Friends

  • I direly feel I must preface this with the fact that I love Connor as a friend. In some ways, he reminds me of Vikki in how close I've quickly gotten with him. I think he's incredibly intelligent and means best all the time. There's much I admire and respect about him. And, admittedly, I should have brought this up during the original conversation but I've always properly assessed things after the fact, plus to bring it up now would seem attacking and out of left field after the conversation. That said, this has been infuriating me for the longest time.

    There's a conservative position that differs with the libertarian argument that we should remove marriage from the legal system, revert everyone to civil unions, and have the individual people apply whatever religious (or non-religious) significance to the event that they wish.

    The position says, simply, that there is a stake that the government has in preserving heterosexual marriage. I wouldn't know the actual statistics but the argument simply goes that the nuclear unit is the most stable unit that continues stability and that stability permeates through the rest of society, holding a society together.

    Now, my argument has always been one that the government should not concern itself with morality. It should be concerned with establishing a system that ensures that every individual can live their life without (generally physical) restriction or harm from any other individual. What Truth and morality is should be yours to determine on your own and to your own suiting - and this is most kept possible when others cannot restrict you (and vice versa, of course). Hence, you can believe in the tenets of the KKK as much as you want so long as that does not restrict me. For a less sensationalist example, you can believe whatever you want about street racing so long as you do not engage in it (because of the possibility to harm me with death or other near-fatal injuries). This could equally be applied to medical issues - you cannot reject medical treatment if that means you could become a health hazard for others you may come in contact with, no matter what you think of medicine. And so on.

    Of course, this could get more complicated. After all, doesn't stability mean less restriction from others in the long run? While true, I'm sure we could argue we'd have more stability if we just all got along and agreed but I doubt anyone would be in support of repealing our First Amendment freedoms anytime soon.

    I would actually go as far as to say that you would have more stability by following my rule. But that's neither here nor there and would take more attention that I really have the span for right now.

    The point of this exhibition is that Connor would say that the government is not codifying morality by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. He would say simply that that is the most stable form of relationship and it encourages procreation (which is further stabilizing in our world of overpopulation) and, thus, should be what we define marriage as. If others want to get something similar, they can get a civil union.

    And, you know, I'll skip the ways that words change (including exactly what a marriage would have been seen as during the very start of our young nation, which was further verified by the Dred Scott case).

    Instead, I want to focus on something he particularly pointed out in defending why people verified as impotent or not even wanting to have kids should be allowed to have marriage while homosexuals should not. His basic argument was that they still have more likelihood. His parents were said they would be unlikely to have kids and yet he was born.

    So, somehow, the scarce chance of being able to procreate despite being to all known sources impotent trumps the assuredness of being able to adopt despite the inability to naturally procreate.

    Now, now, understand - I am not being mocking (even though, even to me, that sentence appears as such; but I assure you I am not). Now, my argument as to why we don't need to revert to a libertarian model is that marriage actually should be suited to account for children. It shouldn't be a requirement, mind you, but marriage as it stands is a legal document that allows for benefits (and things such as the separation of property in death, etc.) that include the possibility of children that need to be accounted for that a civil union between my brother and I simply would not need to. It's a highly specialized legal agreement but a suitable one.

    In short, I agree with Connor that marriage - as it is used socially and legally now - likely would account for children (though I would remark that it does not expect them).

    So, basically, the argument that Connor (and others) put forth is that the remote possibility of higher likelihood for natural procreation trumps the millions of those out there who would happily take children to raise for a family even though they cannot naturally procreate. Furthermore, even if a couple are both paralyzed from the waist down and incapable of having children, they still should have the right to marry because they are a man and woman and, somehow, this is benefitial for further raising of our young in this world without a remote biblical argument.

     

    Here is where I get emotional.

    FUCKING BULLSHIT.

    This is no argument to create stability but simply a means to dictate your own morality behind pseudo rationality.

    Why?

