I’m a bit lost here, to be fair. I went full no contact with my family back when I was 16. Took a hike, even across countries. So, apparently what happened, was my ex brother in law not keeping his mouth shut and sharing my number with my family. I still can’t make heads or tails of it. But now my dad wants to be real chummy and friendy with me? Fuck that, honestly. I’m not super mad at him, more at the rest of my family, but it seriously hurts right now. What am I supposed to do? I’m at a loss here. Haven’t really talked to the person for over 21 years.

  • stinky@redlemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    19 days ago

    If OP has made it clear he doesn’t want someone around, and they violate it by sharing phone numbers and sending texts and trying to get back in, then the family isn’t respecting boundaries and is probably why they got cut off in the first place.

    Going no contact is often a last resort after a lifetime of pain. It’s nothing something people do casually.

    • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 days ago

      Meh, that is a bit extreme without knowing anything about the history. OP even said they’re not really angry with their father. I think it’s fair to reach out after over 20 years. If OP still wants no contact, they can communicate this and if their father doesn’t respect that, then I’d say you have a valid point.

      • stinky@redlemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        Going no-contact is an extreme form of self-defense which takes incredible emotional fortitude to uphold, especially at first when your bewildered abuser is trying every trick to get back into your life. It cannot be done casually. It takes lots of time and energy. This means that the person who does it was really, really hurt. And you think it’s fair to the abuser to let them reach back out?

        • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          17 days ago

          Maybe I am too old to put too much value in the lasting decisions of a teenager. You change so damn much over the years and what felt like the worst back then isn’t that bad when you look back after 20 years. But my main point is that OP explicitly said they weren’t angry with their father, so I don’t see it as a bad act when he tries to contact OP again.

            • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              17 days ago

              As a matter of fact, I did go no contact with my parents after I moved out at 19 and minimal contact as I got older. Nowadays, with both of them dead, I see their behavior more nuanced. I can appreciate how difficult it is to leave your own upbringing behind and they both came from families traumatized by war. That’s my personal story, of course, and doesn’t mean other people should see it the same way. But it’s the reason why I think, after 20 years it’s no problem to re-evaluate decisions you made as a teenager. If you still feel the same way you did back then, that’s fine. But there’s no point in leaving relationships behind that could be good for you just because.

              • stinky@redlemmy.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                17 days ago

                But there’s no point in leaving relationships behind that could be good for you just because.

                Did you go no contact with your parents “Just because” ?

    • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      18 days ago

      With respect, 16 year old brains are not physically developed enough to make that decision. It’s why we don’t let them vote.

      Things may look different today. I stand by my suggestion.

      • stinky@redlemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 days ago

        anyone who’s been abused as a teenager could tell your differently. your advice is wrong, sorry.

        • CTDummy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          Yeah the guy isn’t a stranger to L takes. “Maybe cut the guy some slack” pfffft. Abused or neglected at 16? Nah you’re too young to know that apparently.

          • stinky@redlemmy.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            17 days ago

            Entitled is an ironic choice of words for someone who’s never been abused and says teenage abuse victims aren’t “developed enough” to go no-contact with their abuser. Foolish human. If you respond I’ll block you instantly without reading it to verify that you’ve read and understood my comment.

              • stinky@redlemmy.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                17 days ago

                The person I’m talking to discredits teenage victims of abuse who choose to cut off their abuser by saying that they’re not “developed” enough to decide when the abuse stops. And you’re offended by what I said? Fuck off.

            • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              17 days ago

              Fuck off. Stop assuming that you know anything about me, foolish asshole.

              Now that the BLUF is out of the way, and I know that you’ve read and understood my comment, I’ll do you a solid to show that there are no hard feelings. You’re blocked.

              • CTDummy@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                17 days ago

                A completely unsurprising response given your idiotic takes in the thread so far. Sounds like you need more education in your “area of professional study.” Or just any education would do.

            • x00z@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              17 days ago

              16 year olds would call getting grounded abuse. But there’s not enough info to know whats up in any way.

