I agree

I did tell one friend about my Limerence and his answer was to just “get over it, middle life crisis, and to Act My Age” and that it was NOT an addiction, but just telling me that it was not a real addiction

Sure FEELS like one

I also agree with this gambler scenario. Limerence is like next level obsession. The drive and desire I had for LO was like day and night over LF.

There was some discussion I had with a few on here who thought differently, but I still stand by that I was truly only limerent for LO.
For months I felt as if I was living in the altered state and craved just seeing glimpses of her. Even if it was from far away. It was like I couldn’t go on if I didn’t know she was around. Just seeing her car would put me at ease. The up and down roller coaster of emotions are terrible.

As Ms. Lovisa has stated, it is a very disruptive state to be in. The word Limerence should never be used casually..

Dr L, your gambling analogy is great! You certainly have your work cut out for you because people are picking up the term “limerence” and using it as a standard stage of relationship formation. They don’t seem to grasp that the altered state of mind is far more disruptive than one experiences with infatuation or a breakup. I cringe when I hear the word “limerence” used casually. Thank you for spreading the message!

☁️,

‘Hope’ is a weird one for me and it has needed to be pulled apart into more than one level as I’ve been trying to squash all the air out of my LE.

From quite early on, I understood on a thinking, intellectual level that there was little hope of any positive outcome with LO (certainly not one which involved consummation, as I was and am with an SO who I didn’t want to leave). I can identify a moment later on when that ‘little hope’ became a real intellectual understanding of ‘NO hope’. There was no practical way it could happen.

But – and I don’t know if you relate – ‘hope’ also moved around weirdly through secret passages in an emotional sense, almost separate from the intellectual lack of hope. I had to both realise that it was there and more actively work to squash its oxygen.

I had to defeat hope on both levels separately (and with about a six month lag between the two). And the hope doesn’t necessarily have to be hope that LO has given you, so much as something your feelings or emotional state has given you – that keeps the addictive reward seeking going.

Or that’s what I think anyway!

Yes, there can be all sorts of discussions about how I ended up in this state, including the role of hope and other factors, and these factors may be common to other people in a similar state of mind, but I don’t see these factors as forming part of the definition.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Sammy, and congrats on reaching Total Freedom 🙂

I’ve obviously given a lot of thought to these definitions too. I disagree slightly with your interpretation of Tennov’s view. I think she was misunderstood a bit for the same reason that I often am – most of the cases of limerence that get discussed are of the “unfulfilled” variety.

For me, the key point of definition is that limerence is an altered state of mind. You are *in* limerence, and feel and think profoundly differently while the state persists.

This is why I think Fisher dismissed the term as she saw it as synonymous with being “in love”. That was where Tennov started too, but she realised that not everyone experiences love in the same way. Non-limerents do not undergo such an intense emotional transformation that it feels like their brain is in a different operational mode.

The confusion comes, I believe, from the fact that limerence changes in character over time. It starts off all wonderful and euphoric and optimistic, and if the desired bond can be formed, then it plays out (mostly) positively and leads to a consummated relationship. This would be when Fisher would dismiss “limerence” as an unnecessary word, as “it’s just love”.

But, when limerent desire is frustrated or unfulfilled, it progresses to person addiction. The massive natural high from the reward of romantic connection cannot be satisfied, but doesn’t just fade away. Instead, the reward system gets driven into a state of “incentive sensitization” where that one reward (LO) becomes an obsessive wanting that can’t easily be managed. Those are the cases that Tennov mostly discussed because the consequences were so significant. I’m in the same boat – most of my writing concentrates on how to manage limerence when it’s run out of control.

It’s really hard to think of a good analogy for this. A mental state that is enjoyable but can go bad under the wrong circumstances. Here’s my attempt:

Imagine if someone who felt the “gambler’s high” could in theory go to a casino and win on all the slot machines and end the night up hundreds of dollars and so felt good about it. They never got caught in a downward spiral of addiction. Would you say the “gambler’s high” was a real thing? I mean, everyone enjoys winning. Why do we need a word to describe a universal experience?

You’d only realise that the gambler was feeling something different when they stop winning, but can’t stop playing.

In effect, the existence of the natural high can only be revealed when it is sufficiently powerful, and frustrated for so long, that it turns into an addiction.

I love „The Golden Bowl“.

Best wishes for your big talk!

I have some fantastic news. I am 100% out of my limerent episode. I was limerent for the same individual (LO) for 25+ years. Now it’s all over. Whew! What a slog!

Now on to some weighty philosophical considerations:

I have some thoughts on the definition of limerence, which I’d like to share, because I think it may help you understand your own position in the “limerence conversation” taking place in the culture right now, and help you answer any questions that may come your way at special events. That is to say, maybe my following thoughts on limerence may help you put your own perspective on limerence into historical context, and see where you fit into the story?

Even for people fairly well-informed about limerence, there seems to be some ongoing controversy around the definition of limerence. The word “limerence” in fact seems to refer to at least two radically different things. The fact the word apparently refers to two radically different things frustrates the heck out of people. Maybe here I can put that ongoing controversy over terminology into context and explain how/why the controversy developed in the first place?

Dorothy Tennov obviously the coined the term “limerence”. She said she hoped the word would make it into the dictionary some day. However, she absolutely did NOT want the word to be used as a synonym for either “infatuation”, aka a crush, or “falling in love”, aka romantic love.

Along comes Helen Fisher. Fisher read Tennov’s book (“Love and Limerence”) and basically said: “Um. That’s just romantic love. We don’t need a new word for that.” In other words, Fisher DID make the mistake that Tennov hoped people wouldn’t make. Fisher did see “limerence” as a synonym for “falling in love”.

