Sex and Attachment

8883650774_ffa4501dba_h

Does the image above catch your attention?

Of course it does, because male motivation is tied to sexual reproduction and men are motivated primarily by urges to have sex with females, right?

Wrong.

It’s more complex than that.

As far back as 1941 Scottish psychiatrist Ronald Fairbairn found that the desire for attachment in human beings, in terms of the overall psychobiological economy, is a more important necessity than the desire for sexual pleasure and reproduction.

You read it right: attachment is more important than sex.

This scientific finding, not controversial in the field of psychology, presents something of a heretical view to some in the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) who, by contrast, seem to have come in recent years to believe that males are chasing sexual reproduction only — which, oddly enough, seems similar to the stereotype of the “all men want is sex” misandrist paradigm we’ve all come to find so annoying.

Fairbairn’s proposition is now many decades old, but his findings heralded a Copernican revolution within the world of scientific research that would culminate in today’s attachment sciences; it moved the discussion beyond the reductionist sexual theories of Darwin and Freud and into new areas–more complex, more subtle, more nuanced, and ultimately more human.

The question attachment scientists explored is: why do couples continue to stay with each other years after producing offspring, and indeed sometimes for decades after all sexual activity has ceased in relationships? The answer is because human beings are pair bonders who get more out of attachment than they do out of fucking.

Since Fairbairn, studies have confirmed that humans possess an array of distinct motivational systems each in communication with the surrounding environment. Of those systems two are singled out as particularly powerful in motivating humans to form relationships – the sexual urge (eros), and -separately- the urge to attach. Of these, attachment is quite simply the most important to the continued survival of the individual. This cannot be overstated: attachment is the more important to individual survival.

As studies reveal, an absence of close and consistent human attachment causes children to literally wither and die, refusing to thrive even when being provided with clothing, food and an adequate number of toys. Children need reliable and consistent relationships in order to thrive. Likewise adults literally sicken both physically and mentally, and often commit suicide, to escape feelings of isolation and loneliness, especially after a relationship separation.

A lack of sexual contact on the contrary is not as life threatening; you will never see someone die simply because they didn’t get to fuck with the opposite sex and reproduce. I would think that seals the case about what is really important to both men and women. Survival of the species depends on sex; survival of the individual depends on the vital bonds of attachment.

What does all this mean to men?

Well, it means that we need to evaluate separately our attachment needs and our sexual needs, and avoid the common mistake of conflating them; especially if that conflation sees us rejecting both when in fact it may be only one of these causing most of our relationship angst. It may turn out that attachment and sex both need to be rejected in our gynocentric zeitgeist because both are sources of entrapment, however that cannot be determined until we consider each factor separately and thoroughly.

In our psychobiological economy, various desires come into conflict with one another, each jostling for momentary supremacy where one imperative will usurp the claims of another. That game has reached a problematical impasse during the last 800 years because, during that (historically relatively short) time span, human culture has thrown the weight of its patronage into developing, intensifying and enforcing sexual gamesmanship to the degree that our sexual compulsions appear pumped up on steroids and taken to extremes never before seen in the human animal (myths about widespread Roman orgies notwithstanding).

If we lived back in Ancient Greece, Rome or anywhere else we would view sex as little more than a bodily function akin to eating, shitting and sleeping – a basic bodily function without the hype. After the Middle Ages however it developed into a commodity to pimp and trade, and the new cult of sexualized romance that arose resulted in a frustration of our basic need for attachment – a frustration aided and abetted by social institutions placing sexual manipulation at the centre of human interactions.

During these fairly recent centuries of increased hypergamy and sexual focus, our drive to pair-bond continues to shout its demands even while being neglected. Observe for example the not-infrequent feelings of disillusionment and loneliness of serial partner upgraders (hypergamy) or of promiscuous gamers, or consider a beautiful young woman living in her mansion with an aged but wealthy husband to whom she has little or no emotional attachment; even if she is getting sex on the side her loneliness can eat away at her sense of contentment. These examples reveal an urgency surrounding attachment when it is neglected for the sake of secondary sexual or power gains.

