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.

  • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day 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.

    • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      15 hours 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
        ·
        8 hours 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
          ·
          6 hours 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
            ·
            6 hours 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
              ·
              5 hours 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
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 hours 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.

    • stinky@redlemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day 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
        1 day 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
          21 hours 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.

          • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 hours 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
              3 hours 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.

            • stinky@redlemmy.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              14 hours 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.

          • x00z@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            17 hours 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
              15 hours 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
                ·
                13 hours 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
                  11 hours 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 @[email protected] 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.