Losing Yourself in Someone Else Is Not the Same as Loving Them

Eric and the Vanishing Self

Picture a man — call him Eric — thirty-six, living in Phoenix, working as a sales manager. He noticed one day that he had stopped watching sports. He had watched sports, specifically football and basketball, with genuine enjoyment his entire adult life. His team won a playoff game and he watched it alone, and felt nothing in particular. He went to tell his girlfriend about it, and realized with a slow shock that he did not know how to describe what had just happened. He was already anticipating how she would respond to it, and adjusting his description based on that anticipation before he’d even spoken. He had done this so automatically that he hadn’t noticed himself doing it. It took the absence of feeling during a game he would have previously been excited about to make him stop and trace the thread back.

Here’s what you need to hear about what he found. He had gradually, over two and a half years, organized his interior life around his girlfriend’s preferences, her moods, her needs, her responses to him. He had done it so thoroughly that he could no longer reliably distinguish what he actually wanted from what would produce the desired response from her. He had lost his own perspective inside the relationship, and the loss had been so gradual that he hadn’t felt it happening. It had felt like love the entire time.

Eric’s situation is what you and I are going to spend this episode on. Not because he’s in an unusual or dramatic situation — there’s no abuse in his story, no clear villain, no single traumatic event. Because he represents a pattern that’s extraordinarily common in men, and almost never named accurately, possibly including in your own life right now. You’ve probably heard codependency discussed in the context of addiction — the partner of the alcoholic who enables the behavior, who organizes their whole life around managing the consequences of the other person’s drinking. That framework is real and it’s important. But codependency extends far beyond addiction contexts, and in men specifically it takes forms that get consistently misread as love, as devotion, as maturity. If you have given yourself up entirely for a relationship, you are not a great partner. You are a codependent one. And the relationship you’ve built on your own self-erasure will not produce the outcome you’re hoping for.

Welcome to Resilient Wisdom. I’m Vladislav Davidzon. This is episode two hundred and two: the Autonomy Restoration Protocol.

What Codependency Actually Is

The term codependency originated in the addiction counseling context of the nineteen-seventies and eighties, specifically in the work of Melody Beattie and others who were working with families of alcoholics. Here’s the original observation: family members of alcoholics organized their own behavior entirely around managing the addict. They predicted moods, prevented crises, absorbed consequences, and made themselves invisible to reduce friction. They had stopped living their own lives and were living the addict’s life from the outside, in a relationship of total enmeshment.

Psychologist Timmen Cermak, who first proposed codependency as a clinical diagnosis, described it as a pattern where a person’s sense of identity, self-worth, and even basic functioning becomes dependent on another person’s state. If the other person is doing well, the codependent person feels okay. If the other person is unhappy, distressed, or disapproving, the codependent person feels their own existence threatened. Their internal state is entirely regulated by external approval. Their actions are primarily oriented toward managing the other person’s experience of them, which is exhausting in a way you may already recognize in yourself.

This pattern exists widely outside addiction contexts. It exists in romantic relationships, in parent-child relationships in adulthood, in close friendships, and in work relationships. And it presents differently in men than in the classic female codependency literature, which is part of why it’s so under-identified and under-named in men like you.

The female codependency presentation that the literature focuses on is caretaking, people-pleasing, and difficulty saying no — prioritizing others’ needs so completely that your own needs become invisible. These patterns exist in men too, but male codependency more often presents differently. You cannot tolerate your partner’s unhappiness and take responsibility for fixing it. You define yourself entirely through the relationship’s success and experience her dissatisfaction as a personal failure. You have no separate social life, no separate interests, no separate identity outside the relationship. You need her approval to feel like yourself. You read her mood the moment you walk in the door and adjust your entire behavior accordingly before a single word has been exchanged. Eric is this last one. You might be too.

What makes male codependency particularly hard to see and name is that the specific behaviors involved are the behaviors that are culturally praised as evidence of being a good partner. Attentiveness, responsiveness, willingness to compromise, prioritizing the relationship — these are framed as virtues in the dominant relationship advice culture. And they are virtues, in moderation, when they emerge from genuine care rather than from the anxiety that produces compulsive accommodation. The distinction isn’t in the behavior itself. It’s in the internal structure driving it. Are you attending carefully to your partner because you genuinely want to know and respond to her? Or are you attending because her emotional state has become the primary regulator of your own sense of safety and worth? The behavior looks identical either way. The underlying structure is completely different.

You can run a quick test on yourself right now. Think of the last time you did something considerate for your partner. Ask yourself honestly what would have happened inside you if she hadn’t noticed, or hadn’t reacted with visible appreciation. If the honest answer is nothing much, you’d have felt fine either way, that’s evidence of genuine care operating independently of her response. If the honest answer is that you’d have felt a flicker of anxiety, a need to check whether she noticed, a small deflation at the missing acknowledgment, that’s evidence the behavior is doing regulatory work for you, not just relational work for her. Most men have never run this test on themselves before, because the question never occurs to you when the accommodation feels this natural.

How It Happens

Codependency in men does not usually announce itself. It develops gradually, through a specific mechanism, and you need to understand that mechanism to recognize and interrupt it in your own life.

The mechanism starts with what is genuinely a positive quality: your responsiveness to the other person. If you pay attention to your partner, if you’re sensitive to her moods, if you adjust your behavior when she’s upset, you’re demonstrating attentiveness that’s real and valuable. The problem begins when the responsiveness stops being an addition to a stable selfhood and becomes a replacement for it. It begins the moment your primary question in the relationship stops being “what do I genuinely think and want?” and becomes “what will produce the best response from her?”

The transition is often reinforced by a relationship’s early dynamics. If you’re responsive, you get positive feedback for your attentiveness. Your partner appreciates being considered. The behavior gets rewarded. Over time you calibrate increasingly toward whatever gets rewarded — reading her state, adjusting your own to match it, anticipating and managing her needs. Each adjustment is individually small. The cumulative effect is the erosion of your own perspective as an independent variable in the relationship. You turn yourself into a mirror, and the relationship becomes primarily an exercise in reflecting her back to herself.

Psychologist Harry Guntrip, working in the object relations tradition, described the deepest fear underlying codependency as the fear of existing as a separate person. It’s the unconscious conviction that your own needs, perspectives, and desires are either wrong, threatening to the relationship, or simply less important than the other person’s. This conviction usually has a developmental history. It was learned in your family of origin, where having your own perspective was somehow dangerous or costly. The adult relationship activates the same dynamic, because the same terror of separate existence is present in you, and you deploy the same solution: self-erasure.

