Separately, I think I more often hear people advocate “willingness to be vulnerable” than “being vulnerable”, and it sounds like you’d probably be fine with the former (maybe with an added “if necessary”). Maybe people started out by saying the former and it’s been shortened to the latter over time?
It’s more that I want people to have two totally separate concepts for [vulnerability as such, i.e. exposure to harm] and [vulnerability, all that openness / unguardedness / working with tender areas / trust / reliance / doing hard things together stuff]. These things are related, as has been discussed, but separate conceptually and practically.
Maybe. I’ll have to mull it over.
Separately, I think I more often hear people advocate “willingness to be vulnerable” than “being vulnerable”, and it sounds like you’d probably be fine with the former (maybe with an added “if necessary”). Maybe people started out by saying the former and it’s been shortened to the latter over time?
It’s more that I want people to have two totally separate concepts for [vulnerability as such, i.e. exposure to harm] and [vulnerability, all that openness / unguardedness / working with tender areas / trust / reliance / doing hard things together stuff]. These things are related, as has been discussed, but separate conceptually and practically.