So funny how he'll call me up after days of not speaking yet fully expects me to come into his bedroom and satiate his desires for a night. But lo and behold, when I send him an email postulating that that can no longer be a dynamic between us, not even a PEEP in response to my efforts to contact him.
Maybe his NY whore was partially right about something after all.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The Co-dependency Myth
THE CODEPENDENCY MYTH
The codependency movement and other currently popular self-help approaches portray relationships in a way that is remarkably similar to the views held in the first half of the twentieth century about the child-parent
bond (remember the “happy child” who is free of unnecessary attachments?). Today’s experts offer advice that goes something like this: Your happiness is something that should come from within and should not be dependent on your lover or mate. Your well-being is not their responsibility, and theirs is not yours. Each person needs to look after himself or herself. In addition, you should learn not to allow your inner peace to be disturbed by the person you are closest to. If your partner acts in a way that undermines your sense of security, you should be able to distance yourself from the situation emotionally, “keep the focus on yourself,” and stay on an even keel. If you can’t do that, there might be something wrong with you. You might be too
enmeshed with the other person, or “codependent,” and you must learn to set better “boundaries.”
The basic premise underlying this point of view is that the ideal relationship is one between two self-sufficient people who unite in a mature, respectful way while maintaining clear boundaries. If you develop a strong dependency on your partner, you are deficient in some way and are advised to work on yourself to become more “differentiated” and develop a “greater sense of self.” The worst possible scenario is that you will end up needing your partner, which is equated with “addiction” to him or her, and addiction, we all know, is a
dangerous prospect.
While the teachings of the codependency movement remain immensely helpful in dealing with family members who suffer from substance abuse (as was the initial intention), they can be misleading and even damaging when applied indiscriminately to all relationships. Karen, whom we met earlier in the televised race, has been influenced by these schools of thought. But biology tells a very different story.
THE BIOLOGICAL TRUTH
Numerous studies show that once we become attached to someone, the two of us form one physiological unit. Our partner regulates our blood pressure, our heart rate, our breathing, and the levels of hormones in our blood. We are no longer separate entities. The emphasis on differentiation that is held by most of today’s popular psychology approaches to adult relationships does not hold water from a biological perspective. Dependency is a fact; it is not a choice or a preference.
A study conducted by James Coan is particularly illuminating to that effect: Dr. James Coan is the director of the Affective Neuroscience Laboratory at the University of Virginia. He investigates the mechanisms through which close social relationships and broader social networks regulate our emotional responses. In this particular study, which he conducted in collaboration with Richard Davidson and Hillary Schaefer, he used functional MRI technology to scan the brains of married women. While these women were being scanned, Dr. Coan and his colleagues simulated a stressful situation by telling them that they were about to receive a very mild electric shock.
Normally, under stressful conditions the hypothalamus becomes activated. And indeed this is what happened in the experiment to the women when they were alone awaiting the shock—their hypothalamus lit up. Next, they tested the women who were holding a stranger’s hand while they waited. This time the scans showed somewhat reduced activity in the hypothalamus. And when the hand that the women held was their husband’s? The dip was much more dramatic—their stress was barely detectable. Furthermore, the women who benefited most from spousal hand-holding were those who reported the highest marital satisfaction—but we’ll get back to this point later.
The study demonstrates that when two people form an intimate relationship, they regulate each other’s psychological and emotional well-being. Their physical proximity and availability influence the stress response. How can we be expected to maintain a high level of differentiation between ourselves and our partners if our basic biology is influenced by them to such an extent?
It seems that Karen from our example instinctively understood the healing effect of holding her partner’s hand under stressful conditions. Unfortunately, she later gave in to common misconceptions and viewed her instinct as a weakness, something to be ashamed of.
THE “DEPENDENCY PARADOX”
Well before brain imaging technology was developed, John Bowlby understood that our need for someone to share our lives with is part of our genetic makeup and has nothing to do with how much we love ourselves or how fulfilled we feel on our own. He discovered that once we choose someone special, powerful and often uncontrollable forces come into play. New patterns of behavior kick in regardless of how independent we are and despite our conscious wills. Once we choose a partner, there is no question about whether dependency exists or not. It always does. An elegant coexistence that does not include uncomfortable feelings of vulnerability and fear of loss sounds good but is not our biology. What proved through evolution to have a strong survival advantage is a human couple becoming one physiological unit, which means that if she’s reacting, then I’m reacting, or if he’s upset, that also makes me unsettled. He or she is part of me, and I will do anything to save him or her; having such a vested interest in the well-being of another person translates into a very important survival advantage for both parties.
Despite variations in the way people with different attachment styles learn to deal with these powerful forces—the secure and anxious types embrace them and the avoidants tend to suppress them—all three
attachment styles are programmed to connect with a special someone. In fact, chapter 6 describes a series of experiments that demonstrate that avoidants have attachment needs but actively suppress them.
Does this mean that in order to be happy in a relationship we need to be joined with our partner at the hip or give up other aspects of our life such as our careers or friends? Paradoxically, the opposite is true! It turns out that the ability to step into the world on our own often stems from the knowledge that there is someone beside us whom we can count on—and this is the “dependency paradox.” The logic of this paradox is hard to follow at first. How can we act more independent by being thoroughly dependent on someone else? If we had to describe the basic premise of adult attachment in a single sentence, it would be: If you want to take the road to independence and happiness, first find the right person to depend on and travel down it with them. Once you understand this, you’ve grasped the essence of attachment theory. To illustrate this principle, let’s take another look at childhood, where attachment starts. Nothing better demonstrates the idea we’re
conveying than what is known in the field as the strange situation test.
THE STRANGE SITUATION TEST
Sarah and her twelve-month-old daughter, Kimmy, enter a room full of toys. A friendly young research assistant is waiting in the room and exchanges a few words with them. Kimmy starts to explore this newfound toy heaven—she crawls around, picks up toys, throws them to the ground, and checks whether they rattle, roll, or light up, while glancing at her mom from time to time.
Then Kimmy’s mother is instructed to leave the room; she gets up and quietly walks out. The minute Kimmy realizes what has happened she becomes distraught. She crawls over to the door as quickly as she
can, sobbing. She calls out to her mother and bangs on the door. The research assistant tries to interest Kimmy in a box full of colorful building blocks, but this only makes Kimmy more agitated and she
throws one of the blocks in the research assistant’s face.
When her mother returns to the room after a short while, Kimmy rushes toward her on all fours and raises her arms to be held. The two embrace and Sarah calmly reassures her daughter. Kimmy hugs her mom tight and stops sobbing. Once she is at ease again, Kimmy’s interest in the toys reawakens and she resumes her play.
The experiment Sarah and Kimmy participated in is probably the most important study in the field of attachment theory—referred to as the strange situation test (the version described here is an abbreviated version of the test). Mary Ainsworth was fascinated by the way in which children’s exploratory drive—their ability to play and learn—could be aroused or stifled by their mother’s presence or departure.
She found that having an attachment figure in the room was enough to allow a child to go out into a previously unknown environment and explore with confidence. This presence is known as a secure base. It
is the knowledge that you are backed by someone who is supportive and whom you can rely on with 100 percent certainty and turn to in times of need. A secure base is a prerequisite for a child’s ability to explore, develop, and learn.
The codependency movement and other currently popular self-help approaches portray relationships in a way that is remarkably similar to the views held in the first half of the twentieth century about the child-parent
bond (remember the “happy child” who is free of unnecessary attachments?). Today’s experts offer advice that goes something like this: Your happiness is something that should come from within and should not be dependent on your lover or mate. Your well-being is not their responsibility, and theirs is not yours. Each person needs to look after himself or herself. In addition, you should learn not to allow your inner peace to be disturbed by the person you are closest to. If your partner acts in a way that undermines your sense of security, you should be able to distance yourself from the situation emotionally, “keep the focus on yourself,” and stay on an even keel. If you can’t do that, there might be something wrong with you. You might be too
enmeshed with the other person, or “codependent,” and you must learn to set better “boundaries.”
The basic premise underlying this point of view is that the ideal relationship is one between two self-sufficient people who unite in a mature, respectful way while maintaining clear boundaries. If you develop a strong dependency on your partner, you are deficient in some way and are advised to work on yourself to become more “differentiated” and develop a “greater sense of self.” The worst possible scenario is that you will end up needing your partner, which is equated with “addiction” to him or her, and addiction, we all know, is a
dangerous prospect.
While the teachings of the codependency movement remain immensely helpful in dealing with family members who suffer from substance abuse (as was the initial intention), they can be misleading and even damaging when applied indiscriminately to all relationships. Karen, whom we met earlier in the televised race, has been influenced by these schools of thought. But biology tells a very different story.
THE BIOLOGICAL TRUTH
Numerous studies show that once we become attached to someone, the two of us form one physiological unit. Our partner regulates our blood pressure, our heart rate, our breathing, and the levels of hormones in our blood. We are no longer separate entities. The emphasis on differentiation that is held by most of today’s popular psychology approaches to adult relationships does not hold water from a biological perspective. Dependency is a fact; it is not a choice or a preference.
A study conducted by James Coan is particularly illuminating to that effect: Dr. James Coan is the director of the Affective Neuroscience Laboratory at the University of Virginia. He investigates the mechanisms through which close social relationships and broader social networks regulate our emotional responses. In this particular study, which he conducted in collaboration with Richard Davidson and Hillary Schaefer, he used functional MRI technology to scan the brains of married women. While these women were being scanned, Dr. Coan and his colleagues simulated a stressful situation by telling them that they were about to receive a very mild electric shock.
Normally, under stressful conditions the hypothalamus becomes activated. And indeed this is what happened in the experiment to the women when they were alone awaiting the shock—their hypothalamus lit up. Next, they tested the women who were holding a stranger’s hand while they waited. This time the scans showed somewhat reduced activity in the hypothalamus. And when the hand that the women held was their husband’s? The dip was much more dramatic—their stress was barely detectable. Furthermore, the women who benefited most from spousal hand-holding were those who reported the highest marital satisfaction—but we’ll get back to this point later.
