Is 'No Contact' abuse?

I’m with Madgran and Chewbacca, I believe every person involved in estrangement experiences it differently. Every situation is different and the way individuals respond will differ. The feelings around estrangement will be similar, like those associated with grief, shock, denial, anger, loss, bargaining, helplessness, depression and if we are fortunate, acceptance.
Some people remain stuck, others decide not to allow estrangement to define their lives. It’s always a painful process, life changing.

It didn't upset me , it irritated me because it comes over as covering all bases. If it said some abuse it wouldn't be a generalisation, as stated it reads as a catch all for all abuse

Anyway moving on ....I understand what you were trying to say and I get the metaphor.

It's hardly a sweeping generalisation, just a metaphor, sorry it upset you Madgran

I do think if everything in our lives was great, if estrangement didn’t matter one bit, that we were happy with the status quo, you wouldn’t be on an estrangement thread. I didn’t think of it happening to me ever. Never gave it a thought. When it did I like most people tried to make sense if it. It has helped me enormously knowing it’s not just me, just the responses on here clarifies a lot.
Would love it to be different but it takes two to achieve and want it.

Chewbacca

^Many decide that their estranged children are being abused with no evidence and dream up^ scenarios of miserable marriages with again no actual proof.

None of the posters who post here can prove anything that they say though can they; not just estranged GPs? We have to take everything we're told, by every poster, with every scenario; at face value, no matter how implausible it may seem to many of us.

Exactly Chewbacca. All we can do is take what is said at face value. We can suggest other ways to look at a situation, we can give a different point of view etc. but we have to assume that what is being said is true.

We can also speculate on possible reasons as MQ demonstrates above which may help a poster to consider if such descriptions might be relevant to them. But we cannot know if it is relevant, that is for a poster in the situation to decide.

We don't know, none of us do, and every situation is different.

That's the point though, there is never sugar with an abusive person, it's always salt. Maybe we want to see the best in someone or they convinced us they were worthy of us to begin with or they are family and family is supposed to be good

As I said, I understood your comment within a particular context of some abuse. But generalised statements do not cover all aspects in all scenarios.

I agree Madgran but would add that the promise of 'sugar' can be used to draw the unsuspecting victim into an abusive, coercive relationship.

Absolutely Smileless. In that context the sugar/salt is an appropriate description. As it is in other abusive scenarios. It just isn't a "catch all" description for all abuse in all scenarios and as there are so many types and aspects of abuse, I think generalisations are unhelpful!

Bibbity

But then many of the estrangement's mentioned here and on the other threads make no promises of contact or 'sugar' it's just the end.

And yet they get labelled as abusive. So how is that?
Many decide that their estranged children are being abused with no evidence and dream up scenarios of miserable marriages with again no actual proof.

I suspect, in some cases, it's because there was no big moment. Little ones, disagreements that they thought were sorted through, tension they thought would dissolve, etc. After all, stuff like that had always been worked through before.

It wasn't a big deal, it's just how family goes sometimes.

But, to the other side, it was death by a thousand paper cuts. What was the point of talking? That had been done before, and here they were again. Nothing changed, or ever changed for long.

So, they went NC. No talk, no warning, just done.

That left the people who were estranged scrambling to understand. Nothing dramatic had happened, there has to be something huge for someone to go NC. And in the absence of anything they can point to, the only thing that makes sense is that there must be something else going on.

Many decide that their estranged children are being abused with no evidence and dream up scenarios of miserable marriages with again no actual proof.

None of the posters who post here can prove anything that they say though can they; not just estranged GPs? We have to take everything we're told, by every poster, with every scenario; at face value, no matter how implausible it may seem to many of us.

But then many of the estrangement's mentioned here and on the other threads make no promises of contact or 'sugar' it's just the end.

And yet they get labelled as abusive. So how is that?
Many decide that their estranged children are being abused with no evidence and dream up scenarios of miserable marriages with again no actual proof.

I agree Madgran but would add that the promise of 'sugar' can be used to draw the unsuspecting victim into an abusive, coercive relationship.

It's only later that the victim if they ever do, realises the unhealthy nature of the relationship they've been drawn into.

As with all cases of adult abuse, the victim is gradually alienated from anyone who may be alerted to the insidious nature of the relationship, and may have sufficient influence to help the victim see that it's an unhealthy one.

