Submissive : Co-Dependent or not ? (58)

If you're talking about the watered down definition that now exists in a world where we all apparently have at least one psychological disorder, then yes

"Nothing so conclusively proves a man's ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself".

When I was at my worst, I would have done anything for the person who I was being dependent on. When I say anything, I mean anything, with no limits. I certainly couldn't feel any sense of consent, so I couldn't give informed consent, nor participate in any relationship that would meet safe, sane or consensual criteria. As a result, it would not and could never be a proper BDSM relationship.

Definitely, my co-dependency came from a massive sense of unworthiness and a desire to please people, even if they were behaving badly to me, simply because I didn't feel I could deserve any better. However, really bad co-dependency only starts when you're dependent on the person who's abusing you and you tell yourself that you actually deserve it or they're helping you. As a result you try to make yourself like the abuse (or at least disregard it) which does funny things to the head and takes you into the proper realms for why co-dependency is classified a full psychiatric disorder.

I think that co-dependent relationships can look superficially like a D/s relationship, and so I think there is more potential for serious harm to be done inside the D/s community before other people intervene. There's also certainly more scope for confusion and for both Doms and subs to mistake mental problems for D/s and BDSM in general. Also, the BDSM community's tolerance can work against it, as people will try to tolerate stuff that makes them uncomfortable, and that can include tolerating people who are involved in unsane practices more than they should. Also, BDSM people are as human as everyone else, and can screw up and allow their problems or life to turn their relationships abusive, just like everyone else, it's just their problems have a shorter distance to go before they hurt each other badly.

Having said all that, I've not seen anyone on this board advocate D/s in its co-dependent form. I've seen it come close but it always turns away. This is why I feel comfortable being here. Also, I've seen people in the BDSM community self-police the few events I've been to against this. Therefore, I'd hate for anyone to worry about this when they don't have to.

Yep, that's it, although I'm not sure about the "beefed up" version either.

And thanks for replying. Whorewife reckons everyone thinks I'm a troll, and that made a wickle tear run down my wickle cheek.

Anyhoo, god save us from a world in which the human condition is packaged up (normally for financial reasons)and sold back to us (often in paperback) as a medical condition.

Worried there's something wrong with you? Yes, there is. You're an asshole, just like the rest of us. There's no cure.

Aww... well yes, I did think you're a troll, but clearly one with a heart... reaches out to wipe away wickle tear.

But couldn't agree more with what you say here, and besides the last line made me snort in a most unladylike fashion with a gob-full of coffee.

Edited 4 Jan 10, 1:54 PM by SheilaBlyge

No. There exists too much variety in regards to submissive personalities in order to make such a generalisation. Or any generalisation for that matter.

Are there submissives co-dependent on their Doms? Sure. Enough so to make it a stereotype or even a general rule? Absolutely not.

Your Captain Jack

I relate to this.

Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99

First, i think Captain_Jack misunderstood that which he quoted - His answer presumably relates tp "Vulnerability" as a subset of co-dependency, yet the answer does not specify this: His answer is a generalisation.

Second. if a form of co-dependency exists even in a significant minority of cases, surely it is helpful to have a term describing this: That then gives one the option of saying "I am/am not <specified term.>." and being more readily understood.

Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99

Edited 4 Jan 10, 4:00 PM by Belasarius

I'm not sure that anyone has tried to imply it's a stero type or even a general rule, but it is a very real disorder that has been highlighted and discussed.

And potentialy has the ability to help someone to recognise it should they need to.

Or do you feel we should ignore anything that could potentially be a problem or help us understand ourselves and the world in which we live because in order to ask the question some degree of generalisation needs to be made?

Tazallie
Getting there!

If it is a recognised problem in relating to others, in the same way that passive aggression and doormats may exist, it probably isn't wholly a fem sub problem, rather it is possible to be anyones problem. Having said that, I have known people who don't see it as a problem at all and actively pursue complete dependency as a means of fulfilment from both sides of M/s.

Co-dependency supposedly flourishes from having certain rules in place which stifle problem solving skills and coping mechanisms;

• It's not okay to talk about problems

• Feelings should not be expressed openly; keep feelings to yourself

• Communication is best if indirect; one person acts as messenger between two others; known in therapy as triangulation

• Be strong, good, right, perfect

• Make us proud beyond realistic expectations

• Don't be selfish

• Do as I say not as I do

• It's not okay to play or be playful

• Don't rock the boat.

I don't know of anyone that hasn't been subject to even one of those causes so maybe we have all been influenced by co-dependency at some point. However linked with addictions from the environment such as food, sex, drugs, power – co-dependency can thrive. In the healthy D/s relationship, as others have said, it is inter-dependency that is in use. But in a way this pursuit of being the ultimate psychologically healthy being, in a healthy relationship etc is grasping for perfection, and there is no absolute truth or perfection, only someone elses view of it. Then do we not become co-dependent again?

Hmm - I'm thinking there are two definitions of this - perhaps the watered down version that another poster referred two.

You've listed a bunch of attributes of a co-dependent, but not the mechanism that makes them co-dependent. Given that most psychological disorders carry a huge list of behavioural traits that an individual may or may not have that overlaps with countless other disorders, I'm not sure what your really describing.

Webster says

: a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition (as an addiction to alcohol or heroin) ; broadly : dependence on the needs of or control by another.

emphasis mine. This seems to agree with several others, and the two things appear very distinct to me. But I think your talking about something different to what I (Tanos and saraxx) understood.

The two versions appear extremely different in who is (or plays) the victim role, and whether only one or both partners is suffering from some disorder.

Either way, I would find it very surprising if one person is wholly rounded and independent, where the other isn't, would lead to a sustainable relationship that could be called anything - it takes two to tango in my book - hence I can't really envisage how one can be the innocent victim of a co-dependent (second definition).

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Edited 4 Jan 10, 8:18 PM by Attitude_Adjuster