7 ms·

>This is basically a red flag for any relationship. No it isn't. My grandparents, who were married for 60 years had this mentality. My wife's grandparents, w

>This is basically a red flag for any relationship. No it isn't. My grandparents, who were married for 60 years had this mentality. My wife's grandparents, who were married for a similar amount of time, also shared this mentality. My wife's parents still share this mentality (and are obviously completely devoted to one another, which you will notice if you spend about 5 seconds with them). My parents divorced, which has had an incredibly destructive effect on my family, almost certainly as a result of my father's belief that he needed a life that was independent of our family, and that he could somehow live "independently" and still fulfill his role with my mother as the leaders of our family unit. Go talk to some elderly people: the ones who have been in marriages that have lasted the entire lives are generally completely devoted to one another, and as an extension their families. Unsurprisingly, those families seem to be generally full of happy, healthy people in their own happy, stable relationships. There is a bizarre (and imo destructive, and toxic) idea that seems to be running through tech especially that devotion to your partner is rooted in "jealousy". It usually leads to "maybe you guys should become polyamorous. What are you jealous?" And then, predictably, that leads to relationship collapse, heartbreak, and bitterness about 100% of the time. Shocking.

xxpor 5y ago
Both this post and the OP strike me as "if it works, it's great, but if it doesn't, it's bad". Different things work for different people, and generalizing too much leads to suggestions that aren't useful for any particular individual situation.
NickM 5y ago
I would argue that a high level of devotion is not the same thing as codependency. I'm not sure you and OP are actually disagreeing with each other here. It's entirely possible to have an enduring, meaningful, devoted, monogamous relationship that brings a great deal of happiness to both partners without that relationship being a requirement for the people involved to experience any amount of happiness or fulfillment in their lives.
- thepasswordis 5y ago
  Yeah man I don't think I would classify a committed relationship where partners end up missing their partner when they're gone as "codependent". And honestly this whole trend of laymen trying to psychoanalyze people with whatever toxic psychobabble their read on twitter is getting out of hand. Codependence is when two people have some unhealthy trait that is reinforced by the other person's unhealthy trait. From wikipedia: >Codependency is a concept that attempts to characterize imbalanced relationships where one person enables another person's addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement. That is not the same as "I get sad when my wife is gone because she is my life partner".
  - void_mint 5y ago
    Right, but this is the statement that someone pointed out as a red flag, that you disagreed with > I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. Which is basically the exact definition of codependence.
    - thepasswordis 5y ago
      >Which is basically the exact definition of codependence. Well okay I suppose that the people I'm talking about, in their 50+ year relationships would describe their love for their partner as a type of addiction, but what you might be missing there is: that is a joke, and they are being cute. If we're redefining romantic devotion as an "addiction" then I think we have officially lost the plot.
      - jamespo 5y ago
        Hmm it seems like you're reframing things to shore up your argument
      - void_mint 5y ago
        You're kind of just arguing past the people in this thread ("these relationships in my life are healthy and not codependent, so codependence is not a problem in relationships"). I would also argue that your takes offer the same "armchair psychoanalysis" you're arguing against, fwiw. > If we're redefining romantic devotion as an "addiction" then I think we have officially lost the plot. No one is redefining anything. This term is poorly defined. Codependence is not "romantic devotion". "Romantic devotion" should not be codependence.
krastanov 5y ago
I agree that OP should not have used such absolutist terms, but you are guilty of the same thing. There are couples which are *devoted* to each other. And there are couples that simply have a deep friendship and know that in 30 years they will probably drift apart but continue having respect for each other. Self-awareness and honesty are obviously necessary, but you describing "life-long devotion and complete dependence on one-other" as the only way to build lasting meaningful relationships is simply harmful. Just as harmful as saying that such type of devotion should not exist.
Trasmatta 5y ago
> There is a bizarre (and imo destructive, and toxic) idea that seems to be running through tech especially that devotion to your partner is rooted in "jealousy" I feel like you're responding to a different argument than the one that was posed above. They weren't saying that a deep devotion to your partner is bad at all. They were saying that if you're miserable every moment you're not with your partner, there is likely something wrong that needs to be addressed. Being able to be comfortable and happy even when your partner isn't around doesn't preclude you from having a devoted long term relationship. In fact, that feels like a recipe for a healthier long term relationship. Otherwise you can end up with codependency or separation anxiety.
- Ntrails 5y ago
  Actively not enjoying single life is a reasonable state of being. Not desirable, but not a mental health issue. Being measurably happier with a partner in your life is a positive outcome, indeed is one we should all strive for (or why bother)
  - Trasmatta 5y ago
    But what I'm responding to is the idea that if you're only ever happy when your partner is there, there's likely something wrong. I didn't even really bring up single life. > indeed is one we should all strive for (or why bother) What do you mean by this? Why bother with what? (As an aside, I actually don't think that being in a relationship is something that all people need to strive for.)
