I had never heard the term limerence before reading this chapter, but once reading about it I have certainly experienced it. I totally understood the story of the girl on page 21 who felt like nothing could bring her down - whatever happened would be wonderful. I remember meeting my husband and feeling the same way for a while. Just being with him - no matter what we did - was great - I even enjoyed football and would watch it all day on Sunday with him. My friends and I call this the honeymoon period - total bliss.
I found the perception of the limerent object interesting, the idea of love is blind it very true, I am have experience it and many of my friends have too. It is easier to see someone else go through this than yourself, I hadn't seen it until the relationship ended. I think that in the beginning you want so much for the other person to be "the one" that you tend to just see the positive and the negative doesn't affect your thoughts of the future with this person. I believe this is a form of idealization rather than crystallization (not sure).
Most people say "they just knew" rather than "I feel limerence". I feel that it is an emotion or feeling that is very difficult to explain and I feel that the author did a great job at doing so. I wouldn't say that it is something that is obsessive but it certainly is intrusive and can be persistent. It is not unwanted, even if you would like to be able to concentrate on something important at work, you like daydreaming about the LO.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Davis, Chapter 6, Obsessive Sex and Love
I think obsessive sex is dependent on what one perceives as obsessive. One person may think that having sex five times a month is considered often, while another may consider five times a week often. Everyone has a different idea of what sex means to them so while one may think it is obsessive to have sex with many partners, another may think it is obsessive to only have sex with one person (in terms of being obsessed with that person). Davis talks about where it is you draw the line between normal and abnormal sex - in the past it seems as though people depended on manuals to tell them what was normal and abnormal - rather than what they really wanted and thought was normal themselves.
When I think of people in the late 1800's and early 1900's I think of them as being rather prude, or mabey not as openminded about sex as people are today. In reading about the early thoughts of sexuality, even the first use of the word, I am amazaed at how much has changed in the past one hundred and twenty years. The impression in the past appears to be that sex made a good marriage, was to be between a man and a woman, and about the other person rather than yourself (mostly for females). We certainly have come a long way.
I could care less about other people's sex life, I agree with the National Sex Forum who states "as long as people konw what they are doing, feel good about it, and don't harm others, anything goes." I don't think anyone should judge what another does or who they do it with. I believe sex is tied into our emotions because it is such a personal act so it is hard for me to view it in a scientific sense. That being said, I do appreciate research and studies that are done in regard to sexuality. If not for these it would be more difficult to gadge people who have sexual addictions, are codependent or be aware of complexes such as the Casanova Complex. If research wasn't done we might have more stalkers on the loose, people are able to get help now. It might be a good thing that researching sexuality is a new obsesession.
When I think of people in the late 1800's and early 1900's I think of them as being rather prude, or mabey not as openminded about sex as people are today. In reading about the early thoughts of sexuality, even the first use of the word, I am amazaed at how much has changed in the past one hundred and twenty years. The impression in the past appears to be that sex made a good marriage, was to be between a man and a woman, and about the other person rather than yourself (mostly for females). We certainly have come a long way.
I could care less about other people's sex life, I agree with the National Sex Forum who states "as long as people konw what they are doing, feel good about it, and don't harm others, anything goes." I don't think anyone should judge what another does or who they do it with. I believe sex is tied into our emotions because it is such a personal act so it is hard for me to view it in a scientific sense. That being said, I do appreciate research and studies that are done in regard to sexuality. If not for these it would be more difficult to gadge people who have sexual addictions, are codependent or be aware of complexes such as the Casanova Complex. If research wasn't done we might have more stalkers on the loose, people are able to get help now. It might be a good thing that researching sexuality is a new obsesession.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Possession
We have all been through a break-up where we thought about the other person for a while and we all have "crazy" thoughts after a break-up. Even though this woman did the breaking-up, she hated seeing her ex with someone else. On p. 48 she talks about how she wanted her ex to forget about the other woman and how she wants to hurt him. I can totally relate to her thoughts. It is difficult to see an ex happily in a relationship while you are alone. Regardless of whether you break up with your partner or vice versa, it is equally painful to have someone who was such a part of your life suddenly not be there. The author knows that she is "obsessed" and does try to stop herself from thinking about the other woman. She only allows herself to think about it at night almost as a reward for not thinking about her during the day. The woman is so upset and angry she wants to shoot the woman and screan bitch at her, but who is she really angry with.
