(Untitled)

[luvlylady]

If you are involved with someone there is already a certain amount of dependence on them because you have feelings for them or rely on them in some way. So by definition, you can't truely be independent while involved with someone romantically.
What is your opinion?

Comments

[skoptzygrrl]

I think that a respectful interdependence doesn't necessarily mean said relationship is codependent... my .02

[intravenousants]

It's arguable that any sufficiently meaningful human interaction is dependency... and that as a pack or tribal animal, the ailments yielded by lacking contact may indicate an intrinsic dependence, regardless of if the need is met.

[catblade]

By that definition, as long as we need company and friends, we are never truly "independent," right?

I think as long as if that person died you could continue to survive, you are independent enough to be called independent.

[pvck]

"dependence" is such a funny word. Am I dependent on you? Well, aside from the fact that you arguably make me more physiologically healthy than I would be otherwise... I wouldn't say I am. However, the quality of my life would decrease a certain amount were you not in it, and I think the degree to which that is true (replacing "not in it" with whatever specific set of verbs is appropriate) defines the degree of your dependency on someone. Will you survive without most people? Yeah, sure. Will you be the same person surviving? Interesting question.

[eclypsia]

Good answer. :)

[wyrdling]

the way i see it... which is by no means a fully formed opinion, as it's a tricky question... is that dependence is where you sacrifice essential parts of yourself to have someone in your life. now, some sacrifices are worth doing, and what seemed essential may not be so if you look closely and pay attention to what you really seem to need... i gave up massive parts of my life when my best friend was terminally ill and didn't think twice because, suddenly, they didn't matter at all