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      > > indeed is one we should all strive for (or why bother) > What do you mean by this? Why bother with what? Why bother finding a partner. If you aren't measurably happier with a partner, why go through the effort of finding one?
      - void_mint 5y ago
        An inability to be happy without a person is not the same as a person making you happy. "I'm miserable when my partner isn't around", is not the same as "I'm happier when my partner is around". Does that make sense?
salusinarduis 5y ago
thank you for stepping up and saying this
kelnos 5y ago
I don't think you're arguing against what the parent actually said. If you need your partner in order to be happy, and when they are not around you're unhappy, that is not healthy. Not healthy for you personally, and not healthy for your relationship. That's dependence (or codependence if it goes both ways), and that's not the same as simply missing someone when they're not around. You can be 100% devoted to your partner and relationship but still be happy when the two of you are apart. A polyamorous relationship, or a person who has a whole other life completely separate from their partner, is not the only other option. You seem to be creating a false dichotomy here. Pinning your happiness to the presence of another individual is not healthy. You cannot be with that person 100% of the time. And what if they die, or their feelings change and they don't want to be with you anymore? (Certainly either event would be devastating, but it should not destroy your only source of happiness.) How is it healthy for you to put all your emotional eggs in their basket? And even worse, how is it fair to the other person, to make that person an essential part of your constant happiness?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
benlivengood 5y ago
I suppose the best reply to this is that for a healthy romantic/sexual relationship to exist the partners in it must already be basically emotionally healthy, including having the coping skills and support to deal with their own emotional disregulation if it exists. It's wonderful to see happy partners in lifelong relationships. That is almost certainly a sign of individual emotional maturity and self-regulation. Those people would be happy in or out of that particular relationship (absolutely not discounting the intense grief of losing a lifelong partner, but the emotional resilience to start enjoying life again), and the ones you mention clearly have strong and healthy relationships with other people as well. Unhappiness with life before finding a partner demonstrates that there is something fundamentally wrong. People feel too lonely, or too insignificant, or too unloved, or too undervalued, or some other excess of negative emotion that at its root is unhealthy self image or mental health issue and needs to be dealt with independently of whether or not that person is in a partnership. Validation from a relationship can certainly mask the underlying negative emotion, but there's a big risk that at some point a partner's validation will stop working and the person will become unhappy again but put the blame on the partner or the details of the relationship without realizing that it's the same internal emotional problem that was always there. Almost certainly if the relationship ends the person will think the partner left because of the incorrect belief they have about themselves due to negative emotions, e.g. "I was unlovable" or "I wasn't attractive enough". > There is a bizarre (and imo destructive, and toxic) idea that seems to be running through tech especially that devotion to your partner is rooted in "jealousy". It usually leads to "maybe you guys should become polyamorous. What are you jealous?" That is indeed toxic. Jealousy is a natural feeling; it can be rooted in some negative beliefs but not always. To me it feels like a fair mix of instinctual response from relationship preference and underlying fears. Unfortunately for the folks you mention instinctual jealousy is a pretty strong indication of a preference for monogamy and not for polyamory. In contrast what I've heard called "compersion" is a feeling of shared joy and happiness about a polyamorous partner's experiences with other partners, distinct from any sort of fetishization of another relationship (which while not necessarily unhealthy is distinct from simple happiness at a partner's happiness). Jealousy for me has usually been rooted in fear of loss; loss of a relationship or fear of missing out. For monogamous people jealousy is also rooted in, for lack of a better word... Monogamy. It's probably the majority relationship preference.
yissp 5y ago
To add to the other replies, my own grandparents sound similar to yours in that they were happily married for 52 years. But my grandfather passed away 5 years ago, and while I know she still misses him deeply, I don't think my grandmother is in a constant state of misery. She is still able to find happiness in life despite now being alone. I think that's what the parent was getting at. Being devoted to your partner doesn't mean you need them to enjoy life.
CarelessExpert 5y ago
> the ones who have been in marriages that have lasted the entire lives are generally completely devoted to one another, I've been happily married for 17 years and have been with my wife for over 20. Trust me: there is a big BIG difference between being deeply devoted to your spouse and being co-dependent on them such that you cannot be happy during their absence.
watwut 5y ago
> Go talk to some elderly people: the ones who have been in marriages that have lasted the entire lives are generally completely devoted to one another, and as an extension their families. Unsurprisingly, those families seem to be generally full of happy, healthy people in their own happy, stable relationships. Have you actually talked to or people long enough for them to trust you with their past or current martial issues? Because in my experience, after knowing then for long enough, they start talking for real and completely different pictures emerge. And really really, you don't know whether people are happy nor what that happiness actualy practically means, until they know for really well. Because most people don't talk about how their relationships looks like from inside.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

