Talk:Love-shyness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 13, 2006. The result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love-shyness was keep.

Contents

[edit] Re-release of the book may come in a few years

I've emailed Gilmartin about his aspergers estimate and not only did he reply to me about how he believed some of the men he interviewed had aspergers (just by how they behaved) but he mentioned he is trying to have his book re-released by the time he is retired (2010). However, he mentioned it will only work if there is sincere interest and if anyone interested would be willing to help him fund the prjoct, he would be interested. If the re-release happens, he said he would like to update it with a section on asperger syndrome since a number of those who are afflicted by it (like myself) have strong problems trying to establish relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.91.156 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article has reached its peak

Anyone agree that there is pretty much nothing that can be added to this article anymore unless another study on love-shyness is done (though that isn't likely to happen anytime soon)? Anything that was noteworthy in the book has been jotted down in this article but some pet theories still occasionally get slipped in. 72.178.91.156 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-shy agenda?

I find this article deeply offensive. It quotoes spurious research. Inf find it difficult to see why wikipedai has an artcile on such a bizzare subject. It is offensive to victims of bullying. It puts forward a deeply anti shy agenda, it just a load of drivel with a commercial agenda. . The thing about the Backstreet Boys has to be a joke... unless research has been conducted which proves that to be statistically true, which I find highly unlikely

  • Wikipedia has many articles on bizarre subjects. As for whether his research is spurious, there are criticisms of his research referenced in the article (e.g. the article by Algeier). How would the article be offensive to victims of bullying? All it says is that bullying can cause lasting psychological damage. How is that offensive to victims of bullying? As someone who suffered a lot of childhood bullying myself, I think it would be wrong to deny that bullying can be damaging to people, or to pretend that bullying is not a problem. As for whether the article has an "anti shy agenda," all Gilmartin says is that being shy is a problem for the shy person. This is simply Gilmartin's perspective. Nobody says that you have to agree with him. Wikipedia also has articles on Hitler, but that does not endorse Hitler's point of view. --SecondSight 07:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love-shyness in homosexuals

I agree with Kimiko's comment below - why should this condition not affect homosexuals? I can understand it not affecting (or affecting less) women, as one could imagine that heterosexual men would 'court' or seek to start a relationship with the woman, with no 'effort' required on the part of the woman. But for a homosexual man or woman, he/she must make him/herself known to other gay men/women in order to start a relatonship (perhaps by visting a gay club or dating website). Otherwise, no other members of the same sex may make advances for fear that they are trying to start a relationship with a straight person.

In fact, I would've thought that a gay man or woman would be more shy than their heterosexual friends perhaps due to the fact that they feel set apart by their sexuality, and so would perhaps be more susceptible to love-shyness than heterosexual males. I think that the article should be amended to state that love-shyness might not necessarily be exclusive to heterosexual males - note that Gilmartin's study only included heterosexal men. I also think it should be noted that heterosexual men can be courted by heterosexual women - there's no reason why it should only ever be the other way around. --henryaj 14:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Amendment: Having read some of Gilmartin's study, I see that he writes:

"Indeed, there is evidence that love-shyness is about equally prevalent among the ranks of homosexuals as it is among the ranks of heterosexuals. More succinctly, there probably is no difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals in this regard." ([1])

So the part of the article that says Gilmartin believes love-shyness especially affects heterosexual men is contradictory to this, is it not? --henryaj 16:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Gilmartin says that love-shyness is more of a problem for heterosexual males, because heterosexual males are usually expected to be the initiator during courtship with women. According to Gilmartin, homosexual males can more easily be passive during courtship, because they can let another male approach them (whereas being completely passive is not realistic for a heterosexual guy unless he is ridiculously attractive or famous, which love-shy men are not). This certainly makes sense. --SecondSight 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reality of condition

Is love-shyness a real "condition"? The way it's presented almost makes it seem like it should be in DSM-IV. Being related to romantic love it must have a strong cultural aspect, as romantic love is not a universal concept.

Also, I don't see why love-shy people can't have people for emotional support. This would seem to make love-shyness just an aspect of shyness in general, and not deserving it's own entry. Romantic relationships are not in a completely different world than friendship.

Hence the NPOV marker

(note by Sietse: the author of this note is an anonymous user with IP 130.89.166.237)

I agree with some of your concerns. I tried to make the article more NPOV and have included a section about the relationship between LS and commonly recognized mental disorders. Regarding your remark about emotional support: according to Gilmartin, love-shy men often do not have any emotional support because they are not interested in social contact with men and are unable to initiate any contact with women. Best regards, Sietse 11:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'll take the marker away now that there is some more information
Would a heterosexual man who easily forms frienships with women, but is "shy" when it comes to going beyond friendship, be considered "love-shy"? Nik42 06:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Probably not the way Gilmartin defines love-shyness. But such a guy would be suffering from many of the symptoms of love-shyness. --SecondSight 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I've read the book and Gilmartin never addresses opposite-sex friendships between adults. Maybe it's because society was different twenty years ago. DanBishop 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shake your Shyness

Should the "Shake Your Shyness" link be removed? It looks irrelevent to this article.

