Question for the thoughtful

[vr_trakowski]

I've been pondering this for a day or so.  Postulated: a person obsessed with another, for years on end, to the exclusion of all other romantic attachments.  But without interfering, at all, in the object's life.  Is the obsessed person a stalker? 

For the purposes of this scenario, there is no Internet, and--because it's fiction--the obsessed person's pattern will not change to contact at a future point.  The object has no idea that the attachment is anything beyond, say, casual friendship, if that. 

Any opinions? 

Comments

[cluegirl]

The legal definition of stalking, for purposes of law enforcement, is of an escalating pattern of monitoring leading to contact, and eventually assault in an attempt to control and/or terrorize the target.

Monitoring without any intent of contact or influence wouldn't be considered stalking by most law enforcement officials today, however anybody who came to light as having such thorough monitoring habits upon a single person would be probably closely investigated to be sure that there was no threat, and it's likely that if the target learned of it he/she could get legal injunctions filed to keep the person away, just on the creepiness factor.

However, it's not technically stalking if it doesn't escalate into behavior that influences and attempts to control the target subject. So sayeth my Rape Crisis Counselor training.

[vr_trakowski]

Ah, that's excellent. Thank you!

Obsessive love is such a popular trope in fiction, and yet translating it to RL shows up the shadows. Still, I figure if one keeps it strictly to oneself, the only harm done is to the obsessor.

Of course, that's a strictly personal opinion.

[ex_spockside399]

I agree with the previous assessment. Look at Snape...or any number of other characters who do nothing but gaze sheep-eyed at the object of their affection throughout the narrative. If the character is restrained enough (fig. speaking!), I suppose no one would be the wiser and it would remain an unfulfilled fantasy.

[vr_trakowski]

That's what I was thinking, yes. Could be a good thing or a bad one for the obsessor, depending, but it's all internal.

[shippygrl.livejournal.com]

less of a stalker, more everlasting unrequited.

[vr-trakowski.livejournal.com]

That's what I was thinking, yes. Not exactly healthy, but not overtly harmful either.

Thanks!

[k9paw.livejournal.com]

If they act physically on the obsession, yes a stalker.

[vr-trakowski.livejournal.com]

Sure, but (in my hypothetical case) they never would. Personal honor, etc., etc.

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

Nah, a stalker actually needs to stalk the other person, rather than simply keeping a lifelong secret.
The obsessive is sad, maybe even tragic, but not a stalker.
You can't help your feelings. You can help how you act on them.

[vr-trakowski.livejournal.com]

That's what I figured. Thanks!

[boubabe14.livejournal.com]

Definitely not a stalker. A person can not control who they love. And if one believes in love at first sight and there is but one soul mate for each of us, then there can be a heart that accepts the unfairness of love. Perhaps it is not a matter of excluding all other romantic possibilities, but only there was never another soul who that person connected with on that level. Why settle?

[vr-trakowski.livejournal.com]

That's what I thought, more or less! It can be a delicate issue, at times.

I've seen love at first sight happen, but not seen it last...

[boubabe14.livejournal.com]

Well...perhaps, I'll share it better next time we meet :-) I'm coming to DC in June for my nephews wedding. We should have another get together.

[vr-trakowski.livejournal.com]

Oh, excellent!! Yes, we most definitely should! And congrats to him!