As a former war reporter I can make a safe assumption that we had some similar experiences that are better left in the past and not shared with a person who wouldn't be able to approach them without judgemental attitude and prejudices.

An extent of opening up is important in any relationship. It takes time to get to know someone and feel comfortable to talk about some things from our pasts.

Although I have changed career twenty years ago, some people still make false assumptions based on Hollywood movies and see me some kind of an exotic species.

Some of my acquaintances back from that time, women who served in the forces, have been judged for carrying the uniform and even called names I am not going to quote here.

So, yes, you are right. Nobody can be an opened book to everyone.

This is like watching someone ask which brand of muffins they can stuff their face with to help them lose weight: you're just not quite getting the self fulfilling prophecy that is your life.

Trust, what risk? What? Trust the wrong person and you may have to tell them to go away? Woe is you.

Open yourself to others, what vulnerability? What? You might shed a tear over someone else's concerns instead of wholly your own intellectual environment?

Military journalist? You still sound like a wallflower to me. This military journalism didn't happen to be entirely based at a desk with a typewriter did it?

I tender you have to be somewhat detached from reality to foster the ignorant sociological cultivation that some men among all men have tried to simply get in your pants elicits there must be a pot of gold between your legs and thus, something of value is something which can be stolen. But it's a delusion. You actually lose nothing with these oh-so-gigantic risks of diving headlong into whatever circumstantial relationships take your fancy.

A kitten trembling over the boogeyman amongst adults isn't cute anymore, it's disturbing. You should've grown out of it. The "drama" you find many men mentioning they prefer to avoid in relationships is what it is. This is just your theatre, a drama show.

There is no risk. There is no vulnerability. They're both completely in your head.
What you've concisely outlined by any other terms, is simply electing to be afraid to cry over others, and afraid to enjoy yourself with others, unless it's on your terms and has no utterly independent interactivity from them.
It suggests a relationship with you consists of dancing for the puppet master. Now that is no fun. It's a lot like hanging around a vicious child.

And honour would be a pattern of behaviour illustrating moral code of conduct, eg. about the third time you've routinely defended another in whatever fashion you might be thus described.
Bravery would be a willingness to readily enter an apparently untenable circumstance where prudent, eg. one of those situations defending another required you to get within striking distance of a neurotoxic snake to get between it and a toddler, with no time to think or be tremendously tactical, just all ape and hope for the best (of course you might be tactically proficient enough generally to have had previous evasion training and some familiarity with most dangerous species, either way you're more likely to survive a bite than a toddler so there's really no question as to objective obligation as a member of the human community).

Just as potentially offending strangers in the occasional wake up call might be considered brave if one notes being an inherently social species, it's hardly as survivalistic as sucking up to everybody you meet. But then, since any associate fear would be all in my head, what is there to risk but the chance of common enlightenment?
Look at that, an example of proficiency in relationships. Handle my words or don't, up to you. Like everything else in your world.

Like the relationship you're in or don't really doesn't have anything to do with the other person. Asking yourself how to trust when you find trust difficult is like asking how to safely put your arm in a lion's mouth, it's a lion, you don't put your arm in its mouth. Finding a particular person difficult to trust is the parts of yourself you're not listening to saying this is the wrong person. Since there's nothing to lose among adults by trusting anyone at all with anything at all (because adults make insurances regarding anything important), that means it's just a statement that you don't really like that person for this relationship. That's all. It's distaste, not mistrust.
See how it's all on you?

Trust comes automatically when it's actually about trust. There is quite simply no risk to it.

nope. No grammatical errors.

nomindgames, i think you're working through it and going in the right direction! respect is not a right, it's earned, maybe if more people tried that it would be a kinder world. good luck :)

Trust comes automatically when it's actually about trust. There is quite simply no risk to it.

So, it all comes to trust, given and expected. Do I trust myself that I can be fair and do I trust someone who may let my trust down, or even worse?...How to open the doors of my world to let someone in, but up to extent which doesn't make me too vulnerable, and not HURT this person?

It takes time to earn the trust.

I have the right to wait for answers from others. I can do my part, but they have to do theirs.

I think I am fair if I choose not to open up and keep the door of my world just unlocked, but not quite opened yet. Not until the trust is earned.

Being honourable means being upfront and clear about intentions.

One question answered.

I think you are talking more about acceptance and giving up control.

Basically accepting that other people can take care of themselves, make decisions for themselves, and will see/judge you differently than you see/judge yourself.

People are going to be frustrated and annoyed if you try to manipulate their perceptions via controlling the information they receive from you, especially if you rationalize that you are doing it to "protect" them.


Saying trust is "earned" is making someone else responsible for a process that is totally within you that ultimately only has an effect on you and your behavior towards others.
Trust is not earned. It's simply your choice based on your intelligence and facilities familiarizing with their behavior.

Saying "trust is earned" is like saying someone has to earn you leaving the bathroom door open when you pee.
That isn't something someone earns. That's just something you choose to do based on your own personality. Has little to do with them even though you might like to shoe horn some sort of "meaning" to it to make yourself feel important.


And (unless they are weak willed) they will always try to determine their own part and whether or not they are doing it.

You do not have any right to predefine the relationship and what part they have to play in order for them to live up to doing "their" part as you dictate.


And if someone wanted to consider that "unfair" and dump you, then they have a right to do so.


What if you are being dishonest with yourself without realizing it, or you simply aren't smart enough to realize what you are actually doing?



I wonder what question you think you truly answered.
To me all you did here was say "I have a right to my self image, and to impose/demand adherence to that self image upon others."

Well thank you to all the superior men who, thanks to their know it all attitude have chased a worthy and sincere person into deactivation. I hope you are proud of yourselves!!! You have no clue about trying to understand people and you are to be pitied for your lack of trying to comprehend people who dare to post their thoughts! You are too above us all!!! If you are that perfect yourself why would you be here!!!!! No one person has all the answers! Wake up and acquire some humility and understanding of people's concerns and willingness to understand! You people will never understand compassion for others!!!