a) the state of being personally attached : fidelity
attachment to a cause
b) affectionate regard
a deep attachment to nature
c) psychology : a strong emotional bond that forms with another
also : the process by which an infant forms such an emotional bond
I have been engaged in some form of online dating since WAY before that was an okay thing to admit you were doing. Legitimately, around 2003-2004.
I have seen my fair share of fuckery and certainly encountered almost every online dating trope at one point or other.
- Unsolicited Dick Pic? More than I could count
- Ghosting? Never doubt the internet is haunted
- Aggressive men who would not take no for an answer? Plenty
- Declarations of love from people I just met? Unfortunately
That said, it is also how I found all but one of the partners with whom I have had a long-term relationship as an adult. I have social anxiety and resting bitch face. I have no idea how to find or approach attractive people in the wild and with only one or two exceptions, haven’t been approached either.
So, as painful as it is, online dating tends to be my sole option that yields any opportunity to find a romantic partner.
I was out of the mix for most of the last decade. For a little more than half I was in a relationship, and for at least 3 of those years I actively didn’t want to be in one. I have now returned to the dating pool, I am starting to notice a new declamation in the profiles I come across
I am seeking someone with a Secure Attachment Style
I have, of course, heard of this method of categorizing the kinds of emotional bonds people develop with each other. The underlying concepts seem resonant and simple to grasp.
Reading the literature and developing an understanding of the underlying logic, I can identify for myself that given the chaotic and unsafe nature of my childhood, I certainly wasn’t taught to have a secure attachment style. I am also clear that some elements that influence the nature of a particular attachment are out of my control. My attachments are not a monolith; my capacity for intimacy, trust, and vulnerability vary based on who is on the other side of the connection and their capacity for closeness, candor, and self-assurance.
Of course I understand why people would want to raise the subject and to clarify their own style as a means of demonstrating what they both want and have to offer a partner.
But
It feels eerily like the way that any mention of seeking a “feminine” partner codes for “submissive” or “agreeable.” Like the way claiming they are “masculine” either reveals an insecurity about being perceived as not or as a way to signal they plan to act like an asshole and if you don’t like it, well, you were warned.
It feels like an egregious oversimplification to make a claim about attachment style in a vacuum. Certain qualities can trigger different attachment signals depending on the context. Is someone evasive or are they being pursued in a way that feels unsafe? Is that request for a text message “when you get home safe” a thoughtful act of concern or a means of keeping tabs deployed by a controlling partner?
What’s missing from this discourse is the acknowledgement that attachment style is heavily influenced by what you are attempting to attach to. When trust has been damaged, when the other person is not capable of emotional regulation, effective communication, compassion or empathy, how can a secure attachment be maintained?
It must be acknowledged that the conditions on the ground impact the experience of each individual. Just as it is more difficult to maintain a healthy diet absent certain resources, information, and access, so too is it extremely challenging to stay securely attached in the landscape of an unhealthy relationship.
For example, if we look at the traits of the fearful avoidant style, this would seem like a less than ideal person to undertake a relationship with.
However, each sign in this graphic could be seen as a trauma response to real lived experience with a given partner. When a person must adapt to unpredictability, they may themselves appear unpredictable. Hypervigilance is a well-known coping mechanism to deal with an explosive or abusive partner. When love is conditional, the sense that it must be “earned” is not a failure of secure attachment, it is adaptive pattern recognition.
There are any number of personality/relationship assessments that can be deployed to try and evaluate the potential for success. Love languages*, Enneagram, Astrology, and attachment styles can all act as a sort of shorthand for a person’s preferences and tendencies. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, it is important to acknowledge that these are merely points of reference and cannot encompass the entirety of any person or relationship.
In this particular case, I think it is more meaningful to conduct a serious internal inventory and consider if you yourself are capable of secure attachment. If so, which is the direction you move toward when under duress; are you more likely to feel anxious or avoidant? Understanding yourself both in safety and in stress, can help foster more meaningful discussions about how individuals deal with the difficulties that naturally arise in any intimate relationship.
Moreover, let’s accept that it’s possible to learn to adapt to the particular ways a potential partner identifies. To understand that when a person with anxious attachment is in stress, an extra effort to reassure them may break the pattern they are stuck in. When an avoidant retreats, being patient until they re-engage will allow them to come back close, safe in the knowledge their space is respected.
Identifying that someone is capable of a secure attachment is a perfectly reasonable relationship goal. It is also important to realize that more than one thing can be true, and adopting a curious and open posture while discussing how else they may respond in moments of stress is an excellent first step toward fostering the kind of meaningful intimacy a secure attachment implies.
*Problematic for their lack of any meaningful sociological evidence and created ad-hoc by a person committed to upholding and enforcing the patriarchy.
Comments are closed