Talk:New relationship energy

Notability and cleanup

There are now enough scholarly sources for this term that I believe it qualifies as notable. That being said, there is a lot of uncited material, original research and questionable sources in the article. I tagged the offending areas. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Status of this article

There have been some concerns about the appropriateness of this article. These break down into questions of Original Research, Neologism, and scholarly content. The scholarly content discussion in 2007 appeared to be fueled in large part by the concept that it was a scientific term or theory and as such needed scientific validation; to substantial degree this concern was reduced by removing an inappropriate Psychology tag; it is being considered more of a cultural term.

It does show up twice in Google Scholar, and is used in at least four accepted theses or dissertations: It is used in at least four accepted theses or dissertations (I have heard of others to be tracked down)

• Wolfe, L.P. (2003) "Jealousy and transformation in polyamorous relationships", doctoral dissertation, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco
• Sheff, E. (2004) "Gender, family, and sexuality", doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder
• Keener, M.C. (2004) "A Phenomenology of polyamerous persons", master's thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
• Cook, E. (2005) "Commitment in Polyamorous Relationships", master's thesis, Regis University, Denver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.206.169 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 17 July 2008

Neologism per Wikipedia guidelines or not?

Quoting a comment from the 2007 discussion:

The various sources cited fall mostly into three categories and one exception. A couple treat the subject in some detail, consistent with the usage described in this article, and may provide the main sources if the article is kept. Several others define the term more briefly, also consistent with this article. Some of these might be worked into citations, if they go on to make observations once it's defined (the counseling ones sound interesting). A third group use the term or its acronym in ways quite consistent with this article, but without offering any definition to the reader. (The exception is only a single reference which seems to get "NRE" wrong; written by a non-polyamorist, it recognizes NRE as a common term among polyamorists, but then overtly speculates (incorrectly) about the phrase intended by the acronym, without actually asserting any knowledge of the matter.) Since a major question regarding this article is whether it should still be classified as a Neologism as relevant to the Wikipedia guidelines, the third category (used but not defined in the reference) is of interest, even though not useful for citation to establish meaning. The Neologism guideline, which is to be applied with WP:COMMON, gives the purpose or reason for avoidance of typical recent neologisms as: "because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people". This term is not very recent, is clearly definable, all sources that assert knowledge of the meaning are consistent, some go into detail, all non-speculative usages are consistent, and several print authors no longer even feel it's unfamiliar or ambiguous enough to require definition for their readers (all according to the references available to us and listed elsewhere here). That should apply common sense to the concerns behind the Neologism guideline, and also serve as some evidence of notability.

There is evidence from Google Groups of usage in the current meaning going back to the early 90's, which while not citable to define the term, can give some background as to its minimum longevity.

Since this is a cultural term, it's also used in published popular books. This may help establish that it is well known and relatively unambiguous.

• Pagan Polyamory: Becoming a Tribe of Hearts by Raven Kalders (2005)
• Healing the War Between the Genders: The power of the Soul_Centered Relationship by Linda Marks (2003)
• Master/slave Relations: Handbook of Theory and Practice by Robert J Rubel PhD (2006)
• S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-To-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide by Heather Corinna (2007)
• The Polyamory Handbook: A User's Guide by Peter J Benson (2008)
• Yes Means Yes: Getting Explicit about Heterosex by Kath Albury (2002)
• Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech by Pauline Borsook (2001) - this is an exception, the author knows little about polyamory but recognizes that polyamorists frequently use the term and speculates incorrectly on the meaning. Evidence only of commonality.
• Unmarried to each other: The Essential Guide to Living Together by Dorian Solot (2002)
• Polyamory Many Loves: The Poly-Tantric Lovesstyle by Janet Kira Lessin
• Affirmative Psychotherapy with Bisexual Women and Bisexual Men by Ronald C Fox (2006)
• Opening Up: A guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships by Tristan Taormino (2008) p.185 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.206.169 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can work some of these into citations. I believe that all but the noted exception use NRE or New Relationship Energy compatibly with the book, some with definitions and some assuming its well enough known not to need definition. 76.191.206.169 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are books, journals and periodicals with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't at all dispute that this is a term that has been used in the polyamory community for several years. Even if it was in use 18 years ago, this is pretty recent, and only used in a particular community (you'll see this situation is also covered in wikipedia's guidelines on neologisms). Other neologisms that have articles, like email, which is not much older, are used by society at large and not limited to one particular sub-culture.