    Well, it so beautifully makes itself apparent in that impotence argument. While that impotent couple has a higher chance of having children - even if by a fraction - than a homosexual couple, that fraction shouldn't make a difference. Do you honestly think that two couples - one impotent and one gay - are going to be stopped from getting children (whether by adoption or otherwise) if they want it? You really are concerned with the nuclear family? Then you would allow the creation of millions of nuclear families that blatantly want to be given that they're fighting for the damn right to be married right now. Seeing as all studies point to no difference between children raised by gay couples versus those raised by heterosexual couples, it makes no sense to restrict the creation of so so many new nuclear families.

    But, hypocrisy aside, want to know the simplest reason as to why this decision reeks of personal projection?

     

     

    Because it doesn't affect him.

     

     

    He's not the one who gets to be disallowed marriage. Going back to my original argument that the government should only be concerned with the non-restriction of its citizens, do we all remember why Brown v. Board of Education resulted in the case that it did? It was because, when given the choice between black and white dolls, all little girls given the choice for the court (white and black) chose white. Why? They were conditioned and taught that white was better. If you want to do that for your private school, fine - but not public institutions and certainly not government backed ones.

    So, yes, it's quite easy to sit on back and say that - begging your pardon and, honestly, nothing against you - it just makes more sense for marriage to only be for heterosexuals.

    Because, quite pleasantly, he doesn't have to deal with the rejection and frustration from those closest to him. He doesn't have to deal with the permeating feeling of being marked as "less than" that plenty of queer youth deal with daily.

    And, while maybe the biggest concern for your gay friends is the lack of a dating culture at Williams, that's not what the case is for mine so please don't assume that's the extent of our misfortunes.

     

    And, for the record, faggot still refers to gays and is still understood by nearly all (including those using is pejoratively) to mean such. I have far too many memories I'd like to forget associated with that word, thank you very much.

  • One of the things that I've always had a love/hate relationship with was my ability to deal with severe sadness or emotional pain. I'm not talking about a depression spat (those are too imediate for my liking). I'm more talking emotional disturbances triggered by an unfortunate event, such as a break up or death.

    I imagine it's some survival instinct I picked up back during high school, or I imagine that maybe it's just an unfortunate side effect of having to learn social mores and, therefore, monitoring and keeping watch on every action I do, but emotional disturbances don't hit me immediately. At least, not big ones.

    Again probably a side effect of having to learn from scratch how to act socially, but I find it incredibly difficult to process or understand most anger/sadness that isn't in the form of an action (which, now that I think of it, is interesting considering how I tend to find anger and, to a lesser extent, sadness more easy to understand and process than the confusion that is most general happiness or positive emotions; but a thought for later: that's not the point of this post).

    Someone get's hurt? Easy, help them. Someone hurt someone I care about? Comfort the friend and deal with the guilty individual. But, even further, those actions are my way of naturally expressing my emotions.

    I generally don't cry. Particularly so in situations like the above. Perhaps I instinctively convinced myself it's a waste of time. I wouldn't know. But it's not something I do, on the spot particularly. I don't get torn up inside. In short, I often wonder whether I can actually feel – in a moment of self-worry – at times of particular crisis.

    People expect reactions. Sure, stoicism can be taken as strength and, to some, restraint over uncontrolled emotion is considered the greater strength. I'll never forget, the second time Laura broke up with me, as Victoria and I were walking down the link, Victoria kept telling me it was alright to vent, express whatever sadness/disappoint/whatever I might be feeling. Amused by her concern, I just shrugged and honestly answered, "I'm fine." Or jess's attempted suicide. I was frustrated, irritated at not being able to do anything – but I didn't actually internally feel anything until the next day. And I'm sure it would have taken much longer to finally work, ever so slowly, through all the emotional distress which would float to the surface.

     

    The last "words" I said to Steve was an E-mail asking why he hadn't told me, the Symph Winds manager, about the concert that was occurring, I think, the Friday before Winter Break.

    I half considered just getting a new workstudy. I said here once that I like my bosses (and, humorously, how rare I imagine that might be for some); I hadn't realized just how much so.

    It's going to be a shitshow when all it finally hits, though.

  • I know I tend to be so aloof and detached that some habits of mine are hard to pick up, so I'll say a few plainly here.

