The Hoodie Complex: Love vs Attachment by Enyjé Sandoz
It is your favorite hoodie.
And even with your favorite hoodie, things reach a point where you decide you need to switch things up so you stop wearing it as much or at all, just to eventually go back to wearing it again all the time.
But, the moment the hoodie no longer feels the same, you outgrow the look, or a new hoodie (and not just any hoodie but THEE hoodie) enters your wardrobe, you forget all about your once favorite hoodie.
Have you been there before?
Now, if only I was just talking about hoodies.
In actuality, I am speaking to on-and-off relationships/dynamics, a “favorite” ex, or relationships where two seemingly cannot get it together but won’t go their separate ways.
The space where there’s tension between love and attachment is conflated as one being the other.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what I have coined: The Hoodie Complex.
The deeply embedded human need for attachment, but sadly mistaken for love—whether on the receiving or giving end. They are not the same and not always mutually exclusive.
If we look at love from the perspective of a feeling, it is a fluid, non-binding energy that takes shape of its container. Meaning, love is not just limited to a romantic relationship or a person.
You can love:
- A person (someone you know or a celebrity or fictional character
- A hoodie
- A drink
- A specific cuisine
- A location
- A movie or tv show
- A subject
- A book
- A song, album
I could go on forever, but I think you get the point: love is limitless.
Not at all a cliché but just the reality of human nature.
Attachment, on the other hand, is the space where that person, place, or thing occupies in your being. As I stated before, the two are not always mutually exclusive.
Take music for an example. There may be two songs you love dearly; one song is just one that you genuinely enjoy every aspect of it, while the other is one that you habitually listened to during a rough time of your life.
Instinctually, you have an attachment to the song that comforted you through tough times. It holds stake in your realm and whenever you listen to it, it brings back those old feelings of comfort, sadness, nostalgia, peace—however it once made you feel resurfaces. It puts you in a space, good or bad.
Whereas the song you enjoy, once it’s over, you either: replay it or move onto the next song and continue on with life.
Just because one seemingly makes you feel more—thus leading you to believe you “love” more is the one you have an attachment to, and the other is one you experience. That does not make the experience less significant or that the song matters any less to you, but there’s no urge to make the moment last longer than it needs to be. There’s no perceived loss once the song passes. There’s no sense of emptiness or having to sit with yourself once the song you enjoy turns off. You just continue as normally or maybe your mood is now elevated.
Now, apply this principle to people.
Someone that evokes strong emotions from you is not necessarily someone you love, and vice versa. But, it is certainly attachment.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with attachment. It is essential to us human beings and it is something we develop in the womb, to the time we are born, and it follows us throughout the rest of our lives.
The distinction I am making is that love is not attachment, and attachment is not love.
Attachment is need-based and centers you. Love is a mutual consideration of both parties. Attachment, of course, is a naturally embedded into a relationship where love exists. But, love is not embedded or even necessary in a relationship where attachment exists.
Oftentimes, people are not even attached to each other, but attached to the feelings being in love, like, lust, and relationship provides. They are attached to receiving and giving. They are attached to the version of themselves they become when those emotions are coursing through them and those hormones are pumping. It is intoxicating. It is addictive. But, it is not love—necessarily.
Passion? Yes, indeed.
But, not love.
And sadly, in relationships, people are not in love (though, they think they are) but do not want to lose the person. This purely driven by attachment because love is something that is not defined by proximity. Love can exist in separation; it happens all the time, and sometimes is the most healthiest option for everyone involved.
Conversely, attachment leads to two people clinging onto something they know may not be working out or is unhealthy because it serves their individual needs.
Not sound cliché, but there’s no “i” in the word love, and the “i” people bring into love between two should be found in “self-love”. That is not to say you will be perfect or lack needs in a relationship, but it creates a distinction of what needs are your responsibility versus the needs you have in relationship—yes, there’s a difference!
As mentioned before, love is limitless and takes shape of whatever container you place it in. Attachment is what makes you feel safe, secure, and admittedly—in control. Truthfully, I do not believe anyone enjoys or aspires to feel out of control, and control is not a bad under the umbrella of agency, not in dictating outcomes. Again, there’s a difference!
