Attachment styles in relationships: How do you deal with them?

Charles Wood73 said:I was just sitting here thinking about something—it might be totally irrelevant to the thread, but who knows... I picked up this book recently about avoidant personality disorder, and now I’m spiraling a bit wondering if that diagnosis is essentially just a fancy way of describing someone with an avoidant attachment style. Or maybe they’re just two sides of the same coin? I can't quite recall the title, though I do remember the author identified as gay. Not that that matters much in a vacuum, but in this context, it felt like a detail worth noting... because the only part of the book that actually stuck in my brain was this one passage where he mused about the types of people you see at the local Gold's Gym who just show up to grind. They don't talk, they don't socialize, they certainly don't engage in those "accidental" physical brushes or try to get uncomfortably close to anyone; they just step onto a machine and hammer away. To him, apparently, that behavior alone was enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis. At least, that's how I remember it—though I can't be entirely sure since I didn't finish the thing; it was far too overpriced for my liking.

Well, obviously, if I go to the gym, I'm there to work out. And that definitely shouldn't be used as a diagnostic criterion for Avoidant Personality Disorder, which I certainly don't have.

I might actually have it... which is why I wasn't just hitting the weights at the gym, but was multitasking by flipping through Cosmopolitan at the same time. Just to be safe. 😳

Charles Wood73 said:I might actually have it... which is why I wasn't just hitting the weights at the gym, but was multitasking by flipping through Cosmopolitan at the same time. Just to be safe. 😳

I’m with you on that one! +1 :topcina: !

Not exactly light reading like Cosmopolitan, more like Ernest Hemingway.
(Hemingway’s what really built my muscles.)

Emily Cook8 said:I’m with you on that one! +1 :topcina: !

Not exactly light reading like Cosmopolitan, more like Ernest Hemingway.
(Hemingway’s what really built my muscles.)

Hemingway? You’re definitely playing it safe. 😬

Charles Wood73 said:Hemingway? You’re definitely playing it safe. 😬

Oh, come on!
Don't go spilling my secrets out in the open like that! 🙂

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, honey,

You can't really change your attachment style; maybe it’s better to focus on understanding and accepting it through therapy instead. Find someone who truly gets you and complements your personality, then you won't feel that need to change at all. 🍿

Jonathan Fowler14 said:Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, honey,

You can't really change your attachment style; maybe it’s better to focus on understanding and accepting it through therapy instead. Find someone who truly gets you and complements your personality, then you won't feel that need to change at all. 🍿

Look, if you actually took the time to understand your own soul and "fill your own gaps," you wouldn't be out there hunting for someone else to validate your flaws or fix what's broken.

Andrew Doyle said:Look, if you actually took the time to understand your own soul and "fill your own gaps," you wouldn't be out there hunting for someone else to validate your flaws or fix what's broken.

We'll have those needs our whole lives; we're humans, not robots. We're biologically wired to crave companionship, love, and acceptance from others—it's a need that never truly goes away. Otherwise, humanity would have gone extinct long ago if we all just lived alone and only cared about ourselves.

Jonathan Fowler14 said:We'll have those needs our whole lives; we're humans, not robots. We're biologically wired to crave companionship, love, and acceptance from others—it's a need that never truly goes away. Otherwise, humanity would have gone extinct long ago if we all just lived alone and only cared about ourselves.

The real question is: *which* needs are we talking about? There is a massive distinction between basic biological necessities and this codependent, partner-seeking addiction. And let’s be clear—figuring out how to overcome that dependency doesn't turn us into cyborgs. On the contrary, once you actually find a sense of purpose within yourself, you become significantly more capable of forming high-quality connections with others. This completely dismantles your argument that "living for ourselves" is a bad thing—because it’s exactly the opposite. It is through self-awareness that we actually become capable of approaching others in a much deeper, more meaningful way.

Andrew Doyle said:The real question is: *which* needs are we talking about? There is a massive distinction between basic biological necessities and this codependent, partner-seeking addiction. And let’s be clear—figuring out how to overcome that dependency doesn't turn us into cyborgs. On the contrary, once you actually find a sense of purpose within yourself, you become significantly more capable of forming high-quality connections with others. This completely dismantles your argument that "living for ourselves" is a bad thing—because it’s exactly the opposite. It is through self-awareness that we actually become capable of approaching others in a much deeper, more meaningful way.

through self-awareness, we approach others in a much more profound way.

I couldn't agree more! 👍 However, I find myself repeatedly surprised by how many people simply fail to grasp this fundamental truth...

