We have to stop using the term lovebombing
We must retire the term lovebombing because it dangerously minimizes what is actually happening. The phrase sounds romantic, impulsive, even flattering, as if the harm comes from excess affection rather than calculated deception. That framing softens the perpetrator’s intent and subtly shifts responsibility onto the victim, implying they were swept away by love instead of systematically targeted. Language matters because language shapes accountability, and lovebombing is linguistic cover for a much more serious violation. What is being described is not love at all, it is constructive fraud of intimacy. As explained in Voiceless No More: The Legal War on Narcissistic Abuse, this behavior involves the deliberate misrepresentation of emotional availability, commitment, and identity in order to secure trust, attachment, and psychological access. The abuser presents a fabricated self, offers counterfeit intimacy, and induces reliance under false pretenses. That meets the core elements ...
