.entry-content .aw-definition-box .aw-term,
.entry-content .aw-definition-box p,
.entry-content .aw-definition-box .aw-kitchen-table {
font-style: normal !important;
font-family: inherit !important;
}
.entry-content .aw-definition-box .aw-term {
font-style: normal !important;
font-weight: 700 !important;
}

What Does Secure Love Actually Feel Like When You’ve Never Had It?

PARTNER SELECTION & ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS • April 12, 2026

LAST UPDATED: APRIL 2026

Last reviewed: June 2026 by Annie Wright, LMFT

In short: Secure attachment is an internalized relational pattern that lets a person seek comfort in others during distress and explore from a felt sense of safety, and it can be developed in adulthood even without secure early caregiving.

The Quietness That Felt Like Something Was Wrong

She’s sitting at a kitchen table on a Sunday morning. Her partner is next to her, reading. Neither of them is talking. There’s no tension in the air. No watchful waiting, no words being chosen carefully, no reading of moods. The coffee is warm. The light is soft. Nothing is about to happen.

And something in her chest tightens.

This is what several of my clients describe when they first encounter secure love: not relief, not joy. But a low-grade unease that something must be missing. Where’s the electricity? Where’s the pull? Where’s the thing she’s supposed to be managing, defusing, performing her way through?

For women who grew up in homes where love was synonymous with vigilance. Where staying close meant staying sharp. secure love doesn’t always feel like what they imagined. It doesn’t feel like a movie. It feels quiet. And quiet, for a nervous system trained on noise, can feel terrifying.

If you’ve spent years wondering why healthy relationships felt flat to you, or why you kept choosing intensity over ease, or why the moment something felt genuinely safe you started pulling away. This post is for you. Not to fix you. But to help you understand what was actually happening, and what’s possible when you learn to read the signals differently.

What Is Secure Attachment, Really?

Before we talk about what secure love feels like, we need to be precise about what we mean. Because “secure attachment” gets used loosely in a lot of wellness content, and the clinical reality is more specific and more interesting than the shorthand suggests.

The research on attachment has exploded since John Bowlby first articulated the theory in the 1950s and 1960s. What we know now. Particularly from the work of relational trauma researchers. Is that attachment isn’t fixed. The patterns we developed with our earliest caregivers become templates, yes. But templates can be updated. New relational experiences, particularly in therapy and in securely functioning relationships, can literally reshape the neural pathways that organize how we experience intimacy.

That’s not just hopeful language. That’s neurobiology.

What I see consistently in my work with driven women who grew up in chaotic or emotionally unavailable homes is that they often arrive in therapy deeply skeptical that secure love is actually real. They’ve read the books. They’ve taken the quizzes. But when a genuinely secure partner shows up in their life, something still feels off. Like wearing someone else’s coat.

That dissonance isn’t a character flaw. It’s a nervous system that was never taught to recognize safety as safety.

The Neurobiology of Feeling Safe With Someone

When clients ask me why safe love doesn’t feel safe at first, I almost always turn to the work of Stephen Porges, PhD, Distinguished University Scientist at the Kinsey Institute, Indiana University Bloomington, and the originator of Polyvagal Theory. Porges’ research fundamentally changed how we understand the nervous system’s role in relational experience. And it explains, with striking precision, why women who grew up in unpredictable homes can find genuine safety genuinely unsettling. (PMID: 7652107) (PMID: 7652107)

Polyvagal Theory describes three primary states of the nervous system. When we’re in a state of social engagement. What Porges calls ventral vagal activation. Our nervous system is oriented toward connection. We can make eye contact, modulate our voice, read facial expressions. We feel present, open, calm. This is the physiological state that makes intimacy possible.

But women who grew up in homes where caregivers were unpredictable, volatile, or emotionally absent often had their ventral vagal system disrupted repeatedly. They learned, at a neurological level, to stay in low-grade mobilization. A version of sympathetic activation that keeps you scanning, ready, slightly braced. It’s not full fight-or-flight. It’s more like having the emergency broadcast signal running quietly in the background, all the time.

Deb Dana, LCSW, therapist and author of Anchored: How to Befriend Your Nervous System Using Polyvagal Theory, describes this as a “faulty alarm system”. Not broken, but miscalibrated. Dana’s clinical work focuses on helping clients build what she calls “ventral vagal anchors”: micro-experiences of safety that, over time, retrain the nervous system to recognize and tolerate the felt sense of peace.

