The opposite: intimacy is to *reduce* vulnerability Good intimacy is when you can share things with someone and it's *not* vulnerable, because you know they won't hurt you. If there's doubt — eg your models of them say they may hurt you / you don't know — you're taking a risk.https://twitter.com/BLUNDERBUSSTED/status/1251667761169944582 …
-
-
idk man there's a like 'cult of vulnerability' that's popular at the moment. Pro-feelings people say vulnerability is good and encourage taking risks and doing things like crying in front of strangers. Normal folk too, but lesser degree. Pro risking being hurt some to get love.
-
Taking risks *ever* is necessary & some do it too little. But yeah I don’t think crying in front of strangers generally makes sense. Sure you *could* bond with them over it, but you could also not, and it’s possible to be more strategic about building connection than that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
(Or things where there are risks outweighed by benefits; being candid in public is classic Brene Brown vulnerability, and done right it’s also effective marketing, but it does produce some haters.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.