After abuse: why feeling attached does not prove peptide addiction

Feeling attached after abuse can be confusing. You may miss a person while also recognising that their behaviour hurt you. That experience deserves care. It does not, by itself, establish that your cells are addicted to peptides or that a special detoxification programme is needed.

An earlier version of this page presented a detailed “peptide addiction” explanation as fact and promoted a recovery video on that basis. It did not provide clinical evidence establishing that explanation in people experiencing abuse. Those claims and the embedded promotional video have been withdrawn from this page.

Describe your experience before choosing an explanation

You might notice an urge to send a message, keep checking for a reply or remember affectionate moments. Write down only what is useful to you. You do not have to turn those observations into a diagnosis, a story about your cells or a judgement about your strength.

The practical question can be specific: what happens when contact resumes, and what support do you need before deciding whether to respond? Consider behaviour you can observe, alongside your circumstances and safety. A strong feeling does not obligate you to act on it.

Addiction research does not establish this claim

The NIH overview of addiction research discusses drug-related reward, learning and treatment. It does not demonstrate the previously asserted process in which cells become dependent on a particular abusive person. Transferring a mechanism from drug research to a relationship requires evidence of its own.

Here, words such as “hooked” or “addicted” may describe how an experience feels. They should not be used to diagnose a substance use disorder or prove a cellular mechanism. Neither the label “narcissist” nor a list of relationship signs can supply that evidence.

Make room for the circumstances around contact

Housing, money, caring responsibilities, threats, affection and hope may all matter in a particular situation. Do not assume that someone stays because they want harm or lack insight. Ask which practical barrier needs attention and who can help with it.

A fictional example: Taylor wants to reply to a former partner but also needs to organise shared belongings. Rather than testing willpower, Taylor asks a trusted person to help plan a clear, safe arrangement. The example is an option to consider, not a universal instruction.

Safety before a confrontation or abrupt change

Where there are threats or control, seek individual support before announcing plans or confronting the other person. Reducing contact may be helpful in some situations; abrupt blocking is not a safe or feasible instruction for everyone. Shared parenting and legal obligations also need individual advice.

You do not need to prove a psychiatric diagnosis to describe threats, coercion or unwanted contact. Keep factual notes only if doing so is safe. Do not collect material in a way that increases risk.

Support can address symptoms without this theory

If distress, sleep problems or intrusive experiences affect daily life, consult a qualified clinician. For people assessed as having PTSD, NICE describes evidence-based treatment options. This does not establish PTSD in every person who experiences abuse.

For an optional Dutch-language starting point, see making room for your own choices and support. Reflection tasks are not a peptide treatment or a substitute for healthcare.

This is general information, not a diagnosis or personal treatment plan. You can contact the editors about this page. Our publication principles explain how we distinguish information, experience and evidence.