    If I try to hug you (or am any level of affectionate) or say hello and am somewhat assertive about it, this means two things: one, I have a strong affinity for you, for whatever myriad of reasons, and, two, I am not alright.

    I'm terrible at keeping up with people and likely will not unless you are big in my life (there's a reason I tend to form my friendships based on the other person's assertiveness), we all know this.

    So if I am contacting you at all (outside of setting up a hanging out date), this means something.

  • I've said multiple times before on here that a majority of my friends tend to be girls. Given that, it shouldn't be surprising to learn that most (if probably not all, considering that's a small number anyway) of my closest friends are girls. Add to that that some (*cough*Vikki*cough*) and I have no concept of personal space/information, I've grown used to not having to deal with the irritating phenomenon of being treated as "the male in the room" for several years now.

    Maybe it was the slightly absurd notion of having to talk in code about what are day-to-day concepts and topics or the rediculous general-feeling about actually dismissing something as girl talk - or, perhaps, I've just become so used to not encountering such treatment for so long that I suddenly feel like I'm back in Sophomore year of high school when it occurs these days. Or maybe it's just my age-old dislike at feeling like I'm shoved to the outside circle of, well, anything, let alone a friend or someone I have affinity for.

    I need to get home, to normalcy, to enviroments I'm thoroughly used to. This week is going to be one of the longest of my life.

  • I never did really relate to most of my own class year back in high school. Freshman year I just hung out with those older than me, Sophomore year found me making tons of Freshman friends, Junior year adding the incoming Freshmen to my friend roster, and (while far, far less in numbers) I've made a few friends amongst the '11 class and even the '12 class, some of which being incredibly dear people to my heart like Marissa S.

    I mention this because it's one of those ways that I've felt like a bit outside of this community. Not in terms of my friends, mind you. I mean in terms of the class and greater school general public sense. There's certain things people become known for. They're recognized. Now, I mention this because I have this great affinity for characters (which only makes further sense given how much reading I do and my own interest in English). For whatever reason, characters are able to elicit a nostalgia on par with seeing an old place (restaurant, hang out spot, etc.) I used to frequent or some person I knew from way back when who I was fond of and then see again.

    The class of '09 really kind of absorbed me into their own and I've felt more partiality to them, so there was less of this outside feeling. But, with the class of '10, I knew less of them so the personalities and characters within their class I wouldn't know. Having spent 2 years now, going on three, away from them, it's crazy how much they're growing into their own and becoming their own people. And, with that, the personalities and characters within their class that have developed, alone, over that 2 years I've been gone I'm completely out of the loop for. And it's just kinda cool looking back at these people who are some of my dearests and recognizing the way they've come to, in a sense, develop a name for themselves.

     

    I mention this because, in a terribly vague way, it should have given you an idea of how fond I become of my friends and the ways I become fond of personalities.

    So, I was talking to Allison today and I was reminded of the way I'm defensive of her. Now, that term itself needs to be given context. See, I'm fond of jess. And, really, if you were to piece together all the various things I've said over the year, you might know that the fondness I have for jess is a protective, "let me solve any such problem you might have". While Allison is better at taking care of herself than jess, the best way to put it is that for most people I offer to threaten people who give them shit, for those two girls I actually go forth with going after their aggressor until either girl tells me not to. But I guess, more than anything, it's more a sibling like thing (odd, for girls I've dated in the past, but it really has been the most accurate description of it). I tend to act the defensive big brother actively with them whereas I might not do that necessarily with other friends.

    Of course, you might immediately jump to, "But isn't it just guilt?", considering what I've said before on here about how our relationship had went. But that really isn't it. This fondness stems, I feel, from something else. I was talking to her today, after what has been a while, and Alys had happened to write a note that mentioned a bunch of people she admired (Allison included in that list).