Like men, women desire secure attachment beyond whatever sexual advantages they can and do exploit. However the hypergamous compulsion tends to get in the way and frustrate their powerful need to pair-bond. From the Middle Ages all the way to today we read of men and women bitterly disillusioned by the interference of hypergamy in the desire to form stable pair-bonds. Read for instance the bitter, antifeminist complaints of 12th century Andreas Capellanus or those of 14th century Christine de Pizan, or the disillusionment and ultimate rejection of the benefits of hypergamy in later works like Madam Bovary. These authors knew full well that sexualized romantic love had upset the balance of attachment security for both men and women alike.

The question we must ask ourselves is this: can our human need for attachment be indulged without men and women succumbing to the destructive manipulations of the modern sex code? As we stand atop the mountain of bachelor freedoms, rightly rejecting gynocentric women and culture as bastions of exploitation, have we intellectually thrown out the attachment baby with the exploitation bathwater?

Sexual games need not get in the way of healthy attachment, so why should we live without relationships? Well no one ever said we had to, but in recent years I’ve sensed a trend both within and without the men’s activism community (which I’ve long been part of) that foregoing “relationships” is a necessary part of the deal.

This does not seem a prudent attitude to be cultivating, especially for young men who may now be reading advice about rejecting relations with women and making extreme decisions about their lives; refusing to marry, cohabit, or procreate does not require a cutting off from human society. Even if we don’t suicide from loneliness (as so many men do) we need to question if the absence of an intimate relationship in our lives can leave us limping, or somehow unfulfilled. Some will say no, and some of these naysayers may well be what are known as ‘avoidant attachers.’ Of those who would say yes, some might recommend we fill our intimacy void with friendships, which is I think a very good starting point. But this leads to a further question of whether there is an adequate formulation of friendship that can satisfy our needs in a modern context – a relationship that doesn’t rely on the usual corruption at the core of sexualized romantic love.

These questions lead to an exploration of adult human attachment, and modern studies on the subject are abundant from psychological, biological and behavioural points of view. For those interested in following this subject further the Wikipedia entry on Attachment in Adults would be a good place to start, and to branch out from there. Of particular interest is the existence of four basic attachment styles in human beings, indicating that there must also be four main ways of conducting relationships:

secure attachment (64% of the population)
anxious–preoccupied attachment (17% of the population)
fearful–avoidant attachment (12% of the population)
dismissive–avoidant attachment (7% of the population)



Only one of these styles (dismissive avoidant) involves a lack of desire for emotionally close relationships (relationships with minimal emotional intimacy may be tolerable to them), while the other three involve a desire to form emotionally intimate attachments. These are biologically-based traits appearing in each man before he considers rejecting intimacy with women, and they help to account for the behavioral and ideological variability we see among men – for the most part we are working creatively with what’s already in our make up rather than changing our core attachment style.

The four attachment styles and their implications for men deserve a follow up article. While some men’s rights advocates claim men do not need attachment at all, evidence is not in their favour. Thus, for most of us, constructing new ways to form secure relationships with our fellow humans in a rich and rewarding way is an important long-term question, even if we cannot pretend to have all the answers now; we start by knowing what we don’t want: relationships of enslavement and entrapment to the opposite sex (or anyone else for that matter) in an environment that makes healthy attachment difficult. But how do we forge a more positive model for human relationships and attachment for ourselves?

We started this essay with an important question: are sex and attachment two relatively different motivations? The answer is a resounding yes! Yes, despite all the pop culture bombardment of sex, sex, sex, the sexual shaming of men, and all the rest, the answer is yes: sex and attachment are not the same. People can live their lives avoiding sexual games but they will not end their lives happily unless they meet their attachment requirements. And while this journey will be different for each man, we must not flinch from seeing the problem for what it is: not “overcoming our urge to procreate,” but rather, how to be healthy human beings able to recognize and fulfill our natural need for human intimacy.

