Love as an 'obsessive, compulsive disorder' (or sumpin)

[amicus]

One of my, non-absolute adversaries from the distant left, postulated that, 'love is a disorder'; I dismissed it then, with light outrage.

I was reminded of the statement several times, usually while watching or recalling a 'love story', one of many, in the past few days.

"Love Hurts..." I recall that is a song title. I have heard it said that people do strange things when they are, 'in love...', as the saying goes.

They are liable to do strange things, feel lighthearted, trip over a blade of grass and do irrational things indeed to gain the attention of a potential lover. None of which are very productive, an inefficient use of time, hell, perhaps it is a disorder?

It is curious to imagine how the detractors of 'love', those who define it as a disorder, must themselves define it. I suppose, in a communal world where all are treated precisely equal, regardless of any extenuating circumstances, it could well be defined as a 'crime', to pay special attention to one person over all others; certainly at least anti social, sociopathic or, God forbid, politically incorrect.

Imagine that! Oh, no, never mind, it is already the subject of hundreds of stories, dozens of science fiction novels...delete that....

Oh, and think of all those wasted lives and volumes of love poetry; love could even become a 'Tragedy', for heaven's sake.

Before one has experienced love, in an Empirical sense, beware of falling into it, as it does not exist, prior to experiencing it, of course, and you may become hopelessly confused.

An entire philosophy, justified and explained rationally and logically, point by point but flawed by a faulty premise, can lead to some really silly conclusions, eh?

(off to write a love story)

Amicus....

 

[slyc_willie]

Love is always a noble venture. "Noble" in the sense that it is something to aspire to, not necessarily something that should be expected to be attained. Sort of like establishing the "perfect" political philosophy, or the "perfect" religion. Love is the "perfect" aspiration.

Or something.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

"Falling in love" is different from "love" itself.

"Falling" in love is what we psychologists basically call "projection." It's recognizing yourself or a familiar pattern in another. (Which is why we say we're "soul mates" or "I feel like I've known him/her forever!")

But love... love is what we are, what we're made of. Love is light, energy. It's around us all the time. All we have to do is make it a practice to feel it.

 

[amicus]

One of my daughters called tonight and we talked for hours...which is why I did not return to the thread...my apologies and thank you for the thoughts.

Defining what 'love' is, is at best a difficult task...I mentioned this thread to my daughter and she immediately spoke of her children and the, 'love' she felt for them.

That a philosophical definition of 'love' as a mental disorder, indicated a very high level of what I consider dysfunctional thinking.

A 'noble venture', Slyc, indeed, but then have you not heard the phrase, 'perfect love', more times than you can shake a stick at?

But did it, or does it not, appear to be a 'perfect match', at one time or another, perhaps in the early stages?

Far from being a 'disorder', is it not the most natural, 'healthy', emotion, normal a human can experience, love for another, as Selena implies?

Romantic love is a mystery, I suggest, that instant attraction of one for another, a brief encounter that just a meeting of the eyes can leave one breathless?

Scrolled back, Slyc, an aspiration, something we aspire to? There are those who have claimed to be, 'blindsided' by love, even when not aspiring to it?

And Selena, how about opposites, complimentary partners, who are incomplete without the other?

There are, 'plot bunnies', in almost everything each of you said and within my thoughts also, the concept of love is so universal and oft shared.

To classify love as a mental disorder seems to miss the whole point of existence, which somewhat echoes your thoughts, Selena, if I read you correctly.

Ah, well, I just write about it, understanding is something else.

amicus...

 

[slyc_willie]

Ah, well, I just write about it, understanding is something else.

amicus...

Isn't that the rub, as another author once put it? Why do we write about an undefinable aspect, or state of being, unless we are constantly searching for "it?"

You mentioned how it feels during those first stages of a relationship, when everything is wonderful and the future seems bright and uncomplicated. Some would say that is the best part of love, when you are still figuring one another out, when it all seems to gel, when the telepathy is there and you can't go half an hour without looking for a convenient place to physically share the way you feel.

Those heated, breathless moments, coupling in the car, the bed, the dark back row of a movie theater . . . it's all so incredible and arousing and . . . and . . . .

But then the fairy tale tapers off. The passion ebbs, or so it seems. Frantic coupling ten times a week gets traded in for four times a week, three times, twice. The sacrifices of time you made in the beginning start feeling like chores. You're reminded that you have a job, friends, etc.