The attachment styles framework maps directly onto this. Anxious attachment is the most direct pathway to codependency. If you’re anxiously attached, you use merger, responsiveness, and self-erasure as a strategy to prevent the abandonment you fear. You make yourself so accommodating, so perfectly responsive, so completely organized around the other person’s needs, that surely she cannot leave. The strategy does not work. It often produces the exact outcome it’s trying to prevent, because a partner who has no separate selfhood is not an interesting partner. He is an emotional service provider, and that is eventually suffocating regardless of how generous the service is.

The timeline of how this develops in a specific relationship is worth walking through. Early on, both people are typically bringing their genuine selves — their interests, their opinions, their needs, their idiosyncrasies. If one partner has a stronger tendency toward accommodation and the other has a stronger tendency toward assertion, the accommodating partner gradually adjusts toward the asserting one’s preferences. The adjustments are small and feel loving at the time. Over months and years, the small adjustments compound. You find yourself at year three doing things you would not have chosen, not doing things you genuinely enjoy, holding back opinions you genuinely hold, and not entirely sure when or how this happened. The answer is always the same: one small accommodation at a time, none of which felt significant on its own, all of which added up to a self quietly replaced by a function.

The Man Who Lost Himself in Service

Let me make this concrete with a composite. Call him Marcus, built from a pattern I keep seeing, not one specific man I’ve counseled. Picture him at forty-two, a financial advisor in Dallas, married for twelve years. By his account and by his wife’s account, he was an exceptionally attentive husband — present, considerate, consistently focused on her wellbeing. He had built his schedule around her preferences. He had changed his social habits to accommodate her comfort. He had given up friendships that made her uncomfortable. He had modeled his opinions on controversial topics on hers, because having different opinions made her feel unsupported. He told this whole story as evidence of what a good husband he was. He did not initially frame any of it as loss.

His wife’s perspective, which eventually came out in a long, overdue conversation between them: she felt lonely in the marriage. Not because he was absent — he was present more than any man she knew. Lonely because she was talking to an echo rather than a person. She wanted to disagree with him. She wanted to encounter his genuine perspective on things. She wanted to be told she was wrong sometimes. She wasn’t being told she was wrong because Marcus had stopped having independent positions. He had made himself so agreeable that she had nothing to push against, and the relationship had lost all its structural tension — the productive kind that comes from two distinct people with distinct perspectives occupying the same space.

This is the paradox of male codependency, and men who suffer from it almost never see it: the self-erasure offered as devotion produces not the closeness it’s meant to produce, but a specific kind of loneliness in both people. He is alone because he has given himself up. She is alone because she is no longer in relationship with a real person. The merger that codependency seeks eliminates the very otherness that sustains genuine intimacy.

I started being surprised by him again. I hadn’t been surprised by him in years.

That’s how Marcus’s wife described the shift, once he began the autonomy restoration process. The person who worked with the couple described the change as “the appearance of a third person in the room.” Not a literal third person. Just the recognition by both of them that Marcus had become a man with a distinct perspective, distinct needs, and distinct reactions. They were genuinely his own, rather than carefully calibrated to produce her approval. The surprise — the genuine encounter with an other whose perspective you cannot entirely predict — is the experience of intimacy that the codependent dynamic eliminates. When Marcus came back, the marriage became possible again.

Notice what didn’t happen in Marcus’s story, because you need to hear it clearly before you go further. His wife did not fall out of love with him when he started disagreeing with her. She didn’t leave when he took back a friendship or stated an opinion she found unwelcome. The relationship did not collapse under the weight of his genuine selfhood. It came alive under it. That’s the part the codependent pattern in you will not let you predict in advance, because the pattern’s entire logic depends on the prediction that your genuine self is dangerous to the people you love. Marcus believed that prediction for twelve years. It was wrong the entire time. You may be believing the exact same wrong prediction right now, about your own relationship, without ever having tested it.

The Diagnostic Questions

How do you know if this is you? The questions below require honest answers from you, so write them down instead of just thinking them. The self-deception available on this topic is significant, because, as Marcus’s case shows you, codependent behavior looks and feels like love from the inside. It takes specific questions to distinguish it.

When your partner is unhappy, do you feel responsible for fixing it, regardless of whether it has anything to do with you? A non-codependent man can hold space for a partner’s unhappiness without taking it as a personal assignment to resolve. You, if you’re codependent, experience her unhappiness as an emergency you’re required to address immediately, both because you can’t tolerate her suffering and because her suffering feels, at some level, like a threat to the relationship and therefore to you.
Have you significantly modified your interests, friendships, activities, or opinions in the relationship — not through genuine evolution, but through accommodation of the relationship’s demands? Some modification is normal and even desirable. Partners legitimately influence each other. The question for you is whether the modification has run primarily in one direction, you accommodating her, and whether it’s been driven by genuine preference or by your desire to reduce friction and maintain approval.
Do you know what you want, genuinely, independent of what your partner wants? When you’re asked what you’d like to do, eat, watch, where you’d like to vacation, do you have a spontaneous answer? Or do you first scan for what she wants so you can want the compatible thing? If you’re codependent, you often genuinely don’t know what you want, because the question has become so foreign to you that it no longer generates an answer. You’ve been optimizing for her preferences so long that your own have become inaccessible to you.
Is your emotional state primarily regulated by her approval? When she’s pleased with you, do you feel genuinely okay? When she’s disappointed, withdrawn, or critical, does your sense of yourself destabilize significantly? If your fundamental sense of okay-ness tracks her opinion of you, your self-regulation is located outside yourself — a structural vulnerability that turns every relationship interaction into a potential threat.
Do you avoid conflict not because you have no disagreement but because expressing disagreement feels too dangerous to you? A man who genuinely agrees with his partner most of the time is not codependent. A man who never disagrees because he can’t tolerate her response to disagreement is. These two look identical from the outside. They are structurally completely different.

The Relationship It Creates

Let me be direct with you about what this dynamic actually produces for both people, because if you’re codependent, you probably believe you’re making your partner’s life better by organizing your life around her needs. You are not.

