men are better than women according to drfazl
-
Peace be upon you Elke,
Sex without love reduces us to beasts and if we act like beasts, we wrong our souls - at least that's my opinion.
Love is for the God. Love is like gravity, that which brings and holds together. Love is giving seeking nothing in return like the SUN.
Sex is the process of reproducing which gives pleasure to the participants.
Sex is not however "making love".
-
Salam Idolfree,
I agree and very much like the first sentence (this is the way it should be), I agree with the second (if it only could be that way for everyone- second part of second phrase!), but I personnally don't accept the third.
I really prefer sex with love, which makes it "making love" in current language. If not I'd rather have none...but ok, the truth is that you can't define sex as "making love" - still I believe it should be!
Get what I mean ?
Bye, I'll see your answer tomorrow - if there's one.
Elke
-
Peace be upon you Elke,
but ok, the truth is that you can't define sex as "making love" - still I believe it should be!
I understand you completely D
-
Peace be upon you Eskimo,
Now I am also defnitely NOT saying that I know the roles for both men and women, but I am merely saying that each s.ex has their specific strengths and weaknesses (in a naturalistic sense) and that these things should be taken into consideration.
Thats just it, these STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES direct us to the ROLES! It is very simple once people can settle the emotions. You see, emotions are responses. The Human mind can reprogram its responses, this is the powerful truth that we must learn to get to PEACE.
Peace bro,
That's what I've been saying this whole time. But females have become so accustomed to men being "chauvanistic pigs" that they refuse to reason.
By the way ladies, most men know this particular topic gets a stir out of women and thus joke around to get a rise out of them. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
if men were really naturally "leaders of the pack" why should they be confused now ? It isn't so natural then, is it ?
Oh Elke, there are many factors of today's society that is limiting men's abilities.
We still very much do have our leaders. e.g George Bush, Saddam, Osama, Tony Blair, etc, etc.
However with the way society is designed (today), these leadership positions are taken by the most underhand tactics, whereas speaking naturalistic terms it was the most dominant male who led the pack.
On another note, I'm sure you have a group of friends, and I ask that you just sit and watch them. Just sit and watch, watch who leads the conversations, watch who decideds where to go out, watch who decides what to eat. If you are in a western country then most likely it will be a female who leads the group. But I hear you ask me "Why?"!!!!!!!!
Well the reason being we (men) are brought up (in Western nations) to be butlers to women. Make her happy, buy her gifts, pay for the bills, be considerate to their emotions, etc, etc, etc. I define it as BS, BS, BS, BS...........
We (men) are affected by our mothers (sorry to say they are our greatest enemies), by the idiot box (TV), and by peer(society's) pressure.
We (men) used to be brought up by our fathers, go out in the fields and work, work your ass off. But nowadays we are brought up by our mothers which IMO has a negative effect on the male psyche.
I'm ok with you if you say that men and women are different, "vive la difference" , but you seem to insist too much on the obvious sexual part, like men naturally enclined to having more than one woman aso...
Actually not so. This certain topic is (at the moment) causing me great concern with my religious beliefs. You see, speaking naturalistic terms, monogamy does NOT exist for males or females. Multiple partners for both males and females is what defines survival of the fittest. When we find something better we dump what we had and capture the better.
And I completely see the logical backing of polygamy, but monagomy is starting to seem illogical to me.
Sorry, I truely believe that a real man doesn't need to prove himself one by having more than one "female" with him. It's all about (self)-respect and self-control.
See I hate this about women. Sorry to say, but ask a women what she wants in a man and you won't get a truthful answer. They don't intend to lie, they actually do think they want a "nice" guy, but they don't. Thus we have the sayings of "Nice guys finish last". Anyways this another topic, let's not stray.
Allah tells the men that they have only one heart, even though there seems to be some possibilities of men having more than one wife...a discussion has been going on on that subjet. Sex without love reduces us to beasts and if we act like beasts, we wrong our souls - at least that's my opinion.
And here is the problem my dear Elke.
We completely ignore who we are and we get chaos and destruction. Why? Because we are not at PEACE with ourselves, we fail to UNDERSTAND ourselves.
We first and foremost must understand who we are, understand what drives us, understand our desires!
When we have found out who we are, then can we begin making sense of these religious restrictions. Then we can understand what benefit these religious restrictions are giving us.
