From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Limerence - Definition issue with regards to relative importance of reciprocation, uncertainty and hope[edit]

In particular this section of the definition: "overwhelming, obsessive need to have one's feelings reciprocated." does not seem to represent the limerant state but instead a form of an "Obsessive Love" which is a different category of romantic attachment and has its own variety of manifestations (which are often likely to co-exist with limerence). One may be obsessed with experiencing and expressing the love while in a limerant state, but the intent can be varied and the progression of the relationship towards its natural conclusion may be desired, whether that is reciprocation or not.

I also think it's important to mention the underlying context in which the limerant state arises, a certain mixture of uncertainty and hope. From my understanding the crucial elements of limerance are uncertainty about relationship progression, hope for reciprocation (which may or may not be obsession - but often manifests as intrusive thoughts, fantasy or projections), and actual emotional feelings of love/attachment.

Limerence as a Concept vs. Verifiability[edit]

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 (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 (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. (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 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


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 (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not support split. Check definitions: 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? (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This article should be considered for deletion[edit]

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 [1] 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 (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)

Unnecessarily complex language[edit]

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 (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 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. (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 (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; 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 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? (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? (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).


I'd never heard of this word - nor, it seems, have, or (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 [2], Tennov just made it up, so it has no etymology. (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I heard a radio broadcast, and it was pronounced lim-eh-rance. (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 "" 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)

Pepé Le Pew[edit]

No mention of Pepé Le Pew as being the ultimate symbol of limerence? (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. -- (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

split into a new article?[edit]

I can't quite believe that someone has expressed the idea of splitting this article into a new article called infatuation. Was that really the idea?

When one splits something, one should get at least two pieces, no? There would then be whatever in this article expresses (probably redundant) ideas on infatuation, and then whatever is "limerence" but not really infatuation.

To me that would be a little like splitting an article intended to discuss the relationship among factors such as ambient temperature, ambient humidity, and physiological homeostatic mechanisms related to body temperature into an article entitled "Feeling hot." P0M (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you've ever experienced it, but I can't imagine people rejecting their infatuation as a bad thing.
Limerence, on the other hand, is often unwanted. The "intrusive thoughts" are intrusive because they're undesired, but can't be stopped. From what I read on, these people wish that it would just go away. There's even a story here about a woman who admitted her feelings, expecting to get rejected, and becoming distressed when the feelings were reciprocated, because even though she was so ecstatic afterwards, what she really wanted was to lose the feelings.
I think what would be helpful is a section discussing the difference between limerence and other feelings involved in relationships. -- (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding, as someone suffering from what I would describe as limerence, infatuation and limerence are two separate things. Infatuation is short-lived attraction to someones, usually physically. Limerence occurs when you grasp more of a persons personality, and perceive connections made with the person, so that a strong feeling of attachment and desire for that person develops, but it is not yet real love because you do not know that person fully inside and out, which is required to love someone.Yonskii (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above contribution. I congratulate the authors of this article which accurately describes a condition which is imo much more common than many people realise and which needs to be more widely recognised. The article is not OR because it is based on the research of an accredited academic. Please do not split or delete it. Viewfinder (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that the term may have been invented to make a new stab at a precise understanding of a condition that overlaps some or all of the things that we informally identify as infatuation. Infatuation is generally a negative term that indicates bedazzlement and loss of control. It is something that is viewed as "to be expected" of young people, but something that is criticized if it interferes with the social functioning of a full adult.
If we look at limerence from the standpoint of zoology, then it seems to me to make sense. Almost all animals engage in courtship rituals. The purpose is to conquer fear and aggression. Even simple creatures such as jumping spiders engage in a mutual recognition process that identifies potential mates, and, most important, puts the female into an agreeable state for mating and subdues her hunger. Humans are far more complex, but we still need to establish relationships that may be inhibited by fears generated by unfamiliarity and/or prior negative experiences with other humans. The phenomena described as limerance imply an altered neurophysiological state. This state tends to make doubts and suspicions disappear, and the potential mate to be over-valued. The altered state persists for long enough for a child to be born, and then a new form of bonding takes precedence, one in which the bond between the parents is reinforced by their individual bonds with the child.
There is a historical record of a sort from China's Tang dynasty. A young man who does not even have affection from his own family, who has been indoctrinated against extramarital relations, etc., meets a young woman (really a teenage girl) who suddenly breaks through his reserve. He sees the possibility of psychological intimacy. She interprets his interest as purely sexual. She has severe character structure issues and has probably suffered prior sexual abuse. Her mother is an enabler and was probably an enabler of whatever person hurt her to begin with. The man can see none of the negative factors and therefore cannot do anything effective to ameliorate them. (See my translation at
Limerence is a gateway to sexual interactions, not an expression of sexual interest, but the distinction is hard to see. It is particularly difficult to fathom the whole thing for those who have grown up in a society that equates love and sexual relations. P0M (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that the "common law marriage" between the two characters in the story mentioned above lasted only about as long as limerence is supposed to keep people together while waiting for the first child. The young lady in the (probably autobiographical) story never became pregnant. The young man eventually realized that his mental functioning was distorted and that while the young woman was sexually available to him she was not in the least intimate with him psychologically. He terminated the relationship after a long period during which she accused him of being on the verge of abandoning her, a self-fulfilling prophecy.P0M (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Clean up - especially definition[edit]

