These points are not in conflict, they might just be thinking different time scales. The only way to build up those models and become safe is by being increasingly vulnerable, but then being supported when doing so. Initially, intimacy is all about vulnerability. Later, no.
-
-
Replying to @DM_Berger @reasonisfun
The *purpose* of intimacy is of course not vulnerability. But intimacy cannot be built without vulnerability. In this sense, thinking of the vulnerability as some mere annoyance or unfortunate occasional side-effect to be dealt with or avoided is a unhealthy model of intimacy IMO
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DM_Berger
Not an annoyance or unfortunate side-effect, but rather: Vulnerability is doing intimacy wrong. (Perhaps because people are used to being hurt by others all the time, so we form coalitions based on less-pain or promises to not commit pain to your one special darling too much.)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @reasonisfun
If we don't have different definitions of intimacy and vulnerability here, than I simply can't disagree more strongly (albeit respectfully). Whatever"intimacy one might be able to gain without vulnerability is trivial and of minimal value to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DM_Berger
Maybe you're assuming that stuff is inherently unsafe whereas I'm coming from ~opposite assumption?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @reasonisfun @DM_Berger
[people who may be interested in this thread or have cool thoughts:
@jessi_cata@s_r_constantin ]2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Honestly the vulnerability makes sense to me. There are a lot of things that are dangerous to do with an adversary but helpful to do with an ally — like reveal things about yourself.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @reasonisfun and
If you never do anything with your friends that you couldn’t do with an enemy, your friendships aren’t very deep.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I don't think that is vulnerability though. That's knowing some well enough that you're not vulnerable even when you reveal things that would bite you if you revealed to an enemy. It's similarly not vulnerable to hang out with a gym rat friend. They're not gonna hurt you.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Ah, I think there’s no real disagreement then, only semantics. Most people who praise vulnerability are in favor of doing things that *look superficially* like they could be dangerous, and might scare you, rather than things that are actually dangerous.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
(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.)
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.