The study demonstrates that when two people form an intimate relationship, they regulate each other’s psychological and emotional well-being. Their physical proximity and availability influence the stress response. How can we be expected to maintain a high level of differentiation between ourselves and our partners if our basic biology is influenced by them to such an extent?
It seems that Karen from our example instinctively understood the healing effect of holding her partner’s hand under stressful conditions. Unfortunately, she later gave in to common misconceptions and viewed her instinct as a weakness, something to be ashamed of.
THE “DEPENDENCY PARADOX”
Well before brain imaging technology was developed, John Bowlby understood that our need for someone to share our lives with is part of our genetic makeup and has nothing to do with how much we love ourselves or how fulfilled we feel on our own. He discovered that once we choose someone special, powerful and often uncontrollable forces come into play. New patterns of behavior kick in regardless of how independent we are and despite our conscious wills. Once we choose a partner, there is no question about whether dependency exists or not. It always does. An elegant coexistence that does not include uncomfortable feelings of vulnerability and fear of loss sounds good but is not our biology. What proved through evolution to have a strong survival advantage is a human couple becoming one physiological unit, which means that if she’s reacting, then I’m reacting, or if he’s upset, that also makes me unsettled. He or she is part of me, and I will do anything to save him or her; having such a vested interest in the well-being of another person translates into a very important survival advantage for both parties.
Despite variations in the way people with different attachment styles learn to deal with these powerful forces—the secure and anxious types embrace them and the avoidants tend to suppress them—all three
attachment styles are programmed to connect with a special someone. In fact, chapter 6 describes a series of experiments that demonstrate that avoidants have attachment needs but actively suppress them.
Does this mean that in order to be happy in a relationship we need to be joined with our partner at the hip or give up other aspects of our life such as our careers or friends? Paradoxically, the opposite is true! It turns out that the ability to step into the world on our own often stems from the knowledge that there is someone beside us whom we can count on—and this is the “dependency paradox.” The logic of this paradox is hard to follow at first. How can we act more independent by being thoroughly dependent on someone else? If we had to describe the basic premise of adult attachment in a single sentence, it would be: If you want to take the road to independence and happiness, first find the right person to depend on and travel down it with them. Once you understand this, you’ve grasped the essence of attachment theory. To illustrate this principle, let’s take another look at childhood, where attachment starts. Nothing better demonstrates the idea we’re
conveying than what is known in the field as the strange situation test.
THE STRANGE SITUATION TEST
Sarah and her twelve-month-old daughter, Kimmy, enter a room full of toys. A friendly young research assistant is waiting in the room and exchanges a few words with them. Kimmy starts to explore this newfound toy heaven—she crawls around, picks up toys, throws them to the ground, and checks whether they rattle, roll, or light up, while glancing at her mom from time to time.
Then Kimmy’s mother is instructed to leave the room; she gets up and quietly walks out. The minute Kimmy realizes what has happened she becomes distraught. She crawls over to the door as quickly as she
can, sobbing. She calls out to her mother and bangs on the door. The research assistant tries to interest Kimmy in a box full of colorful building blocks, but this only makes Kimmy more agitated and she
throws one of the blocks in the research assistant’s face.
When her mother returns to the room after a short while, Kimmy rushes toward her on all fours and raises her arms to be held. The two embrace and Sarah calmly reassures her daughter. Kimmy hugs her mom tight and stops sobbing. Once she is at ease again, Kimmy’s interest in the toys reawakens and she resumes her play.
The experiment Sarah and Kimmy participated in is probably the most important study in the field of attachment theory—referred to as the strange situation test (the version described here is an abbreviated version of the test). Mary Ainsworth was fascinated by the way in which children’s exploratory drive—their ability to play and learn—could be aroused or stifled by their mother’s presence or departure.
She found that having an attachment figure in the room was enough to allow a child to go out into a previously unknown environment and explore with confidence. This presence is known as a secure base. It
is the knowledge that you are backed by someone who is supportive and whom you can rely on with 100 percent certainty and turn to in times of need. A secure base is a prerequisite for a child’s ability to explore, develop, and learn.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Devil's Advocate
But what if I'm wrong about all of this? What if the relationship avoidant behavior Tim's been exhibiting really is just temporary and circumstantial phenomena? I mean, for chrissakes, the man WAS only separated in May, and the divorce paperwork only just went the through a short time ago...
Surely he just needed a little time to recuperate from... what was it, six to twelve months of being tied down in what he describes as an awful marriage? Is his recent behavior and fear of intimacy really anything other than a natural reaction to his circumstances?
But, speaking of his "recent behavior," has even some of it been within normal limits? What about his history? Let's tabulate....
1. Extreme fear of intimacy which evolved into behaviors that I think MUST have been adopted solely to drive me away, such as practically yelling at me after sex to "back off, don't touch [him]". In what world, I ask you, would constructing such a barrier to post-sex physical intimacy be okay like that?
2. How about "needing" to have his space from me, yet leading me to think otherwise? Stringing me along knowing FULL well what he was leading me to believe...
3. But what about his almost uniformly disastrous relationship history, which, according to him, is pretty much of his own making (he always described girls wanting to be with him, but never vice versa -- well, there was ONE that did, Liz, but when she wanted to pursue something with him, he freaked out).
4. Why hasn't he ever discussed a single happy relationship? Come to think of it, he's only ever mentioned three relationships in the entire time that I've known him, even though he claims to have had sex with an outrageous number of women -- Avery's mom, Sherry (ex-wife), and Liz ("the one" -- his only real true love ever!).
Moreover, conduct in the three relationships he's ever mentioned to me was classical avoidant behavior: something or another happened in all three that made Tim want to bolt. Perhaps it really was that all three of them desired far more intimacy than Tim is even capable of...
5. He makes it sound like he hates his family, and from what he describes about his childhood, he ALWAYS lacked a healthy degree of love from his family and his peers always shunned him. He sounds like a boy that always sought social acceptance and love.
6. Why was it always in his best interest to ensure I never felt safe or secure with him? It's almost like he didn't WANT there to be no drama between us... or rather, maybe it just made him feel better to make me feel as poorly as he must feel...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research on attachment repeatedly shows that when your need for intimacy is met and reciprocated by your partner, your satisfaction level will rise. Incongruent intimacy needs, on the other hand, usually translate into substantially lower satisfaction. When couples disagree about the degree of closeness and intimacy desired in a relationship, the issue eventually threatens to dominate all of their dialogue. We call this situation the “anxious-avoidant trap,” because like a trap, you fall into it with no awareness, and like a trap, once you’re caught, it’s hard to break free.
The reason people in an anxious-avoidant relationship find it particularly hard to move toward more security is primarily because they are trapped in a cycle of exacerbating each other’s insecurities....People with an anxious attachment style (lower circle on the right) cope with threats to the relationship by activating their attachment system—trying to get close to their partner. People who are avoidant (lower circle on the left) have the opposite reaction. They cope with threats by deactivating—taking measures to distance themselves from their partners and “turn off ” their attachment system. Thus the closer the anxious tries to get, the more distant the avoidant acts. To make matters worse, one partner’s activation further reinforces the other’s deactivation in a vicious cycle, and they both remain within the relationship “danger zone.” In order to move toward more security—the safe zone in the diagram—both members of the couple need to find a way to feel less threatened, get less activated/deactivated, and get out of the danger zone.
Here is what characteristically happens in many anxious-avoidant
relationships:
TELLTALE SIGNS OF THE ANXIOUS-AVOIDANT TRAP
1. The roller-coaster effect. In the relationship you never sail along on an even keel. Instead, every once in a
while, when the avoidant partner makes him/herself available to the anxious partner, the latter’s attachment system is temporarily quieted and you achieve extreme closeness—leading to the feeling of a “high.” This
closeness, however, is perceived as a threat by the avoidant partner and is quickly followed by withdrawal on his or her part—only to create renewed dissatisfaction for the anxious partner.
2. The emotional counterbalancing act. If you’re avoidant, you often inflate your self-esteem and sense of
independence in comparison to someone else. If you’re anxious, you are programmed to feel “less than” when your attachment system gets activated. Frequently avoidants feel independent and powerful only to the
extent that their partner feels needy and incapable. This is one of the main reasons avoidants hardly ever date
one another. They can’t feel strong and independent in relation to someone who shares the same sentiment as
they do.
3. Stable instability. The relationship may last for a long time, but an element of uncertainty persists. As illustrated on page 158, you may remain together but with a feeling of chronic dissatisfaction, never finding the degree of intimacy that you are both comfortable with.
4. Are we really fighting about this? You may feel that you’re constantly fighting about things you shouldn’t be fighting about at all. In fact, your fights aren’t about these minor problems but about something else altogether— the amount of intimacy between you.
5. Life in the inner circle as the enemy. If you are anxious, you find that you’re getting treated worse
instead of better once you become the person closest to the avoidant partner. We’ll explore this further in the next chapter.
6. Experiencing the trap. You develop the eerie sense that the relationship is not right for you, but you feel too emotionally connected to the other person to leave.
WHY ARE INTIMACY DIFFERENCES SO DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE?
If two people are in love, can’t they find a way to be together and work out their differences? We wish the answer was a simple yes, but we’ve often seen that it’s impossible to find a resolution acceptable to both
the anxious partner and the avoidant partner, regardless of how much love they feel for each other. Typically, if the relationship runs its usual course (we will show you later that this does not have to be so) despite
differing intimacy needs, the anxious partner is usually the one who has to make concessions and accept the rules imposed by the avoidant partner.