The article as it is, is written very pretentiously, like it is documenting a well-defined scientific term. It should be rewritten to accurately describe the term. It is language used in a sub-culture, and not a "state of mind experienced at the beginning of most significant sexual and romantic relationships, typically involving heightened emotional and sexual receptivity and excitement" as this is not any kind of established scientific fact. Making such a change would at least eliminate the egregiously misleading original research, even if it is still a neologism. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Article needs proper referencing

The references used in this article do not pass WP:V, WP:RS. Furthermore, the term appears to be an neologism. Please provide better sources for this term. --Mattisse 14:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The term has been used at least four times in peer-reviewed academic literature [1]. Craigtalbert 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely irrelevant whether a term has been "used in" a source, however supposedly credible. At least one has a tone of "here are some of the self-serving terms made up by these bloody hippies."
Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for an article on this topic. If there anything worth saying, it can be said at Interpersonal relationship. --JWSchmidt 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely a need for this article, and while it may be more helpful if it were flushed out, NRE is a valid term commonly used in the Polyamourous community.

I agree that there is a need to keep this acronym page in wikipedia. It has been used by the polyamory and open marriage community since the 1980's at least. When I was a newbie to open relationships, I searched for what NRE meant. This was in 1995. Newbies are always looking to find out what it means. If someone uses google to search for "NRE", the second result -October 24th 2007 10pm- is the wikipedia article. One of the consistent websites to list NRE is at PMM http://www.polymatchmaker.com/pmm3/main.mv?Page=acronyms&MODULE=HTML

The above-cited page no longer exists, and has not existed for years. (FWIW, there's no literal "polyamory community.") Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

http://www.aphroweb.net/articles/nre.htm has the history of the long standing acronym. No one in the polyamory uses limerence that I know of and I have joined over 30 USA and world wide polyamory yahoo groups and other sites. I disagree that NRE is a neologism. It has been around since the 1980's and has stood the test of a decade or more. Geothermal 05:54, 25 October 2007

The phrase is used very widely in the polyamory community. Google Groups Search for "new relationship energy" in alt.polyamory or for "NRE" shows many hits dating back to the early 1990's. Other online polyamory forums, mailing lists, etc. will also show plenty of references to this term. Most polyamory FAQs describe it as well, such as the PolyTampa FAQ, the polyamory.org acronym list, and the PolyMatchMaker Glossary. Musqrat 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to a book mentioned in the Reference List. http://www.amazon.com/Love-Limerence-Experience-Being/dp/0812862864/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206122849&sr=1-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geothermal (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT: The exact usage of NRE compared to limerence is subtle and I think in flux. I use NRE to mean the excitement and energy that comes from limerence. In current usage (2007), "NRE" seems to carry overtones of excitement and bubbliness, slightly superficial. "Limerence" carries more overtones of wonder and depth. --Alan7388

Was on the article, so I moved it here. 69.225.18.142 05:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No published source material seems available to support the connotations asserted above, which differ greatly from Tennov's descriptions of Limerence and Stewart's description of NRE. The asserted distinction may be assumed to be local to Alan7388's immediate community rather than widespread usage, pending some verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.26.161 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Belated apologies for barging into a dead Talk page but, in the ELEVEN years that have passed, more than 100 edits have been made without any attempt at discussion. Also in that period, the term new relationship energy has caught on (albeit in a "pop psych" manner) while the more rigorous limerence has not.

More people should read How to Lie with Statistics. Longevity (NRE) is not the same as truth; lack of popularity (limerence) doesn't denote falsehood.

