Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think neediness can be defined being "fused" to one's partner. Her identity is defined by him, she craves his appoval, she is devastated if he rejects her. Now IMHO, that is way too much power to give another human being. With most human beings tending to be so very messed up inside, anyway.
I shudder to think what kind of man a "needy" woman would attract. The word "predatory" springs to mind.
One of the unspoken rules in dysfunctional families is: "Don't have needs!" Kids who grow up with parents who don't want to "bother" with them very often have pretty deep "emotional wounds" as adults...Some kids who grow up in these types of families erect "big walls" and pretend that they don't really "need" anyone else...They are the "go it aloners" who have trouble opening up with anyone...Other kids become "super needy" as adults and seem to have "big holes" inside of them that can never be "filled up." It's all sad.
Why do people judge someone and then say their being "non-judgemental"? Actually, any discription of what a person says, does or how they look IS being "judgemental"! I do it myself, and have had it done to me, and it don't bother me the least to say I do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro
Probably true... but still needy (in a non-judgmental way)!
I tend to think that everyone is "needy". Without needing the love and reassurance from your SO, you wouldn't be in a relationship to begin with. There would be no growth nor bloom in the relationship.
It just depends on how much of this "need" is allowed before it becomes suffocating and detrimental to the relationship.
There have been many times where I have observed C-D users mentioning not being particularly fond of romantic partners they had described as "needy" or "clingy" -- but also at the same time, not defining in any concrete terms, exactly what they meant by those words
So, I looked up the word "needy" on wikipedia. Wikipedia defines "needy" as:
Reading the wikipedia article on codependency, was at least somewhat fascinating to me. The reason why is, I don't think I quite understand myself, why there is such of a consistent "negative emphasis", on the concept of neediness in general -- all I can personally gather is that people who are "needy", perhaps have a little more of a need to "feel loved", than say non-needy ppl. But why is it the equivalent of such a "mortal sin", when it comes to relationship desirability?
Agree with the definition, as presented above in the quoted section? Disagree? Why or why not?
I agree, and I have a feeling that most people's definitions would be somewhat the same, even if they personally would phrase it more negatively.
Why is it considered such a negative trait? Most C-D posters are American. American culture places a huge amount of emphasis on individualism and self-determination. This has always been true, but my opinion is that's it's becoming even more the case today in the realm of relationships, because women don't "need" men in the same way they used to, and society places less pressure on men settling down with a specific woman (and vice versa).
Co-dependency or clinginess necessarily counters this trend for a few reasons. One is that INDIVIDUALS in a relationship are less free to pursue their INDIVIDUAL interests as they wish when their partner always wants to spend time with them or is always calling them or texting them.
Another is that (in my hypothesis) the object co-dependency is a specific partner, not "any" partner - in other words, "the one". In today's world of increasingly late marriages (especially among educated people, who I surmise make up the majority of C-D), this clashes with the looser nature of dating relationships. It used to be that the average woman married at about 20, and had one sex partner, her husband. An average courtship (pre-marital relationships, not necessarily sexual) was along the order of 12 months, and if the couple lost their virginity prior to the wedding night (which was often the case), it would be to each other. Today, things have obviously changed, and sex is not even reserved for relationships, not to mention marriage. An obsessive focus on "the one" is socially disadvantageous for obvious reasons, because "the one" you are in a relationship with will probably not be "the one" you are with forever, and I think people are beginning to realize that.
I agree, and I have a feeling that most people's definitions would be somewhat the same, even if they personally would phrase it more negatively.
Why is it considered such a negative trait? Most C-D posters are American. American culture places a huge amount of emphasis on individualism and self-determination. This has always been true, but my opinion is that's it's becoming even more the case today in the realm of relationships, because women don't "need" men in the same way they used to, and society places less pressure on men settling down with a specific woman (and vice versa).
Co-dependency or clinginess necessarily counters this trend for a few reasons. One is that INDIVIDUALS in a relationship are less free to pursue their INDIVIDUAL interests as they wish when their partner always wants to spend time with them or is always calling them or texting them.
Another is that (in my hypothesis) the object co-dependency is a specific partner, not "any" partner - in other words, "the one". In today's world of increasingly late marriages (especially among educated people, who I surmise make up the majority of C-D), this clashes with the looser nature of dating relationships. It used to be that the average woman married at about 20, and had one sex partner, her husband. An average courtship (pre-marital relationships, not necessarily sexual) was along the order of 12 months, and if the couple lost their virginity prior to the wedding night (which was often the case), it would be to each other. Today, things have obviously changed, and sex is not even reserved for relationships, not to mention marriage. An obsessive focus on "the one" is socially disadvantageous for obvious reasons, because "the one" you are in a relationship with will probably not be "the one" you are with forever, and I think people are beginning to realize that.
Some intriguing perspective there...thx for your interesting thoughts tvdxer!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
