During the period in which the love binding is active, the person who requested it inevitably faces communication decisions: whether or not to write to the person called, whether to reply or wait, whether to say certain things or keep silent, whether to seek contact or let the other make the move. These decisions seem secondary to the esoteric work under way — and yet they have a real effect on the field and on the process.
Communication during the binding is not a neutral factor. The field of the person who requested the binding — which participates in the structure of the work — is modified by what is said and how it is said. The field of the person called — which is receiving the stimuli of the binding — also responds to the communicative messages arriving through the ordinary channel. Communication and the esoteric field influence each other reciprocally.
Communicative behaviour as a field factor
Every communicative interaction between the person who requested the binding and the person called produces effects in the field. It is not only a matter of "doing the right thing" in the ordinary psychological sense — it is a matter of understanding which types of communication favour the process of the binding and which complicate it.
Communication that favours the process is that which keeps the field between the two people in a state of openness without pressure: available without being intrusive, present without being anxious, authentic without being excessively intense. This quality of communication creates in the field a climate favourable to the opening of the person called — who has fewer reasons to activate defensive structures.
Communication that complicates the process is that which generates pressure, expectation, urgency or conflict in the field: insistent messages that go unanswered, demands for explanations or decisions, provocations, declarations of intense suffering that put the person called in a position of obligation. This quality of communication activates the defensive structures of the field of the person called — reducing the fluidity of the field on which the binding is working.
The frequency of contact during the binding
One of the most frequent communication decisions concerns frequency: how often should one contact the person called during the period of the binding? The answer depends on the specific context — on the nature of the pre-existing relationship, the current situation, the behaviour of the person called — but some general indications are useful.
The frequency of contact that favours the binding is one that exceeds neither the limit of pressure (too often, even when there is no reply) nor the limit of disappearance (a total absence that leaves no anchor point). The point of balance is that of discreet presence: available when natural occasions arise, able to wait without urgency when they do not.
A practical indicator: if the person called does not reply to messages, sending further messages does not respect the field principle described above. The person called has received the message — the silence is already a response, and the additional message does not change the response of the field: it complicates it, because it adds pressure to a structure that is already not responding.
The tone of communication
Tone is perhaps more important than frequency. A single message in the wrong tone can do more harm than ten messages in the right tone. Which tones favour the process and which complicate it?
Tones that favour the process: calm, authentic, without urgency, open to a reply but not dependent on it. A message that says "I was thinking of you" without the implicit pressure of "and so you must answer me" keeps the field open.
Tones that complicate the process: anxious ("why aren't you answering?"), accusatory ("how can you ignore me after what we had"), manipulative ("if you don't reply I'll understand you don't care"), excessively dramatic ("I can't live without you"). These tones activate the defensive structures of the person called — who perceives in the message a pressure they do not wish to yield to.
The hardest tone to maintain — but the most effective for the field — is that of someone who is present in their own desire without being dominated by it. Whoever communicates from this position transmits into the field a quality of solidity that the person called perceives, often without being able to name it, as something reassuring.
What to say and what not to say in communication during the binding
Besides frequency and tone, the specific content of what is communicated has effects on the field.
To favour in communication: authentic references to shared moments in the past (without idealising them excessively); sharing experiences of the present that might genuinely interest the person called; expression of availability without pressure; curiosity about the life of the person called without obsessive monitoring.
To avoid in communication: explicit references to the binding or to any esoteric work under way; pressure to make decisions; detailed descriptions of one's own suffering (which generate guilt or obligation, not openness); comparisons with the past of the relationship in terms of reproach ("you wouldn't have been like this once"); demands for explanations of behaviours or silences.
Communication during latency
The latency phase — the one in which the binding is active but the results are not yet visible — is the hardest to get through communicatively. It is the phase in which the temptation to do something — to write, to call, to seek contact — is strongest, precisely because silence and the absence of a reply are uncomfortable to bear.
In this phase, the most important principle is that of consistency: maintaining one's own rhythm of communication (if it has been decided to send a message every so often, doing so with the same quality each time) without escalation. Latency can last a long time — and communicative behaviour that escalates during this phase — that becomes more frequent, more pressing, more dramatic as the latency is prolonged — is among the most counterproductive behaviours possible.
How to respond when the person called begins to approach
When the binding begins to produce its effects and the person called starts to draw closer — with a message, a request for contact, signs of openness — the communicative response is a critical moment.
The commonest mistake in this phase is sudden intensification: the person approaches, and the person who requested the binding responds with an intensity far greater than that shown by the person called. This imbalance of intensity — a response much more intense than the signal — tends to make the person called withdraw, feeling a pressure that does not correspond to where they are in their process.
The most effective field principle is calibrated reciprocity: responding with an intensity slightly lower than that which the person has shown, leaving room for further advance. If the person sends a warm message, replying warmly but not excessively intensely. If the person proposes a meeting, accepting with availability but without showing desperate urgency.
Communication about the past of the relationship
A specific theme that often emerges in communication during the binding is how to speak — whether to speak at all — about the past of the relationship, its difficulties, what went wrong. This is one of the areas in which the risk of communicative damage is highest.
Conversations about the past that reopen wounds, assign blame, retrace conflicts in an unresolved way, produce in the field structures of conflict that the binding must then pass through again. As a general rule, conversations about the past are more useful when they take place at a moment when the field is already stable enough to sustain them — not during latency, not in moments of maximum tension.
FAQ: frequently asked questions on love binding and communication
Do I have to stop contacting the person completely during the binding?
No, not necessarily. Total absence of contact is not required by the binding — and in certain contexts, it could be perceived as a definitive withdrawal. The indication is to reduce the frequency and improve the quality of communication — not to eliminate it. Complete silence is appropriate only in certain specific contexts, such as that of ghosting received, described in the article on love binding after ghosting.
If the person doesn't reply to messages, is it better to stop writing altogether?
In many cases, yes — at least temporarily. Continuing to write to a person who does not reply adds pressure without adding value to the field. A pause in direct contact, during which the binding continues to work in the field, is often the choice most favourable to the process.
Can I tell the person that I had a binding performed to bring them back to me?
This is one of the most frequent questions, and the answer is almost always no. Esoteric work should not be communicated to the person who is its object — not because it is a secret, but because communication of this kind almost invariably produces defensive reactions, disbelief, or a quality of distance that does not favour the process. The field operates independently of the awareness of the person called.
How do I handle conversations in which the person returns to the past in an accusatory way?
As discussed in the article on binding on an angry person, answering accusations with defences or counter-accusations feeds the cycle of escalation. The most effective field response is one that acknowledges the other's perspective without yielding to a dynamic of escalation: "I understand that you were hurt by that situation" — without adding "but you too...". This quality of non-reactive response is hard to maintain but has very favourable effects on the field.
