I feel like you're responding to a different argument than the one that was posed above. They weren't saying that a deep devotion to your partner is bad at all. They were saying that if you're miserable every moment you're not with your partner, there is likely something wrong that needs to be addressed.

Being able to be comfortable and happy even when your partner isn't around doesn't preclude you from having a devoted long term relationship. In fact, that feels like a recipe for a healthier long term relationship. Otherwise you can end up with codependency or separation anxiety.

Being measurably happier with a partner in your life is a positive outcome, indeed is one we should all strive for (or why bother)

> I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable.

This is not healthy, doesn't matter how much you care about your partner and relationship. Feeling miserable every day without someone is not a good sign.

You can be much happier when you are with your partner, you can enjoy to spend most days with your partner, that's natural. Not enjoying a single day without them is pretty alarming.

I would guess that the main issue here becomes the tendency for folks to become housebound. Retirement is no joke in terms of becoming inwardly focused.

> I was a bit of an oddity in that I was anticipating marriage since early adolescence; that outsized-value for relationships came with what I feel were comparably overgrown feelings of loneliness. I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. I imagine some of these men are similar to me in the loneliness and not as lucky in finding someone, and it’s impossible for me to not feel something.

> indeed is one we should all strive for (or why bother)

What do you mean by this? Why bother with what?

(As an aside, I actually don't think that being in a relationship is something that all people need to strive for.)

> What do you mean by this? Why bother with what?

Why bother finding a partner. If you aren't measurably happier with a partner, why go through the effort of finding one?

"I'm miserable when my partner isn't around", is not the same as "I'm happier when my partner is around". Does that make sense?

> "I'm happier when my partner is around"

It's entirely possible to have an enduring, meaningful, devoted, monogamous relationship that brings a great deal of happiness to both partners without that relationship being a requirement for the people involved to experience any amount of happiness or fulfillment in their lives.

Codependence is when two people have some unhealthy trait that is reinforced by the other person's unhealthy trait. From wikipedia:

>Codependency is a concept that attempts to characterize imbalanced relationships where one person enables another person's addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement.

That is not the same as "I get sad when my wife is gone because she is my life partner".

> And honestly this whole trend of laymen trying to psychoanalyze people with whatever toxic psychobabble their read on twitter is getting out of hand.

No offense, but that's exactly what you just did. I personally know of families with 30+ years of marriage who appear "full of happy health people" on the outside but independently disclose their lifelong frustration.

Maybe let's all stay out of psychoanalyzing then?

I'm not miserable when I miss someone. I'd never describe it as that way, because if I'm apart from someone, while that sucks, at the same time it means I have someone. Longing is not misery to me at least.

> I spent every day without her more or less miserable

This is a bit more than "missing" them.

I still don't understand if by that sentence the article author means he was miserable before, or if this means he misses her after just one day of her being away. "Spent" is in the past, so I assumed it's the former.

I have the impression that people are talking about different things in some replies.

Honestly to me it's not important, if it's either of those things, if it's misery every day without someone that's pretty extreme. IMHO, YMMV etc. Glad he's happy, but that's a lot to put on a partner.

>It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy.

Is less ambiguous. I would not want to be in a relationship with someone who is that dependent on me to be happy.

> I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy.

Which is basically the exact definition of codependence.

That doesn't make us codependent, to know that I'd spend lots of time miserable if unpartnered and without my wife in particular.

Mostly just, attempting to reason with someone that's feeling attacked (much less, someone that's feeling attacked about something as emotional as loving their wife) is an unwinnable task. I wish this conversation started better, because I actually think it's very important (and I generally think/agree that lots of relationships are unhealthy and it contributes to a lot of more negative societal issues), but I think discussing those topics with those that think you're trying to invalidate their relationship serves no one.

I agree that people should be "okay" without a partner and freestanding as their own person. But, this doesn't mean that it's unhealthy for partnership to be a major portion of life's happiness and fulfillment.

I don't know what the version of me without a stable, long-term relationship would be like. But-- I do know that my life became much better around the time that I met her; that the improvement appears to have lasted and cumulated, and also that it seems to me that a large part of my fulfillment and happiness comes from interaction with my wife. If this is unhealthy, I haven't seen the negative impact from it yet.

> See, I disagree, because I believe that we've evolved to prefer stable, partnered life, and that a large portion of the population is still substantially affected by those drives. Not all of us can just say goodbye to biological imperative.

Can you reference any legitimate science to back this up? I believe the push towards partnered life is a byproduct of capitalism, and has nothing to do with evolution or biology.

> But, this doesn't mean that it's unhealthy for partnership to be a major portion of life's happiness and fulfillment.

This is the strawman that keeps getting thrown around in this comment section. Nobody is suggesting that finding happiness and fulfillment in a partner is unhealthy.

> I don't know what the version of me without a stable, long-term relationship would be like. But-- I do know that my life became much better around the time that I met her; that the improvement appears to have lasted and cumulated, and also that it seems to me that a large part of my fulfillment and happiness comes from interaction with my wife. If this is unhealthy, I haven't seen the negative impact from it yet.

This is again a strawman. "Incapable of being alone" is different than "enjoying being together". The former is what is unhealthy, as has been referenced over and over again in these comments.