    What both these previous mentioned things highlight is her personality and much of who she is. She's able to get me to smile so utterly easily just anyday and she's a very strong personality. I mean, I feel this again has to be put in context. Back in the two years the both of us attended AESHS together, Allison did not have the best reputation nor was liked much. I had many people who were just not pleased when I first dated her. And yet I felt there was more to her, as I've said on here before. In spite of what people thought of her, she made a place for herself and got people to respect her. And, in spite of, to quote Alys, her "deliquency" she's always had a still stable head. I remember back when she was a Sophomore she used to say she'd likely not even go to college because she never really cared to even apply herself to her work; I always thought she was too damn smart to possibly do that. She's one of those few who can partake in wreckless activities (staying drunk for an entire weekend?) and still I completely respect and value her opinion. And, as Alys said, she's a great friend and good at dealing with people. Honestly, she's quite the remarkable person while still maintaining entirely who she uniquely is. I'm sure she'd shoot down these remarks, and say that likely much of this isn't done intentionally, but it doesn't mean it isn't true, I'd counter back.

    And, I guess I want to highlight this type of friendship I have with her because, 1. it further helps understand myself and how I think, 2. well, I've always been incredibly adoring of my friends (really, I've always said, my family) and so why wouldn't I highlight any particular friendship, and 3. because it's distinctive enough that I feel it's important enough I note it.

    I guess it's a mix of that brotherly thing I have with jess and yet the same way I view either Kristi or Erin - incredibly strong people who I don't necessarily have to agree with a majority of things on (which, really, is actually crucial for me) and still utterly respect them, while also people who I don't have to keep up with often and yet can just see again and it's like no time has passed since I last saw them.

    I've said before that I tend to talk about my life in terms of my ex's (which Allison is), but also important are my friends. They're wonderful. It might help you see why I harp on the importance of the personality and character so often, too.

  • I want to apologize right now if you guys are updating and I'm not commenting. School has been entirely time consuming and so I can't check updates, for fear of getting distracted and procrastinating (more so than I already do, in any case...). I'm terribly sorry for not keeping up with you guys. I hope you're all well, and continue to stay well. I'll try to sneak Xanga in when next I can.

  • If you remember the last time I posted this, just something to get you through the day; if this is the first time you're seeing this, you can thank me later (yes, I'm still that cocky about it - it's that damn good).



    (if you've ever wondered where I got the quote for your picture from, Kari)

  • Image and video hosting by TinyPic

    I'm not even sure this picture makes any sense...but it looks really cool.

  • I really need to do another archaic word of the day. It's been far too long since the last, yes?

     

    So, as I imparted to Kari yesterday, it kinda pisses me off that there is a such a limited, narrow, and slanted view of what is attractive in terms of how women look (because, if we're being brutally honest, I'm far closer to straight than I am to being gay and so can speak more authoritatively on that end of the spectrum).

    Granted, I still find physical attractiveness to be a sorry form of evaluation for people, pointless, and a cruelly unfair system that aids to many of the debilitating aspects of our society that erodes self-confidence and certainty in self-image (hyperbolic? I'd hardly say so).

    That being said – I'm not going to convince many (if any) other people to my line of thinking. And, if that's the case (as I said above), it really pisses me off that there's such a limited view of what is considered attractive when it comes to women.

    It may just be me, but there is a complete wealth of diversity and multitude of differing body types when it comes to girls (like I said, I'm a poorer judge when it comes to guys, so it's mostly ignorance talking there) that it absolutely amazes me that our society tries so harshly to smash it into some ridiculous notion of a singular mold. I mean...why would you want to limit yourself?

    However, as I said above, there's a limited view of what is considered attractive. Obviously, attractive doesn't mean only physically attractive (and by physically attractive I mean traits that can only be derived through genes). There are many personal and cultural choices that a person can make that can make them attractive or not attractive to a person (such as choice of clothes or whether they wear glasses or not).

    So, that being said, understand that the rest of this discussion in this post covers on some things which are just a matter of opinion and others of it are just inexcusable pickiness and stupidity. Also understand that while I'll focus on my out-of-what-is-usually-considered-the-norm attractions, I generally fall within the mainstream as well. Which is all fine and dandy. I get why we might flock to certain ideas of attractiveness and generally will agree. It's our seeming inability to venture away from these or even admit that the ones I'm going to list are perfectly applicable candidates as well that bothers me.

