I've heard it clears up again after the first wave of divorces
I've heard it clears up again after the first wave of divorces
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.
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.
Not necessarily. If she was an anxious gemini she’d be more likely to fall for leo men. She could either:
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 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.
And you don’t realise that you’re applying it in an armchair psychologist fashion that has as much value as astrology?
Reason is lost on some people.
www.abc.net.au/news/health/…/104279024
But the idea, for example, that your relationship is doomed if you’re with an insecure person is “nonsense,” Professor Karantzas says.
"I flatly refute that, that is idiocy at its finest.