Video Talk:Love addiction
Okay, WTF is the academic value of this article?
Sources:
* Bireda, Martha R., Mike Link, and Peter Roberts. Love Addiction : A Guide to Emotional Independence. Minneapolis: New Harbinger Publications, 1990. * Timmreck, Thomas C. "Overcoming the loss of a love: preventing love addiction and promoting positive emotional health." Psychological Reports 66 (1990). * Love addiction - How to Break It." CNN.com. 2008. Cable News Network. 20 Oct 2008
I mean: WTF is this article doing on Wikipedia?
- Providing information about love addiction, I guess. Although it's really messy at the moment. VDZ (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this serious? I almost laughed at it. If it is serious, it needs (1) descriptions of all the types and (2) references. Until real sources (not CNN and not a book unless it's written by a psychologist, and sources referenced as footnotes to specific parts of the article) show up, I will think it is just a silly article on a subject that no serious psychologist cares about that belittles Wikipedia. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Elemarth (talk o contribs) 16:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is horrible and reads like a bad blog post. It has no place on wikipedia. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.133.11 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Maps Talk:Love addiction
Merge with Obsessive Love?
Thoughts? The articles present some pretty similar concepts. Also, I've found a few sources worth citing to make both articles a little more objective:
- PMID 17435931 : "The pathological love is characterized by being a behavior of taking care and paying attention to the beloved partner in a way which is repetitive and careless of control in an amorous relationship."
- PMID 10442234 : links with OCD.
- PMID 2190254 : "The term "love addiction" has been applied to persons who obsessively seek to regain the pleasurable love state which existed with a former love relationship." MichaelExe (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely merge - The two articles cover similar subjects, differentiated chiefly by the jargon their respective unscientific sources (self-help books) have invented. Plus, both are poorly written, and one bad article is better than two. AtticusX (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend not merging the two, because obsessive love and love addiction are two totally different things. Do not merge as each issue has a different subject of focus. Love addiction is for the feeling whereas obsessive love is about the person. To merge the two would reduce the efficiency and accuracy of both as well as belittle two different issues which are important in their own right. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.165.111 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
OMG
If this article is requested for deletion (as it should), do notify me, I'll vote for scrapping it. --CopperKettle 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree this article should be requested for deletion, if only due to the fact that it quotes one solitary source, and someone who is an amateur at that. Thewhole thing is rife with value judgments. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.185.203 (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The articles are quite different, love addiction and obsessive love are ocmpeltely different disorders and would not effectively merge. January 30th, 2011
It is fine
The article seems fine and should not be merged with love addiction. They are completely different issues and problems. Very informative, useful and helpful to read about RD. February 12, 2011. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueorangered (talk o contribs) 21:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest renaming Obsessive love as "Obsessive Love Wheel", as it does a good job of detailing John D. Moore's OLW (which I'd never heard of), but little more Jacobisq (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above poster, both topics discuss different thing, just within the same sphere of emotion. 'love addiction': the need for he constant love feeling, is not the same as a 'love obsession': an obsession with one particular person. they shouldn't be merged -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.58.232 (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Addiction
My name is Susan Peabody. I wrote the widely-accepted article "Typical Kinds of Love Addicts.""
I am a self-help educator, but there is no need to be disparaging. Unfortunately self-help people like me and Anne Schaef needed to come up with the terms love addict because the psychiatric community ignored this painful disorder just like they did codependency.
Susan Peabody wrote Addiction to Love, the 4th book about love addiction but was the first one to use the term "love addict." It is considered by many to be a seminal work. It is no better or no worse than all the books that came out in the 80's. The article in question was an attempt to upgrade information about love addiction. A lot has changed; in particular this subject of sub-categories (types).
I created the types of love addicts so there is no source except my brain. But many psychiatrists accept these terms. Recently, Dr. Drew described Tiger woods as a Romance Addict rather than a sex addict. The differentiation is mine.
You either accept these terms or not. I own the copyright although this article is so plagarized you would not know it. Like it or not a self-help writer without a PhD created these types and they have been accepted all over the world.
