Honestly, if you think about it, “emotionally unavailable,” “avoidant attachment” and all these terms simply mean these people are just not interested in that person, or maybe love at all.
Even if it means it’s who they are, needing constant space and all from everyone, it still means they’re not that into the relationship or all relationships.
And honestly, I think that there ARE people they will be interested enough that that don’t act this distant as much. But again, even if not, they’re just not into you or the relationship.
If you ask them directly, they say they just need that space or to hibernate etc etc. Yeah, because the relationship feels suffocating and they need space to breathe. They just don’t like you.
I dunno why all these new terms have to be made to make it seem like there’s some condition other than lack of interest.
Comments
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
We have developed a very rich vocabulary in the last 10-15 years for justifying our terrible behavior the progress has actually been quite remarkable
So basically according to you I don’t like anyone, including my own parents, because I have social anxiety/autism, and I like my personal space a little more than others. Makes perfect sense.
Those things mean the person is unable to engage, at least at that particular time, in the sort of relationship a person might want to have with them. It doesn’t mean they’re not interested in someone. They’re just not able to give what’s needed for a relationship to be fulfilling to the other person
Old times:
– He: “Hello, fair lady. Are you interested to dance with me?
– She: “Sorry, I’m not interested”
Today:
– He (?): “Eh bootie, swiggity swootie!”
– She (?): “Did ya just assume my vibes?!? So not totally jinxed for ya!”
They are technical terms in th field of psychology and they all have different meaning
Emotionally unavailable is not the same thing as not interested and I have no idea who told you that.
I always appreciated the rejections that were straight up, I don’t like you romantically. It hurt at first but then I’m over it and move on. Not like the old “I’m just not ready for a relationship right now” que two days later her Facebook says in a new relationship 💀
Not always that simple. Sometimes it’s legit about trauma and attachment, not just “not interested” but if someone’s constantly distant, maybe it’s not that deep – just take the hint and move on
So things don’t matter, just their consequences that matter?
Okay. Let me help you lose weight. By amputating your limbs.
So.
This sub should be renamed ‘wilfully ignorant’
Tend to agree. Assuming everyone needs to be in a “relationship.” Uhhh no, they really don’t.
I would say, it isn’t that avoidant attachment doesn’t exist, it’s rather unnecessary information.
I saw hundreds of time people asked “are they an avoidant or just not into me?”, then they just keep chasing the person who pushes them away, in hope that they “loves them deep inside, they are just avoidant”.
Not unpopular just misinformed. Not being interested is completely different. You can care for someone deeply and still struggle to be emotionally available etc. They’re deeply ingrained behaviors that a lot of people don’t even realize they have without serious self-reflection.
I’m not a mental health professional or anything but I’m pretty sure avoidant personality disorder is a real thing.
theyre not new terms, people on the internet have started overusing clinical terms that are out of context. when you start using a words for anything and everything, they lose their meaning
That’s why there was that book/sex and the city episode HES JUST NOT INTO YOU although that was aimed at women, there should be one marketed at men because my god
“Avoidant attachment” is the funniest one out of all of them.
There’s another term for that: they’re just not that into you.
>Honestly, if you think about it, “emotionally unavailable,” “avoidant attachment” and all these terms simply mean these people are just not interested in that person, or maybe love at all.
No, that only makes sense if you don’t think about it. This is like complaining about all squares actually being rectangles. The difference is specificity in the following order: not interested → emotionally unavailable → avoidant attachment.
Not interested—they aren’t interested because of any number of reasons.
Emotionally unavailable—they aren’t interested because they are unable to reciprocate your interest.
Avoidant attachment—due to previous experiences, they avoid relationships.
Yes they’re similar but they mean different things.
>I dunno why all these new terms have to be made to make it seem like there’s some condition other than lack of interest.
Do we pay per phrase? Why not create new language to better describe our feelings? In order to address your emotions, you need to be able to articulate how you feel – these terms were created because they are a more specific explanation of what someone is going through.
And so is eating and talking i mean you do both with your mouth why the need for so many words.
Thats what you sound like to me
I’ve stepped in what you shat there, but instead of sniffin it I’ve scraped it off back on your own floor
I think you just don’t know what those words mean OP
You make it seem like you have an issue with the lexicon, when really you’re mad about being ghosted.
That’s not really what those terms mean though, avoidant doesn’t directly correlate to needing space from everyone at all times. Many avoidant people end up in long term relationships. It’s mostly just that certain things won’t get the reaction you might want, if you come off as needy or overbearing, an avoidant person will probably just not see it as a viable relationship for their needs
It’s like saying an introvert obviously doesn’t want a partner because they like alone time. Not true at all. They want a partner who respects their desire for alone time
And yet, people still struggle to understand what it means 🙄
Those terms do NOT mean “not interested”, they are just used by people in the wrong way. An ongoing (and incredibly annoying) trend is to take a legitimate psychological term and apply it to every day situations in which it doesn’t apply. How many people have you heard say “Oh I’m so OCD”, or that something “triggered” them, or that they’re being gaslit, or that their intrusive thoughts are winning, etc. etc.
These terms, as well as your examples, have genuine psychological definitions, but they are overused and watered down by people who have zero knowledge in the field of psychology whatsoever that it practically becomes an insult to people who are actually suffering with these sorts of conditions or traits. These terms are not “made up”, as you say, they are co-opted by losers who want to sound
smartermore dramatic.“there are too many new terms for simply ‘lazy and disruptive’.
honestly, if you think about it, “depression”, “adhd”, “autism” and all these terms simply mean these people are just lazy, unmotivated and like to cause trouble.
even if it means it’s who they are, constantly needing to do things differently, it still means they just don’t care about doing things the right way.”
that’s what you sound like.
It’s almost as if human existence is extremely nuanced, and generalizations like “uninterested” don’t fully cover the exact reason like other terms do lol
i mean i think you’re essentially just talking about, if you’re a person whose looking for a particular type of relationship, don’t try to make it work with avoidants, but treat them as not suitable for what you want, and call it off the same way you’d move on from someone who rejects you…
And what you’re saying is, sometimes its truly because they’re avoidant and sometimes its partially an excuse ie if they were really into you they’d make it work.
Is that fair?
Emotionally unavailable and avoidant attachment aren’t the same thing as not interested. Someone with those descriptors might be, but struggle to engage in a healthy way. Interest isn’t a simple blanket issue, there’s nuance.
You mad at the concept of euphemisms?
Avoidant attachment is actually linked to childhood behavior, and persists into adulthood.
Wrong. Just wrong based on your misunderstanding of attachment theory. “Avoidant” as a term of art in psychology is not at all interchangeable with being disinterested in the context of pursuing a specific person romantically or just “needing space”. Avoidance specifically is exhibited as an extreme and often unhealthy sense of independence or separation from others due to an underlying anxiety around being closely bonded to or emotionally reliant on other people, most often due to early childhood neglect or lack of attunement from caregivers. It’s not simply introversion, liking time and space away from others, or not liking a specific person or group of people.
“Emotionally unavailable” implies there’s already a relationship. Would it make sense to say the girl that rejected you is emotionally unavailable? No of course not, she’s just not interested.
Also you should google the meaning of the word “introvert”, you’ll find you are misinformed about the reason why some people need time alone.