That person or those people are more likely to be family members which is why they become estranged.

Is 'No Contact' abuse?

No, not of and by itself. I can see where it could be the only reasonable option left to someone that is emotionally hurting. That you or I might not think the other person has a good enough reason to resort to such a drastic action is just another opinion.

A family member going NC suddenly, with no warning or explanation (as seems to be the experience with so many of us) is an intentionally unusually cruel and thoughtless act. A person doing such a desperate thing probably doesn't have the emotional strength to admit their own weaknesses and is desperate to end their own emotional pain. Less likely, but still happens: a petty, narcistic person might even think the other person deserves to feel some pain too as a punishment or retribution.

I suspect that many of those who have suddenly found themselves estranged without warning and without an explanation may have ignored the warning signs and refused to accept the reasons for estrangement. No explanation will ever be judged reasonable enough to merit the other person going No Contact.

If you haven't got a sweet tooth that might not be all bad.

Erm... Ok, I don't like arguments

That's the point though, there is never sugar with an abusive person, it's always salt. Maybe we want to see the best in someone or they convinced us they were worthy of us to begin with or they are family and family is supposed to be good...

Always salt

Abuse is someone offering you what looks like sugar cubes but when you eat them, it's always salt... Yet the promise of sugar

Well domestic abuse definitions don't look like they promise sugar. Neither do descriptions of coercive control. Financial abuse doesn't offer sugar and having had a great deal of experience supporting someone in the aftermath of that area I can assure you sugar was not part of the coercive control that was used to achieve it or part if the tactics used to instigate financial abuse !

I understand your description within a particular context of abuse but not as a generalised description of "abuse" per se.

I do not want an argument , I am not reading too much into the statement, I am responding specifically to your comment as a generalised description/definition.

Abuse is someone offering you what looks like sugar cubes but when you eat them, it's always salt... Yet the promise of sugar

Walking away from someone offers no sugar and gives no salt.

Yes Madgran "it all just hurts for lots of people for different reasons" and of course we should all be aware that estrangement is used to hurt just as much as it's used to protect.

I think that's why I like to keep the definition that it is there to protect not harm in the same way it is used in law.

Because I don't think abusive people should get to turn something good into something bad

"No Contact" is also a legally recognised and used terminology for:

*No Contact order with a victim
*No Contact order between a minor child and parent

It is also, as Violet says, a recognised terminology for a specific action taken by a child/AC to protect themselves

It is also, in a literal sense, for those who have not experienced/are not aware of the above definitions a description of deciding to have nothing to do with/estranging from a specific person for whatever reason.

It is almost inevitable that the term will be read and used in different contexts by different people.

Within the context of being estranged some people will experience what is done to them as abuse. Others may not agree, but the fact is that won't stop someone feeling abused.

MercuryQueen When abuse becomes interpretive, according to one's own perception, it becomes very difficult to sort out

But that is exactly the interpretation applied to eg Hate Crime .*."Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person...". So perception of a victim is clearly something recognised legally

To be honest though none of this helps anyone here really does it ....definitions of phrases, interpretations of experiences, legal definitions. It all just hurts for lots of people for different reasons!

Sometimes there and are different perceptions that one party says is abuse and another says isn't.

Denying a child's sexuality and trying to correct it

Disliking a child's choice of partner

Disliking a child's appearance or weight

Disliking a child's career choices

Many adult children would say that is abusive while the parent would say that they just want what is "best" for them

I wouldn't use that word. But I certainly think a lot of things have been manipulated and missed.

I've seen side stepping and untruths

Are you saying that Smileless is a liar bibbity?

What is the explanation then? Because I've seen side stepping and untruths but no actual explanation about why her son owes her a relationship.

Chewbacca

Whatever is the matter with you bibbity? You're angrier and more aggressive than usual tonight. Has something upset you to make you so rude? There was really no call for that comment.

Where? I am simply asking someone to expand on their statement?

Smileless has never never explained how exactly no contact is abuse. Which is a massive attack on a lot of individuals. Not a leap to request a justification for such a ridiculous claim.

From what I have read on this thread, I think Smileless has explained herself very well and I agree that your post are not worthy of a response, so this is the only one you'll get from me Bibbity.

Whatever is the matter with you bibbity? You're angrier and more aggressive than usual tonight. Has something upset you to make you so rude? There was really no call for that comment.