<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On settling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://leesean.net/2008/04/29/on-settling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://leesean.net/2008/04/29/on-settling/</link>
	<description>The Life of an Artist-Activist-Musician-Nerd</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 01:48:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: On Settling, continued &#124; LEESEAN.NET</title>
		<link>http://leesean.net/2008/04/29/on-settling/comment-page-1/#comment-31799</link>
		<dc:creator>On Settling, continued &#124; LEESEAN.NET</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 15:05:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leesean.net/?p=942#comment-31799</guid>
		<description>[...] has published her views on Lori Gottlieb&#8217;s article, &#8220;Marry Him!&#8221; She references my previous post on the article, which represents my 2 cents on Sophia&#8217;s take on Gottlieb. Confused? It looks like Ms. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] has published her views on Lori Gottlieb&#8217;s article, &#8220;Marry Him!&#8221; She references my previous post on the article, which represents my 2 cents on Sophia&#8217;s take on Gottlieb. Confused? It looks like Ms. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kris Hartley</title>
		<link>http://leesean.net/2008/04/29/on-settling/comment-page-1/#comment-29747</link>
		<dc:creator>Kris Hartley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:25:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leesean.net/?p=942#comment-29747</guid>
		<description>&quot;Gnothi seauton,&quot; as the oracle says. In the world of pop-psych rhetorical flimflam, it may be an overused cliche; in practice, it&#039;s overused because it&#039;s true. You have to be secure with yourself before you can with anyone else.  Working on both at the same time is tiresome but when the opportunity presents itself, there&#039;s no option to wait. You make it work with the emotional abilities you have, not those you wish you had.

As for seeing Newark, anything looks peaceful from 7 miles away through a roof-mounted telescope. And the only time I&#039;m actually there anymore, I&#039;m drunk. So it works out pretty well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Gnothi seauton,&#8221; as the oracle says. In the world of pop-psych rhetorical flimflam, it may be an overused cliche; in practice, it&#8217;s overused because it&#8217;s true. You have to be secure with yourself before you can with anyone else.  Working on both at the same time is tiresome but when the opportunity presents itself, there&#8217;s no option to wait. You make it work with the emotional abilities you have, not those you wish you had.</p>
<p>As for seeing Newark, anything looks peaceful from 7 miles away through a roof-mounted telescope. And the only time I&#8217;m actually there anymore, I&#8217;m drunk. So it works out pretty well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sophia</title>
		<link>http://leesean.net/2008/04/29/on-settling/comment-page-1/#comment-29719</link>
		<dc:creator>Sophia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:48:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leesean.net/?p=942#comment-29719</guid>
		<description>Damn Kris I want one of these comments on MY site!  I loved it and the turn of phrases you used.

Due diligence - yes!  People &quot;fall&quot; for the wrong reasons.  It takes quite a bit of self-awareness, honesty and integrity to know what your priorities are when seeking a mate and stick with it.

A bit of a bleak outlook, but I expect nothing less from my Tri-State compatriots.  Seeing Newark outside one&#039;s window is bound to bring the mortuary into the mind&#039;s eye.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Damn Kris I want one of these comments on MY site!  I loved it and the turn of phrases you used.</p>
<p>Due diligence &#8211; yes!  People &#8220;fall&#8221; for the wrong reasons.  It takes quite a bit of self-awareness, honesty and integrity to know what your priorities are when seeking a mate and stick with it.</p>
<p>A bit of a bleak outlook, but I expect nothing less from my Tri-State compatriots.  Seeing Newark outside one&#8217;s window is bound to bring the mortuary into the mind&#8217;s eye.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kris Hartley</title>
		<link>http://leesean.net/2008/04/29/on-settling/comment-page-1/#comment-29701</link>
		<dc:creator>Kris Hartley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leesean.net/?p=942#comment-29701</guid>
		<description>By &quot;one form of commitment&quot; you seem to imply that there are several others. I see only two: commitment with marriage, and without. The question isn&#039;t the nature of devotion itself, but how society expects it to look. I don&#039;t think there are various types of &quot;commitment&quot; though, just as there aren&#039;t various types of &quot;dead.&quot; Some people might consider an emotionally monogamous but physically polygamous relationship model a commitment of sorts, but I don&#039;t really buy that as a &quot;commitment,&quot; rather more of a &quot;custom-made arrangement.&quot; As much as I am loathe to defer to such a doctrinal definition of commitment, at least it provides a universally-accepted ontology around which people can negotiate details that serve their individual needs.