I agree. Since there are no negative reactions to your suggestion, I have removed the link. Sietse 11:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aspergers

Little piece of information that others might find useful. I think love-shyness might be related to Asperger's_Syndrome, as i first thought i had love-shyness, but now i am pretty sure i have asperger's. --Anon

Oh damn it I'm pretty sure I am love-shy. I have been reading those chapters in that online book about love-shyness and it fits me quite well. Well at least now I know whats wrong with me. --Arm
Gilmartin says that the root cause of love-shyness is a bad fit between your inborn temperament, and the cultural expectations of what male boys should be like (and this bad fit will lead to the development of anxiety around women during adolescence, often because of receiving bullying or social ostracization during childhood). Having Asperger's syndrome definitely causes a bad fit between one's temperament and the expectations of masculinity, so Asperger's could cause love-shyness in some males. --SecondSight 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Umm....I guess it's very difficult to pin down one's "condition" especially if you're diagnosing yourself, though I suspect having a doctor diagnose you wouldn't be very reliable either. I'm saying this because I thought I had Asperger's, too, after reading the Wikipedia article on it, but then I read the love shyness article and thought I might have that instead. But wait! Then I read about introversion, depression, inferiority complex, et al and it seems I fit into all of them because I have many of the symptoms of each, and furthermore they also share many of the same symptoms! So fuck trying to pin everything down on just one condition--that will never succeed! Life sucks and it's not getting better..... I sure as hell know I have an inferiority complex and I sure as hell know I am also shy, love shy, introverted, depressed, and probably also have Asperger's from the sound of it. But to hell with that: knowing the name of my fate doesn't help, that's why I don't care to pin it down anymore. I suggest Arm and Anon do the same. 07:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heterosexual exclusivity

Why would this disability only occur among heterosexuals? It seems to me homosexuals would be just as susceptible to it. -- Kimiko 08:19, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm gay and through observing the straight and gay world, it seems guys, both straight and gay, want sex the same amount. I believe it's the women, the games they play, their shyness, and incompatible social structures of females to males which creates interference from the natural act of sex for which the male would normally aggrevate. In the past, in early man, both gay and straight men would rape their females or have consensual male sex because of their equal pyysical prowess prevented simple rape. In today's society, since females don't want to be raped, sexual shyness, or its perception of existence, is founded for heterosexuals. Of course, there are always exceptions, but in the most part, since men simply want sex more, they get it more often. And if you stick two people that both want sex more together, two men for example, you do the math, more sex will happen.Nostrum 08:28, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What makes you think females want sex less than males? -- Tarquin 09:26, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
And what does males' supposedly bigger sex drive have to do with love-shyness? The article talks about people not having relationships or social interactions. Sex drive may have something to do with the search for a relationship, but not other social interaction. -- Kimiko 08:58, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Wow, whatever Nostrum said is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever read. He also can't read because this article is about a severe form of shyness, not the male/female sex ratio. Women are no different in wanting sex as much as men do. I know many girls who are sex hungry and a lot of guys I know only say "I want to save it for marriage" (Ha ha...). I do have male friends who love sex but whenever I'm in their presence, no sexual activity happens. And that is not just because I'm straight. I think the same sex just looks very unattractive and most of the people who bullied me in my childhood were male so I have feelings of misandry towards most I encounter. My ex-girlfriend also would initiate sexual contact with me many times before I could make any notion I wanted any and I always gave in to her. No one in their right mind wants to be raped either though apparently Nostrum thinks the reverse. Women can also be as physically strong as men if given the right amount of physical training. You seem to be a mysogynist and anti-hetereosexual from how you described women. Testacate
So how specifically is this different from social phobia? People with this are goimg to wind up in much the same situation as the so-called "Love-shy", so we could use some more explanation of how "love-shyness" isn't just social phobia under another name Malcolm Farmer 10:48, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Social phobia is an excessive fear of social situations in general, or of certain specific social situations. Social phobia is a fairly specific disorder: people are very anxious in the situations that they fear, but otherwise they are mostly fine. Love-shyness, however, can affect a person's complete lifestyle. It involves a pervasive pattern of avoiding informal social situations, which is somewhat similar to an avoidant personality disorder. I agree that there is an overlap between social phobia and love-shyness, but in my opinion, that does not mean that LS is social phobia 'under another name'. Sietse 11:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to be a specific kind of social phobia, where people aren't just afraid of public scrutiny in general, but only from people of the opposite sex. What I asked about is if it shouldn't be preferred sex instead of opposite sex. This is the first time I read about this form of social phobia though. It could be put there, but apparently there's enough to make it a separate topic. There is a link from social phobia to shyness and from shyness to love-shyness, so it isn't that difficult to find. -- Kimiko 15:53, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I tried to address the heteronormativity issues in the article. Sietse 11:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please see my changes to the article. -- Karada 14:02, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Sources outside Gilmartin?

