Active Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by underthesun

  1. New Members-Girls Only

    Hi Susan! Welcome to the forums! While we do have a lot of Christian waiters on the site, we also have a good number of non-Christians; you're definitely not alone! Unrelated question: Do we still call it the Czech Republic, or is Czechia now preferred?
  2. You know, I think the confusion here is that we're all operating under slightly different definitions of the word attractive. But either way, maybe I should bow out of the conversation, now. I'm sorry if my sharing how I personally feel about this matter in any way offended anyone; that was not my intention. As I've already said, I just wanted to share my thoughts and feelings, as others had before. I wasn't trying to put anyone on the defensive, and I'm honestly a bit surprised that that seems to be what has happened. Again: I'm sorry if I somehow offended anyone.
  3. Waitwaitwait, I'm overthinking because I was responding to a question asked of me? Besides, it was an interesting idea; why must it be 'overthinking' to consider an idea one finds interesting? As I said, I took some courses on human sexuality back in college. I find the topic interesting and thought-provoking. Sorry if that means I overthink things. From what I learned in those courses, anyways, most of Kinsey's basic theories have found more confirmation than contradiction from subsequent research. I named Kinsey because he's the most well-known, but there have been other researchers who have identified some sort of a continuum. Or maybe my college's program was misleading, I don't know. I don't claim to be an expert in the field; you might very well be right. Anyways, I didn't reply to this thread because I wanted to tell anyone what their orientation is or is not. I couldn't possibly presume to know that. And, frankly, I don't really care. You do you, friend. I just thought this was an interesting thread, and I wanted to share my own thoughts on the topic. I acknowledged that it might be unpopular when I posted it; it's never been my goal to force others to agree with me or start some huge debate. I just thought I'd share my answer to the OP's question.
  4. If he doesn't seem insecure, or repressed, or something, then I doubt he'd be classified as that gotta-be-super-macho, never-looked-at-another-man-twice type that I was talking about. Although, you know, I'm not even sure that that example wouldn't fall somewhere in the in-between, even if only slightly. How does he 'see what I mean' about Morgan's ass? In the yeah-I-recognize-that-as-society's-definition-of-attractive way? Because then I guess you're right, never mind my question. Or is it in the yeah-that-is-an-attractive-ass-but-I'd-never-want-to-do-more-than-acknowledge-that way? Because I'd say that fits on the spectrum. Either way, it's all good. You do you, and whatnot.
  5. Are you familiar with the Kinsey Scale? Or any other studies that show sexual orientation on a continuum rather than as strict, inflexible categories? If not, then you might be misunderstanding my point. I define sexual orientation on a continuum, and I do subscribe to the theory that the vast majority of individuals fall somewhere on that spectrum in between strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual. Now, as I see it, that in between can be as obvious as someone who identifies as bisexual and has relationships with both men and women, or it can be as subtle as someone who only ever has sexual or romantic relationships with the opposite gender, but acknowledges some tiny amount of attraction to some individuals of the same gender. I wouldn't call that individual 100% straight, and definitely not in the way I was referring to in my earlier post. But, to your second point: It seems you think I was talking about Jeffery Dean Morgan having a "nice ass" or Khaleesi being the sexiest person ever as merely acknowledging that they are aesthetically pleasing. I was not. I meant "nice ass" as in attractive ass. Sure, you can find a bird beautiful and not include birds in your sexual orientation... but if you find birds attractive, then I think that would be a part of your sexual orientation, yes. There's a difference between beautiful or pretty and sexy or attractive. I think we actually agree on this point, but I think you just misunderstood my terminology, is all.
  6. First things first: welcome to the forums! Secondly: I'm running late to a meeting, but I really felt this post was important and I wanted to get a reply out to you before I head out. I apologize if any of this comes off as curt; I'm hoping my tone comes across as honest and straight-forward, but tones are terribly hard to read over the internet. Anyway: This was her first experience with being in a relationship and her first and only sexual experience... 