5 Signs You’re Only Attracted to Emotionally Unavailable Men
Do you keep attracting all the wrong guys or believe that all men are jerks or don’t want to commit? Do you believe the problem is always with them? Does it seem like you have no way of breaking this pattern of attracting emotionally unavailable men?
Actually, there is a way. But it requires you make a drastic shift in your perspective.
What if you were attracting, and attracted to, these types of men and relationships because you have a fear of intimacy?
What if you’re choosing these men to be connected with because you’re afraid of having deep, soulmate love?
It takes two to enter into a relationship, partnership, or fling. Yes, these men may have been attracted to you but you were attracted to them, too. Whether it was the attraction or chemistry or what you thought was love at the time, you undoubtably said, “Yes!”
So if you’re wondering whether your bad history with guys is actually your fear of intimacy, here are 5 signs that you’re only attracted to emotionally unavailable men:
You love the bad boy.
Whether it’s in the movies or in real life, you always love the bad boy. He’s got guns, he’s got ink, he’s sweaty, and he’s just plain hot. Unfortunately, he has some bad habits, too. He’s unreliable, unpredictable, he often has substance abuse issues, and loads of anger management problems, too. You can’t get ahold of him and he shows up only when he feels like it. The bad boy, though exciting briefly on the outside, will never be able to provide you – or any woman – with true love and intimacy.
Or maybe you love the man boy. A modern variation of the bad boy.
Ah, the man boy. Though his sweet demeanor and loving affection is very alluring, he is also very child-like. He doesn’t take life and responsibility too seriously and is often still zoning out on video games in his leisure time, which he has a lot of. This is the guy that can only communicate by text and never takes you out to dinner. Often he’s a loafer. When the initial chemistry of love fades, you might end up feeling like this guy’s mother. The man boy will never be able to step up and commit to you in the soulmate partnership you deserve.
You’re continually attracted to emotionally unavailable men in some form or another.
Your guys are always some version of the bad boy/man boy or they are: married, with another woman, not “ready” to commit to you, never around for some reason or another, never mention the word “love” to you, and can’t even deal with talking to you about any kind of commitment. Take his actions at face value. If he can’t say he loves you and you’re the only one for him, believe him.
But you’re just not into nice guys that adore you.
He has no game. He calls you – often. He compliments you. He outwardly displays his adoration for you. He will do anything for you. You know he’s nice but you find yourself avoiding this man. You don’t call him back. He’s just so…available. Yep, the nice guy doesn’t do it for you and makes you crave a bad boy/man boy connection even more.
And, this cycle repeats over and over even though you swear it will be different the next time.
Though there might be some subtle differences on the outside, like a longer relationship or maybe he had a steady career or maybe he did actually call you in the beginning, he still ends up being just as wishy washy and emotionally unavailable as the last guy. And the guy before.
If you can relate to any of these signs then perhaps it’s time to ask yourself what you’re really getting out of these types of relationships. How are you benefitting from being with a man that can’t give you real love, intimacy, and commitment? Why does this dating cycle feel so comfortable and safe to you?
Now that you’ve awoken to this deeper meaning of your relationship patterns, you are no longer a victim to random attraction with these types of men. It’s now time to re-write your future history by asking yourself these questions:
What would it take for me to now be open to the intimacy and love I desire?
And what kind of man would I be attracted to instead?