Okay. So I've been seeing the same counselor on and off since probably like 2009ish.

Years ago in my old marriage he told me I was co-dependent on my ex's drinking problem. When I asked him all those yrs ago what that meant he told me it meant that you are using his drinking problem to scapegoat the one you possible have. In other words I was dependent on my ex drinking so that I could drink.

So fwd a cpl years and he brings up the word again. He asked me if I knew what it meant and I explained it to him in the way he explained it to me previously. And he said NO thats wrong..... wtf?

NOWWWW he is saying it basically means you're an enabler.

So which one is it kitty kats?

According to Merriam-Webster, co-dependecy is defined as

To me, it also means not being willing to do anything by yourself. For example, I feel like my sis-in-law is co-dependent. When she first moved to the largish city where she and my brother live, she didn't know how to get anywhere. She relied on my brother and mother to drive her around (this was during wedding planning) instead of taking the responsibility to figure it out on her own. She won't go out without my brother, and if my brother is out with friends and she wants to go home, they both have to go home. He is enabling the behaviour by not standing up to her/letting her control his social life. I could go on and on about her, but I think I should leave it at that...

jone70 said:

According to Merriam-Webster, co-dependecy is defined as

: 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

To me, it also means not being willing to do anything by yourself. For example, I feel like my sis-in-law is co-dependent. When she first moved to the largish city where she and my brother live, she didn't know how to get anywhere. She relied on my brother and mother to drive her around (this was during wedding planning) instead of taking the responsibility to figure it out on her own. She won't go out without my brother, and if my brother is out with friends and she wants to go home, they both have to go home. He is enabling the behaviour by not standing up to her/letting her control his social life. I could go on and on about her, but I think I should leave it at that...

Ya, see what you mean about your sis in law, like she has no independence.

So, the definition you gave above kinda goes with the way the counselor explained it the second time around. He drew a chart with person A and person B. Person A had an addiction and he compared the addiction to a tumor. Then person B reacts to tumors with a bunch of unhealthy little tumors of their own. ......or something like that. I dunno it was a few months ago.

Or like if person A has an addiction and part of Person B's raison d'être is to "help" Person A. But instead of helping they really enable because if Person A gets better, what will Person B do? Maybe Person A won't need them anymore. Person B needs Person A to need them.

(sorry if that's confusing)

One of my favorite shows ... on A&E is "intervention" ... where they tell the story of a person(who has an addiction) ... and they have used this term alot ....

I never really thought about it, but I will echo what Jone70 said ... that frequently a person ... like "lil johnny" has a mom he lives with .... well ... this mom supports Johnnys drugs by giving him money etc ... and Johnny will make mom feel guilty ... maybe its about something years ago .... so there is a dependency deal going on .... where he is dependent on her giving him money for drugs ... and she (mommy) doesnt want Johnny to die ... but yet is desparately craving his love ... etc ... maybe from past guilt , ? I dont know .... but that is where this is used alot .... most of the time it is tough to deal with "johnnys" drug use UNTIL you also deal with the mommys issues .... the one I watched yesterday there was a 22 yr old gal who was getting money from mom and I guess the story goes that MOm was a meth head years ago and felt guilty from all the years using drugs that the drug girl (today) was just using mommy for $$$$$ .....

alright ... i rambled ....

hope you are doing ok ... and dealing with your "stuff" .... I think as I get older I realize we all have that "stuff" ....

xxoo

it could also mean that kids need both parents - that's what i think when i hear it

jone70 said:

Or like if person A has an addiction and part of Person B's raison d'être is to "help" Person A. But instead of helping they really enable because if Person A gets better, what will Person B do? Maybe Person A won't need them anymore. Person B needs Person A to need them.

(sorry if that's confusing)

I definitely get what you are saying. It can also be as if person A is always playing the "whoa is me" role, they are always caught up in some type of drama, there's ever hardly a time when they are actually happy. But person B comes along and wants to help person A with their dramas and how to decipher and figure them out, however, no matter what person B does to help, it will never be of any benefit to neither person, because person A, HAS to feel like the "victim". They are obsessed with people feeling sorry for them, where in reality, person A is just lazy and pathetic by not taking control of their issues, handling them and learning from their mistakes. They are obsessed with the "grey clouds" they are mixed up in and have no interest in finally "seeing the light". Which I think is a form of manipulation as well.

[Edited 1/13/12 14:04pm]

I always thought it was a person who put placed such importance and priority on a (romantic) relationship that it was at the expense of everything else, their health, their children, their finances/lifestyle etc.

jone70 said:

Or like if person A has an addiction and part of Person B's raison d'être is to "help" Person A. But instead of helping they really enable because if Person A gets better, what will Person B do? Maybe Person A won't need them anymore. Person B needs Person A to need them.

(sorry if that's confusing)

Interesting. Soooooo that could be why people with codepency .....dont think I spelled that right....that could be why they always seem to pick partners who need some sort of help. Ohhhhhhhhh!!

ColAngus said:

One of my favorite shows ... on A&E is "intervention" ... where they tell the story of a person(who has an addiction) ... and they have used this term alot ....

I never really thought about it, but I will echo what Jone70 said ... that frequently a person ... like "lil johnny" has a mom he lives with .... well ... this mom supports Johnnys drugs by giving him money etc ... and Johnny will make mom feel guilty ... maybe its about something years ago .... so there is a dependency deal going on .... where he is dependent on her giving him money for drugs ... and she (mommy) doesnt want Johnny to die ... but yet is desparately craving his love ... etc ... maybe from past guilt , ? I dont know .... but that is where this is used alot .... most of the time it is tough to deal with "johnnys" drug use UNTIL you also deal with the mommys issues .... the one I watched yesterday there was a 22 yr old gal who was getting money from mom and I guess the story goes that MOm was a meth head years ago and felt guilty from all the years using drugs that the drug girl (today) was just using mommy for $$$$$ .....

alright ... i rambled ....

hope you are doing ok ... and dealing with your "stuff" .... I think as I get older I realize we all have that "stuff" ....

xxoo

I'm dealing very well! Hope you guys are all doing good in Amish country!

missfee said:

jone70 said:

Or like if person A has an addiction and part of Person B's raison d'être is to "help" Person A. But instead of helping they really enable because if Person A gets better, what will Person B do? Maybe Person A won't need them anymore. Person B needs Person A to need them.

(sorry if that's confusing)

I definitely get what you are saying. It can also be as if person A is always playing the "whoa is me" role, they are always caught up in some type of drama, there's ever hardly a time when they are actually happy. But person B comes along and wants to help person A with their dramas and how to decipher and figure them out, however, no matter what person B does to help, it will never be of any benefit to neither person, because person A, HAS to feel like the "victim". They are obsessed with people feeling sorry for them, where in reality, person A is just lazy and pathetic by not taking control of their issues, handling them and learning from their mistakes. They are obsessed with the "grey clouds" they are mixed up in and have no interest in finally "seeing the light". Which I think is a form of manipulation as well.

[Edited 1/13/12 14:04pm]

Yeah, or maybe it vice versa. Person B thrives off of drama and likes playing the victom....so they choose people with issues and thats takes care of their love of drama, and they can constantly feel wronged and woe is me over person A mistreating them.