Attachment Styles

[Rafael Thundercat]

As someone told me once. You dont see your reletional issues till you enter a relationship, then when you enter in it all the can of worms open up. This is my case and I am working on this. I Appreciate any good insights on this topic. 

i am currently watching this

 

 

[Valach]

2 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

As someone told me once. You dont see your reletional issues till you enter a relationship, then when you enter in it all the can of worms open up. This is my case and I am working on this. I Appreciate any good insights on this topic. 

i am currently watching this

 

 

That's what I believed as well. The more I dive into this the more I can easily see the insecure attachments in other people even when they are not in a relationships.

[Rafael Thundercat]

4 hours ago, Valach said:

That's what I believed as well. The more I dive into this the more I can easily see the insecure attachments in other people even when they are not in a relationships.

Luckly there a lot of people out there dealing with the same relational issues and coming up with wisdom to navigate it.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DaPGahvjQXq/?igsh=eHBtY2ZncDU1d2hp

 

[Valach]

7 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Luckly there a lot of people out there dealing with the same relational issues and coming up with wisdom to navigate it.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DaPGahvjQXq/?igsh=eHBtY2ZncDU1d2hp

 

I do not have instagram sadly so can't see that.

[Ulax]

Nice. I think its very good for relationships.

[Rafael Thundercat]

For those with instagam account , this is specific for who deals with Avoidands. About giving changes to them

https://www.instagram.com/p/Daz6KbmDUFl/?igsh=eXF0NzIzazlheHZv

 

[LordFall]

I think it's a great model of relationships, I'm glad it's becoming mainstream I hear people talk about attachment styles that aren't super into self-development.

I think it's perhaps common to start off as anxious then veer into avoidant and then hopefully fall into secure. 

It started off that way with me with my ex I was I'd say the more anxious partner and she was more of an avoidant. I spend like 6 years outside of serious committed relationships working on myself and only having hookups and FWBs type of arrangements but I'd say it allowed me to understand myself and my needs more to now be able to enter secure relationships in the future. 

[Valach]

1 hour ago, LordFall said:

I think it's a great model of relationships, I'm glad it's becoming mainstream I hear people talk about attachment styles that aren't super into self-development.

I think it's perhaps common to start off as anxious then veer into avoidant and then hopefully fall into secure. 

It started off that way with me with my ex I was I'd say the more anxious partner and she was more of an avoidant. I spend like 6 years outside of serious committed relationships working on myself and only having hookups and FWBs type of arrangements but I'd say it allowed me to understand myself and my needs more to now be able to enter secure relationships in the future. 

The path of anxious -> avoidant is quite common. What most people do not realize is that many anxious and avoidant people are very similiar. The behaviour might be different but the underlying emotions that drive this behaviour are often same.

[Rafael Thundercat]

@LordFall I had recently a situationship with an Avoidant. I dont hold grudges with her since she is young and for sure will learn with life and experiences that her behaviours will hijack any relationship she enter. But for me I learned what this text bellow from a guy in Instagram posted:

"There's one signal that tells you whether a relationship is worth your time. Just one.
If you aren't experiencing more peace, more safety, and a deeper sense of self when you're with someone — the relationship is cooked. Full stop.
Don't fight for them. Don't get hooked on the "potential." Don't convince yourself once they do a bit more "work" or "heal" it'll work out. That's not your responsibility and says more about where you're at than they are.
A relationship is only healthy when you're more relaxed in their presence. When you feel completely chosen. When the default is kindness, devotion, and expanded possibility.
If you tolerate anything less than this you are playing childhood games. Recreating scenarios that make you feel like you have to earn your worth, or save someone, or put up with the same bullshit you had as a kid that you thought was love. That isn't their fault, it's yours.
The patterns shift through love — not dysregulation. Toxic relating is not healing. Regular dysregulation is not healing. Fighting for your dignity or having to constantly figure out "what you are" to someone isn't healing.
Relationship is not supposed to be a crucible. It is not supposed to be you recreating the bullshit dynamic of love modeled to you from your parents and saying is progress.
The moment I got ruthless with what I am available for, my entire relational world changed. I stopped fighting for relationships or trying to get something from them I could only give myself. Healing can only happen inside relationship when you've actually healed enough of your own shit. When you stand in your worthiness and are willing to walk away from anything that doesn't make you feel more alive, more free, and more safe.
When I did the deeply confronting work of seeing how my relationships just reflected everywhere I hated myself, I entered a relationship that showed me what true love is. No covert contracts. No expectations. A mutual understanding that we're willing to walk away when it doesn't feel aligned any longer.
You cannot build self-worth in a relationship. You cannot get it from your partner. That is an impossible burden to put on the both of you. If you need a relationship to get something, you shouldn't be in one.
When you no longer need a relationship, you get the exact one you want. Two humans coming together because they want to expand and grow through mutual devotion. Of course there are challenges, but they're the type of challenges you want. Because you stopped choosing from lack and started choosing from fullness.
You're not doing the "work" and "healing" in a relationship while your entire lifeforce is being siphoned. You're gaslighting yourself.

[Valach]

10 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

@LordFall I had recently a situationship with an Avoidant. I dont hold grudges with her since she is young and for sure will learn with life and experiences that her behaviours will hijack any relationship she enter. But for me I learned what this text bellow from a guy in Instagram posted:

"There's one signal that tells you whether a relationship is worth your time. Just one.
If you aren't experiencing more peace, more safety, and a deeper sense of self when you're with someone — the relationship is cooked. Full stop.
Don't fight for them. Don't get hooked on the "potential." Don't convince yourself once they do a bit more "work" or "heal" it'll work out. That's not your responsibility and says more about where you're at than they are.
A relationship is only healthy when you're more relaxed in their presence. When you feel completely chosen. When the default is kindness, devotion, and expanded possibility.
If you tolerate anything less than this you are playing childhood games. Recreating scenarios that make you feel like you have to earn your worth, or save someone, or put up with the same bullshit you had as a kid that you thought was love. That isn't their fault, it's yours.
The patterns shift through love — not dysregulation. Toxic relating is not healing. Regular dysregulation is not healing. Fighting for your dignity or having to constantly figure out "what you are" to someone isn't healing.
Relationship is not supposed to be a crucible. It is not supposed to be you recreating the bullshit dynamic of love modeled to you from your parents and saying is progress.

This problematic on many levels. Eg. This is exactly how a typical avoidant would feel with close intimacy (less peace, less safety) eventhough the person might be a good potential partner. A lot of how we react in a relationship is not about the other person or how they behave but about our own internal reactions and projections. This is not me saying to stay in relationships that are not working out though.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

It is not as simple as avoidant / anxious / secure. 

Ambivalent or fearful avoidants are quite common.

It is also quite normal to flip attachment styles in your healing journey, prior to becoming more securely attached. Inconsistent love from parental figures is a big root cause. Sometimes relationships with someone with attachment issues can make secure people unstable also.

Once you have experiences it, or healed from it.... It's a mindfuck. You see it so clearly in others where it was totally hidden before. It's almost it's own awakening...

[Valach]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Sometimes relationships with someone with attachment issues can make secure people unstable also.

Disagree. A truly secure person will not get shaken up by bad relationship. A lot of people claim that they were secure until they met person X, but that just means they were always insecure and not yet triggered.

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Once you have experiences it, or healed from it.... It's a mindfuck. You see it so clearly in others where it was totally hidden before. It's almost it's own awakening...

Haha, yea I am having the same experience. And I am not even close to secure person yet. But it is so easy to spot this general insecurity in other people. Takes me like 15 minutes to spot it in someone new. And holy shit is it soooo common - truly secure people are super rare.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 minutes ago, Valach said:

Disagree. A truly secure person will not get shaken up by bad relationship. A lot of people claim that they were secure until they met person X, but that just means they were always insecure and not yet triggered.

I think there are some relationships so traumatizing virtually no one gets away unscathed.

This line of reasoning is a bit odd. It defines  secure in a way no evidence can ever disprove.

[Valach]

9 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I think there are some relationships so traumatizing virtually no one gets away unscathed.

This line of reasoning is a bit odd. It defines  secure in a way no evidence can ever disprove.

By no means some relationships are truly horrible. If you experience some deep violation such as rape or sexual assault etc. then yes, even a secure person who had a good upbringing and all could get traumatized. You could argue that secures are more resilient so they are probably still less likely to carry some deep wounds from such relationships but it can definitely happens - do not have any data or personal experience on this (thankfully lol).

Then there is another layer though. We are very much so drawn to people who reflect known dynamics and energies from our childhood. So a secure person would not really resonate with a traumatizer. You can see and feel these people on some level quite easily. Secure person might end up in a relationships with someone little insecure yes. But I highly doubt someone secure would ever date someone with deep attachment trauma. Often people claim that their horrific exes looked good until something happened - but I feel like that is simply not true. Part of you had to resonate with this person, always.

There is of course an exception. Say you had a harmonic, relatively healthy relationship with your partner. And then he gets called up to a war or experiences some really bad accident and gets traumatized and thus starts hurting you in a relationship. That is very rare though. People do not really switch up in relationships like that. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Valach

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Valach I've known one person who was secure, and ended up with some strange avoidant issues after a prolonged abusive relationship. They snapped back to normal attachemt very quickly after 3/4 months of some termoil.

I don't view secure / not secure as a binary. I don't think psychology views it as such also. I see it as a spectrum.

Overall I disagree because your definition of secure has the conclusion built into the premise. I find definitions like that don't really work because they can never be empirically tested. But you do you 

[Valach]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Valach I've known one person who was secure, and ended up with some strange avoidant issues after a prolonged abusive relationship. They snapped back to normal attachemt very quickly after 3/4 months of some termoil.

I don't view secure / not secure as a binary. I don't think psychology views it as such also. I see it as a spectrum.

Overall I disagree because your definition of secure has the conclusion built into the premise. I find definitions like that don't really work because they can never be empirically tested. But you do you 

But how does a secure person decides to stay after some abusive, non-aligned behaviour starts happening in a relationship. I am not saying your friend is not secure, I can't know that.

My understanding is that the secure person is a person with high self esteem, somatic feeling of safety in their body who respect other people but primarily respect their own body and emotions and integrity. So my understanding is that such person would leave dysfunctional relationship right after being shown signs of any abuse/disrespect whatsoever.

I was and still am probably (not dating at the moment) heavy avoidant. It was always only fairly insecure woman who tolerated my behaviour. The secure ones, the moment I pulled one of my avoidant strategies such as being hot and cold, not knowing what I want, emotionally closed off - they dropped me immediately and rightly so. And I was in no way abusive, just a typical avoidant  

Edited 57 minutes ago by Valach

[Valach]

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Valach I've known one person who was secure, and ended up with some strange avoidant issues after a prolonged abusive relationship. They snapped back to normal attachemt very quickly after 3/4 months of some termoil.

I don't view secure / not secure as a binary. I don't think psychology views it as such also. I see it as a spectrum.

Overall I disagree because your definition of secure has the conclusion built into the premise. I find definitions like that don't really work because they can never be empirically tested. But you do you 

Obviously vast majority of woman I dated were insecure because those are the ones I was attracted to and also they were attracted to me. On top of that like 95% of population is insecure in my opinion, so it is hard to find the secure ones.