You’re Not Anxiously Attached. He’s Avoidant.
What happens when men create instability and women start self-diagnosing
It’s a loaded word these days, attached.
Inevitably the next question is: but what kind of attachment? Across every online dating influencer hot-take, the diagnosis comes as a matched set.
For men, it’s avoidant attachment.
And for women? It’s anxious attachment.
The diagnosis has gone viral for women navigating modern dating. And something about it feels off.
I’ve grown increasingly uncomfortable watching women — smart, self-aware, emotionally capable women — absorb this label after dating men who are, by any reasonable measure, genuinely difficult to be close to. Men who disappear. Men who say one thing but do another. Men who create exactly the conditions under which any sane person would feel anxious.
And instead of addressing the behaviors, we’re pointing at ourselves.
We’re anxiously attached, we conclude.
Or are we?
I studied Spanish for years, though I’m regrettably nowhere near fluent. But one aspect that fascinates me is something English doesn’t bother to distinguish at all: Spanish has two verbs for our singular “to be.”
Ser and estar. Both translate to the same English word, but they don’t mean the same thing. The basic distinction is simple: estar describes temporary states. Ser describes permanent identity. To me, that speaks to how the language — and the people who speak it — understand the difference between what’s fixed in us and what’s just passing through.
We don’t make that distinction in English. And we’re not making it when we talk about anxiety in dating, either.
“I feel anxious” is estar.
It’s a signal. It’s your nervous system registering something off — that the ground is shifting, that the person you’re opening yourself to keeps disappearing, that what someone says and what someone does don’t match.
“I have anxious attachment” is ser. It’s an identity. It’s a permanent condition you carry into every relationship, a flaw in your architecture that explains why things keep going wrong.
Estoy ansiosa. I’m feeling anxious right now, in this moment.
Soy una persona ansiosa. Anxiety is who I am, at my core, immutably.
Do you hear the difference?
One puts the information where it belongs — in the situation, in his behavior, in the dynamic between you. The other turns the lens around and points it at you.
I’m not saying anxious attachment doesn’t exist. It does. I’m saying that when a man behaves in anxiety-inducing ways, calling his girlfriend anxiously attached is a convenient diagnosis.
And we’ve collectively agreed to accept it.
Here’s what I notice about how we talk about these two attachment styles.
The avoidant man is complex. A slow burn. He’s been hurt before. He doesn’t open up easily, but when he does — god, when he does. He’s selective. He has standards. He knows his own worth. We write entire romantic archetypes around him. He’s Mr. Darcy. He’s every brooding antihero who just needs the right woman to unlock him.
The anxious woman is a lot. She’s needy. She’s clingy. She checks her phone too much. She needs reassurance. She has issues. She’s been hurt before too, but that’s not romantic. That’s baggage.
Same emotional history. Wildly different cultural narrative.
Through this lens, avoidant and anxious attachment aren’t independent phenomena. They’re a system. His withdrawal creates her pursuit. His inconsistency creates her hypervigilance. His slow burn creates her need for reassurance. And yet somehow, only one of them ends up in therapy working on it.
The avoidant man isn’t broken. He’s just guarded. The anxious woman isn’t responding rationally. She’s just damaged.
We’ve romanticized his unavailability and pathologized her reaction to it. And then we handed her a label that made it all her fault.
That’s not psychology. That’s just the same story we’ve always told about men and women, dressed up in therapeutic language.
Jason makes a good case study.
His blue eyes sparkled, brimming with affection and emotional intelligence. On one of our earliest dates, I got a panicked text from my daughter; she’d done something egregious and was looking to me for both advice and absolution. I turned my phone to him instinctively — then immediately thought, oh god, is he going to judge me? He looked up, eyes aglow. “She trusts you so much,” he said, awestruck.
I grew up in a judgmental family of origin. How could I not attach to a man who looked at my daughter’s confession — something my family would have used against us both — and saw only that she trusted her mother enough to share her truth? He didn’t judge her mistake, or my parenting. He marveled that I was the kind of mother she could bring it to. It was exactly what I needed to hear, how I needed to be seen.
When Jason was present, he was incandescent.
And when he wasn’t, he was truly destabilizing: erratic in his outreach, limited in emotional capacity, and outstanding at deflection. He’d give just enough to make me believe and withhold just a bit more to make me spiral, plus enough non-sequiturs and spin to keep me dizzy. Toward the end, during a heated conversation about our relationship status, he offered this doozy:
“I don’t even know your middle name.”
It came after months of intermittent attention and low-level neglect, after I’d finally blown things up with a simple, tired: “I can’t do this anymore.” His response hemmed and hawed. He sent vague lines that didn’t answer anything I was actually asking. And then this. How could I have expectations when we hadn’t even shared basics, like our middle names?
Except, we had. I’d told him my middle name. And I knew his: Benjamin.
A solid, grown-man name that suggested consistency, stoicism, and follow-through. Qualities he possessed in name only. And middle name, at that.
So why are so many otherwise grounded women feeling anxious in their relationships?
It starts with pattern recognition. It’s rarely just one man. It’s the accumulation — the inconsistent texts, the canceled plans, the slow fade after an intense beginning, the relational rug pulled out from under you one too many times. By midlife, most women have enough data points to recognize the pattern. When your nervous system sounds the alarm early, it’s not malfunction. It’s memory. It’s your whole history saying I’ve seen this before.