A search of the psychological literature shows that Brian Gilmartin is the only one who has ever written about love-shyness. The term does not occur before his 1987 article and, more importantly, has not been used since then, including by Gilmartin himself. What is available of his book at the website linked here does not contain a much-needed differentiation from related constructs such as shyness and generalized social phobia (of which it seems to be a slightly more circumscribed form as I pointed out above). From the book's table of contents it seems that Gilmartin did not provide this differentiation. I think it is important to add these details to the introduction of this article as the current text seems to suggest that the term and/or the concept are quite common, which is definitely not the case. -Kimiko 18:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The lack of outside reference to Gilmartin's ideas makes it all seem a little like psuedoscience. Can anybody suggest why others would be unwilling to reference him? His book, long out of print, contains among other things an entire chapter discussing astrology and reincarnation, ideas that - despite the NPOV issues surrounding them - bear a questionable relation to the subject of 'love shyness'. What makes his idea startling is that its introductory chapters appear to describe a condition remarkably familiar to me, and I presume, to most people who are drawn to his book. Perhaps the strangely high popularity of his book, given the lack of serious attention it has been given by other researchers, can be explained by the familiarity readers have with his description of 'love shyness' and their need to find a solution to their problem. However, the lack of other material backing him up seems to depict him as some kind of charismatic cult leader, expousing his own Voodoo. There is much that is questionable about Gilmartin's book; and strangely few people who are questioning it. Currently, the article treats it as if it is an established and accepted theory. However, the only outside links and bibliographic references simply point to Gilmartin's work. If this is the only reference we have for what is obstensibly a social disorder affecting millions of people, perhaps this wikipedia entry needs to place more emphasis on the fact that these ideas belong to one man only, are somewhat questionable, and have not been referenced seriously by any other works discussion social disorders.
Even if this is not eligible for a NPOV marker, surely we should be pointing out more prominently the dubious scientific validity in his findings? Is there a "psuedoscience" marker? anonymous 12:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The love-shyness concept really seems to stand like a cult, without any scientific support except for Gilmartin's own few publications about it, and which the followers agree with just because they want to believe. Ronasi 15:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1. Gilmartin cites plenty of support for his theory, so it's not true that it stands "without any scientific support." 2. Neither is it true that nobody references Gilmartin. I searched Google Scholar, and it finds several references to his work. People do cite him without using the word "love-shyness" (except in the citation). It baffles me why several users are jumping to the conclusion that love-shyness is some kind of "cult." Just because he has chapter on astrology etc., it doesn't mean that the rest of the book has no value. Gilmartin published part of his love-shyness work in a journal (minus the occult references of course), so it can't be too bad. If anyone has any doubts about the validity of the actual study in his book, please point out exactly what is wrong with his methodology, instead of making vague charges of "pseudoscience." My suspicion is that the lack of references to Gilmartin may be because the astrology/reincarnation references lead it to be dismissed by serious researchers, and because our society doesn't really consider shyness to be a problem worth much attention (the people who are mostly likely to care about Gilmartin's research are probably the people who identify with the condition he describes, and they of course are less likely to speak up about it because they are shy). --SecondSight 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is the support for his theory on love-shyness specifically? Provide your links please. I'd like to see this fellow's research debunked because he seems to have committed real mistakes in promoting his theory, one which may or may not be relevant to psychology. Which self respecting psychology professor would actually include such idiotic references to the occult in a serious work? Do you think they would expect to be taken seriously by proper researchers in the field? Really. 218.215.23.251 14:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feminist ideology

"It is believed to be the result of...experiencing feminist ideology"? Tregoweth 01:46, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Offtopic

Offtopic, but I would like to thank those who wrote this article, collected the links and linked it it Asperger's. It has helped me a lot, please keep the link to Asperger's! (Someone off-wiki suggested removing it, don't!) Gerritholl 19:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Great read, Kirlian photography

Really, until page 15 when he mentions Kirlian photography as scientific evidence. --Phlebas 10:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am love shy

oh shit i am love shy i am scared to talk to girls but back then I wasnt please tell me what that is and is zoloft good for that User:bjj07

[edit] Pseudoscience alleged

Recoursing to astrology, reincarnation, etc., let alone treatment thereof, attracts allegations of pseudoscience. Should the book be re-published, apart from addressing Internet-era changes, sections dealing with astrology, etc. needs to be outright pruned or scientifically defended. -Unsigned

I totally agree. The excerpts I've read are really good, so the crap about astrology and all that is a black eye to an otherwise interesting book. --The Amazing Superking 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devastation

"People who are love-shy are generally embarassed [sic] when rejected by the one they want."

I would say that "devastated" would be more accurate than "embarrassed." -Unsigned

[edit] Symptoms

Could someone cite where Gilmartin makes these claims:

  1. Love-shy men can also be embarassed if girls that they know are brought up in front of their parents thereby causing a constraint that will make a romantic relationship harder to initiate.
  2. Love-shy men like music that is more danceable. They usually do not like ballads or love songs since they are embarassed by them.

