[Etcetera1]

So I had a thread on therapy earlier where I mentioned it wasn't working for me. And how I'd been told by some therapist that it could be that I need to learn how to be vulnerable and when and with whom to be vulnerable with. I felt like, something was off with that, but I did not think much about at the time, back then.

Now, I have too many questions about that so I'm opening a new thread for this. Will bold the actual questions. Please, anyone reading this, feel free to answer only a couple of questions or whatever.

So like, let's start here:

It all feels like an alien culture with therapy and some (not all) of psychology, all the talk of a safe place, safety, self-care, self-soothing, vulnerability, feeling depressed or helpless or anxious etc. (....What does that possibly even mean, that this is like entering a new world, where I don't know why I'm even finding myself in there?)

So then it invariably comes off to me, vulnerability is supposed to be about being so open AND soft at the same time, open to attacks. That to me means, being vulnerable defenselessly and helplessly.

So then. First question. Can I not be emotionally open from a place of strength rather than defenselessly and helplessly vulnerable like that?

What is even the difference if any, between being emotionally open and being outright vulnerable? My understanding is, the latter is more deeply intimate than more superficial social expression or more public forms of self-expression.

I am interested in being more emotionally open, if I have enough emotional safety. Emotional intimacy, depending on what we mean by it. But I don't know if I'm interested in vulnerability. What I do know is, I am *not* interested in emotional dependence. Independence and interdependence are the two options.

I have been thinking about the idea of safety too as used in this "world". I am realising that my most basic idea of emotional safety is simply, there being enough positivity emotionally. That already makes me be able to be less detached and more open emotionally.

But of course, there are so many layers or levels of that openness in response to positivity. Simple kindness and the response to that is much different from actually being loved and the response to that.

So that emotional openness, I wouldn't know if that would count as true vulnerability, of course. How much opening up would be seen as actually being vulnerable? Because, obviously, I can do a little opening up or I can do a lot more (in theory). When does it become true vulnerability?

And then there's self-soothing. Bubble bathes and things like that aside as they do nothing for me. I just endure difficult things rather than self-soothe. Let's just see.... Would I be expected to self-soothe if someone does choose to attack me in some very personal way when I am being vulnerable to them?

Then someone posted, "vulnerability is not making yourself weak, it’s allowing someone to know you. That can feel scary. And you can decide whether and with whom you’d like to do it."

So to decide well as to whom to be vulnerable with, I would first need to be really really in tune with all my feelings and soft side?

Someone else posted, "being vulnerable does not equate to being 'weak' or as you say "helpless" and "defenseless". It actually requires a lot of strength to stand in your truth, warts and all." So what does an example of vulnerability based in strength, standing in your truth, warts and all look like?

Where my strength by default is, taking on an active attitude towards the world, so yes, I come more from anger than from fear or anxiety. But part of what I view as my natural strength is also emotional detachment, as long as the detachment is not too extreme. As that could possibly get in my own way if I'd at all want a good relationship.

But, all that goes against vulnerability, obviously. And I know there are therapy approaches that view anger and detachment as just protectors and not real parts of a self. I don't know if I agree with that. But that could lead too far.

So anyway. Therapists also can decide to see me as having a wall, and then it can possibly be interpreted in ways like, they can't do a thing with me in therapy because I have too many defenses (i.e the wall). That is, not defenselessly vulnerable. That is, whatever opening up I've tried to do was not open enough, not vulnerable enough. I was too detached or too angry, for some therapists. It was hard for me to feel my own version of emotional safety (i.e. enough positivity emotionally), for sure.

I do believe being too vulnerable or otherwise being too emotionally open is not okay in therapy anyway if it creates a power imbalance, but I'm interested in understanding more on the topic in general. So again, that is why I have my questions as above.

PS: Mentioning @FooZe as he showed interest in the topic before

[FooZe]

Interesting topic, Etcetera1, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if I came up with something to say about it eventually. However, I recently discovered another thread of yours that I'd like to respond to first.

[ChickenNoodleSoup]

To answer the first two questions:
Being emotionally open to me means to on the one hand tell people about my feelings and on the other hand be understanding and empathetic of the other person's feelings. It definitely requires strength, but as you said later on, you can be rather detached and still be emotionally open. For example I might tell people I'm sad my grandpa died and not cry in front of them, just state the facts, and then react comforting when they start crying about their recent loss.

Being vulnerable, however, to me is not as you described it just helplessness and dependence. Being vulnerable means that if you are it with the wrong person, they can hurt you. For example, if the grandpa in the previous example died some horrible death and it just happened yesterday, this could be used against you. So, for these topics you'll be careful with whom you share. Being open about being a bit down today is easy, even if somebody taunts you over it, what do they really know. Being vulnerable on the other hand can lead to them using it to trigger you, to hurt you.

Vulnerability is more deeply intimate since when you are vulnerable with somebody, you signal that you trust them enough that even though they could now hurt you deeply, destroy parts of your life, whatever else, you believe they won't.

Vulnerability does not per se lead to dependence or helplessness. Yes, lots of people feel helpless about their trauma, or when they finally find that person where they can share all their issues, they become dependent on that. But both of these are not interchangeable with vulnerability. You can be strong, not show any of the pain that comes from the trauma and at least seem completely in control, yet talk about it, this is still vulnerable. Dependence, on the other hand, is something that happens a lot with certain kinds of trauma or when people can't deal with their emotions themselves and look to others to help them with that.

About self-soothing: bubble bathes and the like would not be my first example of this. You chose the example of "if somebody hurts you in a personal way after being vulnerable, would I be expected to self-soothe?". Let's go through this example: you share some trauma/personal thing and they start using it against you. You could get very angry about this. To not self-soothe would mean that you let this emotion consume you. You first yell at them in public, then go home, can't even concentrate on anything you're doing at home because you're so angry, can't stop being angry... you might also lash out repeatedly at the person and make their own life a living hell. I'm not saying that it's never okay to yell at somebody or even to take revenge. But being consumed by your emotions is rarely a good thing. Ideally, you'd probably tell this person they suck and you never want to see them again, then go home and have some way of managing your emotions that after a few minutes, you can concentrate on your fun evening instead of ruminating about this event non-stop. Maybe that would be a bubble bath or boxing, but it can also be just a few deep breaths, maybe five minutes of meditating...
This is not "expected", but it is beneficial to you. Being overly emotional almost never leads to good decisions, and after you've kicked the person in the curb, thinking about the fight for hours on end is not doing anything either. Self-soothing means you can deal with these emotions efficiently on your own. This is something lots of people learn how to do in therapy. Insofar it is "expected" at some point in therapy, because the other option is usually that you call your therapist whenever there's some bigger emotions, having them help you deal with it, and that is dependence, which is not actually a desired effect of therapy.

I'd like to add that emotional detachment can be a strength as you described it, as well as a way of self-soothing. If you get angry, manage to detach a bit from the situation and afterwards feel okay, that's good. It can lead to difficulties, however, if either you never show your emotions (relationship partners need to see how you react to things in order to know how to act) or if you detach whenever there's any issue coming up, because this will lead the person to believe that you are not invested in the discussion, so why should they even try.

Finally, I don't think you need to be very in tune with your "soft side" to be vulnerable, nor in tune with your feelings, though I think the second part is helpful. If you are not aware of how you're feeling about something, then it's difficult to judge whether you trust the other person enough with the information. Because what if you think it's fine, but actually it's really not fine. And then this other person knows this thing that you're actually not okay with them knowing. You can of course still be vulnerable, all that is really needed is sharing stuff that could be used against you, but you might later be uncomfortable with the fact that you did share. Also, if you are out of tune with your own feelings, you might not be sure that this person is actually trustworthy, which might lead to regret as well.
An example of vulnerability based in strength would be: let's say you have a problem with alcohol addiction and are recovering. Your best friend decides to organize a party for a few people including you. You tell them that you recently struggled with alcohol abuse, you're doing fine now, but being around lots of options for alcohol, people who drink and offer drinks to you is still very difficult for you and you'd like to avoid it, if at all possible. Then, you ask them whether it'd be possible to not offer any alcoholic beverages at this party.
In theory, your best friend could abuse this a lot. They could invite you to places without telling you there'd be lots of triggers for alcohol. They could offer you drinks whenever possible or even share the information with other people who are not well-intended. So, you're being vulnerable. You don't just keep this to yourself and somehow power through the issues described, you share your issues and hope for the partner to be understanding. Yet, you are not sitting there sobbing, going on about how you struggle with this and how bad you feel about asking this of them. You just stand your ground and explain your part in an objective manner.

I also have some thoughts regarding defenses, but that'll have to wait til later.

[ChickenNoodleSoup]

Since I'm back home and thought about this thread some more:

Regarding defenses and therapy:
Lots of people in therapy have developed extensive defensive mechanisms in order to avoid getting hurt. Detaching yourself is one way, extensive anger can be as well (it makes people avoid you usually), and there's many other mechanisms including acting like you're completely fine, distraction, black and white thinking, even delusions can be a defense. Most of these things are completely normal to do, yet they can get out of hand. Distraction is a good example of this. It's completely normal and okay to take your mind off of things from time to time. Read a book and don't think about anything in life. Yet, if life suddenly consists of going from one thing to another, just so you do not have to think about anything regarding your actual existence, that's something I think most people agree on is not beneficial.

Therapists are sort of trained to pick up on defensive mechanisms and might point them out. But that doesn't mean they should want to tear all of them down or even need you to take them down. If you allow me to take your two examples, being detached and being angry:

It's certainly fine to be angry. My therapist actually tries to teach me right now to be angry at somebody. I was hurt a lot by that person. Yet, my whole mind refuses to see them as bad or be the slightest bit angry. Even though I know objectively what happened was wrong.
The issue is with emotions that are too extreme. I have this issue quite a lot with sadness. I get so sad that I physically can't calm down anymore, I have to always remind myself to stay grounded, to stay mindful of what's happening, else I drift off into being way too sad. This isn't helpful, I can't concentrate on anything in that state. I certainly can't learn anything about myself or my feelings in that state. So I need to calm down first, just enough so that I'm still sad, but completely breaking down.

It's the same with anger, and anger is usually perceived as very negative, so I imagine that if a therapist is not skilled enough or just can't work with that, it might be hard to interact. I don't think for therapy to be useful you have to be very soft and not get angry, but it could be useful to seek out therapists that are knowledgeable of anger as a thing in therapy.

Regarding putting up a wall or being defensive, I've too had some therapists tell me things such as "you need to open up more" or "next week we should explore your anxiety issues" after two weeks. I even had some friends suggest I share some things with therapists, even though I wasn't comfortable with it yet. A good therapist should respect your boundaries regarding any topic at all, and if you do not want to discuss some topics or seem "not open enough", that shouldn't affect your work. As long as the conversation focuses on you and your experience of life, the therapist shouldn't push you any way most of the time. With my current T, our first 6 months of working together was me sitting there in exactly one position, stating all my issues in a very matter of fact way, we didn't discuss anything a whole lot, it was basically an objective overview of what was happening in my life. Yet, that was completely fine, even though my T knew I was clearly struggling from medical reports. In my opinion, you can only develop feeling safe if you are allowed to be yourself, whatever that might look like. I can understand how it was hard to feel safe around therapists who pushed you another direction too much.

