We turned secure attachment into a gold standard, and quietly taught a generation that having an anxious or avoidant attachment style, or anything less than secure, is a failure. It isn’t.
I really appreciate this corrective — especially the way “secure attachment” can become another idealized identity people use to measure or shame themselves.
The layer I keep thinking about is the difference between not needing to be perfectly secure before relationship, and repeatedly putting yourself back into dynamics where the same unresolved imprint keeps getting activated.
I agree that anxious or avoidant responses should not become moral failures. And I also think the healing world often treats attachment patterns as if they are permanent traits we can only learn to manage more kindly.
That has not been my experience.
In my own work, these patterns are not fixed identities. They are nervous system predictions that can fundamentally resolve.
So the question becomes less, “Am I secure enough to date?” and more, “Is this relationship giving me more access to choice, truth, repair, and accurate perception — or am I repeatedly re-entering a pattern that keeps retraumatizing the same imprint?”
The goal is not perfection before intimacy. But it is also not endless repetition dressed as self-acceptance.
There is a real difference between dating as an imperfect human and continuing to place yourself inside dynamics where your nervous system has to keep surviving the same old threat.
Thank you for this thoughtful response. I agree with the distinction you are making.
There is a very real difference between releasing the shame attached to our patterns and quietly resigning ourselves to repeating them. Self-compassion should never become a reason to remain inside dynamics that continually reactivate the same wound and leave us with less access to ourselves.
My concern is with the way attachment language can so easily turn into another form of self-rejection: the belief that we must become fully “secure” before we are worthy of love or capable of participating in a relationship. But I also agree that not every relationship is a healing container simply because it gives us an opportunity to practise regulation.
Some relationships expand our capacity for choice, honesty and repair. Others repeatedly pull us back into survival. And part of becoming more secure is learning to recognise the difference.
I really appreciate your framing of these patterns as nervous system predictions rather than fixed identities. That feels important. We are not sentenced to endlessly manage the same responses with greater self-awareness. Change is possible.
Perhaps the balance is this: we do not need to be perfectly healed before entering relationship, but we do need to become increasingly honest about whether a particular relationship is supporting our healing or repeatedly asking us to abandon ourselves in order to stay.
As always, thank you for adding such a valuable layer to the conversation. Sharon x
Thank you, Sharon. I really appreciate how you named that distinction — releasing shame without resigning ourselves to repetition. That feels like the essential balance to me.
And yes: not every relationship is a healing container simply because it activates the pattern. Some relationships give us more access to truth, choice, and repair. Others keep asking the nervous system to survive the same old threat.
I really appreciate this corrective — especially the way “secure attachment” can become another idealized identity people use to measure or shame themselves.
The layer I keep thinking about is the difference between not needing to be perfectly secure before relationship, and repeatedly putting yourself back into dynamics where the same unresolved imprint keeps getting activated.
I agree that anxious or avoidant responses should not become moral failures. And I also think the healing world often treats attachment patterns as if they are permanent traits we can only learn to manage more kindly.
That has not been my experience.
In my own work, these patterns are not fixed identities. They are nervous system predictions that can fundamentally resolve.
So the question becomes less, “Am I secure enough to date?” and more, “Is this relationship giving me more access to choice, truth, repair, and accurate perception — or am I repeatedly re-entering a pattern that keeps retraumatizing the same imprint?”
The goal is not perfection before intimacy. But it is also not endless repetition dressed as self-acceptance.
There is a real difference between dating as an imperfect human and continuing to place yourself inside dynamics where your nervous system has to keep surviving the same old threat.
Thank you for this thoughtful response. I agree with the distinction you are making.
There is a very real difference between releasing the shame attached to our patterns and quietly resigning ourselves to repeating them. Self-compassion should never become a reason to remain inside dynamics that continually reactivate the same wound and leave us with less access to ourselves.
My concern is with the way attachment language can so easily turn into another form of self-rejection: the belief that we must become fully “secure” before we are worthy of love or capable of participating in a relationship. But I also agree that not every relationship is a healing container simply because it gives us an opportunity to practise regulation.
Some relationships expand our capacity for choice, honesty and repair. Others repeatedly pull us back into survival. And part of becoming more secure is learning to recognise the difference.
I really appreciate your framing of these patterns as nervous system predictions rather than fixed identities. That feels important. We are not sentenced to endlessly manage the same responses with greater self-awareness. Change is possible.
Perhaps the balance is this: we do not need to be perfectly healed before entering relationship, but we do need to become increasingly honest about whether a particular relationship is supporting our healing or repeatedly asking us to abandon ourselves in order to stay.
As always, thank you for adding such a valuable layer to the conversation. Sharon x
Thank you, Sharon. I really appreciate how you named that distinction — releasing shame without resigning ourselves to repetition. That feels like the essential balance to me.
And yes: not every relationship is a healing container simply because it activates the pattern. Some relationships give us more access to truth, choice, and repair. Others keep asking the nervous system to survive the same old threat.
I really appreciate this exchange.