Editing Limerence (section)

=== Love ===
[[Dorothy Tennov]] gives several reasons for inventing a term for the state denoted by limerence (usually termed "being in love").<ref>{{harvnb|Tennov|1999|pp=15–16,71,116,120}}</ref> One principle reason is to resolve ambiguities with the word "love" being used both to refer to an act which is chosen, as well as to a state which is endured:<ref name="Tennov 1999 15"/><blockquote>Many writers on love have complained about semantic difficulties. The dictionary lists two dozen different meanings of the word "love". And how does one distinguish between love and affection, liking, fondness, caring, concern, infatuation, attraction, or desire? [...] Acknowledgment of a distinction between love as a verb, as an action taken by the individual, and love as a state is awkward. Never having fallen in love is not at all a matter of not loving, if loving is defined as caring. Furthermore, this state of "being in love" included feelings that do not properly fit with love defined as concern.</blockquote>(The type of love that focuses on caring for others is called [[compassionate love]] or [[agape]].)<ref name="4th-dim" />{{Paragraph break}}The other principle reason given is that she encountered people who do not experience the state. The first such person Tennov discovered was a long-time friend, Helen Payne, whose unfamiliarity with the state of limerence emerged during a conversation on an airplane flight together.<ref name=":15"/> Tennov writes that "describing the intricacies of romantic attachments" to Helen was "like trying to describe the color red to one blind from birth".<ref>{{harvnb|Tennov|1999|p=14}}</ref> Tennov labels such people "nonlimerents" (a person not currently experiencing limerence), but cautions that it seemed to her that there is no nonlimerent personality and that potentially anyone could experience the state of limerence.<ref>{{harvnb|Tennov|1999|pp=110–111}}</ref> Tennov says:<ref name="Tennov 1999 15"/><blockquote>I adopted the view that never being in this state was neither more nor less pathological than experiencing it. I wanted to be able to speak about this reliably identifiable condition without giving love's advocates the feeling something precious was being destroyed. Even more important, if using the term "love" denoted the presence of the state, there was the danger that absence of the state would receive negative connotations.</blockquote>Tennov addresses the issue of whether limerence is love in several other passages.<ref>{{harvnb|Tennov|1999|pp=71,120}}</ref> In one passage she clearly says that limerence is love, at least in certain cases:<ref name="Tennov 1999 120">{{harvnb|Tennov|1999|p=120}}</ref><blockquote>In fully developed limerence, you feel ''additionally'' what is, in other contexts as well, called love—an extreme degree of feeling that you want LO to be safe, cared for, happy, and all those other positive and noble feelings that you might feel for your children, your parents, and your dearest friends. That's probably why limerence is called love in all languages. [...] Surely limerence is love at its highest and most glorious peak.</blockquote>However, Tennov then switches in tone and tells a fairly negative story of the pain felt by a woman reminiscing over the time she wasted pining for a man she now feels nothing towards, something which occupied her in a time when her father was still alive and her children "were adorable babies who needed their mother's attention." Tennov says this is why we distinguish limerence (this "love") from other loves.<ref name="Tennov 1999 120"/>

In another passage, Tennov says that while affection and fondness do not demand anything in return, the return of feelings desired in the limerent state means that "Other aspects of your life, including love, are sacrificed in behalf of the all-consuming need." and that "While limerence has been called love, it is not love."<ref name="Tennov 1999 71">{{harvnb|Tennov|1999|p=71}}</ref>