Simple example, not to kill. Naturally it is our instinct to dominate and thus killing may eventuate. Religiously we are told not to kill but live in harmony.
Benefits of restriciting our instinct to kill each other (survival of the fittest)-
*Society developed, less chance of being killed, more chance of surviving, etc, etc.
That was but a simple example, but as I said people should consider our natural instincts before coming to a conclusion. We have to understand WHO/WHAT we are!!!!!!!
-
Peace All,
You may find this clash of monagomy and polygamy interesting
The myth of monogamy
Under pressure, Turkey has abandoned plans to make adultery a criminal offence. Sushi Das examines why cheating is natural.
Adultery - the root of so many problems. It's responsible for broken hearts, shattered families, confused children and of course, the start of impeachment proceedings against a US president.
Certainly, the scandalous filmic quality of an illicit affair can transport a person out of the coma of an uneventful marriage into the jaws of a passionate, real-life drama where snatched moments with lovers become epic, life-changing, meaningful acts. Indeed, a bit on the side is one of the most intriguing topics of conversation, inviting endless moralizing and finger pointing.
Religious codes condemn adultery as an unforgivable sin. Social codes make it morally unacceptable. Yet liberal societies afford it a general, low level acceptance. How else could adultery be central to the plots of so many movies (The First Wives' Club), books (Lady Chatterley's Lover) and plays (Othello)?
Forbidden it may be, but few democracies would consider making adultery a criminal offence. Not so in Turkey, a secular democracy with a majority Muslim population. In the face of furious protests from liberals and women's groups, the Turkish Government this week abandoned plans to criminalise adultery - a move that threatened the country's prospects of joining the European Union.
Turkey's devout Muslim Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan, had defended the move, saying outlawing marital infidelity was a vital step towards preserving the family and "human honour" and Turkey did not have to adopt "imperfect" Western morals.
Adultery was illegal in Turkey until the late '90s, when the constitutional court struck the law down saying it penalized women more than men. But Turkish authorities are not the only ones that see adultery as a heinous crime. In Saudi Arabia, where the long arm of the state reaches into people's personal lives, adultery is punishable by death. In Pakistan, the maximum punishment is stoning to death for married people and 100 lashes for unmarried people. In 2002, an Islamic court in Nigeria sparked international outrage when it sentenced a woman to be stoned to death for having a baby outside marriage. A Sharia Appeals Court eventually overruled the sentence.
In liberal democracies, until recent times, adultery still rated a mention in divorce law. Only a few months ago France, a country reputed for its liberal attitude to marital fidelity, finally removed adultery as an automatic grounds for divorce. Under the ritual of the "constat d'adultere" a court bailiff was required to enter the premises and confirm the presence of the adulterous couple.
Picture Getty Images
Australia removed adultery as a specific grounds for divorce in 1976. Britain has also modernized its divorce laws, but 200 years ago a person needed to obtain an Act of Parliament, for which proof of adultery was required, before a divorce could be granted. So the message is loud and clear adultery is wrong. But were humans meant to be monogamous? Meant to meet a life partner, have sex with that person and that person alone for the rest of their lives? Are humans instinctively adulterous?
According to many scientific experts, monogamy is a myth and we now have DNA testing to prove it. In their book Myth of Monogamy Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People, husband-and-wife team, behavioural scientist David P. Barash and psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton, argue that monogamy "goes against some of the deep-seated inclinations with which biology has endowed most creatures, including humans".
Monogamy, they argue, is unnatural, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. After all, when a couple remains together, bound by fidelity, it makes it easier to bring up children and stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Barash and Lipton argue that in nature, very few animals practise monogamy. Scientists used to think that some species, mainly birds, were monogamous but genetic testing has proved that while some animals might stay with a mate for a very long time, most have sex with others outside their "pairing". Many humans do the same.
But why do we stray? According to Professor Colin Groves, a professor of biological anthropology at ANU, the tendency to wander arises from a deep-seated search "to get better genes" and men and women are equally adulterous.
Groves illustrates the point with the example of birds. "In theory the female, like the male, would seek out the best partner with the best genes and it might not be the same individual as the partner with the best parenting skills. So that's the idea to get the best genes and come back and deposit the result of these excellent genes into the nest of the male that's going to make the best parent. The same is true for primates."