Andrew Doyle said:The real question is: *which* needs are we talking about? There is a massive distinction between basic biological necessities and this codependent, partner-seeking addiction. And let’s be clear—figuring out how to overcome that dependency doesn't turn us into cyborgs. On the contrary, once you actually find a sense of purpose within yourself, you become significantly more capable of forming high-quality connections with others. This completely dismantles your argument that "living for ourselves" is a bad thing—because it’s exactly the opposite. It is through self-awareness that we actually become capable of approaching others in a much deeper, more meaningful way.

I don't see why you'd separate the need for companionship from the need for connection; they basically explain one another. From a purely biological standpoint, humans have an inherent drive for community. Those who lack that drive don't pass on their genes because they don't feel the urge for partnership, social bonds, or starting families.

The pain of loneliness can actually manifest physically, and I think we know why: our brains are telling us that isolation isn't a healthy state for a human being and could actually be dangerous.

I'm not a fan of the cliché, "fix yourself before you're ready for someone else." It makes it sound like only "perfected" people deserve love and acceptance. Nobody is perfect, and people in relationships certainly aren't either. In fact, it's often through others that we grow, which is why living in a community is so important. If we didn't have others to advise us, correct us, and model civilized behavior, humanity would still be stuck in the Stone Age.

Of course, balance is key, but being in a relationship helps you learn about yourself without being constantly hyper-focused on your own ego—which, in my opinion, is a huge cause of unhappiness. Sometimes we really need someone else's objective perspective, reaction, or experience to help us realize something about ourselves. At our core, we are all quite similar.

After all, we wouldn't have developed such incredibly complex communication skills compared to any other species if we weren't meant to interact.

It’s not like only the "put-together" types deserve love and acceptance, right? But let's be real—people who aren't doing well often end up dumping their baggage onto someone else... basically using them like a crutch or falling into these super toxic, unhealthy patterns.

Look, there’s no magic formula, obviously. Sure, some people manage to get their act together and make a relationship work, but from what I've seen... it's way better to just focus on yourself first. Stick to low-stakes stuff, you know? Like friendships or just learning how to deal with roommates without losing your mind. Once you feel like you can actually stand on your own two feet, then maybe you dive into a relationship. Otherwise, you just end up attracting someone who perfectly matches your own mess instead of someone who helps you grow. And let’s face it... the odds of both people deciding to fix their issues at the exact same time are slim to none. It takes a massive amount of love and drive to pull that off.

I guess we’re just waiting to see how this all plays out...

Jonathan Fowler14 said:I don't see why you'd separate the need for companionship from the need for connection; they basically explain one another. From a purely biological standpoint, humans have an inherent drive for community. Those who lack that drive don't pass on their genes because they don't feel the urge for partnership, social bonds, or starting families.

The pain of loneliness can actually manifest physically, and I think we know why: our brains are telling us that isolation isn't a healthy state for a human being and could actually be dangerous.

I'm not a fan of the cliché, "fix yourself before you're ready for someone else." It makes it sound like only "perfected" people deserve love and acceptance. Nobody is perfect, and people in relationships certainly aren't either. In fact, it's often through others that we grow, which is why living in a community is so important. If we didn't have others to advise us, correct us, and model civilized behavior, humanity would still be stuck in the Stone Age.

Of course, balance is key, but being in a relationship helps you learn about yourself without being constantly hyper-focused on your own ego—which, in my opinion, is a huge cause of unhappiness. Sometimes we really need someone else's objective perspective, reaction, or experience to help us realize something about ourselves. At our core, we are all quite similar.

After all, we wouldn't have developed such incredibly complex communication skills compared to any other species if we weren't meant to interact.

I’m a big believer in that whole "fix yourself before you try to fix anyone else" mantra... it's honestly exhausting trying to navigate life with someone who hasn't done their own inner work, mostly because you end up absorbing all that heavy energy... there's this book, Narcissus and Rose, that really dives into what it's like living with a Narcissus... it shows how one person's pathology can basically poison the entire family dynamic, especially since the person at the center usually doesn't even realize they're doing it... it's pretty heavy stuff, and if someone is choosing to walk into that kind of chaos wide-eyed, they've gotta be a hell of a lot tougher than most...

It’s honestly a bit disheartening to see how many people prioritize their own struggles over everything else. There seems to be this overwhelming sense of egocentrism lately, where everything just revolves around "me, me, me"—what am I getting out of this, or what can others do for me? It feels like that mindset is being encouraged and normalized everywhere.