     

    The first that drives me insane is our society's complete inability to recognize curves. I wanna scream every time some idiot mislabels someone as being "too fat" just because her body actually has a shape which differs from a stalk of celery. Obesity and curves are not the same thing. The latter, you dumbnut, happens to be the natural shape a woman's body takes. Not all, obviously, but please stop telling all to achieve that of a pole.

    That being said – fat isn't a bad thing. Being chubby can be equally attractive. Criticize the muffin top, if you will, but chubby girls tend to be more cuddly and are tons more fun to hug.

    Also, what's with the Only Huge Boobs Please thing? They get big enough and they start to no longer look human. Alright, alright, I'm being facetious by now; but, seriously, small breasts aren't a bad thing. They are quite the opposite often enough. Diversity, people!

    Now, this next pet peeve of mine, admittedly, is mostly a preference thing. I can't honestly chastise people here in good conscience. Obviously some may just honestly disagree with me. But I've never been able to understand the makeup thing. If I wanted to be cocky and snide, I might say it's because I'm a fan of natural beauty and don't understand wanting to cover it up, but that would most clearly be just me being a smartass, and I could easily disassemble such an argument. That said – I still don't understand makeup. In 99.9% of the cases I've seen (and I'm mostly meaning towards the beautifying stuff, anyway (like lipstick, etc.); not movie makeup, for example), the individual looks utterly better just without makeup. But, then again, I've always had what my mother has called pathetically simplistic and boring tastes. A girl with no makeup, hair done up in a simple ponytail (with no other "trimmings"), and wearing jeans and a hoodie is a thousand times more attractive to me than one "dressed up" (say, a dress). Then again, I'm also a fan of adrogynous girls and what others might call "plain looking", for two other vaguely related examples.

    I was slightly horrified, admittedly, yesterday when Vikki and Bailey started freaking out over Alys having a figure and going to go shopping with her; I've always found her to be attractive, unrevealing dressing style and all. Yeah, I said it; granted, it partially doesn't matter because this will likely never make it back to Alys and so she won't be able to glare at me like she tends to. But still. Regardless of where the majority lies, those are my tastes. I'm sure there are others out there that agree.

    Also, arms with hair on them. Are they really so bad? At first I was kinda indifferent. Now a days, I lean a little more in favor of. It seems like whenever hair and female get put in the same sentence people recoil (I can mentally see my parents doing so right now) – but I don't get it. It can be just as cute or pretty as hair on one's head can be, I think.

    I remember last Winter Break my mom asked me if I had seen any girls at college yet that I find attractive. Normally I either ignore her or say something along the lines of, "Why? It's only an illusion anyway." This time, however, I decide I'll humor her. So, I respond, "No, not really. I've kinda been into more masculine women lately." My parents reactions? They gawk and go, "What???" Now, granted, I probably meant more physically feminine women with a masculine gender, but (as I've said here many times now) butch women are pretty fantastic as well. My main point here is that there are, in the mainstream, a lack of women with a more masculine demeanor (either in only their gender or physically or some combination of both). I mean, if we're being totally technical, playing video games is still generally considered a masculine trait (as in it's considered socially acceptable when done by males and often not considered acceptable when done by females), which instantly makes gamer girls technically more masculine than most of their fellow female peers. But clearly most of us wouldn't instinctually label video games as being all that masculine (leastwise, I don't). I mean in areas that are more universally thought of as masculine, there is a lack of females which possess that. The only category (again, I'm talking mainstream, so (for example) the butch/femme lesbian culture doesn't really count, not to mention (to the best of my ignorant knowledge) I believe that culture is slowly fading away) for such a phenomenon is the old tomboy stereotype – and that's pretty limited. How about a girl that wears a lot of "guy" clothes (such as suits, etc.) but isn't all that athletic? However, if we could break stereotypes so easily in people's minds, I'd be a much happier person and quite busy in the world.

