Agreeeeeee.
It feels more like being stone-walled.
Possibilities are endless.....lets see:
Silent treatment disguised as a boundary.
Stonewalling disguised as "space".
Ghosting and discard packaged as space AND a boundary( "call it a boundary so it sounds better")
A dump and run painted as not the right timing and space.
'No contact'( for no legal or reasonable reason) termed as space.
Regardless of the " packaging" used to deliver the method -yes it is hurtful to the recipient.
How does one differentiate between the silent treatment, discard ,stone walling, ghosting( which are all identified in some areas of study as passive-aggressive) and the ever so easily thrown about phrase " I need space".
How does one pardon one and not the other ?
Yeah, totally get it!
I don't know the answer, but I think it must lie partly in staying in touch with what people want and need - and not just subjectively, but objectively.
In my situation, I wasn't able to move when the other person wanted me to.
They then 'set a boundary' which meant "I'm not going to talk to you at all now, and you have no say in it - and the whole thing is completely over."
Technically, anyone can do that at any time and there's no problem, it's just that... a lot of people would possibly instinctively understand principles like 'fair play' and 'benefit of the doubt', which don't only run on technicality. There's an art to relationships, in that way.
They're not a science, where 'technically I'm allowed to do this' wins out over all else.
And actually, in that case, breaking up with me just because I couldn't move literally my whole life five hundred miles away just because they wanted it there and then, felt a lot like bullying and abuse: "I'll take my love and connection and approval away because you've not done something on my timescale, even though it's a huge sacrifice for you."
But it's hard, because they have a genuine, legitimate condition which makes life very hard; and in that sense... for them, setting a boundary equates directly to self-care, which is absolutely essential for them.
And that's where things can start to become subtly wonky, because one person is operating from "what most reasonable people would do, most of the time - and especially if they really cared about me", and the other is operating from "Dammit, this is absolutely catastrophically urgent and I just need to protect myself." - It's a conflict of interest. And the two points of view are so foreign, but so instinctive, that it's very hard to think outside of them in any real way (and why should anyone do that, anyway, if it's not coming naturally at that moment)?
And I guess after a time, you have to feel how much it hurts, grieve it, try to forgive it, and then ask "Is there any realistic way that we can genuinely fill each other's needs here?" And if the answer is no, well... it's not the right thing, is it?
Seen like that, the "What's reasonable and what's not reasonable?" question becomes less external ('What does some outside agent say is reasonable?') and more internal ('What can I give, and what can I receive, and can that happen here or not?')
In my situation, I also thought that they were technically fine behaving as they did (because relationships aren't prisons, and a person can leave at any time), but a voice in my gut kind of said "Yeah but even so... there's something really not right about this..." And I think - if I could go back - I'd listen to that voice in my gut more, and less to the rationalisation that: "Yeah well, technically they ARE allowed...", because again... relationships aren't built on technicality, they're built on love and care... and my values matter too. I ought not to 'rationalise' myself out of even just HEARING myself... y'know?