Lovebombing is derived from the first stages of entering a cult, where initially, everyone is extremely, unconditionally friendly and accomodating, but then later all of that becomes extremely conditional, requiring strict adherence to rules and unwavering obedience to avoid punishment, shaming, and/or ostracization.
This meaning actually comes from academics that study cults.
This definition then migrated over to mostly women describing one on one relationships with mostly men.
The problem is that this carries an immense amount of negative connotations and implications over to a one on one relationship that are very rarely actually present.
It is a completely normal relationship dynamic to have an initial exciting phase, that then changes to mutually recognizing and respecting boundaries, and mutually agreeing on and trusting each other with responsibilities, as the relationship matures.
What I have seen over and over is a (usually, but not always) gal will say that a guy was very affectionate and loving at first, but then that lessened over time…
… but if you ask the (usually, but not always) guy, they’ll say that they lost interest and intensity in the relationship because the gal just didn’t respect the guy’s boundaries, did not hold up to responsibilities she agreed to, or just kept making requests or demands the guy has told the gal he is not financially capable of meeting.
The (usually, but not always) gal will describe this as ‘lovebombing’, as if the guy was putting on a front, being duplicitous the whole time, with all the implications that this guy was as dangerous and manipulative as a cult leader…
… and the (usually but not always) guy will describe the gal as some kind of phrase indicating self-centered and/or greedy and/or overly demanding, all take and no give.
I think it’s most likely meant to be a take on “lovebombing” which is a phrase used to refer to cults and unhealthy relationships
Lovebombing is derived from the first stages of entering a cult, where initially, everyone is extremely, unconditionally friendly and accomodating, but then later all of that becomes extremely conditional, requiring strict adherence to rules and unwavering obedience to avoid punishment, shaming, and/or ostracization.
This meaning actually comes from academics that study cults.
This definition then migrated over to mostly women describing one on one relationships with mostly men.
The problem is that this carries an immense amount of negative connotations and implications over to a one on one relationship that are very rarely actually present.
It is a completely normal relationship dynamic to have an initial exciting phase, that then changes to mutually recognizing and respecting boundaries, and mutually agreeing on and trusting each other with responsibilities, as the relationship matures.
What I have seen over and over is a (usually, but not always) gal will say that a guy was very affectionate and loving at first, but then that lessened over time…
… but if you ask the (usually, but not always) guy, they’ll say that they lost interest and intensity in the relationship because the gal just didn’t respect the guy’s boundaries, did not hold up to responsibilities she agreed to, or just kept making requests or demands the guy has told the gal he is not financially capable of meeting.
The (usually, but not always) gal will describe this as ‘lovebombing’, as if the guy was putting on a front, being duplicitous the whole time, with all the implications that this guy was as dangerous and manipulative as a cult leader…
… and the (usually but not always) guy will describe the gal as some kind of phrase indicating self-centered and/or greedy and/or overly demanding, all take and no give.