Looks as if it's unanimous -- everyone agrees no bankrupcty. When all these different voices agree, there's probably a good reason for it. Several ppl emphasize the risks of being w/o health insurance, at least catastrophic coverage. Ditto.

Several posters noticed LW's (and Cary's) "false choice" of "go to NY" or "stay put" -- there being other cities than NY. But nobody has yet pointed out the other way it's a false choice -- she could do both. Apply for jobs from where she is, and then jump when, but only when, she has secured an offer she likes. So much the better if she did the due diligence on where she'd live, too, in advance. Mitigating risk is a good thing for most people; all the more so for somoene w/a history of panic attacks.

I don't know how amenable her particular specialties within the graphics world are to telecommuting, but I would suspect that at least some jobs -- whether in NY or elsewhere -- might be not just secured but performed from where she is before making the big jump. Might also be a more efficient way than waitressing to pay down that debt some.

Being ex-New Yorker myself (except none of us are ever really "ex;" it's still home, no matter how long it's been), I am tempted to agree with those who voted that NYC is a world unto itself, and magic, and worth the costs and risks. But I'd also suggest LW think carefully about just how, and how much, she expects her life would be different there. It sounds maybe just a bit like what we in the recovery world call a "geographic:" -- "if only I go to place XYZ, my problems will be solved." Although life in bright-lights big-city really IS different, and opportunities in her field will be greater, life will still be life and LW will still be who she is. There are limits to the changes, great as they are, that moving will effect.

You'd think she'd have gotten it right by now.

"do men assume this is just how relationships work? "

People -- of any gender or preference -- can sometimes be very selfish, and will, on occasion, exploit other people for their short-term pleasure. That exploitation can come in many forms, including hit'n'runs.

If you have been treated that way, and if you have a hard time distinguishing someone who's potentially serious about you from someone who just wants to get off, you might want to consider keeping any new relationships non-sexual for a while. IE, at least long enough to know more about their lives and their romantic histories (including who else theyr're seeing now) -- long enough to assure yourself of their intentions.

Unless, of course, a one-nighter or a short fling is all you're looking for at the time. Nothing wrong with that, if that's the case. But everybody's cards do need to be on the table.

There are millions of stories out there of people who wind up regretting their choice to sleep with someone too soon, or without sufficient assurances of seriousness, who then get hurt because it turns out they've been taken advantage of. OTOH, you don't hear a whole lotta people saying, "Darn -- I shoulda slept with him sooner!" When in doubt, wait. If he's going to be serious, he'll wait too. If he won't wait, he probably wasn't going to be there for the long haul; anyway, and better you know that without the additional pain that would have been likely to come with having gotten physical.

If you're over the age of, say, 21 and asking these questions, that's just a bit scary...