THE TREATISE OF LOVE,
as it is recognized by awful bore
Authorized translation from Russian by
with helpful remarks by Alexander Kositsky, Michael Fournier, Yekaterina Bogdanova and others
Everything real - is rational;|
Everything rational - is real.
Genuine knowledge - is a
Table of contents |
To the english reader
A few words about human ethology
About the subject
Why, properly speaking, should we breed?
Budding and syngenesis.
About hermaphrodites and reproduction methods evolution.
About different genders and sexual selection.
About variety and risk
About conjugal strategy
About our primeval "ego"
About hierarchy in a herd
About primativeness and culture
About princes and princesses
About the struggle of two "egos"
About bastard children
About the husbands and the lovers
So, of whom are there more?
Origin of family, prostitution, and promiscuity
More about choice
What the men having no luck should do
Practical conclusions for a lonely women
About valor and humiliation
About optical illusions and observational selection
About specifics of behavior
About primeval hierarchy in our society
About aggressiveness and crime
About religion, art, and advertising
Other popular publications
I consider it my duty to express profound acknowledgement to all participants
of the Discussion Club as well as to the readers who shared their comments in
private correspondence. Your opinions, remarks, comments, and questions were by
far not the least of the things laid down in the foundation for the enhancements
of the second edition. A special thanks to Leonid Ivanov for his help.
I'd like to express special gratitude to Irina Patseva, without whose moral support, this Treatise could have never been issued.
The original essay was written in Russian and at first was intended only for the Russian audience. Russian folklore (fairy tales, jokes, anecdotes, humor and etc.) is widely used in the manuscript. In this translation whenever possible we tried to explain such places or alter them to make it clearer for the English readers. We thank you for any comments and remarks regarding translation quality. So, let's begin...
Traditional psychology as well as other sciences of human beings were always
interested in the issue of proportion of biological and non-biological bases in
man's behavior. At different times either biological or non-biological
influence was considered as predominantly meaningful. In the 19th and at
beginning of the 20th centuries there was commonly accepted opinion of
biological component prevalence. As one of the most notorious (though, not the
only) representative of these views one might call Sigmund Fried. However,
constantly speaking actually about instincts ("libido" and "mortido") and their
influence on a man even he did not take an attempt to research its physical
nature and genesis. That's why there is no surprise that his conclusions and
findings did not look really convincing and were constantly criticized. In
addition, Eugenics based on a similar paradigm seriously discredited itself by
the ties with despotic regimes using it for ideological support to conduct
policy of violence and persecution. That's why beginning with the 1920s of the
20th century a pendulum swung into the opposite direction and as usual in such
cases, overflew the golden middle. Up to the most recent time the concept of
mighty domination of socially based component in human behavior was totally
prevailing. Sometimes this concept is called a concept of "Tabula Rasa", i.e.
"Blank List". It was suggested within the scope of this concept that at birth a
man is a blank list where society and environment write one or the other rules
of behavior and thus whatever is written will make a kind of human being.
However, as time passed the inability to explain clearly and without strained
interpretation the whole range of human behavioral reactions within the scope
of this concept became more and more evident. At the same time, a lot of these
seemingly unexplainable behavioral reactions of a human being find more or less
natural explanation within the scope of hypothesis of presence of a powerful
layer of inborn behavioral schemes in a human being! That's why at the very end
of the 20th century the extremes in interpretation of human behavior were
started to be removed, and a view of a human being as a creature in no small
degree biological, born with a far from insignificant luggage of built-in
behavioral schemes have begun to find wider and wider support. Nearly the most
determinant contribution to this view was made by a science called ETHOLOGY and
other disciplines branched from it. Ethology studies instinctive bases of
behavior of living creatures by comparing the behavior of various species
between themselves. A human being for ethologist is just another mammal having a
fair conceit of oneself, but in reality only one of a species sharing equal
rights with all other biological species.
Comparing behaviors of the specimens belonging to the various zoological species from the most primitive to the most complex scientists discover striking similarities and conformity which are evidence of existence common behavioral principles involving all members of zoological domain including humans. Such research methods are very productive and widespread in other sciences. For example, astronomers know much more about Sun's internal structure then geologists about Earth's inner structure. This happens because there are a lot of stars and all of them are way different. There is a lot to uncover by comparing them. But the Earth is unique and there is nothing to compare it. The same applies to studying a man. Restricting ourselves to study the one alone we take a risk to remain greatly limited in our comprehension of it.
However, studying ethology of humans is not simple. Besides objective difficulties deriving from powerful effect of brain masking and modifying many instinctive exhibits, researchers regularly get in conflict with public unacceptance of ethological method applied to the humans. Many people deem unacceptable and feel even insulted by the very fact of comparing human behavior with an animal. And this has its own ethological explanation! It consists of the effect of the instinct of ethological isolation of the species. The detailed examination of it is out of the scope of the book. The essence of this instinct can be expressed by motto "love your own kind but hate a different one". "Different ones" in our case are presented by apes and monkeys. Hostile attitude to them spreads as well on the thesis of relationship between our behavior and theirs. Despite up to this day non-stopping (due to the same hostility) attempts to overthrow Darwin theory, it is firmly and irrevocably accepted by the scientific community, and majority of the educated people completely agrees with their descent from the apes, however even a thought that one or another feeling is a call of instinct as before causes strong protests among many people, mostly getting no rational explanation. Meanwhile, the root of this hostility lies in subconscious unacceptance of our relationship with the apes. Please remember about that, my dear readers.
