We discuss the problematic terminology of “noncovalent interactions” as commonly applied to hydrogen bonds, rotation barriers, steric repulsions, and other stereoelectronic phenomena. Although categorization as “noncovalent” seems to justify classical-type pedagogical rationalizations, we show that these phenomena are irreducible corollaries of thesameorbital-level conceptions of electronic covalency and resonance that governallchemical bonding phenomena. Retention of such nomenclature is pedagogically misleading in supporting superficial dipole–dipole and related “simple, neat, and wrong” conceptions as well as perpetuating inappropriate bifurcation of the introductory chemistry curriculum into distinct “covalent” vs. “noncovalent” modules. If retained at all, the line of dichotomization between “covalent” and “noncovalent” interaction should be re-drawn beyond the range of quantal exchange effects (roughly, at the contact boundary of empirical van der Waals radii) to betterunifythe pedagogy of molecular and supramolecular bonding phenomena.