?? This is something that is observed across many cultures. Yes, attitudes of permanence are different, and the strength of prohibition against adultery is different, and you can find an outlier. But e.g. we have pre-capitalist Native Americans practicing marriage and stable coupling, and thousands of years of documented traditions within China, ancient Egypt, etc.

> This is the strawman that keeps getting thrown around in this comment section. Nobody is suggesting that finding happiness and fulfillment in a partner is unhealthy.

It's hardly a strawman when it occurred earlier in this thread (and still is there weakly even after edits).

I also think my wife is a uniquely good partner for me. If I lost her, for some reason, it would be difficult to find a situation nearly as good for me.

That's hardly the same as codependence, though.

I also gotta say: When my wife leaves to travel on her own or with the kids for a few days... it's bliss, both during and after. A few days without her is great, and reunion and the chance to share stories of our independent adventures is great, too.

I understand not being as happy or fulfilled without a partner, but _miserable_?

I've known people who are happy and fulfilled living alone, but it's hard for me to picture myself in their shoes.

My wife and I have an awesome relationship. I would be okay-ish, but it couldn't hold a candle to what I have now.

The big bright spots in my life are my work, my relationship with my wife, and my kids. I would have more time to play video games and consume media, and I'm sure I'd have some more friends and hobbies... But it's hard for me to picture papering over her absence with friendships and hobbies.

Well okay I suppose that the people I'm talking about, in their 50+ year relationships would describe their love for their partner as a type of addiction, but what you might be missing there is: that is a joke, and they are being cute.

If we're redefining romantic devotion as an "addiction" then I think we have officially lost the plot.

> If we're redefining romantic devotion as an "addiction" then I think we have officially lost the plot.

No one is redefining anything. This term is poorly defined. Codependence is not "romantic devotion". "Romantic devotion" should not be codependence.

> Commonly observable characteristics of codependency are:

> intense and unstable interpersonal relationships

> *inability to tolerate being alone, accompanied by frantic efforts to avoid being alone*

> ...

> A codependent is someone who cannot function on their own and whose thinking and behavior is instead organized around another person, process, or substance.

I've been happily married for 17 years and have been with my wife for over 20.

Trust me: there is a big BIG difference between being deeply devoted to your spouse and being co-dependent on them such that you cannot be happy during their absence.

I think that's what the parent was getting at. Being devoted to your partner doesn't mean you need them to enjoy life.

You can be 100% devoted to your partner and relationship but still be happy when the two of you are apart. A polyamorous relationship, or a person who has a whole other life completely separate from their partner, is not the only other option. You seem to be creating a false dichotomy here.

Pinning your happiness to the presence of another individual is not healthy. You cannot be with that person 100% of the time. And what if they die, or their feelings change and they don't want to be with you anymore? (Certainly either event would be devastating, but it should not destroy your only source of happiness.) How is it healthy for you to put all your emotional eggs in their basket? And even worse, how is it fair to the other person, to make that person an essential part of your constant happiness?

Have you actually talked to or people long enough for them to trust you with their past or current martial issues? Because in my experience, after knowing then for long enough, they start talking for real and completely different pictures emerge.

And really really, you don't know whether people are happy nor what that happiness actualy practically means, until they know for really well. Because most people don't talk about how their relationships looks like from inside.

It's wonderful to see happy partners in lifelong relationships. That is almost certainly a sign of individual emotional maturity and self-regulation. Those people would be happy in or out of that particular relationship (absolutely not discounting the intense grief of losing a lifelong partner, but the emotional resilience to start enjoying life again), and the ones you mention clearly have strong and healthy relationships with other people as well.

Unhappiness with life before finding a partner demonstrates that there is something fundamentally wrong. People feel too lonely, or too insignificant, or too unloved, or too undervalued, or some other excess of negative emotion that at its root is unhealthy self image or mental health issue and needs to be dealt with independently of whether or not that person is in a partnership. Validation from a relationship can certainly mask the underlying negative emotion, but there's a big risk that at some point a partner's validation will stop working and the person will become unhappy again but put the blame on the partner or the details of the relationship without realizing that it's the same internal emotional problem that was always there. Almost certainly if the relationship ends the person will think the partner left because of the incorrect belief they have about themselves due to negative emotions, e.g. "I was unlovable" or "I wasn't attractive enough".

> There is a bizarre (and imo destructive, and toxic) idea that seems to be running through tech especially that devotion to your partner is rooted in "jealousy". It usually leads to "maybe you guys should become polyamorous. What are you jealous?"

That is indeed toxic. Jealousy is a natural feeling; it can be rooted in some negative beliefs but not always. To me it feels like a fair mix of instinctual response from relationship preference and underlying fears. Unfortunately for the folks you mention instinctual jealousy is a pretty strong indication of a preference for monogamy and not for polyamory. In contrast what I've heard called "compersion" is a feeling of shared joy and happiness about a polyamorous partner's experiences with other partners, distinct from any sort of fetishization of another relationship (which while not necessarily unhealthy is distinct from simple happiness at a partner's happiness). Jealousy for me has usually been rooted in fear of loss; loss of a relationship or fear of missing out. For monogamous people jealousy is also rooted in, for lack of a better word... Monogamy. It's probably the majority relationship preference.