What else can an ethologist tell about a human being? A lot! He can tell about aggressiveness and about the nature of authority, about innate morality and the forces behind nationalism, and even about the oddity of love! And exactly the oddity of love we are going to discuss in this book.
Question to an Armenian radio station:|
How to avoid pregnancy?
Answer: Drink mineral water.
Question: When - before or after?
Answer: Instead of.
In my point of view all attempts of the society to enlighten the young and
older people in sexual matters are extremely lop-sided. While the issues of the
techniques of sexual intercourse, pregnancy prevention and the ways to avoid
contracting sexually transmitted diseases are widely presented and available,
the choice of partner is discussed casually, lacking the system, contradictory,
and unconvincingly by the reason of subjective and purely speculative
argumentation. Oh yes, discussing sexual techniques is damn pleasant but the
majority of the tragedies on sexual ground happens not because the sex itself
is not done RIGHT but because it is done with not the right partners. In fact,
all the advice regarding choosing the partner are boiled down to hard way
learning and staying away which in no way can guarantee that everything will be
OK. From another point of view, while trying out the advice one might lose not
one but many really suitable matches.
During the whole written history of human civilization, it was widely accepted to trust a feeling of love in choice of a partner. Moreover, in the last decades love as a conjuration became opposite to one minute passion and was counted as a guarantee of unerring choice. However, it hasn't been precisely proven so far that this trust is fully justified. The difference between big love and momentary chemistry is purely quantitative but not qualitative. Instead, the sensations arising from it are explained and colorfully described, but the basic logic of this event is left behind the scenes or is simply negated as something supernatural. There is no need to look for a mystery where one does not exist. In reality, all these irrational things of love are rational, logical, and wise in their own way. In order to see this rationality it is necessary to move from civilized society's coordinate system to one of primeval-herd. Below, I will try to show how to do it and prove the correctness of such transition. To be certain we shall speak about instinctive bases of conjugal behavior of human beings in terms of biological species. The process of sexual intercourse will not be examined. We are also not interested in FEELING itself, i.e. that sensations experienced by the lovers and physiological mechanisms which cause it.
I am sure that knowledge of this logic will not impoverish the perception of love, as one of the most beautiful feelings, like knowledge of flower structure does not hinder a botanist to be delighted with its beauty and like knowledge of harmony rules and musical instrument design does not hinder a musician to enjoy a masterpiece performance.
The instinctive bases of human being's conjugal behavior are studied by science called ETHOLOGY. However, there are practically no popular publications on this topic and I hope that this article will fill a gap in the lack of them in some way.
Who has come in this world - his grief is clear|
He must come back to nonexistence.
During the lifetime of any being its genetic material is gradually distorted, faults accumulate in it and as a result its viability diminishes and finally it dies. We will not examine the other theories of obsolescence as this is out of scope of this article. The phenomenon of reproduction of all known beings lies in the fact that the descendants obtain genes practically free of these accrued faults. Otherwise children would have inherited not only the body features but also age. So the rising generation would have faded out very quickly and probably it would have never started in the first place.
The best way of multiplication is division.|
(from the talk of two amoebas).
Vegetative reproduction is just a simple division of cells, however this
process only seems to be simple, but it is very complicated in fact.
Genetic material is not simply duplicated but after the cells bifurcate
chromosomes intricately exchange their different parts and as a result of this
the defective genes are excluded from being forwarded to the next generations.
Only after this, does a cell split into two. Nevertheless there is a very high
probability that all genes in a chromosome's spirals happen to be damaged and
it will be impossible to get non-damaged one.
As the way to eliminate or to significantly decrease this probability, nature came to the sexual process. Its main difference from vegetative is that two non-identical genetic sets from two different specimens with absent correspondingly damaged genes participate in exchange. Besides, it becomes possible to build the features and characteristics from different parents and this simplifies adaptation to ever-changing environmental conditions.
The advantages of sexual process are costly. Vegetative process is more simple and reliable, that's why many beings still practice reproduction in both ways. The sexual process is usually resorted with deterioration of living conditions, when the faults in genes become more often and the necessity to change something in life becomes more obvious. When everything is fine, simple division is the way to go.
Do not multiply the fundamentals needlessly.
There must participate two different specimens in the sexual process but
it follows from nowhere that they must be of two DIFFERENT genders.
Hermaphrodites use sexual reproduction but of one sex! Each hermaphrodite
individual has complete set of genitals and can equally play a role of a male or
female and it is not unusual for the specimen to do it simultaneously. For
example, some species of snails can copulate in large groups jointed in long
ribbons or rings.