So even if the relationship is left to its own devices and lasts for a long time (in a stably unstable manner), without an attempt to steer it toward a secure place, things don’t usually get better—and may get
worse. Here’s why:
• Intimacy differences can spill over into more and more areas of life—radically different intimacy needs don’t stop with seemingly trivial matters like one person wanting to hold hands more often than the other. These differences reflect diametrically opposed desires, assumptions, and attitudes. In fact, they affect almost every aspect of a shared life; from the way you sleep together to how you raise your children. With every new development in the relationship (getting married, having kids, moving to a new home, making money, or
becoming ill) these basic differences will manifest themselves, and the gap between partners may widen as the challenges become greater.
• Conflict is often left unresolved because the resolution itself creates too much intimacy. If you are anxious or secure, you genuinely want to work out a relationship problem. However, the resolution itself often brings a couple closer together—this is a scenario that, however unconsciously, the avoidant partner wants to avoid. While people with an anxious or secure attachment style seek to resolve a disagreement to achieve greater emotional closeness, this outcome is uncomfortable for the avoidant who actually seeks to remain distant. In order to dodge the possibility of getting closer, avoidants tend to grow more hostile and distant as arguments progress. Unless there is recognition of the process involved in an anxious-avoidant conflict, the distancing during conflict tends to repeat itself and causes a lot of unhappiness. Without addressing the issue, the situation can go from bad to worse.
• With every clash, the anxious person loses more ground: During bitter fights between anxious and avoidant partners, when there are no secure checks and balances in place, people with anxious attachment style tend to get overwhelmed by negative emotions. When they feel hurt, they talk, think, and act in an extreme manner, even to the point of threatening to leave (protest behavior). However, once they calm down, they
become flooded with positive memories and are then overcome with regret. They reach out to their partner in an attempt to reconcile. But they are often met with a hostile response, because avoidants react differently to a fight. They turn off all attachment-related memories and remember the worst of their partner. What often happens at this point, if you are anxious, is that you not only fail to resolve the original conflict but now find yourself in a worse position than you were in the first place. Now you have to plead just to return to your initial, unsatisfactory status quo (and often have to compromise for less). Any hopes for a better life together get washed down the drain.
Epilogue
For us, the most important take-home message from this book is that relationships should not be left to chance. Relationships are one of the most rewarding of human experiences, above and beyond other gifts
that life has to offer. In fact, one study found that 73 percent of over three hundred university student participants were willing to sacrifice the majority of their goals in life for a romantic relationship. But despite
the importance we assign to our most intimate bonds, most of us still know very little about the science behind romantic relationships and allow ourselves all too often to be guided by misconceptions and myths.
Even the two of us, having thoroughly studied the science behind adult attachment styles, occasionally find ourselves falling back into familiar patterns of thinking when we hear a certain love story or watch a romantic movie that pushes all our old buttons. We recently saw a popular boy-meets-girl film that did just that. A young man falls passionately in love with a beautiful and intelligent woman. He becomes consumed by the desire to spend the rest of his life with her.
She, on the other hand, is determined to stay free and unattached— and tells him so from the start. Throughout the story, she sends mixed messages; she flirts and strings him along, which allows him to keep
hoping for a happy ending. But in an atypical Hollywood twist, she breaks his heart. He later discovers that she has gone on to marry the man of her dreams and is living happily ever after. (Well, to the best of
his, and our, knowledge, because the movie ends there.)
Our first reaction, along with the rest of the audience, was to fall in love with the woman. She was strong, passionate, independent—a truly free spirit. And she was honest; she warned him in advance tha she wasn’t looking for a serious relationship. We certainly couldn’t fault her for that. Besides, he obviously just wasn’t “the one” for her (after all, we were told she later found “the one”). For much of the movie we were also enthralled with the romantic possibility that she might open up to him and he would win her over. Although the film started with a spoiler —saying that it wasn’t a love story—we never stopped wishing for its two stars to ride off into the sunset together.
But on second thought, we quickly realized we had bought into every possible relationship fallacy. Even we, with our professional understanding of the science behind romantic behavior, had reverted to our old—and very unhelpful—beliefs. We allowed some deeply ingrained misconceptions to influence our thinking.
The first misconception is that everyone has the same capacity for intimacy. We’ve been raised to believe that every person can fall deeply in love (this part might well be true) and that when this happens, he or she will be transformed into a different person (this part is not!). Regardless of what they were like before, when people find “the one,”they supposedly become adoring, faithful, supportive partners—free of qualms about the relationship. It’s tempting to forget that, in fact, people have very different capacities for intimacy. And when one person’s need for closeness is met with another person’s need for independence and distance, a lot of unhappiness ensues. By being cognizant of this fact, both of you can navigate your way better in the dating world to find someone with intimacy needs similar to your own (if you are unattached) or reach an entirely new understanding about your differing needs in an existing relationship—a first and necessary step toward steering it in a more secure direction.
The second common misconception we fell victim to is that marriage is the be-all and end-all. Romantic stories tend to end there, and we are all tempted to believe that when someone gets married, it’s unequivocal proof of the power of love to transform; that the decision to marry means they’re now ready for true closeness and emotional partnership. We don’t like to admit that people might enter marriage without having these goals in mind, let alone the ability to achieve them. We want to believe, as we had hoped for in the movie, that once married, anyone can change and treat his/her spouse like royalty (especially if two people are deeply in love with each other).
In this book, however, we’ve shown how mismatched attachment styles can lead to a great deal of unhappiness in marriage, even for people who love each other greatly. If you are in such a relationship, don’t feel guilty for feeling incomplete or unsatisfied. After all, your most basic needs often go unmet, and love alone isn’t enough to make the relationship work. If you’ve read this book and understand where you are each coming from in terms of your attachment styles, you can now tackle this problem from a completely different angle.
The third hard-to-shed misconception we fell for is that we alone are responsible for our emotional needs; they are not our partner’s responsibility. When potential partners “Mirandize” us and “read us our rights” (see chapter 11) early in a relationship by telling us that they aren’t ready to commit, thereby renouncing responsibility for our wellbeing, or when they make unilateral decisions in a long-standing relationship without taking our needs into account, we’re quick to accept these terms. This logic has become very natural to people, and our friends might say, “They told you in advance they didn’t want to commit,” or “They always said how strongly they feel about this issue, so you have no one but yourself to blame.” But when we’re in love and want to continue a relationship, we tend to ignore the contradictory messages we’re getting. Instead of recognizing that someone who blatantly disregards our emotions is not going to be a good partner, we accept this attitude. Again, we must constantly remind ourselves: In a true partnership, both partners view it as their responsibility to ensure the other’s emotional well-being.
Once we let go of these delusions, the movie, like many situations in life, takes on a very different meaning. The story line becomes predictable and loses much of its mystique. It’s no longer a boy-meets-girl story, but an avoidant-meets-anxious one; he has a need for intimacy and she shies away from it. The writing was on the wall from the beginning, but the movie’s male hero couldn’t see it. That the woman he loved went on to marry someone else doesn’t change the fact that she was avoidant, and it predicts nothing about her happiness (or her husband’s) in the marriage. It’s very likely that she continued her behavior and distanced herself from the husband in many ways. For all we know, the hero became her phantom ex.
What we learned from watching the film is just how hard it is to let go of concepts we’ve believed in our entire lives—no matter how unhelpful they’ve been. But jettisoning these ideas is a necessary step; holding on to them can be highly destructive. They encourage us to compromise our self-esteem and happiness by ignoring our most basic needs and trying to be someone we’re not.
We believe that every person deserves to experience the benefits of a secure bond. When our partner acts as our secure base and emotional anchor, we derive strength and encouragement to go out into the world and make the most of ourselves. He or she is there to help us become the best person we can be, as we are for them.
Don’t Lose Sight of These Facts:
• Your attachment needs are legitimate.
• You shouldn’t feel bad for depending on the person you are closest to—it is part of your genetic makeup.
• A relationship, from an attachment perspective, should make you feel more self-confident and give you peace of mind. If it doesn’t, this is a wake-up call!
• And above all, remain true to your authentic self—playing games will only distance you from your ultimate goal of finding true happiness, be it with your current partner or with someone else.
We hope you will use the relationship wisdom distilled in this book, from more than two decades of research, to find happiness in your romantic connections and to soar in all aspects of your life. If you follow the attachment principles we have outlined, you will be actively giving yourself the best shot at finding—and keeping—a deeply gratifying love, instead of leaving one of the most important aspects of your life to chance!
Surely he just needed a little time to recuperate from... what was it, six to twelve months of being tied down in what he describes as an awful marriage? Is his recent behavior and fear of intimacy really anything other than a natural reaction to his circumstances?
But, speaking of his "recent behavior," has even some of it been within normal limits? What about his history? Let's tabulate....
1. Extreme fear of intimacy which evolved into behaviors that I think MUST have been adopted solely to drive me away, such as practically yelling at me after sex to "back off, don't touch [him]". In what world, I ask you, would constructing such a barrier to post-sex physical intimacy be okay like that?
2. How about "needing" to have his space from me, yet leading me to think otherwise? Stringing me along knowing FULL well what he was leading me to believe...
3. But what about his almost uniformly disastrous relationship history, which, according to him, is pretty much of his own making (he always described girls wanting to be with him, but never vice versa -- well, there was ONE that did, Liz, but when she wanted to pursue something with him, he freaked out).
4. Why hasn't he ever discussed a single happy relationship? Come to think of it, he's only ever mentioned three relationships in the entire time that I've known him, even though he claims to have had sex with an outrageous number of women -- Avery's mom, Sherry (ex-wife), and Liz ("the one" -- his only real true love ever!).
Moreover, conduct in the three relationships he's ever mentioned to me was classical avoidant behavior: something or another happened in all three that made Tim want to bolt. Perhaps it really was that all three of them desired far more intimacy than Tim is even capable of...
5. He makes it sound like he hates his family, and from what he describes about his childhood, he ALWAYS lacked a healthy degree of love from his family and his peers always shunned him. He sounds like a boy that always sought social acceptance and love.