Now comes the moment in which you have to either realize that love, or admit you were merely infatuated. And that is dangerous territory, for you put both your egos on the line with that one. Is it really love? Or was all that feverish, can't-be-without-you coupling a result of chemistry, quantum physics, and wishful thinking?

Hard to find the answer, isn't it? And that's why love is the noble endeavor that it is. Like the monk devoting his existence to a celibate state of reverence for a being and ideology he can't touch, the lover pines for some incredible "ah-ha" moment in which all that passion becomes justified.

Falling in love is a religion unto itself. It can't be quantified or qualified by anyone other than those involved in the mix. And even that quantification or qualification depends entirely upon faith. Faith that your love is returned, Faith that your love is real and true, and justified. Faith that you won't have your heart broken seven years down the road.

I was in love, once. It lasted exactly 757 days, from the moment I met her until the moment she died. When Charlotte passed, taking our son with her, I was absolutely convinced I would never be in love again.

Then, years later, I met someone. Someone who inspired my passion, someone who made me think of sex as more than a means of gratification. I posted here, in a different thread, that I felt I was ready to fall in love again. I assumed at the time, that I would fall in love with her.

It didn't happen. We shared some time, got beyond that initial "feeding frenzy" of lust, and realized we were not to be together. She eventually found someone else, and is happy now, from what I gather. I'm glad for that.

And I, too, have found someone. A woman for whom I truly feel I've been waiting for. We've been together for just about a year now, and I love her as much now as I did on that first incredible, passionate day. Sure, we have fights, we have disagreements, there are things I do that annoy her and things she does that annoy me. But we deal with it. We talk about it. We come to terms, make compromises.

Will we be together forever? Yes. I say that because I have faith that we will. Because faith in love is the only handhold we have. I had that faith before, and the handhold was torn away from me in the cruelest of ways. But to abandon that faith in love now would be giving in to fear.

And when it comes to love, I fear nothing.

Anyway, I've been long-winded enough. I'd like to see what some others have to say about it.

 

[amicus]

Perhaps others will join in, but, in a way, I am not equipped to respond in like manner to your post. Especially on this forum; any personal tidbit I might offer is turned against me and I am not nearly as open a personality as you seem to be, but know that I, as most, have shared the heady feelings you share.

I might try to relate what I must now, at this late date, describe as, 'puppy love', that I can still recall today, as fresh and wonderful as it was a half a century ago.

When, for the first time in my life a girl filled my eyes and my mind and thoughts beyond anything I had ever imagined.

That entire range of emotions we identify as romantic love exploded in brilliant colors and life changing suddenness, for me, anyway, and while similar emotions did happen again, am I bold enough to assert that, that, 'first time' crescendo, was one that cannot be repeated?

Or was I just 'romantically inclined', a natural romanticist and are those types of people common in the world or scarce?

I also might suggest that more, 'intense' personalities, driven people, intellectual, artistically inclined individuals, are consuming personalities, that burn brighter than most and expire more rapidly?

You won't find many 'certainties' in my commentary on this subject, although I do maintain that 'love' can be defined axiomatically but not specifically, or individualistically as the variables are simply too complex.

I like Selena's comment that we 'are' love, that it surrounds us, is part of us all and yours too, that we 'aspire' to it.

I am also bewitched by the thought gained empirically, that 'opposites' often attract, because I see so many examples of intelligent women with much slower men and intelligent men who choose a woman of less ability.

I find it almost impossible to write characters of that nature as I do not comprehend the satisfaction one might gain from such a relationship unless the opposites are complimentary in nature with each needing/lacking, what the other offers/possesses.

I am always heartened to read of someone who has found love and is basking in it, and by that, I mean usually stories or fictions that are romantic in nature and have happy endings or at least the implication that longevity is in the cards.

Alas, outside the pages of fiction, I find few that have attained and maintained that pinnacle of satisfaction and content every poet and writer dramatizes.

I, too, have rambled on without touching some of the things I would love to discuss; that part of human nature that reaches out for another, the why's and where fores of attraction, what part children play, family on both sides, and of course the physical side. Why are some more affectionate than others, giving and receiving hugs and caresses on a regular basis when others barely touch?

And through growing up and acquiring those traits and habits, that others find attractive or unattractive and are they real or pretended, honest or facades?

And physical attributes...my 'puppy love' was a blue eyed blond, there was never another blond, but eye color preference, size, hair color, open or closed personality?

