The Unfair Dating Advantage That Emotionally Unavailable Men Use Without Even Knowing It
Because women say they want love, but secretly desire this one thing from men who can’t love
Every time I got sucked in and expressed my feelings, she ran away.
That’s the cognitive dissonance between what women say they want and what they actually respond to. This is the core of so many anxious-preoccupied (AP) men’s confusion and frustration.
It’s ironic.
We live in a world where anxious attachment is only sexy if you’re a woman… and only manageable if it’s quiet.
Women say they want emotionally available men, but overt insecurity, especially when wrapped in love and affection, triggers the “ick.”
They fantasize about a prince who saves them, but recoil when he shows up.
From childhood, girls are fed a steady diet of Disney Bullshit where a man fights for her love, travels across kingdoms, slays dragons, and rescues her from misery.
The message is clear:
“A real man will pursue you, adore you, fight for you, and never give up on you.”
But when the prince is a normal guy with a steady job and an open heart: texting her “Good morning,” planning dates, and expressing affection, he’s labeled clingy, too intense, or emotionally dependent.
It’s not that women are lying about what they want.
Fantasy is merely safer than reality because the prince doesn’t ask for anything in return, while the real-life guy in front of her comes with needs, expectations, and vulnerability.
And let’s crack open the truth: society has zero tolerance for anxious, emotionally expressive, clingy, and loving men.
A guy who ‘loves too much’ is a walking red flag.
A woman who loves too much is like an adorable rom-com character.
But he’s not romantic. He’s seen as desperate, weak, or creepy, and no matter how pure his intentions are, he’s disposable.
Women say they want emotionally available men
But what they really want is a man who feels deeply…
…just not too soon.
…not too openly.
…when it doesn’t inconvenience them.
… and not in a way that makes them feel responsible.
And the crazy thing is, it’s not like women even hate emotional men.
They’re turned off by the same behaviors by the ones they’re not sexually attracted to.
You express love directly or indirectly)? You’re “too much” or “chasing.”
If you ask for her to check in once in a while, you’re “insecure.”
Or if you open up too early, you’re a narcissist who’s trying to manipulate her with “love bombing.”
Meanwhile, the avoidant guy who strings her along, never communicates, and never commits is sexy, “mysterious,” “masculine,” “stoic,” and “emotionally mature.”
And in this backwards-ass dating culture, people chase challenges and problems. Not solutions.
The Dismissive Avoidant:
You’ve seen this man before.
He’s on your screen, in your favorite video games, sitting in the back corner of every room, and quietly commanding attention without saying much at all.
He doesn’t overshare. He doesn’t gush. Nor does he go out of his way to prove he’s safe, sweet, or emotionally available.
And somehow, he always gets the girl or can easily replace her.
He can get dumped by his girlfriend of five years on a Friday afternoon, and by Wednesday evening, there’s a new girl wrapped in his bed and underneath him.
It’s in his nature, and it’s just how he operates.
The fact that he can so effortlessly detach after such a long time together looks like confidence.
What follows is a breakdown of the dating imbalance that few want to talk about:
The hidden dynamics that reward avoidance and punish openness.
The subconscious reasons why some men glide through relationships while they quietly destroy others.
And the models we keep returning to over and over again as if they hold the answers, when in reality, they’re part of the problem.
Meanwhile, the opposite archetype gets a very different fate.
He’s not dangerous or mysterious, just emotionally overwhelming in a world that punishes male vulnerability while pretending to celebrate it.
What you’re about to read isn’t just about fictional characters or personal anecdotes.
It’s a breakdown of the brutal truth about dating dynamics and emotional suppression.
But dismissive avoidants are neither better nor worse than APs.
I wouldn’t want to trade my emotional depth, sensitivity, and deep capacity for love to be someone emotionally numb, detached, and cold, so my dating life could be smoother.
We also need to classify “what’s dysfunctional and what isn’t.”
Dismissive Avoidants in the (+3) range are a bit dysfunctional (relationally) but not a total deal breaker yet:
When he’s only mildly selfish/self-centered.
Dismisses, delays, or makes excuses for his obligation to fulfill his partner’s needs.
