The Reason Why Avoidants Occupy Our Minds More Than They Should
We want them to change, but they never will
I’ve spent a lot of time ranting and raving about avoidant attachment, and to be frank, it’s about the same as ranting about the opposite political party.
Ranting about what they do is pointless. Avoidants are going to keep being avoidant.
Both political parties are going to continue acting more insane as time goes on.
It just is what it is.
Thus, both involve spending enormous mental energy getting worked up about people who fundamentally operate by different rules and aren’t going to change because you’re upset about it.
But that’s the crazy thing, ignoring them doesn’t help either.
Before I get too deep into philosophizing about political parties, let’s draw this back in.
The energy I used to spend analyzing avoidant behavior patterns could probably power a small city.
It’s great to be aware and understand what drives our behavior in interpersonal/romantic relationships, but there comes a point where it becomes an obsession.
And like political ranting, it's really just mental masturbation. Lots of activity, but no productive outcome. And you end up more frustrated than when you started.
Knowing this, we have to address how there are so many strategies and techniques (about trying to make a relationship work with an avoidant) because people desperately want to believe there’s a magic combination of words or behaviors that will finally make their partner show up.
This endless consumption becomes its own mental masturbation.
The problem is, no matter how much you try, you can’t negotiate someone into wanting to be in a relationship with you.
I used to try this with my ex. I started reading all the tips, tricks, and strategies right after she didn’t want to be with me any longer, but during the time that she shut down, I would have had a better chance at communicating with a brick wall.
And that’s what no one realizes: by trying to convince an avoidant to change, you might as well be talking to a brick wall.
It’s not going to suddenly decide to become a door because you’ve been really patient and understanding with it.
You can spend years analyzing why it’s a wall, learning about wall psychology, trying different approaches to wall communication, but you’re still talking to a wall.
Meanwhile, you’re wasting time and energy on dead ends that could be spent finding someone who actually wants to be a door.
This, in a nutshell, is what it’s like communicating with people who already have their minds made up. Doesn’t matter if it’s politics or relationships.
Knowing this, it’s why I’ve shifted to seeing and treating relationships more like the “terms of service” of a contract. Because stripped down, that’s what it is.
Components of a relationship: The ‘TOS Agreement’
For the average person, they see a relationship as meant purely for emotional validation with benefits: To feel loved, desired, and secure, while also receiving companionship and sex.
These things are great, but they’re the “meat” of a relationship — not the whole thing. Boundaries are what contain the relationship as a whole.
Without clearly defined boundaries, problems sneak their way in.
And by the time you realize there’s something wrong, it’s often too late.
We often worry about finding the right partner, but we rarely consider “Am I trying to be the 'right partner' for someone?”
Thus, we think it’s about feelings rather than function.
“We love each other, therefore we’re in a relationship.”
And it’s not like avoidants can’t love. Many do. The problem isn’t that they can’t love or have feelings; it’s their behavior in doing the practical aspects of a relationship.
Most people also seem to think relationships just happen naturally if you find the “right person,” but the right person isn’t going to just show up because you wish it hard enough or repeat affirmations all day.
So, when problems arise, the solution is to “work on the relationship,” but this approach is already deeply flawed.
Work on the relationship (Translation): have more “feelings” conversations than hold each other accountable for specific behaviors.
The TOS framework is jarring, though, because it treats a relationship like what it actually is: A mutual agreement with specific deliverables, rather than this romantic fantasy where love conquers all and everything should flow naturally if it’s “meant to be.”
And obviously, if the TOS is broken, there are consequences (if… people are held accountable).
1. Exclusivity terms
Not dating/sleeping with other people.
Not maintaining [romantic] connections with exes.
Dating apps or other romantic options are off limits.
2. Time & availability
Regular communication. (daily texts/calls)
Time together (dates, hangouts)
Being available for important conversations/decisions.
Following through on commitments and plans.
3. Physical access
Sexual exclusivity and regular intimacy.
Sharing physical spaces. (staying over, having keys)
Discussing major purchases or decisions that affect both parties.
Coordinating schedules and major life decisions.
Being present during time together. (not constantly on the phone)
4. Communication
Discussing relationship milestones.
Having conversations about long-term goals.
Having difficult conversations instead of avoiding them.
The moment you agree to exclusivity, you’ve signed a contract with specific deliverables.
But even then, in this day and age, I find that agreements themselves are meaningless.
I might sound cynical, but I’m just being realistic.
People can say whatever they want. They can promise whatever sounds good in the moment, but words are just air.
Words mean absolutely fucking nothing.
Your boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse might agree to something, but that tells you nothing about what they’ll actually do.
They might mean it when they say it, they might be lying, or they might change their mind next week.
Either way, the agreement itself has zero predictive power.
Remember the dark nature of human behavior. People will say whatever they think you want to hear, that gets them what they want in the moment.
The only thing that matters is their behavior, but as we already know, avoidance is typically not a behavioral pattern that respects or treats relationships well.
Let’s think about it this way:
You wouldn’t hire someone for a job and then accept “I have trust issues from my last boss” as an excuse for not doing their job. Would you? Probably not.
You paid them, right?
So shift the focus from “Why are they like this?” to “Are the terms being met or not?”
It’s binary, actionable, and removes all the psychological detective work.
That’s why (if you haven’t noticed), lately I’ve shifted from talking less directly about the “problem with avoidants” and more about what you can tangibly do.
Because, like I said, they’re not going to change.
Only you can.
The whole “how to make your avoidant partner more secure” is basically selling people the fantasy that they can love someone into changing.
It’s like “how to help your alcoholic spouse.” It fucking sucks they have an addiction, but you’re not helping, you’re enabling your own suffering.
People only change when shit gets so bad they can’t stand it anymore. And sometimes even that’s NOT ENOUGH.
So, you, calmly and politely communicating with an avoidant about how important it is they “show up” or start acting like they’re in a relationship?
Incredibly unlikely to happen.
The TOS approach cuts through all that wishful thinking.
Again, it’s less about “How can I make them more available?” and more like “Are they available or not?” If not, find someone who is.
It’s way less romantic than the “love conquers all” narrative, but it’s also far less destructive to your sanity.
If the terms aren’t being met, that’s data you can use to make the best decisions moving forward.
Most relationships operate on these vague, unspoken assumptions where everyone just hopes the other person will magically know what they want.
Final thoughts,
Key insight: acknowledge the pattern exists (because it does), but don’t waste energy trying to fix it or understand it.
Just enforce the contract. No more moral dilemmas or rumination.
If they can’t meet the basic terms, they’re not relationship material, regardless of why.
If they won’t change, then the only variable left is whether you choose to stay in a situation that doesn’t work.
No transformation required, no growth projects, just an honest assessment of present capacity.
If you enjoyed this and found it useful, but want a more serious and effective approach to dating avoidants, setting boundaries, and communicating your needs, I recommend downloading my boundary-setting guide here.
This isn’t some “fix your whole relationship in 5 steps” gimmick. It’s a practical tool. It’s a reference for when you’re feeling stuck, overwhelmed, or unsure how to hold your ground in difficult dynamics.
Whether you’re trying to speak up for yourself, communicate your limits more clearly, or stop internalizing other people’s behavior, this version cuts through the noise and gets right to it.