[Etcetera1]

Originally Posted by ChickenNoodleSoup

To answer the first two questions:

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)

[Etcetera1]

Originally Posted by ChickenNoodleSoup

Therapists are sort of trained to pick up on defensive mechanisms and might point them out. But that doesn't mean they should want to tear all of them down or even need you to take them down. If you allow me to take your two examples, being detached and being angry:

(....)

In my opinion, you can only develop feeling safe if you are allowed to be yourself, whatever that might look like. I can understand how it was hard to feel safe around therapists who pushed you another direction too much.

Thanks much for your input again. Yeah, that's the thing, I never felt like I can be myself in therapy. You got that worded really very well. Me being myself was just called having defenses, walls, and not vulnerable enough.

Who knows anymore if that was defenses and walls or just therapists not applying the right, matching framework on my person.

As a result, I still feel a lot of pressure of how I "should" be that I really am just not, just am not that person. I really have to untangle myself from all that.

Ironically enough, one therapist did comment, when I once was truly myself, that she sees how that is actually me being myself. She said it was just some feeling of hers that it was really me. It was...but it was like, I was being active, goal-oriented, decisive, and yeah, that WILL of course, easily come with some anger on the side if I run into obstacles. Not in that moment though, but I bet, if that had been there, she'd no longer have liked it

[AliceKate]

I have anger issues, though I just about always keep them in. Sometimes a word or even a sentance escapes my mouth but that's it. I feel very vulnerable in therapy. I mean, I know that if T hurts me, I'll do one of 2 things: a) just stop caring about him and our work alltoghether, turn around and leave and think about it a year or so from then. Or b) distance myself from my feelings and invalidate them until they catch up with me. The former ends up with me being angry at myself, the later being angry at T to a completely dispaportionate degree. The only alternative is to voice my concern and I don't generally feel my voice is reasonable, I feel my position (anger) is never justified and must always be sacrificed towards whatever the other person wants, because their demand must be more reasonable than my anger.

I don't like being vulnerable, but I am now at a point where I either go through the pain, or live in a limbo of anxiety, fear, anger and foresaken hope. Doing it alone just isn't an option for me, as the anger has a destructive potential that goes well beyond destroying my own life.

So yeah, I sit in T's office without much of a plan. With my former T, I would not be myself. But with this T, I am. If I don't want to look at him, I don't. If I want to be silent, I am silent. I really just have one rule: what I say must be truthful. I cannot lie. So I'll answer questions in a streightforward way, without much emotional content. But I allow myself my natural body language, which probably gives the context more than my words would anyway (also, using emotional words makes me feel pathetic, and that makes me angry). It's not so much about being vulnerable with him, to give him an open door to harm me, but it is about me being vulnerable to myself, allowing myself, what I never allow myself, to at least (and that's what it boils down to mostly) not look at him when I don't want to.

Regarding your questions:
1) Can I not be emotionally open from a place of strength rather than defenselessly and helplessly vulnerable like that?
No, I don't think so. If being yourself makes you feel defenseless and helpless unless you are some form of your angry self, then how would you be emotionally open without feeling defenseless?

2) What is even the difference if any, between being emotionally open and being outright vulnerable?
Vulnerability is one emotion. But as I understand for you, that being emotionally open equates to feeling either vulnerable or angry, I think for you, for now, there is no real difference. Vulnerability is a reaction to being emotionally open, so when you are one, you are also the other and thus, it feels like they are synonymous, even though for many people, they are not.

3)How much opening up would be seen as actually being vulnerable?
Vulnerability is a feeling you have when you are emotionally open in some form. So if you feel vulnerable exposing 1% of your emotions, that can already be seen as being vulnerable. It's your feeling, and as soon as you feel it, it is so.

4) Would I be expected to self-soothe if someone does choose to attack me in some very personal way when I am being vulnerable to them?
Expected by whom? Every person may have different expectations, what is important is that you find someone who's expectations don't negatively impact your progress. A T should help you, right? Whatever that means. Of course though, if you get angry at a T and were to attack them in some way, it would be good to previously know where their line is.

5) So to decide well as to whom to be vulnerable with, I would first need to be really really in tune with all my feelings and soft side?
No. Decisions can follow feelings, same as feelings can follow decisions. You can decide to be vulnerable and ignore your fear to a point, if you want to give that a try.

6) So what does an example of vulnerability based in strength, standing in your truth, warts and all look like?
Let me know when you find out

Hope some of that might make some sort of sense.

[Etcetera1]

Originally Posted by AliceKate

I have anger issues, though I just about always keep them in. Sometimes a word or even a sentance escapes my mouth but that's it.

Hey, thanks much for your input, it makes a lot of sense.

I'll comment a little bit on your post. Err this might get a bit long. You don't have to respond to any of it in detail of course. Maybe the first part could be helpful for you too

I feel very vulnerable in therapy. I mean, I know that if T hurts me, I'll do one of 2 things: a) just stop caring about him and our work alltoghether, turn around and leave and think about it a year or so from then. Or b) distance myself from my feelings and invalidate them until they catch up with me. The former ends up with me being angry at myself, the later being angry at T to a completely dispaportionate degree. The only alternative is to voice my concern and I don't generally feel my voice is reasonable, I feel my position (anger) is never justified and must always be sacrificed towards whatever the other person wants, because their demand must be more reasonable than my anger.

I don't like being vulnerable, but I am now at a point where I either go through the pain, or live in a limbo of anxiety, fear, anger and foresaken hope. Doing it alone just isn't an option for me, as the anger has a destructive potential that goes well beyond destroying my own life.

That is very interesting to me, that you see it like there are only two choices, pain or anger. It's kinda like that for me too. Not sure why. I also found it interesting how you got as far in therapy (?) as not being able to avoid the pain (?) anymore. Not sure if I interpreted you right there, do let me know if I didn't.

I know with me in therapy, I didn't get to that point if that's what you meant. I could not risk going through anything like that, even if I had been willing to try that (I wasn't willing), it would have been too much of a trauma, and could have taken too much out of my life and I was still not recovered from previous stuff and still had so much stress going on too, and so it was plain not worth it for me to tear myself down like that.

The limbo is familiar because as soon as I entered a limbo like that I had to quit going to the last therapist. It was outright terror, some anger yeah, and a lot of other mess. Not pain, but it could've been pain, extreme stress and long lasting destruction psychologically if I had taken the risk of continuing. I already know how pain itself can be extreme enough to severely interfere with life, so I wasn't willing to expose myself to that. Let alone extra stress on top of the existing stress. Therapy should have helped me lower the stress at least a little but it didn't!.....

The only way to end that limbo was me quitting therapy, I mean a few days later the limbo ended after working through it. I couldn't have worked through it if I had stayed with the therapist as I could not do the risk of exposing the issue to her. By then I'd already learnt that if a relationship is gone that bad for me, then trying to discuss it likely will just make it all worse. Ending things and cutting the person off is the only thing that will bring me relief, sooner or later....

So when you choose that alternative, voicing your concern, is when you have to go through pain? Until you go through discussing it with the therapist and satisfactorily resolve the matter? So it's like the therapist has been able to repair things and reassure you so far and help take you out of that pain?

I noticed you said that it's not an option to do all this alone, so like you go to therapy to keep your anger under control? I had some very bad things happen to me earlier and so because of that I also had to try very hard to keep rage (not just anger) under control. For a while I couldn't even see clearly if it was okay to even have that rage, whether expressed or not. I could no longer see clearly whether I did express that rage too much, so this is a long story, but that wasn't very normal for me but what fixed it was that someone did eventually validate (!) that rage. Yeah, validated rage. A lot of the pressure was off me then and I was able to see more clearly and become grounded again about it. And I could see then that I really didn't ever express the rage to anyone innocent/undeserving of it who would have been damaged by it. That was a relief too. The rage is no longer a problem now. So I'm just telling you all this because maybe it helps, maybe you can find validation like this too. (I wasn't expressing the rage when I got the validation, I was just talking about how I've been having this problem with it. Was not a therapist, lol)

Regarding your questions:
1) Can I not be emotionally open from a place of strength rather than defenselessly and helplessly vulnerable like that?
No, I don't think so. If being yourself makes you feel defenseless and helpless unless you are some form of your angry self, then how would you be emotionally open without feeling defenseless?

Hmmmm. Wait. You said vulnerability is being myself? Expressing myself? Did I get that right?

I don't ever fake myself or my presentation, but actively expressing my emotions goes beyond not being fake, to me.

2) What is even the difference if any, between being emotionally open and being outright vulnerable?
Vulnerability is one emotion. But as I understand for you, that being emotionally open equates to feeling either vulnerable or angry, I think for you, for now, there is no real difference. Vulnerability is a reaction to being emotionally open, so when you are one, you are also the other and thus, it feels like they are synonymous, even though for many people, they are not.

Ah, so it's an actual emotion, as in, it's a reaction to being emotionally open, to be really honest I've not realised that before/wasn't sure before. Thanks. That clarified a lot. I will be thinking about this more.

Btw - My being angry isn't really being emotionally open because: 1) It does not come from a sensitive place 2) I usually control its expression. I mean getting too impulsive with its expression would bother me for various reasons, of course, so I don't usually allow too much impulsivity with it 3) The anger obviously will obscure the expression of any other emotion that I might otherwise be expressing at the same time.

And because of 1), yeah, it's not vulnerable at all either, for sure.

3)How much opening up would be seen as actually being vulnerable?
Vulnerability is a feeling you have when you are emotionally open in some form. So if you feel vulnerable exposing 1% of your emotions, that can already be seen as being vulnerable. It's your feeling, and as soon as you feel it, it is so.

That makes sense. I think yeah, this reaction being individual makes sense. Some emotions I can express almost anywhere, and some I have never been able to express EVER in my life.

I think, I might have felt the actual emotion before, but I would only actually *feel*, *experience* this emotion maybe a couple of times ever in my life. When it was actually my showing emotions, interest, where that would be sensitive (risky) but somehow it was working spontaneously. Trust me this hasn't happened often in my life so far lol. It was always someone else initiating emotional reciprocation for more lasting connection so it wasn't terribly risky, but sure, a bit of a feeling of risk and sometimes thrill with the risk.

I've analysed this more but don't want to bore anyone with it :P so I journalled instead of sharing it here, but your input really helped is what I'm trying to say.

4) Would I be expected to self-soothe if someone does choose to attack me in some very personal way when I am being vulnerable to them?
Expected by whom? Every person may have different expectations, what is important is that you find someone who's expectations don't negatively impact your progress. A T should help you, right? Whatever that means. Of course though, if you get angry at a T and were to attack them in some way, it would be good to previously know where their line is.

Well it's like I got a lot of pressure from therapy and similar settings to act based on certain expectations I picked up from these places. It's not good, I know.

Anyway I kind of answered this question since then, it's like, some people will just deliver another personal attack in response, stir up drama, whatnot, influence the emotions of the situation and the relationship that way, have control over the emotional side of the situation and the relationship and so on. It's certainly less of a big risk to be open and vulnerable if one does feel in control of the emotional landscape. It may become a tolerable risk then. And that then may enable one to initiate the emotional reciprocity about risky moves in establishing or deepening connection. That's my current view, anyhow. (Yes if you see irony and cynicism here, you've read me right :P)

5) So to decide well as to whom to be vulnerable with, I would first need to be really really in tune with all my feelings and soft side?
No. Decisions can follow feelings, same as feelings can follow decisions. You can decide to be vulnerable and ignore your fear to a point, if you want to give that a try.

I'm not really afraid, I just know that if there is a large chance that it will result in strong pain there's no point in doing this. A little pain, a little distress, a little discomfort, okay. Strong pain, that takes an extreme lot out of my life, no....It's happened before and I don't need that to be repeated. Ever again. It was way too high, the cost I paid. All because I was not afraid or sense the emotional risks or just ignored the risks lol. I just was too impulsive and didn't think at all. (Didn't feel the emotion of vulnerability either lol)

6) So what does an example of vulnerability based in strength, standing in your truth, warts and all look like?
Let me know when you find out

Okay I'll let you know lol!

[stopdog]

I don't have any idea what the phrase means from a therapist. I also never knew what the woman meant when she said I never showed her my emotions. I think I must have half-smiled once - what more did the woman want?

[AliceKate]

So upfront, to anyone who is reading this and has trauma issues that are not "solved" by anger and rage, you probably shouldn't read this. Stay safe and move on, ok?

Brace yourself etc, this will be a long read

Possible trigger:

Originally Posted by Etcetera1

That is very interesting to me, that you see it like there are only two choices, pain or anger. It's kinda like that for me too. Not sure why. I also found it interesting how you got as far in therapy (?) as not being able to avoid the pain (?) anymore. Not sure if I interpreted you right there, do let me know if I didn't.

No, I didn't get that far in therapy. My journey getting there took me 15 years and only then was I able to go into therapy. I've been in therapy only since about a year, I entered because of anxiety and panic attacks.
The first therapist wasn't a good fit at all. I told her about the anger and she just tried very much not to judge me. She was very unsure how to approach it, and sometimes she did, and sometimes she didn't. I wasn't myself with her, as I felt her need for me to be a certain way. So, as usual, I followed along that path, but my anger towards her grew. Simultaneously, my anxiety got better, which sounds cool, but really isn't. We ended things when I no longer had anything to say to her and she might have thought that my anxiety was gone. I don't thing she noticed the anger I held towards her. She said I could come back, but after leaving I realized that I had gone down the path lined with anger and rage further than I had been in years. Needless to say I didn't go back.
My T now, I've been with him since end of last year. When I told him about the anger, he asked if it was directed at someone specific, or, jokingly, at random people. Now, xT was an outlier. Usually, my anger isn't directed at the people that cause it, but at random people. He understood, as do I, that that is the opposite of good. Next session he started by saying he wasn't sure he could work with me. I told him (as I had before) that his need for safety was paramount. That I understood it and didn't doubt for one moment that it was more important than anything. I also assured him that my anger is mostly directed against women, that even if my related phantasies would turn on him, it would never reach the same level (which is true).
He agreed to work for me for 12 sessions, making no attempt to hide his insecurity and making no promises to keep me on after. By his wish, I created 3 rating scales, 1 for anxiety, 1 for social connections and 1 for violent phantasies. I fill them out each day. I also journal each day for 30min before filling them out.
Once, when I reached the highest point till than (and to date) on the 3rd scale, he asked to read what I had jounaled. I had my journal with me and I reluctantly gave it to him. He took it, started reading, looked back up and asked if I was comfortable with him reading it. I aswered I was increadibly uncomfortable with him reading it but would ask him to ignore that and read it anyway. He went back to reading it.
So if you ask about me being vulnerable in therapy, that is a good example. Note my emotions more or less screemed at me to not go there, to not hand him the journal, to not let him read it. They did that in the room, they did that while writing the journal entry and while adding the rating to the scale. They did that from the point I had added the rating all the way to the session. My point is that I chose vulnerabilty every step of the way, but I completely understand not wanting to go there.
There are things I haven't shared, but not very many. I had a memory recently of an event in my childhood that hints at sexual trauma hiding somewhere in the deep, far beneath the waves of rage, anger, and, recently, fear. I have not told him that, because I am too scared of it. If I say it, it makes it true. If I tell him, he might hate my sister. I am not ready for that. And that's okay, there is time.
He has since agreed to stick with me. He asks fairly frequently if I like being there, coming to his office and talking to him. At the beginning, he wanted me to want to have sex with him, making sure to point out that he did not actually want to have sex with me. He seemed to tie me wanting to have sex with him to him being able to work with me. I understand it as him wanting to ensure strong positive feelings of transferance from me towards him, ensuring that the strong negative feelings of transferance I had developed towards xT were out of the question.
One session, he asked point blank, if I had yet imagined having sex with him. I told him no, we had kissed and he had held me, but that was as far as my imagination had gone. He seemed a bit frustrated, so I told him that he didn't understand what he was asking and that I would explain it to him. That was another very vulnerable situation to me, but I needed him to understand and so I explained without looking at him. I told him that my sexual phantasies too, had a violent component and I didn't want to go there with him. He asked which part I played in them and I told him I was the woman, i.e. the non-violent part. I told him I think his wanting me to want to have sex with him wasn't about sex at all, it was about me feeling intimate with him, but my sexual phantasies are not about intamacy. In fact they are dehumanizing and I did not think that he wanted that and I for sure did not want to go there with him. He understood. He has dropped me wanting to have sex with him since.
So these are examples of me being vulnerable that increased his understanding and bettered our relationship. That is the pro side of vulnerability.

I know with me in therapy, I didn't get to that point if that's what you meant. I could not risk going through anything like that, even if I had been willing to try that (I wasn't willing), it would have been too much of a trauma, and could have taken too much out of my life and I was still not recovered from previous stuff and still had so much stress going on too, and so it was plain not worth it for me to tear myself down like that.

The limbo is familiar because as soon as I entered a limbo like that I had to quit going to the last therapist. It was outright terror, some anger yeah, and a lot of other mess. Not pain, but it could've been pain, extreme stress and long lasting destruction psychologically if I had taken the risk of continuing. I already know how pain itself can be extreme enough to severely interfere with life, so I wasn't willing to expose myself to that. Let alone extra stress on top of the existing stress. Therapy should have helped me lower the stress at least a little but it didn't!.....

The only way to end that limbo was me quitting therapy, I mean a few days later the limbo ended after working through it. I couldn't have worked through it if I had stayed with the therapist as I could not do the risk of exposing the issue to her. By then I'd already learnt that if a relationship is gone that bad for me, then trying to discuss it likely will just make it all worse. Ending things and cutting the person off is the only thing that will bring me relief, sooner or later....

Yeah, that's Probably part of the reason why I didn't enter therapy all those years ago. Though them locking me up and throwing away the key was my main concern, tbh.

So when you choose that alternative, voicing your concern, is when you have to go through pain? Until you go through discussing it with the therapist and satisfactorily resolve the matter? So it's like the therapist has been able to repair things and reassure you so far and help take you out of that pain?

I go through the pain now. The pain is a part of my day. I brought myself to this point over the course of that 15 years, because I was fighting the anger and the rage, the phantasies and the impulses. It's a good thing, really. And it's partly okay, as I am not completely pain-averse, though I don't have a history of self harm. It's a bit much though, this constant pain and anxiety. The knowledge that I could get rid of the pain and the anxiety if I went down the anger path just a little bit doesn't help, either.
I am in my mid-30s, so I have time to heal, but also time to digress. I am in limbo now, I passed the crossroads between anger and pain, choosing pain. I can still look back and see the crossing, I can walk back to it and switch paths.
I need to not do that. But I can't keep feeling this pain. So I have to work through it. But I don't know how to do that and I am worried my rage will come back. I don't think I can go through the process of getting rid of it again. 15 years, I cannot do that again. So it's a risk, all of it, and not just to me. So I need help to work through the pain and I need some people to know about me, in case I turn and make the wrong choice. I told T as much. It's quite a thing to ask of him, to be a guide and if push comes to shove, my prosecutor and prisoner.

All that aside, it also does happen in session. When I am vulnerable, he does reassure me. Once, he took me out of it. Sometimes, he keeps me there, asking questions which I answer without eye contact (though I have recently started glancing at him). We so far had sessions every 2 weeks. He is on vacation now (for a month) and when he is back, we will switch to weekly sessions soon after. Every 2 weeks has been good to give me time to process, every week will be something I and we need to find a new balance for. I have already written him a letter in case it gets too much, to ask for the old schedule back. I might give it to him if that arises.
Twice so far, I have lashed out at him. Little things, a word, a phrase, a tone of voice. I fall silent after, trying to find that void within, which removes me from my anger and as a side effect, removes all other emotions, too. The first time he asked what I was tinking. I told him I thought my reaction was unreasonably and uncharacteristically strong. Him asking the right questions and him not demanding I feel, but accepting my feelings as they arise slowly help to increase my level of comfort with him. He has stopped asking what I feel, he is now asking what I think, once removed from feeling.
I think his attitude would shift if my anger turned against him. I think he would drop me like a hot potato. But I also think that's fair. He needs to protect himself and for me it is important to control my anger and to let him see it, so if it ever comes to that, he can make the right choice, drop me or institutionalize me or whatever. And that's okay, I would hate being locked up, but if it ever comes to that, so be it. Life isn't just about me and I am thankfully not a narcisist (though my anger is a narcissistic defense).

I noticed you said that it's not an option to do all this alone, so like you go to therapy to keep your anger under control? I had some very bad things happen to me earlier and so because of that I also had to try very hard to keep rage (not just anger) under control. For a while I couldn't even see clearly if it was okay to even have that rage, whether expressed or not. I could no longer see clearly whether I did express that rage too much, so this is a long story, but that wasn't very normal for me but what fixed it was that someone did eventually validate (!) that rage. Yeah, validated rage. A lot of the pressure was off me then and I was able to see more clearly and become grounded again about it. And I could see then that I really didn't ever express the rage to anyone innocent/undeserving of it who would have been damaged by it. That was a relief too. The rage is no longer a problem now. So I'm just telling you all this because maybe it helps, maybe you can find validation like this too. (I wasn't expressing the rage when I got the validation, I was just talking about how I've been having this problem with it. Was not a therapist, lol)

It does help, thank you
I have recently come to the conclusion that I really don't know where my anger comes from. I know what cause it to resurface, but I don't think I know of it's origin. Still waiting for someone to validate it.

I'll answer to the rest of your post in a seperate post.

[AliceKate]

Originally Posted by Etcetera1

Hmmmm. Wait. You said vulnerability is being myself? Expressing myself? Did I get that right?

I don't ever fake myself or my presentation, but actively expressing my emotions goes beyond not being fake, to me.

Ah, yeah, I said that, but I did mean being your emotional self, so actively expressing your/my emotions. Just doing whatever to feel vulnerable, which I think for you, as for me, is openly portraying our emotions inspite of as usual keeping them in or using anger as a protective shield to keep them from other people.

Ah, so it's an actual emotion, as in, it's a reaction to being emotionally open, to be really honest I've not realised that before/wasn't sure before. Thanks. That clarified a lot. I will be thinking about this more.

Yes, for you, and for me, and probably for all people vulnerability is an emotional reaction to openly communicating emotions. I think the difference is in the degree of being able to share emotions before starting to feel vulnerable. I.e. you and I feel vulnerable much much sooner than your usual John/Jane.

Btw - My being angry isn't really being emotionally open because: 1) It does not come from a sensitive place 2) I usually control its expression. I mean getting too impulsive with its expression would bother me for various reasons, of course, so I don't usually allow too much impulsivity with it 3) The anger obviously will obscure the expression of any other emotion that I might otherwise be expressing at the same time.

And because of 1), yeah, it's not vulnerable at all either, for sure.

Agreed. Anger is a defense against emotionality, not a vulnerable emotion in itself. I agree will all 3 of your points. It is the same for me.

That makes sense. I think yeah, this reaction being individual makes sense. Some emotions I can express almost anywhere, and some I have never been able to express EVER in my life.

I think, I might have felt the actual emotion before, but I would only actually *feel*, *experience* this emotion maybe a couple of times ever in my life. When it was actually my showing emotions, interest, where that would be sensitive (risky) but somehow it was working spontaneously. Trust me this hasn't happened often in my life so far lol. It was always someone else initiating emotional reciprocation for more lasting connection so it wasn't terribly risky, but sure, a bit of a feeling of risk and sometimes thrill with the risk.

I've analysed this more but don't want to bore anyone with it :P so I journalled instead of sharing it here, but your input really helped is what I'm trying to say.

I have to think about this a bit more, but I think it might be the same for me. I don't usually portray a proper depiction of my emotions and at least some of the time, seem inappropriatly void of them. I.e. someone close to me came close to dying at some point and I felt nothing at all. But then I also think death is kind, so I don't actually mind it. Okay, digressing from your point...
Yes, exactly, and also with T, last session I told him I wanted to continue doing therapy with him, that was a very hard thing for me to admit. Admitting that I wanted something of him. Admitting that I have wants and needs is a very difficult thing, because it opens a door for him (or people in general) to hurt me.

Well it's like I got a lot of pressure from therapy and similar settings to act based on certain expectations I picked up from these places. It's not good, I know.

Anyway I kind of answered this question since then, it's like, some people will just deliver another personal attack in response, stir up drama, whatnot, influence the emotions of the situation and the relationship that way, have control over the emotional side of the situation and the relationship and so on. It's certainly less of a big risk to be open and vulnerable if one does feel in control of the emotional landscape. It may become a tolerable risk then. And that then may enable one to initiate the emotional reciprocity about risky moves in establishing or deepening connection. That's my current view, anyhow. (Yes if you see irony and cynicism here, you've read me right :P)

I don't find it ironic at all. I mean, it's impossible to achieve full control of the emotional landscape of course, but anger is the essance of trying simply by pushing all other emotions out. Seeking power is a reaction to feeling powerless. No irony in that other than it is not in fact possible to establish full power over another person (while keeping the realtionship alive).
The point is letting go of the will to control it all. For me, at any rate.

I'm not really afraid, I just know that if there is a large chance that it will result in strong pain there's no point in doing this. A little pain, a little distress, a little discomfort, okay. Strong pain, that takes an extreme lot out of my life, no....It's happened before and I don't need that to be repeated. Ever again. It was way too high, the cost I paid. All because I was not afraid or sense the emotional risks or just ignored the risks lol. I just was too impulsive and didn't think at all. (Didn't feel the emotion of vulnerability either lol)

I understand where are coming from. This is exactly why I think the therapeutic relaitonship might work for me, because it's not about T, it's about me. So I can say stop and demand he stop and I can say go and assume he knows where to go. Because it's not about what he needs (other than safety), I can set boundaries with him. Of course, I couldn't with xT, but I guess on top of a basic willingness to walk this path and let someone help me shape it, it also takes a compatible T to do that. I think I might've found mine
And yeah, it didn't use to be about fear for me either and these days it is but sporadically something I am actively afraid of. It's more a choice led by concious thought than by feelings. But the emotions are coming from time to time, now, and of course they are predominantly negative emotions, sadness, fear, that sort. So I need to work throught them, it's what it is

Okay I'll let you know lol!

Thanks!

[Etcetera1]

Originally Posted by AliceKate

So upfront, to anyone who is reading this and has trauma issues that are not "solved" by anger and rage, you probably shouldn't read this. Stay safe and move on, ok?