I usually end up this way in a good discussion, leaving even more questions at the end than I had when I began.

Hope your evening was pleasant.

Amicus...

 

[Liar]

Love is definitely obsessive compulsive. But to call it a disorder is IMO incorrect. that suggest that it's an error that shoud be corrected.

Love is a natural instinct, developed and strengthen in us by evolution, that attaches us emotionally to select other people. It has a reasonable purpose as a mechanism beneficial to the survival of the spieces.

it is what it should be. An obsessive compulsive order. Without the 'dis'.

 

[NightDrive]

It is absolutely impossible to define love in a simple sentence, as there are so many aspects to love, that the only statement that could cover all of the variables would be so vague that it would be pointless to even share.

Not only is love impossible to define in a general description, I feel that every single person has a unique interpetation and personal experience with love.

I've seen this conversation many times and every single time there's a different story shared, and as it goes with many subjects, no one who shared their experience had a 'wrong' interpetation, it was just different than everyone else's.

Slyc, your story really seems heartfelt and I feel horrible for your loss, but I thank you for sharing and it is very easy to admire your no-fear approach to taking on love again. I hope that you are successful.

 

[amicus]

Love is definitely obsessive compulsive. But to call it a disorder is IMO incorrect. that suggest that it's an error that shoud be corrected.

Love is a natural instinct, developed and strengthen in us by evolution, that attaches us emotionally to select other people. It has a reasonable purpose as a mechanism beneficial to the survival of the spieces.