Of eight sources cited in New relationship energy, five are popular press (half essentially self-published) and in large part an "echo chamber" of people citing each other. Of the remaining three, Tennov doesn't mention NRE; if Fox or Fisher did research specifically on NRE, then the actual chapters/sections/passages need to be cited, else inclusion puts them closer to the aforementioned bloggy popular-press notions. If there has been actual clinical study of NRE, then this needs to be cited, else I could make a case that New relationship energy would make more sense as a subsection of the somewhat-rigorous subject Limerence.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I loathe propaganda

Over months, I've been staring at the final paragraph(s). Bad enough this steals a "related concepts" presentation to do a "compare-and-contrast" with limerence… but it bothered me in some other manner. Then I set aside my Editor hat and read through the entire article as though a casual user. The final thought (wiped of fail tags and broken down to cases) is

• While NRE is described in published accounts as mostly positive and enjoyable feelings which people are reluctant to see fade, limerence is described by Tennov as a generally unpleasant oscillation of misery and intoxication whose sufferers wish to be rid of.
• NRE is often functional in establishing intimacy and emotional bonds, while limerence is seen as dysfunctional and without value.
• NRE almost always occurs to a significant degree in sexual or romantic relationships, while significant limerence is experienced in only a minority of relationships.
• Perhaps the most striking contrast is that Tennov describes limerence as an essentially unilateral feeling fueled by secrecy and uncertainty and which in all but a few pathological cases dissipates as soon as mutuality of feelings or lack thereof is established. By contrast, NRE is usually mutual and thrives on reciprocation. Limerence also carries no implication of contrast to longer established relationships.
• One way to integrate the concepts of limerence and NRE is to observe that in some cases the earliest stages of NRE, before mutuality of feelings is established, can exhibit a more transient and unstable limerence phase.

It's all so SIMPLE, really: limerence is The Brown Acid, NRE is All The Groovy Stuff. This ought to be a cited example in Propaganda.

For WP purposes, the major problem is that no evidence is offered that would support the (one-sided) conjecture; as a matter of fact, Limerence heavily cites Tennov and her progeny yet is almost entirely lacking all the arm-waving Chicken Little "OMG!!" negativity — e.g., "limerence is first and foremost a condition of cognitive obsession". (The term has also received much better coverage in major media, as opposed to a few special-interest blogs.)

Unless someone can salvage this with MANY good sources — and soon — it will be beaten back to a brief explication of how limerence fits into this discussion. Until that happy day, I'm removing all the tags, because at this point such detail is mere turd-polishing. And any defenders of this article's continued existence would do well to use Limerence as an ideal. resolved
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I really had been hoping that someone would stop by to salvage some of the overreach. But, alas.

First up: the long-winded (and unsupported) parenthetical aside in the fourth graf that even manages to use "NRE" three more times.

Point of logic: the article says that NRE is a hot topic among "the polyamorous community" citing a Z.S. post dated "in the 1980s"… even though the concept of polyamory wasn't established until the early '90s.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The concept of open consensual non-monogamy far predates the neologisim "polyamory". Indeed, the latter term rapidly gained favor as a new label for an existing practice. Before the coining of that term, it was often called "open relationships", "open marriage", or "responsible non-monogamy". Early inspirations include the science fiction novel "Stranger in a Strange Land" (1961) by Robert Heinlein, the novel "The Harrad Experiment" (1966) by Robert Rimmer, the movie of the same name in 1973, and the book "Open Marriage" (1972) by the O'Neils. The asserted first uses of the term "New Relationship Energy" predate the widespread usage of the neologism "Polyamory" as a label - but hardly predate the practice or concept which would often be labeled as polyamory today.

It is also not logical to dispute an assertion that the term New Relationship Energy is a hot topic in today's "polyamorous community" by noting that the term NRE predates the term Polyamory. There was no actual assertion that "NRE" was a hot topic in a self-labeled polyamorous community in the 80's, so that may be an inadvertant strawman argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.40.5 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)