In understanding, love vs. attachment, I must bring up a very icky topic: cheating.
The only reason why I bring it up is because it is applicable to the hoodie complex but also shines a light on how we define love: love as a feeling versus love as an action and structure.
When you operate and define love by feeling, it’s applicable to anyone and everything.
You can love a person (whether it be a person you know or a celebrity), food, drink, stuffed animal, location, hoodie, store, movie, tv show, blanket, room in your house—we’ve been through this.
In the case of someone who cheats–whether once or multiple times, the person they cheated with can make them feel deep affection, care, attachment—all things people use when defining love.
All cheating isn’t sexual. And all cheaters don’t view their mistress/paramours as disposable.
But why don’t people say they love their mistress/paramours or why don’t outsiders view it the same as the love they have for their partners?
It is simple: Feeling without structure without integrity without responsibility is looser than a goose; malleable; can take shape to any container you place it in.
It’s the idea of commitment that cements society’s ideal of love.
For once, I agree with society.
Commitment entails structure, integrity, and responsibility. No matter how (or the reason) the idea of a marriage license came about, many hundreds of years later, people cannot just wake up one day and legally declare they’re married. Why?
Because love without structure is temporary.
Now, there are plenty of structures without love… obviously. But we aren’t talking about that.
To say you love someone but cannot or refuse to do so without structure, integrity, and responsibility means: “I love you for how you make me feel, but I don’t not want to bear the burden of responsibility and move with integrity.”
See, because, a ‘love’ without marriage has an embedded escape hatch. I’m talking people who are together for years but no marriage—personally, I don’t believe when people say it’s a piece of paper; if you’re together for a million and one years, you’re essentially married but won’t legitimize it. That’s not to say a married couple’s relationship is more “real” or “worthy” or “loving” than a non-married couple’s—HA!
Divorce rates so either wise—that’s not to say people who divorce don’t necessarily love each other), and like I said: there are structures (relationships, marriages, arrangements) without love.
A person pursuing you but not defining things has an embedded escape hatch.
A relationship with no direction does not have an embedded escape hatch.
That’s not to say the escape hatch is there because they think there’s better out there or that the other is unworthy—it can mean this too, though, but oftentimes the escape hatch is there for them, so that when it becomes too much, they can leave as “cleanly” as possible.
It’s selfishness.
It is selfish because they are prioritizing their needs and wants over the mutual bond they agreed (whether explicitly through words or actions) to partake in. The other person and whatever bounds of their interactions (marriage, relationship, etc.) suits them, and when it no longer fulfills them in the same way or they are required to take ownership of their role, they move onto the next.
As I always say: being single is always an option.
But, I have come to the realization that some people must be in romantic connections. It is not necessarily about fostering healthy or even longstanding connections. It is just to have someone.
Point being: there’s no such thing as being selfishly in love or selfishly loving someone.
Taking things a few steps back to cheating but pushing it further:
People who engage in affairs have multiple favorite hoodies. Just because they wear one hoodie in public and the other behind closed doors or discreetly does not mean they value and are protecting their public hoodie more than their private one.
99% of the time, it’s the social implications surrounding their reputation that compels them to move in secrecy. If it was of true value and protection, the affair (or other hoodie) wouldn’t exist.
And when it comes to a “who do they love more” battle, it’s not their public hoodie or their private hoodie; it’s themselves.
The cheater loves themselves the most.
(And even then, 'love' is a blanket term. A more appropriate term would be, the cheater considers and prioritizes themselves the most because I can argue about cheating vs. self-love, but that's another post for another day!)
So, it should not be a matter of ridiculing the public hoodie and demonizing the private hoodie, when the culprit is the one wearing both.
Continuing, if the hoodie wearer ends up choosing one over the other (public hoodie over the private hoodie or the private hoodie over the public one), trust and believe it’s still and solely for self-serving purposes.
We are taught cheaters (hoodie wearers) never prosper yet somehow, they always end up with someone, and maybe even multiple hoodies.
Comments
Post a Comment