Before this fuss, my "Typical Kinds of Love Addicts" was already on Wikipedia. I just inserted the original article for the excerpts. I thought I was being helpful. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.234.169 (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Susan, you are being arrogant and irresponsible when you play pseudo-psychiatrist and attempt to codify a very specific and opinionated behavioral description as a legitimate mental disease. Yes, it's true that there are many various behavioral "addictions" (shopping, gambling, porn, etc.) but this is comparable to substance dependence insofar that such comparisons are strictly metaphorical. Furthermore, the existence of co-dependent tenancies is not contested by anyone; rather, co-dependency is a personality trait with various etiologies, not a mental disorder. You rank among the worst of the "psychologists" who set out to pathologize every damn human behavior in existence. 67.61.186.51 (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Im thinking this pege should delated cause in some ways its stupid but in ways its not -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Makaylabookout (talk o contribs) 14:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Honestly, this whole article is kinda stupid. Love is naturally addicting and sometimes kind of obsessive. However, what is being described here is not anything related to the concept of love, but rather, codependency. Please do not try to justify any behaviors which you may have had during a relationship as something which is even remotely related to the concept of love. They are not related. Those types of behaviors are far more related to the concept of codependency. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNoNoJustNo (talk o contribs) 20:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
They are different - do not merge
The changes made to the article are fine and I think there is real value in the illustration and narrative in the OLW. Obsessive love and addictive love are two different constructs as represented by reading both books. Peabody's book offers one perspective and Moore's offers another. Both are excellent writers and what they have offered in each of their books has helped me a great deal. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.54.88 (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
+1 for deletion
We don't want people mislead by the assumption that "love addiction" is a real, psychiatricly-established disorder, do we? 67.61.186.51 (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not endorse any school of thought, belief, or practice, we simply offer encyclopedic-style entries on notable subjects. Love addiction is a notable subject, there are many books and references on the Internet. If anything, the article needs to provide the information that love addiction is not in the DSM, and many question its existence - similar to the Sex addiction article. But love addiction as a cultural phenomenon certainly exists.TBliss (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This gulf between the self-help community and many of the psychologists out there makes me sad. People who suffer from the pain of unhealthy relationships want a diagnosis that can lead to a prognosis. Love addiction is real and this terms is just as good as say erotomania which is one type of love addiction listed in the DSM. People may not subscribe to the work of self-help professionals, but there is no point in trying to demean them and their work. Such psychologists as the one who wrote the above comment runs the risk of looking like a snob. As Rodney King asked, "Can we all get alone." -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanpeabody490 (talk o contribs) 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't belong in the history section as there is no historical information included. Perhaps a separate section should be created for differentiating Love Addiction from Sex Addiction, but personally I think it's unnecessary as the two terms are self-explanatory.TBliss (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of the term codependency is in much dispute. It is not a word you would find in many dictionaries, nor is it a concept that is easy to define. The word has only been coined in recent history. Originally codependency was used to describe family members and spouses of substance dependent individuals. It was used interchangeably with the term enabling and referred to the maladaptive behaviors that resulted from a preoccupation with the addict's life. The positive intent of enabling is to end the substance dependency by "helping" in some way. The end result of enabling is that family and friends "help" in making it possible for the dependency to continue. Today the term codependency is used more generally to apply to just about anyone who has a pattern of dysfunctional relationships involving focusing on the needs and behaviors of others more than one's own. Codependent individuals become so preoccupied and focused on the needs of others that they neglect their own needs. Two key areas in a person's life reflect codependence: the relationship with the self and relationships with others. Codependency has been described as an addiction, an illness, a disease, learned behaviors, a phenomenon, a psychosocial condition, a personality trait, a psychological construct, and a personality disorder. Many professionals believe that every addiction has its roots in codependency. Some authors argue that codependency is the most common of all addictions. This is because codependents have as much difficulty accepting their powerlessness over people and events as addicts have over accepting their powerlessness over their drug of choice. There are as many definitions of codependency as there are "experts". However, most agree that codependency is a treatable progressive disorder with common symptoms. Some of these are: Low self-esteem, caretaking, obsession, dependency on others to meet needs and wants, difficulty expressing anger appropriately, having weak boundaries, depression, anxiety, repression of one's own needs, denial, lack of trust, perfectionism, workaholism, operating in extremes, procrastination, compulsive lying, compulsive talking, dependent or over-possessive relationships, and controlling others through manipulating, threatening, coerciveness, helplessness, guilting, and/or advice giving. Other codependency disorders can be dependency on status, prestige, possessions, power or control in a kind of treadmill existence so that whether or not goals are achieved, there is a driven compulsion for more; an anxious feeling of incompleteness or emptiness remains no matter what is accomplished. Some of these common characteristics are so broad that it can be argued that in one aspect or another nearly everyone could be codependent. Indeed, it has been maintained that we live in a society that fosters codependency.