it is what it should be. An obsessive compulsive order. Without the 'dis'.

~~~

Perhaps it is just me, but I think not, who objects to either term, 'obsessive', or 'compulsive'.

There are all shades of 'obsessions', there is even a book, by the title, "Magnificent Obsessions", although I have long ago forgotten the subject of the book.

Perhaps my vintage adds flavor to the words, obsessed and compelled, but both seem to indicate an abnormality in my usage and my understanding of the correct usage?

I will gingerly go along with you a short step by acknowledging that love certainly can be 'obsessive', and certainly one can be obsessed with someone to an extreme, also viewed as abnormal.

Insofar that human nature 'compels' us to breathe, eat and drink with some regularity I do not compare those quite critical compulsions to that of love, in that it can be denied or postponed indefinitely without great bodily or mental harm.

Nope, 'obsessive compulsive' has an abnormal disorderly connotation in my mind and I would never willingly attach that phrase to romantic love.

back atcha with a smile.

Ami

 

[amicus]

NightDrive
Virgin

Welcome to the forum...I hope you find something of interest to you here.

I am one of a probable select few, pesky as we may be, who insist on defining the terms we use, in fiction and non fiction.

In other words, words have meaning and the purpose of education has always been to comprehend those meanings, even those silly Greeks listed but three special kinds of love in their long ago attempt to define the words they used.

We do not, for example, list every known species of insect to demonstrate or illustrate or define the word, 'insect'; nor do we attempt to define love by reading of the many varieties of it.

Not only can love be defined, it jolly well should be, so that we know of that which we write and speak.

Love is an emotion that reflects those things we value in life. That might be a starting point for you to criticize, if you wish, but you may also decline to define it in any terms and stand by your guns....thas all right too.



Amicus...

 

[NightDrive]

Thank you for the welcome.

I could take a philospher's view on the topic and drive you crazy by asking how one defines those things that are valuable in one's life, but I'll refrain because I remember how frustrating it was when I was taking Philosophy.

The definition you present is "emotion that reflects those things we value in life". In my experience, there are two types of love, unconditional love, and passion. Passion is ever changing, on a constant basis, from one day to the next. The love we have for our spouse for example, for most couples, is unconditional. No matter how frustrated we might get with a person we love, we still love them.

But that doesn't mean that our emotions aren't affected when we have a bad day. I might be misrepresenting what you're saying, but if a person is frustrated with their wife, and doesn't want to be around them for a period of time, does that emotion being reflected really equate love?

As I said, it is just so difficult to encompass the vastness that is love in one statement. Unlike insects, which all have defining traits consistant with each form of insect, the only constant love has is being backed by a form of emotion. Unfortunately, that emotion is rarely constant, so we come to an impass.

 

[Verdad]

I feel little need to define love, but neither do I object to any definition, including that of OCD. The explanation of the in-love feeling as a hormonal imbalance would be reductive only if one were to accept it as the entire truth. As one of the many lenses for looking at the same reality, it's perfectly fine. I'm not afraid the reality might be impoverished or the poetry in it destroyed if I look at it from more than one angle.

The more lenses, metaphors, ways of conceptualization, etc. one possesses, the better off one is. There's nothing less romantic about a starry night sky because the stars are 'merely' distant balls of gas; knowing they are just means having an additional language for tackling the same old wonders.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Love is a process NOT an event. Leave the emotions out of it, and love is no different than animal husbandry or competent agriculture.

 

[Guest]

This may be an instance where some of the posters may have to disregard the source to objectively consider the comment. Given the prior exchanges about love being a disorder, I would request that we not split hairs over his use of the term "condition;" it's not, as far as I can tell, intended to represent a pathological state.

Robert Heinlein, in one of his works (don't recall which right now) offered this definition of love:

"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own."

A simple litmus test to check the accuracy of the statement: can you truly be happy if someone you love is not?

I think this allows us to distinguish between love and obsession; obsessive "love," in my experience, is more about possessing the other to fulfill a perceived need.

 

[xssve]

You assume I'm a detractor, I'm not - I merely pointed out that research indicates that the biochemistry of love is identical to that of less desirable Obsessive Compulsive Disorders.

Love is beautiful, falling in love with Rush Limbaugh is a disorder.

 

[xssve]

Before one has experienced love, in an Empirical sense, beware of falling into it, as it does not exist, prior to experiencing it, of course, and you may become hopelessly confused.

Hopeless confusion is par for the course for you.

BACKGROUND: The evolutionary consequences of love are so important that there must be some long-established biological process regulating it. Recent findings suggest that the serotonin (5-HT) transporter might be linked to both neuroticism and sexual behaviour as well as to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The similarities between an overvalued idea, such as that typical of subjects in the early phase of a love relationship, and obsession, prompted us to explore the possibility that the two conditions might share alterations at the level of the 5-HT transporter. METHODS: Twenty subjects who had recently (within the previous 6 months) fallen in love, 20 unmedicated OCD patients and 20 normal controls, were included in the study. The 5-HT transporter was evaluated with the specific binding of 3H-paroxetine (3H-Par) to platelet membranes. RESULTS: The results showed that the density of 3H-Par binding sites was significantly lower in subjects who had recently fallen in love and in OCD patients than in controls. DISCUSSION: The main finding of the present study is that subjects who were in the early romantic phase of a love relationship were not different from OCD patients in terms of the density of the platelet 5-HT transporter, which proved to be significantly lower than in the normal controls. This would suggest common neurochemical changes involving the 5-HT system, linked to psychological dimensions shared by the two conditions, perhaps at an ideational level.

Alteration of the platelet serotonin
transporter in romantic love
by
Marazziti D, Akiskal HS, Rossi A, Cassano GB
Dipartmento di Psichiatria,
Neurobiologia, Farmacologia e Biotecnologie,
University of Pisa, Italy.
Psychol Med 1999 May; 29(3):741-5

In fact, I may have a bit of a reactive attachment disorder myself, I fall in love easily, once a day at least.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is generally ego dystonic, meaning the victim isnt okay with it and wants it gone. And your definition fits infatuation better than it fits love.

 

[xssve]

It's not my definition, and the test group was presumably people who self reported as having "fallen in love", so argue with them.

 

[xssve]

The definition of "disorder", i.e., whether it's something that bugs you, or just something that bugs everybody else is an entirely different subject.

 

[xssve]

Amicus for example exhibits a particular disorder that causes him to mock emotional self disclosure as "irrational", than accuse you of cynicism if you offer a more scientific explanation.

It's a common syndrome among Rand/Limbaugh conservatives, usually referred to as "cranio-anal inversion".

 

[amicus]

Leave it to xssve to dig up a ten year old study of 20 Italians(actually 60), and then make the outlandish statement that 'Love is an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder', and drop it into a post just to see the reaction, if any.

I still maintain that this poster is mostly female, seemingly in a continual hissy fit in attempting to impose a line of thought by use of name calling, character assasssination and derogatory commentary. Typical.

~~~

One may not appreciate the following line of thought as it is surely a generalization and a finger pointed to illustrate a particular aspect of a line of thought that seems to pervade the entire thought process of a particular poster.

Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Ecstasy and more, have become drugs of choice for enhanced sexual experience, and consequently a generalized field of study as to why these chemicals work as they do.

