Men’s idealisation tendency

In the early stages of romantic attachment, many men fall into a powerful psychological pattern: idealisation. Once convinced they have found "the one" — the woman who completes them, understands them, and embodies their values — men often begin to perceive the relationship through a highly romanticised lens. This tendency is not merely poetic; it’s neuropsychologically grounded and often dangerously misleading.

Studies in attachment theory and affective neuroscience have shown that the male brain, especially when primed by infatuation or oxytocin bonding (elevated during sex and romantic connection), activates idealisation circuits that suppress critical assessment of the partner’s flaws (Zeki, 2007; Acevedo et al., 2011). This neurological blind spot leads men to overlook incompatibilities, forgive early signs of manipulation, and even justify borderline disrespect — all under the narrative of “true love.”

Unlike women, who tend to be more pragmatic and risk-aware in the early phases of romantic involvement — partly due to evolutionary pressure to assess long-term provisioning and stability (Buss, 2019) — men, especially those with high agreeableness or lower neuroticism, can project fantasies of stability and shared destiny without sufficient reality-testing.

This psychological distortion can be exacerbated in men with unresolved childhood emotional deprivation, creating a projection loop where the woman is not just a romantic partner but a symbol of completion or healing. The illusion becomes so intense that it detaches entirely from the woman’s actual personality, history, or behavioral consistency.

At Perfect Breakup, we've seen this play out in hundreds of cases. Men describe her as "the most beautiful soul," "a rare woman," or "unlike anyone I’ve ever met," even in situations where the woman has already disengaged emotionally, expressed disrespect, or shown clear signs of incompatibility. This is not uncommon — men are often wired to interpret investment as a reflection of value, and once emotional capital has been sunk into a relationship, the mind works overtime to justify its worth (see: sunk cost fallacy, Arkes & Blumer, 1985).

That’s why understanding and managing this idealisation tendency is one of the first therapeutic and strategic interventions we make. Recovery begins not with bitterness, but with reality recalibration.

The underlying problem: From longing to illusion

One of the most overlooked but crucial psychological dynamics in male romantic behavior is what we at Perfect Breakup call the "incel-to-white-knight metamorphosis." Importantly, this does not imply that the man was a literal “incel” (involuntarily celibate), but rather that he carried an extended psychological experience of romantic deprivation — whether emotional, sexual, or relational. This creates a vulnerable state where even modest female attention can feel like a transformative, almost redemptive event.

Much like in fairy tales, where the frog becomes a prince once kissed by the princess, many men experience a sudden psychological shift when a woman expresses genuine interest or affection. Especially for men who have lived through years of romantic scarcity — due to social awkwardness, prioritizing career, or simply being ignored in the competitive sexual marketplace — the impact of female attention can be overwhelming. It activates a deep desire to finally “become the man,” a devoted partner, even a savior figure.

This shift is not merely poetic; it is psychologically traceable. Men in such situations often experience surges in dopaminergic and oxytocinergic activity (Fisher, Aron, & Brown, 2005), which intensify emotional bonding and romantic focus. When these neurochemical spikes coincide with unmet emotional needs, the result is often a powerful illusion: the belief that this woman is not just a good match — but the love of one’s life.

This is precisely where reality starts slipping. The devotion that emerges is often not based on the woman's consistent behavior, value system, or long-term compatibility — but on the emotional hunger being temporarily satisfied. In clinical psychology, this is referred to as need-driven projection — where unmet needs create idealised images that are projected onto the other person (Johnson, 2008). The “princess” becomes a symbolic figure rather than a real human with flaws, needs, and agency.

We often hear men say things like “She changed my life,” or “I would do anything for her,” even in the early phases of dating — before any long-term compatibility has been tested. What is happening here is not love in the grounded, Aristotelian sense of philia or agape, but a psychological feedback loop: attention generates need satisfaction → which is misread as eternal compatibility → which generates obsessive devotion.

The first lesson is crucial: If it is your need that fuels the idealisation, not her consistency or shared vision, then pause. That kind of fixation is not a reflection of love, but a mirror of your own deprivation.

Reading the signs — or generating them yourself

A recurring dynamic that we observe in men — particularly after experiencing initial intimacy with a woman — is the tendency to misinterpret neutral or mildly positive signals as unmistakable signs of deep emotional attachment or even long-term commitment. This distortion isn’t merely a matter of optimism; it’s often a psychological defense mechanism grounded in hope, need, and confirmation bias.

Especially after a sexual encounter, many men unconsciously amplify the significance of any subsequent interaction. In a cultural climate where sexual liberation and empowerment have changed the meaning of intimacy for many women — particularly among younger generations — the emotional asymmetry of post-sex expectations becomes stark.

For many women today, sex does not automatically imply commitment or even romantic intention. Studies have shown that women with high sociosexual orientation (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008) — that is, those comfortable with uncommitted sexual relationships — may decouple sex from relational intent far more easily than men typically do. Meanwhile, men tend to exhibit stronger oxytocin-based bonding mechanisms after sex, especially if they were already emotionally invested prior to the act (Scheele et al., 2013).

This biological difference can make a man project commitment onto gestures that are, in reality, benign or habitual. A forwarded meme, a casual compliment, or a passing joke suddenly becomes — in his perception — proof of a “special connection.” He may interpret a shared Spotify playlist as a roadmap to shared destiny, or a late-night emoji as confirmation of soul-level attraction.

This is a critical point: a man’s emotional interpretation does not automatically reflect her actual intent. In fact, many of these gestures are expressions of friendliness, politeness, or default social interaction — and in some cases, they may even be strategic, non-committal forms of attention management, often referred to in social psychology as breadcrumbing (Wertz, 2021).

Men must resist the temptation to romanticize ambiguous or context-free behavior. As the old saying goes, “If everything is a sign, nothing is a sign.” Ground your interpretation in her consistent behavior, her willingness to make time, and above all — her investment in your life trajectory.