He takes more than he gives, albeit only slightly.
Needs frequent reminders to adjust his behavior. (This is the main challenge here)
‘Go-getter’ or a success-driven individual. ← Quick note on this 👇:
It’s attractive at first because he’s clearly driven, and she doesn’t have to worry about him annoying her with his neediness, but his success is his own type of armor.
Independence is often fear in disguise.
He’ll say he doesn’t need anyone, but will feel immensely lonely and unfulfilled on the inside.
He might be composed, however, dismissive avoidants always have an exit strategy.
You might have seen this infographic before, but, healthy relationships typically make up an anxious and avoidant pair within the realm of (-1 or -2) with (+1 or +2) avoidant.
Anything reasonably stretching past (3) is pushing it.
For more reading on this, I suggest Ross Rosenberg’s Self-Value Personality Type Breakdown.
Compare that with the Anxious Preoccupied (Ambivalent) (-3):
His core identity in a relationship is his caring and giving nature.
He is predominantly focused on the needs of others.
As such, he’ll usually dismiss, delay, or excuse away his own needs.
He’s typically in relationships with women who take more than they give.
The ambivalent man is somewhat capable of setting boundaries or asking for help or effort in relationships, but it won’t come without some form of guilt or shame.
This leads us to this list of common things women are turned off by in men 🚩🚩🚩
Neediness/clinginess: Perceived emotional dependence is a massive turn-off.
Professing love way too soon: Comes across as over-investment without foundation.
Pedestalizing her: When a man overvalues her and undervalues himself.
Insecurity/lack of self-confidence: Women tend to be repelled by men who don’t believe in themselves.
Over-explaining: Trying too hard to be understood or approved of.
Lack of boundaries or backbone: A man who folds too easily to her whims or tries too hard to keep the peace.
Too much availability/no life outside of her: Counterintuitive but common: availability without scarcity = loss of value
Excessive trauma dumping: While vulnerability is good, dysregulated emotional oversharing repels.
Trying too hard to please: People-pleasing = lack of personal standards or identity
Not leading/being passive: Most women prefer men who initiate, plan, and decide.
While some of these can overlap with either DA or (AP), most of the things women are turned off by, map almost perfectly to AP tendencies, especially:
Showing love too quickly.
Prioritizing her feelings over your own.
Wanting closeness all the time.
Seeking validation through affection.
Constant availability and attentiveness.
These are the same behaviors anxious men are taught are good or romantic, yet they often trigger withdrawal and ghosting in women.
What happens to anxious men in long-term relationships?
The Strange Situation
Back in the 1970s, Psychologist Mary Ainsworth demonstrated this with infants and toddlers in her “Strange Situation” experiments.
She, and John Bowlby, pioneered the Theory of Attachment. Together, the evidence of their work has provided a strong foundation for the study that continues to evolve and grow to this day.
But her goal was simple.
Core Analysis:
A toddler is placed in a room with their mother.
The mother leaves.
The toddler reacts (usually with distress).
The mother returns.
The toddler’s reaction is observed.
Anxious-Ambivalent (“Anxious-Preoccupied”) Infants get extremely distressed when the mother leaves, but when she returns… they:
Show anger, resentment.
May reject comfort or physically push her away.
Appear restless or conflicted.
Cry while refusing to be soothed.
This is far from a calm reunion and not a reaction one would first expect in a child or individual who experiences what we could essentially call separation anxiety.
It’s emotional chaos at both ends of the spectrum. The infant desperately wants love but can’t accept it cleanly when it comes.
The adult ambivalent man: Same script, different stage
This early pattern haunts romantic relationships and sometimes fucks them up good.
Because his internal wiring says: “When love leaves. Love doesn’t come back cleanly. And when it does, it hurts.”
So in adult relationships, he unconsciously replays this cycle:
A) Panics when he perceives she’s pulling away: Over-texting, reassurance-seeking, fantasizing
B) Ambivalence when she comes close again.
From personal experience, anxious protest behaviors aren’t always about anxiety.
At the time, when I was in my long-term relationship with my ex, I didn’t think of myself as “anxious.” I had no inkling of what attachment was or other subtle, but important, dating mechanics.
