerence is not an LTR, but a rewarding experience. In fact, the whole purpose of limerence is the experience itself, and a potential relationship is just an additional bonus. If you only regard regular sex in a LTR as an acceptable outcome, then you no doubt will find limerence a waste of time. Still, not everybody has such priorities.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

11 Sep 2016, 4:58 am

I don't have a problem with it.

It has inspired a lot of creativity.

I do have a problem with resentment of the subject of desire, I have seen that a lot and I strongly dislike this behaviour.

If someone is suffering, sometimes I will tell them to give up of on wanting someone who obviously isn't reciprocating their interest. I may be quite blunt with them, as often it is easier the quicker the move on. It is not done out of hate.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

11 Sep 2016, 6:36 am

rdos wrote:

I don't view it as a waste of time even when it leads nowhere. My ultimate purpose with limerence is not an LTR, but a rewarding experience. In fact, the whole purpose of limerence is the experience itself, and a potential relationship is just an additional bonus. If you only regard regular sex in a LTR as an acceptable outcome, then you no doubt will find limerence a waste of time. Still, not everybody has such priorities.

I have covered this before but your assessment of neurodiverse as mutually exclusive toNT is flawed. The clue is in the name, ND covers all neurologies, it is a concept not a rigidly defined group. You treat ND as a single entity that acts an thinks in a certain way becuase of your theories relating to Neanderthals, which are unsubstantiated. That is not want is meant by diverse at all.

NT is a relative term not an absolute. A spectral condition is not the whole person either.

Just becuase you think a certain way, and are on the spectrum doesn't mean you know how other people in this arbitrary ND group will think or act, or are more intuitive about it.

You enjoy unrequited love, I suspect you are in the minority especially as obsession takes hold. That is not to say limerence has no value at all when it is unrequited.

Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

11 Sep 2016, 7:35 am

As Sweet

It's all because we're so alike
Twin souls, we two.
We smile at the expression, yes,
And know it's true.

I told the shrink. He gave our love
A different name.
But he can call it what he likes-
It's still the same.

I long to see you, hear your voice,
My narcissistic object-choice.

- Wendy Cope

In the words of Jacques Lacan, love is offering something you don't have to someone who doesn't exist. In that sense, aren't most relationships a sort of mutual limerence, each partner happily confusing the map for the territory, glad to be mistakenly idealised?

Ethically, we might say that limerence could preclude a more giving, generous, compassionate love; limerence seems to be more about the lover than the beloved. Wilde said that a sentimentalist 'is someone who desires to have the luxury of an emotion without paying the price', and I think there's a parallel there.

Which is not to say that I have not been there myself, or do not appreciate the art it has inspired. I have (and am often uneasy with) an inclination to/preference for melancholy detachment, and an indulgent limerence suits that just fine.

Quote:

Do we despise it in others because we want to root it out of our own hearts?

In many cases, yes. I think this holds true for a lot of other things, too. I think it comes from both wanting to root it out and not being able to bear doing so. If we externalise and take fight against what it is we don't want in ourselves, there's no need to try and change.

I quoted this passage a few days ago on another thread. I think it's pertinent here. It's from The Ballad of the Sad Cafe by Carson McCullers:

Quote:

First of all, love is a joint experience between two persons — but the fact that it is a joint experience does not mean that it is a similar experience to the two people involved. There are the lover and the beloved, but these two come from different countries. Often the beloved is only a stimulus for all the stored-up love which had lain quiet within the lover for a long time hitherto. And somehow every lover knows this. He feels in his soul that his love is a solitary thing. He comes to know a new, strange loneliness and it is this knowledge which makes him suffer. So there is only one thing for the lover to do. He must house his love within himself as best he can; he must create for himself a whole new inward world — a world intense and strange, complete in himself. Let it be added here that this lover about whom we speak need not necessarily be a young man saving for a wedding ring — this lover can be man, woman, child, or indeed any human creature on this earth.