I don't feel competent enough to do it myself, but here are some thoughts:

1) Definition in the introduction makes little sense - unless limerence is "a state which SEEMS TO RESULT from a romantic relation", which could be just about anything. An actual definition is in the "characteristics" paragraph and should be used instead.

Done. Kbog (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

2) Someone mentioned in the discussion that the term morphed - it has a different meaning now from what Tennov meant. Make it clear.

3) "Limerent" can be both a noun meaning "object of limerance" ("limerent object") and an adjective meaning both "one experiencing limerance" ("limerenct person") and one being an object of it (see above). It's confusing - make it clear.

4) Second paragraph, second sentence is repetetive, repetetive. And that somebody uses a term "sexual incentive motivation" in their work doesn't mean it has to stand out in the introduction being duly confusing by its pleonastic nature (incentive is almost a synonym of motivation).

5) Shorten the whole article, it's definitly too long for the subject.

Agreed. Kbog (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

6) Clear the jargon - e.g. "particular carving up of the semantic domain of love" (meaning it's a "a subtype/kind of love") and strangely built sentences (semicolons are ok in French academic writting, but confusing to Anglo-Saxon readers). And style that seems to be directly copied from a coursebook (Tennov's, perhaps). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loard (talkcontribs) 17:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the word - request for someone to write up a summary of the references below (or more)[edit]

The article states who coined the word and why, but not from what. I thought that it was related to liminality (from the Latin word līmen, meaning "a threshold"), a concept first developed by anthropologists in the early 20th century, but it's not.

I'm going to add cross-references ("not to be confused with") at the top of both Limerence & Liminality, but my chronic illness is acting up so I can't take the energy and therefore the time to make this post smaller (apologies to Blaise Pascal & WP:TLDR), much less concisely add the info below to the article. I suggest a brief Etymology section quoting the coiner's purposeful attempt at lack of...uh...etymology. I would still call the section Etymology to be parallel with other articles' and because it answers the question of etymology that readers pose, as seen below. (about halfway down, apparently from the publisher of her ebook)

The Linguistics of Limerence—Professional Article

Dr. Tennov writes, “It is rare that an artificial term, invented, and chosen deliberately to be without cognates, that originates at a known date and place, expands tractably during a quarter-century, across disciplines and continents, sometimes arriving at meanings different from that intended by its inventor.”

(By the way, if you “Google” on the word “limerence” today, you'll discover over 120,000 references, from rock music groups to neurology articles. People have adopted the word in literature, poetry, as the name of a consulting business, and even pornography.)

What's particularly interesting about limerence is its etymology, or lack thereof, as explained in this quote from Dorothy Tennov, the word's inventor: 1977 Observer 11 Sept. 3/9, I first used the term ‘amorance’ then changed it back to ‘limerence’... It has no roots whatsoever. It looks nice. It works well in French. Take it from me it has no etymology whatsoever.

Thanks in advance, even if all you could do is read all this. :) --Geekdiva (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed minor mistakes. Also, the previous poster from 2011 had some good points, too. --Geekdiva (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

SPELLING? MORPHING? All words morph, of course, but I was surprised to see this word take on such a technical meaning (not a bad thing) over the years. I distinctly remember attending a conference, about 1981, where I learned this word from a speaker who said something to this effect: "I don't like the word infatuation, so in my book I created the word 'limerance,' as it just has a better ring to it than infatuation." I don't remember the speaker at all, not even her gender, but it must have been Tennov. I remembered the word and have used it many times since. I've always spelled the word "limerance" (looks more lyrical than limerence, as in the word "dance"), and I see that spelling used all over the web. I don't have her book, but I assume it says "limerence," since that is what most are using here. Yet many, even on this page, are spelling it limerance. I like the notion that a "limerent object" is the object of limerance—but I'm not trying to change anything here, just noting the widespread use of both spellings and that we should aim for consistency. ChicagoLarry (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Several issues[edit]

***1) Under definition: "Though there are no established preconditions for limerence, there is a high rate of coincidence between limerence, depersonalization/derealization disorders, and dysfunctional attachment environments in childhood."

