They are pretty bad, but there is another, related, consequence of this altered state of mind that can be equally destructive. This is the phenomenon experienced in the middle of a limerence episode, when the limerent loses the ability to soundly process information and make sensible decisions.
A recent case in the UK provides a case study. Sir Marcus Smith. A male High Court judge who expressed his love for a young female member of staff has received a reprimand for serious misconduct, the most serious sanction short of removal from office.
It stated that he loved the young woman and wanted to know her feelings in return. Understandably, the woman involved β a junior co-worker β found this romantic overture distressing, and immediately requested that she no longer work with Sir Marcus.
She also complained to the judicial conduct authorities, resulting in the reprimand. An open and shut case. His defence was that:. This guy just came straight out with a written note declaring his feelings for all the world to see, and asking if she reciprocated. They are more Machiavellian. They use strategic ambiguity. Outside the bubble of limerence lunacy, the actions are outrageous β the fact that the limerent is deluded enough to believe his intentions are pure is irrelevant, and no kind of defence against the damage that is done.
Even when the bubble is burst by the reality of a professional reprimand, it only results in lost hope, wounded pride, and romantic confusion.