1. Is rape a type of sex, a type of assault, or both? Rape is not a type of sex. Rape is not a "sexual experience." Rape is not sex. Rape is an assault (well, technically a battery, but that's not the point). Rape is an attack. Rape isn't even about sex. Rape is about power and control. Rape is not sex. 2. Would it be right to say she's never had sex before since she didn't consent or participate? Experientially, she sees it as something totally different (like being in a fight vs. being abused, or skydiving vs. being pushed out of a plane). If she has never had sex before, then, yes, that's the right thing to say. Rape is not sex. If she was raped, she didn't "have sex." 3. Would it be right to call her a virgin since she has never had consensual sex? Or would we be lying to ourselves? She does still bring the same level of innocence, purity, and chastity as a virgin, right? This can technically depend on how you define "virgin". Is someone a virgin if they've had oral sex? If they've had digital sex? If they've used sex toys? People define that different, and maybe one of those might apply to her -- I don't know. But if you define sex as someone who has never had sexual intercourse, and she's never had sexual intercourse... then she's a virgin by definition, isn't she? Also, I'm confused: if you acknowledge that being raped was not her fault (because it wasn't), then why would you question her purity or chastity? 4. Does this guy count as a sexual partner or add to her "n-count?" First off, why are you counting? This seems weird. I don't know how to answer this because I really don't understand what you're counting, here. But, again, if she was raped, then she hasn't had sex. A rapist does not count as a sexual partner. 5. If we get married, will we still have that same "specialness" of two virgins coming together for the first time? To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure any given pair of virgins has the same experience their first time, so I don't really know how you plan to judge this. But that aside, you should probably be prepared for her to react to her first time differently than you do. Maybe she's A-Okay with it and there's no problem, but maybe it'll take her a little bit of time to adjust. Maybe she'll be more nervous about it. Maybe she'll have flashbacks. Maybe she'll need you to stop and you'll have to hold off until later. But, hey, that could happen to most people, so, again... it depends on the pairing. But what's "special" about your first time, as a waiter, is probably not going to be the sex itself. If waiters just thought sex of any kind was "special" then why wait? I think most waiters think that it's the intimacy that's special, it's being with the one you love wholly and completely. If you marry her, and you love her wholly and completely, why wouldn't it be special? 6. Does she still have just as much to give as a virgin? As much to give? Can she still give herself, wholly and completely, to you? Sure, she can. Can she still love you, marry you, wait for you? Sure. ...Or is there something else you're wanting her to give? Also, again, depending on your definition and her previous choices, she's probably still a virgin, so this question might not apply. 7. How do I get over the idea of another guy having already "been there?" I feel nauseous when I think about it. This is a harder one. Rape impacts more than just the survivor -- it impacts loved ones and friends and families, too. Don't let anyone invalidate your feelings or say that you are wrong to feel a certain way. You were impacted, too. You get to react. And if you need someone to talk to, there are plenty of crisis lines out there that have lots of experience talking to both survivors and loved ones of survivors. Make a call if you ever feel you need to. It makes sense to feel nauseous when you think of how someone hurt someone you care about. That's a valid reaction. But be careful not to confuse that with how you feel about her. I'm not sure how you mean that first question. Are you saying you feel almost jealous? Because what do you have to feel jealous of? The rapist didn't have her love and devotion. She never gave herself to the rapist. The rapist didn't have that intimacy with her, didn't have her pleasure. The rapist just caused pain, violated her. That's not something to be jealous of. The rapist didn't "get there first." If you were to marry her, if you were to give yourselves to each other, then you would be the first person she'd give herself to. You'd be the first. No one's been on that emotional ledge before you. She's given no one else that honor. That'd just be you. 8. She never gave him anything sexual, he only took. But how do I stop from feeling like I will be "sharing" her with her rapist ex-boyfriend? Examine why you feel that way. Flesh it out. Maybe talk to someone about it -- a friend, or one of those trained advocates who answer crisis lines. Walk through your emotional reaction. Why do you think you're "sharing" anything? What does that imply? What exactly do you think you're "sharing" with him? You said it yourself; she never gave him anything. The rapist doesn't have her love, doesn't have her confidence, doesn't have her trust. He has none of her pleasure, of her smiles and laughter, of her joys. He doesn't have any of that intimacy you might one day have with her. If you were to marry her, and she were to give you all of that, how would you be "sharing" any of that when you have all of it and the rapist has none of it? All the rapist has is his violation of her. I'm assuming that's not something you want to share with him. 9. Is this something I will always be worrying about, even into marriage? Or will I eventually be able accept and move past it? Could it potentially always be a part of your lives? Yeah, it could. But will you always "worry"? No one can answer that. Again, I'd recommend analyzing why you're worrying, what you're worried about, and see if you can't work through it. Knowing that someone you loved was raped is not something you just "accept and move past." It's something you come to terms with. It's something you refuse to let get in the way of your life. Ball's in your court, there. 