Most emotionally vulnerable people (isn&#039;t that everyone?) can&#039;t sustain non-traditional models of commitment (open relationships, et al.) without some degree of emotional distress, given that one of the two parties will always &quot;get more&quot; and jealousy will follow as sure as night after day. This isn&#039;t to say that the arrangement is illegitimate, but rather it recognizes the emotional frailties of people, who in general bring at least some &quot;baggage&quot; to any relationship in the way of self-esteem deficiencies, or a helpless, nagging sense of lost opportunity in the past.

Old fashioned barrel-chair-and-green-appliance as it sounds, I adhere to the absolutist, admittedly-naive-but-nonetheless-seductive belief that commitment is total devotion, the recognition of mutual benefit despite a tacit admission that each party might not always offer everything the other wants, all the time. As complicated and multifaceted as people are intellectually and emotionally, it&#039;s quixotic to think that everything will &quot;match up&quot; perfectly all the time. But emotions are irrational - when people &quot;fall in love&quot; (oh god here we go!), they tend to suspend rationality and give themselves over 100%. This often traps them in unsatisfying relationships if due diligence has been flimsy, and as such the commitment to commitment itself becomes a prison cell of lost identity, a graveyard for personal aspirations. But for people who &quot;make it work,&quot; there is the ultimate comfort of knowing, despite suffering through the whims of a cruel and indifferent cosmos (job loss, family problems, etc.), they will always be there for each other.  

Leesean, have you retched on your keyboard yet?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By &#8220;one form of commitment&#8221; you seem to imply that there are several others. I see only two: commitment with marriage, and without. The question isn&#8217;t the nature of devotion itself, but how society expects it to look. I don&#8217;t think there are various types of &#8220;commitment&#8221; though, just as there aren&#8217;t various types of &#8220;dead.&#8221; Some people might consider an emotionally monogamous but physically polygamous relationship model a commitment of sorts, but I don&#8217;t really buy that as a &#8220;commitment,&#8221; rather more of a &#8220;custom-made arrangement.&#8221; As much as I am loathe to defer to such a doctrinal definition of commitment, at least it provides a universally-accepted ontology around which people can negotiate details that serve their individual needs.</p>
<p>Most emotionally vulnerable people (isn&#8217;t that everyone?) can&#8217;t sustain non-traditional models of commitment (open relationships, et al.) without some degree of emotional distress, given that one of the two parties will always &#8220;get more&#8221; and jealousy will follow as sure as night after day. This isn&#8217;t to say that the arrangement is illegitimate, but rather it recognizes the emotional frailties of people, who in general bring at least some &#8220;baggage&#8221; to any relationship in the way of self-esteem deficiencies, or a helpless, nagging sense of lost opportunity in the past.</p>
<p>Old fashioned barrel-chair-and-green-appliance as it sounds, I adhere to the absolutist, admittedly-naive-but-nonetheless-seductive belief that commitment is total devotion, the recognition of mutual benefit despite a tacit admission that each party might not always offer everything the other wants, all the time. As complicated and multifaceted as people are intellectually and emotionally, it&#8217;s quixotic to think that everything will &#8220;match up&#8221; perfectly all the time. But emotions are irrational &#8211; when people &#8220;fall in love&#8221; (oh god here we go!), they tend to suspend rationality and give themselves over 100%. This often traps them in unsatisfying relationships if due diligence has been flimsy, and as such the commitment to commitment itself becomes a prison cell of lost identity, a graveyard for personal aspirations. But for people who &#8220;make it work,&#8221; there is the ultimate comfort of knowing, despite suffering through the whims of a cruel and indifferent cosmos (job loss, family problems, etc.), they will always be there for each other.  </p>
<p>Leesean, have you retched on your keyboard yet?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sophia</title>
		<link>http://leesean.net/2008/04/29/on-settling/comment-page-1/#comment-29511</link>
		<dc:creator>Sophia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:17:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leesean.net/?p=942#comment-29511</guid>
		<description>Wow we have some trendy friends don&#039;t we?  Are you going to join in...?  ::nudge wink::

Thank you for the mention dear!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow we have some trendy friends don&#8217;t we?  Are you going to join in&#8230;?  ::nudge wink::</p>
<p>Thank you for the mention dear!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Morpion</title>
		<link>http://leesean.net/2008/04/29/on-settling/comment-page-1/#comment-29497</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Morpion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leesean.net/?p=942#comment-29497</guid>
		<description>Marriage is cool.  Plus, if you&#039;re lucky, you get a set of beer mugs from your pal!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marriage is cool.  Plus, if you&#8217;re lucky, you get a set of beer mugs from your pal!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