I've read his book several times, and I didn't see them, but maybe I just missed them. --SecondSight 07:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

From my reading, the opposite to both points is true. Gilmartin mentioned many love-shy wanted their parents to introduce them to women. He also said they liked melodic music, *especially* ballads, and hate "rock". *Autistic* people prefer rythmic music according to at least one study, which contradicts Gilmartin's 80's musical findings and modern claim that many autistic spectrum people are love-shy. If love-shyness is just "female brain" + "specialised social anxiety" as I suspect, this would explain the discrepancy. "Female brain" people like melodic music, Autistic spectrum (AS) people like rythmic music, and both groups often get social anxiety. AS + social anxiety != love-shy from the book, but Gilmartin's 2004 letter strongly implies it is. matturn 08:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Gilmartin is claiming that love-shyness="special social anxiety" that men with atypical male brain structures (either a more female-like brain structure, or AS) are more predisposed towards. I didn't get the sense that having a female-like brain is essential to be being love-shy, it is just one of the most common causes of love-shyness. Also, the fact that autistic people prefer rhythmic music while most love-shy men prefer other music doesn't mean that there aren't autistic men with love-shyness. It could be that only a minority of men in his sample had anything like AS, and there could be reasons that men with AS and love-shyness would be less likely to participate in the study than "female brain" love-shy men. --SecondSight 19:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You might be right, but the first book clearly focuses on "female like" men. "Love-shyness" is an interesting topic that deserves better research than Gilmartin did. matturn 10:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women and love-shyness

"He did not rule out the existance of female or homosexual male love-shy people, but he doubted they would feel the same negative effects as hetereosexual men. Thus the condition would manifest very differently in them."

Did he even ask any women? This article sums up so much of how I feel, and it definately has very similar negative effects on me. I have no idea if things will ever get any better, but at least I don't feel quite such a freak any more. -Unsigned

If he did, the book doesn't say anything descriptive about it. There's an online support group for love-shy women at [2] if you're interested. My personal understanding of love-shyness is that it occurs when men with parts of their brains more like the average woman than average man, also have social anxiety with women. Therefore, a love-shy woman is just a woman with a form of social anxiety. Social anxiety is readily treatable. Nearly all the adult treatment methods suggested by Gilmartin in his book target this (with a few targeting depression and apathy). matturn 08:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music

What's the connection between Peter Rentfrow & Samuel Gosling, and Gilmartin? I don't follow it. Schizombie 08:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

There's already some criticism of Gilmartin's work in the article, mentioning pseudoscience or that it is not recognized by two of the major psych orgs. Should the criticism be collected into a section? It would be nice to get some references to Gilmartin by others pro or con. Schizombie 00:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BS

It's a load of rubbish that rock music is less melodic than any other genres of music. It sounds as if Gilmartin is applying a bunch of stereotypes to people. "They prefer slow ballads"?!. Bullshite. I find this whole article whimsical and pseudo-science at worst. Boothman 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree a lot of the article is very...well wrong (certainly there's a hell of a lot of great rock melodies out there...and "they prefer slow ballades" contradicts "they don't like songs about love"), but it's still worthwile. The article just needs to be totally redone, and as I mentioned on the AFD page, should probably be reverted to how it was a few weeks ago. Melodia Chaconne 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if Gilmartin was applying stereotypes or if the sample of people he got simply shared a number of stereotypical characteristics. The article needs work, see above. I don't know about reverting it though, unless some good content was lost. Schizombie 18:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The "old" article was no better, just shorter. If you think the "new" article isn't coherent, try reading Gilmartin's book. Most of this article is in there, though a few stray comments still need to be removed. The music stuff - that's all in the book. The immediately previous music section stated a roughly opposite opinion to Gilmartin (while claiming to be his). For the article to make good sense, original research is required. Any coherent interpretation of the book requires gaps to be filled using ideas Gilmartin doesn't directly state. If Boothman read the book, he'd realise the whimsy and pseudo-science comes straight from that source. Most of it is missing here. Gilmartin seems to have discovered an interesting and powerful correlation, but then handled it terribly. matturn 12:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I myself am love-shy and I prefer death metal and punk rock. That's just me though; I look for melody where others find none. Spike the Porcupine 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographical material on Gilmartin?

Would a short bio be appropriate, or would that better be addressed in an article on him? B.A., University of Colorado, 1962; M.S., University of Utah, 1964; Ph.D., University of Iowa, 1969. He also wrote (1978) The Gilmartin Report: an Exploration of the Growing Open Sexuality in Marriage, Based on Hundreds of Candid Interviews With the Husbands and Wives of "Swinging" Couples-and With Their Children (1978) ISBN 0806506415. He's supposed to have written three others, but I don't know what they are. Other writings include: "Relationship of Traits Measured by the California Psychological Inventory to Premarital Sexual Standards and Behaviors," M.S. thesis, University of Utah, 1964.; "That Swinging Couple down the Block," Psychology Today, February 1975, p. 54; "Jealousy Among the Swingers" in Gordon Clanton and Lynn G. Smith (eds) Jealousy. (1979) "Corporal Punishment: A Research Update". Human Behavior 8 (2): 18-25; (1985) "Some Family Antecedents of Severe Shyness" Family Relations Journal of Applied Family and Child Studies 34 (3): 429-38. Schizombie 18:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the book

I don't know if this is sufficiently encyclopedic for a possible addition to the article?:

Gilmartin's book was published in 1987 by University Books, and in 1989 that publisher's subsidiary Madison Books published an abbreviated version with a new foreward by E. Michael Gutman, then president of the Florida Psychological Society, and Chief Psychiatrist for Mental Health Services, Orange County, Florida. After falling out of print, Gilmartin's book did not attract a lot of attention, though usenet posts from the mid-1990s indicate it was still being read, and Gilmartin notes that "Over the years" he had "received letters and e-mails from all over." His work was translated into Japanese, and in 1995 Gilmartin visited Japan to promote it.
It began finding many new English language readers as a result of Justin Urban posting excerpts on the newsgroup alt.support.shyness in 2001, on his website http://www.angelfire.com/ab6/polepino/toc.html , and by the subsequent creation of a Yahoo! Group for further discussion of the book. Further readers can be attributed to the recommendation of the book by popular TV sex guru Sue Johanson in her book Sex, Sex, and More Sex. Additionally, Dr. Judy Kuriansky notes in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Dating that Nobuku Awaya, a Japanese author, created a program of "practice dating" based it on Gilmartin's description in his book. -Unsigned, Shizombie?
It's at least as good as most of the article. Add it, and see how it evolves. matturn 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. Maybe it belongs elsewhere in the article, but I couldn't decide where to put it. Schizombie 09:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment avoidance

Attachment avoidance is a construct that sounds very similar to this. I'm wondering if there should be a mention or comparison here. Are they perhaps even the same thing? They might be. --DanielCD 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know... have any references? Esquizombi 14:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I have several. I'll try to get them later today. --DanielCD 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a study in which it is one of the IV's [3] (warning PDF file). The term "attachment avoidance" is more used in research, but as this study shows, it is a viable construct. I this study, it's used more as a comparison against "attachment anxiety", which seems to be the researchers' main interest. I think the public likes terms like "Love-shyness" more. However, they are very similar. I'm just suggesting that mention of this in some capacity might strengthen the article. I'm not planning to dive into it right now though (and I may be wrong, they may not be similar enough). --DanielCD 15:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading a few pieces on "attachment avoidance", it appears to me that the term describes people who consciously avoid emotional attachment, in diametric contrast to those with "attachment anxiety" who worry intensely that their attachments aren't good enough. Those afraid of people they're attracted to (aka love-shy) belong much more to the latter group than the former - they *strongly desire* attachment and feel intense anxiety about relationships. I believe "attachment anxiety" could well be a common componant of love-shy personalities. But if you're looking for an established term to describe the fear part of the disorder, look at social anxiety. matturn 09:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great work

I love this article! Well Done. However I believe that Love Shy People may be split into various groups, the sociopathic (lacking self confidence), the religiously inclined (those who can do nothing that offends their faith), the physically handycapped (ie. overwight, disfigured, mamed etc.) and those who have physiological or hormonal problems (such as high/low testosterone, or low/high adrenalin, hyperclycemia etc). Women may also suffer this disorder and should not realy be limited to men alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.82.254 (talk • contribs)

Have you seen social anxiety? That is the far more recognised definition of what I think you are describing. matturn 08:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article still needs work. One thing that might help improve it is if the "Other notable attributes" section were pared down more, or if it actually included citations to Gilmartin. Right now it's difficult to tell what Gilmartin actually wrote, and what other people added as attributes they think people might have. Esquizombi 13:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to love-shy.com

The link to love-shy.com is valuable, because it provides links to accounts of people who claim to be love-shy, a test of shyness in romantic situation, and it has links to various webforums for the discussion of the phenomenon. It is true that there is a link to a page on love-shy.com for Gilmartin's book which is hosted there, but unless someone goes through that link, they won't realize that the site exists, and even if they do, they may not realize that there is other stuff on the site besides Gilmartin's book. Anyone who wants to remove the link again should please provide reasoning here. --SecondSight 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it just proves this article is nothing but a commercial. -- 790 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
A commercial for what? Gilmartin's work is free. --SecondSight 03:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. Maybe an uncommercial :-/ --790 18:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other notable attributes

People keep adding stuff to the attributes section that are not mentioned in Gilmartin's book (e.g. poverty and homelessness). I keep reverting these additions, because without a citation from Gilmartin (or other researchers who explicitly use the term "love-shyness"), they do not belong in the article. This section is already very vague, and each item on the list should cite a page number or cite a precise statistic from Gilmartin if one is available. If I see additions to this list, and I am not sure that they are based on Gilmartin's work (and instead are probably based on someone's speculation about the condition or personal experience), I will remove it by default unless it cites a page number from Gilmartin. --SecondSight 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment?

Why doesn't this article discuss treatment of love-shyness? Most other disease/disorder articles on Wikipedia have treatment as a major portion. The latter half of Gilmartin's book is a good start, I presume. -Unsigned

[edit] 71.143.134.102

To whoever this was on 13-14 Oct. 2006, I've reverted your edits. You cannot say that:

  • Someone dislikes military movies, yet, loves subjects like war and terrorism (unless very specifically cited),
  • Because someone dislikes rock and hip-hop, they "hate the radio",
  • Someone "hates politics and authority figures" because they belong to a group that has a low concentration of registered voters,

and so on. Try and keep to what you can substantiate, or at the very least, try to avoid non-sequiturs and contradiction. Thedangerouskitchen 14:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilmartin's estimate on Asperger's incidence rate

I would remove the last sentence of the article:

"When this statistic is combined with his "1.5 percent of men are love-shy" statistic, Gilmartin would seem to be suggesting a possible incidence rate of Asperger's of over .6%, a figure that is more than one order of magnitude off from even some of the most liberal estimates of Asperger's incidence."