xxpor 5y ago

Both this post and the OP strike me as "if it works, it's great, but if it doesn't, it's bad". Different things work for different people, and generalizing too much leads to suggestions that aren't useful for any particular individual situation.

NickM 5y ago

I would argue that a high level of devotion is not the same thing as codependency. I'm not sure you and OP are actually disagreeing with each other here. It's entirely possible to have an enduring, meaningful, devoted, monogamous relationship that brings a great deal of happiness to both partners without that relationship being a requirement for the people involved to experience any amount of happiness or fulfillment in their lives.

thepasswordis 5y ago
Yeah man I don't think I would classify a committed relationship where partners end up missing their partner when they're gone as "codependent". And honestly this whole trend of laymen trying to psychoanalyze people with whatever toxic psychobabble their read on twitter is getting out of hand. Codependence is when two people have some unhealthy trait that is reinforced by the other person's unhealthy trait. From wikipedia: >Codependency is a concept that attempts to characterize imbalanced relationships where one person enables another person's addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement. That is not the same as "I get sad when my wife is gone because she is my life partner".
- void_mint 5y ago
  Right, but this is the statement that someone pointed out as a red flag, that you disagreed with > I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. Which is basically the exact definition of codependence.
  - thepasswordis 5y ago
    >Which is basically the exact definition of codependence. Well okay I suppose that the people I'm talking about, in their 50+ year relationships would describe their love for their partner as a type of addiction, but what you might be missing there is: that is a joke, and they are being cute. If we're redefining romantic devotion as an "addiction" then I think we have officially lost the plot.
    - jamespo 5y ago
      Hmm it seems like you're reframing things to shore up your argument
    - void_mint 5y ago
      You're kind of just arguing past the people in this thread ("these relationships in my life are healthy and not codependent, so codependence is not a problem in relationships"). I would also argue that your takes offer the same "armchair psychoanalysis" you're arguing against, fwiw. > If we're redefining romantic devotion as an "addiction" then I think we have officially lost the plot. No one is redefining anything. This term is poorly defined. Codependence is not "romantic devotion". "Romantic devotion" should not be codependence.

krastanov 5y ago

I agree that OP should not have used such absolutist terms, but you are guilty of the same thing. There are couples which are *devoted* to each other. And there are couples that simply have a deep friendship and know that in 30 years they will probably drift apart but continue having respect for each other. Self-awareness and honesty are obviously necessary, but you describing "life-long devotion and complete dependence on one-other" as the only way to build lasting meaningful relationships is simply harmful. Just as harmful as saying that such type of devotion should not exist.

Trasmatta 5y ago

> There is a bizarre (and imo destructive, and toxic) idea that seems to be running through tech especially that devotion to your partner is rooted in "jealousy" I feel like you're responding to a different argument than the one that was posed above. They weren't saying that a deep devotion to your partner is bad at all. They were saying that if you're miserable every moment you're not with your partner, there is likely something wrong that needs to be addressed. Being able to be comfortable and happy even when your partner isn't around doesn't preclude you from having a devoted long term relationship. In fact, that feels like a recipe for a healthier long term relationship. Otherwise you can end up with codependency or separation anxiety.

Ntrails 5y ago
Actively not enjoying single life is a reasonable state of being. Not desirable, but not a mental health issue. Being measurably happier with a partner in your life is a positive outcome, indeed is one we should all strive for (or why bother)
- Trasmatta 5y ago
  But what I'm responding to is the idea that if you're only ever happy when your partner is there, there's likely something wrong. I didn't even really bring up single life. > indeed is one we should all strive for (or why bother) What do you mean by this? Why bother with what? (As an aside, I actually don't think that being in a relationship is something that all people need to strive for.)
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    > > indeed is one we should all strive for (or why bother) > What do you mean by this? Why bother with what? Why bother finding a partner. If you aren't measurably happier with a partner, why go through the effort of finding one?
    - void_mint 5y ago
      An inability to be happy without a person is not the same as a person making you happy. "I'm miserable when my partner isn't around", is not the same as "I'm happier when my partner is around". Does that make sense?