6. Why was it always in his best interest to ensure I never felt safe or secure with him? It's almost like he didn't WANT there to be no drama between us... or rather, maybe it just made him feel better to make me feel as poorly as he must feel...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research on attachment repeatedly shows that when your need for intimacy is met and reciprocated by your partner, your satisfaction level will rise. Incongruent intimacy needs, on the other hand, usually translate into substantially lower satisfaction. When couples disagree about the degree of closeness and intimacy desired in a relationship, the issue eventually threatens to dominate all of their dialogue. We call this situation the “anxious-avoidant trap,” because like a trap, you fall into it with no awareness, and like a trap, once you’re caught, it’s hard to break free.
The reason people in an anxious-avoidant relationship find it particularly hard to move toward more security is primarily because they are trapped in a cycle of exacerbating each other’s insecurities....People with an anxious attachment style (lower circle on the right) cope with threats to the relationship by activating their attachment system—trying to get close to their partner. People who are avoidant (lower circle on the left) have the opposite reaction. They cope with threats by deactivating—taking measures to distance themselves from their partners and “turn off ” their attachment system. Thus the closer the anxious tries to get, the more distant the avoidant acts. To make matters worse, one partner’s activation further reinforces the other’s deactivation in a vicious cycle, and they both remain within the relationship “danger zone.” In order to move toward more security—the safe zone in the diagram—both members of the couple need to find a way to feel less threatened, get less activated/deactivated, and get out of the danger zone.
Here is what characteristically happens in many anxious-avoidant
relationships:
TELLTALE SIGNS OF THE ANXIOUS-AVOIDANT TRAP
1. The roller-coaster effect. In the relationship you never sail along on an even keel. Instead, every once in a
while, when the avoidant partner makes him/herself available to the anxious partner, the latter’s attachment system is temporarily quieted and you achieve extreme closeness—leading to the feeling of a “high.” This
closeness, however, is perceived as a threat by the avoidant partner and is quickly followed by withdrawal on his or her part—only to create renewed dissatisfaction for the anxious partner.
2. The emotional counterbalancing act. If you’re avoidant, you often inflate your self-esteem and sense of
independence in comparison to someone else. If you’re anxious, you are programmed to feel “less than” when your attachment system gets activated. Frequently avoidants feel independent and powerful only to the
extent that their partner feels needy and incapable. This is one of the main reasons avoidants hardly ever date
one another. They can’t feel strong and independent in relation to someone who shares the same sentiment as
they do.
3. Stable instability. The relationship may last for a long time, but an element of uncertainty persists. As illustrated on page 158, you may remain together but with a feeling of chronic dissatisfaction, never finding the degree of intimacy that you are both comfortable with.
4. Are we really fighting about this? You may feel that you’re constantly fighting about things you shouldn’t be fighting about at all. In fact, your fights aren’t about these minor problems but about something else altogether— the amount of intimacy between you.
5. Life in the inner circle as the enemy. If you are anxious, you find that you’re getting treated worse
instead of better once you become the person closest to the avoidant partner. We’ll explore this further in the next chapter.
6. Experiencing the trap. You develop the eerie sense that the relationship is not right for you, but you feel too emotionally connected to the other person to leave.
WHY ARE INTIMACY DIFFERENCES SO DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE?
If two people are in love, can’t they find a way to be together and work out their differences? We wish the answer was a simple yes, but we’ve often seen that it’s impossible to find a resolution acceptable to both
the anxious partner and the avoidant partner, regardless of how much love they feel for each other. Typically, if the relationship runs its usual course (we will show you later that this does not have to be so) despite
differing intimacy needs, the anxious partner is usually the one who has to make concessions and accept the rules imposed by the avoidant partner.
So even if the relationship is left to its own devices and lasts for a long time (in a stably unstable manner), without an attempt to steer it toward a secure place, things don’t usually get better—and may get
worse. Here’s why:
• Intimacy differences can spill over into more and more areas of life—radically different intimacy needs don’t stop with seemingly trivial matters like one person wanting to hold hands more often than the other. These differences reflect diametrically opposed desires, assumptions, and attitudes. In fact, they affect almost every aspect of a shared life; from the way you sleep together to how you raise your children. With every new development in the relationship (getting married, having kids, moving to a new home, making money, or
becoming ill) these basic differences will manifest themselves, and the gap between partners may widen as the challenges become greater.
• Conflict is often left unresolved because the resolution itself creates too much intimacy. If you are anxious or secure, you genuinely want to work out a relationship problem. However, the resolution itself often brings a couple closer together—this is a scenario that, however unconsciously, the avoidant partner wants to avoid. While people with an anxious or secure attachment style seek to resolve a disagreement to achieve greater emotional closeness, this outcome is uncomfortable for the avoidant who actually seeks to remain distant. In order to dodge the possibility of getting closer, avoidants tend to grow more hostile and distant as arguments progress. Unless there is recognition of the process involved in an anxious-avoidant conflict, the distancing during conflict tends to repeat itself and causes a lot of unhappiness. Without addressing the issue, the situation can go from bad to worse.
• With every clash, the anxious person loses more ground: During bitter fights between anxious and avoidant partners, when there are no secure checks and balances in place, people with anxious attachment style tend to get overwhelmed by negative emotions. When they feel hurt, they talk, think, and act in an extreme manner, even to the point of threatening to leave (protest behavior). However, once they calm down, they
become flooded with positive memories and are then overcome with regret. They reach out to their partner in an attempt to reconcile. But they are often met with a hostile response, because avoidants react differently to a fight. They turn off all attachment-related memories and remember the worst of their partner. What often happens at this point, if you are anxious, is that you not only fail to resolve the original conflict but now find yourself in a worse position than you were in the first place. Now you have to plead just to return to your initial, unsatisfactory status quo (and often have to compromise for less). Any hopes for a better life together get washed down the drain.
Epilogue
For us, the most important take-home message from this book is that relationships should not be left to chance. Relationships are one of the most rewarding of human experiences, above and beyond other gifts
that life has to offer. In fact, one study found that 73 percent of over three hundred university student participants were willing to sacrifice the majority of their goals in life for a romantic relationship. But despite
the importance we assign to our most intimate bonds, most of us still know very little about the science behind romantic relationships and allow ourselves all too often to be guided by misconceptions and myths.
Even the two of us, having thoroughly studied the science behind adult attachment styles, occasionally find ourselves falling back into familiar patterns of thinking when we hear a certain love story or watch a romantic movie that pushes all our old buttons. We recently saw a popular boy-meets-girl film that did just that. A young man falls passionately in love with a beautiful and intelligent woman. He becomes consumed by the desire to spend the rest of his life with her.
She, on the other hand, is determined to stay free and unattached— and tells him so from the start. Throughout the story, she sends mixed messages; she flirts and strings him along, which allows him to keep
hoping for a happy ending. But in an atypical Hollywood twist, she breaks his heart. He later discovers that she has gone on to marry the man of her dreams and is living happily ever after. (Well, to the best of
his, and our, knowledge, because the movie ends there.)
Our first reaction, along with the rest of the audience, was to fall in love with the woman. She was strong, passionate, independent—a truly free spirit. And she was honest; she warned him in advance tha she wasn’t looking for a serious relationship. We certainly couldn’t fault her for that. Besides, he obviously just wasn’t “the one” for her (after all, we were told she later found “the one”). For much of the movie we were also enthralled with the romantic possibility that she might open up to him and he would win her over. Although the film started with a spoiler —saying that it wasn’t a love story—we never stopped wishing for its two stars to ride off into the sunset together.
But on second thought, we quickly realized we had bought into every possible relationship fallacy. Even we, with our professional understanding of the science behind romantic behavior, had reverted to our old—and very unhelpful—beliefs. We allowed some deeply ingrained misconceptions to influence our thinking.
The first misconception is that everyone has the same capacity for intimacy. We’ve been raised to believe that every person can fall deeply in love (this part might well be true) and that when this happens, he or she will be transformed into a different person (this part is not!). Regardless of what they were like before, when people find “the one,”they supposedly become adoring, faithful, supportive partners—free of qualms about the relationship. It’s tempting to forget that, in fact, people have very different capacities for intimacy. And when one person’s need for closeness is met with another person’s need for independence and distance, a lot of unhappiness ensues. By being cognizant of this fact, both of you can navigate your way better in the dating world to find someone with intimacy needs similar to your own (if you are unattached) or reach an entirely new understanding about your differing needs in an existing relationship—a first and necessary step toward steering it in a more secure direction.
The second common misconception we fell victim to is that marriage is the be-all and end-all. Romantic stories tend to end there, and we are all tempted to believe that when someone gets married, it’s unequivocal proof of the power of love to transform; that the decision to marry means they’re now ready for true closeness and emotional partnership. We don’t like to admit that people might enter marriage without having these goals in mind, let alone the ability to achieve them. We want to believe, as we had hoped for in the movie, that once married, anyone can change and treat his/her spouse like royalty (especially if two people are deeply in love with each other).
In this book, however, we’ve shown how mismatched attachment styles can lead to a great deal of unhappiness in marriage, even for people who love each other greatly. If you are in such a relationship, don’t feel guilty for feeling incomplete or unsatisfied. After all, your most basic needs often go unmet, and love alone isn’t enough to make the relationship work. If you’ve read this book and understand where you are each coming from in terms of your attachment styles, you can now tackle this problem from a completely different angle.
The third hard-to-shed misconception we fell for is that we alone are responsible for our emotional needs; they are not our partner’s responsibility. When potential partners “Mirandize” us and “read us our rights” (see chapter 11) early in a relationship by telling us that they aren’t ready to commit, thereby renouncing responsibility for our wellbeing, or when they make unilateral decisions in a long-standing relationship without taking our needs into account, we’re quick to accept these terms. This logic has become very natural to people, and our friends might say, “They told you in advance they didn’t want to commit,” or “They always said how strongly they feel about this issue, so you have no one but yourself to blame.” But when we’re in love and want to continue a relationship, we tend to ignore the contradictory messages we’re getting. Instead of recognizing that someone who blatantly disregards our emotions is not going to be a good partner, we accept this attitude. Again, we must constantly remind ourselves: In a true partnership, both partners view it as their responsibility to ensure the other’s emotional well-being.