He says humans use religious and social codes to prohibit adultery in order to bind society. "In humans, where bonding is official - in marriage, it is more than just a link between two partners," he says. "It s a link between two families or two clans, and it would clearly be a very bad thing if one clan suspected that the woman who is supposed to be increasing their particular numbers is actually having children by a completely different clan."
Dr Anthony Marcus, an anthropologist and senior lecturer at Melbourne University Private, says that's just part of the story. "It's human nature to be a social animal, intimately and intensely involved in others," he says. He points out that sex, kinship and property are all linked. While humans enjoy chasing the sexual thrill, they are also driven by their to desire to "spread relationships". Monogamy, he argues, is "something created and imposed by human beings as a way of managing the intersection of political and social affairs."
"Affairs is probably the wrong word here," he adds as an afterthought. It seems not only is monogamy difficult, it is also rare. Everywhere we care to look, there seems to be an adulterer. Former US president Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky led him to commit perjury, which resulted in impeachment proceedings. Jimmy Carter talked about it "I've looked on many women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times."
Prince Charles admitted he had had an affair during his marriage. And then there are the legendary philanderers J.F. Kennedy, Henry VIII, Cleopatra and Mark Antony. More recently, celebrities suffer regularly from accusations of infidelity Mick Jagger and David Beckham come immediately to mind. And just this week George W. Bush has had the finger pointed at him.
American celebrity gossip biographer Kitty Kelley, in her new book, The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, reportedly mentions "free floating rumours of adultery". The book provides no evidence, though.
Of course, Australia has its share of illicit couplings. Former Democrats leader Cheryl Kernot was exposed as having had a sexual affair with former Labor minister Gareth Evans. Footballer Wayne Carey was forced to leave the Kangaroos more than two years ago after it emerged he had been having an affair with the wife of teammate Anthony Stevens.
And of course the most memorable incident of infidelity by a sportsman involved tennis player Boris Becker, who revealed in his biography that he "got down to business" with a waitress in the broom cupboard of a London restaurant only hours after his pregnant wife went to hospital to give birth.
Adultery has always been an intrinsic part of our society, despite what Commandment number seven in the Bible has to say "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
The Koran goes further " . . . if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law." (Surah An-Nur 242)
But in the West, times have moved on. It is now not only possible to buy the services of those who will help catch a cheating spouse (www.catchacheat.com), it is also possible to buy the services of those who will provide a cheating spouse with an alibi. For a fee, the online Alibi Agency in England will organize fake conferences, or issue receipts to cover buying dinners for two.
For some, adultery is irresistible. The 1999 Durex Global Sex Survey that questioned 4200 people across 14 countries found young Thais were the most likely to have been unfaithful to a sexual partner (52 per cent) - the figure possibly reflects the country's large commercial sex industry.
The US, where they like to do everything bigger and better, came next (43 per cent), followed by Greece and Czech Republic (both 38 per cent), Singapore (37 per cent), Germany (36 per cent) France (34 per cent) Italy (33 per cent) Canada (32 per cent and the UK (31 per cent).
And who were the most faithful? The Mexicans - with a global low of 23 per cent admitting to infidelity. The previous year, the survey found the global average for infidelity across all ages was 37 per cent.
Adultery - it's a global phenomenon and there certainly seems to be a lot of it about. As French playwright and novelist Alexandre Dumas (the younger) once wrote "the chains of marriage are so heavy that it takes two to bear them, and sometimes three."
-
See, this is what I hate about men and yes I said hate eskimo. They abuse women to the limits - they still are abusing women and when we stand up for rights all of a sudden it becomes an emotion or it becomes standing up for the man - we had enough about women! Its like the hunter saying to the animal it killed, why are you bad to me? twisted
I don't have time to read those articles supporting polygamy and all that crap, but eskimo if you have sooooooooooo many problems with women, why do you want 4 of 'em?
Anyway, have fun with your 4 wives and of course dominating them, leading them and secretly hating them and again on the other side arguing to wanting four of them wink
-
See, this is what I hate about men and yes I said hate eskimo. They abuse women to the limits - they still are abusing women and when we stand up for rights all of a sudden it becomes an emotion or it becomes standing up for the man - we had enough about women! Its like the hunter saying to the animal it killed, why are you bad to me? twisted
I don't have time to read those articles supporting polygamy and all that crap, but eskimo if you have sooooooooooo many problems with women, why do you want 4 of 'em?
