![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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.
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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.
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)
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)