Once we let go of these delusions, the movie, like many situations in life, takes on a very different meaning. The story line becomes predictable and loses much of its mystique. It’s no longer a boy-meets-girl story, but an avoidant-meets-anxious one; he has a need for intimacy and she shies away from it. The writing was on the wall from the beginning, but the movie’s male hero couldn’t see it. That the woman he loved went on to marry someone else doesn’t change the fact that she was avoidant, and it predicts nothing about her happiness (or her husband’s) in the marriage. It’s very likely that she continued her behavior and distanced herself from the husband in many ways. For all we know, the hero became her phantom ex.
What we learned from watching the film is just how hard it is to let go of concepts we’ve believed in our entire lives—no matter how unhelpful they’ve been. But jettisoning these ideas is a necessary step; holding on to them can be highly destructive. They encourage us to compromise our self-esteem and happiness by ignoring our most basic needs and trying to be someone we’re not.
We believe that every person deserves to experience the benefits of a secure bond. When our partner acts as our secure base and emotional anchor, we derive strength and encouragement to go out into the world and make the most of ourselves. He or she is there to help us become the best person we can be, as we are for them.
Don’t Lose Sight of These Facts:
• Your attachment needs are legitimate.
• You shouldn’t feel bad for depending on the person you are closest to—it is part of your genetic makeup.
• A relationship, from an attachment perspective, should make you feel more self-confident and give you peace of mind. If it doesn’t, this is a wake-up call!
• And above all, remain true to your authentic self—playing games will only distance you from your ultimate goal of finding true happiness, be it with your current partner or with someone else.
We hope you will use the relationship wisdom distilled in this book, from more than two decades of research, to find happiness in your romantic connections and to soar in all aspects of your life. If you follow the attachment principles we have outlined, you will be actively giving yourself the best shot at finding—and keeping—a deeply gratifying love, instead of leaving one of the most important aspects of your life to chance!
Relationship Avoidants
Finally.
I mean, it sure took him long enough, but what matters now is that he finally fucking did the right thing for once. However, I'm not wearing my rose-tinted glasses anymore; I understand perfectly well that he likely only severed relations with me because I angered his new love interest/crazy stalker bitch.
But who knows for sure -- I'm just speculating at this point. He's totally forgotten about my very existence, or if he hasn't, he certainly wants to me to believe he has. I always kind of suspected that Tim really enjoyed activating my attachment system...
[What is an "activated attachment system?" People with an anxious attachment style (such as myself)... have a super-sensitive attachment system. As we mentioned in previous chapters, the attachment system is the mechanism in our brain responsible for tracking and monitoring the safety and availability of our attachment figures. If you have an anxious attachment style, you possess a unique ability to sense when your relationship is threatened. Even a slight hint that something may be wrong will activate your attachment system, and once it’s activated, you are unable to calm down until you get a clear indication from your partner that he or she is truly there for you and that the relationship is safe. People with other attachment styles also get activated, but they don’t pick up on subtle details that people with an anxious attachment style do.] (Attached; pp. 79)
Because of one thing I am certain; this guy's got all the hall marks of a relationship avoidant if there ever was one.
From the book, Attached, by Amir Levine, hallmarks of the avoidant attachment style:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking Guns That You're Dating Someone Who's an Avoidant
1. Sends mixed signals.
For instance -- gives me a ring one night that he implies is a sign from some supernatural power, or forces beyond his control and states that it means that we're "destined" to be in each others lives for a very long time time, and that no matter how angry I get at him, I must NEVER take it off.
He seriously made me swear this.
Later on, he insists that I just "took the wrong idea" from his supposed "friendship ring" (I mean, really -- FRIENDSHIP RING!? Who fucking DOES that any more, any ways?) by becoming "clingy" and craving even more intimacy even as he withdrew.
2. Values his independence greatly.
Uh-huh. I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to write that Tim was an utter fanatic about his own sense of independence and privacy.
3. Devalues you (or previous partners).
Upon meeting me (that is, when he still had positive feelings towards me), I could do no wrong -- this quickly gave way to, seemingly, most everything being my fault. Yeah, I had "excuses" for not being totally on top of my game at 32, but as Tim once said, "excuses are just excuses."
So despite sending me such strong mixed messages and leading me on, he had been "very clear" the entire time that what he needed was "space," and it wasn't his fault that I just "wasn't getting it."
You know, come to think of it, Steve used to always tell me the SAME EXACT THING -- so it's no surprise that, upon my telling Steve about the different attachment styles, he immediately fingered the avoidant attachment style as his own. I never thought about or even understood this before, but OF COURSE Steve is an avoidant... that is in fact the very reason Tim came across so clearly to him. He understood Tim like I never could have because he felt a certain amount of kinship...
As for devaluing previous partners, I can't help but think of his "evil" ex-wife, Sherry Ellen Slitts Warner, and all of the wretched tales he used to tell me that would inspire hatred in me for her. He used to tell me horror stories about how she used to call him psychotic -- unfortunately, now I think I understand why. And although he pretended to not know why she used to say this, something tells me that he understood perfectly well the entire time...
4. Uses distancing strategies -- emotional or physical.
While they occurred, they didn't make any sense whatsoever.
Hindsight is always 20/20, they say.
*sigh*
5. Emphasizes boundaries in a relationship.
This didn't happen until phase two of our relationship -- when he turned into such a hyper-critical, malicious asshole, but oh it did occur. Albeit, according to Tim, I just wasn't listening to what he was "clearly" (*rolls eyes*) telling me from day one.
(Fuck you, Steve.)
6. Has an unrealistically romantic view of how a relationship should be.
When I first thought about this, I couldn't ever recall Tim ever speaking romantically of any kind of ideal relationship. However, upon further consideration, I DO remember the one time he ever spoke of being in love in his life -- it was a high school crush (or something like that) that went by the name of Liz.
He spoke of how he thought he was in love with her in their formative years, but apparently she was an extremely popular supermodel (or so he made her sound) who continually refused all of his advances because, according to her, Tim was a "freak."
Years later, during Tim's "party days" (when every night he would throw another epic bash -- in his early 20s), when, from Tim's perspective, he was "suddenly popular with all the cool kids and every girl in existence wanted nothing more than to spread her legs for his mediocre cock, she suddenly decided that he was cool enough for her after all. So the tables turn, but according to Tim, even though he could finally have what he thought he had most wanted, he just couldn't take it, kept asking himself "why now and not years earlier?" He describes it as having a major break down in bed with her one night in which he freaked out and kicked her outta his bed.
The icing on the cake here?
Apparently they're still friends.
Wow. In retrospect, that his tragic tale of the only time he thinks he's ever been in love DIDN'T sound immediate alarm bells and send me running for cover is almost kind of scary...
Never again.
7. Mistrustful -- fears being taken advantage of by partner.
Again, upon first considering this one, I drew a blank. Tim never even insinuated that I... wait a damn second here.
Because, not only did he CONSTANTLY imply that his good for nothing, evil ex-wife was doing EXACTLY that -- taking advantage of him, using him for his resources and stability -- but it wasn't too long into our relationship where I became the target of similar insinuations. Because, it's true that he never accused me directly of using him, per se, but that was always tacit to his words...
8. Doesn't make his intentions for the relationship clear.
When I read this one, I was nodding my head vigorously (in my head, of course!), but then I heard Steve's voice chiming in inside my head, "Yes, he did, you just weren't LISTENING."
Then I recall my realization during the course of writing this that Steve and Tim are actually kindred spirits, and I think to myself that no WONDER I was never able to interpret Tim's apparently flagrant messages -- I'm just not fucked up in the head enough to understand them!
9. Flirting with others -- a hurtful way to introduce insecurity into the relationship.
Tim was ALL ABOUT introducing insecurity into our relationship. From never failing to let me know that he had just gone on a date with so-and-so, to making sure I understood that he was keeping all options open all of the time, to the night he gave me that ring, yet then proceeded to be very intimate with Stephanie...
10. Not saying I love you while implying that you do have feelings for your partner.
This is EXACTLY what I always used to bitch about to him whilst Steve and him both insisted that he was being perfectly clear and honest with me. Yet, despite their protests to the contrary, I know that when he looked at me that way... when he would sweetly and romantically kiss my lips or softly nibble on my breast... when he would tell me that he loved me too...
I see now that I was mistaking lustful passion for genuine love.
God bless hindsight.
11. Saying (or thinking) "I'm not ready to commit, yet staying together (sometimes for years).
Because let's be honest... had Tim never had the gall to have ended things, could I have done it on my own?
You know what scares me most about that question?
That I'm not sure about the answer... I mean, think about it. Even after he broke up with me, we were still together in everything but name. How long would that have gone on for?
---------------------------------------------------
From a post I wrote earlier this year about James:
"Of course, and I suppose that I'm just speculating now, but I'm almost certain that James ranks among the 25% of people or so that have a "dismissive-avoidant" attachment style. Now, I could be wrong -- I suppose there's also a miniscule chance that he has just had EXTREMELY bad luck with relationships his entire life, but the chances of that are so ridiculously low. I mean, he would have to have some seriously bad luck. Somehow, I really doubt it. Not to mention that he has so many personality traits that are hallmarks of avoidants."
And that entire paragraph applies to Tim.
Now I just want to bang my head against the wall in utter frustration. But simultaneously, I'd like a good tissue box and a spongy handkerchief with with to soak up all of these tears... I mean, where the fuck do I find these dysfunctional fuck ups? Why do I seem to be attracting EXACTLY the kind of man that I want and need to be happy?
