Love Bombing: Emotional Terrorism And The Lost Art Of Loving

Burning bright and fast, ‘love bombing’ is the romantic equivalent of a supernova that leaves devastation in its wake. Coined in the 1970s, by psychologist and religious cult researcher Martha Singer, the phrase means exactly what it suggests: love bombing entails an individual being bombarded with positive displays of affection, gifts, over-the-top gestures and compliments, often disproportionate to the present human connection. So, an explosion. What follows is a cooling of the lava—noticeable withdrawal or drastic reduction in attention, care and time invested by the same partner. In simpler words, if a healthy relationship is a well-balanced meal, love bombing is an all-you can-eat buffet that leaves you uncomfortably full and regretfully nauseous.  

Young people around the world identify strongly with the experience of being love bombed, testifies Indian singer Gagni Porwal in an interview with BBC Asian Network. The Network has awarded Porwal’s song ‘Lovebomber Baby’ the catchiest song of 2024. Porwal, who catapulted to fame after the success of her track, said, “I had personal experiences of getting love-bombed and ghosted, like the rest of us. Love bombing is used by narcissists and manipulators who show interest and then pull back—making us feel like there is something wrong with us”. The appeal of ‘Lovebomber Baby’ lies in its ability to make complex emotional experiences—like manipulative relationships—accessible and even humorous. In a society where people are constantly inundated with serious news and stressors, a lighthearted, catchy tune provides an escape and a way to laugh at otherwise painful or confusing experiences. 

Modern pop culture often embraces irony, where even "cringe" content is enjoyed precisely because of its flaws. This reflects a broader trend in society where people take pleasure in absurd or over-the-top content, blurring the lines between genuine enjoyment and mockery. Here, Porwal clarifies that this song is not a spoof or joke, “I have taken all my feelings and made it into a song”. People are reaching out to Porwal and thanking her for empowering them, “This is not a song about heartbreak, it is about taking your power back”. In a globalised world, people are often isolated and shared cultural moments- even silly ones can create a sense of belonging and connectedness. There is a certain meta quality to how collective experiences are shaped in the digital age, where society is both self-aware and entertained by its own absurdities.  

At a birthday party held in a Delhi home recently, a 23-year-old woman said, "I expect to be love bombed. I just assume everyone's a liar, so I can't open up to people in a real sense anymore—most of my conversations are superficial." A 24-year-old guest remarked, "I don't think it happens to guys." However, it may indiscriminately happen to people of all genders. A teenager added, "It's not a bad thing, maybe... This kind of infatuation feels natural when you think you have found someone you love." This posed an interesting entry point into thinking about the psychology of love and attachment.

The question arose: “What is the psychology of the victim? Do they need to be equally narcissistic to accept and entertain such displays of affection?” Priyanka Harlalka, a WICCI-certified psychologist from the National Psychological Well-being Council, responded with this explanation: No victim consciously chooses to be love bombed; everyone wants to feel special, and love bombing, as a multi-phase process, allows the manipulator to initially deceive their targets successfully. Victims of love bombing are often chosen for their emotional fragility and sensitivity; the more malleable their feelings, the easier they are to manipulate.  

Love is both intuitive and instinctual; by tapping into these natural feelings of infatuation and connection, love bombers can exploit the human desire of feeling seen and valued. Now, ridiculed and recognised as a part of the dating landscape by Generation Z, love bombing has only recently been located in the zeitgeist. It was initially conceptualised to explain the manipulative tactics used by charismatic leaders to recruit members into their cults. Cult leaders employed this strategy to overwhelm new recruits with affection, attention, and acceptance, carefully crafting an illusion of unconditional love and belonging. This method was used to lower the recruits' defences, making them more susceptible to indoctrination and control. Here, a darker, calculative aspect of human nature is at play. Those targeted typically have deep-seated emotional needs, which the predator identifies and exploits for the adrenaline rush of power. Expert emotional maskers use affection here not as a genuine expression of care but as a deliberate tool to gain control over others. 

Often associated with romantic relationships, love bombing is interspersed across varying social relations, manifesting in different forms depending on the context. The East India Company love bombed the Mughals through lavish gifts, flattery, and promises of mutual benefit, creating a veneer of friendship and trust. Politicians do it to their voters every time an election comes around–attempting to sway them with grandiose promises and generous offers. In friendships, it may appear as excessive flattery and attention, designed to create dependency or influence; in workplaces, it can manifest as excessive praise and offers of mentorship to manipulate subordinates. Even within families, love bombing can be used to control or coerce, disguised as a manifestation of intense affection and care. In fact, human beings might not even be the only ones capable of mastering this emotional sleight of hand.  

Throughout history, what we may now see as potentially problematic behaviour was often romanticised, especially when celebrities or famous people indulged in it. For example, when revered baseball star Joe Dimaggio and Marilyn Monroe were entangled in a brief but intense courtship that started in 1952 and ended in 1954—the media portrayed it as a union of America's favourite pastimes—baseball and Hollywood—creating a fairy-tale image of the perfect couple. DiMaggio was obsessed with Monroe. His love for her was evident and while he relished being with the world’s most desirable woman, his jealousy, possessiveness, and controlling nature ultimately caused their separation.  

The normalisation of clearly problematic behaviour in the name of love and devotion started as early as in the eighteenth century and in people as powerful as Napoleon. The conqueror was besotted by a widow named Marie Josèphe Rose Tascher de La Pagerie, who he later refers to as Joséphine in his passionate letters and grand declarations. Their relationship, while initially fervent and idealised, faced challenges as political ambitions and infidelities strained their bond. By 1809, their marriage was dissolved, largely due to Napoleon's desire for a male heir and his disillusionment with Joséphine's inability to provide one. Despite the eventual dissolution of their troubled marriage, their love is still hailed as legendary, largely because of the dramatic nature of their early courtship that embodied the passion and grandeur of the Napoleonic era. 

The act has significant repercussions on the bomber and the bombed; In the movie ‘500 Days of Summer’, love bombing is illustrated through the character of Tom Hansen, whose intense affection for Summer Finn ultimately leads to his own emotional turmoil and personal growth. Tom's behaviour reflects classic love bombing: he showers Summer with grand romantic gestures, idealises her, and becomes deeply invested in their relationship from the outset. His actions include elaborate dates, passionate declarations, and a tendency to project his own fantasies onto Summer and his own. Unrealistic expectations place immense pressure on both Summer and him. When Summer ultimately ends their relationship, Tom is left grappling with a shattered ideal and a sense of betrayal. His love bombing not only alienates Summer but also leaves him broken, as his idealised vision of the relationship crumbles. The film portrays Tom’s recovery as a process of coming to terms with the real nature of relationships and learning to approach love with a more balanced and realistic perspective.  

As acclaimed visionary and cultural critic Bell Hooks observes in her book, All About Love, “Love will not prevail in any situation where one party, either female or male, wants to maintain control…When someone has not known love it is difficult for him to trust that mutual satisfaction and growth can be the primary foundation in a coupling relationship. He may only understand and believe in the dynamics of power, of one-up and one-down, of a sadomasochistic struggle for domination, and, ironically, he may feel ‘safer’ when he is operating within these paradigms. Whatever happens, the outcome can be predicted. The practice of love offers no place of safety. We risk loss, hurt, pain. We risk being acted upon by forces outside our control. Choosing to be honest is the first step in the process of love. There is no practitioner of love who deceives.”    

During a chat, a man I met at a coffee shop mentioned that not all love bombers are smug and malevolent; some, perhaps driven by low self-confidence, unintentionally use it as a people-pleasing response. Their idea of love aligns with what we now call love bombing. This argument sounded flawed; akin to a terrorist’s misguided notion that violence can bring peace. Both the means and the end seem deeply unjustifiable, reflecting a distorted empathy that fails to address the core issue—we find ourselves in a society that does not prioritise learning about the practice of love. Although it surrounds us, humans have very little understanding of love. Not only do many consider it central to the human experience, but it also takes time to learn the art of loving. Why is it that only life-threatening illnesses and near-death experiences bring one closer to their loved ones? Very often, we hear people complain about lovelessness in life, but have we ever heard of someone who cut back on their work hours to make space in their life to be more loving?   

Public discussions about love are scarce in our current culture, and young people often exhibit a cynical attitude towards it. Harold Kushner expresses concern in When All You've Ever Wanted Isn't Enough, noting that we may be raising a generation hesitant to fully commit to love due to the fear of getting hurt if it does not work out. The emphasis on individualism and self-interest, combined with a consumerist culture that values instant gratification and material success, tends to foster narcissistic tendencies. Constant exposure to idealised images of perfection and success through social media can set unrealistic expectations and foster a desire for validation, leading individuals to seek relationships that mirror those perfected portrayals. The poet Rainer Maria Rilke famously remarked: "Like so much else, people have also misunderstood the place of love in life, they have made it into play and pleasure because they thought that play and pleasure was more blissful than work; but there is nothing happier than work, and love, just because it is the extreme happiness, can be nothing else but work." The difference between fleeting passion and true love can seem elusive, but when we approach love with intention and commitment—demonstrating care, respect, understanding, and responsibility—our love becomes fulfilling.