Why is limerence so bad?

Post Reply New Topic

Very clever limerick!

I'm not a shallow person. I just don't like to be in limbo about romantic sorts of things.

Can you explain, with a concrete example, what you mean by 'bad attitude' to limerence? It seems to me limerence is pretty readily indulged. Most popular songs are:

1. Oh, I love you so much and am glad you love me.

2. Oh, I love you so much and wish you loved me.

3. Oh, I love you so much and wish you still loved me.

The latter two, and possibly all three, seem to come pretty easily under 'limerence'.

I'll come back to 'paying the price'.

It has almost attained a disorder label in the DSM as "insecure attachment". To these people, obsessive feelings are a disorder rather than something good.

In addition to that, many people here believe that limerence can only end in misery and depression, something they must have learned culturally.

As I have already stated, you need to consider limerence as a rewarding experience, not as a sexual fling or a sure path to an LTR. Yet, that's not what our culture is telling us. We are told that everything needs to be time efficient, and limerence will never be time efficient. It's not even intended to be time efficient. It is like you watch a movie, and you get to see a short summary instead of the full movie because it is more time efficient.

neurodiversity is concept it isn't scientific identifier other than to indicate diversity of brains. No one proposed it was neurotype itself other than you. Like I said the clue is in the name.



Where have you proven it? Which peer reviewed journal is it published it. How do I repeat the experiment based on your criteria?

Nuerodiversity is not one spectrum. There are multiple spectrum not one, this is a way of modeling nature relative to different traits. You are still treating these spectrum as exclusive types. The whole point of a spectrum is degree, it interfaces with the typical range. A person can be on various spectrum at once. There are no absolute conditions it is all modeling of nature. Saying there is nuertypical spectrum mean you also don't understand what typical means in this context. The whole point of typicality is is describes a range within spectrum that is more typical than not.



You can talk of the degree to which traits are in the typical range or not. Although there are various way you could determine what constitutes a typical range, it can a bit ambiguous without definite criteria.



Maybe it is a how you speak but you do talk of how NT and ND behave, so it is as if you are talking about a group of people the you either belling to or not.

This is your opinion nothing else.


Ok that was an misunderstanding on my part.

I also seem to remember you saying you enjoyed the part when you don't know if they like you or not but I may be missremembering.

I guess the degree to which you are obsessed is important an how it affect your life and theirs.

In the UK at least, there's an awful lot in the DSM that's widespread, celebrated cultural practice, and isn't going away anytime soon.

I don't think anything is a problem until it's a problem.



Or, after reflection on experience, and observation of others'.



I need to consider it no such thing. I have my own perspective, which may differ from yours, but I can respect your experience all the same. I don't need there to be an objective, definitional 'correct' experience of limerence as A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.

I don't know about Sweden, but at best it's a cultural current in the UK, not a dominant theme.



I would pretty much agree with the gist of this.

I've already posted the reference here, but I can repeat it:
Ekblad, L. (2013). Autism, personality, and human diversity: Defining neurodiversity in an iterative process using Aspie Quiz, SAGE Open July-September 2013: 1–14. Doi: 10.1177/2158244013497722.
Link: http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/3/3/2158 ... l.pdf+html

It is just loneliness and desire and shyness. Usually stopped by talking to a person and seeing if they are interested.

I dont see much wrong with limerence (as I understand the concept) if you're not married to someone other than the object of the limerencing.

I don't think you need romantic interaction with a person to enable warm romantic feelings for them to develop. If you observe how they behave, how they interact with other people and find out things like what their sense of humour is like and have conversations with them about what is important to them then you do get to know who they are and you can develop unrequited feelings for them.

All that really happens is that you find them lovable. When they do something well you feel this warm fuzzy sense of happiness inside you and you think well done my friend.

Although you also want to hug and kiss them because they are attractive to you and so adorable.

In my opinion, real love happens as a consequence of a real and mutual bonding with the person, and not only by observing their behavior from afar.

I did mention interacting with them and having conversations about what interests them hence the use of the words "have conversations"

Oooh. I've just realised limerence doesn't mean what I thought it did. Nevermind. Please continue the discussion.

I thought it was a technical term for unrequited live.

I don't think fantasies are useful. They only fuel the fire into an unreal place and makes the feelings out of proportion.

Ok.

Your point does stand for the limerence debate. Can you really love someone that you never interact with?

I don't believe you can. You can feel lust for that person, though.

That depends on what interact is. You can interact in so many different ways, and conversation is not the only way.

So I'd say you must interact in order to love somebody, but it could be an observation game, an online game, or anything else where you give each other feedback.