Now, the beloved can also be of any description. The most outlandish people can be the stimulus for love. A man may be a doddering great-grandfather and still love only a strange girl he saw in the streets of Cheehaw one afternoon two decades past. The preacher may love a fallen woman. The beloved may be treacherous, greasy-headed, and given to evil habits. Yes, and the lover may see this as clearly as anyone else — but that does not affect the evolution of his love one whit. A most mediocre person can be the object of a love which is wild, extravagant, and beautiful as the poison lilies of the swamp. A good man may be the stimulus for a love both violent and debased, or a jabbering madman may bring about in the soul of someone a tender and simple idyll. Therefore, the value and quality of any love is determined solely by the lover himself.

It is for this reason that most of us would rather love than be loved. Almost everyone wants to be the lover. And the curt truth is that, in a deep secret way, the state of being beloved is intolerable to many. The beloved fears and hates the lover, and with the best of reasons. For the lover is forever trying to strip bare his beloved. The lover craves any possible relation with the beloved, even if this experience can cause him only pain.

_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

11 Sep 2016, 8:02 am

0_equals_true wrote:

I have covered this before but your assessment of neurodiverse as mutually exclusive toNT is flawed. The clue is in the name, ND covers all neurologies, it is a concept not a rigidly defined group.

That's the useless definition of neurodiversity that has no scientific merit.

0_equals_true wrote:

You treat ND as a single entity that acts an thinks in a certain way becuase of your theories relating to Neanderthals, which are unsubstantiated. That is not want is meant by diverse at all.

No, I treat ND and NT as separate spectrums. I've proven conclusively that this is how they operate. ND is not at the extreme end of being NT. It has its own trait distribution that is overlapping with the NT trait distribution.

0_equals_true wrote:

NT is a relative term not an absolute. A spectral condition is not the whole person either.

Of course, but you can still talk about traits as being ND or NT. That doesn't mean they apply to individuals (they don't).

0_equals_true wrote:

Just becuase you think a certain way, and are on the spectrum doesn't mean you know how other people in this arbitrary ND group will think or act, or are more intuitive about it.

I know the means pretty well, which is all that is interesting to discuss. We cannot go into each individual here on WP, as that would give unusable results.

0_equals_true wrote:

You enjoy unrequited love, I suspect you are in the minority especially as obsession takes hold. That is not to say limerence has no value at all when it is unrequited.

I never said I enjoyed unrequited love. I only enjoy limerence when there is some kind of mutual interest (romantic or other), which has always been the case for me. In fact, mutual interest is usually required before I even can get a crush.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

11 Sep 2016, 8:11 am

Hopper wrote:

Ethically, we might say that limerence could preclude a more giving, generous, compassionate love; limerence seems to be more about the lover than the beloved. Wilde said that a sentimentalist 'is someone who desires to have the luxury of an emotion without paying the price', and I think there's a parallel there.

I'm not sure what price you are supposed to pay to be allowed to be in love with somebody? Only cold and totally egoistic types think that you "need to pay a price for emotions". Even if our culture would enojy punishing people for "emotions they are not allowed to have", it will never happen. Simply put, your emotions is nobodys business, and nobody is going to be able to punish you for preferring limerence over dating.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

11 Sep 2016, 8:14 am

Limerance sucks because it is frustrating.

Limerance is great because it gave rise to many great works of literature.

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

11 Sep 2016, 8:19 am

There are those who dwell in obsession
Who try so hard to make an impression
- but their effort is in vain
- they have nothing to gain
For their infatuation yields only depression

There... a limerick about limerence... :mrgreen:

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

11 Sep 2016, 8:24 am

kraftiekortie wrote:

Limerance sucks because it is frustrating.

Limerance is great because it gave rise to many great works of literature.

No, it isn't frustrating. It's a happy and wonderful feeling in every way. Unless you make too many expectations of what it will lead to. The rejection of limerence in Western culture is simply the result of a very shallow culture. We supposedly should not bother with things that have no immediate reward, and everything must be time-effective. This is why so many people in our culture are depressed.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

11 Sep 2016, 8:29 am

GGPViper wrote:

Maybe then you can explain how the bad attitude toward limerence in Western culture coincidences with high rates of depression?

FYI, I enjoy limerence and infatuation, and I've NEVER been depressed.

Page 1 of 6 [ 96 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Why is limerence so bad? Post Reply New Topic

Why is limerence so bad?