10. Could this help us both grow in the long run by helping her to heal and helping me to focus on the heart and love unconditionally? ...Could what help you both grow in the long run? I love this woman and I want to explore every avenue before deciding I can't handle it. I think I would hate myself for giving her up over something that was never her fault, desire, or decision. I also know that things happen in this life that are out of our control and part of a marriage is to stay together despite life's challenges ("for better or for worse, in sickness and in health"). But I fear that either way I'll always wonder what could have been. What are you thinking "could have been"? Are you imagining a woman who trusts a little easier or isn't as quick to stiffen or flinch? That still could be. Or are you imagining a woman who has never had to go through something so traumatic? Because that woman is probably a very different woman from the one you currently say you love. Or is it more that you're imagining not feeling nauseous when you think about what happened to her? Because that's something you could still work on, something that also still might be.
  7. So I’ll toss out an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not sure I’d be comfortable in a relationship with someone who wasn’t bisexual. Or, at least, heteroflexible. Or, you know, really anywhere in-between straight and gay. I studied human sexuality back in undergrad, so I’m fairly familiar with the Kinsey Scale and whatnot. I subscribe to the theory that the vast majority of people are not strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual, but instead fall somewhere on the continuum. And maybe a great number of people fall pretty darn close to one end or another of that continuum… That’s grand, but I still count that as somewhere in-between. And all of this is not to say that there aren’t people out there who are completely and utterly heterosexual or homosexual. I just think that the vast majority of people are naturally somewhere in-between, even if only subtly. So, if a man I’m dating swears up and down that he is completely, honestly, 100%, never-even-glanced-at-another-man-twice, gotta-be-super-macho-about-this straight, then I’m inclined to believe he’s more likely than not either in denial or just not fully in tune with himself. Again, big difference between that and basically, pretty-much, yeah-I’m-really-only-seriously-interested-in-women straight. The latter counts as on the spectrum in my book, but the former? I don’t know, that would just seem to me like the man’s too obsessed with adhering to strict gender roles or too afraid of damaging his fragile masculinity. Which is not attractive to me. I don’t know, but that whole gotta-be-super-macho-about-this type just doesn’t float my boat. It just seems insecure, or too repressed, or I don’t know, something. I’d much prefer to be with a man who is confident enough in his sexuality to acknowledge where he falls on the continuum without choking on his drink if I ask him if he thinks Jeffrey Dean Morgan has a nice ass in P.S. I Love You.* I want to be able to have those conversations. I want to be able to watch Game of Thrones with my man and feel comfortable commenting on how holy crap, Khaleesi might be the sexiest person ever. I don’t know that I’d feel comfortable saying that in front of someone who is gotta-be-super-macho, never-even-glanced-at-another-man-twice straight. And if I don’t feel comfortable being completely myself in front of him, then he and I aren’t a good match, really, are we? And I really don’t see my partner’s sexuality as something to be jealous over. Sure, maybe he’s attracted to certain body parts I don’t have. Is he content to stay with me anyways? Is he still attracted to me? Then we’re good. Bases covered. If I'm in a relationship and I'm constantly worried he's going to step out on me or something, then I take that to mean our relationship isn't very solid at all. I'd assume that there's a deeper issue at play there than what my man finds sexually appealing. So, to answer the original question: yes. I’d definitely date a man who is bisexual. I’d also happily date a man who is heteroflexible. Or, hell, homoflexible. Or mostly straight. Or yeah-I’m-straight-but-I-find-some-men-attractive straight. But I probably wouldn’t date a man who claims to be 100% straight. *I feel compelled to clarify that I usually don’t have RomCom references just laying around to sprinkle into posts. I just happened to watch that movie last night with my roommate.
  8. Agnostic and Waiting

