This concept has been simmering in my brain for about 8 years now. It immediately resonated when I first heard it named specifically  on this forum ( that long ago ) but it's taken this long to apply it myself and pinpoint why it resonated. Narrowing it down. This is actually huge. Again, this is only how I can apply to myself and no one else. There's also way too many reasons and components to this to write it all down, but simply jotting down in summary form as a: where I am now...in my own understanding is useful as a way to cement this into my head. Just sharing as I usually do.

The concept is pretty easy to understand as an imbalance. The question then becomes: what is imbalanced? ( specifically ).

Specifically, it's my insecure attachment or better, when my insecure attachment is activated by being in relationship with another person ( and their insecure attachment ). In theory,  I'm not a relationship by myself, but I have a relationship with myself so there are multiple things going on here. Important to note.

Important to note because at this juncture,  you can lose perspective. Losing perspective as, seeing the other person in the relationship as the problem. Keeping it separate ( in my case ) is focusing on my insecure attachment as " the imbalance"....not theirs. This is what gets confusing for me, especially if the other person has an imbalance too. Now, there are 3 imbalances !!  :

The relationship imbalance ( the dynamic )

My imbalance 

Her imbalance 

"The word dynamic means continuous change. Dynamic equilibrium in chemistry means that reactants are constantly forming products and products are constantly forming reactants. Since the rates of formation are identical, the overall concentration of each chemical species is constant.

What does chemical equilibrium mean?

In reversible chemical reactions, chemical equilibrium is when the rate of a forward reaction equals the rate of a reverse reaction. Another way to think about chemical equilibrium is that it is a state in which both the reactants and the products are present in concentrations that will not change with time."

Sorry about the explanation and my lack of ability to conceptualize it....it just makes it easier for me to refer to it  ( and explain it ) than me trying to do it which would take forever!! Lol 

Anyway, the idea of chemistry is used to describe what two people have together. Using this idea as a cross reference makes its easier for me to understand and simplify it.

So this notion of ever changing dynamic between people, and the two components ( the people ) and introducing the idea of "concentrations" makes it easier to understand. If I "like you" more than you "like me" then there's more concentrations of "like" on one side than there is on the other.  In simple terms.  But this isn't exactly how it works with people in fact, as I'm now beginning to see...it's not how it works at all but....it feels that way at times.

Replace the word "like" and "love" and it really becomes problematic. It becomes problematic because it isn't true when you're the problem. If you have am imbalance ( insecure attachment ) then how you feel is more the issue...than what the other person is doing if you think it's all coming from the other person. If they have an insecure attachment too...you cannot  use them as a guide to how well you're doing if their concentrations are different than yours.  They may love you with everything they've got, or...in a different way than you do. If you're insecurities are demanding more...then who's the problem here...them or you? In my case...I say me. I do not trust my insecure attachment if it needs more ( concentrations) than what I'm being given...or more ( concentrations)...of what I'm willing to give. 

I'm just using "love" as a broad stroke. You could apply this to anything within the relationship. In a logistical way...this is easily identified as who does what.  On an emotional level...it's not so easy to decern.

This is all really clear to me now and what I need to do about it. If I'm not okay with this imbalance dynamic and how it makes me feel. Or needing more than I'm getting in certain regards...then I can leave the relationship....it's as simple as that.

But I not only do not want to leave, and I haven't done my part of the equation. If I'm operating from a place of imbalance ( my anxious insecure attachment  ) then I'm the only one who can change that. And it can be changed. Until I'm operating in the "secure zone" then nothing will change on how I feel. Not only that, I won't be able to tell what is enough or not enough because my feelings ( from this anxious attachment ) lie to me. Not only do they lie, they tell me to do the exact opposite of what I should do many times.

And I've already proven this to be true. Based on my SO and her fearful avoidant defense mechanisms....giving her space is exactly the right thing to do. The more space I give...the more her defenses lesson and the less "distancing" behaviors she does. Fact.

I've basically narrowed down that these "distancing" behaviors are what really are the problem for me. They make me feel rejected, hurt, sad and not "loved enough"  because when she distances.....it pushes all my anxious insecurity buttons which is why I feel those things in the first place.  Under more secure conditions...those things wouldn't bother me nearly as much because I own a certain amount of avoidant insecure attachment myself. It has gone back and forth depending on who I'm with so I get it from the other side too. The concentrations I need under those circumstances are far less than the other way around.  So being accused of being "needy" depends on which side your on. On the other side ( the avoidant side ) ...I'm not needy at all. But being avoidant so you don't feel needy is not the answer either. It's still an "insecure attachment " with all the problems that come with it. It doesn't make you happy because it keeps other people away and shuts them out.  The imbalance still exists.

So the simple answer is in my case is : give the distance...you don't want to get. This goes directly against what I want, and counter-intuitive to what I'm feeling but...I get back more than I give by a large amount plus some. In my case, this is working. It's not easy...but I cannot deny the results.

"In reverse chemical reactions, chemical equilibrium is reached when the rate of forward reaction equals the rate of reverse reaction." 

In other words for me...this means if I'm pushing for faster ( need faster, feeling like I'm not getting what I need from her right now ) that's the imbalance. "I need it faster"...isnt going to work. As long as it's a changing dynamic in the positive direction...then patience is the thing that's required.  If there's no positive change and the dynamic is stagnant ...then leaving would be your only option if the status qo is unacceptable. 

But I have yet to do my part or change my insecure attachment to secure. I won't know what I'll get once I do, but so far, I'm getting more than I put in by just creating space. If too much space is not acceptable then I can decide when I get there but so far...I'm pretty happy with what's happened so far...even if the no sex thing is still an issue for me. Working on that part still. That's just another imbalance thing that I'm hoping will change. 

But, she also isn't doing these "distancing" behaviors. They don't define her as person even if they are unacceptable by design: to repel you and make you want to get away. It's the first thing I do...get away! They work perfectly for that...and do exactly what they're designed to do. They're also really hurtful which is where I draw the line. Hurting each other is not acceptable, defense mechanisms or no. 

Anyway...big topic, not always easy to conceptualize but I think this is really at the core for attachment relationship issues. All you have to do is google:

"What's the best type of partner for  (         )  insecure attachment people? " 

The answer is always the same....."secure".