For her: she’s in a relationship with a person who has no independent reality. Every preference she expresses produces immediate accommodation from you. Every mood she has becomes the mood of your household. Every complaint she makes produces adjustments in you. This sounds ideal in the abstract. In practice, it produces the inability to receive pushback that might genuinely help you. It produces the slow accumulation of her resentment at being responsible for determining what both of you will do, want, and feel. It produces the loss of your independent presence as a source of attraction, because desire requires otherness, and a fully merged partner has eliminated his own otherness. And it often produces a loss of respect, because a consistently accommodating man is eventually read as weak, regardless of his intentions.

For you, the codependent man: you get the gradual loss of your own identity, your own interests, your own friendships, your own perspective. You get the exhaustion of perpetual accommodation. You get the specific loneliness of being with someone and not being known by them, because the version of yourself you’ve presented isn’t yourself, so the love you receive is for the performance rather than for you. And you get an anxiety that never fully resolves, because the strategy of total accommodation to prevent abandonment does not prevent the fear of abandonment. It requires perpetual perfect execution to keep that fear at bay, and any failure of execution brings the fear rushing back.

The long-term trajectory of relationships like this tends to follow one of two paths. In the first, you accumulate enough unexpressed resentment that you eventually erupt in a way disproportionate to whatever triggered it — five years of swallowed opinions and deferred preferences finding a release that the specific incident doesn’t warrant. Your partner, who had no idea there was this much accumulated beneath the surface, is blindsided, and the relationship enters crisis. In the second, you don’t erupt. You simply go increasingly numb. The emotional suppression required to maintain the accommodation becomes a general suppression that flattens everything in you, including your capacity for genuine joy in the relationship. You become the inert, reliable, emotionally flatlined partner — functional, present, and completely absent in the way that actually matters.

Neither path gets you what you actually wanted when you started accommodating in the first place. You wanted closeness. You wanted to be loved and to feel secure inside the relationship. What you built instead, one small concession at a time, was a structure that guarantees the opposite outcome for you, on a long enough timeline. That’s worth sitting with for a moment before you move on, because it means the strategy was never actually working, even in the years when it felt like it was. It felt like it was working because the costs were deferred. They were accumulating quietly the entire time, in you and in her, waiting for the moment they’d come due.

The Autonomy Restoration Protocol

Here’s the framework for recovering a genuine self within your relationship, or, if the relationship can’t accommodate a genuine self, for honestly evaluating that information. It has four stages, and it takes time. The codependency built over years does not dissolve in weeks for you. But the direction of your movement can change immediately.

Identification. You cannot restore what you haven’t identified as lost. This is the work of the diagnostic questions — getting clear about which specific aspects of your selfhood you’ve surrendered. Not globally “I have lost myself.” Specifically: these interests, these friendships, these opinions, these preferences — you have modified or suppressed these. Your inventory should be specific and written down. It includes both what you’ve given up and what you’ve been wanting to want but haven’t given yourself permission to want.
Unilateral restoration. You do not ask permission to become yourself again. You do not negotiate for the right to have preferences. You begin, quietly and without announcement, doing some of the things that were you before the relationship organized you away from them. One interest. One friendship. One protected hour per week that’s entirely yours and non-negotiable. Do this not as rebellion, and not as a test of the relationship. Do it because you’re a person with a legitimate claim on your own life, and acting from that truth isn’t threatening to a healthy relationship. If it’s threatening to your specific relationship, if the relationship can’t accommodate you having an independent hour a week, that information matters and should be surfaced.
Honest expression. You begin expressing genuine preferences, genuine opinions, and genuine disagreements as they naturally arise — not aggressively, not performatively, but accurately. “I actually want X, not Y, tonight.” “I think you’re wrong about this.” “I don’t want to go.” Say these with the same matter-of-fact quality as breathing. They’re not provocations. They’re the normal expressions of a person who exists as a distinct individual. If your partner experiences these normal expressions as threatening or intolerable, that’s extremely important information for you about the relationship.
Internal regulation practice. This is the deepest work: moving the seat of your emotional regulation from your partner’s approval back to your own internal resources. This involves the nervous system regulation work directly — building your capacity to be in your own distress, your own uncertainty, your own discomfort, without requiring immediate external resolution through her reassurance. If you can sit with your own unease without needing it fixed by the person next to you, you are not detached. You are self-sufficient. And self-sufficiency is the foundation on which genuine intimacy is built, because genuine intimacy requires two separate people choosing each other, not two merged entities unable to exist apart.

What Healthy Interdependence Looks Like

I want to be clear with you about what the alternative to codependency actually is, because the overcorrection is avoidant detachment — a different relational dysfunction, just pointed the opposite direction. Your goal is not independence. It’s interdependence: two individuals genuinely capable of existing separately, who choose to be together, who need each other in real ways without needing each other for their fundamental sense of self.

Psychologist David Schnarch describes this as differentiation — your ability to maintain your own identity and direction while remaining emotionally connected to another person. The differentiated man is not uninvested in his relationship. He’s deeply invested, but from a position of genuine selfhood rather than from the merger of enmeshment. He can say “I love you and I disagree with you.” He can experience his partner’s unhappiness without experiencing it as a threat to his own existence. He can be separate without being distant.

You, as a differentiated man, are a better partner than a codependent one in every way that matters. You’re more honest. You’re more genuinely present, because you’re present as yourself rather than as a performance of accommodation. You’re more capable of the friction that produces growth. And you’re more attractive, because a man who doesn’t require her approval to feel okay about himself is more interesting than one who does. Your self-possession isn’t selfishness. It’s the prerequisite for real partnership.

The practical texture of this in a daily relationship is worth walking through for you. You listen carefully to your partner and are genuinely influenced by her perspective, but influence is different from capitulation. You change your mind when she says something that genuinely changes it. You do not change your mind to keep the peace or to avoid her response. You have preferences and you state them. You sometimes do what she wants and sometimes what you want and sometimes negotiate. You can tolerate her disappointment when your answer is no, without treating her disappointment as an emergency. You don’t avoid hard conversations. You have them when they’re needed, and you don’t have them as a way of scoring points. You’re genuinely interested in who she is, and you don’t need her to be interested in you for you to be interested in yourself. You are, in the fullest sense, a person she’s in relationship with, rather than a surface she’s reflected off of.

When the Relationship Can’t Accommodate Restoration

Take a composite I’ll call Tom, thirty-eight, a teacher in Portland. He started the autonomy restoration process after recognizing this pattern in his four-year relationship. He began reclaiming his independent friendships, specifically time with male friends his girlfriend had gradually made him feel guilty for keeping. He began expressing opinions she disagreed with, without immediately walking them back. He began taking one morning a week for himself, without explanation or negotiation.

