How Can You Go Four Months Without Contacting Your Family

23-02-2019 06:57PM

Giveaway wrote: »

Probably only noticed when the remittances stopped

That's a pretty grim assumption. In a way it's worse than the assumed abusiveness.

ginandtonicsky · 23-02-2019 07:01PM

Candie wrote: »

Lots of people lose contact with family over horrendous dynamics or outright abuse, and if that's the case with this guy then it's a perfectly reasonable strategy for self-preservation to go NC and he's entitled to do whatever he wants for his own sake.

Equally his family might be perfectly normal and he might have a habit of leaving it too long to get in touch and his family get concerned about his whereabouts. Maybe his mother is ill and doesn't want to advertise it but would like him to be in contact instead of waiting until it occurs to him they might be worried. Or maybe he's not absent minded and he's just selfish, and it doesn't register with him that his presumably elderly parents would worry.

Or maybe one or both parties has mental health issues. Maybe he stormed out after a row and they feared the worst, maybe words were said and regretted and his family want the chance to put that right. The variables are too numerous to just decide his family must be the reason this situation occurred.

I think that's what Ginandtonicsky is getting at, and it's not at all unreasonable or judgemental. There's a few possible reasons why this situation may have occurred.

Thanks for articulating this a lot better than I did Candie.

I think there’s an awful lot of projecting going on in this thread. “My family was toxic and I haven’t spoken to them in years and it’s the best thing I ever did for myself and I wouldn’t tell anyone about it casually so it must be true of everyone who has done the same thing.”

Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. Taking this story at face value, a man doesn’t contact his family for months on end so they launch a missing person campaign. Where exactly is the evidence that his family are terrible people and he has done the right thing? That’s an awful leap and projection and says more about the person making the assumption than the facts at hand.

eviltwin · 23-02-2019 07:03PM

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

Thanks for articulating this a lot better than I did Candie.

I think there’s an awful lot of projecting going on in this thread. “My family was toxic and I haven’t spoken to them in years and it’s the best thing I ever did for myself and I wouldn’t tell anyone about it casually so it must be true of everyone who has done the same thing.”

Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. Taking this story at face value, a man doesn’t contact his family for months on end so they launch a missing person campaign. Where exactly is the evidence that his family are terrible people and he has done the right thing? That’s an awful leap and projection and says more about the person making the assumption than the facts at hand.

No one is saying that. What people are saying is that they wouldn't rush to judge him for not contacting them. It's called keeping an open mind. People are hardly going to be open about difficult family dynamics.

Charles Babbage · 23-02-2019 07:04PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

It is pretty selfish. Whether or not you're in strife with your family, or having a difficult time yourself, it costs very little effort to get a message to them and say 'im fine but dont expect to hear from me, maybe for a long while'. Then both parties can get on with their lives for the time being, maybe in future things will be different.

Its nice to know though that somewhere he has some people who care enough to go to those lengths.

This.

Just because some in your family might be pricks doesn't justify you being a prick.

23-02-2019 07:06PM

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

Thanks for articulating this a lot better than I did Candie.

I think there’s an awful lot of projecting going on in this thread. “My family was toxic and I haven’t spoken to them in years and it’s the best thing I ever did for myself and I wouldn’t tell anyone about it casually so it must be true of everyone who has done the same thing.”

Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. Taking this story at face value, a man doesn’t contact his family for months on end so they launch a missing person campaign. Where exactly is the evidence that his family are terrible people and he has done the right thing? That’s an awful leap and projection and says more about the person making the assumption than the facts at hand.

I didn't think you sounded at all judgemental, GT. Well, not any more judgemental than the numbers who assumed the family were abusive, anyway.

We see things in terms of our experiences, I guess. I've a happy family, some aren't that lucky, so we frame the situation within parameters born of our own experiences.