This is why I would remove the previous sentence:

Estimates of the prevalence of Asperger's syndrome range from 0.01% (Wing, 1981) to 3.6% of live births (Ehlers and Gillberg, 1993). Gillberg (1989) estimated that the male to female ratio was 10:1 based on his clinical experience.

It is currently believed that there may currently be more cases of Asperger's syndrome than previously thought. -Unsigned

Absolutely, although I believe your 3.6% rate is way too high. Barlow and Durand (2002) report a maximum figure of 36 in 10,000 which is 0.36%. I have a different figure of 9:1 males to females with aspergers. Thus Gilmartin's incidence potentially overestimates the incidence of aspergers by only 100%, not "more than one order of magnitude". I will change the article accordingly. (Reference: Barlow, D., & Durand, V.. (2002). Abnormal Psychology.(3rd ed.). Canada: Wardsworth Group.) Ppe42 11:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
While editing the article, I realised the previous edit assumed that Gilmartin's figure for the overall incidence of love-shy men could be used as the incidence for "severely love-shy men" which seems obviously incorrect to me. I edited accordingly, assuming that severely love-shy men might account for 25% of all love-shy men. Interestingly, this actually brings the inferred figure for Aspergers (0.15%) down to match the conservative low estimate (0.18%) given in Barlow and Durand (2002). Ppe42 11:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love-shyness in recent films

I just realised that the office guy (Karl) in the film Love Actually seems to be love-shy. He knows Sarah's feelings for him but is too scared/shy to make a move... Am I right? Are there any other recent movies, tv shows etc. that show love-shyness? The part in the article on love shy movies only goes upto 1980s. 86.139.62.243 13:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are recent media that have characters that appear love-shy. But unless they mention the term "love-shyness", connecting them to the page would be original research. The movies only go in the 80's because Gilmartin's book was written in the 80's. --SecondSight 22:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
also, the relationship in 'the office' by david brent between dawn and tim -- i added amelie to the list a few weeks ago and said it could be included even though it was done outside 1980 -Unsigned
I think the intrepid RCMP Officer Benton Frasier from Due South would qualify. -Unsigned
Would Peter Parker from Spiderman be considered love-shy? -Unsigned

[edit] Wow.. issues

Is it possible to have love shyness, social anxiety, autism, and shyness (in general), because I believe I have those disorders, I often feel lonely, depressed and have strong romantic sexual desires which cannot be fulfilled adequately, but are fulfilled (usually by porn lol), i have a hard time talking to others.. and my speech is rather lacking, my physical appearance is unjust, i don't have a job, i have no confidence or social skills.. but i'm a nice and loving person, I don't care for money or personal gain.. I would love to help others and I would love to have my own family with a women who is just awesome.. lol keep dreaming i guess 75.26.36.162 06:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. Wikipedia isn't really a place to discuss the personal side of this stuff, but if you are interested, you might check out the blog I recently joined. Love-shyness is something I will be talking about there. --SecondSight 08:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music

I totally disagree with the "Music" section. I have all the 7 characteristics considered by Gilmartin to be criteria for each "love-shy" man, and I like Death Metal. So… it doesn't make sense.

"Gilmartin's observations conclude that the majority of love-shy men mainly prefer music with rich and beautiful melody; and consequently dislike most music which is noisy, loud, dissonant, or unmelodic. For most of the love-shys, melody appears to be the most important element in music."

OK, I prefer the death metal branches with more melodic influences, but I certainly don't dismiss the "noisy, loud, dissonant" sound, actually that's what makes me like the genre. I don't know where it was taken from… but if it's true… more studies should be done to find out whether love-shy men have a common tendency to like any specific kind of music or not… It seems to me that any love-shy men may like any kind of music and it doesn't make him more or less "love-shy". -Unsigned

You forget this was study was done before metal was "mainstream" . metal was at its infantcy, and death metal did not exist. -Unsigned
Even Gilmartin himself stated that love-shyness doesn't exist in a vacuum so anyone affected by it would have tastes coming in all hues. -Unsigned (different from above unsigned)
Same here. I dont like my lifestory being told in public in this article, but it is exactly that. the music as described doesnt fit my taste in music one bit, but the conclusion fits surprisingly accurately.·Lygophile has spoken 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious, rather unencyclopaedic comment

often have tense, nervous, angry and/or two-faced mothers who disallowed dates with girls

This quote, from the bullet list seems a bit like vandalism, but I didn't want to remove it, in case it was actually found from Gilmartin's study. Should it be removed? 88.106.145.37 20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that sort of behaviour will contribute to love-shyness but I'm not familiar with Gilmartin's study. Christopher Connor 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I never found that anywhere when I read the book. In fact, in the ranks of the older love-shy men, their parents were quite upset and distraught that their sons never dated or married. Suffor 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Career, money and education

The current section on career, money and education seems woefully out of date. It may have been statistically representative of the original research, but that statistical sample is now more than two decades old and a lot of changes in the economy have happened. Moreover, the statistical sample may be invalid as now more technical people who have found niches deep inside the technology industries, may be easier to find and of higher education.

