Ahahaha, you would not believe what a sore point that is for the fandom. I think there may have actually been a fan campaign to get them to hug. Of course, I don't think most fans quite got the hug they wanted. *eg*

LOL. Now I understand why in that screencap post (where they use caps from Jared Palecki and Milo V. from Gilmore Girls) where there's a big brother argument Sam's "my brother would do everything for me" is countered by Peter's "my brother hugs me".

That's actually one of the reason's I'd say the Petrellis are a little more codependent (or at least dysfunctional). The Winchesters had no other options, but Peter and Nathan could have fixated on plenty of people -- parents, nannies, school friends, girlfriends -- but chose the brother they hardly ever saw for half their life, and who was at a competely different life stage, instead.

*ponders freedom of choice as higher degree of dysfunction*

You could also say that the Winchesters still don't have much choice, given their lifestyle, and again, Peter and Nathan do. And between Nathan's marriage and fatherhood of two children he's aware of and Simone presumably not being Peter's first girlfriend, one can safely say they did and do engage in a couple of other relationships which could and should take a similar degree of emotional commitment and intensity. But it just hasn't happened yet. Which yes, is probably evidence of a higher degree of co-dependency.

There's no manipulation, but I think their own lack of emotional awareness (a flaw the Petrellis absolutely do not have; they are incredibly emotionally literate, which is why they are such fantastic manipulators) makes it hard for them to truly be straightforward.

I'm assuming John's annoying "I'm telling you nothing to protect you" tendency fits into this? But the brothers do tell each other "I'd do anything for you" every third episode...