I also related to the author when she talks about how her ex said he was just thinking of her, she hears that he wasn't thinking of her the rest of the time. When you want something so badly, you hear what you want to hear. She gets herself more upset by manipulating what he said into what she imagined he meant. She feels the need to "decode" what he says.
At the end the author realizes that she needs to move on and that the situation is bad for her. She realizes that she can stop her possession herself, that it is up to her. I give her credit for realizing that she needed to move on, some people never do.
Even though that book gives the impression that she is obsessed with the new girlfriend, I feel she is obsessed with her ex's new relationship. The author already knows what she needs to about her ex, so when she is trying to find out about the other woman, she is also finding out about her ex - where he might be, what he might be doing, etc.
I also related to the author when she talks about how her ex said he was just thinking of her, she hears that he wasn't thinking of her the rest of the time. When you want something so badly, you hear what you want to hear. She gets herself more upset by manipulating what he said into what she imagined he meant. She feels the need to "decode" what he says.
At the end the author realizes that she needs to move on and that the situation is bad for her. She realizes that she can stop her possession herself, that it is up to her. I give her credit for realizing that she needed to move on, some people never do.
Even though that book gives the impression that she is obsessed with the new girlfriend, I feel she is obsessed with her ex's new relationship. The author already knows what she needs to about her ex, so when she is trying to find out about the other woman, she is also finding out about her ex - where he might be, what he might be doing, etc.
Triangulating Love
I had never thought about emotions and love in such a "clinical" way before, but yet it made sense. I think Sternberg's three components of love all have equal importance and validity. I feel that to be in a relationship one must be able to give all three components to their partner, or the "triangle" will fall apart. As much as I agree with Sternberg, I still found it odd to read about love in such a way - almost as if there is a formula. I believe there are different classifications of love and I think Sternberg does a good job of describing them. I can honestly say that I have feelings for an ex-boyfriend of mine, but I am not in love with him. I haven't seen him in a while and I am now married with a child, but if I passed him on the street today I would probably feel flushed and my heart rate would go up. I can say that I love him and I wish him well, but I don't have intimacy feelings for him. I think my feelings presently are just based on fond memories of the past.
One would think that love should be easy but as we all know from our own experiences and from Sternberg's chapter, it is the opposite. Love can be easy, but it can also be complicated, painful and stressful.
One would think that love should be easy but as we all know from our own experiences and from Sternberg's chapter, it is the opposite. Love can be easy, but it can also be complicated, painful and stressful.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Davis, Chapter 3, Specialization as Monomania
This chapter was interesting to me in that it discussed specialization as an obsession. I feel it is important that we have people in society that specialize in certain fields but it is equally as important that we have people in society who are "jack of all trades" so to say. Our class discussion solidified that for me. As important as it is for someone to be the "best in their field" and to know everything there is about a specific subject or idea, we also need people who know a little bit about many subjects or ideas. The latter are those who may be the ones that tie things together or see relationships between ideas or subjects that those who specialize may not see.
Sir Francis Galton was obsessed with science and in reading about him I was struck by how dedicated he seemed to feel about his field. Granted, Davis talks about how he had breakdowns from time to time, but had Galton not been obsessed we would not have all the great things that he discovered and developed. His attention to detail did seem a bit neurotic at times, actually most of the time, but he seemed to thrive when he was "working" until he became too obsessed, and he would have a breakdown.