Hermaphroditism is not so bad. It is more reliable and simple than different genders. In fact, if we were normally hermaphrodites, our conjugal life would have become easier but probably not poorer. Judge for yourself, in spite of double the chance to find life's companion we would have had simplified acquaintance and courting procedures at least. Then why don't unisexual creatures dominate on Earth? From this point, the most interesting things begin!
Life on Earth was conceived approximately 3 - 3.5 billion years ago and reproduced vegetatively at first. The moment of "invention" of sexual reproduction is not certain, but the first cellular organisms, which appeared about 800 million years ago, used sexual reproduction, at least occasionally. Most of those organisms like snails, worms, etc., that survived to our days, were mostly hermaphrodites, i.e. obviously unisexual beings appeared much earlier. Their predominance ended in the Silurian period (approximately 400 million years ago). Along with them, the predominance of unisexual propagation came to an end. Since that time, dioecious reproduction is a rule because it has important advantages. What advantages?
One of them is very obvious. Some hermaphrodites (but not all) are able to copulate with themselves, and unlike masturbators can have posterity. Of course such an extreme incest contradicts the sense of dioecious propagation and should be prevented somehow because this kind of "sexual" reproduction is barely different from vegetative. However, real hermaphrodites practice self-copulation very seldom and generally for a very valid reason - absence of another being within its reach. Otherwise, some safety mechanisms eliminating self-fertilization are triggered. Initially, sex specialization is one of such mechanisms but this is not enough to squeeze out hermaphrodites.
- Do you love me?|
- Ah! But where are the bees?
Since old fellow Darwin, it is usual to believe (partially against his
opinion) that natural selection is based on casual, spontaneous death of
creatures which are not adapted enough to living conditions. Such selection
together with variability was called evolutionary force. Meanwhile, this way of
selection is very inefficient. The man himself acts with far greater efficiency
selecting new breeds of animals and plants. He achieves results in a few
generations rather than in hundreds of thousands of years. The essence of such
selection is to choose deliberately the parents of initial species, who carry
the desired properties and disallow a reproduction of another beings without
such properties. Actually there is no need to kill these outsiders. What
humanism! Besides, a chance still remains to correct "judicial mistake" if this
is going to occur.
Obviously, the usage of the same selection methods by nature itself can accelerate the pace of evolution and thus, improve the ability of the species to adapt to ever-changing environmental conditions. However, how can nature implement this in reality? It needs to have some kind of Judge, making the decisions of who deserves and who does not. The easiest way is to apply a hypothesis of God's existence, but this is a way to avert the answer. It is acceptable that this Judge is not alone. The most important is that they all should judge more or less by the same laws.
And there are a lot of judges and they are named "female". They pass a verdict which males will last in descendants and which will not. That's why such selection is called sexual. It is interesting that Darwin himself paid great attention to sexual selection but this did not find the proper response with the other scientists.
Can there be a sexual selection among hermaphrodites? Let us imagine a unisexual being which should have been rejected as sire. It is refused time after time but finally after some refusals, it finds the same loser and ... they will agree someway. In the world of different sexes, one outcast male can not help another one in bringing offspring but there are no outcast females in the animal world because one male can mate with many females. And usually it is still far from the limit of its fertilizing productivity. Taking into account that the number of males in population usually equals the number of females, hence male fertilizing potentials are in extreme abundance and it means that females always have more or less wide choices of a mating partner. This choice might be disguised or hidden but nonetheless it always exists.
Exclusion of females for the same purpose of selection from the reproduction process is too risky because their unborn cubs cannot be born by another female. A female gives birth by herself to as many offspring as she can and simply physically cannot substitute another female. A male is a different matter! All non-conceived cubs by one particular male will be conceived by another one with pleasure (and who would refuse...?)
That's exactly how it happens in reality. The 1/6 seal males fertilize 5/6 of females, the others have to pretend that they do not need this at all... Even more extreme disproportions are known among sea lions where 4% of males mate with 88% of females! The same picture is typical for all gregarious animals. Amongst the species which live in pairs, especially birds, it is customary to fertilize before a pair (family) is formed and sometimes after but with another male, often in sight of a "lawful husband". In other words, the pair is formed for doing household chores but fertilization is often done under gregarious laws. Besides, males are born in slightly higher numbers than females (and the more males are born the worse the living conditions for the species are). All this leaves room for choice even among strictly paired animals.
Plants, even diclinous ones, are not able to make such selection (see epigraph), that's why complete heterothallism in the floral world did not become dominant and probably remains as one of the ways preventing self-fertilization.
Thus, gender differentiation assumes some explicit or implicit form of copulative polygyny, but the
Without any born to creep - the others cannot fly.
If all the specimens are look-alikes like nuts on a conveyer belt, then
all the hassle about choice does not make any sense. In order for the selection
to make any sense, there has to be a due variety of specimens. Of course, after
hundreds and thousands generations it is possible to form some optimum features
and properties, which will provide the highest viability of each specimen and
thus, the highest viability of a whole species but ...
As a matter of fact, the conditions which affect the very existence of species are anything but permanent, and a direction of future changes is totally unpredictable by nature, despite its so-called wisdom. That is why specimens are needed with non-optimized, needless, and perhaps, harmful features and properties for the current conditions. If the conditions change some of these features and properties might happen to be extremely useful. Giving birth to such creatures, nature definitely takes a risk - they are currently less viable, but it is necessary to take a risk since "no risk - no champagne". Nature does not know any other way "to predict the future" except hit and miss despite of whatever it is ascribed.
Is there any other way to minimize undesired consequences of such risk? How to make the consequences of such chaotic experiments (mostly misses) less threatening for the viability of the whole species?
Elementary! If possible, females should not deviate from the optimum but instead, males should become the objects of experiments, because unsuitable males can be easily excluded from the reproductive process without a danger of decreasing the number of children in a whole population. On the other hand, just a few outstanding males can father all the children in a population.
It was noticed long ago that the ratio of newborn males to newborn females strongly depends on living conditions of the species. Under unfavorable conditions a share of newborn males increases, thus, variety increases, selection speeds up and toughens and this in turn leads to the faster adaptation to the new conditions. Under favorable conditions a share of newborn females increases and that creates possibilities for fast proliferation of species.
|Lecturer:||A good sire-bull should make up to twelve copulations a day.|
|A woman's voice from the first row:||What? How many did you say?|
|Lecturer:||Up to twelve.|
|A woman's voice from the first row:||Would you please repeat it louder for the people in the last row!|
|A man's voice from the last row:||Excuse me, is it meant to be with one cow or with twelve?|
|Lecturer:||With twelve, of course!|
|A man's voice from the last row:||Would you please repeat it louder for the people in the first row!|
Why cannot women and men find each other even if they are so eager for each
other's companionship? That is so because they make a search based on different
criteria as they pursue the different goals in their eagerness. Moreover, this
eagerness for each other is not unconditionally friendly and resembles people's
behavior on a market. Seller and buyer are eager to find each other and strike
a deal as well, but each of them tries his or her best to get the maximum profit
from the deal, frequently without any consideration of another party's possible
losses. Nature, alas, is devoid of sentiments...
As it has been mentioned above, the principle of gender separation assumes that the small group of males fertilizes the disproportionately large share of females forcing the major part of male population to pose themselves as hopeless bachelors. Such strategy allows to quickly adopt new and useful features and properties in descendants and saves females from reproduction of useless genes.
To achieve this, males and females should have significantly different behavior while searching for their nuptial partners.
Every male should be eager to change females as often as possible, considering himself as the carrier of uniquely useful genes. Let's imagine that one man somehow has a gene with immunity, let's say, to AIDS. It is extremely necessary to spread this gene among the population! But he is, such a scoundrel, faithful to one woman only. How many children can be born by one female? OK, 10, maximum 20 and according to the genetic rules only half of them will inherit this gene. This is a crime in face of the species! However, if one tried to behave like a sultan, he can father possibly 1000 or even up to 2000 children. This is something ... Therefore public opinion treats male infidelity pretty repressively as it is not without a reason. This is an instinctive program and so to say, it is very sane from the biological point of view. Male should not confine his sexual expansion. There are females for this.
Thus, the instinctive goal of male conjugal behavior is
|More female's bodies, pretty and different.|
|more man's hearts, nice and different.|
Within me are two "egos"--two poles of the planet,|
Two different men, two enemies,
When one of them is rushing to the ballet
The other one is rushing to the races...
It is well-known that a man belongs to the species of HOMO SAPIENS of the
primate group. Classified relationship with other Primates is determined by
greater or lesser similarity of genetic material, which is expressed externally
in the resemblance of our physical constitution. For example, the genes of man
and a chimpanzee resemble each other in more than 95% of the cases. However,
species-specific attributes are not only the physical features, but are also
behaviors and habits (hunting methods, marriage rituals, etc) as well.
As all species-specific attributes are hard-coded and passed by inheritance only, (that's why they are species-specific!) so behavior appropriate to the species is inherited as well. For example, the ability of the hunting dogs to make the stance is transmitted by inheritance and especially tightly linked to hunting breeds. Another example of an instinctively conditioned reflex is lowering the eyes as an acknowledgement of subjugation to another. This is typical for Primates, including humans. In the same situation, the dogs lower their tails. This kind of inherited behavior is commonly called "instinctive" and its separate aspects are called "instincts". There is a term "inherent behavior model" which denotes such instinctive behavior programs. Such an interesting act for our topic as a kiss is part of congenital conjugal ritual of Primates, which is derived from the feeding ritual.
To what degree is all of this related to human beings? The man has a mind, some kind of laws, all which make following one's instincts not compulsory. However, a man evolved into a modern being and became truly rational only 30-40 thousands years ago but our historical epoch is only 5 - 7 thousands years old. Meanwhile, the evolution of Primates began approximately in the Tertiary period, 20 - 30 millions years ago and such important instincts as obedience to animal hierarchy have existed almost for as long as life itself.