Anyway, have fun with your 4 wives and of course dominating them, leading them and secretly hating them and again on the other side arguing to wanting four of them wink
PEace,
Dell1 I'm going to pick on you, because quite frankly you deserve it.
How about you calm down and actually try and comprehend what is being written.
It honestly does not take much effort to understand what is being said/typed.
You want to take feminism to the extreme?
I remind you that in Islam that too much and too little is wrong, that muslims have to find the middle.
Yes I'm all for female rights, but there is a degree that cannot be surpassed (same with male rights).
But you have already decided that all men are pigs (as is QUITE EVIDENT by your lack of reasoning).
-
But you have already decided that all men are pigs (as is QUITE EVIDENT by your lack of reasoning).
Ouch! Have I? That includes my dad? I've never said one bad thing to my dad and now all of a sudden he's a pig? I think not. Nor did I say any man's a pig. Don't put words in my mouth. 80% of my best friends are men.
If you insist I could pick on ya, 'cause you frankly derserve it ...but I'll keep my standard high and walk away. I think its your lack of reasoning to make conclusions about me. First of, I wasn't even conversing with you, it was idolfree1.
Btw, this isn't bothering me. I've only made a handful of posts while you are searching the web for articles and all and making lenghty posts with bold fonts and anger at your mumy
Anyhoo, I'll leave you in peace with your masculanism. I have to go home and start packing. Hopefull I'll see ya all in 2005 if not b4.
-
Peace brother Kyle,
Well, the truth is that is what we are trying to do, gain control. Unfortunately the sister does not understand what I am saying because she is ANGRY at the position women have been put in after years of oppression. But ANGER, nor ANY EMOTION except PEACE can bring us the answer.
I agree!
All of this SCIENCE is very old, the Egyptains followed it, the Greeks, the Jews and thier Kabala system, the Hindus, the Chinese philosphy and much of this is shown through movies like Star Wars, Matrix, I robot, A beautiful Mind, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, etc.
This reading(quran) is teaching us the same thing, but we have to be at peace so we can understand.
Understand u perfectly...
All I am trying to show is the NATURAL ORDER of things. In ancinte Egypt, this was understood, but had sister Dell allowed me to finish, the women were QUEENS! It was the western nations that came in and did not like thier women getting so much power, so they OVERCOMPENSATED when trying to opress them. It is there in recorded history, or we can see the signs in todays reality.
I agree again, many societies did not have a problem with women being given power...I would be interested in hearing some examples by you as you definitely have done your research here...it is quite an interesting topic...
To everyone else in case you didn't already know, Kyle/Idolfree1 has been championing the feminine principle and women's rights in many a machoistic (is that a word?) discussion here for which I respect him immensely...way to go bro! Btw Kyle, I am off for my vacation and will respond to any posts after the new year! Have a great new year (in case you don't celebrate it, still have a good one) and i wish you peace!
Nadia
-
Peace to all the good women and men on this forum,
We are ONE. Our souls are ONE. This is just a worldy life, its all game and play. Who rules who....who's stronger than who...who's better than who...who's like a beast are all tricks developed by the devil to destroy our family. And look how much success he has gotten so far!
Tell My servants to treat each other in the best possible manner, for the devil will always try to drive a wedge among them. Surely, the devil is man's most ardent enemy.
The believing men and women are allies of one another. They advocate righteousness and forbid evil, they observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and they obey GOD and His messenger. These will be showered by GOD's mercy. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.
God calls the believing men and women allies of each other both of which can do the EXACT same jobs which actually count in the eyes of God such as prayer and charity. God did not call one the master, the other the slave.
He will certainly admit the believing men and women into gardens with flowing streams, wherein they abide forever. He will remit their sins. This is, in the sight of GOD, a great triumph.
-
Salaam All,
I agree! idolfree1 and esimsek are not saying the same thing.
idolfree is speaking about the natural interaction of the two creative energies .
esimsek it seems is trying to come to terms with control issues and disappointing relationships, meanwhile he keeps equating human beings to animals.
