BPDFamily.com

Team, can I add my two cents here quickly - and not to take away from this post - but co-dependancy is not science. And labelling oneself codependant is really not helpful for many people.  Absolutely not an attack.

This post was split from the following thread as it merited its own discussion: https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=350475.0;topicseen

Well pointed out grumpydonut

Id caution the use of labelling. There is a lot of psychological buzzwords out there that in the midst of searching for a reason is tempting to latch on to.

Are you in an existing relationship? If not. Where is the codepency. Where is the reliance. My opinion is there is no codependence outside of a relationship to sustain it.

Just to clarify the last post. It was a generalised open question not directed to any individual member in the conversation it should have been written  clearer.

I get the desire to find a label. I do. But identifying as a "co-dependant" just seems like another way to blame oneself for the fact you were abused by a mentally ill person.

It's not a scientifically valid term or condition.

Let's use a golf analogy.

If someone goes to drive the ball, and they often slice it (curves way wide right) they have really three options.

1. To say they are a "slicer" and continue to do it.

2. Be clueless as to why their ball is in the woods all the time.

3. To say they have a "slicing" problem and fix it.

People with BPD will do this. Say they have c-PTSD and continue with it (option #1). We have thousands of posts from frustrated members wondering why their lover didn't move to option #3. They ultimately say their partner is in denial.

So yes, if you take on "Co-dependency" as an identity, I'm not sure that is constructive. However, if you take on codependency as a personal problem to solve... you are being both functional and constructive.
 
What do you think?

Co-dependency was primed to go into the DSM in the late 1987. There was a textbook written and a DSM style definition published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (1986). It didn't make it in because it as thought that there was overlap with DPD and already covered for clinical and reimbursement purposes.

So anyone who is treated for interpersonal "dependency" or "codependency" will be covered (insurance) under the DPD codes.

Co-dependency is an unofficial subset or a lighter version of DPD. Here is how it was defined in 1986:

All these criteria require the relationship to currently exist to fulfill them

where is the "continued investment" when the relationship is dissolved? its no longer applicable. And so on for the rest.

constructive if it is correct, disasterous if it is a self labelled- self fulfilling prophecy.

im more concious about labelling, there is quite a lot of theory out there that aligns with it, both in psychology as well as sociology. Im reminded even with diagnosed labels that are done with accuracy. Why did my ex with BPD take 5 months to share with me such a significant health issue that is known to seriously impair relationships? I dont know, but perhaps fear of stigma is one. Later on, she excused a lot of behaviours with the explanation "The BPD is why it happened". Thats another issue in itself - how would she know? BPD does not turn someone into the Manchurian candidate and all their behaviours are because of BPD, I dont believe that one bit.

so for codependence and beyond, just my 2 cents, self reporting has the peril of bias, labelling oneself properly, requires the prerequisite of both firstly knowing oneself, secondly having a comprehensive understanding of the label itself. Why bother, get a trained psychiatrist opinion and save the potential of spending a future of believing what isnt, buying self-help books on the subject and so on.

a good doctor (psychiatrist) and therapist will take a massive amount of caution and skill before a formall diagnosis and suspected diagnosis. But i suppose, books on "solve your codependecy" would not be multimillion sellers if everyone went through the trouble first of actually taking care to make sure they actually had that problem in the first place to then do something about it.

how about build the house on strong foundation - Get the proper diagnosis first from someone skilled to do so, then the construction can begin in earnest?

Three things to consider.

1. Most of our members are in or have been in therapy. Many of our members are here at a therapists recommendation.  There are some that don't have access so they have to do it themselves.

2. Mental health conditions aren't like clinical health conditions where you get tested, their is a clear diagnosis, and there is a standard method of care. Mental health is often more of an exploration of self with the aid a therapist, a support group, family, and/or church.

You get an appendicitis, it will be diagnosed quickly, into surgery you go, and home for few days bed rest. All very passive for the patient.

You have substance abuse - those who recover pull themselves through a great struggle to heal with some aid of others. Those who are passive, don't recover.  Seventy-five percent fall into that category.

3. Lastly, and this is more advanced thinking (later stage healing/recovery) - if your were in a bad relationship for an extended time or multiple bad relationships and you think that you are navigating life well - you are not being kind to yourself. There is more to it than your exs mental and character problems. Figuring that out is not easy, but when you do, you will live a very different life going forward.

Hope that is helpful and, of course, if you're not ready to deep dive into your own mental health or if you never want to do a deep dive, its a choice we all have the right to make.

Grumpy...you make a great point...

Moods and reality can make us wallow in it...and defining ourselves by either the cause or affect...can sometimes not help in a constructive way...