Sources

– Frederico Pereira, David E. Scharff, M. D. Fairbairn and Relational Theory (2002)
– Fairbairn, W.R.D., ‘Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality’. (2013)
– Shaver, P.R., Handbook of attachment – Second Edition (2008)
– Shaver, P.R., Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics and Change (2010)

Feature image by Thomas S.

11 Replies to “Sex and Attachment”

  1. The human mating pair is “a thing”, that much is just as obvious in us as it is in the many other species that form mating pairs. This is NATURAL and is a DISCOVERY about humanity.

    Interestingly, MARRIAGE is the name we have given to this discovery…

    … and yet, activists have seen to it that humanity is no longer allowed to socially recognize the human mating pair which, on it’s face, is both foolish and likely dangerous. Mating pairs formed for a REASON. (act of god or evolution, take your pick)

    But now it’s illegal to recognize the mating pair of our species, and we are now only allowed to recognize, in any significant way, persons “in love”… no matter how transitory it may be (divorce rates seem to suggest it’s very transitory).

    Until we reconnect social recognition to the importance of the *mating pair* over simply having feelings for someone, then we’re likely to suffer all ills one might expect when worshipping “love” over responsibility in procreation.

  2. Well said. Though, I think there is a inter-relationship between healthy sex and healthy attachment. It wasn’t until I was in a healthy attached relationship that I understood the deep comfort of sex.

    Regardless, I laud the public discussion of these issues.

  3. Men Only want sex? What makes some females think men are in such a hurry to ruin their life, how shallow is this mentally?
    I would much rather have a comfortable balance of sexual intimacy and companionship based upon mutual respect and appreciation.

  4. Not that I disagree but I find it hard to believe in any lasting bond regarding the woman in the picture. It’s that that it wouldn’t be my wildest desire and fantasy…

  5. Brilliant article and badly needed. Our society is losing human connection in general at the same time that technology is making society more connected than ever. At a superficial level we are more connected than ever, but probe deeper and the deepest attachments people have a being lost. We have structured our society based on maximising productivity to ensure survival (a society based on maximising throughput) but we are losing our deepest social bonds in the process and gynocentrism has just been amplified even further with technology and the throughput obsessed society we live in. Parents are too time poor to raise their kids, fathers are being removed from homes and turned into walking wallets and men are being deprived of the most intimate bonds because of a divorce and family law system and a metoo# climate set out to demonize and exploit them. There is a common misconception MGTOW is about being alone. MGTOW is about men going their own way- Some men may choose to be alone or be with others or alternate between the two at different stages and times of their lives. Ultimately MGTOW is about exercising your right to be yourself and choose for yourself how to live your own life and who to have in it, without manipulation and coercion herding you into preconceived outcomes. Men are avoiding systems of exploitation that modern relationships and marriage resemble. Men are assessing the landscape and recognising that they cannot develop genuine social bonds and attachment whilst these systems are in place. Is that a long term solution for society? On its own no. Men certainly need to enforce boundaries and go their own way and that may mean saying no to the majority of relationships that are relationships in name only, but are really systems of exploitation. However in the long term an attachment gulf will be left for both sexes and for children and that gulf will only be resolved when there is a concerted effort to minimise gynocentrism and undertake serious social and legal reform. That cannot take place without men going their own way and saying no to their own exploitation. But MGTOW alone is not enough. Men will need to take a stand against a system of exploitation that will not rest until every freedom they hold is taken from them. Until men put up an organised and well-funded defence of their rights, men will keep losing ground until men are going their own way in a 4m by 4m cell. It stops when men push back. Not with pretty please.

  6. After living 70 years and a failed marriage I realize that I fit into the 7 or 12 percent category. Why that is I am not sure. Perhaps a feeling of abandonment at an early age and a distrust of people. It hasn’t been easy but this is how I have learned to cope. Currently living with a woman who needs a man in her life but there are no romantic feelings. We keep each other company in our senior years although I find her annoying at times. I threaten to move out on my own when she oversteps my boundaries which settles her down. I figure I may last until 85 so I should be able to ‘wing it’ until then.

