Thanks much for the exhaustive replies and explanations.

I'll clarify that I know the difference between private and public spheres. I've never needed to be deeply in tune with my own feelings for that as it just requires social skills, as far as judging how much to say to people who aren't in a close relationship with me. I don't feel like social skills are to do with vulnerability though for intimate relationships and personal things, personal emotions.

And to clarify a bit more, I was talking about emotional risks specifically, to do with intimacy, not generic problems like people trying to manipulate you to drink more alcohol.

So I think you mean if the emotional risk is big enough is when it's about being also vulnerable with your being emotionally open. Not like, any true emotional openness, even a little, means vulnerability? Technically I could see it because it's still a risk, you can just be like, easily get over it if someone did try to do a personal attack or other emotional manipulation there.

But otherwise it's like, we can all take risks about various things.... but you can take a risk while knowing you'll be able to weather it if something bad does happen, and you can also take a risk while knowing it could ruin way, way more than what you'd be comfortable with. Or you can take a risk without knowing just how big the danger is lol. I know I've done the latter lol

So, with vulnerability in a relationship, wouldn't you have to be prepared for this risk first? And then the same applies in therapy? Like you know and feel that it's worth taking the risk.... either you know any bad outcome is going to be manageable or you just don't have anything to lose in some extreme cases.

And I get what you're saying about how showing someone you trust them supposedly helps build connection and intimacy. I understand this is not supposed to be blind trust. So like you usually do it when you are well oriented about the relationship status and boundaries in it. Appropriate and consistent as far as the emotional context and the overall trust in the relationship.

But then ultimately, this still doesn't make sense to me. Like you have to risk damage and harm to get more intimate and connected. Why? With so many things in life, you don't have to take such risks like that to build something. Why would relationships be the exception from that?!

Not a rhetorical question, sincerely interested in input from you or anyone else.

I mean sure, you take risks in life....But not like that. Not extreme unless you truly have nothing to lose. Building things in a project, you don't take large risks for every little step. When you do a thing, take a step, does not have to lead to destruction or damage. You know what I mean? Why would relationship building be so different? And if it isn't different, why call it vulnerability in the first place?

Like it's not even about having to work with another person and not having complete control of the outcome. With impersonal relations, you can create a written contract for example. There's the law on your side too. Other regulations. And so on. But in personal relationships.... as far as the part that isn't covered by laws, contracts and other restrictions... We only have risk and vulnerability?

Your example you gave about being vulnerable while strong did also sound like taking unnecessary risks (although not emotional risks in that example). Or the best friend isn't a very close friend.

Also the original context was to let go of defenses and be vulnerable. That's what I mean by being defenseless. And well, helpless if you misjudged the risk and it leads to a very bad outcome, is what I meant. Also helpless in therapy, if you do try to let go of defenses and it turns out to be a misjudged move.

With dependence, I mentioned it because that trust that you open up to the other person by being vulnerable in whatever way and they won't exploit that, means you expose yourself and become dependent on the other person's mercy. You submit in a certain fashion. It's pretty much defenseless and helpless too.

Unless, you self-soothe so well without ever having to get back at the other person. (That was slightly cynical irony, of course)