At the end of the chapter when Davis discusses madness as normal, I can see how he ties science, specialization, overwork and obsession together. During the 19th century the modern world was changing rather quickly with Industrialization and society had to change quickly as well. It seems as though he is trying to say that everything was becoming a blur - overworking was seen as obsessing, science was seen as obsessing, specialization was seen as obsessing and obsessing was also seen as all three.
Sir Francis Galton was obsessed with science and in reading about him I was struck by how dedicated he seemed to feel about his field. Granted, Davis talks about how he had breakdowns from time to time, but had Galton not been obsessed we would not have all the great things that he discovered and developed. His attention to detail did seem a bit neurotic at times, actually most of the time, but he seemed to thrive when he was "working" until he became too obsessed, and he would have a breakdown.
At the end of the chapter when Davis discusses madness as normal, I can see how he ties science, specialization, overwork and obsession together. During the 19th century the modern world was changing rather quickly with Industrialization and society had to change quickly as well. It seems as though he is trying to say that everything was becoming a blur - overworking was seen as obsessing, science was seen as obsessing, specialization was seen as obsessing and obsessing was also seen as all three.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Davis, Chapter 2, The Emergence of Obsession
It's funny how words make you think about other things. The author begins the chapter by discussing "monomania" and how it indicates the beginning of the term obsession. It immediately made me think of Beatlemania and how when the media talks about the Beatles and this time period they always show large groups of young women going ga ga over the band. They seemed to be obsessed with the Beatles.
So much of the history of OCD seems to be related to religion, culture and class. How ironic in that today we feel that everyone is equal regardless of one's religion, culture and class - at least that is the picture the US wants out there. Today these three aspects of peoples lives are not to be thought of as far as diagnosing and treating OCD or any other medical or mental disorder where in the past the specialists felt that some of these things caused the disorders. In the past "monomania" was something people wanted, desired. The author whose article was published in the American Journal of Insanity insinuated that the disease affected those with large active brains - I guess trying to say that those with monomania are more intelligent because they have a bigger brain. I had to laugh to myself with reference to this statement and other similar ones.
I had never thought about how many classic novels have some sort of referrence or a character with OCD. The authors mentioned, Dickens, Shelley and Balzac were all ahead of their time as far as portraying the disease. For something that was thought of in such a different way so long ago and to still be recognized as the disease today just goes to show how far science and research has gone.
The last section really made me think about the difference between the idea of a Renaissance man or woman and the idea of specialization in one particular area. You would think that in order to be the "best" forensic scientist you would have to spend much of your time studying and reading about that particular field. The same holds true for specific fields of law and medicine. With the amount of information out there that one is expected to know, one would have to be obsessed in order to retain the massive amounts of information. I hadn't thought about "specializing" as obsessive before reading this chapter, but I now think of it in a different way.
It is interesting that OCD was known by so many other diseases prior to it's current name. I wonder what it will be known as n the future......
So much of the history of OCD seems to be related to religion, culture and class. How ironic in that today we feel that everyone is equal regardless of one's religion, culture and class - at least that is the picture the US wants out there. Today these three aspects of peoples lives are not to be thought of as far as diagnosing and treating OCD or any other medical or mental disorder where in the past the specialists felt that some of these things caused the disorders. In the past "monomania" was something people wanted, desired. The author whose article was published in the American Journal of Insanity insinuated that the disease affected those with large active brains - I guess trying to say that those with monomania are more intelligent because they have a bigger brain. I had to laugh to myself with reference to this statement and other similar ones.
I had never thought about how many classic novels have some sort of referrence or a character with OCD. The authors mentioned, Dickens, Shelley and Balzac were all ahead of their time as far as portraying the disease. For something that was thought of in such a different way so long ago and to still be recognized as the disease today just goes to show how far science and research has gone.
The last section really made me think about the difference between the idea of a Renaissance man or woman and the idea of specialization in one particular area. You would think that in order to be the "best" forensic scientist you would have to spend much of your time studying and reading about that particular field. The same holds true for specific fields of law and medicine. With the amount of information out there that one is expected to know, one would have to be obsessed in order to retain the massive amounts of information. I hadn't thought about "specializing" as obsessive before reading this chapter, but I now think of it in a different way.