Male/Female relationships are not simply about "sex" and "survival of the fittest". What happened to the spiritual aspects? Where is the "Divine Union"?If I may add a little to idolfree1's discussion lol We have Ausar and Auset... the Divine Man and Divine Woman. The heiroglyphs for these two are very revealing in terms of their natural roles. The pictograph for Ausar is a man holding the crook and flail, while Auset is a throne/seat. A western mind may jump to the conclusion that because Ausar sits on the throne that gives him a superior position, however they would be wrong. Auset as the throne is the seat of power, the "true" force and power of any kingdom, she allows the king to use her power, she supports the king with her power. The king is, in fact, a servant to the power of the Queen. That is why the man is physically stronger, so that he may defend the power of the queen.
Still... why does Ausar hold the crook and flail? because man is fiery in nature tends to be more dynamic and external with the use of his energy , the crook and flail are symbols of a good kings ability to subdue his passions , so that he could be a good shepherd of his people .
Let us examine another aspect. In many of the ancient cultures the seers/oracles were women. Why is this? As idolfree1 and savage carrot have pointed out... a mind of peace/stillness is essential for inspiration/revelation. A woman's energy according to the concept of yin and yang is more passive/watery, whereas man is dynamic/fiery. Which is more easily brought to a level of stllness? Which is mre conducive for the stillness to receive inspiration/revelation. Please do not point out that all the stories of the prophets are about men because until the lion learns to write all the stories favor the hunter. Hmmmm.
These are just some points to think about in this discussion.
Also... Sister Nadia... you have examples of Ahmes Nefertari, and Hatshepsut in the Kamitic culture. Ahmes Nefertari was a Queen/Mother who actually led the Kamitic armies with her brother to regain the Kamitic throne from foreign invaders . Hatshepsut actually was a Pharoah, but her name was stricken from most of the history books because the patriarchy that Kemet became couldn't handle the fact that one of their most powerful and influential Pharoahs was a woman. The name Candace is actually a derivative of Kentake, which was the title given to Queens in Ghana, Nzinga who was another well known warrior-Queen was the most famous . There are many more instances throughout the history of humanity.
Patriarchy has not always been the case, and one could make a good argument that civilizations under patriarchy have been much less stable then those that were matriarchal.
Anyway... you all can think about these points, and at the same time remember... if we don't come to terms with our natural dependence upon each other and stop this silly battle of the sexes... there will be no... "making love". lol
Ma'Salaam,
Olu'sanyaP.S. idolfree1... how far is where you live in PA from Stroudsburg?
-
Peace,
It's evident that some people have bad short term memories, so I"ll just quote from some of my posts.
I am in NO way saying that men are better than women.
I am in NO way saying that women should be the slaves of men.
Now I am also defnitely NOT saying that I know the roles for both men and women, but I am merely saying that each s.ex has their specific strengths and weaknesses (in a naturalistic sense) and that these things should be taken into consideration.
Anyways back to my original point, in trying to determine or explain such things do not forget our natural instincts, do not forget who we are. Many evolutionary concepts link exteremly well with Quranic concepts.
Dead, blunt, and simple, we (humans) have to learn to accept some of our natural tendencies.
And NO some of those natural tendencies are not compatible to both s.exes.
We completely ignore who we are and we get chaos and destruction. Why? Because we are not at PEACE with ourselves, we fail to UNDERSTAND ourselves.
That was but a simple example, but as I said people should consider our natural instincts before coming to a conclusion. We have to understand WHO/WHAT we are!!!!!!!
esimsek it seems is trying to come to terms with control issues and disappointing relationships, meanwhile he keeps equating human beings to animals.
Control issues and dissappoingintg relationships????
lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
-
Salaam Esimsek,
Simple example, not to kill. Naturally it is our instinct to dominate and thus killing may eventuate. Religiously we are told not to kill but live in harmony.
Benefits of restricting our instinct to kill each other (survival of the fittest)-
*Society developed, less chance of being killed, more chance of surviving, etc, etc.
That was but a simple example, but as I said people should consider our natural instincts before coming to a conclusion. We have to understand WHO/WHAT we are!!!!!!!
Killing is not an instinct. It is a desire, unless for self-defence.
Is it an instinct in a human male to have multiple partners or is it a desire?A desire (Hawaa/Ahwaaa? in Arabic) usually and easily becomes an obsession because the satisfaction that one gets from a desire is very short lived so the individual constantly feels the urge to repeat the act. That is why forbidding some (most) desires is crucial in Islam. Drinking Alcohol is one example.
