Can Aspies Be Codependents?

[Jonn]

Considering that forming and maintaining healthy relationships is a challenge for so many of us, it reasonably follows that some of us will form pathological dynamics within our relationships.

Guilty as charged.
I was a complete mess in my younger years.

Codependency is a maladaptive way to try to feel a close human bond while simultaneously lacking something within (usually security and independence).

Agreed, but what if the other person reciprocates the same dependency?

Trying to feel close to others and failing is a feeling I am quite familiar with and I am pretty sure I am not alone. Sometimes, desperation can lead us straight into an unhealthy dynamic.

Absolutely.

 

[Jonn]

Key signs of codependency include:

1. An excessive need to please others and gain approval

An excessive need to please others?
Hardly.
Just look at my posting history.

2. Difficulty setting and maintaining boundaries

This depends on context.
I like to defy social edicts, but I overwhelmingly respect the boundaries of others.

3. A tendency to take responsibility for others’ actions and emotions

Hell no!
I run like the wind away from adopting unnecessary responsibilities.
I am, after all, a Sigma, rather than an Alpha.

4. Neglecting one’s own needs in favor of others’

Once again, it is dependent on the context.
In a relationship, I value considering the feelings of my partner.
But this is self-serving because it is directly related to my self-esteem.
Hurting my partner damages me.
Self-interest is at the core of human psychology, after all.

5. Low self-esteem and a sense of worthlessness without external validation

Hardly.
I like who I am.
I have an internal locus of identity that doesn't need validation from others.

Autism and Codependency: Unraveling the Complex Relationship

 

[Coxhere]

Indeed.

There is no doubt I was codependent in my very first romantic relationship.
A very, very painful experience that drove me away from other potential romantic relationships for many years.

I'm glad that you were able to grow personal boundaries so that you could experience romantic relationships without getting mired once again in the morass of codependency, Jonn.

 

[Rodafina]

Agreed, but what if the other person reciprocates the same dependency?

As I understand it, a codependent relationship typically consists of a "giver" and a "taker," but sometimes there can be two "givers." Both parties see their value as being a caretaker to the other - their sense of worth comes from being needed. Any resultant feeling of closeness comes at the cost of destroying individualism - neither person knows who they are without the other and they don't remember how to meet their own needs. This makes it a very difficult relationship to get out of.

 

[Coxhere]

As I understand it, a codependent relationship typically consists of a "giver" and a "taker," but sometimes there can be two "givers." Both parties see their value as being a caretaker to the other - their sense of worth comes from being needed. Any resultant feeling of closeness comes at the cost of destroying individualism - neither person knows who they are without the other and they don't remember how to meet their own needs. This makes it a very difficult relationship to get out of.

So, do they usually stay together, not wanting "to get out of?"

 

[Rodafina]

So, do they usually stay, not wanting to get out of?

I don't know any statistics regarding that, but I can imagine that it is very hard. With codependency the end of the relationship can feel like the end of oneself – the person might as well be choosing annihilation. There is no sense of self, no sense of value, no sense of competence beyond the relationship. I reckon most people trapped in this dynamic stay a lot longer than they should, anyway.

Codependency is based on an imbalance of power, a lack of boundaries, and a detrimental sacrifice of identity. These relationships are really not sustainable in the end.

I don't know if you came across this when you were making your original post, but the idea of codependency arose from the field of substance abuse treatment. Originally, codependency was a description reserved for people who had a relationship with an addict (including non-romantic family relationships). The meaning has evolved and broadened since then.

History of codependency and how it has evolved over time - Psychotherapy Resources

 

[Coxhere]

I don't know any statistics regarding that, but I can imagine that it is very hard. With codependency the end of the relationship can feel like the end of oneself – the person might as well be choosing annihilation. There is no sense of self, no sense of value, no sense of competence beyond the relationship. I reckon most people trapped in this dynamic stay a lot longer than they should, anyway.

Codependency is based on an imbalance of power, a lack of boundaries, and a detrimental sacrifice of identity. These relationships are really not sustainable in the end.

I don't know if you came across this when you were making your original post, but the idea of codependency arose from the field of substance abuse treatment. Originally, codependency was a description reserved for people who had a relationship with an addict (including non-romantic family relationships). The meaning has evolved and broadened since then.

History of codependency and how it has evolved over time - Psychotherapy Resources

When I was in training to become a Licensed Chemical Dependency Counselor, we studied codependency. The addicts, including alcoholics, stay in their addiction because they have chief enablers. In codependency, the addict always has to have his/her chief enabler. If the addict loses a codependent, chief enabler, s/he looks for until s/he finds a new chief enabler. An addict does not survive without a chief enabler, doesn't survive without being in a codependent relationship. My mother enabled my father to remain in his alcoholism even though he went to AA meetings and she went to Alanon meetings.

I never heard either one of them talking about "working the Twelve Steps." And, for sure, my father never verbalized working Step Nine, "making amends" with those whom he'd harmed----his kids whom he physically, verbally, and emotionally abused. Dad never told any of his kids, including me, that he was sorry for his abusive behaviors. And Mother never told us kids that she was sorry for not protecting us. And we, of course, became Adult Children of Alcoholics (ACOAs). There's a Twelve Step program for us, too.

