Microblog Memes

not enough layers

You’re absolutely right about how deeply the fear of rejection is embedded in us—it's instinctual, a relic of survival. But here’s the thing: in our modern world, that same fear doesn’t protect us the way it once did. Instead, it traps us. It makes us bend and shape ourselves to fit into spaces we may not even want to be in, just to avoid discomfort.

The truth is, we all need connection, but the path to genuine connection isn’t through constant adaptation or hiding in safety bubbles—it’s through authenticity. When you stop worrying so much about how others perceive you and start living for yourself, two things happen: you begin to feel freer and more at peace, and your openness creates a magnetism that draws others toward you.

Awkwardness, rejection, and failure? They’re inevitable, but they also don’t define you. Each time you stop rationalizing avoidance and choose to show up as your full self, you break that fear’s hold on you. You discover what really matters: living authentically, for you, not for validation or social survival.

That’s where real strength comes from—not from being universally accepted but from no longer needing to be. And ironically, the less you care about how others perceive you, the more meaningful connections you end up making.

Every generation has a word soup vocabulary that generations prior don't get or can't use properly. It mostly falls out of vogue in a few years. Almost all of the words that are being used ironically to make fun of the lexicon, will become obsolete. The words that don't get the highest usage and remain stable in unironic use will move forward with the rest of the English language. That's just how language works.

Lovebombing is derived from the first stages of entering a cult, where initially, everyone is extremely, unconditionally friendly and accomodating, but then later all of that becomes extremely conditional, requiring strict adherence to rules and unwavering obedience to avoid punishment, shaming, and/or ostracization.

This meaning actually comes from academics that study cults.

This definition then migrated over to mostly women describing one on one relationships with mostly men.

The problem is that this carries an immense amount of negative connotations and implications over to a one on one relationship that are very rarely actually present.

It is a completely normal relationship dynamic to have an initial exciting phase, that then changes to mutually recognizing and respecting boundaries, and mutually agreeing on and trusting each other with responsibilities, as the relationship matures.

What I have seen over and over is a (usually, but not always) gal will say that a guy was very affectionate and loving at first, but then that lessened over time...

... but if you ask the (usually, but not always) guy, they'll say that they lost interest and intensity in the relationship because the gal just didn't respect the guy's boundaries, did not hold up to responsibilities she agreed to, or just kept making requests or demands the guy has told the gal he is not financially capable of meeting.

The (usually, but not always) gal will describe this as 'lovebombing', as if the guy was putting on a front, being duplicitous the whole time, with all the implications that this guy was as dangerous and manipulative as a cult leader...

... and the (usually but not always) guy will describe the gal as some kind of phrase indicating self-centered and/or greedy and/or overly demanding, all take and no give.

The average person increasingly just has no actual linguistic/mental ability to convey a precise thought.

One of my most frightening and profound realizations as an adult, was that our language is our most powerful tool and nobody seems to know or care. It's how we can abstract the universe, rearrange ideas and concepts and come up with new ways to approach problems and explain feelings.

Because if you're not consciously explaining your feelings, you're unconsciously doing it, and make no mistake, your brain is ONLY a tool for telling a story to explain your feelings. It's not some vast computer or calculator, it's a hyper-charged neural network designed to write stories to tie up loose ends and provide cause and effect for the world around you. It doesn't seek logic or reason, it just wants continuity.

The sooner you realize this in life, the sooner you can start getting a handle on things like your own mental health, identifying rumination and where it comes from, figuring out what choices give you the best outcomes and how to overcome momentary discomfort for great rewards later. Things that our disconnected world is increasingly having a harder and harder time doing.

Because we're abandoning language. And no, listening to social media and reading posts doesn't boost your language, it doesn't train your brain how to take YOUR experiences and feelings and abstractify them into ideas you can move around and view from different perspectives... something we should be able to do with ease if we have a large enough toolset to make accurate pictures of our lives. Social media and reading posts doesn't boost you abilities to accurately abstractify the world and your life, it just gives you other people's stories. Which are usually equally inaccurate or limited in scope.

If we don't have language tools to help your brain write a more accurate story, you will believe terrible things about yourself, about others, about the entire world, and you will live in that state always.