(Tangent about my pet peeve that's maybe relevant: "vulnerable" literally means "exposed to being wounded". Thus, logically, vulnerability is bad as such. I assume what people mean is "open, authentic, unguarded, in a way that exposes you to being wounded [which is not a coincidence because being open etc. tends to be exposing]". That, of course, is a mixed bag; the open authentic part can be good, the literal vulnerability part is bad. This also suggest a general goal-factoring move of figuring out what parts/aspects of the "be vulnerable" action-package are exposing you to harm, and which ones are getting the benefits of "open etc.", and then trying to contruct action-packages (including mental motions) that get goods + not bads. I don't have much more to say, except that IME simply having this frame helps with motivation and coordination. For example, I actively want people I'm close with to learn to be less vulnerable in the literal sense, to the point where I actively and preemptively want to help them learn that; e.g. I might even respond to "I have something vulnerable to say" with "Oh ok, I'm happy to listen, but also I'd suggest that we could first meditate together for just a bit on what is literally vulnerable about it, circumspectly, and see if we can decrease that aspect".)
I don't think I understand the constraints here, taking the anger case as a concrete example. My initial thought is to 1) talk openly about the anger which is different from actually releasing the anger, then 2) find a safe way to release that anger which hopefully doesn't harm the partner, generic examples would be a rage room, taking a defense class, hunting, maybe voice acting(?), or directing the anger toward productive ends, eg using it to be more assertive or motivated (eg by spite).
But these all seem like things you would've thought of, so what am I missing? Is the constraint that the temper must be expressed toward those the person cares about?
What blocks people from being vulnerable with others?
Much ink has been spilled on two classes of answers to this question:
There are a lot of people for whom these answers provide the right frame for their problems. This post is not for those people.
I want to focus on a different frame: there are importantly different kinds of things which people are hesitant to expose to others. Some of those things just require finding the right person and being vulnerable with them; these are the “easy cases”, in this frame. But other things pose fundamental difficulties, even when everybody involved has the safe-to-be-vulnerable-around skillset and isn’t particularly traumatized.
Let’s start with an easy example: sex stuff. Fetishes, sluttiness, that sort of thing. Revealing one’s sexual tastes involves being emotionally vulnerable. Moreso the more taboo one’s tastes are, with pedophilia on one end of the spectrum and anything in Fifty Shades of Gray on the other end. I call this an “easy example” because one’s sexual tastes are generally not inherently bad, and in almost all cases there are counterparties who will actively enjoy one’s own tastes. (... Though admittedly pedophiles have it particularly tough on that dimension.) The problem is usually just to find someone with complementary tastes, and then you can be in that wonderful world where someone not only accepts your deep secrets but actively wants you for them.
Now let’s contrast that with a hard example: suppressed temper. (In particular, suppressed PMS is what I’m picturing here, but the point generalizes to other kinds of suppressed temper.) Plenty of people have a temper, they often just want to scream at someone, but day-to-day they keep a mask over it. Taking that mask off involves being emotionally vulnerable. It feels good to have a partner who you can safely let loose at, knowing that you’re safe to do so - i.e. the partner can handle your temper (especially when it’s directed at them) and won’t be driven away by it.
But in contrast to the sex case, basically nobody likes being berated. Being emotionally vulnerable by letting your temper loose will be costly to your partner. Hopefully the relationship can be net positive for both people anyway, but there’s no avoiding that this kind of emotional vulnerability hurts the counterparty, even if their skin is thick enough for the hurt to be mild.
That’s what I’d call a “hard case”, in this frame: a case where you usually keep something hidden from people because exposing it would hurt the people exposed.
What can we do, in the hard cases, to make things work well?
I don’t have general answers, but I’d like to hear what answers other people have.