    I'm pretty sure that article was how I first stumbled upon the site, too. Welcome! We're glad to have you!
  9. Warning: Phishing site

    Aaaaaand it's back. At least for me.
  10. Oh, so you mean do I wait or make the first move after first exchanging numbers? I usually wait for him to make the first contact if I gave him my number, but I suppose it depends on the situation. Did we end the conversation with me promising to get back to him on something? Or did something come up that seems like an important thing to share? Of course I'll send the first message. But if we're just talking the standard exchange-numbers-then-part-ways thing, I'll usually play the waiting game and see if he messages in the next few days. But if he doesn't, I'll reach out if I'm really interested in him. Otherwise I'll just shrug it off and assume he's not interested. Everyone is different, but I think most women will expect that if they give you their number (even if you also give them yours), you're going to make the first contact. If you don't, they might assume you're not interested. But when you get beyond that to second, third, and fourth contacts, who knows? Again, my general rule of thumb is that I like to keep it pretty balanced, but that might not be the case for everyone. If there's a specific girl who is never initiating the conversation, it might be that she's just super self conscious about starting conversations and doesn't want to bother you (or wake you up early, or keep you up late, et cetera). Or maybe you're already starting conversations often enough that you're really not giving her the chance to start them herself. Or maybe she really doesn't notice that she's not starting the conversations at all. Or maybe she's not really interested. Or maybe she's just got a lot going on and has been pretty busy. Or maybe she just isn't a big fan of texting to begin with.
  11. Are those two things mutually exclusive? I mean, I personally tend to wait for the man to make the first move move, but I'm happy to start the first conversation. Or maybe those lines blur a bit when you're talking about the first time you meet someone, but I still feel like there can be a difference. I have no problem making the introduction, but I still find myself waiting to see if the man will take the first step in nudging the conversation out of the friendly category into the flirty/romantic category. Not that I think women can't be the first to make that move, I just know that I usually don't. And when it comes to guys I've been friends with for a while, I actually think it is very important to initiate conversations at least some of the time. I mean, if only one person is always texting first, then I'm not sure it's truly a friendship. if you're friends... then you both should want to talk to each other, right? For me, if I feel like I'm always the one initiating the conversation, I start to think that I'm just bugging the other person and he or she doesn't want to talk to me. So I'm pretty conscious of trying to keep the conversation starting as balanced as possible with someone I like, because I want to make sure I'm not bugging him, but I also want to make sure he knows he's not bugging me. ...Does that make any sense?
  12. Natural family planning : what do you think?

    I'm all for continuing to research and develop an actual cure for endometriosis (though, I'll admit I suspect it will be a long while before any such cure is found... research that only benefits women usually doesn't tend to earn much funding). But I agree, and I do hope we can come up with better options in the future. Small note, though: it's the estrogen in the conventional BC pills that bring the side effects traditionally associated with hormonal BC, but progestin-only pills exist, too. Progestin-only pills are much, much safer and come with practically no side effects. They can be used by women over 35, smokers, women who are overweight, who have migraines with auras, and women with estrogen sensitivities. I've actually heard progestin-only pills are more recommended for women with endometriosis, but that might just be doctor preference... I haven't read any studies on the topic. But anyway, hormonal BC isn't meant to be a cure for endometriosis. It's just meant to seriously limit the pain, and it's meant to delay the progression of the disease so that fertility can be preserved as much as possible. And once menopause sets in, endometriosis is no longer a problem. Not that that means we shouldn't be funding research (because we obviously SHOULD!) but I'm just saying, the current BC pill is workable enough for some women. Which I think makes it even less likely significant funding will go in to finding a cure for endometriosis, unfortunately. ...But now I'm SUPER off topic for this thread. Sorry!
  13. Natural family planning : what do you think?

    Definitely respect your individual choice here, but I wanted to comment on this line of yours. While I acknowledge that some doctors overprescribe BC as if it's a magical cure-all without bothering to look for other non-medicated options, I don't think it is fair to say that hormonal BC is always a "quick fix that doesn't fix the problem, just masks it and makes your body more out of balance." Take endometriosis, for example. For a number of women suffering from the disease, not only does taking hormonal BC help mitigate pain and other symptoms, but it can actually be one of the only ways to preserve fertility. Without hormonal BC, the endometriosis can get worse, and over time, lead to a loss of fertility. From my understanding, the only other treatment method for endometriosis is surgery, and obviously only some people are candidates for it, but even those who successfully undergo surgery are often encouraged to take hormonal BC after the fact in order to prevent the endometriosis from returning and again threatening fertility.
  14. How many languages do you speak?