The relationship could not accommodate it. His girlfriend did not respond to his developing independence with increased respect or attraction. She experienced it as rejection, as evidence that he didn’t love her enough, as a threat that required renewed demands for the accommodation she’d been accustomed to. She escalated emotionally when he maintained his position. She characterized his evenings with friends as selfishness. She became more demanding in direct proportion to his becoming less accommodating.

That response was information for him, and it’s information for you too if you’re in a similar spot. A relationship that can only function when one partner has no selfhood is not a relationship worth sustaining. Tom eventually left. The leaving was genuinely painful. He had real feelings for her. The relationship had real good in it. And the dynamic he’d been in had been comfortable in the way familiar things are comfortable, even when they’re wrong. But the relationship required his self-erasure to function. That is not a relationship. That’s a hostage situation dressed in romantic language.

Here’s the important caveat for you: not every relationship that struggles with the restoration process is fundamentally incapable of accommodation. Some partners’ initial resistance to the change is about the disruption of the familiar, rather than about an inability to accept a partner who’s a real person. Give the process time and honest communication. The distinction between a partner who’s temporarily unsettled by the change and a partner who genuinely cannot function with someone who has a self — that distinction becomes clear to you over months, not days.

The Developmental Roots

I want to address where this comes from in you, briefly. Understanding the origin doesn’t automatically change the pattern. But without it, you’ll tend to replicate the pattern in your next relationship, even after fixing the surface symptoms.

Codependency in men most commonly develops from one of several childhood relational dynamics. The most common: a parent, usually but not always the mother, who was emotionally fragile, volatile, or unpredictable in ways that required you as a child to become hyper-attuned to that parent’s emotional state in order to feel safe. You learned to read the parent’s mood the moment you walked into a room. You learned to adjust your behavior preemptively to avoid their dysregulation. You learned that your own needs and preferences were secondary, or even threatening, to the parent’s need for a certain kind of compliance and accommodation from you.

This is not necessarily abuse. It’s a specific kind of emotional demand that produces a specific adaptive response in you: you became an extraordinarily good reader of others’ emotional states, and you organized your own behavior around preventing others’ distress. That capacity, in your adult life, becomes the codependency pattern. It is not a flaw of your character. It’s a survival strategy that worked in the environment where you developed it, and doesn’t work in adult relationships, where the stakes are different and the tools required are different.

Understanding this origin doesn’t produce automatic healing in you. It produces the context within which your healing becomes possible. It lets you recognize that your accommodation reflex is not who you are but what you learned. And what was learned can be unlearned, through the deliberate practice of opposite behaviors over time. The mindset tools work is relevant here — the work of building an internal evaluative standard that doesn’t depend on external approval for its authority. That internal standard is what never fully developed in the environment where your codependency formed, and it’s what the Autonomy Restoration Protocol is building in you now.

There’s a second developmental pathway worth naming for you: growing up with parents who modeled extreme self-sacrifice as the definition of love. The father who never had needs. The mother who martyred herself completely. These models transmit a specific and damaging message: love is demonstrated by the degree to which you erase yourself for another. If you learned this model, you bring it into your relationships with the sincere conviction that your self-erasure is love, and you’re genuinely baffled when that self-erasure produces not gratitude and closeness but the resentment and distance we’ve been describing. The model you were given is wrong. Not as a general statement about your parents’ intent, but as a practical guide to adult intimacy. Updating it requires both understanding where it came from and experiencing, through the restoration process, that genuine selfhood does not destroy relationships. For a lot of men, that experience is genuinely new.

There’s a third pathway worth naming briefly, one that looks nothing like the first two on the surface: the man raised in genuine chaos, where nobody was regulating anything, and he became the regulator by necessity. The parentified child, managing siblings, managing a household, managing a parent’s crisis, long before he had any business managing anything. He didn’t learn that his needs were dangerous. He learned that his needs were simply never going to be addressed by anyone else, so he stopped noticing he had them. In adulthood, this looks less like fear of abandonment and more like a genuine blank spot where his own preferences should be. If this is closer to your story than the other two, the work is the same, but it starts one step earlier for you: before you can express your preferences, you have to rediscover that you’re allowed to have them at all.

Codependency at Work

This pattern does not confine itself to romantic relationships. For a lot of men, the same underlying pattern shows up at work too. It produces the self-managed romantic partner, and it also produces the approval-seeking employee, the conflict-avoiding manager, and the professional who adjusts his assessment of a situation based on what the room appears to want to hear rather than what he actually thinks. This professional version is, if anything, more common than the romantic one, because professional environments are structured around hierarchy and approval in ways that can feel like they reward your codependent orientation rather than punishing it.

You’ll recognize the professional codependent by specific behaviors. He never pushes back on his boss’s direction, even when he privately thinks it’s wrong. He adjusts his analysis in meetings based on who’s in the room. He doesn’t bring problems forward until they’re emergencies, because bringing a problem forward requires tolerating someone’s displeasure at the problem’s existence. He’s consistently described as “easy to work with,” “a good team player,” and “collaborative” — all accurate descriptions of the accommodating surface he presents. He’s rarely described as someone who “drives outcomes,” “brings fresh perspective,” or “challenges our thinking.” Because he doesn’t.

Here’s the professional consequence for you if this is your pattern: you’re reliable at executing what’s already been decided but poor at identifying what should be decided, or at pushing back when what’s been decided is wrong. You’re useful in stable environments where the direction is correct and the need is for consistent execution. You’re a liability in environments where honest assessment, genuine disagreement, or the willingness to name uncomfortable truths are required. Organizations need people who will tell them what’s actually true. You can’t reliably do this if you’re codependent, because telling the truth requires tolerating the possibility that the messenger’s reception will be negative, and tolerating negative reception is the specific competence the codependency pattern lacks in you.

The extreme ownership framework addresses this directly in the professional context. The professional who owns outcomes fully — who’s willing to name the failure, identify the cause, and advocate for the change even when the change is unwelcome — is the professional with genuine value to an organization. That’s not the codependent professional. The transition from codependent to ownership-oriented requires exactly the same internal work as your romantic restoration. You build your tolerance for others’ negative responses to genuine truth. And you build your internal conviction that genuine truth serves better than managed truth, regardless of its immediate reception.

