Emotionally unavailability and commitment

I never thought I was ever going to “train” B....I just hoped in time he would love me the way I loved him.

geez, i do't know how to do the multiple quotes in answer thing. 

"I realize that when we come to find that he is unavailable we should be more concerned about if he seems to be willing to make himself available, and not until THEN consider to commit to him. "

well, personally, I don't even consider a guy at all until i have seen him being available, and note what the ways he make himself available are. THEN i decide if those manifestations of availability are what I need/want/ok with. For example, some consider themselves available by saying yes to all your requests but never initiating himself. Some people are ok with that; I am not. my current partner makes himself available (when courting, now things are different!) by texting me everyday at the same time and always replying me when he can, no games. I consider that highly desirable and necessary even.

I'm not interested if he seems to be willing to make himself available - I am only interested after he already makes himself available. The question is then "what is availability", and this differs for everyone. if you have decided certain actions (independent of your guy, just in general what YOU want in a partner) demonstrate availability to you, then you have to decide if this person matches up to your expectations, and if not, is "trying" enough for you. 

Showing me with actions that he really wants to be with me. 

This indicates to me that you have already implicitly decided what those actions look like, and that he should be behaving as such in order to demonstrate his feelings to you. In my mind, this is a complicated topic. On one hand, I am of the belief that you have the right to define what desire means and looks like to you, because you are the one who has to live with this partnership. what might indicate desire to you might not to me, so it is a subjective evaluation of what you need/want in a relationship as signals of desire. On the other, I understand that defining it implicitly might be misconstrued as demanding and controlling (that's what my ex said about me!), leading them to resent you because he might very well want to be with you and not do those "actions". To that end, i think it's important to be mindful of what you define as "actions that demonstrate desire to be together". My framework was to have principles, my desired feelings/states, and some examples to define them. For example, my key principle is consistency because I want stability and certainty in conducting my life e.g., reliable communication patterns, over text and in person, so I am never wondering if he is just not replying or just busy. reachability and dependability, so that my time and plans are protected. Another principle is communication clarity because I desire clarity and information in order to make my own decisions without being manipulated e.g., I do not want to be confused when I ask an important question, how frequently and clearly does he reveal information to me on his own. I think it is fair that I determine what I let into my life, and how I wish my life and relationships to be; i don't insist on this from others, but those who do not naturally do alot of what I have defined as important to me do not get to be part of my life, or at least intimately so, loved or not. 

My preferences are that it's important for one to determine what an ideal partnership looks like (independent of any particular person), communicate that to your partner, and see if that person has the same ideas as you as well as if they can already do so more or less comfortably. This conversation needs to be done early and repeatedly, until you have alot of clarity around whether this is someone you want to try being with or not. This can be such a delicate conversation, because if you are not clear in your own head what you are about, it might very well come across as "if you don't do this, you don't love me". I'm not saying this applies to you specifically, I'm just musing out loud. 

Re the article.. well. I think everything she wrote about applies to everyone, not just unavailable people. you need to give space to people to let them demonstrate love in their own way. you need to be patient and be accepting of love that they give on their own terms. all the principles are the same for ALL relationships, not just for the emotionally unavailable. to do all these things in hopes of bringing the unavailable person closer to you is just asking for an exercise in self torture in my opinion. I think what she has suggested applies in 2 scenarios. 1. if you generally care for this person as a friend, but has no intention of waiting around for them as a partner, this is a good way of conducting the friendship. 2. if the unavailable person explicitly tells you that they do want to be with you, asks you for specific ways to demonstrate this desire i.e., have an actual communication about what love and desire look like for both parties, and tries to do these things to the best of their abilities, I think what she said can be applied to good effect in this scenario. 

Emotional availability means a lot of things. No commitment. No `really hearing you''. No interest in your inner world. No loyalty. No putting your feelings first if an attractive person gives them attention. No making you feel special. No feeling like there is someone in the world with your back. No reciprocation even if you've been emotionally available for them for months/years.

You can get emotional unavailability from any stranger on the street, who has no natural care for anyone but themselves. Wierd how even loving them and  meeting their needs, gives you exactly the same behavior as  a stranger. Or less.

 

Completely ridiculous.....I love my cat.....I joke about him being FA all the time....but I would never compare my cat’s situation and reactions to a person who has true FA attachment....otherwise my suggestion would be...leave the FA alone with plenty of food and water...when the FA is ready...the FA will come to you and purr....again...ridiculous analogy.

Emotionally unavailable can and very often is
"pursuing a relationship with an emotionally unavailable partner."
And then putting it all on the alleged partner for being unavailable.

Both people mask their own pain, in different ways.

This made me chuckle, I don't know if it's tongue and cheek but I just commented on how pursuing a relationship with an emotionally unavailable person is...... drumroll.....


emotionally unavailable.

It's also emotionally unavailable to the partner.  If anyone thinks that avoidants naturally gravitate to healthy emotionally available people, who can meet their unmet emotional needs, they haven't been reading the literature.  

Someone who is anxious preoccupied or ambivalent is in survival about their own unmet needs.  They may appear emotionally available ( to themselves) but really, emotional nerd does not equate to emotional availability to another.  It's often quite transactional even if it appears altruistic and "selfless".
Selfless love is for children and pets, but mature human love and relating in a reciprocal relationship requires the self of two people, stable and secure at least to the point of having adequate love and regard for themselves.  It's been said more than once that in order to love, understand and support another you must first be able to do that for yourself.

Avoidants do not gravitate toward healthy partners.  AP don't either. People pursue their shadows, really.  Light up the shadow, transform it, and you'll pursue someone else who has done the same.