Can we get a citation here? I've never read any research relating limerence to depersonalization/derealization disorders, but if it exists, I'd sure like to.

***2) Under characteristics: "Affection and fondness exist only as a disposition towards another person, irrespective of whether those feelings are reciprocated, whereas limerence deeply desires return, but IT REMAINS UNALTERED WHETHER IT'S RETURNED OR NOT."

Tennov stated that there were three ways that limerence subsided: 1) consummation (reciprocation), 2) starvation, and 3) transference. If the limerent's feelings are genuinely returned, it can/may fall under 1. Each limerent has a slightly different view of acceptable reciprocation. Some limerents, upon achieving reciprocation/consummation, remain limerent (as documented by Tennov)…while other limerents do not achieve any "real" consummation (e.g., physical, or in the form of an actual relationship) but find their limerence waning after an LO professes similar feelings.

***3) Under sexuality: "In such cases, limerence may form as a defense mechanism against the limerent object, who is not perceived initially as a romantic ideal, but as a physical threat to the limerent. This is particularly consistent among limerents who were formerly victims of sexual abuse or trauma."

Again, is there a citation for this? I'm not sure when this article was so thoroughly changed from its previous incarnation(s), but this newer version makes a lot of statements linking limerence to psychological disorders, trauma, and attachment theory…some of the claims are made with citations, others are not, and I'm curious as to where all of this is coming from.

***4) Under sexuality: "Limerence elevates body temperature and INCREASES RELAXATION, a sensation of viewing the world with rose-tinted glasses, becoming more receptive to sexuality, and daydreaming."

How does limerence increase relaxation? This should be more specifically explained or denoted, given that this article also stated:

"There is apprehension, nervousness, and anxiety due to terrible worry that any action may bring about disaster."

"...[contact] is accompanied with an acute feeling of ecstasy or despair, depending on the turn of events beforehand."

"Considerable self-doubt and uncertainty may be experienced, leading to 'personal incapacitation expressed through an unsettling shyness in the presence of the [L] person'[14] - something which causes pain, but also enhances desire to a certain extent…"''

***5) Under limerent reaction: "The correlation with dissociative disorders is particularly high among "serial" limerents."

Citation, please. I am a serial limerent and have known other serial limerents, but I have never heard this. On the other hand, I *do* know of NON-serial limerents who were affected by dissociative disorders. Honestly, if this research is out there, I'm interested in reading it.

***6) Under impact: "David Brooks defines limerence as a potentially positive, unifying, transformative encounter with the divine, or oneness of mankind.[21]"

I watched this video, and the only mention made about limerence was around the 15min mark--Brooks was not even talking about limerence as explained in this article. I am almost positive he is using some other definition of the word (possibly mistaken), in a totally different context, and I have no idea why this is even cited here.

Osiyeza (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I like David Brooks, but I was surprised that his comment was even mentioned here, as though he were a recognized expert on the psychology of emotions rather than a political/cultural commentator. If Rush Limbaugh shared his thoughts about limerence, would they go before or after David's? (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Devotion to Celestial Qualities[edit]

"Attendant to stress on the celestial qualities perceived, and devotion to them, there is abundant doubt of reciprocal amity: rejection."

What? Is there meaning here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:37E7:9D70:9489:5A4F:D09:AC18 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Propose Adding Section: Causes[edit]

I propose adding a Causes section to the Limerence page. Mgdupont (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose Adding Section: Overcoming Limerence[edit]

I propose adding an Overcoming Limerence section to the Limerence page. Mgdupont (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Minor: obsessive vs compulsive[edit]

Intro sentence currently includes "compulsive thoughts". I think "obsessive thoughts" is more correct, since compulsions are behaviours whereas obsessions are thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110:8008:1010:0:0:0:201 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Came here to say the same thing, so I fixed it. The whole article needs a lot of work, but this bugged me too much to leave it for when I can spend more time on the rest. Permstrump (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A product of Asperger's Autism?[edit]

There is some indication that limerence is the product of a person with Asperger's Syndrome fixating on a person, instead of an object.GESICC (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you link to some reliable sources supporting that statement? Permstrump (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is always the product? Wikkrockiana (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Limerence/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

My main question is that if this article is put under the greater purview of WikiProject Psycology, will that increase the reader base of this article? Not that such an expansion of the reader base is unwelcome, mind you. Hopefully those interested in psycology will not be so quick to dismiss the major premises of the article, and instead focus upon the smaller nuances and wording. The ratings are justified, by the way, in their own language directly, for example see the page on quality.

Last edited at 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pathological? Distinguished from other kinds of love?[edit]

Is limerence pathological? Always pathological? How do we distinguish limerence from exciting love? The article should make this clear. Wikkrockiana (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)