Love Buzz 003: Sophia Giovannitti

“We're canceling love bombing.”

Welcome to Love Buzz Edition 003!

Our guest this edition is author and artist Sophia Giovannitti. Today is a heady one, as we get a bit philosophical answering readers’ questions with a tinge of the existential bent that Sophia brings to most subjects.

You might know Sophia from her book, Working Girl: On Selling Sex and Selling Art, a memoir-meditation on sex work, labor and art. She’s one of the more delicate, contemplative and generous writers thinking about these subjects today, and our conversation took on that tone. Recently, a deal memo was released announcing the purchase of her second book, Terms of Service, by Astra House, which is reported to be a nonfiction “work-love story” about the convergence of a crypto start-up and a duo of best friend escorts, with much to say about transaction, power, and consent in contemporary life. We should all be excited.

Sophia is one of the rare writers whose work is deeply political and yet lacks any of the semi-corny, high-minded affect that can come with that. When we first met I had been reading about the Italian-American anarchist Arturo Giovannitti, an early 20th century union leader and political activist who features heavily in the historical fiction novel Trust. When we were introduced, I found the coincidence amusing (two Giovannittis, one week?) and asked her if they were related. They were. It’s less surprising now because there is an ancestral through line in their work: deeply committed and anti-establishment, radically spirited, and yet grounded in the real.

In today’s edition, we talk about the pop psychology infiltration of contemporary life, from love bombing to ghosting and more, the millennial war against romance, and how to find reprieve from the cynical times we find ourselves in. We also drop some fun reading suggestions, so I’m trying out linking to books where mentioned.

Because we talk so much about love bombing, I thought I’d add a brief addendum on the subject. For those living under a rock (e.g. not watching the current season of Love Island) love bombing is a popular term used to describe when a person overwhelms another with affection, compliments, and attention at the start of a relationship as a manipulative tactic to establish a quick and intense bond. Though often used casually, the implied context of love bombing is a situation of emotional abuse, and it requires an intentional manipulation by said love bomber. It’s often paired with “ghosting” as you’ll see below - and the expected pattern is a bait-and-switch where you’re hooked by the bomber and then dropped out of nowhere.

It’s become a catch phase in the last few years, emerging out of the pop psychology relationship advice sphere, but its origins are quite strange: coined by American cults in the 1970s, the term was first used to describe the recruitment tactics of cult members. It then resurfaced in the 2010s as a positive term advocated for by psychologists, particularly in the context of childrearing. That’s right, fifteen years ago, they told parents to treat their children as if inducting them into the family cult, and love bomb their kids. Now look where that got us.

Today, we say goodbye to love bombing, or at least, TTYL <3

Help, I think I’m being love bombed! I’m dating someone new and in so many ways everything is going great…but I started to worry lately that he might be love bombing me. He’s super complementary, thoughtful with gifts and things like that. About a year ago, I dated a guy briefly who acted similarly and then kind of disappeared overnight…basically ghosting me out of nowhere. Maybe that’s made me extra sensitive, but I still need help. How do I know if I should think of these things as red flags or not?

-A Ticking L-Bomb

SOPHIA GIOVANNITTI: I don't think I've ever been love bombed, but it always makes me think of that meme that's like, “I wouldn't recognize love bombing, because I'm like, ‘This is normal. You're in love with me after one date.’” There are all these terms now, like love bombing and ghosting, and each means something really specific, and I totally believe this is a phenomenon, but I think sometimes people are speaking about other behaviors that are maybe not fitting into the really specific patterns of those terms. Just because someone “love bombed you and then ghosted you,” doesn't mean that if another person is giving you more compliments than you're used to, or giving you gifts, then the same thing is going to happen. But I think number one, especially if a person is behaving as though they're in love with you, or really want to be with you, you should feel comfortable talking to them about your past and what they're doing. To me, generally, especially early in relationships when so much miscommunication happens and so much anxiety is abounding on both sides, I think the red flag occurs much less in the literal behavior, and more in the communication about it. If you brought up your fears in a non-attacking way, and they freaked out, or got really cold immediately, that would be a red flag. But if they were like, “Oh, I see, this is how I feel comfortable expressing my love for you, but I see that it might make you uncomfortable,” and they could modulate their behavior accordingly, that’s a different story.

ESRA SORAYA PADGETT: It’s making me think about the “love language” thing, where some people are gift givers and some people are complimenters and some people are physically affectionate... And if we break the question down, what are the red flags they’re describing? The red flags are being nice to you and giving you gifts, right? This is such a contemporary problem because in any other era, those would be like green flags, right? Even the idea of a red flag is very - this moment - and I feel generally hesitant about the idea of love bombing itself. I'm not clear on what it means, I don't really get it.

SOPHIA: Exactly, and to that point, not to sound super like elderly, or judgmental or anything, because obviously, it's totally fine to use shorthand and you're writing into an advice column, but in that way, it's not that helpful for this person to think of things in those terms. If someone's giving you a lot of gifts and that feels really good, then that's great. And maybe you're just anxious about it because you've seen a lot of messaging about love bombing and how you have to watch out for it, or whatever.

ESRA: Love bombing has existed as a popular term for how long? Not more than five years, I don't know, two years? And I think there's something about this time that we're in that is increasingly pathologizing.

SOPHIA: I was just going to say that.

ESRA: We're taught to pathologize ourselves and others, and that's kind of the rift that this person is caught in with their dating person. Even just worrying about if something is a red flag or not… you don't need to diagnose the person that you're dating. Obviously, you have instincts to protect yourself and not want to get hurt, and those things make sense. But I believe that clarity comes from how people express themselves to you, so if this person's really going to do something messed up, it's going to be clear. And you know what, the other person who they're talking about that ghosted them, they did do something really clear.

SOPHIA: Right, they ghosted you!

ESRA: And you can't, unfortunately, totally protect yourself from someone going left on you, which sucks. But also, I don't know…we take risks.

SOPHIA: I think that's exactly it. We take risks. I'm thinking about the wording of the question, and the, “How do I know?” And, you don't know. That's just the fundamental point when you're engaging with another person and opening yourself up vulnerably, you don't know if it's going to go the way you want, if you're going to get hurt, if they're going to act one way and then act another way… And it doesn't mean ignore your instincts, or if someone makes you feel unsafe, that's all really good to listen to, but I think there can be too much of a tendency to be vigilant and diagnose. That’s just not really helpful for anyone. I dated some when I was really young, one of the first people I dated, and he arguably, love bombed me. He said I love you so early. We were teenagers and he was really intense and I really adored him. But I was like, this is way too much and I told him it was too much, and we worked it out. We fell in love, and dated for a while. But also, at the time, his family was falling apart. I think, per these sort of generalizing pathologies, not to be overly precious about it, but they can be kind of dehumanizing. The way someone's acting toward you is informed by their own emotional reality and personal history and what they're afraid of, and that's really individual to them.

ESRA: And the same acts could mean totally different things coming from different people. But also, the more I think about it, I really have a gripe with love bombing. Of all of these terms, ghosting and gas lighting, XYZ…love bombing in particular is training people to become suspect of being treated kindly by others. And I know there's a reason why, that love bombing is speaking to things that do happen that are real—so maybe I’m talking more about the way the term gets thrown around in pop culture, social media, etc. But it also encourages a way of thinking about relationships as transactional. If someone is treating you transactionally, as in, here's a gift, and that means that you're going to go on a date with me, or I’m going to front load you with a bunch of intense love stuff and expect you to love me back, or to really expect any of it back from you in a way that feels pressured, I would be suspect of that too. But I don't think that someone being kind to you, even if impulsively to a certain degree—because love makes you crazy—means that they're a narcissist, or that their intentions are bad, or that down the line, you're going to get screwed.

SOPHIA: I totally agree, 100%. It feels really sad to be trained to be suspect of people being kind to you. And only you know how someone's gestures feel to you. There's a real difference between the transactional thing that you're describing and the feeling that this is someone's shtick too. Like the sense that they’re doing all of this, but it doesn't feel particular to me versus feeling someone's really intense affection and desire to give you gifts or shower you in love that is specifically to you.

ESRA: To borrow another term of the era, we’re canceling love bombing.

SOPHIA: Agreed. When I think of love bombing, or what I think people mean when they say it, it sounds super cynical to me. It’s about someone who falls in love at the drop of the hat, and then is obsessed with you. It reminds me of the pilot of Sex and the City. Literally, the whole show starts with this woman who is love bombed, as in, she meets a guy at a party, he's obsessed with her, they spend two weeks together, she meets his parents, he takes her to see an apartment, he's talking about when will we have kids, or whatever, and then he ghosts. And Carrie’s like, “Welcome to love in Manhattan.” So maybe that spawned the broken way that we all think about it.

ESRA: But I've also heard versions of that story really happening to people.

SOPHIA: That does happen. And not to sound like a Pollyanna idiot but people have a pattern until they don't. And when you're involved with anyone, there is a risk involved. And you might be the person where someone's pattern changes. But at the same time, when people show you who they are, believe them. So… somewhere in between those two things.

ESRA

No, totally. The other phrase I was thinking of is the Supreme Court’s obscenity test, “I know it when I see it.” Only you can know when you're being love bombed.

SOPHIA: Don't let anyone else tell you.

ESRA: But the reason that I want it, as a term, to be canceled is that I think we’re seeing the fear of love bombing become the excuse to “accept crumbs,” to use another contemporary term. Like we’re so skeptical of “overly” nice behavior that we take really measly acts of love as better, or at least, more normal. And I think that in relationships that I've had that worked well, or basically in any relationship that I've had that was a real relationship, the person likes you a lot and does nice things, and you do that too. And if you have the feeling early on where they're very iffy and they're not really doing that… that's something I see with my friends, where they're like, “I can't tell if he likes me.” That to me, is 100 percent worse. You should know.

SOPHIA: You should know, yeah. And you should feel really loved and really like, love bombed. [Laughs] It's the same way people talk about codependency; these things are all real, and there's toxic versions of them. And also, the person who loves you, should tell you that they love you, and you should feel really loved by them, and you should be able to rely on them and it's nice that they can get you gifts, or give you like, a shell that makes them think of you. I think that there's a way that some things that are really romantic have been turned into, “Oh, that’s suspect.”

ESRA: It's true. There's an end to romance that's happened with some of this stuff.

SOPHIA: Or even the way, I just literally keep thinking of Sex and the City, but they are always going to dinner on a first date, and that's, the 90s or the early 2000s, but that's what was normal then. And now, that's not what's normal and we’re in the dregs of online dating and casual sex culture.

ESRA: And creating dynamics out of that vacuum is really hard. I think there's a big shift that's happened that has changed a lot of the traditional narratives about romantic love, for good reason too. But now, just because we’re in that vacuum, I don't want people to lead lives suspicious of each other.

SOPHIA: I totally agree. Open your heart! What if this person is really toxic though? They write back to us and they're like, “Uh… He ghosted, you gave the worst advice.”

ESRA: That is the risk you take.

SOPHIA: No, exactly. I think, as much as you can, try to focus on the things that feel good, and address the things that don't. If you're worried that the “love bombing” feels good, that's okay and you don't have to be constantly vigilant, and it also doesn't mean you're not going to get hurt, but that's okay too.

So many people cheat! Why bother getting into a relationship when the chance is so high that at some point somebody will cheat? Sometimes I think the only real answer is open relationships, poly, etc...but that feels like a lot of work too, and not something I know if I want. In fact, I don’t know if I really want a relationship at all. I’ve been single for over 5 years, and I’ve learned to be really happy by myself. Love Buzz, what’s the point of not being single when there’s so much to lose? Is there some inherent value in being in a relationship?

-Miss (Not-so) Lonelyhearts

SOPHIA GIOVANNITTI: Wow, I thought the questions were going to be like, “What kind of underwear should I buy for a first date?”

ESRA SORAYA PADGETT: That would be nice. Some are more fun, playful. These aren't playful.

SOPHIA: These are anguished.

ESRA: These are existential dread questions.

SOPHIA: Oh, my god, yeah. But I'm confused what this person wants or doesn't want. It reads as someone who is really afraid, and maybe wants to date someone, or have a partner or fall in love, but is afraid of being cheated on, because they feel that everyone cheats. But then also they're saying that they're happy. The question of what's the point of not being single when there's so much to lose? That's just not how I would advise looking at it. If you want to be single and that feels really satisfying to you go for it, whether it’s to not be beholden to another person or all different kinds of reasons why someone might enjoy being single and casually dating, or being “solo poly,” as people call it nowadays.

ESRA: Um, wait, what is “solo poly”?

SOPHIA: Okay, I literally think it just means being single. Or you might be dating multiple people, but you don't have a primary partner.

ESRA: You're single, but you're dating.

SOPHIA: Yeah, you are your own primary partner, I guess. But…that doesn't really need its own term. You're dating - slash - single.

ESRA: I love that. Honestly, that's one I don't want to cancel.

SOPHIA: Yeah [Laughs[ That’s the answer, “Try being solo poly.” But no, I don't think there's something inherently good about being in a relationship. But I think that, to me, one of the most profound experiences you can have in human life is being really vulnerable with another person, and joining your love, your heart or your life with them. Precisely because there's so much to lose and you have to trust them and all of that and that's how you learn about yourself. So many of the ways that I am and so much of my personal growth has happened in concert with being in a relationship and being pushed and having really complicated experiences. I'm biased in the sense that I'm someone who believes the meaning of life is in relationships with other people. That's very important to me, and not just romantic, all relationships. So, no, you definitely don't have to be in a relationship, but if you are thinking about something a lot and not doing it specifically out of fear, to me, that's often an indicator that you are probably desiring that thing and you're afraid. And I think that being afraid is completely unavoidable and normal, and also not a good reason to write something off entirely.

ESRA: I completely agree. I think you, as a writer and artist and person, are someone who thinks about trust and risk, especially in relationship to sex and love, in a really interesting, and to me, convincing way.

SOPHIA: Hear that reader!

ESRA: And even, talking about consent, we can think about consenting to things that are risky, sometimes. The idea of vulnerability, in what you're saying is really special, the experience of vulnerability, it gets to what we're all here to do.

SOPHIA: Yes.

ESRA: I had a period of time where my mind was really boggled by the idea of intimacy. All of a sudden, it just really bothered me, and I was like, this is a functionally useless term. It means absolutely nothing to me. I have no idea what intimacy is. It's so loose as a term that I don't know what it is and why we need it. It made me go on this inquiry into intimacy and not to be toy, but there's a Lauren Berlant essay about intimacy that I think is really good, and it helped me rethink it. And a lot of the things that she says come up in this question. Which are, basically, we have desires, but we also have these cultural scripts that we are embedded in us from the moment we're born, and they're about intimacy. And specifically, the idea of intimacy being a pathway that leads in certain directions. So, if you go on a date, and you enjoy it, that means you go on another date, and that means that you like them, and they like you, and then you date, and then you marry, and so on. But I see this happen with my friends a lot, where they have say, an amazing one night stand that actually blows their mind, have the time of their life, but then it doesn't work out as a relationship, and that sours the experience of it in their mind. But they had some kind of sexual intimacy that allowed it to be amazing, and that's a different kind of intimacy than building a relationship with that person. That doesn't nullify the first kind, right? This question has a lot of fears coming from things that we are told we need and these cultural scripts about the ways that you can get hurt, like how people cheat. And of course, there's reality to that too, but you can have all kinds of intimacy with someone where cheating doesn't even matter.

SOPHIA: There’s these scripted fears, and then prescriptive solutions. I feel so bummed out by the way our generation has rejected romantic love, or how its become politically in vogue to be like, “Fuck romantic love,” or be suspicious of it. It feels like we're in such a cynical time.

ESRA: Definitely.

SOPHIA: And yes, so many people cheat. And yes, you can be poly. But being poly isn't gonna protect you from someone cheating if what's painful about cheating and what it means is someone betraying you, or lying to you. I mean, generally, the most interesting thing to me in thinking about relationships and sex and trust and violations, is trying not to move from a place of how to ward off any kind of violation or betrayal, but instead seeing that being in a relationship is basically consenting to the possibility of those things happening. You don’t consent to fall in love, or not fall in love, or fall in love with someone else, and you can act in the way that you're supposed to act, and your feelings (or theirs) can still change.

ESRA: Totally. Again, it’s the risk of getting hurt, the double-edged sword of falling in love, or even, having feelings at all.

SOPHIA: It reminds me of Avgi Saketoupoulou’s work too, which is very academic and she's talking about it in quite an analytical way. What she says is that what's most meaningful about human connection, or one of the things that's most meaningful about human connection, are the things that happen that you can't anticipate, or never thought you'd want, or never thought you'd accept. I'm not at all someone who thinks everyone should be poly, I think that's completely besides the point. Different relationship structures are gonna work for different people. But they all function the same way to me, being poly and being monogamous are both ways to manage, the specter of: What does it mean to be in a long term relationship when we're going to become completely different people over time? And one is like holding on tight, and one is like giving you some kind of freedom while also holding on tight. And then also, “cheating,” to me is also that specter, where it could come in so many forms. If your criteria is just “I need to find someone who will not cheat.” You can find that, for sure. There's a lot of people who don't cheat. But then there will still be tons of other issues that will abound and ways of getting hurt.

ESRA: My worst fear, for whatever reason, is being with someone who would stay with me even when they don't want to.

SOPHIA: Right? That’s someone who won't cheat!

ESRA: Yeah, someone who won’t cheat could be my worst fear.

SOPHIA: Yeah, 100%. Rachel Aviv, writes about this concept she calls “double bookkeeping.” And it’s the idea that even the person who's floridly psychotic, you know, in a psych ward or whatever, will be able to take the trash out at night, even though he also believes that aliens are talking to him. So, even if you're super crazy, part of you is also living in reality. And I feel like that's so much of what managing long term relationships, and being in love is like. There's a real balance. You're just sort of living in these two realities of being like, we're going to be together forever. We love each other so much. You're my soulmate. We might die tomorrow. We might change completely. And both of those things are true.

ESRA: I think another bummer of our time that I think you're talking about is the wholesale rejection of risk. Or the idea that avoiding risk is what you need to do to become a healthy, good, normal person…

SOPHIA: Exactly, or even just avoiding humiliation.

ESRA: And it's funny, because, the cultural scripts that I see in this question, not to say this person is a girl, but there’s a trad wife cultural script here–needing to be with someone, the monogamy script– that that's where morally good existence comes in. And then, on the other hand, there's a cultural script about the fear of vulnerability and opening up to someone and getting hurt. And yeah, that people cheat. It’s similar to the first question of love bombing, with the pathologizing. It’s this pop psychology time that we live in, the circulation of all the things that we should fear in each other. But then, in the middle of this question, they also say, “I've learned to be really happy by myself over the past five years,” which to me, is like, so what's the problem? And I think the problem is these looming scripts around you that are telling you what you need or what to fear. If you throw them aside for a minute, maybe this person is really happy and they don't need anything at all. And also, maybe they'll meet someone, and that will change, too. Which is how I've seen it happen most times in my life, it's not when you're looking for it.

SOPHIA: Yeah, to be really happy on your own, or while being single, that's a great place to be in. That probably means you're quite secure and confident and can take care of yourself. So either stay being single, or if you happen to meet someone who you want to be with, that's great. Sometimes I can be quick to feel like, “Oh, if you’re asking about something you want it, and you're just afraid.” But I think there is a ton of pressure to not be single, and our society is set up in a way that really privileges couples. Just materially and otherwise. I think like everything else, there's nothing pathological at all about being single and enjoying being on your own.

ESRA: I think without knowing exactly what's going on, I would encourage taking a risk and being vulnerable, and definitely, if there's a desire there, to not not act on it because of fear. But I also constantly see around me all the time, people not recognizing what they have, or the fact that they're completely and totally okay.

SOPHIA: Totally, literally, so well said.

ESRA: [Laughs] That could probably be said for every question. We’re just here to gaslight you into thinking you don’t have a problem at all.

SOPHIA: Exactly. No but seriously, both of these questions are filled with what sounds like anxiety, and, it doesn't sound like anything is especially wrong in either. It’s just these anxious, but very normal, thoughts, of: Does this indicate something being wrong? It’s good to focus on the part that's like, “I'm really happy on my own.” Or… “I feel really good being love bombed.” Sounds good to me.

ESRA: Haha, yeah. I love love bombing.

SOPHIA: Perhaps you'll go from being single to being love bombed, and then we can talk.

P.S. WE NEED YOUR QUESTIONS! Submit anonymous sex, love, dating and everything else questions HERE.