What this means practically: the first time you experience secure love, your neuroception may not recognize it as safe. You may feel bored. Restless. Vaguely suspicious. Like you’re waiting for the other shoe to drop. That’s not evidence that the relationship is wrong. It may be evidence that your system has never learned to metabolize this particular experience.

The nervous system needs repetition. It needs data. Safe moments, accumulated over time, begin to form a new reference point. This is why trauma-informed therapy is so important in this process. Because the therapeutic relationship itself becomes one of those safe, repeated experiences that help recalibrate what safety feels like.

In my work with clients, I often hear variations of the same thing: “I kept waiting for him to turn.” “I kept expecting her to get tired of me.” The vigilance doesn’t evaporate overnight. But what changes, slowly, is the body’s capacity to stay in the room with the evidence that the alarm is false.

How Secure Love Shows Up in Driven Women Who Were Never Modeled It

In my clinical practice, I’ve worked with hundreds of driven women. Physicians, founders, executives, creatives. Who arrived in adulthood having never seen a securely functioning romantic relationship up close. Not once. What they’d absorbed instead were the love stories of their households: love that came with conditions, with silence, with volatility, with enmeshment, or simply with the pervasive numbness of two people coexisting without real intimacy.

When these women encounter secure love for the first time, certain experiences tend to surface with remarkable consistency. These aren’t universal, but they’re common enough that I want to name them explicitly. Because naming them can reduce their power to confuse you.

The absence of vigilance feels like absence. When you’ve spent years monitoring a partner’s moods, interpreting silences, managing emotional temperatures. The absence of that work can feel like something is missing from the relationship rather than something wrong with the relationship. Women often describe it as “flat” or “lacking chemistry.” What they’re actually describing is the absence of anxiety. And for a nervous system that conflated anxiety with love, calm can feel like disconnection.

Being disagreed with without punishment is disorienting. In homes where conflict meant danger. Yelling, withdrawal, shame, or physical threat. The expectation becomes that conflict ends relationships. So when a secure partner says “I see this differently than you do” and then stays, and the conversation continues, and no one leaves, and nothing breaks. It doesn’t compute. Women describe a kind of stunned confusion. That’s it? We just… disagreed and we’re fine?

Being seen without performing feels naked. Many driven women developed a highly refined performance identity. Presenting the capable, composed, together version of themselves to everyone, including romantic partners. Secure love invites something different: it asks to see the actual you, including the uncertain, unglamorous, unpolished parts. That invitation can feel terrifying rather than welcome. Not because the partner is dangerous, but because being truly seen. When you’ve never experienced it as safe. Is an exposure your system wasn’t built for.

Consider Jamie. A 38-year-old anesthesiologist, Jamie came to therapy after ending a six-year relationship with a man who, as she put it, “kept me on my toes.” When she met her current partner. Steady, consistent, emotionally available. She found herself, inexplicably, picking fights. Looking for proof that the safety was a facade. “I kept thinking, nobody is this calm. Something has to be wrong with him.” What Jamie was actually doing was stress-testing the relationship from inside a nervous system that had learned security was always temporary.

Over months of work. Including exploring her history of childhood emotional neglect. Jamie began to distinguish between calm that meant danger and calm that meant safety. She started calling it “non-anxious presence”. And she started, slowly, to trust it.

The Grief Underneath the Relief

There’s something nobody tells you about finally experiencing secure love when you’ve never had it modeled: it brings grief. Not just gratitude. Not just relief. A specific, tender, complicated grief. For the version of you who needed this and didn’t have it. For the childhood that should have included this and didn’t. For the years spent choosing unavailable people because unavailability felt like home.

In my work, I see this grief arrive at unexpected moments. Sometimes it’s the first time a partner holds them during a hard cry without trying to fix it. Sometimes it’s hearing the words “I’m not going anywhere” and actually believing them. Sometimes it’s something small. A text that arrives when they said it would, a promise kept, a Saturday afternoon with no agenda and no tension. And something cracks open.

The grief is real. And it belongs in the room.

Mary Oliver’s question is one I return to often in clinical conversations about grieving what was never modeled. There’s something about that question that asks us to look both backward and forward at the same time: to honor what was lost, and to choose what comes next.