I wasn’t panicking, crying, or constantly begging for reassurance. What I was feeling was rage — quiet, slow-burning anger from being shut out over and over again by someone who claimed to love me.
And because I didn’t know how to express my needs, I acted out.
He’ll self-sabotage after getting what he wants
Once he “gets the girl,” he loses the high of the pursuit.
He starts testing her love, looking for any indication of “abandonment.”
He might act out emotionally, unconsciously mimicking the same anger and refusal to be soothed from infancy.
He either devalues her, becomes erratic, or forces her to prove her love over and over.
Sometimes, anxious behavior looks more like irritability, emotional shutdowns, or cruel humor, but under all of it is the same thing: a man who’s starving for connection and trying to get it from someone who has zero interest in meeting him halfway.
Crucial: Even when we lived together and shared the same bed, this dynamic didn’t change.
She remained cold, withholding, and emotionally unavailable.
But instead of leaving, I tried to make it work long-term, only to indirectly break up with her when I couldn’t stand it anymore.
This is how ambivalence disrupts long-term relationships.
And unlike ambivalent women (whose emotional swings are more normalized culturally), AP men often feel:
“I’m weak. I’m too much. And no one will love me like this. When someone tries… I destroy it.”
Most AP men didn’t choose this. They learned it from their mother (or father).
Affection wasn’t stable.
If they wanted love, they had to earn it, chase it, or prove they were worthy of it.
That their emotional needs were either too much or inconvenient for the people they cared about most.
So instead of compassion or guidance, you get mocked, ghosted, ignored, or friend-zoned.
And then you’re told to “just be confident” by professionals and dating coaches while you’re battling emotional pain you’ve never been allowed to speak out loud.
If dismissive avoidant men are so detached and independent, how or why do they keep relationships?
1. Mystery = Intrigue
✦ This forces the woman to lean in emotionally and triggers a feeling of wanting to unlock him, soften him, be the one who reaches his inner world.
2. Competence triggers safety
Their functional independence makes women feel: Protected, Impressed, and physically and emotionally safe (even when they’re not actually emotionally available)
✦ Insecure, anxious men often express emotional neediness before they’ve proven competence.
3. They’re not seeking love, which makes it seem more valuable
✦ The AP man gives love freely and early, so it’s often taken for granted.
✦ The DA-style character gives it slowly and reluctantly, so it’s treasured.
4. Avoidant traits masquerade as masculinity
✦ Women mistake these for emotional regulation when they’re coping mechanisms.
From my personal observations of men around me, dismissive avoidant males tend to fare better in relationships/dating than men with typical anxious and fearful avoidant patterns.
Though this advantage is primarily shallow and surface-level.
Also, attachment theory can’t cover every single aspect of love, dating, human connection, and so on. Regardless of gender or attachment, people want to fuck, avoid loneliness, and have someone to lean on.
Back to why dismissive avoidant men initially have an easier time:
Women are more nurturing and tend to be socialized and predisposed to being emotionally attuned, expressive, and relationship-oriented.
I’d argue there are typically more anxious-leaning women than men; thus, with all these factors at play, the dismissive avoidant male is more appealing to her than an ambivalent man.
Translation: DA men have a steady supply of girlfriends willing to do the emotional labor with a closed-off, insecure man in order to keep the relationship running.
Plus, their detached aloofness is highly attractive and mistaken for stability.
But in reality, he’s not secure or present.
And dismissive avoidant traits are commonly conflated with stoic masculinity. This is the reason why his coping strategy aligns better with a woman’s goal to secure a relationship.
Because he’s not giving away everything all at once.
Anxious men, however, struggle more because their traits are directly unattractive to women.
Despite how our society has brainwashed us to think women are the ultimate prize, women don’t like it when men pedestalize them.
It puts an impossible burden on her to maintain his fantasy at all times.
APs fall hard, chase intensity, and confuse short-term passion with long-term connection and compatibility, which results in either a revolving door of short-term relationships with women or huge difficulty with attracting them in the first place.
If he lacks self-awareness, he’ll blame women for using him or for being shallow.