Were his statistical data updated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.183.10 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Nope, never was and probably never will be. Suffor 06:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, notability, advertisement

No substantial discussion of criticism or support of this theory is given, as this is not a widely accepted theory the content should be moved to an article covering the one book the entire article is taken from. I almost wonder if it was written by the author of the book himself.

Removed notability because love shyness is a known phenomenon and you will find communities dotted around the net to attest this. Removed NPOV because its covered by advertisement. I wonder if the author of the book had a hand writing this article too. Operating 10:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The article wasn't written by Gilmartin; most of it was written by me. I summarized some of his most interesting findings and theories. There should not be an article on just the book, because Gilmartin also published journal articles on the concept(one of which is already cited in the article). Gilmartin's work is referenced in several other published sources. If you want to make discussion of responses to Gilmartin's work more substantial, then you are welcome to look up the sources yourself and provide more details or quotes. However, lack of discussion is not the same thing as POV. Until someone points to exactly what is POV about the article, I am removing the tag. I don't know how it got tagged as an advertisement anyway, because the tagger provided no justification for doing so. One problem with the article is that some sentences are unsubstantiated by the book, because the article gets vandalized a lot by people adding their own pet theories of what they think "love-shyness" entails; I've removed many of these sentences, but there might still be some remaining because spotting them is a pain and requires searching through his book. --SecondSight 06:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I, like others, find the scientific validity of his love-shyness theory to be thrown into doubt because of the new-age pseudoscience referenced in his work. I don't doubt there are people who are "love-shy" - just that his research and work can be called scientific or credible. I will accept it is a known phenomenon, but is it really a unique disorder, (as opposed to part of a broader anxiety disorder or personality issue best addressed with counselling?), is his study objective, scientific, credible or widely accepted?? I would like to call SecondSights' bluff on the "several other published sources" mentioned in brief. I don't believe Judy Kuriansky (a professor of clinical psychology, who actually gets a bad rep here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0028641752/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful/002-9592927-0160830?ie=UTF8&n=283155#customerReviews), Sue Johanson, (a counselor and media personality, hardly objective) and Elizabeth Rice Allgeier (who herself criticises the work) can suffice as a good range of sources. 218.215.23.251 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Gilmartin references to Eysenck's work, who himself is controversial. On Eysenck: 'Among other things, he reportedly endorsed the use of electric-shock aversion therapy on homosexuals saying it's "just like a visit to the dentist".' http://www.tatchell.freeserve.co.uk/psychiatry/dentist.htm. Doesn't sound like a very reputable source to base his research from. I should also mention that Eysenck was also an advent of astrology, the paranormal and the like. I would be skeptical at most. 218.215.11.28 13:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nasal polyps

It says further down the page that there is a link between love shyness and nasal polyps. Er, why? I could understand groos facial deformities and love shyness, but what is the link between the two?Ticklemygrits 16:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that breathing patterns can affect brain chemistry and breathing therapy is used to treat many anxiety problems. I'm not a medical expert but I'm guessing that the nasal polyps affect the breathing and therefore brain chemistry and can result in anxiety problems of various sorts.--Komitadji 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The affects of breathing can also be unattractive. Suffor 06:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No poverty

There should be no more slipping in that the love-shy men were living on the poverty threshold. I've read through the book and there is no mention about poverty. I believe all the talk about poverty and disputed claims that are solved should be removed from this discussion. Suffor 04:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate indeed

I'm sorry, but I have to point this out: The complete list under Other love-shy attributes is so vague, it shouldn't be on here at all. Anyone can apply those "attributes" for themselves if they "want" themselves to be percieved as love-shy. "Less patriotic"? I'm German for christs sake, if I was patriotic, you know where that would lead to. "More likely to apolitical"? The majority of young people (16+) is apolitical nowadays. "Are easily upset"...? I could take the whole list apart!
Bottom line: can someone paint a big red warning sign over that article? Or at least shorten it down so the BS isn't all over the place? ~ Dragon Legacy 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the list is vague, this article is largely about the theories of a single researcher. Perhaps the researcher was likewise vague. Also, if the research done primarily on American men in the 80s, I think that “non-patriotic” and “apolitical” would be more significant and specific then if applied to German men now. Has any outside source critiqued him for being too vague or too culturally specific? Does anyone know if there is current research in this area, perhaps relating to other cultures or demographics? While this is an interesting article, it seems to be about a pet theory of a single psychologist. Unless and until someone else does some research on this idea, we will probably only have Gilmartin and a couple of his critics to go on.74.223.80.162 15:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love-shyness and race