  7. I’m 82 & have spent the last 22 years on my own although I did meet a lady about 6 years ago & actually got engaged but then her yourest daughter 35 years old in her second marriage became pregnant & had a daughter. In general your I tend to agree with your article except that for many women attachment means to her children particular daughters. The umbilical cord never seems to be severed for the entire life of the mother & the husband just comes in a bad last in the queue. This lady was quite happy to baby sit for 7 months at a stretch & I was not prepared to play 2nd fiddle to her grown up & married children so I broke off the engagement & the relationship. I ran a men’s ministry for quite a few years & the best complaint about what happens when children arrive – at the very young age paricularly after birth one can understand all the attention of the mother is focused on the child but that never seems to ever end & is one of the main reasons men have affairs when someone pays attention to them (attachment not just physical although that’s is the result). My 2 cents worth!

  8. Have been through all of the attachment styles in the following order.

    1) Secure
    2) Anxious-Preoccupied
    3) Fearful-Avoidant
    4) Dismissive-Avoidant

    I believe this to be, if one’s paying attention, the natural progression for men in modern society. This progression is most certainly accelerated when one comes into contact with the Red Pill and MGTOW mindset. For me, MGTOW and Red Pill information served as a quantum leap in understanding female nature as well as society, only with crystal clear vision unobscured by the sweet lies of modernist fairy tales, illusions and enchantments. Once you take the Red Pill, you plumb the depths of the rabbit hole whether you want to or not. Once one begins this journey, there’s no going back. Escaping the truth becomes impossible.

    It was a race to the bottom. I only attached securely in the beginning because I didn’t know what I was getting myself into. I was a fool waiting to be had. I was so ignorant of the games going on about me, it makes me cringe when I think of my former self. I look back with a mix of deep regret and sheer wonder that I survived this anti-male meat grinder relatively unscathed. I didn’t know anything about feminism, the anti-male legal system, gynocentrism, or male disposability – but I sure as hell do now! All of the aforementioned amount to social conditioning, which both traditionalists and modernists use as a means of putting the opposing group in a subservient, slave like role to the other. The male-only draft amounts to gender based human sacrifice. Alimony, asset division and child support, predominantly paid by men, amount to serfdom and indentured servitude. We will never have a female-only draft. Women will never be the majority of alimony, asset division and child support payers. Men built and maintained every single substantial structure on earth. It was men’s lives sacrificed to keep women safe from harm.

    Thanks to the efforts of Red Pill and MGTOW disciples and masters, working under various monikers throughout the centuries, I now know the inner workings of the world, minus the curse of rose colored glasses. These should be mandatory teachings to all men and boys, which is why that will never, ever happen. Men would have serious advantages if they were taught Red Pill and MGTOW early in their lives, which is why such men are heavily shamed and ostracized when identified.

    I’m the luckiest man in the world, but only because I had the chance to understand the world before it was able to destroy me.

  9. Doctor James Lynch put the entire medical establishment on report in 1979 with “The Broken Heart; The Medical Consequences of Loneliness” (https://www.amazon.com/Broken-Heart-James-J-Lynch/dp/0465007716/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?keywords=lynch+MD+medical+consequences+of+loneliness&qid=1567191167&s=books&sr=1-2-fkmr0). It excoriated them for ignoring patients’ attachment needs while emphasizing test results. An update, “A Cry Unheard” (https://www.amazon.com/Cry-Unheard-Insights-Consequences-Loneliness/dp/1890862118/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=lynch+MD+medical+consequences+of+loneliness&qid=1567191167&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0), is likely worth reviewing.
    The notion we have attachment needs lends powerful credibility to the assertion by Dr. Jerry Harvey that anaclytic depression is not just a juvenile phenomenon. Adults suffer from it as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *