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!
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
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!