It is interesting that OCD was known by so many other diseases prior to it's current name. I wonder what it will be known as n the future......
Monday, September 26, 2011
Davis, Chapter 1, Origins of Obsession
Davis certainly goes into great length to explain the origins of obsession as a mental disorder. I found it interesting that some felt almost every disease could be called nervous so long ago and that is still true in a sense today. I often hear that having a positive attitude during times of sickness can help with the diagnosis. Before obsession came to be a "mental" term, the oldest terms, in English, were lunacy, melancholy and idiocy - these are all totally encompassing while occurring, which can also be said of OCD.
From the reading, it seems as though times really haven't changed all that much in a sense. Davis talks about how once the quartet came to be, many more people felt they were affected, rather than the smaller amount who were affected by madness, once they heard about it. It reminds me of the previous reading we had in which there was a discussion about how so many people come out and seek treatment once they see some sort of media coverage about a specific diagnosis they think they might have.
It is amazing to me how far we have come in really a relatively short time in terms of treatment. Physicians used to think that they could use the same treatments for the body as for the mind. We have read about people, only thirty years ago, going through brain surgery to try to "cure" OCD. What these poor people must have gone through!! I appreciated the line where Davis states "Obsession becomes both the symptom and the cause if the mental disease." How hard it must be for a clinician to try to help his or her patients. I don't have a psych background, but to try to treat something that is both a symptom and a cause must be very difficult - in a sense, it is amazing how far the field has come up to this point.
It is significant to me on a personal level that this chapter discusses the different levels of mental disease. I was discussing our class with a friend of mine who is a social worker/therapist. She has her own personal issues and is always worried about her kids getting or being sick, to the point where it can be a bit annoying. I hate saying that it is annoying because she had a traumatic experience with one of her children and ever since then she has been like this. When I was telling her about this class she said her own therapist told her she had OCD without the compulsion, we then discussed how her feeling were intrusive, inappropriate, unwanted and recurrent. The only difference is that she does not have the compulsion that goes along with OCD. Obsession is hard enough to deal with, nevermind having to deal with compulsion too. In any case, I can totally understand how there are many different levels of mental disease, be it partial, fully encompassing, or any level in between.
From the reading, it seems as though times really haven't changed all that much in a sense. Davis talks about how once the quartet came to be, many more people felt they were affected, rather than the smaller amount who were affected by madness, once they heard about it. It reminds me of the previous reading we had in which there was a discussion about how so many people come out and seek treatment once they see some sort of media coverage about a specific diagnosis they think they might have.
It is amazing to me how far we have come in really a relatively short time in terms of treatment. Physicians used to think that they could use the same treatments for the body as for the mind. We have read about people, only thirty years ago, going through brain surgery to try to "cure" OCD. What these poor people must have gone through!! I appreciated the line where Davis states "Obsession becomes both the symptom and the cause if the mental disease." How hard it must be for a clinician to try to help his or her patients. I don't have a psych background, but to try to treat something that is both a symptom and a cause must be very difficult - in a sense, it is amazing how far the field has come up to this point.
It is significant to me on a personal level that this chapter discusses the different levels of mental disease. I was discussing our class with a friend of mine who is a social worker/therapist. She has her own personal issues and is always worried about her kids getting or being sick, to the point where it can be a bit annoying. I hate saying that it is annoying because she had a traumatic experience with one of her children and ever since then she has been like this. When I was telling her about this class she said her own therapist told her she had OCD without the compulsion, we then discussed how her feeling were intrusive, inappropriate, unwanted and recurrent. The only difference is that she does not have the compulsion that goes along with OCD. Obsession is hard enough to deal with, nevermind having to deal with compulsion too. In any case, I can totally understand how there are many different levels of mental disease, be it partial, fully encompassing, or any level in between.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)