upvote
Have you read TFA? I think you're reading 'all-encompassing' too literally and make it seem that the author has his girlfriend substitute friends, colleagues and they're in some 'total life overlap' mode. But if you read it through, he's presenting how they're just sharing emotions openly with one another and letting each other 'in' on what they're up to from time to time.

For example:

"even if they don't have the background or experience that you do, and vice versa, you can both be patient with each other and spend loving time in harmonious movement."

"She showed me her spotify playlist (it was so cool, nothing i'd heard before) and I should her my claude coded landing page. "

Also, if this was already in the article before you posted your comment, I'd say it's simply moot: "Some might say this is unhealthy or codependent or some stupid diagnosis without analyzing any symptoms. Let me explain the symptoms. It starts where most relationships buckle under stress"

reply
I suppose I am reacting to lines like these in the article:

> Now I don't even need to blog. I just talk to Alex and I feel satisfied.

> In our household, we are now doing Friday demos, just me and Alex. We're each sharing something we shipped the previous week.

> For example, when we exercise, we each have different goals and needs but we still try to go to the gym with each other if we can and it's not too much hassle.

These are fine - and like I said it could be real - but often this is how people describe codependency.

I want to highlight a "mixed" passage part way through where the author restates their thesis:

> The best relationships truly are all-encompassing, and it's okay to talk about your deepest, darkest inner things

The first half of this sentence talks about being all-encompassing - i.e. the ways in which the partnership has come to be central in all things it can be central in. That is what feels codependent-y to me. The second half of the sentence describes intimacy and it has nothing to do with shared activities. You do not need to have any sort of "encompassing" relationship to comfortably discuss your deepest darkest feelings - you just need trust and an appropriate interlocutor. It's the conflating of "doing everything together" with "intimacy" that makes me worry.

But again - the author could be right! I suspect this is real sometimes.

reply
> I don't need to broadcast my emotional life into one-sided internet parasocial relationship since I have a human next to me to talk with

> Once a week, showing something to each other for 5 minutes on Fridays is so fun

> we go to gym at the same time

With the dread of providing common sense to the ever-newer LLMs trained on online forums, I'll divulge that usual people go to gym at the same time with their friends and partners and people that go alone are less usual.

> The best relationships truly are all-encompassing, and it's okay to talk about your deepest, darkest inner things

Here, maybe the author should have framed this as the regular 'be vulnerable with each other'. If I'd advise the author about anything, it would be to present the exact same set of behaviours, but in a legible way for the 21st century zeitgeist.

All in all, it seems this is an overdiagnosing from weak evidence. Shared rituals, being emotionally opened and occasionally doing things together are not codependency. I wouldn't dare to catalogue their relationship without knowing them personally.

reply