The chief enabler (now, I mean, generally speaking) doesn't have a sense of self. The chief enabler hasn't ever asked him/herself, "Who am I?" There's no self-concept nor self-awareness; therefore, there are no boundaries between the chief enabler and the one whom the chief enabler is enabling. There can't be! And the chief enabler doesn't understand the concept of "taking care" of one's self because there is no self to take care of.

It takes a lot of courage and hard work on the chief enabler's part to challenge and then extinguish being a chief enabler, moving past codependent relationships. My mother would deny that she enabled my father staying active in his alcoholism. She denied being a chief enabler just as he denied being an alcoholic. She was proud of taking care of, enabling him. She thrived on her keeping him dependent upon her for his every need. Keeping him dependent gave her meaning and purpose. She had none for herself. So, my parents were an excellent example of codependent living. Codependency always requires a dependent person being taken care of by a chief enabler.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

But that would happen in any close relationship, even if it is one involving a mutually/reciprocating one.

My wife and I did not experience "empty nest syndrome". We were more like, "Whooo Hoooo!, We did it! We are free again!" LOL!

 

[Jonn]

My wife and I did not experience "empty nest syndrome". We were more like, "Whooo Hoooo!, We did it! We are free again!" LOL!

I was actually thinking in terms of a loved one dying.

 

[Rodafina]

When I was in training to become a Licensed Chemical Dependency Counselor, we studied codependency. The addicts, including alcoholics, stay in their addiction because they have chief enablers. In codependency, the addict always has to have his/her chief enabler. If the addict loses a codependent, chief enabler, s/he looks for until s/he finds a new chief enabler. An addict does not survive without a chief enabler, doesn't survive without being in a codependent relationship. My mother enabled my father to remain in his alcoholism even though he went to AA meetings and she went to Alanon meetings.

I never heard either one of them talking about "working the Twelve Steps." And, for sure, my father never verbalized working Step Nine, "making amends" with those whom he'd harmed----his kids whom he physically, verbally, and emotionally abused. Dad never told any of his kids, including me, that he was sorry for his abusive behaviors. And Mother never told us kids that she was sorry for not protecting us. And we, of course, became Adult Children of Alcoholics (ACOAs). There's a Twelve Step program for us, too.

The chief enabler (now, I mean, generally speaking) doesn't have a sense of self. The chief enabler hasn't ever asked him/herself, "Who am I?" There's no self-concept nor self-awareness; therefore, there are no boundaries between the chief enabler and the one whom the chief enabler is enabling. There can't be! And the chief enabler doesn't understand the concept of "taking care" of one's self because there is no self to take care of.

It takes a lot of courage and hard work on the chief enabler's part to challenge and then extinguish being a chief enabler, moving past codependent relationships. My mother would deny that she enabled my father staying active in his alcoholism. She denied being a chief enabler just as he denied being an alcoholic. She was proud of taking care of, enabling him. She thrived on her keeping him dependent upon her for his every need. Keeping him dependent gave her meaning and purpose. She had none for herself. So, my parents were an excellent example of codependent living. Codependency always requires a dependent person being taken care of by a chief enabler.

Tough on the people in the relationship, but so much worse for the children to endure.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

I was actually thinking in terms of a loved one dying.

Depends upon the situation. My grandfather took care of my grandmother through 15-20 years of dementia before she died. My wife's father did the same with her mother. We had some quiet conversations afterward. In both cases, after that initial grief, a huge weight was lifted off of them, they bounced back quickly and were more vibrant than they had been in decades. So, there's those situations.

 

[Coxhere]

Tough on the people in the relationship, but so much worse for the children to endure.

It takes a lot of psychotherapy to undo the abuses of codependency. It takes a lot of courageous, self-looking to admit being a codependent and then working to rid one's self of self-destructive codependency behaviors. We had an expression in the chemical dependency hospital where I worked. To be effective in evolving past codependency, one needs to be "Honest, Open, and Willing." A day or so ago, I came across something that I think is a universal truth, at least among us human beings. "Evolution, evolving, only comes via suffering." I think there's a lot of self-evolving going on with members of AspiesCentral.com. . . .

 

[Jonn]

I remember that we students in an honors sociology class in undergraduate school discussed the concept of altruism. I said that altruism doesn't really exist because altruism is defined as is the principle or practice of UNSELFISH concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.

No one is "unselfish." If nothing else, a person wants to feel good when helping another living creature. That's selfish and self-centered.

I have been saying this my entire life, also.
It is a logical conclusion.

I remember defining altruism in that classroom back in 1971 as "after having every last need met, a person could possibly be considered altruistic. However, a person's every last need being met is impossible. Doing good is meeting a need. So, doing good is not unselfish." Psychologists say that a person always has the motivation of getting something in return for giving something.

Agreed...

An even bigger question than "Do you consider altruism a type of codependency" is "Do you consider a human's relationship with a god or goddess is codependent?" I think it is.