              But you do seem like an absolute asshole, so I’m blocking you. And no I’m not the person you replied to.

              • CTDummy@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                17 days ago

                There’s (edit:was) enough info in the thread to read between the lines enough to know it wasn’t anything on par with “grounding”. Implying most 16 years old call grounding abuse sure is helpful in a thread like this though. As if someone maintains 20 years NC because of grounding.

                Sounds like you’re doing them a favour by blocking them if you think saying the equivalent of “just get over it” is reasonable.

                • x00z@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  17 days ago

                  I merely add another such thing that can be interpreted out of nowhere just as they are doing.

                  No need to read between the lines if you’re making assumptions to justify a perspective.

                  • CTDummy@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    17 days ago

                    I’m not reading between lines. You’re the one who trivialised the issue by asserting 16 years olds call grounding abuse and did so in the context of this post. As I said before they removed it (due to privacy I suspect) there was enough to know it was nowhere trivial enough to be compared to grounding. Frankly in the OP alone there’s still enough information to draw that conclusion.

                    If you and @CaptObvious@literature.cafe can’t read through the thread and/or lack experience with childhood abuse probably best not weigh in on such matters and keep your poorly informed opinions to yourselves.

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        17 days ago

        Also with due respect, your opinion is wrong. I work with badly abused people, and those that CAN escape from toxicity at the earliest have it “best”. Some could never escape. There are 12yr old who have a forced maturity that you often don’t even find in 40+ olds. Which is not really a good thing.

        Please, i don’t wanna sound condescending or so, but widen your horizon in that regard please.

        • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          17 days ago

          My “opinion” is not wrong. It is scientific fact. Adolescent development is an area of my professional study.

          Are there abused children in the world? Yes. Are their brains well-enough developed to make any lifelong decisions? No. That doesn’t mean that they don’t deserve help. It does mean that they are not mature enough to understand the ramifications of a no-contact decision.

          I don’t wanna sound condescending, but please base your own opinions in fact.

          • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 days ago

            Facts? So heavily abused children should stay with their abusers forever because their "brain is not well-enough to make any lifelong decisions hence they are not… "? This is the most absurd thing I’ve heard in a while. Not saying their brain isn’t perfectly well adjusted. No shit sherlock, that’s old news. Just the conclusion is… Very questionable. The ramifications of a no-contact-decision is the faint possibility of starting a therapy and get slightly better.

            Anyone abused in whatever way, no matter how mature their brain is, should leave the abusive environment (at the very least. And get help at the acceptable best) . Isn’t that like the most basic survival-tactic? Avoid any kind of harm at all costs however possible.

            • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              17 days ago

              And now we know that you can’t (or won’t) read. That’s ok. But I do think that we’ve exhausted the possibilities of this conversation.

              • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                17 days ago

                We sure did. But please, do continue your “studies”, you never know when it might come in handy.

                • CTDummy@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  17 days ago

                  Yeah I’m glad I wasn’t the only one to pick up their attempt to appeal to their own non-existent qualifications. Their field “was and is linguistics” (and a technical advisor, scuba certified hiker, former school teacher, former journalist and presumably navy seal). Who was apparently born in the 70s and alive during the Cold War era. They also don’t believe in mobile phones being addictive.

                  If the fact that they thought “young brains aren’t finished developing” was a profound point isn’t enough to discourage anyone taking them seriously; all of that should be. Block and ignore them. Not worth wasting the brain cells over.

                  • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    16 days ago

                    Their point was that the kid’s brain isn’t well enough adjusted to understand the ramifications of a permanent non-contact-decision. While part 1 isn’t wrong, part 2 is so horribly off, even to the point of someone seemingly fearing their toy might be leaving. Not saying pedo, but either that, silly conclusion or a total lack of empathy.

                    And nah, i rarely block nor ignore. Most people fight for their point to the death, even if they already know it’s bonkers. Even “science”-people who totally shouldn’t, as it’s never a personal fight in science. And trying to indicate some kind of authority on the topic is fine too. I did it myself. Those who really have, know the difference of stating and posing it.