You can't assume anything about this kind of situation unless you're one of the parties involved.

ginandtonicsky · 23-02-2019 07:06PM

bluewolf wrote: »

for all we know he told them to leave him alone and they launched this anyway

For all we know he disappeared without a trace as far as his worried family was concerned so they launched a missing person campaign.

freshpopcorn · 23-02-2019 07:07PM

Candie wrote: »

Lots of people lose contact with family over horrendous dynamics or outright abuse, and if that's the case with this guy then it's a perfectly reasonable strategy for self-preservation to go NC and he's entitled to do whatever he wants for his own sake.

Equally his family might be perfectly normal and he might have a habit of leaving it too long to get in touch and his family get concerned about his whereabouts. Maybe his mother is ill and doesn't want to advertise it but would like him to be in contact instead of waiting until it occurs to him they might be worried. Or maybe he's not absent minded and he's just selfish, and it doesn't register with him that his presumably elderly parents would worry.

Or maybe one or both parties has mental health issues. Maybe he stormed out after a row and they feared the worst, maybe words were said and regretted and his family want the chance to put that right. The variables are too numerous to just decide his family must be the reason this situation occurred.

I think that's what Ginandtonicsky is getting at, and it's not at all unreasonable or judgemental. There's a few possible reasons why this situation may have occurred.

What you said makes sense. They are various reasons people can loose contact and some families mightn't be very close.
Ginandtonicsky came across as judgemental in my opinion and couldn't grasp that he/she mightn't be told the full situation early on in a relationship.

Gimme A Pound · 23-02-2019 07:08PM

eviltwin wrote: »

No one is saying that. What people are saying is that they wouldn't rush to judge him for not contacting them. It's called keeping an open mind. People are hardly going to be open about difficult family dynamics.

It seems some people are saying that though. And there's a rush to judge from the other direction too - even though there is zero evidence of an awful family, and more of an indication that it was just him being selfish and thoughtless (given that there was a missing person search for him). But either way, none of us knows for definite.

ginandtonicsky · 23-02-2019 07:12PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What you said makes sense. They are various reasons people can loose contact and some families mightn't be very close.
Ginandtonicsky came across as judgemental in my opinion and couldn't grasp that he/she mightn't be told the full situation early on in a relationship.

I think you’re failing to see outside of your own point of reference and it’s easier to call me judgmental than to change how you look at things.

I take people at face value. If they tell me one thing, I’m not going to assume another, whether they’re someone I’ve been on a few dates with or a friend I’ve known for years.

23-02-2019 07:17PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What you said makes sense. They are various reasons people can loose contact and some families mightn't be very close.
Ginandtonicsky came across as judgemental in my opinion and couldn't grasp that he/she mightn't be told the full situation early on in a relationship.

GT can only go on what she's told, she can't assume to know more than what people choose to tell her and if that's a red flag then that's not unreasonable in the absence of more information. She's not a mind reader (I assume!).

You can't give a person months or years of your life on the assumption that there's a good explanation for a behaviour that on the face of it alarms you, there may very well not be a good reason at all. If people tell you one thing then it's not up to you to assume there's a whole other story instead.

Anyway, I think people are assuming too much one way or another. We can't assume to know anyone's motivations.

Gimme A Pound · 23-02-2019 07:26PM

In the cases I mentioned, I'd say mental illness and addiction have roles to play, to be fair, but the hurt those families have gone through... doesn't bear thinking about.

freshpopcorn · 23-02-2019 07:27PM

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

I think you’re failing to see outside of your own point of reference and it’s easier to call me judgmental than to change how you look at things.

I take people at face value. If they tell me one thing, I’m not going to assume another, whether they’re someone I’ve been on a few dates with or a friend I’ve known for years.

Your perfectly entitled to do that.
When I met them people I judge them on themselves and on how close they are to there families.
I look at things outside my point of view. I give people the benefit of the doubt.
I know some of my friends have family issues for various reasons and some only told me after a few years. I get that people can't be open early on in a relationship sometimes over the fear of being rejected.
I doubt we'll agree on this matter tough.