Why women are attracted to emotionally unavailable men like Geralt of Rivia, Bond, and Stark
🐺 Geralt of Rivia (The Witcher)
Witchers aren’t just trained fighters; they’re subjected to the Trial of Grasses, a brutal alchemical process that enhances their physical abilities but also dampens their emotions and human responses.
This emotional numbing is part of why they can face monsters and death without breaking down. So, to be fair, to some degree, they can’t help it.
Attachment Style: Dismissive Avoidant with glimmers of unresolved trauma.
Romantic Behavior: Detached, reluctant, and never initiates emotional connection.
Examples: Geralt’s got a long list of women in rotation he sleeps with. Yennefer of Vengerberg (his “main woman”), Triss Merigold, Keira Metz, Shani from Oxenfurt, and several other. Yet he rarely initiates or defines the relationship.
Often disappears for long stretches without explanation or emotional accountability.
Doesn’t express neediness or longing even when he clearly cares.
Why his aloofness works for him: Women pursue him. His emotional inaccessibility reads as mystery, not immaturity. And his power and restraint create tension, which feels like chemistry.
What would Geralt do if he were AP?
Ask Yennefer if she “really meant it” when she said she loved him.
Write Triss pages of letters after she disappears without explanation.
Fall in love with a random prostitute in a Novigrad brothel.
Geralt is basically the poster boy for “emotionally unavailable, sexually irresistible.” And women love him for it.
All of them want more, but he never offers it. He’ll fight blood-thirsty monsters from other dimensions for them, but not for feelings. And yet they keep coming back.
🍸 James Bond
Attachment Style: Classic Dismissive Avoidant/Narcissistic Blend.
Romantic Behavior: Emotionally disconnected, transactional, seductive.
Examples: Rarely remembers or acknowledges previous lovers. Each film features a new “Bond Girl.” He connects with them just enough to sleep with them, then moves on.
He doesn’t ask for love; he assumes attraction.
Why it works for him: He’s not emotionally reactive and never shows anxiety or fear. That aloof confidence is interpreted as emotional strength.
What would Bond do if he were AP instead?
Follow up with every Bond girl, checking if they were okay.
Wonder why no one ever calls him back.
Confess his love for her the night before the mission.
Even Austin Powers, a parody of the suave, emotionally unavailable James Bond archetype, can lose the love of his life in an explosion and respond with: “Smashing, baby! I’m single again!”
He’s cartoonishly dismissive.
When Vanessa turns out to be a Fembot and explodes on their Honeymoon, he literally celebrates being single again.
And women still want him.
Even in a parody such as this, that aloof, unbothered energy is positioned as sexy and desirable despite his chest hair, teeth, and ridiculous behavior.
He gets momentarily thrown off when Felicity fucks Fat Bastard, and he does sulk a little bit, but he cracks a joke, adjusts his glasses, and moves on.
And somehow, he still gets laid before the credits roll.
🤖 Tony Stark (Iron Man)
Attachment Style: Avoidant with narcissistic defense mechanisms (but with real growth later).
Romantic Behavior: Playful, indirect, avoids emotional responsibility.
Examples: Flirts with Pepper Potts for years without ever committing. Uses sarcasm to deflect intimacy. And only expresses his love by sacrificing himself in Avengers: Endgame.
Why it works for him: His genius and confidence mask his insecurity. His distance feels like playful teasing, not emotional unavailability.
What would he do if he were ambivalent instead?
Ask Pepper how she feels in every other scene.
Panic if she seemed distant for a day.
Over-explain how much she means to him after every fight.
🌌 Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader)
Attachment Style: Anxious Preoccupied to the core
Romantic Behavior: Overattached, obsessive, and deeply insecure.
Examples: Falls madly in love with Padmé within a few days and is willing to throw away his life as a Jedi to marry her. But then constantly questions her loyalty to him and the Republic in EP Ⅲ. Experiences intense fear of abandonment (visions of her dying, panicked attachment). Turns into the most despicable Sith Lord and villain the Galaxy had ever seen after he thinks she betrayed him.
Why is this so ironic:
He’s the only one in this list who actually vocalizes love, fear, and devotion, no one ever listens to him, and then he becomes the villain.