But yet again, Attached has an answer:
-------------------------------------------------------
THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS—WHY YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO MEET AVOIDANTS WHEN YOU GO OUT ON A DATE
"But now I understand that there's nothing wrong with me for being the way I am. I AM someone that requires a lot of attention and quality time with my significant other, and for the very first time in my life, I don't feel shamed about that. I DO tend to become obsessive about people I'm romantically interested in -- thinking about them all the time, even squelching some of my most important needs in order to meet theirs. I AM insecure about my relationships because I feel that they're trying to pull away from me emotionally, and I want them to be my best friend. I *need* that closeness. It's just who I am, and there's nothing wrong with me for craving that need as badly as I do.
Wow, have I mentioned how life changing this book is?" (My own observation, 4/22/12)
-----------------------------------------------------
And I think that last line is the invaluable take away lesson from this last relationship. That is the fucking MORAL OF THIS STORY.
Which is to say that I pledge that, from this day forward, I will NEVER again allow myself to waste any more of my time by allowing myself to fall in love with and pursue those with an avoidant attachment style, as were exemplified by the three previous men I've fallen in love with: Gavin, James, and Tim.
Because I'm tired of the incredible highs and lows; I'm tired of being on an emotional roller coaster. My brain just cannot handle these relationships anymore. I've had it with men who have such a dysfunctional fear of intimacy, men for whom their families are more like distant neighbors rather than inseparable blood family. Men who barely even LIKE, yet alone LOVE their own fucking mothers and fathers (with the exception of James).
Alas, I've been focusing my attention in the wrong places; I've been confusing and mistaking dysfunctional, avoidant behaviors that activated my attachment system to the extreme and inflamed my insecurities with genuine love and inextinguishable passion, much to my misfortune.
Oh well. You live and you learn. But now that I'm cognizant of this behavior, I can truly avoid repeating such painful mistakes in the future.
Tomorrow's a new day!
I mean, it sure took him long enough, but what matters now is that he finally fucking did the right thing for once. However, I'm not wearing my rose-tinted glasses anymore; I understand perfectly well that he likely only severed relations with me because I angered his new love interest/crazy stalker bitch.
But who knows for sure -- I'm just speculating at this point. He's totally forgotten about my very existence, or if he hasn't, he certainly wants to me to believe he has. I always kind of suspected that Tim really enjoyed activating my attachment system...
[What is an "activated attachment system?" People with an anxious attachment style (such as myself)... have a super-sensitive attachment system. As we mentioned in previous chapters, the attachment system is the mechanism in our brain responsible for tracking and monitoring the safety and availability of our attachment figures. If you have an anxious attachment style, you possess a unique ability to sense when your relationship is threatened. Even a slight hint that something may be wrong will activate your attachment system, and once it’s activated, you are unable to calm down until you get a clear indication from your partner that he or she is truly there for you and that the relationship is safe. People with other attachment styles also get activated, but they don’t pick up on subtle details that people with an anxious attachment style do.] (Attached; pp. 79)
Because of one thing I am certain; this guy's got all the hall marks of a relationship avoidant if there ever was one.
From the book, Attached, by Amir Levine, hallmarks of the avoidant attachment style:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking Guns That You're Dating Someone Who's an Avoidant
1. Sends mixed signals.
For instance -- gives me a ring one night that he implies is a sign from some supernatural power, or forces beyond his control and states that it means that we're "destined" to be in each others lives for a very long time time, and that no matter how angry I get at him, I must NEVER take it off.
He seriously made me swear this.
Later on, he insists that I just "took the wrong idea" from his supposed "friendship ring" (I mean, really -- FRIENDSHIP RING!? Who fucking DOES that any more, any ways?) by becoming "clingy" and craving even more intimacy even as he withdrew.
2. Values his independence greatly.
Uh-huh. I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to write that Tim was an utter fanatic about his own sense of independence and privacy.
3. Devalues you (or previous partners).
Upon meeting me (that is, when he still had positive feelings towards me), I could do no wrong -- this quickly gave way to, seemingly, most everything being my fault. Yeah, I had "excuses" for not being totally on top of my game at 32, but as Tim once said, "excuses are just excuses."
So despite sending me such strong mixed messages and leading me on, he had been "very clear" the entire time that what he needed was "space," and it wasn't his fault that I just "wasn't getting it."
You know, come to think of it, Steve used to always tell me the SAME EXACT THING -- so it's no surprise that, upon my telling Steve about the different attachment styles, he immediately fingered the avoidant attachment style as his own. I never thought about or even understood this before, but OF COURSE Steve is an avoidant... that is in fact the very reason Tim came across so clearly to him. He understood Tim like I never could have because he felt a certain amount of kinship...
As for devaluing previous partners, I can't help but think of his "evil" ex-wife, Sherry Ellen Slitts Warner, and all of the wretched tales he used to tell me that would inspire hatred in me for her. He used to tell me horror stories about how she used to call him psychotic -- unfortunately, now I think I understand why. And although he pretended to not know why she used to say this, something tells me that he understood perfectly well the entire time...
4. Uses distancing strategies -- emotional or physical.
While they occurred, they didn't make any sense whatsoever.
Hindsight is always 20/20, they say.
*sigh*
5. Emphasizes boundaries in a relationship.
This didn't happen until phase two of our relationship -- when he turned into such a hyper-critical, malicious asshole, but oh it did occur. Albeit, according to Tim, I just wasn't listening to what he was "clearly" (*rolls eyes*) telling me from day one.
(Fuck you, Steve.)
6. Has an unrealistically romantic view of how a relationship should be.
When I first thought about this, I couldn't ever recall Tim ever speaking romantically of any kind of ideal relationship. However, upon further consideration, I DO remember the one time he ever spoke of being in love in his life -- it was a high school crush (or something like that) that went by the name of Liz.
He spoke of how he thought he was in love with her in their formative years, but apparently she was an extremely popular supermodel (or so he made her sound) who continually refused all of his advances because, according to her, Tim was a "freak."
Years later, during Tim's "party days" (when every night he would throw another epic bash -- in his early 20s), when, from Tim's perspective, he was "suddenly popular with all the cool kids and every girl in existence wanted nothing more than to spread her legs for his mediocre cock, she suddenly decided that he was cool enough for her after all. So the tables turn, but according to Tim, even though he could finally have what he thought he had most wanted, he just couldn't take it, kept asking himself "why now and not years earlier?" He describes it as having a major break down in bed with her one night in which he freaked out and kicked her outta his bed.
The icing on the cake here?
Apparently they're still friends.
Wow. In retrospect, that his tragic tale of the only time he thinks he's ever been in love DIDN'T sound immediate alarm bells and send me running for cover is almost kind of scary...
Never again.
7. Mistrustful -- fears being taken advantage of by partner.
Again, upon first considering this one, I drew a blank. Tim never even insinuated that I... wait a damn second here.
Because, not only did he CONSTANTLY imply that his good for nothing, evil ex-wife was doing EXACTLY that -- taking advantage of him, using him for his resources and stability -- but it wasn't too long into our relationship where I became the target of similar insinuations. Because, it's true that he never accused me directly of using him, per se, but that was always tacit to his words...
8. Doesn't make his intentions for the relationship clear.
When I read this one, I was nodding my head vigorously (in my head, of course!), but then I heard Steve's voice chiming in inside my head, "Yes, he did, you just weren't LISTENING."
Then I recall my realization during the course of writing this that Steve and Tim are actually kindred spirits, and I think to myself that no WONDER I was never able to interpret Tim's apparently flagrant messages -- I'm just not fucked up in the head enough to understand them!
9. Flirting with others -- a hurtful way to introduce insecurity into the relationship.
Tim was ALL ABOUT introducing insecurity into our relationship. From never failing to let me know that he had just gone on a date with so-and-so, to making sure I understood that he was keeping all options open all of the time, to the night he gave me that ring, yet then proceeded to be very intimate with Stephanie...
10. Not saying I love you while implying that you do have feelings for your partner.
This is EXACTLY what I always used to bitch about to him whilst Steve and him both insisted that he was being perfectly clear and honest with me. Yet, despite their protests to the contrary, I know that when he looked at me that way... when he would sweetly and romantically kiss my lips or softly nibble on my breast... when he would tell me that he loved me too...
I see now that I was mistaking lustful passion for genuine love.
God bless hindsight.
11. Saying (or thinking) "I'm not ready to commit, yet staying together (sometimes for years).
Because let's be honest... had Tim never had the gall to have ended things, could I have done it on my own?
You know what scares me most about that question?
That I'm not sure about the answer... I mean, think about it. Even after he broke up with me, we were still together in everything but name. How long would that have gone on for?
---------------------------------------------------
From a post I wrote earlier this year about James:
"Of course, and I suppose that I'm just speculating now, but I'm almost certain that James ranks among the 25% of people or so that have a "dismissive-avoidant" attachment style. Now, I could be wrong -- I suppose there's also a miniscule chance that he has just had EXTREMELY bad luck with relationships his entire life, but the chances of that are so ridiculously low. I mean, he would have to have some seriously bad luck. Somehow, I really doubt it. Not to mention that he has so many personality traits that are hallmarks of avoidants."
And that entire paragraph applies to Tim.
Now I just want to bang my head against the wall in utter frustration. But simultaneously, I'd like a good tissue box and a spongy handkerchief with with to soak up all of these tears... I mean, where the fuck do I find these dysfunctional fuck ups? Why do I seem to be attracting EXACTLY the kind of man that I want and need to be happy?
But yet again, Attached has an answer:
-------------------------------------------------------
THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS—WHY YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO MEET AVOIDANTS WHEN YOU GO OUT ON A DATE
There is one last reason you will probably meet and date a fair share
of avoidant people. Consider the following three facts:
• People with an avoidant attachment style tend to end their
relationships more frequently. One study found that of
individuals who entered a new marriage following a divorce, the
avoidant ones were more likely to divorce again. They also
suppress loving emotions and therefore “get over” partners very
quickly so they can start dating again almost immediately.
Conclusion: Avoidants are in the dating pool more frequently
and for longer periods of time.