I don't get why people think self-improvement and being in a relationship are mutually exclusive. The idea that you have to isolate yourself until you're "good enough" for someone else just doesn't make sense to me. You could spend your entire life working on yourself and still never feel "perfect," because nobody actually is. Besides, what's the point of striving for perfection if you don't have anyone to share that growth with? 🤔

Jonathan Fowler14 said:I don't see why you'd separate the need for companionship from the need for connection; they basically explain one another. From a purely biological standpoint, humans have an inherent drive for community. Those who lack that drive don't pass on their genes because they don't feel the urge for partnership, social bonds, or starting families.

The pain of loneliness can actually manifest physically, and I think we know why: our brains are telling us that isolation isn't a healthy state for a human being and could actually be dangerous.

I'm not a fan of the cliché, "fix yourself before you're ready for someone else." It makes it sound like only "perfected" people deserve love and acceptance. Nobody is perfect, and people in relationships certainly aren't either. In fact, it's often through others that we grow, which is why living in a community is so important. If we didn't have others to advise us, correct us, and model civilized behavior, humanity would still be stuck in the Stone Age.

Of course, balance is key, but being in a relationship helps you learn about yourself without being constantly hyper-focused on your own ego—which, in my opinion, is a huge cause of unhappiness. Sometimes we really need someone else's objective perspective, reaction, or experience to help us realize something about ourselves. At our core, we are all quite similar.

After all, we wouldn't have developed such incredibly complex communication skills compared to any other species if we weren't meant to interact.

Let’s get one thing straight: the idea that humans have some innate, biological drive for togetherness is complete nonsense. What people call "the need for community" isn't some primal instinct written into our DNA; it is nothing more than a collection of culturally sanctioned social behaviors. We adopt these patterns based on our habitus—essentially, the social framework we happen to be born into. It’s learned behavior, plain and simple. If we are talking about actual biological necessities, let’s stick to the facts. Oxygen and water—those are the primary requirements. Those are the things without which our species simply cannot survive. The absence of a "need" for social cohesion doesn't somehow sabotage the transmission of our genetic material. People love to conflate the two, but they are entirely distinct processes. A partnership does not automatically guarantee offspring, nor does having children necessitate a romantic partnership. Biology and social structures operate on completely different tracks, and it is high time we stopped pretending they are the same thing.

When it comes to psychogenic manifestations, let’s get one thing straight: they are absolutely, undeniably real. There is no debate here.

The cliché that you need to "work on yourself" to build better relationships isn't some divine commandment etched in stone, nor is it an absolute rule. Neither is there any prohibition against pursuing connections. People have every legitimate right to seek out love and intimacy, just as they have the right to earn affection through learning—learning about themselves, others, and the very nature of community. But let’s be real here: if you want a relationship that actually holds weight—one that is high-quality, harmonious, and genuinely stable—won't you get much further if you've already done the heavy lifting of sorting out your own internal mess? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean nobody else is capable of doing it? Of course not. But let's stop pretending there's a one-size-fits-all manual for human connection.

And to wrap this up: we need to stop placing the human race on some imaginary pedestal when it comes to communication skills. It’s frankly absurd. If you look closely at our own kind, you'll find plenty of glaring, undeniable examples of total communicative failure—and I'm not talking about rare outliers, but rather quite frequent instances where human interaction completely breaks down into nothingness.

Jonathan Fowler14 said:It’s honestly a bit disheartening to see how many people prioritize their own struggles over everything else. There seems to be this overwhelming sense of egocentrism lately, where everything just revolves around "me, me, me"—what am I getting out of this, or what can others do for me? It feels like that mindset is being encouraged and normalized everywhere.

I don't get why people think self-improvement and being in a relationship are mutually exclusive. The idea that you have to isolate yourself until you're "good enough" for someone else just doesn't make sense to me. You could spend your entire life working on yourself and still never feel "perfect," because nobody actually is. Besides, what's the point of striving for perfection if you don't have anyone to share that growth with? 🤔

I guess it's better for them to be with someone, sure... but that partner has to be incredibly strong to handle all those baggage issues... and like I said, energy is contagious... if someone has enough internal strength and love to balance out a partner who's struggling, then it works out beautifully for both people... but most often, someone who can't coexist with others—whether it's due to pure ego or deep-seated issues—ends up alone... it’s just like the animal kingdom, really, nothing surprising there...