    Only two at any decent level, but I have at least a very rudimentary grasp of a few others. English is my native language, and the only one that I'm completely fluent in. My German isn't bad, though, but I'll admit my speaking ability isn't quite up to my listening and reading/writing ability. My Spanish is awful, but I can read well enough to get by, and if I have access to a dictionary to double-check my vocabulary, my writing isn't bad. I struggle with listening to most native speakers just because the pace is usually too quick for me to process, but I can understand well enough when it's spoken at a slower pace. Speaking-wise, I have a terrible accent and still could use a dictionary for the added vocab, but it could be worse. I can understand Dutch almost as well as I can understand German, but I cannot reproduce it in speaking or in writing. I've never actually studied Dutch, though; I think I just picked it up a bit because of my knowledge of German and English. And I'm starting to learn Russian now, which is something I've wanted to do for a while now. At the moment I'm only in the very early stages of learning it; I've got the alphabet down and I know a few quick phrases, and that's about it. I'll be working on that this summer, though!
  15. I don't make any assumption based on age, but I'll admit that I generally assume any guy I meet is spoken for in some way (doesn't have to be married! might just be in a relationship) until something suggests otherwise. Not that that assumption stops me from being interested, but it definitely keeps me from acting on any interest until, like I said, something suggests he might be single. ...Thinking about this now, I might be a little too paranoid about hitting on someone who is already in a relationship. Huh. I should probably work on that.
  16. Questions for the ladies of WTM

    1. I'm going to echo Crystal on this one; it definitely does depend what is coming first. I can accept some things as coming before me, but there are others I would not be comfortable. For instance, it would not be a problem to me at all if children came before me, or religion (again, echoing Crystal's caveats). I'd even be okay with his profession coming before me, provided there's something about his profession that I feel justifies such prioritizing; if he's an officer or a doctor and he needs to be on call because he needs to save lives, then that takes precedence. I'd also understand if there's some major deadline or project coming up and work needed to be prioritized just for a short period of time. But if he is just "married to his work" and chooses to place monetary gains or business deals ahead of his family, I would have a problem with that. It's not that I do not want to marry someone who is ambitious, but if he is consistently prioritizing his work over his family, then our values just do not line up, and that's a problem. But that's just me. It doesn't make him a bad person or anything, we just wouldn't be compatible. 2. I'm not sure "change the way I felt" is the right way to describe it, but I would certainly be disappointed. I guess I can't say this with any certainty for obvious reasons, but I do think that I have a higher than average sex drive, so I would hope that my husband would as well. I don't think that it would be the end of a relationship by any means, but I do think it is something to consider when gauging overall compatibility. It's a conversation to have well before the wedding, obviously, just to see if we both want the same thing out of a relationship. I'm sure a slight difference wouldn't be a problem, but I don't think it would work well if he had an exceptionally low sex drive. 3. Sure! I'm not overly attached to my country right now, and I've lived abroad before. I'd happily do it again. But then I might not be the best person to ask, because I'm not even sure where I'll be living after I finish my graduate degree, so I'm already planning on moving around anyways.
  17. All the media hype around this over the past few weeks kinda bugged me. I know there were articles mocking Tebow, but the majority of articles (and comments) I saw all seemed to be pretty on-his-side. Which is, in my opinion, great, because it shows that there is at least some amount of support for (some) waiters out there. Awesome. But, I really have a problem with all the anti-(ex-)girlfriend stuff, because it doesn't sound like this was an arbitrary decision for her, and it seems super hypocritical to praise one person for deciding to pursue the type of relationship he wants but then criticize another for deciding what type of relationship she wants. She doesn't want to wait? For some people, sex is immediately an important part of their relationship, and if marriage isn't on the horizon anytime soon, then it's asking a lot to require another person to wait if he or she doesn't want to. Sounds to me like this match/relationship wasn't going to work for either of them. Why villain-ize her for recognizing that and breaking it off so that both of them can purse something better suited? If we want people to respect our decision to wait, shouldn't we respect others' decision not to?
  18. There's really no way to answer for every girl or to know exactly what the situation is. I see a few different options. She likes you but wants to be an arms length away from you because she's just not used to being closer to people. She doesn't like you but is still being nice to you. She likes you and wants you to be the one to make the move closer to her. She likes you and doesn't see being an arms length away as a boundary in the way you see it as one. She doesn't like you and is trying to use the arms length away as a way to show you that she doesn't like you. She likes you and simply doesn't want you to be closer than arm's length to her because she just doesn't want you to be. She doesn't like you as more than a friend. She doesn't really know you well enough to know what she wants. She likes you, but she likes you like a brother. She has no idea she's giving you any of these "signs" you're seeing. She likes you but is worried about doing whatever the socially accepted "right" thing to do is. She likes you but doesn't want to be closer because she doesn't want the temptation and doesn't want you to misunderstand what she is and is not willing to do. You're being creepy but she's too nice to tell you. You're being creepy but not quite creepy enough for her to tell you. And there are plenty of other possibilities, too. There's no one-size-fits-all way to look at why a woman is doing what she's doing. There's no "type" of girl in the way you're thinking about it. If you want to know, you need to ask her. Make your intentions clear, watch her reaction, and if you're unsure about her reaction, ask her.
  19. What religion would you choose other than your own?