Tennov and Fisher corresponded. The two women tried to sort out their differences. Fisher pooh-poohed all of Tennov’s explanations and thought Tennov was just being overly fussy about terminology. Tennov said Fisher misunderstood what she (Tennov) was attempting so carefully to convey.

Why did a brilliant mind like Fisher’s fail to understand another brilliant mind like Tennov’s? I think Fisher didn’t understand Tennov because Fisher was biased. Fisher was an optimist about love and the enormous social benefits of successful pair-bonding. She didn’t have the time or the patience to understand the exquisitely-precise-and-yet-elusive distinction Tennov was trying to make.

Tennov wasn’t an optimist about love and pair-bonding. Nor was Tennov a pessimist about love and pair-bonding, in my opinion. Tennov was interested in studying the condition observed in human beings throughout history that leads to such diverse outcomes as bliss, alcoholism and murder. She actually commenced her research into limerence after meeting two male undergraduates who appeared to be suffering deeply as a result of “love”. One young man had failed all his exams and the other young man had developed a drinking problem.

When my older sister and I privately discuss limerence between ourselves, we use the term “pair-bonding love”. We use the term “pair-bonding love” as a way to honour the legacies of both Tennov and Fisher. However, clear lines need to be drawn between Tennov and Fisher’s conceptions of what limerence is…

Fisher simply views limerence as romantic love aka “the pair-bond gone right”. Romantic love may lead to bliss for the lucky couple, but it’s extremely unlikely to lead to either alcoholism or murder!!

Tennov viewed limerence as romantic love too, but as a very specific incarnation or manifestation of romantic love. Tennov viewed limerence as romantic love that has been thwarted in some way. Tennov arguably understands limerence as “the pair-bond gone wrong”.

When women at LwL say they only view “destructive limerence” as “limerence”, their conception of limerence is closer to Tennov’s original conception of the word than it is to Fisher’s later (mis)interpretation. When women at LwL say they only view “bliss-producing attachment with a strong romantic flavour” as limerence, their conception of limerence is closer to Fisher’s preferred use of the word. (Not that Fisher used the word. She thought the word “limerence” itself superfluous).

Dr. L, you know how deeply I respect you as both a man and a writer, so I hope you take this following very-mild criticism of your perspective on limerence with good grace. I believe, after reading your blogs, that your own conception of limerence is closer to Fisher’s view than it is to Tennov’s view. Perhaps this is because you too, like Fisher, are an optimist about romantic love and the value of pair-bonding (when done with an appropriate person and under appropriate circumstances)?

I haven’t read Lucy Bain’s books. However, I have read most of what Bain has to say online. Bain fascinatingly has a rather pessimistic take on limerence. Bain seems to view limerence as an intrinsically bad thing. She conceives of limerence as a bad thing because she argues (very persuasively) that it only occurs in situations where (1) the LO doesn’t return the attraction, or (2) the LO returns the attraction but there’s still some serious imbalance in the relationship.

Bain’s understanding of limerence is actually a lot closer to Tennov’s conception of limerence than Fisher’s. However, Tennov and Bain still aren’t in perfect agreement about limerence.

Bain views limerence as “love of a sort”, but she doesn’t define limerence as “romantic love”, strictly speaking. This is because Bain (very pragmatically) defines romantic love as “shared intent between two people to form a relationship”. Tennov, on the other hand, does seem to believe that the “spark” between LO and limerent is real (potential?) romantic love rooted in reality. However, something has happened to prevent that love from blossoming.

Fisher sees limerence as a golden bowl. Tennov sees limerence as a golden bowl with a flaw in it. (Some people may catch my allusion here to the famous novel by Henry James, a novel that does seem to be about thwarted romantic love).

Anecdotal evidence alone has established fairly convincingly that limerence can be either fruitful or fruitless. Fruitless limerence, however, according to Tennov’s understanding of the term, crucially isn’t the same thing as “unrequited love”. In unrequited love, there is no hope. No hope, in Tennov’s view, would mean no limerence.

For people who dislike verbosity and want to jump straight to the bottom line, here is what I’m trying to say. I am trying to share Tennov’s actual definition of limerence. Are we all ready for Tennov’s actual definition? Yes? Great! In Tennov’s view, limerence is correctly understood as “requited romantic love that remains either unfulfilled or unconsummated”.

Once limerence is consummated, in Tennov’s view, it’s no longer limerence. It might blossom into romantic love. It might fade into indifference or even contempt. But it’s no longer limerence per se.

It’s probably important to note that “obsessive love” is also not an apt synonym for limerence. The reason “obsessive love” is not an apt synonym for limerence is because “obsessive love”, unlike limerence, does not require a delicate balance of hope and uncertainty, and also doesn’t need to occur within the realm of possibility. E.g. a crazed fan who stalks a celebrity unknown to them (the crazed fan) may be suffering from obsessive love, but they are certainly not in limerence. By definition, one cannot “limerence over” someone who has never given one any signs of hope.

Dr. L, thank you once again for all the wonderful work you do! It is much appreciated. And I am enjoying browsing the comments section to your YouTube videos. I particularly enjoyed reading one person’s impassioned declaration that limerence isn’t the true addiction, marriage is the true addiction, and that married men are apparently conditioned by society into salivating like canines at the mere sight of their wives’ undergarments! (Has someone been plagiarising third-rate French literature again? Gee, I wonder who that could be?) LMFAO

I wish I could be there, too. Good luck, Dr L! I’m grateful that you address limerence from the perspective of neuroscience. Your logical approach is very helpful! You have a lot to contribute to society.