For sure, during such short evolutionary periods of time instincts cannot vanish. They are slowly and gradually formed by evolution and as morphological attributes, disappear only as slowly as they accumulate. So instincts do not ask whether a man can live without them. They are just acting up when they find it necessary. Unreasonable and unexplainable from a rational point of view, instinctive motivation is very logical and explainable in a primeval coordinates system, and it was expedient in primeval times. But in contemporary situations, the behavior realized by instincts is not always adequate and we are often bewildered how evil and blind love can be...
Monkey instincts will live inside of us for as long as we belong to a group of Primates because they are hard-coded in genetic memory. If mankind succeeds in getting rid of some important monkey instincts and fixes the changes in the genes, then man will pertain to another species and probably will be separate from Primates. Development of humanity demanded other than primeval-gregarious forms of marriage, but instincts do not disappear from subconsciousness so easily and keep working, even if their time past long ago.
Individual mind cannot change it's own instinctive programs in any way and moreover it does not know about their existence! It can only to disobey them in some cases but the next time instinct will want to do the same thing again. The lowest level of subconsciousness - instincts, they carry out available programs directly and without alternatives. Programs of middle level of subconsciousness such as traditions and habits can be modified with time. Mind also widely use fixed behavior programs but they are just "food for thoughts" for it. Mind does not exactly carries out the programs but more improvises on a theme.
Instincts direct us by means of emotions not bothering themselves with motives. The instincts, inducing a woman to beautify herself with cosmetics, do not inform her why she should do this - she just wants this and that's all. Logical sense of this is obvious - to attract men's attention but most of women will categorically deny this saying that they are doing this for their own pleasure. However, normal men do not do the same "for themselves"! Such behavior program does not exist in their instincts. By the way, many modern men treat a woman with cosmetics negatively but instinct does not want to know about this. Also it is worth to pay attention that the lower a cultural level of a woman the brighter her cosmetics and she applies it in a bigger quantity. In this case instinctive motives are neither restricted nor corrected by her mind.
Neural structures which fulfill the instincts, arose in the deepest antiquity. Thinking, analyzing or even simply extrapolate is absolutely impossible task for them. They are triggered whenever schematic and static template fitted in instinct matches some kind of external signal attributes which can by chance look like actually required. However, having free and direct access to the motivational centers of brain instincts can evoke the FEELING of it's correctness on any subject. This influence can resemble some narcotic intoxication. Narcotic illusions can also be perceived as high level wisdom. That is why love has no "wisdom". It has only a feeling of wisdom. Actually love evaluate the object of choice very superficially according to a strict (sometimes stupid) genetic program which sets a strategy for choosing a marriage partner. The mind is left nothing to do but to find a way to justify the answer. It is in nature of any person to look for ways to justify the answer when he tries to explain his instinctively motivational behavior.
Real picture of individual behavior becomes more complicated and confused not only because of two "egos" coexisting side by side but also because there is no clearly marked border between them. Instinctive and rational motivations can get intricately mixed. Besides that, for each particular case a person has several instinctive programs of behavior, which appeared at different evolutionary time and sometimes contradicting one another.
Impudence is a second fortune.
In theater as in life, the most demanding|
person is the one who has not paid for a
There are no equal rights anywhere at all. Those outraged by unfairness in our
society can comfort themselves with a fact that in a world of all other animals
the situation is much worse.
While feeding a group of mice, it can be noticed soon that every time the best and the biggest pieces always fall to the share of the same specimens. These ones occupy the best places for resting and have the highest number of mating.
The other ones are satisfied with remnants after the first ones, the third ones - with whatever left after the second ooonnes and so on... I.e., there is a certain hierarchy within a group.
One of the most magnificent description of hierarchical relations was given by V. R. Dolnik , I just can't agree with his statement that human hierarchy is formed only by men (see below in details).
Such hierarchy is known among all kind of beings which lead even rudimentary grouping lifestyle. Even amoebas have rudimentary hierarchy. The places (ranks) in this hierarchy commonly marked by letters of the Greek alphabet: alpha is a high-ranking specimen, omega is correspondingly a low-ranking specimen. However, this definition system is not completely fine, in the large groups hierarchical structure divest its linearity of alphabetical row and becomes more reminiscent of pyramid where several beings can have practically equal rank. Highest rank beings are also called "hierarch", "dominant". V.R. Dolnik suggested to use the term "ringleader" - rather roughly but true.
Obvious the rank in such hierarchy has a huge significance for each member therefore the members of a group constantly compete with each other for rank advancement or rank preservation. The higher the rank the fiercer the struggle. Sometimes it might happen that alpha takes from life less then beta because it is too busy with struggle. However, alpha reserves the right, at least theoretical, to take away any piece from beta.
The rank of a being in a group depends on correlation of ranking potentials of this being with the other specimen in the group, so the same being can have different ranks in different groups.
But what is ranking potential? Obviously it is closely linked with physical strength but it is not determined by it unequivocally. Wasps ranking potential, for example, is identified by the number of bristles on particular body parts. Rooster's ranking potential is identified by the height of his comb. The number of bristles (height of comb) just shows the rank but does not determine it and the other beings are guided by these attributes which are coded by the same genes as ranking potential. The same happens with the other animals but not all of them identify ranking potential in a such simple way. Even among the animals with not too high organization (for example mouse) good physical strength only allows avoiding the lowest places in hierarchy but does not guarantee the highest. The higher animal's level of development the weaker correlation between ranking potential and physical strength.
Since very different species, especially including very primitive ones which are incapable of learning, possess hierarchical behavior, so it is possible to admit surely that the base of a ranking potential is given to a being with its birth (maybe together with bristles or something like that). Specific low- or high-ranking behavior is started showing from the first days of life. Thus, behavior of a being inside the hierarchy is controlled by indigenous behavioral mechanisms, i.e. by instincts.
Victor Dolnik calls this ranking potential "the power of IMPORTUNATENESS". Well-known psychologist Vladimir Levi calls it "power of IMPUDENCE" and that is possibly more precise. They prove that the crucial component of ranking potential is ASSURANCE in a own superiority, possibly and very often, not supported by any real merits and even totally groundless. Indeed, assurance of one person can hypnotize the other one and including himself or herself. It can be assurance of a student before passing the exam, or a driver in front of a policeman, or guru in front of believer, or a politician facing a crowd, or a leader of a sect facing his followers, and etc... <...>
Usually, alpha concentrates on internal struggle with greater determination, persistence and pleasure which often turns into end in itself. This struggle is much less pleasant for omega - he is more inclined to yield. From here there is one more parameter affecting ranking potential - ranking potential is a degree of compliance (or vice versa - degree of propensity to conflict). Acceptable volume of conflict tension is directly linked with ranking potential for each being - the lower ranking potential the less intensive conflict causes the sense of discomfort.
The number of vacancies on hierarchical Olypmus is limited by default and does not depend on average ranking potential. In other words, increasing ranking potential of all beings in the group the number of high-ranking beings will not increase. The same hierarchy will be formed but probably even tougher and more aggressive.
Different degree of individuals' compliance has a very important biological meaning. It allows to decrease tension of internal struggle within a group and thus avoiding needless death of its members. The spreading of the conflicts in such community or a group, even if they arise, are restricted to the closest neighbors in hierarchy instead of everybody-against-everyone. Besides, altruism of "omegas" opens a possibility to consolidate the efforts of all members of the group on its fight for survival which is particularly important for species possessing no big physical abilities. Exactly this circumstance combined with "alphas'" higher death rate (in part due to the conflicts between themselves) prevents unlimited growth of the average ranking potential of the species. Not only the strongest specimens survived, but also the strongest and the most organized groups.
In fact, there are two possible ways to congregate a group - the military and voluntary. The first approach assumes rigid hierarchical structure of subordinance with ruthless suppression of any disobedience of subordinates. The second is based on altruism assuming sincere and volunteer help of group members up to self-sacrifice. The first approach is predominant among more primitive species as the more native for basic instincts, reliably implemented in reality, and requiring no any kind of substantial intellect. But it becomes ineffective for organization with very complex collaborative behavior. Obviously that living in extremely dangerous (in terms of predators) Savannah, our ancestors went the most of the evolutional path using the military form of group consolidation. Altruism became a relatively mass phenomenon only when development of intellect made very complex behavioral schemes possible. In its turn, widespeading of altruistic forms of behavior even more complicated human behavior and created prerequisites for even faster acceleration of social evolution that set Humans apart from the rest of the animal world. Thus altruistic behavioral programs appeared in comparatively later evolutional time and did not have enough time to be firmly embedded in genes. Therefore, altruism, so essential for mankind, has to be conveyed by non-genetic means, those which form a notion of "culture". However, the stronger the genetic base of altruism the higher the cultural level under the same conditions.
Ranking potential can be initial (inborn), actual and visual. Initial is given at birth and is not subjected to upbringing or environmental influence but rather mainly determined by genetic inheritance and less by conditions of prenatal development. Actual ranking potential greatly depends on circumstances. It is determined by initial ranking potential and by specific situation in which the being finds itself. Circumstances can either hinder the realization of inborn ranking potential or encourage its full disclosure and even strengthening. For humans actual ranking potential is typically 2/3 based on heredity and 1/3 on conditions of growing up and care. However, this is just averaged statistical data and for a specific person this correlation can be different.
Since ranking potential is defined by different attributes, including ones which are not interrelated to each other the real hierarchical portrait of a specimen can be MOSAIC, i.e. when some attributes point to a high rank but others to low rank. For instance, untidiness is an indication of a low rank. Noticing untidy person we usually not without grounds judge him as loser who achieved almost nothing in life, i.e. as low-ranking. However, once he demands to let him cut a line in bold-faced and aggressive form then the majority of the people agree to yield his demand thus admitting his higher rank! Even though, the social status of this person can be extremely low!