However, the ramifications of codependency go beyond psychological symptoms. Codependency has physical implications as well. During the middle and advanced stages of codependency, physical illnesses may start to emerge. Middle stage codependents may experience insomnia, heart arrhythmia, sexual dysfunction, self-neglect, unwarranted fatigue, hyperactivity, suppressed immune functioning, gastrointestinal disturbances, and migraine headaches. In later stages of codependency individuals may feel lethargic, develop high stress related physical illnesses (colitis, ulcers, high blood pressure, etc.), a serious eating disorder or other major health problem. Where does Codependency originate? The roots of codependency seem to be in the family of origin. It is the parent's role to shape and support children through the various stages of psychosocial development. Hopefully this is done in a conscious and nurturing fashion so the child accomplishes the goals of each stage successfully. Ideally, the child raised in a conscious and healthy environment will be prepared for self-actualization, healthy relationships, and will fit into society adequately. Unfortunately, no child receives perfect parenting and no child has all of his/her needs met all the time. This is especially evident in families where there are unaddressed addictions (including advanced stage codependency), abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or mental), mental illness, or extreme social barriers. Shaming, abandonment, and neglect, flourish in these families. "Normal" families can also be breeding grounds for codependency. Most parents learned how to be parents through their own upbringing. Parents tend to behave in similar ways as their parents did with them, or in the opposite way (with little balance between extremes). Good parenting involves conscious behavior that is geared toward raising children to feel good about themselves and to be interdependent in relationships. Most parents do the best they can considering their own childhood models and codependency issues. Families that are enmeshed and smothering can be just as damaging as those that are too disengaged. Families that have too rigid rules are as equally harmful as families that are chaotic (having too few rules, or rules that are haphazardly enforced). Imperfect families often produce children who learn that to get their real needs met (safety, value, acceptance, etc.) they must give up important parts of themselves and conform to parental/societal expectations. The child learns the behaviors that will get these needs met. These behaviors may become patterned into codependency based personality roles. Many codependents portray one or a combination of the following roles:
- Addicts * Abusers * Bullies * Comedians * Compulsives * Failures
- Fixers * Hypochondriacs * Lost children * Martyrs * Narcissists
- Over-achievers * People pleasers * Perfectionists * Rescuers
- Self-centeredness * Victims
The process of taking on roles results in children with little sense of self, who internalize the belief that there is something "wrong" with them. They grow into adults who don't know who they really are and fear being discovered and rejected by others. When a codependent child takes on these roles there is an inevitable loss of the authentic self. This loss involves great pain. Caretaking, controlling, addictions, workaholism , etc. can all be compulsive medicators of codependency. Another definition of Codependency: I am in the process of developing this brief definition that may be helpful in self-examination: Fear of being your authentic self, resulting in power patterns (controlling or compliance to manipulate) to get what you believe you can't ask or demand from others. Codependents fear abandonment and rejection. In giving up their authentic selves they perform the ultimate abandonment-that of oneself. Is recovery possible? Codependency does not just go away. It is a progressive disorder, but even in advanced stages it is treatable. To get well, the codependent must begin addressing the disease directly. If we expect anybody else - even a good therapist - to do our recovery for us, we will stay stuck, lost, and sick. Learning to take care of oneself and letting go of the need to control people, places and events is difficult, but it will ultimately bring a freeing from self-defeating patterns, shame and fear. The energy investment in manipulation through caretaking and/or controlling is considerable-letting go and simply being oneself frees energy for more productive uses. We must learn how to intervene with the disease in our own lives: to treat ourselves with more respect, to develop boundaries, to own our reality, to become responsible for our own wants and needs, and to begin to approach life with moderation. Recovery from codependency is deep work based on shifting our relationship with ourselves. Codependency is about us, not about anyone else in our life. Recovery from codependency involves learning to take responsibility for our own actions, feelings behavior, issues and lives to ensure that our real needs are met. Recovery is about self-acceptance and self-love. Recovery involves setting appropriate boundaries with other people. This ensures that the recovering person is considered first and taken care of in all situations. When self-love is more strongly felt than the fears, then boundaries are easy to set. Until then, it is risk-taking and uncomfortable. There are three primary approaches to codependency treatment: self-help, group therapy, and individual psychotherapy. Numerous codependency self-help books are available at bookstores. Moreover, many self-help groups orientated towards helping codependents have been formed. These meetings are usually free of charge and last about one hour. Codependents Anonymous is one of the more popular self-help groups. This group is based on the twelve-step program and seems to be successful for many people although no research has been done to substantiate outcomes. The group is primarily supportive and in-depth work is accomplished through working the steps with a sponsor. Group therapy has had considerable research conducted and has been found to be the most effective treatment approach. The ideal group size is about eight to ten meeting for 12 hours weekly. Groups are professionally facilitated and there is usually a weekly fee consistent with community standards. Healing takes place within the group and is generalized through a participant's life. Group therapy can be quite intense and individuals need to make a sincere, persistent and courageous effort to self-explore and to be open to other's observations. Codependency recovery is a personal and interpersonal journey and group therapy offers a varied interpersonal setting.
Individual psychotherapy is another treatment option. When abuse has been a part of the formation of codependency, a more focused individual psychotherapy may be needed. Individual psychotherapy might also be a better starting place for individuals who are uncomfortable speaking about personal issues in a group setting. In addition, individuals dealing with other issues in addition to codependency may benefit the most from individual psychotherapy. Unfortunately, individual psychotherapy is the most expensive treatment modality, and may not be an option for some people. Many people find it most helpful to participate in a combination of all three treatment approaches because each offers something different. For example, an individual may choose to participate in a self-help program as an adjunct to more traditional group therapy and use individual treatment as needed. Some of the self-defeating patterns that commonly arise in any treatment setting are:
Skipping sessions - difficulty with commitment to recovery
Insufficient knowledge about the recovery process
Unexpressed fear
Self-sabotaging thinking about one's lack of worth or deserving a better life
Minimization of your pain and issues by comparing to others
Denial
Blaming others and being unwilling to self-examine
Financial problems where therapy is not given priority Being aware of these blocks makes it easier to recognize them when they come up in recovery. Most recovering codependents fear the unknown. When an individual begins to sway from attending therapy it may be a good time to review the blocks with an impartial support person.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments