Alright, Femon-I mean, "anon", searched the term. Here's a definition by Dutton and Painter, in 1981 (The fact that you're using a concept coined by a man and a woman working in unison must do wonders to your head):
"Traumatic bonding is “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.” (Dutton & Painter, 1981). Several conditions have been identified that must be present for a traumatic bond to occur."
Straightforward enough, and surely in your head this fits the definition of PIV as abuse. However, when the authors of the concept list the necesary conditions for traumatic bonding to occur, that lie falls apart quick:
"(1). There must be an imbalance of power, with one person more in control of key aspects of the relationship, such as setting themselves up as the “authority” through such things as controlling the finances, or making most of the relationship decisions, or using threats and intimidations, so the relationship has become lopsided."
If you're in a relationship with a person that "threatens and intimidates you", yes, you are in an abusive relationship. But not all relationships are built in such a thing. You'll find it hard to believe (I'm not really trying to convince you, I just find your ideas hilarious), but some men like to listen to what their partner wants in a relationship. In a sexual context, there's a wide arrangement of power balances and preferences, because people are not 2D caricatures that are either black or white. Some women like to be in control of a sexual act, some women not. Unless you're having sex with the most inept partner on the planet, sex shouldn't be a painful or traumatic experience (If it is to you, consult a medic or change partners).
"(2). The abusive behavior is sporadic in nature. It is characterized by intermittent reinforcement, which means there is the alternating of highly intense positives (such as intense kindness or affection) and the negatives of the abusive behavior."
What would be "intermittent reinforcement" in a sexual act? Or do you just assume that men abuse their partners all the time and make up to them with sex, and that's the positive side? Or is it the other way around, men being charming, chivalric and respectful, and then fucking a woman is the negative?
Because either way is just impossible. Again, people are not caricatures.
"(3). The victim engages in denial of the abuse for emotional self- protection. In severe abuse (this can be psychological or physical), one form of psychological protection strategy is dissociation, where the victim experiences the abuse as if it is not happening to them, but as if they are outside their body watching the scene unfold (like watching a movie). Dissociative states allow the victim to compartmentalize the abusive aspects of the relationship in order to focus on the positive aspects"
If the woman you're having sex with presents a dissociative episode, you sir, are doing it wrong. Terribly wrong.
However, since anyone that has a decent-to-good hability at sex can attestiguate, women don't experience out of body experiences when having sex, evidenced by the fact that, again, a woman can start and take control of a consensual sexual encounter if she so desires.
Do observe that this particular symptom can and does happen in cases of sexual abuse, which is one of the differences between consensual and non-consensual sexual encounters, and why the later is bad [/understatement]. A victim of rape is being forced to do something against their will under penalty of harm or death, and the experience is highly demoralizing and traumatic. A woman in a consensual sexual relationship does not present these ill effects.
"(4). The victim masks that the abuse is happening, may not have admitted it to anyone, not even themselves. [...] Victims overwhelmed with terror suffer from an overload of their system, and to be able to function they must distort reality. They often shut down emotionally, and sometimes later describe themselves as having felt “robotic”, intellectually knowing what happened, but feeling frozen or numb and unable to take action. A victim must feel safe and out of “survival mode” before they will be able to make cognitive changes."
Now this is what really shatters your link between traumatic bonding and heterosexual encounters. A woman in a completely normal relationship does not alter her behaviour nor her perception of reality; she can still function as normally, and take action and care of themselves as they see fit. Women in non-abusive relationships are not "numb, robotic, or unable to take action". That is, of course, unless you consider pretty much every woman in the planet to be inferior in strenght of mind and character than you, which is not an ideological standpoint, but pure unadultered narcissism.
I'm not trying to convince you, of course. I just find you point of view hilariously misguided, as evidenced above. You don't have to be afraid of all men, nor are they all out to get you, "incels" non-withstanding (Yes, I'm out to piss off as many nutjobs as possible today). Your theory that just about every heterosexual woman in the planet is a victim of abuse and just completely incapable of accepting it is incorrect, misinformed, and ultimately worse for the feminist cause than any strawman rethoric its detractors could come up with.
Good day, ma'am.
