My "Heroes" theory - spoilers up ahead!

Sorry for the long silence. A lot of things have been happening, tak sempat nak update. But you know what they say, better late than never right? So here I am, back again.

During my hiatus period, I have been watching Heroes episodes 9-18 (don't continue to read this post coz I am going to try and theorize the show). I sort of figured out who's who, and their roles in the so-called 'destruction of NYC'. OK, so I figured that there are several key players:

1. "The Company" (that Claire Bennet's stepdad is working for)
2. Linderman
3. The Petrelli family (whom I dub as "Claire's Protectors")

So here is the background as far as I understand it:

Claire Bennet was given to Mr. Bennet as an 'assignment' by "The Company", and he was supposed to have returned her to them when she started manifesting her powers. The trouble is, I believe that Mr Bennet really loves Claire like his real daughter, and wants her to be protected. Which is why he goes to such great lengths at protecting her secret (for example, Zach and 'the quarterback's memories were removed once he realized they knew what was going on). I believe the whole plot of rest of the season will be protecting Claire from The Company. Thus the tagline of the show, Save the cheerleader, save the world.

On the other hand, I still don't know how Niki/Jessica Sanders and her family ties into this whole thing. I know Linderman sometimes uses Jessica as a hired assassin to do his dirty job, but other than that... ?

BTW, I still don't get what Hiro's dad's arrangement with The Company is.

Anyone have any good Heroes theory? Feel free to post them here!

So... What is it do men want, anyway?

The discussion on the radio station this morning was pretty interesting. They had the host(s) (?) of the TV show What Women Want as their guest. She mentioned that men wanted nothing more than being loved, getting a little bit of TLC and being fed. The men, on the other hand, mentioned that men wanted nothing more from women than obedience! (Gasp!)

Well, in a way I sort of understand what the men say. However, as a modern woman, I would not blindly follow my man. As a daughter and a wife respectively, yes, a certain level of obedience is expected; but... ladies, come on... would you be 'obedient' to a boyfriend? I suppose the definition of 'obedient' differs from person to person, but personally, I feel that a boyfriend is just that - a boy who is a friend, nothing more, nothing less. You have no 'ties' to him; thus, you're not obligated to follow his 'instructions' to the letter. That would make him a most controlling boyfriend, and you wouldn't want that, would you?

As for females point of view... I sort of agree with what she said up there, the big question is though, is how you do them. For me, a relationship is good and healthy when both parties' needs and wants (not just the man's, or just the woman's, for that matter) are met. (Hey, women love to be fed also!) I also believe that a woman can be strong and subservient at the same time. Sometimes, your husband's air muka is more important that your needs at that time, so give him a little break. But make sure he returns the favor! :)