Here is another example (although fiction but it has many parallels with reality). An old song about a brave captain of a ship says that:
... he survived fifteen shipwrecks,
pirate assaults, drowning, and shark attacks
but he was never scared.
Here we see a person who takes relatively high-level position (captain!), who is capable to fight and survive and that means this person has high enough ranking potential. However, here we can mention low primativeness of our hero and that will be discussed later. But here is how the same person behaves himself with women:
...he blushed fifteen times,
stuttered and turned pale,
and never dared to smile nor say "hi" to her.
But this behavior is mostly typical for a low-ranking being! At the same time
there are plenty of men who are at ease and very bold with women but desperately
chicken-hearted and compliant when it is necessary to put up a real fight. From
mosaic of the ranking potential as general notion is derived a notion of visual
ranking potential as a sum of signaling attributes, possibly secondary ones,
expressed prominently enough for triggering the other specimen's instincts. A
good example of the visual rank is a low-ranking rooster with a glued-up big
comb. Such one is perceived by all other roosters as high-ranking but once the
added comb is removed, its status plummets down. One more example, a person
suffering from narcissism (a person who is "in love with himself") can produce
an impression of high-ranking on some people. But at the same time he can be
completely deprived of ability to fight for his place under the sun that is the
very essence of high rank. On the other hand, a friendly person, even quite
successful in life, can make an impression of low-ranking.
Moreover, different specimens can be impressed by different signs of ranking potential, i.e. sensitivity of the different specimens to the different signaling attributes comprising the pattern of the specimen's image can vary. Visual rank can be equal to actual rank but might be not. As it was mentioned above, this happens because the neural structures implementing instinctive behavioral models arose in the deepest antiquity. They are relatively primitive and react on surrounding conditions very superficially and stereotypically. A specimen can be low-ranking by nature but possess one or two visual attributes of a high rank. Then these one or two distinctively visual (signaling) attributes can have an affect on someone, despite of the objectively low-ranking potential of their owner. Alas! Even their own primeval goals are achieved by instinctive programs only on average and with high inaccuracy due to the primitive mechanisms of their realization.
What is the difference between woman's logic and|
- Woman's does not rust.
|To the English reader: "Primative" - is NOT misspelled "primitive"! This is a scientific term offered by the author, originating from "primary" and "primates", that is described below.|
THE WOMAN - is a female who has a MAN;|
THE MAN - is a male who has MONEY.
What a pity that generals get married while in|
Such exclusively important for all animate world process as reproduction
could not be left without the control of the instincts. Correspondingly, love,
as the strongest feeling, is a voice of the same primeval instinct that forces
to prefer the best being of another sex for mating. And what are the criteria
of this preference? It is unnecessary to prove that these criteria are kept
unchanged since primeval-herd times when all the instincts were formed. It is
possible to say that during its formation the instincts "took a photo" of the
situation existed at that moment and keep verifying with this "picture" for as
long as the species exist. Thus, the instincts allow choosing a perfect
partner from the primeval point of view. The simplest and the most
demonstrative attribute of such superiority in primeval hierarchy is a high
rank. Though it is very obvious that rank, strictly speaking, is more of
visually superficial indicator of preference but it is almost impossible to
imagine anything better in unwise nature. External attractiveness (beauty) is
less reliable in this sense. In general, the number of couplations is the
simplest and clearest quantitative index of a male's rank in hierarchy. For
females this correlation is very weak and, perhaps, inverse.
It is customary to think that alpha simply takes away a female from beta (gamma...) just as food, however, the rules of behavior in a hierarchy are obeyed by all the members of a group including females. That means there is not needed to take female away in most cases. She herself, complying with an internal instinctive program, prefers high-ranking male. Not in vain, speaking about ideal groom, women mention word "prince". Real prince is not a plebian job and usually he is a real candidate to become king.
Sure, it is not the only tendency. For instance, there is an "instinct of fresh blood preference" manifesting itself as sexual curiosity. The goal of this instinct is a counteraction to mating with close relatives unavoidable in isolated groups. According to it, under other equal conditions the preference can be given to a new and unusual partner desirably from outside of the group. The instinct is clearly seen in male's behavior, since it conforms well to the principal of unlimited sexual expansion. In female's behavior it is seen with some limitations. These limitations mandatorily include ranking potential of a "guest" that should be not lower than certain minimum. And of course, these tendencies are combined with individual tastes and sympathies. It is important to emphasize that the high rank of a male does not give a GUARANTEE of access to the certain female, but it is a weighty factor raising PROBABILITY of this event. A correlational factor between sexual attractiveness of male and his rank is different among the species, and substantially non-linear. Males of the first several ranks of hierarchy can be almost indistinguishable by their sexual attractiveness for females. Therefore dominant males must fend away sub-dominant males from females. However, beginning approximately from the middle of hierarchy and below sexual attractiveness of males decreases so much that dominant can afford not to worry. It is highly probable that such male will not be admitted by females themselves.