You can test yourself against this in a specific, concrete way this week. Think of the last time you sat in a meeting and disagreed internally with the direction the room was taking. Did you say so? If you didn’t, what stopped you wasn’t a lack of a good argument. It was the anticipated discomfort of being the one who broke consensus, the same discomfort that stops you from disagreeing with your partner over dinner. The professional pattern and the romantic pattern are not two separate problems for you. They’re the same nervous system response, showing up in two different rooms of your life, and fixing it in one room makes it measurably easier to fix in the other.

How Severe Is It?

Not all accommodation is codependency. Not all relational adjustment is self-erasure. Before you apply the protocol, it’s useful to assess your actual degree of the pattern, because your intervention should be proportional to your problem. A man who occasionally softens his opinions to maintain relationship peace is not codependent. A man who has no opinions he hasn’t pre-cleared through his partner’s anticipated response has a significant problem.

Can you name five things you genuinely like to do that are entirely independent of your partner’s preferences? Not things you do that she tolerates. Things you actively pursue regardless of her opinion about them. If you can’t name five, you’re already in the early range of the spectrum.
When was the last time you expressed a genuine disagreement with your partner and stayed with it, held your position without walking it back when she pushed back? Not a conflict. A genuine expression of a different view, maintained in the face of her disagreement. If you can’t remember this, you’ve developed a consistent pattern of opinion-withdrawal worth examining.
Do you know what you want for dinner before you ask her what she wants? The dinner question isn’t about dinner. It’s about whether you have an interior state that exists before the relational consultation. If you consistently defer to her preferences on small decisions, not because her preferences are better but because you’ve stopped developing your own, you’ve probably extended that deference to larger things as well.
Do you feel anxiety when she’s displeased with you that’s disproportionate to the actual stakes of the disagreement? If you feel genuine dread at minor relational friction, and will do almost anything to make it stop, you’re experiencing the codependent anxiety response. That’s the feeling that her displeasure is an existential threat, rather than a normal relational event you can tolerate and resolve without emergency management.
Have your male friendships declined since you entered this relationship, driven primarily by the relationship’s demands on your time and social energy? Not because she forbade them. Because you found it easier to avoid the friction of attending to them than to negotiate the time against the relationship’s apparent need for your presence.

The answers to those five questions place you on the spectrum. If you answered honestly and the answers trouble you, the protocol above is relevant to you right now. Maybe your answers are fine. Maybe you have genuine independent preferences, genuine maintained friendships, and genuine comfortable tolerance of relational friction. If so, what you have is a normal relationship that requires ordinary attention from you, not a codependency problem requiring the specific intervention of restoration work.

The Attachment Connection

The codependency pattern in men is almost always accompanied by an anxious attachment style. The relationship between the two is more complex than “anxious attachment equals codependency,” though. Anxious attachment, the hyperactivation of your attachment system in response to relational threat, produces the hypervigilance to your partner’s emotional state that becomes your primary operational mode. Both the attachment style and the codependency pattern involve the same underlying deficit in you: an insecure internal working model of relationships that requires constant external reassurance of the relationship’s stability to function.

For a complete framework on attachment styles and what they mean for your relational behavior, see the episode on attachment styles explained. Here’s the practical connection to the codependency work: your anxious attachment style doesn’t change through willpower, and it doesn’t change through the restoration protocol alone. It changes through the accumulation of evidence, over time, through the practice of behaving as a secure person behaves, in a relationship that gradually becomes safe enough for your anxious response to update. The restoration protocol is not a cure for anxious attachment. It’s a set of behaviors that, practiced consistently, begin to provide the kind of evidence your insecure internal working model needs to update toward security. If you consistently express your genuine preferences and find that the relationship survives, if you tolerate relational friction and find that it resolves without catastrophe, you’re gradually building the experiential database that secure attachment requires in you. It takes time. It takes consistency. It works.

Nathan and the Managed Self

Here’s another composite worth sitting with — call him Nathan, forty-one, a financial advisor in Dallas, with his wife for nine years. From the outside, the marriage looked excellent: aligned values, good communication, mutual respect, strong family life. From the inside, Nathan had been quietly disappearing for most of it. Not dramatically. There was no single moment of self-betrayal. There were hundreds of small ones, accumulated over years: the opinion softened to avoid friction, the preference abandoned to accommodate hers, the friendship attended less and less because she found his college friend difficult. He’d told himself each individual concession was reasonable, even generous. He hadn’t noticed that the pattern of concessions had gradually reduced him to a man who consulted his wife’s preferences before forming his own opinions about nearly anything.

The moment he noticed it: a colleague asked him in a meeting what he thought about a particular investment approach. He found himself, without conscious decision, formulating his answer based on what his wife would think of it if he told her about the meeting that evening. He was pre-managing an audience of one who wasn’t even in the room. He caught himself mid-thought, went home that evening, and had the first honest conversation about his own interior state he’d attempted in years. It wasn’t easy. The conversation surprised both of them. His wife hadn’t known how thoroughly he’d been self-erasing, and her response wasn’t relief that he was finally asserting himself. It was confusion, and some defensiveness, because the managed version of him was who she’d married, and the emerging genuine one was unfamiliar to her.

What Nathan learned over the following two years, through consistent deliberate practice of asserting genuine preferences, opinions, and needs, was that the restoration process was harder inside the marriage than he’d expected. Not because his wife was hostile to the genuine version of him. Because he wasn’t sure who the genuine version of him was anymore. He’d been self-managing for so long that he’d lost the internal reading that tells you what you actually want before you begin adjusting it for others’ consumption. He had to redevelop, almost from scratch, the capacity to feel his own reactions to experiences before processing them through the relational lens. This was the work for him. Not the work of standing up to his wife. The work of standing up inside himself, of recovering the internal compass that years of accommodation had atrophied. It’s the same work available to you.

What Codependency Does to the Relationship

There’s a specific dynamic codependency produces in the partner who receives your self-erasure, and it’s the opposite of what you’re hoping for. Say you efface yourself for a woman. You have no preferences of your own. You agree with everything. You organize yourself entirely around her moods and needs. You are not producing the experience of love and security in her. You’re producing, over time, a specific set of reactions that range from mild unease to contempt.