In your quote above, assuming that killing is an instinct, you clearly gave us an example of how some instincts should be forbidden i.e. killing. If Allah has clearly forbidden the killing (an instinct according to you), do you think that Allah would allow having multiple partners, which is also an instinct according to you?
Having multiple partners is not an instinct. It is a desire the same way killing is.
Allah does not forbid instincts. Allah forbids desires. Allah teaches us how to discipline ourselves and control our instincts while forbidding the blinding and damaging desires. It is Satan?s job to confuse us and convince us that desires are instincts when they are certainly not.
The Quran is against multiple partners practice. There is not one Ayah in the Quran that supports that. Prophet Muhammad (P&PBUH) is an exception of course. Maybe those who cannot read Arabic had to follow what the translators deliver to them, but those who read and understand Arabic perfectly, I would like them to look again in the Quran and to try to find one proof that Allah supports such a practice. They won?t find any.
Taj
-
Salam all,
To Olusanya Just wanted to tell you I (generally) really like your posts. BTW, what does your name mean ?
To Esimsek
On another note, I'm sure you have a group of friends, and I ask that you just sit and watch them. Just sit and watch, watch who leads the conversations, watch who decideds where to go out, watch who decides what to eat. If you are in a western country then most likely it will be a female who leads the group. But I hear you ask me "Why?"!!!!!!!!
Yes, I have a group of friends, but we usually discuss about what we do, and no, it's not the "leading animal" , be it male or female, that decides for the others. But true, as I don't like leading animals, I don't have so many friends.
What does BS mean ?
See I hate this about women.
Dear Esimsek, would you please stop generalising ?
.
You seem to reject western upbringing. I hope this is not why you came to islam! Just to make you understand that all you say can be turned around and that there is always more than one way to see things I'm a western woman who married an arab (and no, I was a muslim before I met him, sorry, am not a follower, can't pretend to be a leader either, but I am a free person, to the extent possible!) . While we lived in Europe, we had a good life and relation, both working in and out of the house. As soon as we came here, he changed, started having affairs and assigned me to the house saying this is a man's country, I can do what I want here, but not you...!" I'm not into this so I wanted out but I couldn't even get a divorce, at that time only the man could ...Finally, he let me go, but kept my children - this was the deal. Now I'm stuck in this country cause I want my kids to grow up with both parents. You see , I could really go nuts about what "I hate about men" aso...but that's just not the point!
We completely ignore who we are and we get chaos and destruction. Why? Because we are not at PEACE with ourselves, we fail to UNDERSTAND ourselves.
That's exactely to the point and very true for you, as it was for me some time ago. May be it's age and experience (I'm 39 and the dating game is quite behind me ) , but you have to work on yourself first. You'll not change society anyway.
Bye, Elke
-
As'Salaam Elke, All,
To Olusanya Just wanted to tell you I (generally) really like your posts. BTW, what does your name mean ?
Thank you! My mouth usually gets me into trouble because I prefer to speak from the heart first, the intellect second, sometimes they are, actually, in agreement. In this case they agree 100%. lol
Olu'sanya means - God compensates for suffering/God rewards sacrifice.Finally, he let me go, but kept my children - this was the deal. Now I'm stuck in this country cause I want my kids to grow up with both parents. You see , I could really go nuts about what "I hate about men" aso...but that's just not the point!
This is just my personal opinion, a real man... a good man would never separate children from their mother unless she posed a danger to them. As it has been pointed out by a couple of people in this thread, there are differences in our nature and one of them is the capacity to nourish.
I think you have demonstrated great strength in removing yourself from an unhealthy relationship, and a profound commitment to your children, enabling them to continue to grow with their mother present in their lives. At the same time, you have not allowed this experience to tarnishyour view of men.
I'm a little in awe right now! shockWe completely ignore who we are and we get chaos and destruction. Why? Because we are not at PEACE with ourselves, we fail to UNDERSTAND ourselves.
I often tell friends, "If you are not comfortable being alone, then you will not be comfortable in a relationship. You have not found the balance within yourself that brings the internal peace that we shold be extending to each other in our external relationships.
To Esimsek
I'm glad your humor extends both ways. I was being a little sarcastic because I recognized that in some of your comments you seemed to be trying to push the sister's buttons.
Keep in mind though... the whole alpha male analogy is a control issue. The reason may be survival, but the issue remains control.Ma'Salaam,
Olu'sanya