When you consider that god doesn't do anything these days, and it is a one-way transaction in this life system, the logical conclusion seems to be yes.
"God helps those who help themselves."

Not god enough.
Pick up your game, and put your weight against the wheel of this relationship, or I'm out of here.
Oh, wait, I already am.

 

[Jonn]

A day or so ago, I came across something that I think is a universal truth, at least among us human beings. "Evolution, evolving, only comes via suffering."

And thankfully, regarding evolving through pain, this life system is the ultimate suffering farm. <s>

 

[Hypnalis]

something that I think is a universal truth, at least among us human beings. "Evolution, evolving, only comes via suffering."

I think it's true if you replace "only" with "often" or "usually".

But "learning through mistakes", while normal and positive, often means you've failed to learn from other peoples' knowledge and experience.

We're all "standing on the shoulders of very large giants". We can't do well in our complex, technological environment without education and training.
But somehow, while people accept this in "technical" areas, it's routinely denied in "interpersonal" domains.

To the extent that we're literally losing knowledge at the moment, and repeating old, very serious mistakes that are entirely avoidable, while simultaneously missing opportunities to learn.

These days I object to any heuristic that's worded so it could encourage people to believe in "magical thinking", or to refuse to accept personal responsibility or accountability because "that's the way things are".

I use this here in AF sometimes as indicative evidence of what's happened and continues to happen:
Replication crisis - Wikipedia

It's relevant because, as evidence of "negative information" being injected into academia, it demonstrates the mechanism for losing knowledge.

 

[AprilR]

I felt like my asd father was emotionally dependent on my NT mother for many years. I never liked their relationship even though i love both of them dearly and even wished for them to divorce many times.

I think i also become dependent on people too fast (in friendships)in the past. Bc of that i dont want a relationship, because i know it will not be healthy.

I managed to find some self worth in myself and now i can put distance between me and other people.

 

[Coxhere]

I think it's true if you replace "only" with "often" or "usually".

But "learning through mistakes", while normal and positive, often means you've failed to learn from other peoples' knowledge and experience.

We're all "standing on the shoulders of very large giants". We can't do well in our complex, technological environment without education and training.
But somehow, while people accept this in "technical" areas, it's routinely denied in "interpersonal" domains.

To the extent that we're literally losing knowledge at the moment, and repeating old, very serious mistakes that are entirely avoidable, while simultaneously missing opportunities to learn.

These days I object to any heuristic that's worded so it could encourage people to believe in "magical thinking", or to refuse to accept personal responsibility or accountability because "that's the way things are".

I use this here in AF sometimes as indicative evidence of what's happened and continues to happen:
Replication crisis - Wikipedia

It's relevant because, as evidence of "negative information" being injected into academia, it demonstrates the mechanism for losing knowledge.

Human adversity can create human growth, but not always. So, I agree with you, Hypnalis, "only" is not an accurate word to be used in this context. Close. But not "only."

I remember a AspieCentral.com member saying that she only wanted to "ventilate" and not really change anything as a result of her adversities. She, in essence, didn't desire to move past the challenges that she faced. She desired to remain stuck and merely ventilate (complain that her stuck points wouldn't remedy themselves without her doing anything). She wanted her problems to go away without any effort on her part.

As I said to her, however, psychologists say that people become motivated to change their circumstances once staying stuck becomes more uncomfortable than moving into an unfamiliar and scary territory in an attempt to make things better.

I remember thinking to myself that I wished my young son didn't have to encounter adversity and difficulties in order to grow and mature into adulthood in the years ahead of him. I wished that I could "take care of" and "protect" him in all of the challenges, the experiences, that were to occur in his future years. Attempting this, however, would turn our healthy, father-son relationship into codependency which would forever make him a dependent personality disorder. He's now in his mid-forties and has done a fairly excellent job in turning his adversity, his suffering, into his growth, into his maturity, and into his on-going evolution.

In the meantime, that ventilating woman remains "back there" in her stuck-adversities, complaining, and sadly not helping herself find a better way. . . .

 

[velociraptor]

I've known a couple who were in bad relationships, but were afraid to leave because they felt they would have no relationships at all then, so they stayed in abusive co-dependent relationships. Hard to watch.

 

[Coxhere]

I've known a couple who were in bad relationships, but were afraid to leave because they felt they would have no relationships at all then, so they stayed in abusive co-dependent relationships. Hard to watch.

It was sad to watch too, I imagine, velociraptor. When each of us has only one life to live, to create and stay in a hell-on-earth. . . .

 

[Jonn]

But "learning through mistakes", while normal and positive, often means you've failed to learn from other peoples' knowledge and experience.

Have you noticed how many young ppl dismiss the wisdom of older individuals?
In context:
Perhaps this is simply part of "The Human Condition"?

We're all "standing on the shoulders of very large giants". We can't do well in our complex, technological environment without education and training.
But somehow, while people accept this in "technical" areas, it's routinely denied in "interpersonal" domains.

Observation/experience supports this.