Someone or other thought that erotic transference was a defence. A defence against other, deeper, feelings.

I wonder if the intensity of the transference is the result of splitting?

If the object is all-good then one WOULD want to merge completely.

If one doesn't want to merge completely then the object CANT BE all good.

If the object isn't all good then one wouldn't want to merge.

But it is hard to develop ambivalent (integrated) feelings for the object. So much nicer, more attractive, safer, to stick with the object being all good. And if erotic transference is required (indeed part of) the idealization... Then holding on to the idealization just is holding on to the erotic transference.

I haven't got the hang of this ambivalence / integration thing... Not at all...

Hard to get the hang of it when I have only really experienced idealization / desire to merge on the one hand and devaluation / disgust, repulsion, aversion on the other.

Don't want any of that latter... So back to the idealization again... Only trouble is that (rationally I know though not emotionally) what makes the devaluation (and resulting feelings possible) is the idealization... And the disapointment of idealized longings...

I kinda think that if I fail to idealize him sufficiently then I'll end up devaluing him. And I don't want that, so back to the idealization. Hard... Oh so hard... To integrate some of my desire for independence and solitude at times with the idealized aspects... To think I can care about him very much even if I don't desire him to hold me and / or %#@&#! me...