I’m incredibly skeptical of any theory that claims that a drive as deep rooted and culturally universal in our psyches as limerence is somehow environmentally dependent. I have not read that book but it appears academic reviews of it were overwhelmingly negative, and I’m not at all surprised. Ever since Rousseau the west has produced an enormous quantity of fantastical re-imaginations of the past that try to portray it as something other than what it was: nasty, brutish, and short.

The idea that men did not care about paternity or that women were not selective in their mating choices makes absolutely no sense evolutionarily.

I’d argue that limerence is a form of unchecked infatuation as you’d get in post-paleo societies which allow for hierarchy, non-closeness, (now even through smartphones) and all sorts of ‘unnatural’ structures.

Before people typically had 2 or more (sexual) relations at a given time, would know all their partners basically their whole life and limerence would be something I’d imagine be taught not to (!) early on – albeit even in seemingly cruel ways such as (forced) ritual group sex.

For example, some South American tribal peoples hold that you are supposed to willingly respond to sexual advances after a certain age. Thus for example, a Western researcher found a young boy hiding with him in his hut as the boy was chased by a slightly older horny girl. Well if that doesn’t cure the boy of fantasies about girls as some pedestal worthy objects then what does? I’d imagine this society would surely ground you in the rather cold(?) / everyday(?) (but also rich in actual real experiences) reality of our physical needs.

Allie,
“….It is more a gradual crossing over from limerent love into long term contented bonded love.”
Has that happened? Once I get over the LE, it’s like I suddenly put my glasses on and see the LO more clearly. And my first thought is: What was I thinking? I’m not even sure I like this person.
“Also I must again argue against this idea that the 95% non-limerent population are all “practical” in relationships – in my experience, most non-limerents experience strong romantic passion too.”
I didn’t meant that non-limerents don’t experience passion. I meant that all relationships fueled by initial passion end up in the same place as those that didn’t …. into long-term, companionate love. And that’s if you are lucky, because the passion can obscure gaping holes in compatibility.

Hi Sammy,
“And you don’t have to be with LO to see LO more clearly. ”
I can see the LO more clearly over time, but in order to get completely over the LE, I either have to date and spend time with the person or … find another LO! That’s bad. If I don’t don’t have a real shot at being with the LO in a relationship, they hang in my mind like a fantasy, albeit a diminished one. (For example, it can’t be friends with benefits situation. That would fuel the LE because the LO would be at a distance.)
” In my imagination, he was “the perfect gentleman”. In real life, he was a step or two above a bogan. ”
That’s funny. I’m the opposite. Give me Clark Gable over Cary Grant any day. They need a little dirty birdy in ’em. 🙂

“One day, you wake up and the LE is over, and it’s like being slammed on to the cold pavement. Suddenly, you see the LO much more clearly. The limerent will be lucky if he/she winds up with someone with whom he is compatible and shares common goals. Ironically, he/she winds up with the same thing the practical, non-limerent has (or maybe even less).”
So well put Marcia, and so true! For me the trick is to recognise the glimmer early and only allow it to develop if the person is worthy which requires you get to know them a bit first as friends. Of course, not easy to do when you are a limerent. This way (at least for me) there is not the sudden LE end, it is more a gradual crossing over from limerent love into long term contented bonded love.
Also I must again argue against this idea that the 95% non-limerent population are all “practical” in relationships – in my experience, most non-limerents experience strong romantic passion too.

We put them on a pedestal because it fulfils our needs and wants to do so. And then it feeds our LE by giving us a better fantasy and therefore bigger limerent high.
Ahh….the “perfect gentleman”….I am very susceptible to that one myself although I am no longer able to shoehorn the non-genuine into that shape with my fantasies – only a genuinely good man can be my LO these days.
I think I have just read Bronte and Austin too many times! My LO reminds me of an older Mr Darcy.

Oh, I agree totally. And you don’t have to be with LO to see LO more clearly. I think back to the guy I liked in high school and realise he wasn’t the person I imagined him to be. In my imagination, he was “the perfect gentleman”. In real life, he was a step or two above a bogan. (“Bogan” is Australian slang for someone who is uncouth i.e. the opposite of the perfect gentleman).

Some of LO’s flaws:

(1) He didn’t cover his mouth when he yawned. (Even his mother complained about this!)
(2) He almost stole a library book once from pure absent-mindedness – he was just going to walk out of the building without borrowing it.
(3) He preferred to do assignments in the holidays instead of socialising with friends who had made a big effort to come over and see him. (Rude much? No, I wasn’t among said friends).
(4) He didn’t say hello to my younger sister when he visited my house. My sister is overweight. However, she was at a sensitive moment in adolescence when she would have liked a friendly greeting from an attractive, slightly older boy who was friends with her brother – it would have been a boost for her self-esteem.

Clearly, my LO was never the person I adored. He was a human being with a lot of incredibly obvious human flaws. I’m beginning to wonder why I put him on a pedestal in the first place and where did I get the “perfect gentleman” image from anyway? Was I completely mad and/or suffering from delusions of grandeur?

He did eventually get a girlfriend/wife. She spoke to him rather sharply at times and he never seemed to notice or care. I don’t know if the marriage was/is a happy one. However, I take comfort in the thought that at least his SO is relating to a real person and not a fantasy figure. She doesn’t see him as a demigod!!

Hi Sammy,
“Well, I think two non-limerents who come together on the basis of common goals would be better at building a stable long-term relationship. ”
I agree, but even for the limerent, the LE eventually wears off. Actually, the best way to get over an LO is to be with that person. One day, you wake up and the LE is over, and it’s like being slammed on to the cold pavement. Suddenly, you see the LO much more clearly. The limerent will be lucky if he/she winds up with someone with whom he is compatible and shares common goals. Ironically, he/she winds up with the same thing the practical, non-limerent has (or maybe even less).