salusinarduis 5y ago

thank you for stepping up and saying this

kelnos 5y ago

I don't think you're arguing against what the parent actually said. If you need your partner in order to be happy, and when they are not around you're unhappy, that is not healthy. Not healthy for you personally, and not healthy for your relationship. That's dependence (or codependence if it goes both ways), and that's not the same as simply missing someone when they're not around. You can be 100% devoted to your partner and relationship but still be happy when the two of you are apart. A polyamorous relationship, or a person who has a whole other life completely separate from their partner, is not the only other option. You seem to be creating a false dichotomy here. Pinning your happiness to the presence of another individual is not healthy. You cannot be with that person 100% of the time. And what if they die, or their feelings change and they don't want to be with you anymore? (Certainly either event would be devastating, but it should not destroy your only source of happiness.) How is it healthy for you to put all your emotional eggs in their basket? And even worse, how is it fair to the other person, to make that person an essential part of your constant happiness?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

benlivengood 5y ago

I suppose the best reply to this is that for a healthy romantic/sexual relationship to exist the partners in it must already be basically emotionally healthy, including having the coping skills and support to deal with their own emotional disregulation if it exists. It's wonderful to see happy partners in lifelong relationships. That is almost certainly a sign of individual emotional maturity and self-regulation. Those people would be happy in or out of that particular relationship (absolutely not discounting the intense grief of losing a lifelong partner, but the emotional resilience to start enjoying life again), and the ones you mention clearly have strong and healthy relationships with other people as well. Unhappiness with life before finding a partner demonstrates that there is something fundamentally wrong. People feel too lonely, or too insignificant, or too unloved, or too undervalued, or some other excess of negative emotion that at its root is unhealthy self image or mental health issue and needs to be dealt with independently of whether or not that person is in a partnership. Validation from a relationship can certainly mask the underlying negative emotion, but there's a big risk that at some point a partner's validation will stop working and the person will become unhappy again but put the blame on the partner or the details of the relationship without realizing that it's the same internal emotional problem that was always there. Almost certainly if the relationship ends the person will think the partner left because of the incorrect belief they have about themselves due to negative emotions, e.g. "I was unlovable" or "I wasn't attractive enough". > There is a bizarre (and imo destructive, and toxic) idea that seems to be running through tech especially that devotion to your partner is rooted in "jealousy". It usually leads to "maybe you guys should become polyamorous. What are you jealous?" That is indeed toxic. Jealousy is a natural feeling; it can be rooted in some negative beliefs but not always. To me it feels like a fair mix of instinctual response from relationship preference and underlying fears. Unfortunately for the folks you mention instinctual jealousy is a pretty strong indication of a preference for monogamy and not for polyamory. In contrast what I've heard called "compersion" is a feeling of shared joy and happiness about a polyamorous partner's experiences with other partners, distinct from any sort of fetishization of another relationship (which while not necessarily unhealthy is distinct from simple happiness at a partner's happiness). Jealousy for me has usually been rooted in fear of loss; loss of a relationship or fear of missing out. For monogamous people jealousy is also rooted in, for lack of a better word... Monogamy. It's probably the majority relationship preference.

yissp 5y ago

To add to the other replies, my own grandparents sound similar to yours in that they were happily married for 52 years. But my grandfather passed away 5 years ago, and while I know she still misses him deeply, I don't think my grandmother is in a constant state of misery. She is still able to find happiness in life despite now being alone. I think that's what the parent was getting at. Being devoted to your partner doesn't mean you need them to enjoy life.

CarelessExpert 5y ago

> the ones who have been in marriages that have lasted the entire lives are generally completely devoted to one another, I've been happily married for 17 years and have been with my wife for over 20. Trust me: there is a big BIG difference between being deeply devoted to your spouse and being co-dependent on them such that you cannot be happy during their absence.

watwut 5y ago

> Go talk to some elderly people: the ones who have been in marriages that have lasted the entire lives are generally completely devoted to one another, and as an extension their families. Unsurprisingly, those families seem to be generally full of happy, healthy people in their own happy, stable relationships. Have you actually talked to or people long enough for them to trust you with their past or current martial issues? Because in my experience, after knowing then for long enough, they start talking for real and completely different pictures emerge. And really really, you don't know whether people are happy nor what that happiness actualy practically means, until they know for really well. Because most people don't talk about how their relationships looks like from inside.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]