The grief of realizing what you never had is not self-pity. It’s accurate mourning. It’s the emotional work of updating the story from “this is just what love is like” to “this is what love was like in my home. And it wasn’t enough.” That update is painful. It requires relinquishing the protective fiction that your early experiences were normal, or that you deserved them, or that they didn’t leave a mark.

But it’s also the doorway. The women I work with who are most able to receive and sustain secure love are almost always the ones who’ve done the work of grieving first. Not because grief is a prerequisite. But because unprocessed grief has a way of showing up as sabotage: unconsciously recreating familiar pain because the alternative (being genuinely, consistently loved) feels too unfamiliar to trust.

If you’re feeling like a fraud in a healthy relationship. Like you don’t quite deserve it, or like they’ll eventually see through you. This is worth naming in a therapeutic context. That feeling isn’t evidence of the relationship’s fragility. It’s often evidence of unprocessed grief and an attachment wound that’s still working itself out.

Both/And: Safe Feels Boring. Until You Understand Why

Here’s where I want to hold two things at once, because the both/and framing is essential to not getting stuck in a false binary.

It’s true that secure love can feel flat or boring to women whose nervous systems were calibrated to intensity. AND it’s also true that that flatness is not evidence that the relationship lacks depth, passion, or meaning. Both things are simultaneously real.

This matters because one of the most common mistakes I see is women leaving healthy, securely functioning relationships because they don’t feel the way unhealthy relationships did. They interpret the absence of anxiety as the absence of love. They call it “no spark.” They go back to the person who made them feel alive. Which often means the person who made them feel consistently unsafe.

Sue Johnson, EdD, psychologist and founder of Emotionally Focused Therapy and author of Hold Me Tight, has documented extensively how the longing for intensity in love is often a longing for the familiar. For the relational pattern we absorbed before we had language for it. It’s not that intensity equals love. It’s that intensity equals the first love, the prototype, the thing the nervous system recognizes as “relationship.”

It’s both/and: you can acknowledge that safe love doesn’t feel like what you’re used to AND choose to stay in it while your nervous system learns a new template. You can grieve the loss of the familiar high AND recognize that high was built on fear. You can feel genuinely bored sometimes in a healthy relationship AND know that boredom isn’t a verdict. It’s just your system recalibrating.

Consider Taylor, a 42-year-old startup founder who’d spent most of her adult life in relationships she described as “addictive.” She’d cycle through the same pattern: intense early connection, followed by emotional unavailability from her partner, followed by her working harder and harder to recapture the beginning. When she entered her first genuinely secure relationship, she came to therapy convinced something was wrong with her. “I’m bored,” she said. “I’m not obsessed with him. I just… feel okay.”

“Okay” was foreign territory. In Taylor’s history, “okay” had always been the prelude to something bad happening. Through our work together, she began to distinguish between the “okay” of numbness and the “okay” of genuine safety. What Deb Dana calls the “ventral vagal state.” She started practicing noticing the specific sensory details of it: the ease in her chest, the ability to think clearly, the lack of the ambient dread she’d lived with so long she’d stopped noticing it.

Six months in, Taylor said something that stays with me: “I think I mistook anxiety for love my whole life. Real love is almost… gentle. I didn’t know it was supposed to be gentle.”

The Systemic Lens: Why We Don’t Teach Women What Secure Love Is

We can’t talk honestly about women struggling to recognize secure love without acknowledging the systems that shape what women are taught love is supposed to feel like.

Romantic love, as it’s sold to women culturally. Through media, through fairy tales, through the structure of romantic comedies. Is almost always characterized by intensity, pursuit, transformation, and a degree of emotional peril. The love interest is rarely the steady, consistent, “I’ll be here Tuesday” man. He’s the unpredictable one. The emotionally unavailable one who finally opens up. The one you have to convince, earn, survive.

That cultural script isn’t neutral. It shapes neural expectations. Girls growing up in unstable homes absorb a double dose: the fearful-avoidant attachment template from their caregivers, and the cultural reinforcement that love is supposed to feel like that. Like something you could lose at any moment. Like something that requires your constant, vigilant maintenance.

There’s also a specific failure here around emotional education. Childhood emotional neglect. Which Jonice Webb, PhD, psychologist and author of Running on Empty, defines as a parent’s failure to respond to a child’s emotional needs adequately. Is pervasive and underrecognized. Many driven women grew up in homes that were functionally intact but emotionally hollow: no abuse in the conventional sense, but no modeling of emotional attunement, repair, mutual vulnerability, or secure functioning in relationship.