The first reaction is a loss of attraction. Physical and emotional attraction in relationships, particularly heterosexual ones, requires differentiation. The person you’re attracted to has to be genuinely other than you, with her own perspective, her own resistance, her own interior life you can’t fully predict or control. If you’ve eliminated your interior distinctiveness to accommodate her, she’s no longer experiencing you fully as someone she can be genuinely attracted to. You’ve become, in relational terms, a mirror, reflecting back whatever she presents without a genuine response of your own. Mirrors are not attractive to anyone. They’re surfaces.

Psychologist David Schnarch, whose research on differentiation in long-term relationships produced what I consider the most important model for understanding intimacy in adult partnerships, identified exactly this dynamic. His thesis: genuine intimacy requires two people who are genuinely distinct, who can tolerate their differences without needing the other to become identical to them, because intimacy is only possible between two people who are actually present as themselves. A merged couple, where one or both partners has lost their individual selfhood into the relationship, is not close. It’s fused. Fusion looks like closeness from the outside. From the inside, it produces a specific staleness — the absence of the genuine surprise and friction that come from the other person being actually other.

The second reaction is a growing sense of responsibility for your emotional state. If you regulate your entire interior experience through her approval, you’ve transferred responsibility for your wellbeing onto her. She didn’t ask for this responsibility. It wasn’t offered to her as a choice. It was assigned to her through your pattern of behavior, where your happiness or distress is visibly contingent on her mood and her approval. She wakes up and sees, in your face, whether she’s “doing well” in the relationship. This is exhausting for her, and eventually it produces resentment. She did not sign up to be the external regulator of your emotional state. Your dependency, experienced by you as love, is experienced by her as weight.

The third reaction, in extreme cases, is contempt. Not malicious contempt, the deliberate diminishment of a person she dislikes. The specific form of contempt that John Gottman has identified as one of the “four horsemen” of relationship destruction: the loss of basic respect for a partner that comes from watching him consistently demonstrate that he does not respect himself. If you have no boundaries, no preferences, no points of genuine resistance, if you’ll agree with anything, accommodate any demand, absorb any treatment, you’re communicating something about your own self-regard that eventually degrades her respect for you. This is the cruel paradox of codependency for you: the strategy designed to maintain your relationship produces the exact response most likely to destroy it.

None of these three reactions arrive on a fixed schedule, and you should not expect them in this exact order in your own relationship. Some partners move quickly from unease to resentment. Some stay in mild unease for years before contempt appears. Some never reach contempt at all, and simply drift into a low-grade, permanent disappointment that neither person names out loud. What all three have in common is direction. None of them move toward more love, more attraction, or more security for you, no matter how long you sustain the accommodation that’s supposedly producing those things. If you’ve been running this experiment for years and telling yourself it just needs more time, the data you already have should tell you something different.

The Autonomy Restoration Protocol in Detail

This is not a conflict-generation strategy for you. It’s not a way to win arguments or establish dominance. It’s a systematic process for recovering the genuine selfhood your codependency pattern has suppressed, conducted through specific daily practices small enough to begin immediately and significant enough to compound into a genuine transformation in you over time.

Stage One: the inventory. Start with an honest written accounting of what you’ve surrendered. Not a grievance list. Not “she made me give up X.” A clear-eyed examination of what you have genuinely given up, voluntarily, in service of the relationship dynamic. Friends you’ve seen less. Interests you’ve stopped pursuing. Opinions you’ve stopped expressing. Physical practices you’ve abandoned. Ambitions you’ve shelved. Your inventory reveals the scope of the erosion in your own life. For most men, the first time you do this exercise honestly, the list is longer and more serious than you expected. That’s the point. It’s also the beginning of your restoration, because you cannot reclaim what you haven’t clearly named.

Stage Two: unilateral small restoration. Pick one item from your inventory, the smallest and least charged, and restore it unilaterally. Not by asking permission. Not by announcing it as a manifesto of personal growth. By simply doing it. The friend you stopped seeing: reach out and make plans. The training practice you abandoned: schedule it and attend without negotiation. The opinion you’ve been softening: state it clearly, one time. The goal here isn’t to prove anything to your partner. It’s to prove something to yourself — that your genuine preferences can exist in the relationship without the catastrophe your avoidance of them has been preventing. In most cases, the catastrophe does not come. The restored preference exists. The relationship continues. Your fear was disproportionate to the reality.

Give this stage real weight before you move past it, because most men rush through it looking for the more dramatic stages ahead. The unilateral restoration of one small thing is not a warm-up exercise. It is the entire mechanism in miniature. Every larger change you make later in this protocol is built out of the same basic motion you’re practicing here: noticing a genuine preference, acting on it without asking permission, and observing that the relationship survived the action. Do this five or six times with small things before you move to Stage Three, and Stage Three will feel far less frightening when you get there, because you’ll already have a growing body of evidence in your own experience that your genuine self does not detonate the relationship you’re in.

Stage Three: the honest expression practice. This is the most interpersonally challenging part for you: the daily practice of expressing one genuine preference, opinion, or disagreement without walking it back. Not provocative. Not performed. Simply accurate. Say plainly that you don’t want to go to that dinner. Say plainly that you think she’s wrong about something. Say plainly that you’d rather spend Saturday morning differently. State it clearly, once. Skip the qualification cascade that’s your characteristic verbal tic, the one that starts with something like “I mean, I understand if you want to” and ends nowhere. None of that. State it honestly, then let a silence follow that’s comfortable rather than apologetic. This practice, maintained consistently, re-establishes the internal signal in you that your preferences have weight, that they deserve expression rather than pre-management into acceptability.

Stage Four: internal regulation development. This is the deepest component for you, and the one that takes the longest. Your core deficit is the inability to tolerate relational discomfort without seeking immediate external resolution. Your partner is upset, and you immediately move to fix, soothe, accommodate, whatever reduces the discomfort of her displeasure. You do this not because she needs it but because you need the signal of her approval to regulate your own state. Here’s the restoration practice: learn to sit with her discomfort without immediately moving to resolve it. Let her have her experience — her frustration, her disappointment, her disagreement — without treating it as an emergency. The nervous system regulation work is specifically relevant here — building the capacity to remain regulated in your own body while another person is in distress is a physiological skill as much as a psychological one for you. The box breathing practice, used in the moment of relational tension, gives you the physiological platform to maintain your own coherence while letting the other person’s state be their state, rather than an emergency signal requiring your immediate intervention.

