I think anyone who is at all familiar to the types of persons who live places that are very religious, for excessive religion is always a sign arising out of hysteric exposures of living in bordering environments or cultures, are beastly targeted with naive images of pure and wholesome virginal goodness that goes along with deep fated trust, madonnas who’d deceive the unwary into a caring woman willing to commit themselves to the ‘right’ person, (or cause)
As binding such situation between such persons brings up the complex strategy among all seeking a ‘deep’ sense of companionship.
The analytical sense of binding is also present y parallel the relaxed attitudes that modern society have come to adopt as more useful , where long standing lineages have been the ever changing social situations that determine individual reflexive more familiarly that is either unknown or denied , the less such partners’ relationship can take a more serious turn.
The point is, co-dependency has come to be viewed negatively in a broad, excessively binding context, diminishing or exorcising any positively felt need to find solace in cases of abandonment.
This causes fear of being abandoned where the causes of such relationship are negatively viewed as detrimental within general framework.
Specifically, modern relationships are arguably discarding lineages of established resembling families , as the modal argument that establishes more familiarity with changeable contextual relationships.
The movement of towns to urban centers become common, the trend to step out of a safety zone , and break down the actual borders becomes less uncommon, and more wholesome. Literal borderline situations tend to loose their exclusive analytical meanings, as there occurs a de-differentiation between the social and the psychological , and the statistical mode of effecting change in relationships.
Analysis is pretty much a focus on the worn out method that gears toward the internal change that occurs within a psychic sexually thwarted process, and isolating and ignoring the true objective of individual development, that sees sex as a means to further growth, not an end in it’s self.
People like the guy who made a study of the orgasmic nature of reality, could not fathom the disappointing lack of discretion below the post orgasmic let down, not even brining in the changes of energy transfers that delimit social awareness and interaction. (Reich)
Depth can only be reached by such practices that can observe the limitations by which borders can be even aesthetically re-constructed. But how you gonna teach this to young’ones.
Was gonna scratch this, but it stands some chance of saying something meaningful, though less laughable, and fun.