• People with a secure attachment style usually don’t go through
many partners before they find one that they happily settle down
with. Once things click, they form a long-lasting, committed
relationship. Conclusion: People with a secure attachment
style take a very long time to reappear in the dating pool, if at
all.
• Studies have found that avoidants are unlikely to be in a
relationship with other avoidants, because they lack the
emotional glue to stay together. In fact, one study that looked at
dating couples didn’t find even one pair that was avoidant-avoidant.
Conclusion: Avoidants don’t date each other; they
are more likely to date people with different attachment styles.
Now let’s put the pieces of this puzzle together.
When you meet someone new, the probability that they have an
avoidant attachment style is high—much higher than their relative size
in the population—25 percent. Not only are they recycled back into the
dating pool more quickly, but they are not dating one another (at least
not for long), nor are they dating secure people, that much because
secures are less available. Who are they meeting? That’s right: You
and other potential partners with an anxious attachment style.
Having a perpetually activated attachment system is the
opposite of what nature had in mind for us in terms of gratifying love.
As we’ve seen, one of Bowlby and Ainsworth’s most important insights
is that in order to thrive and grow as human beings, we need a secure
base from which to derive strength and comfort. For that to happen,
our attachment system must be calm and secure.
Remember, an activated attachment system is not passionate love.--------------------------------------------------
Next time you date someone and find yourself feeling anxious,
insecure, and obsessive—only to feel elated every once in a while—
tell yourself this is most likely an activated attachment system and not
love! True love, in the evolutionary sense, means peace of mind. “Still
waters run deep” is a good way of characterizing it.
"But now I understand that there's nothing wrong with me for being the way I am. I AM someone that requires a lot of attention and quality time with my significant other, and for the very first time in my life, I don't feel shamed about that. I DO tend to become obsessive about people I'm romantically interested in -- thinking about them all the time, even squelching some of my most important needs in order to meet theirs. I AM insecure about my relationships because I feel that they're trying to pull away from me emotionally, and I want them to be my best friend. I *need* that closeness. It's just who I am, and there's nothing wrong with me for craving that need as badly as I do.
Wow, have I mentioned how life changing this book is?" (My own observation, 4/22/12)
-----------------------------------------------------
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FOLLOW COMMON
DATING ADVICE?
Say you decide to follow the advice of many popular relationship
books. They offer guidelines to help you “land” a partner, such as:
Don’t make yourself too available, say you’re busy even when you’re
not, don’t call him—wait for him to call you, don’t appear to care too
much, act mysterious. Presumably, you preserve your dignity and
independence in this way and gain your partner’s respect. But in fact,
what you are doing is behaving in a way that is not true to your genuine
needs and feelings. You wave these aside to appear strong and self sufficient.
And indeed, these books and the advice they give are right; these behaviors may indeed make you seem more attractive. What they don’t mention, because they are unaware of attachment science, is that they will make you seem more attractive to a very particular kind
of partner—an avoidant one. Why? Because, in essence, what they
are advocating is that you ignore your needs and let the other person
determine the amount of closeness/distance in the relationship. The
avoidant person can have his/her cake and eat it too, so to speak—
s/he can enjoy the thrill and closeness you naturally project when you
are together without having to consider your needs for intimacy and
togetherness the rest of the time. By being someone you’re not, you’re
allowing another to be with you on his or her own terms and come and
go as s/he pleases.
Another problem is that if this type of game playing is only an act for-----------------------------------------------------------
you, it’s going to backfire in the long run. First, your avoidant partner
will quickly catch on to you—they are good at detecting people who
want to impinge on their autonomy. Second, eventually you’ll think it’s
time to let your true colors show. After all, what you really want is to
reach a high degree of intimacy, to spend a lot of quality time together,
to be able to let down your guard. But you’ll find that when you do so,
your avoidant partner will suddenly get cold feet and start to
disengage. Either way, you lose, because you are attracting the wrong
kind of partner for you.
And I think that last line is the invaluable take away lesson from this last relationship. That is the fucking MORAL OF THIS STORY.
Which is to say that I pledge that, from this day forward, I will NEVER again allow myself to waste any more of my time by allowing myself to fall in love with and pursue those with an avoidant attachment style, as were exemplified by the three previous men I've fallen in love with: Gavin, James, and Tim.
Because I'm tired of the incredible highs and lows; I'm tired of being on an emotional roller coaster. My brain just cannot handle these relationships anymore. I've had it with men who have such a dysfunctional fear of intimacy, men for whom their families are more like distant neighbors rather than inseparable blood family. Men who barely even LIKE, yet alone LOVE their own fucking mothers and fathers (with the exception of James).
Alas, I've been focusing my attention in the wrong places; I've been confusing and mistaking dysfunctional, avoidant behaviors that activated my attachment system to the extreme and inflamed my insecurities with genuine love and inextinguishable passion, much to my misfortune.
Oh well. You live and you learn. But now that I'm cognizant of this behavior, I can truly avoid repeating such painful mistakes in the future.
Tomorrow's a new day!
Monday, August 6, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
More horrendous news...
My sweet baby Amira passed away early this morning. She was the sweetest, most gentle, funniest bird I've ever had the pleasure of caring for.
This is a momentous loss.
This is a momentous loss.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Unreal
Today is a very sad day indeed. I was informed by Jess this morning that a close friend of ours -- Jesse P. -- that we've known since our mid-teens died today.
Jessica Staton and Jesse Petrusson
Unbelievably enough, the autopsy revealed that Jesse had heart disease, and ultimately this caused his death. He was only 31.
Absolutely unreal.
Unbelievably enough, the autopsy revealed that Jesse had heart disease, and ultimately this caused his death. He was only 31.
Absolutely unreal.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Thought of the day:
Now, I think astrology, zodiac signs, and ANY kind of paranormal occurrences
or superstitions are really just utter jokes -- yet I'm 100% Gemini,
through and through!
No joke. I mean, it's seriously almost ridiculous just how apt my sign is for me -- but I KNOW it's complete bull shit! How does that even work?!
No joke. I mean, it's seriously almost ridiculous just how apt my sign is for me -- but I KNOW it's complete bull shit! How does that even work?!
Immortal worms defy aging
Immortal worms defy aging
My brother was telling me about this tonight, and I didn't think it was even real...
My brother was telling me about this tonight, and I didn't think it was even real...
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The nuances of shame?
I haven't updated this blog in too long. I just haven't wanted to write about any of the important things that have taken place lately, but perhaps I should.
See, I had my very first, what wound up being a "one night" stand with a date I had earlier this month, and even though I know it's a foolish double standard to hold myself to, I cannot help being quite ashamed. Even though I'm no longer religious, I can't help but feel... as if I need to hold myself to that same standard I had for myself when I was.
Moreover, I started to write a post about the nuances of shame, and found myself getting nowhere. The absurdity of the shame I feel has been written about several times before -- no, I don't need to write a lengthy post about how crazy it is for me to feel so ashamed for something that, well, at the time, was a lot of fun.
Do I regret engaging in the experience?
In one word, yes. Moreover, I think my feeling of regret is warranted in this case. But it's important to distinguish between feeling shame -- which is entirely uncalled for -- and feeling regret, a feeling foreign to me...
See, I had my very first, what wound up being a "one night" stand with a date I had earlier this month, and even though I know it's a foolish double standard to hold myself to, I cannot help being quite ashamed. Even though I'm no longer religious, I can't help but feel... as if I need to hold myself to that same standard I had for myself when I was.
Moreover, I started to write a post about the nuances of shame, and found myself getting nowhere. The absurdity of the shame I feel has been written about several times before -- no, I don't need to write a lengthy post about how crazy it is for me to feel so ashamed for something that, well, at the time, was a lot of fun.
Do I regret engaging in the experience?
In one word, yes. Moreover, I think my feeling of regret is warranted in this case. But it's important to distinguish between feeling shame -- which is entirely uncalled for -- and feeling regret, a feeling foreign to me...
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Opeth cancels Minneapolis show at the last minute
Opeth's FB page
Hi guys! I'm writing from beyond the grave. Seriously, I was not in a car crash and I haven't broken my arm. All that happened is I hit my head in mastodons tour bus as I was getting a new pair of (red) underwear out from my suitcase. Wish the story was more rock and roll, believe me. Anyways I split my head open down to the skullbone and had to be taken to the emergency. They gave me a bunch of shots in the wound, cleaned me up and stapled my head shut with 8 metal staples. Head is sore and if I smile it feels like the wound is gonna burst open again, but I'll be on stage by tomorrow again. I feel extremely disappointed that we couldn't play at the myth in Minneapolis, but paramedics told me I couldn't. We will reschedule the show for our next trip to the USA. So all rumors of me being in a car crash are false. I did crash my head into a car though, well...a bus really. Sorry for disappointing our fans in Minneapolis but I hope you understand. See you next time. Best. Mikael
So, instead, Gabrielle, Jesse, and I all went to some hole-in-the-wall shit hole called Dean's in St Paul and got completely smashed. Wasn't as cool as seeing Opeth would have been, but oh well. Shit happens.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Portishead -- The Rip
I awoke this morning with this beautiful song coursing through my head.
What a haunting melody to have stuck in your head this early...
Portisheead -- The Rip
What a haunting melody to have stuck in your head this early...
Portisheead -- The Rip
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Beautiful Things
Awakening from a fifteen day comatose state, and, for me, at least, an additional two weeks of post-traumatic amnesia is truly a remarkable, once in a lifetime kind of experience, and I new soon after my release from the hospital in 2004 that I wanted to record those moments so as to never forget them.
The profound sense of disorientation was unreal, and I don't think I was quite able to capture that in this short memoir. Some day I'll go back through it and make small revisions.
However, seeing as this was written exactly nine months after sustaining a severe traumatic brain injury for an introductory English course at the University of Minnesota, I think I did a pretty good job of capturing as many of the small details as possible. I in fact hurried to transcribe my experience for that very reason -- details, feelings, and thoughts always dissipate with time, and I wanted to remember it all.