When the Relationship Can’t Accommodate Your Selfhood

The most difficult outcome of the Autonomy Restoration Protocol is discovering that the relationship was built specifically around the codependent version of you, and cannot accommodate the genuine one. This is not the most common outcome for you. But it happens, and you deserve to hear it named honestly.

Take a composite I’ll call Ray, thirty-three, a teacher in Portland. He spent three years working through the restoration protocol, genuinely, consistently, with real effort. His partner’s response to the restoration was consistently negative. She hadn’t been attracted to the empty-mirror version of him that the codependency produced, she insisted, but she was also not comfortable with the version that had genuine preferences and occasional genuine disagreement. What she’d actually wanted, it became gradually clear, was a specific kind of accommodation — not the absence of all self, but the presence of a self that never disagreed with anything she considered important. She wanted a man with enough self to be interesting but not enough to challenge her. That particular configuration isn’t selfhood. It’s a more sophisticated version of the same performance.

When Ray named this honestly, when he acknowledged, after significant effort, that the relationship was specifically incompatible with a genuine version of him, the departure became the right move for him. Not because the relationship had failed. Because the honest version of him had succeeded in revealing what the relationship actually required, and what it required was incompatible with who he actually was. The restoration protocol served its purpose for him. It gave him the genuine self whose presence tested the relationship’s real structural soundness. The test produced a clear result. He acted on it.

This is the outcome you’re most afraid of if you haven’t started the restoration process: that restoring yourself will destroy your relationship. Sometimes it does. But the relationships it destroys were built on a foundation that couldn’t support an honest person. The relationships that survive restoration are the ones worth having for you. They’re the ones where your partner responds to the genuine man not with alarm and resistance but with interest, renewed attraction, and the relief of finally being in a relationship where both people are actually there.

The Stoic Self as Foundation

The philosophical framework most directly relevant to your codependency problem is Stoic, specifically the Stoic distinction between what’s in your control and what isn’t. If you’re codependent, you’ve organized your inner life around managing a variable that is definitionally outside your control: another person’s emotional state and approval of you. Every hour you spend monitoring, managing, and adjusting to produce a desired response from your partner is an hour spent on the wrong variable. The Stoic correction for you: your character, your choices, your genuine self-expression — these are yours to control. Another person’s response to your genuine self is theirs. You cannot own it, manage it, or make it reliable through sufficient self-erasure. You can only control the quality of what you bring, and accept, as a matter of principle, that the response is not yours to manage.

This is not the emotional detachment of a man who doesn’t care about his partner’s responses. It’s the correct assignment of responsibility. Her emotional state is her responsibility. Yours is yours. Your genuine self-expression is your responsibility. Her response to it is hers. The codependency pattern has collapsed this boundary completely in you, taking everything that’s hers and attempting to control it through your behavior. The Stoic practice of returning responsibility to its correct owner, not with cold indifference but with genuine respect for her agency and genuine ownership of your own, is the philosophical foundation of your restoration process.

For a complete introduction to how Stoic philosophy applies to your practical life, not as a collection of quotes but as an operational framework for emotional governance, decision-making, and genuine resilience, see the series on Stoicism for men. The connection to your codependency work is direct: a man who has built a genuine Stoic practice has, in the process, built exactly the internal security that makes the codependency pattern unnecessary for him. He doesn’t need her approval to know his worth. He can observe her emotional state without being required to manage it. He can tolerate uncertainty about how he’s landing without that uncertainty threatening his foundation. These are the same competencies the Autonomy Restoration Protocol is developing in you through the relational behavioral practices. The philosophy and the practice are building the same thing in you from different directions.

The Other Side of the Work

The goal here is not independence for you. It’s not the elimination of relational vulnerability or the rejection of genuine connection. It’s the replacement of codependent fusion with what Schnarch calls differentiated intimacy. That’s your capacity to be genuinely close to another person while remaining genuinely yourself. It’s being affected by her without being controlled by her. It’s caring deeply about her wellbeing without making her approval the condition of your own.

Healthy interdependence is not a constant negotiation of independence versus closeness for you. It’s the natural state of two people who’ve both maintained their selfhood and chosen genuine commitment to each other from that selfhood. Men who’ve done this restoration work, and partners who’ve responded well to it, describe a relational quality qualitatively different from the codependent dynamic. There’s more genuine surprise. There’s more genuine conflict that resolves without either person losing themselves in the resolution. There’s more physical and emotional attraction, and more genuine conversation, because both people are actually present with actual perspectives, rather than one person managing the other’s responses.

For a broader framework on building self-directed inner discipline, the foundation for the regulated, secure inner life that genuine interdependence requires from you, see the work on monk mode and dopamine regulation. The inner stillness that comes from reducing your dependency on external stimulation and approval is the same inner stillness that makes genuine relational presence possible for you. A man who needs external validation to feel adequate cannot be genuinely present in intimacy. Building your inner life reduces that need, not by eliminating your sensitivity, but by building the secure foundation genuine connection can grow from.

The Autonomy Restoration Protocol: Summary

Identify: Write the specific inventory. What interests, friendships, opinions, and preferences have you surrendered or modified in the relationship? Be specific.
Unilateral restoration: Begin reclaiming one thing from the inventory without negotiation. A protected hour, a friendship, an interest. Start small. Start now.
Honest expression practice: One genuine preference, opinion, or disagreement per day, stated without walking it back. Not provocative. Accurate.
Internal regulation development: Build the capacity to sit with your own discomfort without requiring immediate external resolution. This is the nervous system work. This is the core competence the codependency pattern lacks in you.
Evaluate the relationship’s response: Over three to six months of consistent restoration effort, the relationship will tell you whether it can accommodate a genuine version of you. Act on that information honestly.

The most common form of courage I know is the courage to be who you actually are in front of someone who might leave you for it. Not the eloquent version. Just the true one.

The Questions You’re Probably Asking

Let me deal directly with what’s probably already coming up for you.

Maybe your partner tells you you’re selfish when you try to assert your own preferences, and you’re not sure if she’s right. Selfishness is the disregard of others’ legitimate needs. Asserting your own preferences is not selfishness. It’s the normal behavior of a person with a self. Ask yourself whether you’re genuinely disregarding her needs, or simply declining to be the sole organizer of both her needs and yours. Your restoration process can temporarily look like selfishness from her perspective, because she’s been accustomed to getting all of your accommodation and is now getting less. That’s not you becoming selfish. That’s your relationship moving toward a more accurate balance. If you’re genuinely ignoring her real needs in favor of your own, adjust. If you’re simply declining to erase yourself entirely, hold your ground.

