Not necessarily. If she was an anxious attached style she’d be more likely to fall for avoidant men. She could either:
Now recognize the red flags of avoidants and not subject herself to that.
Be unaware of the red flags of avoidants and keep making the same mistake
Recently left a long term relationship as an secure individual and discover how many avoidants really exist.
Of course you are right, she could be avoidant to, in which case hopefully she’ll learn sooner rather than later that fearing intimacy and vulnerability is detrimental, and that healthy codependency is actually a thing. But it’s not easy for them to do so.
I don’t like to think that everyone is incapable of finding someone, people just need to figure out why. Pointing out “single for a reason” seems counterproductive and a bit disrespectful.
I think “single for a reason” is what all that attachment theory shit is trying to help contextualize. It specifically sets the context as “single for a fixable reason” if you have the courage and humility to do the work.
Ok, I’m confused - can you quote the lines that werr dating advice? In no case was I advising anyone do anything, I was sharing the information I have learned on attachment theory. Providing possible insight. That’s not advice, that’s processing thought.
Not necessarily. If she was an anxious gemini she’d be more likely to fall for leo men. She could either:
Now recognize the red flags of scorpio and not subject herself to that.
Be unaware of the red flags of cancer and keep making the same mistake
Recently left a long term relationship as an secure individual and discover how many gemini really exist.
Of course you are right, she could be gemni, in which case hopefully she’ll learn sooner rather than later that fearing intimacy and vulnerability is detrimental, and that healthy codependency is actually a thing. But it’s not easy for them to do so.
I don’t like to think that everyone is incapable of finding someone, people just need to figure out why. Pointing out “single for a reason” seems counterproductive and a bit disrespectful.
All the good men are already taken, the ones who are still available are single for a reason.
If you’re still looking for good men at 35 you’re also single for a reason
Not necessarily. If she was an anxious attached style she’d be more likely to fall for avoidant men. She could either:
Of course you are right, she could be avoidant to, in which case hopefully she’ll learn sooner rather than later that fearing intimacy and vulnerability is detrimental, and that healthy codependency is actually a thing. But it’s not easy for them to do so.
I don’t like to think that everyone is incapable of finding someone, people just need to figure out why. Pointing out “single for a reason” seems counterproductive and a bit disrespectful.
I think “single for a reason” is what all that attachment theory shit is trying to help contextualize. It specifically sets the context as “single for a fixable reason” if you have the courage and humility to do the work.
Is living in the forest because I’m afraid of the federal government a “fixable” reason?
no
:(
Sorry you’re so incurably single you’ve latched onto dating advice thats as accurate as horoscopes.
Like I hope it gets better for you but… yikes.
It’s not dating advice, it’s attachment theory.
So stop treating it like dating advice you weirdo.
Ok, I’m confused - can you quote the lines that werr dating advice? In no case was I advising anyone do anything, I was sharing the information I have learned on attachment theory. Providing possible insight. That’s not advice, that’s processing thought.
All you did was substitute the attachment titles for astrology signs.
Attachment theory has a long history of study in psychology, and astrology is just bullshit.