    I think this is a wonderful question that I wish I had stumbled upon before. Hmm... Well, part of me really and truly wishes I could be Catholic, both because I adore the beauty of Mass and because I'd enjoy being able to share religious beliefs with a large portion of my family. BUT, that feels like a cop-out, since I'm culturally Catholic and whatnot... I'd probably want to be a Hindu; it's such a beautiful religion so rich in culture and history. The celebrations seem like experiences in of themselves, and there are so many other activities (yoga, dance, et cetera) that tie in with Hindu spirituality, that I imagine it would make for a very fulfilling life.
  20. Gamer Guys, Hot or Not??

    Oh no, don't worry! You haven't offended me! Honestly, I was just curious what definitions you were operating under -- and on that matter, thank you for the elaboration. But yeah, I can definitely understand your whole 'boundaries' point, and of course, you're entitled to your own opinions on video games. I feel as though you may have had a somewhat skewed experience with guys who were into gaming, but hey, I'm sure there are plenty of guys who share your distaste of games. Like I said, I really was just curious how the whole escaping reality thing reconciled in your mind. I guess I've just had different experiences, is all.
  21. Gamer Guys, Hot or Not??

    I'm curious as to what you would classify as a "reality-inclusive" outlet. Would you find it unattractive if a man reads books? What if he watches TV or movies? Writes? Goes off fishing for a few hours? ...I'm just having trouble thinking of ways people unwind and relax that aren't escapes from reality.
  22. What is your dream guy?

    Why couldn't you have meant guy?
  23. I'm curious as to why polygamy is so 'obviously' going to be frowned upon in a community of waiters. I mean, a lot of polygamists wait until marriage... I'd actually assume most do, but I do not have the statistics to back that statement up. I totally understand the latter of your examples though.
  24. Guy's Voice

    I'm a complete sucker for a guy with Bing Crosby's voice.
  25. Moving for a Spouse

    Ooh! Good question! Now, I grew up all up and down the East Coast of the USA, so I don't have a place that, strictly speaking, is my "home." I'm inclined to list New York just because it was the first place I lived and it is closest to my heart, but even in knowing that I can recognize that it isn't truly my home. Not right now, anyways. And besides that, my immediate family currently is spread out all over the country, so no matter where I end up living, I won't be near more than one or two of them. Because of that, I've always really really wanted to marry someone who is very close with his family, someone who ideally lives close to his family; I simply want to see my kids running around and playing with their cousins, and I'm afraid my side of the family would make that a rare sight. I'm holding out hope that I'll end up near in-laws, because I've pretty much given up hope that I'll be anywhere near my immediate family (except for visits and holidays, of course). Long backstory aside, to answer your question: I have no qualms at all about moving to another state, another country, or another continent in order to be with the love of my life -- whether or not that means being near his family. Assuming it's financially doable (and assuming that should the native language of the new country be something I do not speak, I have the ability to take time to learn the language before trying to find employment), I wouldn't have even the slightest hesitation. I guess I'm the opposite of you, then. I totally understand what you mean about the loneliness factor of being isolated from family -- I feel that all the time! -- but to me, friendships aren't as huge of a factor in where I decide to live. I love my friends, but I'm already thousands of miles from most of them anyways, and I feel like with today's technology, it's easy enough to keep in touch and remain friends even over the distance. ...Which, come to think of it, is kind of an interesting take, considering I don't find it easy to keep in touch with family. Huh.