Mutant z · 23-02-2019 07:28PM

Some families simply don't get along no one can be forced to contact anyone if they are that unwilling to do so.

23-02-2019 07:41PM

Candie wrote: »

GT can only go on what she's told, she can't assume to know more than what people choose to tell her and if that's a red flag then that's not unreasonable in the absence of more information.

if I went on a date with a stranger, and she told me she'd rather not discuss her family, I'd assume there's a good reason for that.

Wouldn't anyone? Any implication that it's reasonable to be cynical, implies that cynicism towards strangers is in itself reasonable. Most people are good, and kind, and almost nobody walks away from their family without good reason. That reason is private until they're ready to share it.

Gimme A Pound · 23-02-2019 07:48PM

wench wrote: »

On the part of his family, yes.
They are only concerned with their own desire for contact and care not about his desire to be left alone.

Homer wrote: »

The word busybody springs to mind.. they are more interested in everyone elses lives than their own!

Giveaway wrote: »

Probably only noticed when the remittances stopped

Any evidence for the above? At least Giveaway said "probably" (although even then, why?)
The "busybody" thing makes no sense - how does worrying about their missing son (and having a search organised) mean only being interested in "everyone else's" lives?

As ginandtonicsky said, projection.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Not every family is like the Waltons.

For the life of me I can't understand how some people can't fathom this stuff.

Jeez nobody even implied every family is like the Waltons. The OP said if there aren't extenuating circumstances. And his family had a search organised - indicating caring about him (although maybe not, but either way, none of us knows whether he has a difficult family dynamic or not).

Gimme A Pound · 23-02-2019 07:50PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

They will, but the Indo hasn't called him selfish or implied that he was acting irresponsibly. I wish more people would be careful with their words, when they obviously aren't in possession of all the facts.

He's alive and safe, and that's wonderful. Now let's leave him get on with his life, eh?

Nobody is naming him or stopping him from getting on with his life, "eh?"

23-02-2019 07:51PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

if I went on a date with a stranger, and she told me she'd rather not discuss her family, I'd assume there's a good reason for that.

Wouldn't anyone? Any implication that it's reasonable to be cynical, implies that cynicism towards strangers is in itself reasonable. Most people are good, and kind, and almost nobody walks away from their family without good reason. That reason is private until they're ready to share it.

Of course, I'm not disputing any of that. GT was talking about people who just say they're bad at keeping in touch. Even saying you'd rather not discuss your family gives people a clue to go on, saying you're bad at keeping in touch gives you no clue, so you take it at face value and it's not a good trait to have.

It's not unreasonable to find that a bit of a flag when you have nothing else to go on or any reason to think there's more to it than just that.

23-02-2019 07:53PM

Keegan Narrow Rotation wrote: »

Nobody is naming him or stopping him from getting on with his life, "eh?"

The article names him. All it takes is for one curtain-twitching user to name him on this thread (which wouldn't even be against the rules) and this thread will be attached to his name forever.

Just suggesting that we take care when discussing strangers on the Internet, especially when we don't know all the facts. Let's not rush to judgement.

Gimme A Pound · 23-02-2019 07:57PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The article names him. All it takes is for one curtain-twitching user to name him on this thread (which wouldn't even be against the rules) and this thread will be attached to his name forever.

Just suggesting that we take care when discussing strangers on the Internet, especially when we don't know all the facts. Let's not rush to judgement.

No bother with implications about his family though, with zero evidence.

ginandtonicsky · 23-02-2019 08:01PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

if I went on a date with a stranger, and she told me she'd rather not discuss her family, I'd assume there's a good reason for it

As would I. No one has ever told me they don’t want to discuss their family though, you made that part up. Some lads have told me they haven’t contacted their family in years. They’re really bad at staying in touch, too busy, out of sight out of mind types. There’s a lot of people out there who fall into that bracket, just like there are the folks that have very good reason for going No Contact.

I’m not going to assume everyone is the latter because that’s just nuts.

