Good Vulnerability, Bad Vulnerability | #16

being vulnerable as a man with a lens on dating and relationships with women

In this 16th edition of The Pole:

• A brief history of my feelings about vulnerability (It’s bad! No wait, it’s good! Just kidding, it’s bad)

• Tasshin said Vulnerability Is Good - I disagreed. A twitter thread.

• 1 year later: Dammit, Tasshin was right.

A brief history of my feelings about vulnerability

Up to the end of high school, I used to think being vulnerable was bad. It typically did more harm than good to tell high-schoolers my fears, insecurities, etc. I didn’t know how to be vulnerable correctly. They didn’t know how to receive vulnerability correctly.

But during college, I realized that it could forge (and deepen) relationships when done right. So I flip-flopped: Vulnerability Is Good

But I went too far. I got a bit too comfortable airing my dirty laundry. I got into the habit of oversharing.

The wake-up call finally came when I met some cool folks at a financial independence meetup in Austin. They invited me out to a bar for some drinks. I barely knew these people, but 20 minutes in I started talking about some heavy emotional stuff.

One of them stopped me and was like, yo, this is uncomfortable and not the vibe I’m here for.

The subject changed and I attempted to play it off, but sheeeeesh was I embarrassed.

Later, we exchanged a few voice messages. In short, she said, I think that was disrespectful of you so if you’re gonna do that I don’t want to hang out with you. I responded with, fair enough, you’re right, sorry.

And that was the last time we spoke.

It would have been nice if the lesson I took from that was something like

learn to read the room

or

make sure people are comfortable opening cans of worms like that first

but, no. I flip-flopped again to Vulnerability Is Bad.

At least, emotionally. Intellectually, I was on the fence, but emotionally, I believed vulnerability was for chumps.

It was there that a remained for a long time, until one day, a wild Tasshin tweet appeared.

Tasshin said Vulnerability Is Good

It tripped a wire in me. Before I knew it, I felt my fingers moving… and then I hit send tweet.

BAM.

I kept re-reading what I wrote and was feeling pretty satisfied.

It’s air-tight. How could anyone disagree? I said confidently to myself, having not once ever been asked to protect anyone from lions.

(Note to self: it’s when I feel this way that I am most likely to be wrong.)

But Tasshin wasn't about to give up so easily:

UHHH. What?!

Excuse me sir, what you are suggesting totally clashes with my worldview, and is therefore wrong.

I wanted to tell him he was wrong, but in a loving and kind way, because Tasshin is amazing and must be protected at all costs.

It was at this point that Tasshin said something incredibly insightful:

If I had read the whole tweet, I might have realized how insightful it was. Unfortunately, I got to, “it is also context-aware,” and thought, uh, no it’s not, and paid the rest no attention.

Then

visakan veerasamy

jumped in:

HECK YEAH. Someone else agrees with me. My existing beliefs are validated.

CASE CLOSED.

…or was it?

Dammit, Tasshin was right.

I wish I could point out the specific moment that I changed my mind. All I can tell you is the moment I realized my opinion was different.

I tweeted a dating take the other day. It got some attention, which gave me a bit of a vulnerability hangover. As part of my wounds-licking process, I journaled about my feelings.

Apparently I have a lot to say, because I cranked out ~2,000 words in an hour. Then I thought: hey, maybe I should write about dating on my substack!

Part of me was nervous about doing so, because… what if I’m cringe?

But a larger part of me was curious about what I’d have to say. Plus, when I tweeted about doing so, some folks were like, yeah you should do that.

That was the push I needed.

I started sifting through the brain dump I had, moving things around on Obsidian Canvas, seeing what themes popped up.

One particular note caught my eye:

I feel like a lot of my dates don’t go as well as they could because I’m not making them laugh enough. I could learn to be funnier, but I resist the idea.

Why do I resist the idea? It’s such a transactional way of thinking. I want meet someone who’s attracted to me as I am right now. I want to be loved for who I am, not for the things I make people feel.

Is that fair? Is that entitled? Is this a useful perspective to have? Does unconditional love exist? Think more about this.

Which made me think:

What would it look like for me to unconditionally love someone?

I couldn’t think of an example of unconditional love that wasn’t regular love. Maybe love is unconditional, intrinsically?

Then I thought of that Bible verse:

Love is patient, love is kind... it is not self-seeking

Not self-seeking…

I remembered periods of time with my family and friends. Helping my brother move, helping my dad with his computer, making food for my friends. For them, not for something in return.

Then I remembered them doing similar things for me.

Then I thought back to dating: the goal is the same, right? To find someone that I love who loves me?

YEAH.

Loving someone is about them, not me. Showing love to them specifically requires customization because people are different! Coordination. Attention!!

Which reminded me of a quote from Friendly Ambitious Nerd (also by

visakan veerasamy

):

But all of the fun in life - play, conversation, flirting, sex - is what you do when you’re playing *with* the rules. But that doesn’t mean you *break* the rules. You tease around them. While paying close attention. That’s the fun! Oh my god, People don’t know how to have fun.

What if love is also like that? What if loving someone is about not just attending and paying attention to their needs, but also teasing around them??

What if teasing around their needs helps me understand the contours of their needs?

WHOA.

With this new lens, I started thinking about more things I was on the fence about.

The first thing that came to mind: vulnerability

I remembered that conversation I had with Tasshin and Visa.

I pulled it up on Twitter and re-read the thread until I got to the Tasshin tweet I blew off earlier:

yeah this definition doesn't resonate for me at all, something something right speech is not merely honesty, it is also context-aware, kind in mind and words, and useful/beneficial. vulnerability is not removed from ethics

And then it hit me: I was breaking the rules!

Good vulnerability teases around the rules. It’s context-aware. It’s attuned to what the receiver is open to receiving. If someone is feeling disappointed because they failed, good vulnerability is articulating a time you failed something similar and it turned out OK. Good vulnerability is expressing the contours of your discomfort without the sharpness of an accusation (Us vs The Problem instead of Me vs You).

Bad vulnerability breaks the rules. It’s oblivious, inattentive, clumsy. It’s walking into a kitchen and dropping your dirty laundry in the middle of the floor. It’s injecting seriousness into a fun bar conversation 😬. It’s not being attuned to how your message will be received. If you don’t know how it will be received, it’s not having the conscientiousness to test the waters first.

Being vulnerable is an act of bravery. It’s a bid for attention, acknowledgement, and validation. It can feel privileged and flattering to be on the receiving end. It’s a powerful tool for giving and receiving love. For deepening relationships. Of course it can be attractive. It’s a strong signal of emotional intelligence and thoughtfulness. It’s attractive for practical reasons (e.g. fighting less), but also for sexual reasons. (Being seen and understood is a huge aphrodisiac - or, at least it is for me. Did I just tell on myself?)

But with great power comes great responsibility. Being vulnerable is not an excuse to throw pity parties, to paint things a certain way to solicit sympathy, or to give up your agency.

Those are the things that are unattractive, and being vulnerable is not to blame. Tasshin was right!!!