You might be wondering whether codependency is just another word for being a supportive, caring partner. It isn’t. A supportive, caring partner supports from a position of genuine selfhood — he chooses to be present for his partner in specific ways while remaining himself. You, if you’re codependent, support from the absence of selfhood. Your support isn’t a choice so much as a compulsion, driven by your intolerance of her distress and your requirement of her approval. The quality of the support can look the same from the outside. The internal structure is completely different, and the long-term effects on both of you are completely different too.

You might be wondering whether a relationship can actually recover from a long period of codependency. Yes, sometimes significantly. The recovery requires that you genuinely restore your own selfhood, and that your partner can adjust to the new relational dynamic without experiencing the change as abandonment. This is possible, and it happens. It requires honest communication about what’s changing and why, and it requires that both of you are willing to be in a more differentiated relationship rather than the merged one you’ve been in. The relationships most likely to recover are the ones where your partner actually wanted more of your genuine self all along, and responds to it with relief when it finally appears.

Maybe you recognize this pattern with your mother or father rather than your partner, and you’re wondering whether the same protocol applies. The same underlying dynamic applies, with significant practical modifications. Codependency in a family-of-origin relationship often requires significant physical and psychological distance to interrupt. The attunement to a parent’s emotional state is deeply wired in you and doesn’t resolve without deliberate geographic and contact boundaries. The Autonomy Restoration Protocol still applies, with the added complexity that the person in question is your parent rather than your partner, which introduces significant guilt in you, usually disproportionate to the actual harm of becoming your own person. You can love your parent and still decline to organize your adult life around their needs.

Maybe your partner is the codependent one in your relationship, and you’re wondering how to help her without taking on her codependency as your own project. This tension is real for you. Someone you love and want to support deserves honest engagement from you. The most honest and most helpful thing you can do: decline to participate in the codependent dynamic. Decline to be the source of her emotional regulation. Be clear about what you can and can’t be for her. Name the pattern if you can do so without cruelty. Encourage her toward whatever genuinely builds her own sense of worth, separate from you. You cannot restore her autonomy for her. Any attempt to do so is itself a codependent move on your part. You can create the conditions where her own work becomes possible, and then let her do it. That distinction, between creating conditions and managing outcomes, is the hardest line for you to hold in this situation, and you will probably cross it more than once before you get good at staying on the right side of it. That’s normal. Notice when you cross it, step back, and try again.

Maybe you’ve done some of the restoration work, and your partner is responding well, more attracted, more engaged, but you feel guilty, like you’re manipulating her by becoming more independent. That guilt is not legitimate. It’s the codependency pattern’s last defense — the internal voice that tells you your genuine selfhood is somehow a manipulation rather than a legitimate form of existence. You are not manipulating your partner by having preferences, opinions, and an independent life. You are being a genuine person, and genuine people are more attractive than empty mirrors. Your improved dynamic is not a trick. It’s the correct outcome of you becoming more fully yourself. The guilt belongs to your old pattern, and it deserves examination from you, not obedience.

One Final Observation

Men who’ve done this restoration work most successfully, who’ve reclaimed their genuine selfhood within or outside a specific relationship, consistently describe the same unexpected discovery: the genuine self was not as frightening to others as they’d feared. The perspective they’d been suppressing was more welcome than they’d imagined. The preferences they’d been abandoning were ones their partner might have accommodated all along, if they’d ever been clearly expressed. The codependency pattern had been protecting against a response that, in a lot of cases, was never actually coming. The fear of the genuine self’s reception was disproportionate to the actual reception, because the fear was formed in a childhood environment where genuine self-expression was more dangerous than it is in most adult relationships. The child who learned to hide himself to keep the peace was being rational about his actual situation at the time. The adult who keeps hiding himself in relationships where that threat no longer exists is carrying a cost he does not have to carry. Your threat assessment is outdated. Your environment has changed. Your behavior can change to match it.

One more thing worth saying to you directly before we close, because it matters more than anything technical in this episode. None of what you just heard requires you to become a different kind of man. It requires you to become more fully the man you already are, underneath the accommodation. The interests, the opinions, the friendships, the preferences you’ve been suppressing were never gone. They were exactly where you left them, waiting. Restoration is not construction. You are not building a self from nothing. You are clearing away years of quiet subtraction and finding that most of what you thought you’d lost was simply buried, not destroyed. That should make this feel more possible to you, not less. You are not starting from zero. You are starting from everything you already are, minus the habit of hiding it.

Here’s the specific hope I want to leave with you if you recognized yourself in this episode’s opening: your restoration is not the destruction of your relationship. In most cases, it’s the beginning of the genuine relationship, the one that couldn’t exist until you were actually in it. The empty-mirror version of you was never really in a relationship. You were a surface your partner was relating to. The genuine you, the one with genuine preferences, genuine opinions, genuine friction, genuine separate existence, is the person your partner can actually be with, in the full sense. She might be surprised by you. She almost certainly will be. For most partners of men who do this work, the surprise is welcome. She’s been waiting, without knowing it, for the actual person to show up. That’s true even in relationships where she’d never have said it out loud, because she may not have had the language for what was missing either. She just knew something in the room felt thin. That’s the person the restoration protocol is building you toward. Start building. The work begins with the inventory, tonight, if you’re honest enough to do it tonight. It continues with the first small restoration — one preference, one opinion, one hour that belongs to you alone — executed without asking permission. It builds from there into the gradual reclamation of the man who was in there all along, waiting for you to decide he was worth showing up for. He is. Start there.

Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate. — Carl Jung.

The codependency pattern is the unconscious organizing principle of a life lived in response to others. Making it conscious is your first act of genuine self-direction. Everything in this episode has been about making it conscious in you and then, choice by choice, replacing it with something that’s actually yours.

Episode two hundred and two of Resilient Wisdom. The Autonomy Restoration Protocol. If this episode landed somewhere real for you, share it with another man who might need it, because these conversations rarely happen between men, and they should. Next week: the rebound trap, and the healing timeline protocol — what actually happens when you try to move on too fast, and what the research says about the timeline that genuinely works. That’s episode two hundred and three. I’ll see you there.

Editorial Standards Corrections Medical Disclaimer About Our Content Affiliate Disclosure Site Map

The Vanishing Self — Losing Yourself in Someone Else Is Not the Same as Loving Them