23-02-2019 08:02PM

Keegan Narrow Rotation wrote: »

No bother with implications about his family though, with zero evidence.

That's problematic too.

The difference is, there's a big difference in magnitude. They have one another,, and they weren't named in a national newspaper.

I can't imagine how I'd cope without my brothers, sisters, mum, nieces and nephews around me. They are everything to me. So if someone takes this drastic step, I think my presumption would be that they needed this.

Obviously there will be a minority who are acting the bollix, but I see no reason to assume that here.

23-02-2019 09:27PM

I agree with ginandtonic. Some people simply don't care or they feel bitter or aggrieved in some way but it is of their own making. There are a lot of spoilt people out there who turn their backs on family because "they were never there for me". The reality is often quite different.

There are of course those who are very justified in having zero interaction with their family. Having a blood link means very little when it comes to abuse, pain, heartache, betrayal. There will never be a more complicated dynamic than the one that exists between the people who raised us. Those ties can be impossible to sever and even when they are the impact continues to be felt.

So I can see both sides. Those who are selfish and uncaring and those who are desperate to have a healthy life with healthy relationships.

ancapailldorcha · 23-02-2019 09:31PM

I go home twice a year which is what I reckon to be the bare minimum. I barely speak to my Father at all. I get on well with a few aunts, my Uncle, Gran and my Mum. The rest I couldn't give a stuff about.

The idea that I'm supposed to be close to them simply because of blood ties is absurd.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 23-02-2019 09:33PM

Personally, I would rarely go more than a week without speaking to my family, but not everyone is as close to their family as I am to mine. He probably has his reasons not to be in contact with them.

freshpopcorn · 23-02-2019 09:42PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The idea that I'm supposed to be close to them simply because of blood ties is absurd.

Some people just feel they've to get on with there family and they go home almost to keep up appearances even tough it makes the drastically un happy for what ever reason.
The shock and outrage when somebody doesn't attend a funeral is unreal. I don't get this thing when people turn up because they have to.(Unless it's to comfort somebody else)

lertsnim · 23-02-2019 09:43PM

jimd2 wrote: »

If there are no extenuating circumstances then I would have to say it is extremely odd and selfish behaviour.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irishman-missing-in-australia-for-four-months-found-safe-and-well-37845631.html

Look at you being all judgemental.

ancapailldorcha · 23-02-2019 09:44PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Some people just feel they've to get on with there family and they go home almost to keep up appearances even tough it makes the drastically un happy for what ever reason.
The shock and outrage when somebody doesn't attend a funeral is unreal. I don't get this thing when people turn up because they have to.(Unless it's to comfort somebody else)

Yep. I just gave up at that point. I suspect I'd go to siblings' weddings as that's a bit too big of an event but I wouldn't have any particular interest in seeing nieces or nephews. Too far removed.

lawred2 · 23-02-2019 09:45PM

jimd2 wrote: »

Anyone think that this is bizarre behaviour? To go from October to February without any contact with family or friends and only surface after a nationwide search.

If there are no extenuating circumstances then I would have to say it is extremely odd and selfish behaviour.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irishman-missing-in-australia-for-four-months-found-safe-and-well-37845631.html

4 months isn't that long ffs

lawred2 · 23-02-2019 09:48PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I go home twice a year which is what I reckon to be the bare minimum. I barely speak to my Father at all. I get on well with a few aunts, my Uncle, Gran and my Mum. The rest I couldn't give a stuff about.

The idea that I'm supposed to be close to them simply because of blood ties is absurd.

100%.. it isn't an unconditional love or an obligatory relationship.. a parent can love a child unconditionally but it does not work the same the other way.

Spanish Eyes · 23-02-2019 09:56PM

I often think it is a control thing.

People can leave and get on with their lives. It is not illegal.

So when family do not like this, they can escalate it maybe to embarrass the leaving person in order to continue the control.

Some families can be very toxic. But who knows.

Anyway adults can do what they wish.

How Can You Go Four Months Without Contacting Your Family

Comments