His AP-style obsession is viewed as weakness, instability, even insanity.
His internal narrative:
“I can’t live without her.” = Classic AP phrase.
“She’s everything to me.” = He pedestalizes her.
“She betrayed me.” = The push-pull of intense love turned into rejection.
The Anxious-Avoidant Relationship was right in front of us.
Once you view Anakin and Padmé through the lens of attachment theory, all the weird, stilted, and awkward romance scenes in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith stop feeling like bad writing and start feeling eerily accurate.
Funny how a galactic space opera accidentally nailed attachment dynamics. It’s probably why I thought she was so hot growing up. That cold, mysterious nature of her character always got me going.
And the white, spandex jumpsuit…
Padmé Amidala:
She’s poised, guarded, and emotionally restrained, a classic set of dismissive avoidant traits.
Her focus is on duty, career, and doing what’s “right,” often to the exclusion of her own feelings. She avoids emotional vulnerability and only allows the relationship once Anakin’s intensity breaks down her defenses.
Even then, she keeps things hidden, compartmentalized, secret.
Anakin Skywalker:
The quintessential anxious-preoccupied man.
He’s obsessed with her, idealizes her, and fears losing her so intensely that it eventually consumes him.
Anakin constantly cries out for help, often through emotional outbursts or passive cries for connection, especially with Obi-Wan, the Jedi Council, and later Padmé.
But no one really hears him. They either dismiss his concerns or expect him to push them down and stay composed.
Even Palpatine sees this and manipulates it.
He over-pursues, confesses love early, dreams about her, and reacts with desperation and rage when threatened by the idea of abandonment. And it’s that fear of loss, not love, that ultimately drives him to the dark side.
Key insight:
Emotionally unavailable men are romanticized.
Emotionally vulnerable men are pathologized.
Connell Barrett, author of Dating Sucks, but You Don’t, says “What women really want is authenticity.”
And sure, this is true… You need to be vulnerable, open up, and share your true self, but the reality is mystery holds more attention and moves the needle more than authenticity ever will.
Especially when you confuse your authenticity with: Being a hopeless romantic.
His perspective makes sense, because writes from the lens of an anxious-preoccupied man.
He’s open about his own romantic struggles, like crying out “I love you” mid-nut with a woman he was in an FWB/casual relationship with.
I can’t knock him for saying those three words, because I’ve done the same.
But his philosophy: chase connection, prove your love, and hope it’s enough.
Though the truth is, what feels like courage and expression to him can come off as emotional flooding to women.
Because the guy who gives everything away upfront, who spills his emotions too soon, who wears his heart on his sleeve rarely gets the girl. Not because he’s a bad guy, but because the chase is over before it even begins. There’s no intrigue. No tension. No slow burn.
Women want honesty and openness, but only once desire is firmly established. Without that, authenticity is oversharing. Or worse, desperation.
🎸 Johnny Silverhand (Cyberpunk 2077)
Johnny is peak dismissive avoidant.
Silverhand is the archetype of the emotionally detached rebel. He’s reckless, egotistical, and has zero regard for other human lives. Arrogant. Detached. Traumatized. Unapologetic. But magnetic as hell.
Love Interest:
Alt Cunningham: His former girlfriend. A brilliant Netrunner. Their story is tragic and intense, but she spends most of it resenting him for being emotionally reckless and self-centered.
Even after her digital transcendence by Arasaka Corporation, she still matters to him, and he still can’t connect in a healthy way. He idealizes her more than he ever truly shows up for her.
Johnny routinely reminds you he’s not here to play nice. And yet, he’s magnetic. Sexy, even.
But what makes him truly interesting is the moment he confesses he’s willing to sacrifice himself for V. That sliver of unexpected selflessness hidden beneath all the bravado is intoxicating.
In short, he doesn’t start off vulnerable. He earns it, and by the time he shows you that hint of love or loyalty, you’re already hooked.
👮♂️ River Ward (Male romance option for female V — Cyberpunk 2077)
River’s a good cop. Plays by the rules despite working for the corrupt, degenerate Police Force of Night City.