These women arrive in adulthood without a reference point not because they were damaged. But because they were never shown. They’re not re-learning secure love. In many cases, they’re learning it for the first time. That distinction matters enormously. It shifts the frame from “what’s wrong with me” to “what was I never taught?”

And it’s worth naming: the driven women I work with often have even less permission to acknowledge this gap. They’ve built their identities on competence, on having it together, on not needing things they don’t already know how to access. Admitting that something as fundamental as love was never modeled can feel like a humiliation rather than an insight. It takes courage to name it.

The systemic piece is this: we live in a culture that romanticizes relational chaos and pathologizes contentment. A relationship that’s “drama-free” gets called boring. A woman who isn’t anxiously monitoring her partner is described as “not really in love.” We’ve built an entire emotional vocabulary that treats secure love as ordinary and insecure love as passionate. And then we wonder why so many women can’t locate security when it finally shows up.

How to Learn to Trust What Secure Love Feels Like

Learning to trust secure love when you’ve never had it modeled isn’t a decision you make once. It’s a practice. Iterative, imperfect, and deeply worth doing. Here’s what I see working in my clinical practice.

Name what you’re feeling in your body, not just your thoughts. The nervous system speaks in physical sensations. Ease, tension, warmth, constriction. Start paying attention to the specific body experience of being with your partner, not just the narrative your mind generates about them. Notice when your chest is soft versus braced. Notice what happens in your stomach when they hold your gaze. The body often knows things the mind is still arguing about.

Distinguish between “boring” and “regulated.” Ask yourself: is what I’m calling “no chemistry” actually the absence of anxiety? Is “flat” the word I’m using for the unfamiliar experience of being calm? This isn’t about dismissing your felt sense. It’s about developing a more accurate vocabulary for it. Many women I work with begin tracking what Deb Dana calls their “window of tolerance”. The regulated state in which they can feel both grounded and open. And start recognizing it as a feature, not a bug, of their healthy relationship.

Bring your attachment wound explicitly into therapy. The therapeutic relationship, done well, is itself a corrective relational experience. Secure functioning can be learned in the context of a safe therapeutic dyad. Not just conceptually, but somatically. You can develop a felt sense of what it’s like to be received without judgment, disagreed with without punishment, and seen without performing. In the clinical container first. That experience becomes a reference point you can bring into your intimate relationship.

Anticipate and sit with the urge to test. When you’re from a chaotic home, you’ll likely feel the pull to stress-test safe relationships. To pick fights, to create distance, to do something that would logically drive a person away, in order to find out if they’ll actually leave. That urge makes sense. It’s your system trying to get data. But you can learn to name it as an urge rather than acting on it automatically. “I notice I want to pick a fight right now. I wonder what’s underneath that.” That pause is enormously powerful.

Let yourself be held. Literally and figuratively. Daniel Siegel, MD, has documented extensively how co-regulation. The experience of one nervous system calming another through physical closeness, eye contact, and attuned responsiveness. Is not just emotionally important but neurobiologically restorative. Being held by a safe person, staying in that hold, not pulling away when it gets to be too much. That’s a practice. And over time, it teaches your body that closeness doesn’t have to end in pain.

Stay curious about the grief. When sadness shows up alongside the joy of secure love. And it will. Try not to push it away. That grief is information. It’s telling you something about the gap between what was and what’s possible now. Let it be part of the story. If you’re working on your relational foundations, grief is one of the most important forms of progress.

Find community with other women doing this work. One of the underappreciated gifts of the Strong & Stable community is hearing from other driven women who are navigating exactly this. Who are in the process of learning what security feels like, who are sitting with the strangeness and the grief and the hope. Knowing you’re not alone in this particular disorientation matters more than I can articulate.

Secure love, when you’ve never seen it, doesn’t arrive with a label. It arrives quietly. It looks like someone who texts when they said they would. Who apologizes without being asked. Who disagrees with you and stays. Who holds you while you’re falling apart without trying to rush you back to okay.

It looks, sometimes, like nothing dramatic at all.

And that’s how you know it’s real.

You deserve a love that doesn’t require you to brace for impact. You deserve the Sunday morning coffee and the soft light and the nothing-about-to-happen. Your nervous system may not believe that yet. But it can learn. And learning it. Slowly, imperfectly, in the presence of safe people. Is some of the most important work a driven woman can do.

