Talk:Love bombing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early discussion

Lousy article. No explanation of how expressions of love could be used to manipulate someone -- not that I'm denying that it's possible, just that the article ought to explain the HOW rather than assuming it's too obvious to mention.

And housewives? This is the first time in 25 years I've heard this.

Also, I've never heard of 'love-bombing' in a sales context (i.e., getting you to buy goods or services). I've only heard it in the context of NRM recruiting, specifically the Unification Church.

I have heard UC members use the word themeselves, in a positive context. --Uncle Ed 17:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Article might not be fabulous, but it makes a good point. I was talking to some missionaries the other day, and they definitely try to make you feel loved. It is really bizarre, but cool an article addresses this tactic. Motbasem March 2005

---

Still a lousy article. But don't delete it! Just merge it with mind control (another lousy article).

What both article have in common is that they each lack an explanation of how manipulation leads to control. (Not that I'm denying the possibility!)

   There is a deep level explanation that applies to mind control, Stockholm syndrome, battered wife syndrom and a mess of others.
   You apply evolutionary psychology.  

Last night, I got love-bombed in Harlem. The director of minister outreach (and his most hard-working helper) subjected me to intense flattery, encouragement, hanging on my every word, serving me coffee like a waiter in a five star hotel, etc. Was it a conscious ploy on their part? I don't know, and it doesn't really matter.

I had already decided to devote one evening a week to minister outreach, and if they're going to reward my "sacrifice" with some "aftercare" what's wrong with that? They're both Japaneses and painfully aware of the language barrier. Besides, why should they have to come all the way from Japan (at their own expenses) and do in America what American UC members should be doing ourselves?

I rather like being showered with affection, but I'm telling you it doesn't affect my judgment as to whether Minister outreach is a moral Good or moral evil. (It only gets me to waste less time watching old movies on DVD.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:11, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Points for consideration

Here are some basic things I'd like to see addressed in the article.

• Where did the phrase originate? I'm currently assuming: the Unification Church but I haven't found much more than fairly vague assertions. Singer doesn't identify the "early youth cult" where she says it originated. A Google site search on www.unification.org for the word "bombing" returns no references to "love bombing." If it's used within the organization it's apparently not something they want to explain to the general public.

• What did the group that originated the phrase mean by it? What I'm getting at here is that I think it's unlikely that the people engaging in love bombing perceive it to be false. On the other hand, it's clear that in the mouths of Singer and critics it is defined as deceptive. IF the originators of the phrase defined it to mean the deliberate expression of sincere affection, and IF it it is now most frequently used to mean the deliberate expression of insincere affection, the opening of the article should somehow convey both meanings.

Speaking as someone that has never belonged to any organization seriously described as a cult, there's no doubt in my mind that there's a dual terminology and a selective use of words in play here. A vice-president of our chapter of the Barbershop Harmony Society is always reminding us that when a prospective new member visits us, during coffee afterwards we should all make a point of chatting him up and shaking hands with him. There's no doubt that he gives us this direction in hope of influencing the visitor to join. On a ten-point scale where ten means fully sincere and zero means playacting, I'm not sure where this would fall. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

On July 23, 1978, Rev. Moon said:

What face could better represent love than a smiling face? This is why we talk about love bomb; Moonies have that kind of happy problem. We are called by God to perfect ourselves in this love. [1]

Great! Thanks, Ed. I definitely think that should go in the article... so I put it in. Not sure why you didn't...

Huh... I was thinking to tweak the paragraph

The Unification Church reportedly has used this tactic to persuade recruits to prolong a visit to their centers or camps. Church opponents criticize the practize; arch-critics condemn it as manipulation, an essential and insidious element of mind control.

which I thought was anti-cult POV, but since I see it was you that put it in I'll assume you know what you're doing... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it could still use some tweaking, TBH. We're told that Church opponents criticize the practice but we're only told the "why" for the "arch-critics". It leaves the impression that those who look askance at the practice either have far-fetched reasons (insidious mind-control!) or ... no reason at all. Certainly it's possible to believe "let's bombard him with signs of affections to influence his choices!" to be manipulation without having to believe it's mind control. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Damian Anderson wrote:

One man's love-bombing is another man's being

showered with attention. Everyone likes such care and attention, so it is unfortunate that when we love as Jesus taught us to love, that we are then accused of having ulterior motives. [2]

Origin of the term

My best guess is that the practice began in Oakland, where it was criticized by the press and/or church opponents and dubbed "love bombing" - somewhere between 1975 and 1979. Then we adopted the term, heedless of its bad connotation; it's easier to say, "Let's love bomb this guy, maybe he'll come up to the camp" than to say, "Let's all gather round this guy and shower him with attention, maybe he'll come up to the camp". (Note this is only a guess; my having been on-site, so to speak, does not automatically mean I have a sociologist's credentials.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:11, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• But here's an early Children of God disciple's account, using the term in reference to activities circa 1970, complete with the complaint about even being allowed to go the bathroom alone! [3]
• And another CoG reference from the BBC. [4]

And that would fit Singer's attribution of it to an "early, youth-oriented" group... (I don't think of the Unification Church as specifically youth-oriented.) Dpbsmith (talk) 21:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well then, it would look like the article could do with more emphasis on flirty fishing and similar "thermonuclear option[s]" ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lefty Love bombing

I've heard the term love bombing used to refer not only to the practices of religious cults but to some political groups as well. Here in Britain there were Trotskyite groups that were said to use female members to recruit men (by sleeping with them) back in the 70s. I don't recall which though, or whether it was just a rumour, and I wouldn't want to hazard a guess. But someone might want to check out that angle. Mattley 13:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alright! yet even more super-sexy thermonuclear lovebombing, this time w a commie angle no less ;D (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure the phrase used really was "love bombing?" All the descriptions I've read of activities called "love bombing" make it sound as if the referent is for the phrase is huggy, quasi-maternal, behavior. Agape, not eros. One of the ambiguities is that it is not clear what distinguishes "love bombing" from activities seen in "legit" denominations, or various fraternal or quasifraternal organizations or twelve-step programs or "support groups" like Weight Watchers. Or the early Christians' "kiss of peace." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sure it was called love-bombing by the people who mentioned it to me. But I've no idea how widespread it is as a usage. I suspect it's pretty marginal, inherently really given that it's probably specific to small sections of the left and ultra-left. I'll chase it up. Mattley 15:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

from Vfd

On 3 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Love bombing for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 15:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

LDS Church

I deleted the following edit today: "Love bombing" is also often associated with missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormons. During the "discussions" Mormon missionaries give to interested parties, the missionaries are encouraged to "love bomb" the parties -- calling them, inviting them to activities and generally welcoming them into Mormon culture." The editor vadalized several LDS articles and I, with others, have spent considerable time tracking tham all down. Missionaries of the LDS church do invite those they teach to come to church meetings. Members are encouraged to be friendly to "new faces" at church. However, Love Bombing is a much more intense and direct method than anything found within the LDS church. Storm Rider 17:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't added it originally, but I easily found several references to "love bombing" by LDS members. So I restored the text and added several citations. What missionaries do may not seem to you or me like "love bombing", but apparently it is viewed that way by others. We can change the "often" to "sometimes". Cheers, -Willmcw 19:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Will, I looked at the first reference you gave and it has nothing to do with "Love Bombing". It dealt strictly with polygamists and the difficulty ex"cultists" have joining "Christianity". As a member of the LDS church, I found it pretty basic Anti-Mormon crap...but then that is only my knee jerk reaction one a site does not explain anything, but levels powered-packed words such as "Cult". I will look at the other two sites and if they are similar, you will have to do better finding a site that levels the "Love Bombing" claim against missionaries. Question: if any religious organization "fellowships" people, is it Love Bombing? I would really like to hear your answer. It will have a direct impact on determining the viability of including the Southern Baptists and their Sunday breakfasts, Catholics and their Bingo night parties and every other "Christian" group in the world in this article. Storm Rider 22:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at the other two sites; one is a personal blog and he mentions it in passing, but doesn't explain it. The other is a summary of comments made my anonomyous writers. These are not legitimate or acceptable references to support the statments made. I will delete the article and would be happy to see it come back if it is actually supported and defined why the LDS church is distinctly different from every other religious organization. Storm Rider 22:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is not up to us to decide if a group is doing X, Y, or Z. Our job as editors is to concisely and comprehensively summarize verifiable sources in a NPOV manner. In this example, the assertion is not that "LDS practices love-bombing". It says, "some people say that LDS practices love-bombing" and has sources to support it. That's pretty much the way we write this encyclopedia. If there are sources that call Catholic practices "love-bomibng" then that would also be appropriate to include here. Any significant usage of the term is appropriate to add to this article. OTOH, that does not conversely mean that the love-bombing assertions are important enough in some instances to report in the articles on the particular religions. In this particular instance, I do think that the mention is a bit over-blown, and too prominently placed. "Love-bombing" is overwhelming associated with a couple of groups. Groups with lesser associations, like LDS (or Southern Baptists, if we find sources), should probably just appear as a merged paragraph or even just a sentence. "Other groups alleged to have practices that resemble love-bombing are....." Cheers, -Willmcw 23:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please forgive me, SR, but I think that Love Bomobing is a delightful mention of the LDS Church. Yes, this article is unflattering. But we ought to be able to acknowledge who we are and even grin at ourselves. I am afraid that deletionism in this matter is not much beyond mere suppression. We have to reluctantly allow that to be said which we might not exactly have said ourselves. That's NPOV. I do think it would be fun and accurate to note that Love Bombing is a common practice among many churches, I assume. I always feel great when I get love bombed by the local evangelical church. The world could use a bit more of it. Tom Haws 23:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Suppression is a strong term. But, I question the validity of quoting blogs and personal chats on a website. Those seem extremely subjective. For example, a whacko writes a blog asserting that the all Buddists are in league with the Arab terrorists. Then I write an article highlighting that Buddists in the US have be planning mass bombings in the US quoting the few blog sites that I have created. People, that is not worthy of an encyclopedia. I don't have any problem of the LDS church, or any other religious organization, being accused of "Love Bombing", but let's just attempt to at least have some degree of legitimacy about what we allow on these pages. Storm Rider 23:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In this instance we are reporting on common usage. On one forum site with an obvious POV, "exmormon.org", Google reports 199 appearances of the term.[5]. Overall it reports 1,180 usages of the two terms togethre, though I'm sure the real number is a fraction of that. This site may be written by a loon, [6], but he is calling LDS missionary practices "love-bombing". Individually these sources aren't great, but collectively it is hard to say that it does not happen. Does anyone object to the weasel-worded version that I added? Cheers, -Willmcw 23:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

On sites with are obviously Anti-Mormon you will also find that Mormons have horns and they rape young virgins in Mormon temples. I spend some time just reading the various sites, that did not have an axe to grind, and came to better understanding of what others term Love Bombing. We are not there on this site yet. However, I did agree with Will on the comment that the piece on Mormons did not need such a strong statement and prevalence in the article. I am sorry Will, but I did not see your edit until after I had made my edit and moved the comments down below. Storm Rider 00:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I also forgot to remove the original text when I added the alternative version. Thanks for catching it. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

removed from article

A few years before Margaret Singer died she discussed love bombing and capture-bonding in long phone conversations with Keith Henson who at that time was applying Evolutionary psychology to understanding the relation between cults and drugs. Henson proposed a mechanism rooted in the evolution of Stone Age human ancestors to account for the effects of love bombing. In brief, he proposed that intense social attention has similar effects to addictive drugs because the attention causes the release of brain chemicals that activate the brain's reward circuits.

The postulated evolutionary origin of this mechanism is that tribe members who took actions such as hunting received attention. If the attention rewarded them they were more likely to repeat the action, and in the long-term people with such motivational traits were more likely become ancestors. In this view drug addiction is a side effect of Stone Age evolution.

If attention-reward theory is accepted as an important human psychological trait, then intense cult love bombing is just the extreme end of what all groups (religious and otherwise) do to obtain converts.

The above was removed from the article on July 24, 2005. It's an extremely speculative viewpoint, which might be worth covering in some form if we can verify that it's the extremely speculative viewpoint of notable figure(s). However, where it is claimed that it was discussed in "long phone conversations" it almost seems like it was designed not to be verified. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Would you accept a declaration under oath from a participant? Or do you require phone billing records?

I'd accept an account from either participant presented under circumstances which make it reasonable to believe that the account actually comes from that participant (for example, a Usenet posting that can be found in the Usenet archives from Keith Henson's e-mail address, a print-published account of the conversation, etc.) What I could not in good editorial conscience recommend for inclusion in Wikipedia is a non-participant's account of what was said, especially without any information about who that non-participant might be and how they would know what happened in that phone conversation. Given who Keith Henson is, it should be no surprise if people of good will are skeptical of any claim they hear in the form of "Keith Henson said this-and-this-and-this! But I'm not telling you who I am or how I'd know or how you can check the accuracy of what I'm claiming or the context." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires verifiability. Just like a scientific journal. I wish people would not treat requests for provision of verifiable sources as if they were personal attacks. In general, once a statement is challenged we need a print or good Internet reference to back it up. Wikipedia's credibility cannot not rest on the mere personal authority of its contributors. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't take it as an attack, was just asking. I actually do have scanned phone bills from those years. Unfortunately the OCR didn't come out very good and it would take some searching to find the records of my calls to Margaret Singer. I remember the discussions well because Dr. Singer rapidly picked up on how evolutionary psychology fit into the picture, but the date is a bit hazy. 15 August 2005 Keith Henson

Be friendly to newcomers

Let us not forget that Wikipedia practices love bombing too which is even an official policy called "be friendly to newcomers". Andries 20:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, in my experience to date, I have been the recipient of rather more cold pricklies than warm fuzzies. I am not quite sure what this says about a) Wikipedia, or b) me. It is particularly odd that nevertheless I still find working on Wikipedia rather... addictive. Either I have a masochistic streak or there is something particularly sneaky, sinister and insidious about Wikipedian cold-prickle-bombing. Remind me to ask the Cabal about this someday. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Added links to AOG / Hillsong

These groups are rapidly growing cult like organisations notorious for love bombing as well as fanatically seeing to it that nothing but good is said about their organisation. Whilst it's arguable whether they're both cults or not, to most third party observers their behaviour is downright scary, their happy happy joy joy type attitudes really do win over converts however, so I figured they're -definately- worth a mention in this article.