He’s sensitive.
Protective.
Caring.
And a bit clingy.
I decided to romance River Ward in Cyberpunk 2077 for the novelty and the shits and gigs. I don’t normally do female-male romances in games, but River seemed like a good guy: honest, caring, grounded.
The game has an intricate, deep mechanic that mimics the real world, and the longer I played, the more I noticed something: he wouldn’t stop texting me.
Always asking to come over (to my apartment 😂), always initiating contact, and always looking for closeness even while I was in the middle of shootouts, chasing down jobs across Night City, but quickly becomes suffocating when you’ve got a literal digital Rockstar-Terrorist (Silverhand) in your head you’re trying to get rid of.
“Hey, V, wanna hang out? I miss you.”
And I remember thinking: “Damn… I’ve been that guy.”
It was subtle at first, but I started to feel it: that quiet emotional pressure. That low-key clinginess.
It was funny because I knew he was supposed to be a “nice guy.”
And yet, I found myself getting annoyed because he was too available.
He reminded me of every time in real life when I was “that guy,” trying too hard to show I cared, while she drifted further away.
Even when you merely role-play as a woman, the AP man can start to feel like too much (not because he’s a bad guy).
It mirrors how many women feel in real life when someone’s love becomes overexposed: no mystery, no challenge, and no edge.
Geralt, Bond, Stark, and many other characters like them don’t chase love.
They barely acknowledge it.
And yet they’re adored, pursued, and worshiped by women.
Meanwhile, Anakin Skywalker, who turns into one of Sci-Fi’s favorite villains, the only one to openly express devotion, gets ghosted and betrayed (in his mind), and becomes the most tragic villain in sci-fi.
It’s almost as if showing love is the greatest crime a man can commit in fiction.
Women (consciously or unconsciously) screen for safety and strength
Not just physical, but emotional regulation.
If a man seems unstable or unsure of himself, it triggers discomfort, especially for women with their own insecure avoidant attachment or trauma of their own.
Because he is a mirror for insecurity, and she finds it repulsive. It’s no longer flattering — it’s work.
Final thoughts,
As ironic, ass-backwards, and confusing as it is, whether it’s in The Witcher, Cyberpunk 2077, or real life, the men who give less often get more.
The women (or players) are drawn to the one they can’t fully have. Not the one who’s always available.
Psychology of attraction says: mystery > security
And yes, I’m aware these characters are fantasy, and their often exaggerated for entertainment, but they represent a truth we can’t ignore either.
In real life, emotionally unavailable men eventually:
Ruin good relationships.
Can’t sustain long-term intimacy.
Leave a trail of confused, hurt partners.
In fantasy, they are glorified.
But fiction only works when it taps into something real. Beneath the explosions, witty one-liners, and bed-hopping, there’s always a sliver of uncomfortable truth:
We’re drawn to those who don’t seem to need us.
Detachment signals confidence.
Lack of emotional neediness is misread as strength.
And in a world where anxious men are labeled as clingy, weak, or “too much,” the cool, confident, distant guy always seems to have women wrapped around his finger even when he’s emotionally unavailable or outright toxic.
I couldn’t stop reading… it was a masterpiece.
this was such an amazing piece. At first, I found myself disagreeing. I thought, maybe you’ve just been dating women who aren’t secure or emotionally mature. But the more I read, the more I realized I’ve actually done the same thing you described.
I once talked to a guy who was very anxious and emotionally open right from the start. At first, I thought it was refreshing but then I was quickly turned off. I started viewing him as someone I needed to fix—when truthfully, I needed fixing too. I remember thinking why jump into dating if you’re still hung up on your ex and overwhelmed with anxiety?
I wanted someone grounded, someone who could lead—not someone I felt responsible for emotionally carrying. And I think that’s the core of it: vulnerability is beautiful, but only when it’s paced well and shared from a place of emotional self-awareness.
This piece really put words to things I’ve felt but couldn’t articulate. It made me realize why anxious-anxious relationships don’t work… and why anxious-avoidant dynamics are so intense but rarely stable.
Thank you for sharing this perspective—it challenged me and clarified a lot.