for yahoo answers... and the guy deleted his question!! T_T basically he was asking "when the girl said that, did she want me to kiss her? or leave? what did she mean?" I wrote this up and he deleted the question before I finished:
I noticed you asked this in Social Sciences -> Sociology instead of Family and Relationships. Be warned, I'm not a social scientist so if this is for a test you may want to check your book before using my answer.
From a functionalist approach, the role of you and the girl you met can be difficult to pin down into a single sociological utility. College is generally considered a transitional or preparatory phase with payoff in the future, rather than having immediate direct benefit. This is usually seen in an economic context but I feel that in many ways the concept can be extended to cultural and sociological areas - Parsons' action theory, or example, can be considered a strong connection of sociology to economics. But there's a real problem with this line of thinking:
Sadly, there's no real weigh-in from the positivist camp on microsociology, because that tends to get filed into psychology. Any kind of microsociological quandry with an explicitly sociological context is probably going to fall squarely in the anti-positivist camp. This lets us reject functionalism out of hand, because as you probably know, it is intractable with anti-positivism. Any attempt at positivism or aversion of conflict theory is going to refute this as a sociological question and say, "this is what we have Psychology for" and move on; sadly, the field of social psychology is relatively anemic compared to either sociology or psychology individually. But since you pegged this in Sociology, when most people would probably put it in Family and Relationships or in Psychology, I assume you have important reasons, so I'll continue along this line.
While we are now tempted to view symbolic interactionism through the lens of conflict theory, we should probably gloss over Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx and jump straight into structuralism, the development of sociology through time being beyond the scope of this answer. Semiotics are especially critical at bottom-level interactions, and the heart of symbolic interactionism - and a structuralist approach, while it has its detractors, is well-suited to attempt to describe a small and discrete set of semiotic interactions, the humanist approach being especially intuitive to us.
The inherently and strongly subjective nature of semiotics in the structuralist interpretation allows for an effectively unlimited number of vagueries across all comprehensible language space, and conversely an effectively unlimited number of potential expressions that can share the same symbolic interpretation from the speaker while having wildly divergent interpretations on the part of the listener. From this perspective, we can at last posit that she probably meant nothing by it, but just to be on the safe side, you should have just asked her directly what she wanted.
