In other words, I think my sister wanted to see more relationships between two non-limerent persons celebrated in popular culture. Maybe glamorous portrayals of limerent passion in media just set the bar too high for people who don’t experience limerence at all, but still consider themselves to be deeply romantic souls at heart? I mean, plenty of non-limerent people really enjoy romance, too. 😉

More people prefer or would rather experience the “Sid & Nancy” version onscreen than Jean & Lionel in “As Time Goes By”.

They think it is erotic and completely overlook or pooh-pooh the mess left in their wake.

Cleaning up after the dumpster fire or dealing with the daiky grind of life? That’s for the little unimportant, unimaginative reliable people. The ones who stand in the way of grand passion.

The second a spouse is sniffing around is the time to find an attorney and set them free emotionally. The lawyers and the court will lay out the financial cost. Spouses and children (if you are sadly encumbered with such) are interchangeable.

The trouble is … so many folks are so bad at communicating.

Sammy, I commented below before reading this but, per your sisters comment, I too have wondered whether ego plays a part. My LOs are always very attractive and admired by many. That’s my ego. They love the attention no doubt, and also know how a spell is cast, and to a degree, manipulate the other (not always consciously) to keep their own ego stroked. A tangled web no doubt.

For me, I think I used the above to rationalise staying in the addiction. I knew deep down the LOs (females) were not really contributing to my life that positively. For me the limerence lasted way, way too long. And I mean, much more than the 3 years often referenced. With one we are talking on/off for the better part of a decade. The upshot was it absolutely was not worth it. I had turned down several opportunities for healthy relationships in this time, or I’d tried but the relationship failed due to limerent episodes & fantasy.

Yes there is under some circumstances i.e. a good LO, with whom you are genuinely compatible, whom actually wants you too.

I married an LO. But there was more to it than just limerence, we were friends and co-workers, and I knew rationally that we were very compatible. The limerence did not last but the relationship did and we have a happy contented marriage.

But my marriage has been sexless for the last 10 years or so and I think limerence had a part to play in that. Our early sex life was great purely due to my intense limerent desire thus the bar was set high, I was easy to please so my SO got away with being a complacent lover and I did not see the underlying sexual incompatibility. That desire died over time and our sex life died with it.

Yes – this is a person I’ve already invested a lot of energy in.

Yes – there’s a high probability this person will come back to me.

Yes – certain people can be won over by grand gestures.

Yes – the very act of fighting will be perceived as “emotional reciprocation”.

No – there’s a low probability this person will come back to me.

No – the person is unavailable, period. Don’t throw good money after bad.

No – the relationship has already run its course, and both parties want to move on by mutual assent.

No – I’ve decided I don’t want a relationship that owes its start to limerence.

Such an interesting question. I think “fighting for” a person is a notion that has become a bit romanticised in our culture, largely thanks to books and movies. However, I don’t think popular romantic tropes are always a reliable guide to how one should conduct oneself in real life…

Here are some of the things I’d consider:

(1) Has the fighter been in a committed relationship at some point with the person they’re fighting for? I think it makes a lot more sense to “fight for” someone you’ve actually been with versus someone you haven’t been with. I.e. it’s not unreasonable to fight for a spouse who’s strayed if one still wants to be in the marriage. It’s far less reasonable to fight for an LO who has never committed to anything at all, and who perhaps doesn’t want a commitment either.

(2) If one is “fighting for” an errant spouse, and limerence is the cause of said erring, where is the erring party in the limerent wash-rinse-spin cycle? I.e. if one is fighting for a spouse who is experiencing the peak of obsession, then the odds of winning that fight are distinctly “meh”. If, on the other hand, an erring spouse is coming to the end of a limerent episode with an LO, and can see the LO’s imperfections honestly, then a spouse fighting for an errant spouse has a stronger chance of success – assuming both spouses want to continue with the marriage.

(3) LOs often become LOs because they are people who are two things – (a) unavailable and (b) confusing. Fighting for someone unavailable? Hm. I think that’s going to be an uphill battle. Although the real and/or perceived “challenge” of this attraction may be part of its charm. (Remember, obstacles increase desire – up to a point).

(4) How does one feel about limerent bonding in the first place? What is one’s current philosophy on healthy love and attachment? I had a very interesting discussion with my younger sister the other day. We shared our thoughts/feelings on romance in general and it became apparent that while I’m a limerent, my sister is a non-limerent. Despite being non-limerent, my sister turned out to have surprisingly strong opinions on limerence as a style of attachment.

I think my sister basically finds limerent passion “elitist”. What does this mean? I think this means the same thing as “pretentious”, a word which non-limerent commentators here have occasionally used. And, when I was talking to my sister, for the first time in my life, I think I could almost understand this argument/point of view, and recognise its validity.

For example, a single limerent who passes up many wonderful opportunities for partnership with available people because he/she is pining after an confusing/unavailable LO, is behaving extremely foolishly – in the eyes of a non-limerent observer. Of course, the counterargument to this stance is that limerence is something people experience involuntarily, so it’s a wee bit harsh to judge people for the painful predicament they find themselves in. A further point should be made, too – limerents are crucially not thinking logically while experiencing limerence. Limerence is not a rational phenomenon. 😉

I think perhaps the real point my sister wanted to make was that maybe limerents should make more of an effort to admit to the downsides of limerence and, in light of those downsides, consider the rewards of limerence-free bonding?

In other words, I think my sister wanted to see more relationships between two non-limerent persons celebrated in popular culture. Maybe glamorous portrayals of limerent passion in media just set the bar too high for people who don’t experience limerence at all, but still consider themselves to be deeply romantic souls at heart? I mean, plenty of non-limerent people really enjoy romance, too. 😉

I think I would fight for an errant spouse, provided the limerent episode was on the wane. If the limerent episode was still in full swing, I would hold off fighting, lest my involvement add “unnecessary fuel to the fire” of limerent passion. I wouldn’t want to become the “obstacle” the limerent lovers are united against. I would play the long game, and wait for my partner to return of his/her own free will.

I would not fight for an LO under any circumstances. Why not? Because LOs, almost by definition, are unavailable people. One shouldn’t waste excessive effort on unavailable people. If someone’s unavailable, fighting for them won’t make one whit of difference to the final outcome anyhow…

This is a super-logical take on the subject. Of course – full disclaimer – limerence isn’t logical. And, as I’ve already noted, people don’t act logically or think logically while they’re in the throes of limerence. The emotional parts of the brain take over completely.

However, if anyone is curious about what “fighting for” someone looks from a strictly logical perspective, the above may represent that.

Now, just for fun, let’s throw logic aside, and ask the same question from an emotional perspective: “Should I fight for them?” Fighting for someone does make a huge amount of sense emotionally. Why? Because there are always people in this world who will be won over purely by the grand gesture of “being fought for”. I hypothesise the people most likely to endorse this sentiment are members of couples experiencing mutual limerence, where “fighting for each other” is seen as proof of passion, or the much-desired and all-important emotional reciprocation. 😉

There is little purely intellectual logic to fighting for someone. In an ideal world, relationships shouldn’t be about game-playing or dramatic flourishes. However, there is a very compelling emotional logic to fighting for someone – because plenty of human beings may be won over by the mere fact they are being fought for. It’s flattering to be fought for – provided one wants to be in that position.