Attachment vs Addiction

Sex and love addiction, or disorganized attachment? You decide.

I was recently asked what my attachment style is. I didn’t know what to say. Is “unattached” a style? I’m also not clear on my love language. Something with a hard-to-decipher accent, I suspect. 

Love languages, attachment styles… I don’t think love addicts fit well into these relationship categories. We are not the average Dear Prudence reader. We are the few, the proud, the neurochemically distinct. At least, I think we are. But I could be wrong. Maybe love addiction is just a dysregulated attachment style?

I got curious so I did some research, because that’s what the internet is for. Unless you’re a sex addict, in which case it’s for pornography.

In a nutshell: Attachment theory was first proposed by British psychoanalyst John Bowlby back in the 1950s, and refined by his work with developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth in the 1970s. The idea is that a person’s comfort and confidence in close relationships – mainly but not exclusively romantic – is set up in early childhood, essentially based on how safe an infant feels with its caregiver/s. Safe = Secure Attachment. Unsafe = three flavors of Insecure Attachment.

Inconsistent or unreliable parenting leaves the child with unmet needs (“affection deficit disorder,” one might say) and sets them up for insecure attachment. That push-pull between a yearning for intimacy and a fear or rejection is factory installed. So the good news is, this isn’t a series of stupid choices you made. You didn’t just fuck up. The bad news: You can’t go back and unfuck it.

 The basic Attachment Styles are: 

Secure Attachment: The good one. Fewer than half the population (as few as 15%, according to some researchers) can boast of this. You need to have had consistent and reliable parents, preferably in a strong partnership. I haven’t met many of those parents, personally, but then you have to consider the circles I move in. Individuals with secure attachment feel comfortable with intimacy and trust their partners. They can express emotions openly, manage conflict healthily, and value both independence and connection.

If your parents were absent, or drunk, or mentally ill, or untrustworthy in other colorful ways, you end up with insecure attachment. There are three basic insecure attachment styles:

Anxious Attachment: Sometimes called “fearful” or “ambivalent” attachment. These are people who crave closeness but fear rejection. They might be clingy and seek constant reassurance, constantly on the lookout for signs of a partner’s disapproval. This is the “never leave me” partner, even in abusive situations.

Avoidant Attachment: Those with avoidant attachment prioritize independence and downplay the importance of intimacy. They fear commitment, may be uncomfortable expressing strong emotions, and can push partners away to avoid feeling vulnerable. This is your basic player.

Disorganized Attachment (Fearful-Avoidant): This attachment style usually stems from childhood trauma. Individuals with disorganized attachment desperately desire connection yet desperately fear it. They struggle with trust and can behave erratically in relationship. “Come here go away” is their motto. 

So which one am I, you ask? Nosy parker. But I was curious, too, so I took a test. (I liked this one, but there are tons online.) Turns out, I am… sort of all of them. Light on the Secure, naturally, mostly Avoidant, but with a healthy dollop of batshit Disorganized. 

Here, look:

Disorganized attachment folks say stuff like “Relationships are confusing.” “People let you down.” “My partner is unpredictable.” “My partner says I’m unpredictable.” “Sometimes, I mentally check out because it’s all too much.” “I want to be close, but I’m afraid of getting hurt.” “Getting hurt is inevitable.” We don’t make a lot of eye contact. I can relate.

Avoidant attachment people might say, “I don’t see the point of talking about my feelings. Feelings are overrated.” “I don’t like to depend on people or ask for help. I’d rather do things myself.” “I can seem standoffish or like I don’t really care.””I need time to myself.” “I’m fine on my own.” I can relate to this, too.

Anxious attachers would say (albeit probably not out loud) “I want to be with you or in contact with you all the time.” “I’m terrified that you’ll leave me.” “I need constant reassurance of your love and commitment.” “My insecurity makes me jealous.” “Is there something wrong with me that makes you pull away?” This I don’t relate to as much, although I have stayed with a few men it would have been healthier to leave. 

Which of these, then, is the love addict? In my experience, it can be any of them, except maybe for secure. We are anxious attachment squared. Avoidant attachment on steroids. Disorganized attachment on crack. Sometimes literally with the crack…. We love addicts can get addicted to whatever kind of attachment we are in at the moment, because first and foremost we are addicts. And addiction is the result of a more complex soup of causes than just your parental units.

As you know, I subscribe to the three-alarm fire theory of addiction: To make a decent fire, you need to have something to burn, a match to light the flame, and oxygen to keep it going. Adverse childhood experience (ACE) — like inconsistent and unreliable parenting — might be the match that lights the firewood. But you have to have dry kindling to start with, and that’s the brain chemistry you were born with: Inefficient reward transmitters, lousy dopamine receptors, all the stuff I’ve been writing about lo, these many years.

And of course you have to have an environment that keeps the fire raging. Nightclubs and dating apps are great for that. Harems and convents, not so much. Absent any of these elements and your attachment style is just… your style, like Business Casual or Vintage Bohemian.

Me, I like cargo pants and combat boots and lean Fearful/Avoidant. Neither makes me an addict. Attachment styles I can learn to change. Addiction I get to recover from. Cargo pants and combat boots… those are just fatal.