{
“@context”: “https://schema.org”,
“@type”: “FAQPage”,
“mainEntity”: [
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “Why does a healthy relationship feel boring when I’ve been in intense ones?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “What you’re calling “boring” is often the unfamiliar experience of nervous system regulation. The absence of the ambient anxiety that you learned to associate with love. When your nervous system was calibrated to intensity (unpredictability, emotional volatility, pursuit cycles), calm genuinely doesn’t feel like what you expected love to feel like. It’s not evidence that the relationship lacks depth. It’s evidence that your system has never metabolized this particular kind of connection. Over time, with both a secure partner and therapeutic support, regulated love begins to feel like home. But it takes time and deliberate practice to get there.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “How do I know if I’m with a secure partner or just someone emotionally flat?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “This is one of the most important distinctions to make. A securely attached partner is not emotionally flat. They’re emotionally regulated. The difference shows up in conflict: a secure partner can stay present during disagreement, take accountability, repair after ruptures, and express warmth and care consistently. An emotionally avoidant partner withdraws under pressure, deflects, or becomes dismissive when you’re vulnerable. If your partner is present and engaged during difficulty. Not just during the easy, good-mood stretches. That’s a significant indicator of secure functioning. If you’re unsure, this is exactly the kind of pattern worth examining in therapy.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “I keep waiting for something to go wrong in my relationship. Is that normal?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “Deeply normal. And it has a name. What you’re describing is hypervigilance in the context of attachment, a pattern that develops when early caregiving was unpredictable. Your nervous system learned that good things don’t last, that safety is temporary, and that the right strategy is to stay prepared for the rupture even when things are fine. The waiting-for-something-to-go-wrong feeling often intensifies when things are going well, because your system is essentially saying: “This doesn’t match the template.” It’s not a premonition. It’s a conditioned response. With therapeutic support, you can begin to distinguish between genuine threat and your system running old code.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “Can I develop a secure attachment style as an adult even if I didn’t have it as a child?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “Yes. And this is one of the most important things the attachment research tells us. What researchers call “earned secure attachment” is well-documented: adults who did not have secure early attachment can develop the capacity for secure relational functioning through therapy, through consistently safe relationships, and through their own meaning-making about their history. Daniel Siegel, MD, has shown that what predicts secure attachment in adulthood isn’t whether your childhood was good. It’s whether you’ve made coherent sense of it. You don’t need a perfect past. You need the right support to understand the one you had.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “Why do I feel grief when things go well in my relationship?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “Because experiencing something beautiful you never had as a child naturally surfaces grief for the child who needed it and didn’t get it. That grief isn’t a sign that something is wrong with you or the relationship. It’s the emotional acknowledgment of a gap between what was and what’s possible now. Many driven women describe crying in the arms of a safe partner for reasons they can’t fully explain. And that crying is often the body processing old pain in a new, safe context. Let it be there. It’s one of the ways the nervous system heals.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “What are specific body sensations that signal I’m in a secure relational moment?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “Based on Polyvagal Theory and somatic clinical work, secure relational moments tend to produce: softening in the chest or belly, ease in the throat, relaxation of the jaw and shoulders, warmth in the hands or face, slower and deeper breathing, a sense of being able to think clearly, and the absence of the ambient low-level dread or scanning quality. You may also notice a particular kind of eye contact that feels comfortable to hold. What Stephen Porges calls the “neural exercise” of face-to-face engagement. These sensations are subtle, especially at first. But with practice, you can learn to recognize the felt sense of safety. And to choose it.”
}
}
]
}