Except when the alarm sounds, we don’t point outward. We turn inward. When something we want starts to wobble, we ask what’s wrong with us, not what’s wrong with this. We contort, trying to make sense of inconsistency, trying to fix what isn’t ours to fix, trying to hold together something the other person has quietly decided to drop.
That’s not anxious attachment. That’s conditioning.
We were taught to tend. We’re very good at it. And it costs us.
I keep seeing the same pattern in modern dating, and I’m giving it a name: Commitbombing.
It looks like this: early on —sometimes after one date, sometimes before you’ve even met — a man makes a move that feels like a milestone. He proclaims exclusivity. He announces he’s taken down his dating apps. Or he shows up, literally or figuratively, with a clean STI test in hand.
It feels like something.
It feels like: I choose you. I’m serious. I’m ready.
But in too many cases, it’s a performance of readiness — not the real thing.
A man who wants all the trappings of a relationship — your emotional labor, your empathy, your big brain, your big heart, your body — without doing the interior work that would make him capable of sustaining one.
He’s not becoming your boyfriend. He’s claiming the role before he’s earned it.
And because certainty is so rare in modern dating, it lands. It feels like proof, like something you can trust.
That’s the commitbomb.
Of course you feel anxious when that certainty collapses. You were handed something that looked like stability before it had been built.
I’m a sucker for being seen, especially as a mother. Jason found that line on the first try. I thought: finally, a man who knows what he wants, and it’s me. Of course I said yes.
What he wanted, it turned out, was all the warmth of a relationship without any of its weight.
Here’s the part I have to own.
I know why this happens to me. I’m not a passive victim of men who perform readiness — I’m someone who meets that energy and matches it, because sometimes it is real. I’ve seen it be real before.
When my now ex-husband and I were first dating, I was on the phone with a friend on my way to meet him. “I’m on my way to meet my future husband,” I told her. Just like that. I knew.
That kind of knowing is real. I’ve felt it. I’ve lived it. And I refuse to pathologize it.
I also know what I bring to the table. I’m funny and smart and emotionally present, and I will make your life genuinely better and more interesting. So when I meet a man I’m excited about and he seems to recognize all of that quickly, I’m not surprised.
I think: of course he does.
The problem isn’t that I lead with my whole self. The problem is that certain men have learned to mimic that energy without having it — to perform the certainty, the readiness, the all-in-ness — because women like me respond to it.
That’s not naivety. That’s the cost of being someone who doesn’t hedge, who doesn’t play it cool, who believes love should announce itself.
It also makes me an easy target for men who have learned to announce it without meaning it.
The ache of that — of trusting your gut and having it be wrong, again — is what erodes the confidence over time. Not anxious attachment. Not some flaw in my wiring. Just the accumulated weight of having been certain, and being wrong, enough times that certainty itself starts to feel dangerous.
That’s the real damage avoidant men do. It’s not the heartbreak. It’s the self-doubt they leave behind.
To return to that matched set diagnosis: he’s avoidant. She’s anxious. Here’s what nobody says out loud: those two things aren’t a coincidence. They’re cause and effect.
Attachment is a strategy — learned early, repeated often, reinforced through a thousand small experiences. And strategies can be unlearned. Not without effort or self-confrontation, but it’s possible. The avoidant man can do that work. Some of them do.
But that work belongs to him, not to you.
If you’ve been dating and you’ve started to wonder whether something is fundamentally broken in you — whether you’ve become too much, too needy, too reactive, too anxious — stop. Ask one question first. Not what’s wrong with me, but: what has this man actually done to earn my trust, my patience, my open heart?
Because here’s what I know: secure women feel anxiety hardest precisely because it isn’t their baseline. That discomfort is information. It’s your nervous system doing its job. It’s estar, not ser — a temporary state, not a permanent identity.
Listen to it. Honor it. Don’t hand it back to yourself as a diagnosis.
You are not anxiously attached.
You’re a woman paying attention.
And if his attachment style becomes the price of admission, and that price is your peace?
Then the cost is too high.
Watch the podcast about this essay:
Greetings!
I’m Dana DuBois, a memoirist and GenX word nerd living in the Pacific Northwest—and founder of I Write Out Loud and co-host of The Daily Whatever Show. I write across a variety of topics but parenting, music and pop culture, relationships, and feminism are my favorites. Em-dashes, Oxford commas, and well-placed semi-colons make my heart happy.
If this story resonated with you, why not buy me a coffee? ☕
the ser versus estar distinction is the sharpest reframe i have read on attachment in a long time. the difference between anxiety as identity and anxiety as response to a specific situation changes everything about how women process their own reactions. because the current attachment discourse has created a trap - women feel anxiety around avoidant men and then pathologize themselves for having the correct response to inconsistency. the mechanism is almost gaslighting at a cultural level. the person creating the instability gets diagnosed as a type while the person reacting to it gets told to regulate better. commitbombing is the perfect word for this because it captures the performance element - the early flood of attention that mimics commitment without any of the structural follow-through. what makes this especially cruel is your point about secure women feeling it hardest. the healthier your baseline the more disorienting the contradiction - because your own system keeps telling you something is wrong and the entire culture keeps telling you the problem is you.
Dana! So intuitively accurate. Thank you not only for your writing but Reading Out Loud!