Who better than those practicing in the field of mental health, to experiment with the entire range of effects brought about by the ingestion of such drugs in controlled experiments designed to prove or disprove theoretical projections.

It is not a new thing, instead, has become a foundation for a new line of thought that attributes much of human activity to the artificial stimulation provided by narcotics of all kinds and at all dose rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary

Timothy Francis Leary (October 22, 1920 – May 31, 1996) was an American writer, psychologist, futurist, and advocate of psychedelic drug research and one of the first people whose remains have been sent into space. An icon of 1960s counterculture, Leary is most famous as a proponent of the therapeutic and spiritual benefits of LSD. He coined and popularized the catch phrase "Turn on, tune in, drop out."

As this 'drug culture' matured and infected University level research, our proponents sop up grant funds to 'clean up' their act of drug ingestion by making it over into a psuedo respectable field of inquiry concerning the function of natural secretions concerning human actions and thoughts.

Now we have a new crop of 'pointy heads', laboring to, 'prove', that all human emotions, namely Romantic Love, in this instance, is merely a balance of bodily chemicals, which can be manipulated at will to achieve the desired effect.

How mundane.

The motivation is obfuscated, dark and dangerous, and directed at discarding individual free will, dismissing the cognitive functions of the mind and replacing human thought with Pavlovian responses to controlled stimuli, e.g. chemicals.

Wunnerful.


Key word search: love as OCD

http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/common/mentalhealth/anxiety/133.html

What is obsessive-compulsive disorder?

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an illness that causes people to have unwanted thoughts (obsessions) and to repeat certain behaviors (compulsions) over and over again. We all have habits and routines in our daily lives, such as brushing our teeth before bed. However, for people with OCD, patterns of behavior get in the way of their daily lives.

Most people with OCD know that their obsessions and compulsions make no sense, but they can't ignore or stop them.


What are obsessions?

Obsessions are ideas, images and impulses that run through the person's mind over and over again. A person with OCD doesn't want to have these thoughts and finds them disturbing, but he or she can't control them. Sometimes these thoughts just come once in a while and are only mildly annoying. Other times, a person who has OCD will have obsessive thoughts all the time.


What are compulsions?
Obsessive thoughts make people who have OCD feel nervous and afraid. They try to get rid of these feelings by performing certain behaviors according to "rules" that they make up for themselves. These behaviors are called compulsions. (Compulsive behaviors are sometimes also called rituals.) For example, a person who has OCD may have obsessive thoughts about germs. Because of these thoughts, the person may wash his or her hands repeatedly after using a public toilet. Performing these behaviors usually only makes the nervous feelings go away for a short time. When the fear and nervousness return, the person who has OCD repeats the routine all over again

The following are some common obsessions:

* Fear of dirt or germs
* Disgust with bodily waste or fluids
* Concern with order, symmetry (balance) and exactness
* Worry that a task has been done poorly, even when the person knows this is not true
* Fear of thinking evil or sinful thoughts
* Thinking about certain sounds, images, words or numbers all the time
* Need for constant reassurance
* Fear of harming a family member or friend

The following are some common compulsions:

* Cleaning and grooming, such as washing hands, showering or brushing teeth over and over again
* Checking drawers, door locks and appliances to be sure they are shut, locked or turned off
* Repeating, such as going in and out of a door, sitting down and getting up from a chair, or touching certain objects several times
* Ordering and arranging items in certain ways
* Counting over and over to a certain number
* Saving newspapers, mail or containers when they are no longer needed
* Seeking constant reassurance and approval

~~~~

What could be the purpose, one might ask, of lowering that noble pursuit of mankind, Love, into the company of those actions listed above?

Well, I will tell you that.

It is part of a continuing assault on the individual and individual characteristics as the defining difference between man and animal. In addition to subjecting the will of the individual to communal participation and approval, this further degrades even the emotions of individuals to a level of chemical response.

If one continues to pile on faux evidence to the premise that the individual is valueless and that all value rests in the greater good, it becomes so much easier to dispense with particular individuals to satisfy the appetite of the masses.

Imagine for a moment, sitting in a college classroom, listening to the gobblydigook of xssve and its' clones, trying to memorize what will be on the exam, and become immersed in the deadly syrup of obsessive compulsive disorders of all shapes and sizes and wondering why they hell you even draw a breath, when getting stoned is the answer to everything.

Such a life.

Amicus....