Brace yourself etc, this will be a long read

Thank you for sharing. And it's really great that it helped where I wrote about validation of rage. I do believe you have the right to express your anger in a controlled and not malicious way (and of course lawful way lol). Alot of people don't mind a bit of snapping or lashing out if it's not like constant. And pain vs anger: If I were you, I'd rather try to learn to control the anger and its expression and learn to deal with it and process it overall in ways beneficial to you and other people, instead of converting it all to pain. Don't believe anyone who claims anger can only be a secondary emotion! Anger, when it is actually a primary emotion, does have an important role and message as much as any other primary emotion. Even if you don't act on the anger directly, it can quickly give you important messages about your wants and your boundaries and when you do act on it it allows you a way to assert your wants and boundaries. I agree of course, don't just use anger to avoid all softer feelings in a relationship....but pain and anxiety in its place, I don't understand or see the real point to forcing those either. Oh, this isn't even off topic, this is actually about vulnerability in a way

And just trying to clarify if I got this right: have you been getting to experience more and more pain as you allowed vulnerability in therapy in the way you described it? Just not through the pain yet, as in, you can still avoid it if you want to avoid it, and you don't know yet how to fully work through it?

Originally Posted by AliceKate

Ah, yeah, I said that, but I did mean being your emotional self, so actively expressing your/my emotions. Just doing whatever to feel vulnerable, which I think for you, as for me, is openly portraying our emotions inspite of as usual keeping them in or using anger as a protective shield to keep them from other people.

Yeah I think I understand now. I still think for me only certain emotions are truly risky. The more private and meaningful emotions and attitudes, so to speak. Shallow ones aren't really those ones. Except if they were too out of place, obviously I don't want to be laughed at or have weird looks thrown at me, stuff like that but I think that's true for most people

I have to think about this a bit more, but I think it might be the same for me. I don't usually portray a proper depiction of my emotions and at least some of the time, seem inappropriatly void of them. I.e. someone close to me came close to dying at some point and I felt nothing at all. But then I also think death is kind, so I don't actually mind it. Okay, digressing from your point...

I think there's no such thing as "portrayal of a proper depiction of emotions". Emotions just are....not "proper" or "not proper" in that way. It could be you felt nothing because your emotional reaction is delayed and it will come out only later. That's totally fine too

I don't find it ironic at all. I mean, it's impossible to achieve full control of the emotional landscape of course, but anger is the essance of trying simply by pushing all other emotions out. Seeking power is a reaction to feeling powerless. No irony in that other than it is not in fact possible to establish full power over another person (while keeping the realtionship alive).
The point is letting go of the will to control it all. For me, at any rate.

I meant emotional power and control, which doesn't even have to utilise anger, even the softest, subtlest feelings can be used (by some) to gain power and have control of the emotional relationship, so that's why I was being cynical

And yeah, it didn't use to be about fear for me either and these days it is but sporadically something I am actively afraid of. It's more a choice led by concious thought than by feelings. But the emotions are coming from time to time, now, and of course they are predominantly negative emotions, sadness, fear, that sort. So I need to work throught them, it's what it is

Hm for me it's both me doing all the psychoeducation and "therapy" on myself plus other stress being too much but yeah I can be more emotional too and it's not always useful lol. When they are not useful, then I just act to reduce stress rather than trying to force processing of them. I want to let my brain do it all at its own pace as far as processing emotions. EFT (Emotionally focused therapy) states that staying with emotions only has a point if the resulting processing is actually productive processing, so to speak. Or dropping the psycho lingo, for me if my emotions are being out of control, I need to reduce stress and let things go at my own pace rather than force the issue.

[AliceKate]

I hear you, but to me, the choice is clear and the path leads through the pain. The potentiality of my anger carries consequences that are not okay. I can stay in limbo, but I am not sure I can keep that balance as I get older. Plus, if I somehow manage to pass through the pain, maybe there's a chance at a good life. And if I end up unaliving myself, that's okay, too.

The pain is not a byproduct of therapy for me. It is a byproduct of decreasing the power my anger defense has. I haven't been in therapy long enough for it to have such an effect, really. I've only been going to my current T for a few months, since end of last year. We're still in the process of getting to know each other.

"Productive processing" sounds very neoliberalistic. I'm a socialist at heart

[Etcetera1]

Originally Posted by AliceKate

I hear you, but to me, the choice is clear and the path leads through the pain. The potentiality of my anger carries consequences that are not okay. I can stay in limbo, but I am not sure I can keep that balance as I get older. Plus, if I somehow manage to pass through the pain, maybe there's a chance at a good life. And if I end up unaliving myself, that's okay, too.

It might be you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying your pain is useless, or anything like that. Anyway, thanks for clarifying all this. The one last thing I'd like to say is that your therapist has severely violated the ethics of therapy with that thing he claimed was just for positive transference. He should be reported to his supervisors or the national psychology association or something, whatever is available in your country. It's an outrageous sin for him to use psychoanalytic explaining away of what he was doing. I'm really sorry.

[AliceKate]

Yeah, I know people here don't like him. Works for me though. There is such a thing as transferenced-focused therapy though (Otto Kernberg). Might be what he's doing.

[Etcetera1]

Originally Posted by AliceKate

Yeah, I know people here don't like him. Works for me though. There is such a thing as transferenced-focused therapy though (Otto Kernberg). Might be what he's doing.

Kernberg was better than that. He wouldn't have approved of what this guy's been doing. I really suggest you talk to another psychologist for a second opinion, if you get what I mean. It really is concerning, and I'm not joking. I can't say anything more than this about it though. I hope you'll be okay in the end.