There's way too much emphasis nowadays on the importance of coexistence. To me, the ideal is for people to "find themselves," build a family, love and respect one another, and truly complement each other... but some people just aren't built for it, some don't want it, and some just have egos that are way too massive...

And then you have people who, after a few years, end up killing their spouse, or taking their own lives, or abusing their kids... doesn't matter if they're men or women... and why should people like that be allowed to have anyone close to them when, aside from destroying their own lives, they destroy so many others too... in my opinion, it's better if they just stay solo... 🤔

Andrew Doyle said:Let’s get one thing straight: the idea that humans have some innate, biological drive for togetherness is complete nonsense. What people call "the need for community" isn't some primal instinct written into our DNA; it is nothing more than a collection of culturally sanctioned social behaviors. We adopt these patterns based on our habitus—essentially, the social framework we happen to be born into. It’s learned behavior, plain and simple. If we are talking about actual biological necessities, let’s stick to the facts. Oxygen and water—those are the primary requirements. Those are the things without which our species simply cannot survive. The absence of a "need" for social cohesion doesn't somehow sabotage the transmission of our genetic material. People love to conflate the two, but they are entirely distinct processes. A partnership does not automatically guarantee offspring, nor does having children necessitate a romantic partnership. Biology and social structures operate on completely different tracks, and it is high time we stopped pretending they are the same thing.

When it comes to psychogenic manifestations, let’s get one thing straight: they are absolutely, undeniably real. There is no debate here.

The cliché that you need to "work on yourself" to build better relationships isn't some divine commandment etched in stone, nor is it an absolute rule. Neither is there any prohibition against pursuing connections. People have every legitimate right to seek out love and intimacy, just as they have the right to earn affection through learning—learning about themselves, others, and the very nature of community. But let’s be real here: if you want a relationship that actually holds weight—one that is high-quality, harmonious, and genuinely stable—won't you get much further if you've already done the heavy lifting of sorting out your own internal mess? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean nobody else is capable of doing it? Of course not. But let's stop pretending there's a one-size-fits-all manual for human connection.

And to wrap this up: we need to stop placing the human race on some imaginary pedestal when it comes to communication skills. It’s frankly absurd. If you look closely at our own kind, you'll find plenty of glaring, undeniable examples of total communicative failure—and I'm not talking about rare outliers, but rather quite frequent instances where human interaction completely breaks down into nothingness.

Biological needs affect both the body and the mind, encompassing everything required for an individual's mental and physical health. Loneliness or feeling isolated can lead to sadness, illness, or depression, and it can physically manifest as various health issues. Social needs actually became part of our biology a very long time ago through things like tribal structures and natural selection. Our brains are simply hardwired this way, so saying the need for companionship is merely "culturally accepted social behavior" is just incorrect.

There's a really great video that explains this much better than I ever could 😁

If we’re following that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, does that mean introverts and people dealing with social anxiety actually have a biological imperative for solitude?

Jonathan Fowler14 said:Biological needs affect both the body and the mind, encompassing everything required for an individual's mental and physical health. Loneliness or feeling isolated can lead to sadness, illness, or depression, and it can physically manifest as various health issues. Social needs actually became part of our biology a very long time ago through things like tribal structures and natural selection. Our brains are simply hardwired this way, so saying the need for companionship is merely "culturally accepted social behavior" is just incorrect.

There's a really great video that explains this much better than I ever could 😁

It is certainly true that we all crave companionship and acceptance, though I don't believe everyone experiences those needs to the exact same degree. Furthermore, if a person's social environment happens to be toxic in any way, it can impact their well-being just as severely as chronic loneliness might. My conclusion is that these biological social requirements are, above all else, relative and highly individual...

Jonathan Fowler14 said:Biological needs affect both the body and the mind, encompassing everything required for an individual's mental and physical health. Loneliness or feeling isolated can lead to sadness, illness, or depression, and it can physically manifest as various health issues. Social needs actually became part of our biology a very long time ago through things like tribal structures and natural selection. Our brains are simply hardwired this way, so saying the need for companionship is merely "culturally accepted social behavior" is just incorrect.

There's a really great video that explains this much better than I ever could 😁

The video is great 👍, simple and clear... but it feels more like it's about loneliness in general rather than specifically about relationships... I still lean toward thinking people should be somewhat "put together" and functional before jumping into a relationship, and if they aren't, they probably need a partner who is strong enough to handle their baggage... and hey, it's great if those people find each other... but if they don't and they just pass that trauma down to their kids... I really feel like relationships aren't for everyone, and someone who is abusive definitely shouldn't be looking for a partner...