I know the ethnicity of the men was never listed but when Gilmartin gave the statistic about white college students, that suggests the men were all white themselves. Shyness in whites, especially towards love, seems to have the most problems out of all races. I feel this mainly because I am white and I haven't had a real relationship yet. The other kids at school that weren't white targeted me for bullying and they were always trying to convince the girls who were white to only like them and not any of the white guys because they claimed all whites are bad and should make up for the past by loving one of them instead. I also put blame on the stupid liberals in this country who overlook minority race crime rates, think all straight people are happy, and for not reading up on American and world history. This is not to be racist because I will be friends with any member of any ethnicity outside my own if they are kind to me and don't try to make me feel white guilt. I'm just giving my own observation of things. Suffor 23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I now see why we can't let the liberals win elections and am starting to wonder if they are trying to bring down this nation. Perhaps you can save America and find the right girl in the process, like in some right-of-passage story. I know it's crazy, but it could help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.201.139 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it may help you learn how to be assertive. That would help, right?--69.234.201.139 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered trying to date non-white women? I think you'll find that some (esp. Asians) will be more tolerant of shy guys. Another option would be dating shy women of any race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
A huge number of the non-white people in my area feel that "the white man is keeping them down" so they are hostile towards me and most of the Asians I've seen only want to be with other Asians. Even the few Asian girls I knew did not want a shy boyfriend. They wanted a bad boy just like the white girls do. I went to school with a lot of Mexicans but just like the white girls, the mexican girls only wanted the bad boy type so I have no idea how you can say minority girls love shy men. Sorry man but I refuse to try because I just know it won't fucking work. Women just hate men who are shy or even kind. Most shy women I've encountered are already taken because they don't have to take any initiative. I'm getting close to suicide every day. Suffor 06:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you thought about black girls? I'm a boy and I'm not black, but I still think you should have considered them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.201.139 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It is a lost cause if I tried dating black girls. As I stated before, a lot of the minority people in my home town think "the white man is keeping me down" or anything similar to that and there is a lot of violence between black and white kids at the main high school. The black girls I find attractive are usually already taken and the rest aren't attractive to me. They would only want bad boys too. And even among my own race, I'm rejected. I wonder if it is also because I have asperger syndrome I'm being rejected. Suffor 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, up to this point I believed white guys had an advantage when it came to women. You see a lot of white men with Asian women, but it isn't so common the other way around, and, although black-Asian couples are rare, the same thing seems to be happening in black-Asian couples. While it is true that you see more black guys with white women than the other way around, it isn't as uneven as white-Asian couples and black-white couples are fewer in number. I'm not being racist, I'm white and Asian. Perhaps there should be a study on how race affects a person's love-shyness. The fact that Asian men seem to be disadvantaged when in comes to girls (both in real life and leftist stereotypes) makes me wonder if I will fare more white or more Asian. --69.234.228.114 (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered an arranged marriage?? Jpritikin 15:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that option is available in the US. Suffor 16:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a particularly interesting comment. I'll just follow through with my sig. But seriously, this article is not really too bad (still in need of a little more support here and there, my apologies for being vague). As a subject of much debate, Love shyness is actually beginning to be of interest to me now. Well, it interested me at first because I managed to trip over a list of sexology topics. Never has a subject in my life has so many divisions. Just to show how sexual we can be. DXXD --Stoical Iceman (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability issues

This article seems to be a summary of Dr. Gilmartin's book on love-shyness and little else. The fact that we are relying on one person's work as a source brings up notability issues. Why has this old book been resurrected here?--NeantHumain 20:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Read under love shyness in Homosexuals, specifically Kimiko's comments.--Stoical Iceman (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "C-sections"

"A number of the men also had a difficult time being birthed and sometimes needed a c-section to be performed."

I find this very interesting, given the links between autism in general and the intestinal flora, the links between the effects of the intestinal flora on the brain, and the fact that a huge consequence of a c-section on a baby is that it is not exposed to the normal vaginal flora. If the baby is also not breast-fed, then he won't have a normal intestinal flora. I would not be surprised if love-shyness were highly a matter of microbes (and the subsequent impaired digestion/brain development/immune system). -Unsigned

Sorry, but this sounds like non-sense to me. I'm a case of love-shyness, I guess, and I wasn't born by C-section. It is a psychic problem and not an issue of microbes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.186.3 (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

  • Online discussion groups or chat forums
  • Personal webpages and blogs
  • Multiple links to the same website
  • Fundraising events or groups
  • Websites that are recruiting for clinical trials
  • Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definitely needs to be stressed that Gilmartin's data is dated!

The part about movie preferences especially flies against today's accepted common sense. Love shy men like love stories,chick flicks, and emotional dramas? Non shy men like superhero/sci-fi/fantasy? Last I checked, the first three were films that a guy might see with his girl. The other three are stereotyped as appealed religiously to nerds and geeks who cannot get laid. In the book, 2001:A Space Odyssey, Star Wars and Star Trek were on the list of movies appealing to non-shy guys. All I can say is: WTF?

And how many times must it be said that a blue collar guy living from paycheck to paycheck can and does often get all the girls that a scientist or engineer with six figure incomes cannot. Why? It's called having game! For the nerdy scientist or engineer, the pickins' is often mighty slim.137.198.122.152 (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other studies?

Is this the only study on Love-shyness or something similar? Ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.186.3 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)