{“@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “@id”: “https://anniewright.com/secure-love-what-it-feels-like-women-never-modeled/#faq-schema”, “mainEntity”: [{“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Why does a healthy relationship feel boring when I’ve been in intense ones?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “What you’re calling “boring” is often the unfamiliar experience of nervous system regulation. The absence of the ambient anxiety that you learned to associate with love. When your nervous system was calibrated to intensity (unpredictability, emotional volatility, pursuit cycles), calm genuinely doesn’t feel like what you expected love to feel like. It’s not evidence that the relationship lacks depth. It’s evidence that your system has never metabolized this particular kind of connection. Over time, with both a secure partner and therapeutic support, regulated love begins to feel like home. But it takes time and deliberate practice to get there.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “How do I know if I’m with a secure partner or just someone emotionally flat?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “This is one of the most important distinctions to make. A securely attached partner is not emotionally flat. They’re emotionally regulated. The difference shows up in conflict: a secure partner can stay present during disagreement, take accountability, repair after ruptures, and express warmth and care consistently. An emotionally avoidant partner withdraws under pressure, deflects, or becomes dismissive when you’re vulnerable. If your partner is present and engaged during difficulty. Not just during the easy, good-mood stretches. That’s a significant indicator of secure functioning. If you’re unsure, this is exactly the kind of pattern worth examining in therapy.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “I keep waiting for something to go wrong in my relationship. Is that normal?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Deeply normal. And it has a name. What you’re describing is hypervigilance in the context of attachment, a pattern that develops when early caregiving was unpredictable. Your nervous system learned that good things don’t last, that safety is temporary, and that the right strategy is to stay prepared for the rupture even when things are fine. The waiting-for-something-to-go-wrong feeling often intensifies when things are going well, because your system is essentially saying: “This doesn’t match the template.” It’s not a premonition. It’s a conditioned response. With therapeutic support, you can begin to distinguish between genuine threat and your system running old code.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Can I develop a secure attachment style as an adult even if I didn’t have it as a child?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Yes. And this is one of the most important things the attachment research tells us. What researchers call “earned secure attachment” is well-documented: adults who did not have secure early attachment can develop the capacity for secure relational functioning through therapy, through consistently safe relationships, and through their own meaning-making about their history. Daniel Siegel, MD, has shown that what predicts secure attachment in adulthood isn’t whether your childhood was good. It’s whether you’ve made coherent sense of it. You don’t need a perfect past. You need the right support to understand the one you had.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Why do I feel grief when things go well in my relationship?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Because experiencing something beautiful you never had as a child naturally surfaces grief for the child who needed it and didn’t get it. That grief isn’t a sign that something is wrong with you or the relationship. It’s the emotional acknowledgment of a gap between what was and what’s possible now. Many driven women describe crying in the arms of a safe partner for reasons they can’t fully explain. And that crying is often the body processing old pain in a new, safe context. Let it be there. It’s one of the ways the nervous system heals.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “What are specific body sensations that signal I’m in a secure relational moment?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Based on Polyvagal Theory and somatic clinical work, secure relational moments tend to produce: softening in the chest or belly, ease in the throat, relaxation of the jaw and shoulders, warmth in the hands or face, slower and deeper breathing, a sense of being able to think clearly, and the absence of the ambient low-level dread or scanning quality. You may also notice a particular kind of eye contact that feels comfortable to hold. What Stephen Porges calls the “neural exercise” of face-to-face engagement. These sensations are subtle, especially at first. But with practice, you can learn to recognize the felt sense of safety. And to choose it.”}}]}

Related Reading

• Johnson, Susan. Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love. Little, Brown Spark, 2008.
• Porges, Stephen W. The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. W.W. Norton, 2011.
• Dana, Deb. Anchored: How to Befriend Your Nervous System Using Polyvagal Theory. Sounds True, 2021.
• Siegel, Daniel The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are. Third edition. Guilford Press, 2020.
• Webb, Jonice. Running on Empty: Overcome Your Childhood Emotional Neglect. Morgan James Publishing, 2012.

If any of this lands close to home and you’re ready for clinical support, you can reach out to explore working together.

References

Peer-Reviewed Research (Vancouver)

1. Porges SW. Polyvagal Theory: Current Status, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions. Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2025;22(3):169-184. doi:10.36131/cnfioritieditore20250301. PMID: 40735382.
2. Reisz S, Duschinsky R, Siegel DJ. Disorganized attachment and defense: exploring John Bowlby's unpublished reflections. Attach Hum Dev. 2018;20(2):107-134. doi:10.1080/14616734.2017.1380055. PMID: 28952412.
3. Bowlby J. Attachment and loss: retrospect and prospect. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1982;52(4):664-678. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x. PMID: 7148988.
4. Greenman PS, Johnson SM. Emotionally focused therapy: Attachment, connection, and health. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022;43:146-150. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.015. PMID: 34375935.

Books & Cultural Sources (Chicago Author-Date)

• Dana, Deb. The Polyvagal Theory in Therapy. Norton & Company, Incorporated, W. W., 2018.
• Oliver, Mary. Devotions. Little, Brown Book Group Limited, 2017.

Medical Disclaimer