and to the LW, Sufi Islam (or Alawi as it is called in Turkey) is pretty cool. Being a Sufi is much, much cooler than being a pothead...although its true enough that on the subcontinent the two often go together. Sufi adherents hanging around the shrines smoke a ton of hashish. But that's besides the point.

If you really want to explore Sufi Islam, why not just do it on your own? Your husband is done taking care of you. I know that can be scary and hard to believe, but he's done. Accept it. Refusal to accept this will cause both of you a lot of pain.

As you study Sufi beliefs, you may meet someone else to share your lfe journey. Or maybe not. You have to learn to take care of yourself before you can share your life with another, that's the first thing. Your daughter sounds great. Emulate her!

plenty of cultures don´t.

throughout India and the Arab world it is common to have a little pitcher of water (a "lotay") next to the glory hole (which is waterless and one squats over it) to be used for cleansing. If one has means, the pitcher might be replaced by a hose. It feels a little awkward to clean up that way, but one soon gets used to it. It works fine.

No toilet paper required, and much less water than the typical American uses in a flush...which is by the way about three gallons.

You don´t need three gallons of water and toilet paper to clean yourself. However, its hard to believe until you´ve actually been forced to do it.

wouldn´t qualify to be a stupid toddler, and chimps don´t even have a psychology in the way that humans are understood to have. When the 200 pound "pet" chimp of that elderly lady went on a rampage and almost killed her friend, did any body try to say the ape "tried to commit murder"? when a pit bull kills a child, do we call the dog a murderer? Of course not, because animals, including chimps, can´t commit homicide, not having the necessary mental development for it, not even to mention the moral sense, etc. etc. I would argue they can´t actually prostitute themselves for exactly the same set of reasons.

So, could we please stop trying to make every story about female animals into a titillating headline about what women are "really like"? Please? I´ve read articles in which studies of flies (yes, flies!) are cited as "proof" that women are like this or like that. I rarely see men dehumanized in this way through "scientific studies" (which usually turn out to be something far short of science). But for women it´s a constant barrage. Most of it focuses on how everything women do--everything--is "really" being done to secure male approval. This theme is so consistent I cannot believe it is accidental (and I think much of it represents the wish fulfillment fantasies of the mostly male authors).

Most of these articles are a mushy pseudo-science with an attention grabbing opener (example from Psychology Today, I shit you not: Finally, Proof that Gentlemen Really Do Prefer Blondes!) whose end conclusion seems bent on endorsing the beat-off fantasies of fifteen year old boys from manga comics as scientific truths for the ages.

Tracy knows exactly that´s where "chimp prostitution" studies are headed, so she tries to both go down that path and sidestep it by coyly writing a whole paragraph about how she´s making a point of really not making a point.

May I kindly ask, if this whole study is so unimportant and really doesn´t prove anything, why did Tracy bother?

Page hits, ratings, and magazine sales, that´s all its about. Somebody really ought to do a study on how much puerile misinformation becomes "common knowledge" thanks to sloppy thinking being palmed off as "science" in pop publications sold to science illiterates. Now THAT would be interesting.

I´m not a chimp expert, although I´ve been told by one who is that chimps don´t attain the mental achievements even of toddlers in best case scenarios. I was surprised by this because I always thought chimps were very bright. A lot of people are still talking about whether or not the chimp who attacked the woman in California "went crazy" or was just reacting to something--her haircut, the toy she was holding in front of her face--in some tragic but "normal" way. To me this brings up a lot of interesting questions about what really goes on in animals´ heads.

I was raised around dogs and horses, and I know many of the old horse hands disagree about whether or not its possible for a horse to really go insane or if people just fail to understand horses by comparing them with people (hence thinking horses can be "crazy"). Cesar Milan the dog trainer writes that he believes that in theory dogs can go insane, although he contends dogs are so thoroughly hardwired by instinct to behave in certain predictable ways that it almost never happens--he says he has seen only one case. For me (and maybe this is silly) one defining characteristic of having a mind is the having the ability to lose it. So it´s an interesting discussion.

I think you are right, that a great deal depends on what we call "psychology" and how we define it--and what that means in terms of animals is, unfortunately, still very debateable. In short, we compare animal minds to the human mind without knowing nearly enough about either. It´s a dangerous habit.