Warning: the following memoir is highly esoteric, and takes place in December 2003.
The profound sense of disorientation was unreal, and I don't think I was quite able to capture that in this short memoir. Some day I'll go back through it and make small revisions.
However, seeing as this was written exactly nine months after sustaining a severe traumatic brain injury for an introductory English course at the University of Minnesota, I think I did a pretty good job of capturing as many of the small details as possible. I in fact hurried to transcribe my experience for that very reason -- details, feelings, and thoughts always dissipate with time, and I wanted to remember it all.
Warning: the following memoir is highly esoteric, and takes place in December 2003.
technology news: Fake Visitors Traffic from Referring Sites www4.
Finally figured out what all the supposed traffic from those funny IP addresses are actually from...
Pendulum -- I'm Not Alone (live at Glastonbury)
Pendulum -- I'm Not Alone
As I often do, I was listening to my iPod touch tonight on shuffle when this song popped up. What a pleasant surprise!
As I often do, I was listening to my iPod touch tonight on shuffle when this song popped up. What a pleasant surprise!
Monday, April 30, 2012
On a Sia kick tonight...
I'm such a sappy goosh-ball sometimes when it comes to really sugary, high calorie love songs that are just too sweet for their own good. By that, I mean that I totally adore the romantic sentiment in this song.
Zero 7 -- Somersault
And of course, Sia singing it with that angelic voice of hers is just like a succulent little cherry atop the cool whipped cream...
Zero 7 -- Somersault
And of course, Sia singing it with that angelic voice of hers is just like a succulent little cherry atop the cool whipped cream...
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Regaining my equilibrium
What a hellacious weekend. Going through such a drastic and severe medication change (after my body has been on these med dosages since 2005, nonetheless!), finding out that I'm going to have to pay for my last year of schooling out of pocket, James...
Ugh. Wish life would just give me a break sometimes.
But I found out some really good stuff too, though, like getting together for sushi night with a bunch of my friends this Friday, the upcoming Opeth/Mastadon concert (!!!), Kearney's 30th birthday party (fuck yeah!), buying my ticket to Israel on Monday, etc...
Well, the important thing is that I feel much more like myself today. Whew!
Ugh. Wish life would just give me a break sometimes.
But I found out some really good stuff too, though, like getting together for sushi night with a bunch of my friends this Friday, the upcoming Opeth/Mastadon concert (!!!), Kearney's 30th birthday party (fuck yeah!), buying my ticket to Israel on Monday, etc...
Well, the important thing is that I feel much more like myself today. Whew!
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Woke up in a really bad place this morning, but I feel much better after a steaming hot, long shower.
I'm making a conscious decision to focus on the good things in my life, and also making making a conscious decision to stay away from the bad.
By that, I mean that, after two relatively serious attempts at using the virtual world to build something real, I think in the future I'm going to have to stay away from this route.
See, I think my problem is that I always wind up opting for the truly exotic and unique, which I guess isn't a bad thing in and of itself. But it's fast becoming clear that pursuing a potential romantic interest when proximity is such a major issue is thoroughly untenable.
I, for one, need that closeness -- but more importantly, that physical proximity is of the utmost importance because it utterly changes the the dynamics of any relationship. I need to look directly into someone's eyes when they are speaking to me, I need to have a chance to read from someone's non-verbal cues. As I realized from my most recent read, I live for the intimacy that only physical proximity can achieve.
Besides, I thrive way too much on cuddles and hugs to ever be alright with having to forgo such a necessary component of my close relations.
"Online dating" isn't all bad simply because I failed at it twice, I suppose. But I think reevaluating your methods after consecutive failures using any strategy is just plain savvy. No, it's not really that there's anything wrong with online dating, per se; I think that, more accurately stated, there's only something wrong with becoming enamored with someone you meet in the virtual world if you cannot have a face to face meeting within a few months max. That was the real deal breaker here, not the my past two romantic interests were from the UK, per se. Allowing my romantic feelings to persist after it became clear that he was no longer serious about meeting me in March OR July should have been a major red flag.
Never again.
Now, I guess I cannot say for sure, but surely, had the in-person meeting come to fruition as I once thought it would, things would have panned out much differently. I don't want to dwell on such thoughts, though. I could spend the rest of my life hypothesizing about "what if" scenarios, but would good would it do?
Ugh. I just need to begin packing for my upcoming trip...
I'm making a conscious decision to focus on the good things in my life, and also making making a conscious decision to stay away from the bad.
By that, I mean that, after two relatively serious attempts at using the virtual world to build something real, I think in the future I'm going to have to stay away from this route.
See, I think my problem is that I always wind up opting for the truly exotic and unique, which I guess isn't a bad thing in and of itself. But it's fast becoming clear that pursuing a potential romantic interest when proximity is such a major issue is thoroughly untenable.
I, for one, need that closeness -- but more importantly, that physical proximity is of the utmost importance because it utterly changes the the dynamics of any relationship. I need to look directly into someone's eyes when they are speaking to me, I need to have a chance to read from someone's non-verbal cues. As I realized from my most recent read, I live for the intimacy that only physical proximity can achieve.
Besides, I thrive way too much on cuddles and hugs to ever be alright with having to forgo such a necessary component of my close relations.
"Online dating" isn't all bad simply because I failed at it twice, I suppose. But I think reevaluating your methods after consecutive failures using any strategy is just plain savvy. No, it's not really that there's anything wrong with online dating, per se; I think that, more accurately stated, there's only something wrong with becoming enamored with someone you meet in the virtual world if you cannot have a face to face meeting within a few months max. That was the real deal breaker here, not the my past two romantic interests were from the UK, per se. Allowing my romantic feelings to persist after it became clear that he was no longer serious about meeting me in March OR July should have been a major red flag.
Never again.
Now, I guess I cannot say for sure, but surely, had the in-person meeting come to fruition as I once thought it would, things would have panned out much differently. I don't want to dwell on such thoughts, though. I could spend the rest of my life hypothesizing about "what if" scenarios, but would good would it do?
Ugh. I just need to begin packing for my upcoming trip...
Saturday morning thoughts
Isn't that how these things always work? When things go badly, they always go badly all at once. It always feels like everything comes crashing down all together. It's never just one thing. But I just can't allow myself to lose sight of what I know to be true -- that things will improve no matter how badly everything seems right now.
They always do.
I have to hold onto my belief that things will drastically change. Maybe this is what happens whenever the end of an era comes to fruition. I know that ever since my car accident, I've been all too inclined to despair when nothing seems to be working. Whenever I feel like I'm losing control of myself and my life, and it feels like I've just become too sad to fight anymore.
But writing always helps me to put things in perspective. Since I was a young child, writing has helped me to think, to strategize, to not lose sight of the fact that I'm creative enough and strong enough to find other ways. It helps me to maintain my faith in my abilities, a confidence in my intellect, and it revives my capacity to hope for better. It always serves to make me remember that, for as cold and alone as I feel at times, I truly have a massive circle of friends and family that I can always tap for support.
Writing helps me to make sense of so many of my seemingly nonsensical internal contradictions.
There are times that I long for the capacity to be able to view things from more calloused perspectives. Other times, I think I've struck a better balance than most people. Albeit, a far more painful route, to be sure, but I like to think it's a path much more conducive to personal growth.
Pain is so conducive to personal growth.
But I won't lie. At times, I, too, try to avoid pain and hardship because, well, it fucking hurts, and it's difficult. Our natural inclination as human beings is to try to avoid obstacles which hurt, right?
Not I.
Bask in your pain, I say. Learn to relish it. Maybe that sounds almost masochistic, but it's really not. Rather, it's simply another coping mechanism. And so long as you have methods to help you deal, that's what counts.
They always do.
I have to hold onto my belief that things will drastically change. Maybe this is what happens whenever the end of an era comes to fruition. I know that ever since my car accident, I've been all too inclined to despair when nothing seems to be working. Whenever I feel like I'm losing control of myself and my life, and it feels like I've just become too sad to fight anymore.
But writing always helps me to put things in perspective. Since I was a young child, writing has helped me to think, to strategize, to not lose sight of the fact that I'm creative enough and strong enough to find other ways. It helps me to maintain my faith in my abilities, a confidence in my intellect, and it revives my capacity to hope for better. It always serves to make me remember that, for as cold and alone as I feel at times, I truly have a massive circle of friends and family that I can always tap for support.
Writing helps me to make sense of so many of my seemingly nonsensical internal contradictions.
There are times that I long for the capacity to be able to view things from more calloused perspectives. Other times, I think I've struck a better balance than most people. Albeit, a far more painful route, to be sure, but I like to think it's a path much more conducive to personal growth.
Pain is so conducive to personal growth.
But I won't lie. At times, I, too, try to avoid pain and hardship because, well, it fucking hurts, and it's difficult. Our natural inclination as human beings is to try to avoid obstacles which hurt, right?
Not I.
Bask in your pain, I say. Learn to relish it. Maybe that sounds almost masochistic, but it's really not. Rather, it's simply another coping mechanism. And so long as you have methods to help you deal, that's what counts.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Waking up from a long fantasy
I'm glad it's over -- it was never real to begin with. Well, maybe I'm lying to myself a little bit. It was a very enjoyable fantasy indeed, but I just have to remember that it was never anything more than a figment of my imagination.
I allowed it to go on much too long, something which is totally my fault. See, I hung onto it even when I knew I should have just let it go it, something that should have been done at the first sign that it wasn't real. And there were many signs.
Oh well. You live and you learn. I've learned a very real lesson, and I swear that I will be much more cautious from now on. I need to overcome a painful disappointment of my making first, though.
I can do this.
I allowed it to go on much too long, something which is totally my fault. See, I hung onto it even when I knew I should have just let it go it, something that should have been done at the first sign that it wasn't real. And there were many signs.
Oh well. You live and you learn. I've learned a very real lesson, and I swear that I will be much more cautious from now on. I need to overcome a painful disappointment of my making first, though.
I can do this.