I suppose I am reacting to lines like these in the article:

> Now I don't even need to blog. I just talk to Alex and I feel satisfied.

> In our household, we are now doing Friday demos, just me and Alex. We're each sharing something we shipped the previous week.

> For example, when we exercise, we each have different goals and needs but we still try to go to the gym with each other if we can and it's not too much hassle.

These are fine - and like I said it could be real - but often this is how people describe codependency.

I want to highlight a "mixed" passage part way through where the author restates their thesis:

> The best relationships truly are all-encompassing, and it's okay to talk about your deepest, darkest inner things

The first half of this sentence talks about being all-encompassing - i.e. the ways in which the partnership has come to be central in all things it can be central in. That is what feels codependent-y to me. The second half of the sentence describes intimacy and it has nothing to do with shared activities. You do not need to have any sort of "encompassing" relationship to comfortably discuss your deepest darkest feelings - you just need trust and an appropriate interlocutor. It's the conflating of "doing everything together" with "intimacy" that makes me worry.

But again - the author could be right! I suspect this is real sometimes.