     

    And I'm sure there are a million others I could think of. I didn't mentioned, for example, braces or glasses in part because our society is moving closer to finding them acceptable on a really mainstream level, even finding them cute. Anyone see Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs? It says something that the fact that the main character's love interest is a nerd, equipped with glasses, can go over our heads because we've become so used to the idea and also – well, she's a nerd! And it's a children movie that did well at the theatres. Think of how this may affect future generations of kids who saw the movie? Granted, I'm not going to assume that all such taunts and aversions to glasses will end because of this movie (my father once told me he would never have dated anyone else with glasses because he was so self-conscience about his own as a kid); but it's progress.

     

    I guess the point I'm trying to make is, love your "imperfections" and "blemishes".

    You never know who could be admiring them.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Oh, and also rail against the stupidity of society. But I guess that's kinda the undercurrent of this entire Xanga, now isn't it?

  • I was at the park today, swinging on the swings while listening to my iPod (one of my favorite activities). And, well, then a man approached me and told me the park was closed, right as I was really getting over the horrid mood that had drove me there to begin with.

    Well, I just couldn't take the answer given to me, now could I?

    There's a quaint little park in a subdivision literally bordering the Woodland Intermediate School that literally boarders my subdivision. It said on the sign that the park closes at dusk, but it also said the park is unsupervised, so that's basically an invitation, right?

    As I sat there swinging, I was reminded once again why I love the area so damn much. Having spent the past 6 years really getting to know the Stevenson High School area (Buffalo Grove, Libertyville, Lincolnshire, Long Grove, etc.), it's pretty much like a second home to me. My parents and friends can well enough attest (seeing as the places of visit tend to be friends' houses), I spend more than enough of my share time there.

    But only recently has that given me pause to rediscover the place I basically grew up. My parents (read: my mother) were not ones to let us out very often. We used to all go on bike rides together but that was when I was young (and, if I'm remembering correctly, I've mentioned that in a recent previous post on here with me saying that I wanted to re-see those places we, as a family, had visited since I hadn't seen them in so long). And, of course, by the time my parents started actually allowing me to step outside the subdivision, I was going out to see friends, all of which lived in the SHS area, which pretty regularly translates to being 30 minutes away from where I live. So, in reality, I was only superficially aware of my surrounding area (what little there is left of Gages Lake outside of my subdivision and Gurnee, seeing as it only takes 5 minutes to get to both Gurnee Mills and Six Flags; we may share the same zip code as Grayslake, but we're a bit different from them).

    Now, I've said before on here that I would love to be able to really show and share with you that awe of seeing a completely barren parking lot (part of the reason for the picnic-in-a-parking-lot idea) or just the way it seems like this place just continually spans outward. But that doesn't get at all of it.

    The culture here is different. Gurnee is far more urbanized than many suburbs nearer the city (again, namely the SHS area, amongst other places) and the southern, more rural parts of Illinois (most naturally). The type of urbanizing is interesting, too; you've got buses for public transportation, yet a lot of the business and urbanized aspect comes from the commercial aspect of the city. Hit around the Gurnee Mills mall and it's just line upon line of chain restaurants (McDonald's, Taco Bell, Culver's, White Castle, etc.). In fact, I don't think that area exists for any purpose other than a conglomerate of commercial venues.

    Yet another aspect of Gurnee's urban nature, though, is the influx of city kids continually coming in, causing a cultural makeup that is very diverse. I remember walking through Gurnee Mills looking for job opportunities and just a wave of the social cliques that were so prevalent back in Middle School for me come waving back. You've got the urbanites, the goths, your run-of-the-mill upper class kids, your rockers/druggies, etc. And in some ways which are totally on a subtle level that is hard to explain, there's a distinct difference that I now remember from back in Middle School. It was kinda this relieving feeling as I can walk with people so familiar with a level of confidence that I just didn't have back then. Instead of being cautious and on-guard, I just felt like, "I'm back home."

    But, despite it's urban nature, there's this feeling of flat out openness. The best example I have is, on Milwaukee Avenue (Highway 21) when it intersects with Gages Lake Road, across from the Dominoes, there's this giant office building. It's clearly built to hold tons upon tons of offices within. Looks really nice too. And it resides in a field of tall grass (though the grass looks grain-colored) that stretches for miles alongside that side of highway 21. And there's nothing as far as you can see (while standing directly across from this building) next to the building. Just this random office building, pretty far into this random, stretching field of tall grass.

    And, honestly, it really is a bizarre site and almost this WTF moment. I mean, what were they thinking?

    When my parents bought our house, it was still in the process of being built. The area is still a very new one. And it seems like, in so many ways, they just got really excited to build. But, since it was new and (yet, for whatever reason) did well and drew many people, it's like they just constructed what people needed. Oh, people need to live somewhere - let's make houses! We could probably get a lot of money around Gurnee Mills - cram it with commercial stores! We could provide for a lot jobs with all the new people coming to live here - build an office building!

    So the place literally looks, all over, half constructed. You get things like an office building in the middle of a tall grass field. You get things like giant parking lots for Warren Township High School or some other random school or business building in a place that only adds to the sprawling feeling of the parking lot when it's empty because it's surrounded by grassy fields or there's a forest right beside it - and that's it's surroundings; not houses, not other buildings - fields and forests! It's the weirdest thing ever.

    But you know my appreciation for weird things. Plus, this is very much the reason I love cities. I don't understand why, but I absolutely crave manmade living creations (stores, buildings, houses - but not being inside of them). At the same time, I adore the weather/nature. I'd die without it. Every so often I just have to go to a window and breath deeply. And you know how I do about the rain. So, more urban situations are perfect. A friend of mine commented to another friend of hers how she hates New York because it's so crowded and boxed in with a lack of nature (flowers, trees, etc.), unlike Chicago - bingo. Also, think the Evanston area, for another example of what I like.

    It's the perfect combination for me. Suburbs are more hit-and-miss in comparison to this. It's hard to explain, but I'm very particular about these surroundings.

    So, while the Gurnee and Gages Lake area is by far not a city in the traditional sense, you get those more urban "living constructions" with an overabundance of nature all over the place. It's not the same as a city - it's actually quite a different experience - but it provides the same ingredients.

    So what's different is that, when people aren't in that parking lot or that office building is closed for the day - time literally seems to stand still. It's like everyone has abandoned the world and you get that scant moment to really take in and enjoy the stillness, that undisturbed peace and quiet. It's very much along the lines of why I love nature, that moment to just absorb and wrap yourself in the beauty of it all - but it's combining evenly manmade constructions and nature at the same time (think of the parking lot surrounded by forests that I mentioned above). It's astounding. Yet, if you want civilization and human interaction again, just go to Gurnee Mills or Six Flags or come back to the place again when people are working there.

    It's the best of both worlds, this crazy area that seems stuck between development and the beginning birth of construction (or no construction at all, if you decide to go to the forest preserve connected to our subdivision).

    Now, there's more to me than just this. The SHS area is my home. I know it well and it's very well a part of me (and, considering that most of (like, 80%) my friends hail from there, it's where my family's from). I'm distinguishing Gurnee/Gages Lake in the same way I might point out the differences of the SHS area to brag about it. I mean, to be honest, there's very little, if any, of a nerd identity back in the culture of Gurnee/Gages Lake (at least certainly not a unified one). And I will probably never find so prominant and distinct a gothic community anywhere else as I did at Stevenson.

    But I was sitting in that park this night, that just in itself looks half finished (really basic, done in the middle of this open field with just tall grass leading up to the Woodland School and with those exercise bars that I've never understood why they're put in children's parks; it's like the constructor though, "Oh, this'll only take three bars - cheap; let's do it!").

    And between the school and this park is this lake, with the reflection of the half moon in the crisp night sky shining on the water. And it just smells like a lake, so beautiful.

    And behind me, if I'm facing the lake (and, by extension, the school), is the subdivision, which in itself feels half finished, with streets that go into an intersection and then just end in a deadend, as if the builders were just building with no plan, just until the demand wore out.

    And I'm just swinging, listening to my iPod, and watching the cars go past across the lake on Gages Lake Road.

    And it's everything that I love, in a moment so peaceful and perfect, that I wish I could show to you how it felt right then during that night sky with the beauty of the forest behind me and the lake to the right of me, with people getting ready for sleep to the left of me in that subdivision and the world going about it's buisness across the lake.

    It was so beautiful; I love this town.