To the English reader: Now let us tell you a couple of words about such
picturesque character of Russian
anecdotes, as the captain Rzhevsky. Captain Rzhevsky was a hussar.
Hussars were an elite kind of cavalry in Russia in 19th century. Only tall,
healthy, often handsome men were accepted. Beautiful uniform along with a huge
mustache made them very popular among women. Soon the word "hussar" became
synonymous to Don Juan. Captain Rzhevsky completely matches this
definition. Along with phenomenal success among women, he was distinguished
with self-confidence, vulgarity and ignorance, which he was not ashamed of.
This character is very much like 19th century captain Frank Drebin from the
popular movie series "Naked Gun". For example, one of anecdotes of a series
about captain Rzhevsky:
Once captain Rzhevsky was dancing on ball with a noble young lady. Subbenly she is telling him politely: - Ah! I am not feeling well. Would you eexcuse me for minute, I need some fresh air?... - Captain: OK, go. But be quick on it. JJust fart off and be back.Cornet Obolensky is more delcate character of these anecdotes.
Now for illustration, an old but very demonstrative for our topic anecdote:
Once cornet Obolensky asked captain Rzhevsky: Captain, sir! Would you share your experience in seducing women so quickly! - But what's here to explain? Come up tttoo a lady and ask: "Ma'am! May I stick it in?" - But captain! That's a sure way to be slapped in the face for such rudeness... - Well, there could be a slap in the face. But nonetheless, I somehow still manage to stick it in.And now let's imagine that cornet followed the captain's example. Imagined? So what? You are absolutely right. He will get slapped in his face. However, it does not follow from the text that cornet is less attractive than captain and moreover, he is obviously more civilized and decent. Also let's imagine that captain expressed his proposition in oversophisticate and delicate phrases. Will he get a rejection? Of course not, but even more possible consent. But what if cornet will propose in the same refined language? In this case he might not get slapped in his face immediately but the final result probably will be the same though for some time he will be kept on a short string and jerked around. And he will be ridiculed. I.e.
|actually it does not have any serious significance for a woman HOW a man expresses his desire but it is extremely important for her WHO does it.|
And I'm fighting, suppressing the scoundrel inside of me|
Oh, my anxious fate!
I am afraid of the error, it might happen that
I am suppressing not the right "ego"
Back in the Soviet era a poll was held among the students of Leningrad's universities. First, they were asked what personal strengths and qualities they would like to find in the future spouse and second, what qualities in the opposite sex they were attracted to. The priorities ranked as follows (see table 1, 2):
|Successful girl||Desirable wife|
|3||Likes to dance||Hardworking||+7|
|4||With a sense of humour||Self-controlled||+11|
|6||Clever||Likes her job||+8|
|7||Tries to help the other|
|9||Tries to help the other||-2|
|11||With a sense of humour||-7|
|14||Likes her job||Brave||-9|
|15||Self-controlled||Likes to dance||-12|
|Young man with success||Desirable husband|
|4||Likes to dance||Self-controlled||+12|
|6||With a sense of humour||Strong-willed||+4|
|7||Tries to help the other||Cheerful||-5|
|8||Clever||Likes his job||+5|
|9||Honest, fair||Tries to help the other||-2|
|13||Likes his job|
|14||Hardworking||With a sense of humour||-8|
|15||Likes to dance||-11|
Our consciousness is determined by three things:|
Being, beating, and drinking.
In the course of the above mentioned poll, the attitude to alcohol was
examined as well but for unknown reasons it did not get in to the tables. It was
found that the girls would like to have a non-drinking husband, but in reality
man's sobriety did not give him any advantages and on the contrary invoked some
kind of suspicion. Suppressing the mind, alcohol introduces a kind of bestiality
in a human image that is so amiable to primeval instincts. You could also notice
how often this fateful decision for each man (and for the whole mankind...) is
taken in a drunken state and how close relationship between sex and alcohol is.
Love, and without Champagne?!
Tests on animals give very interesting results:
|Alcohol raises the low rank, and diminishes the high one!|
A sleeping Reason gives birth to monsters.
It is obvious that the fathers of such children are mainly "captains" -
regardless if it was done in marriage or not. Even when an out of wedlock child
grows up in a two parent family, (with a step-father who might not be aware...)
people around notice the "difficulty" of the child. It is commonly known that
out of wedlock children are often regular clients of the criminal groups.
Usually under the euphemism "difficulty" we mean the inability to control a
child by civilized methods, which confirms his high ranking potential.
The "difficulty" and criminality of a child is usually written off to the problems of upbringing in such conditions. For sure such pedagogical problems exist in reality but these are not the problems responsible for the forming of specific low or high ranking mentality. It is the game of genetic inheritance. Please tell yourself if a man who deserts a pregnant woman is decent? At least not very. However, males in the primeval herd did it exactly this way. But do the features, which caused his indecency, have the right to be genetically transferred?
I will remind once more that the initial ranking potential is something inborn and it is well seen at the infant stage. High or low primativeness is displayed at a later time. As was mentioned the higher the primativeness of a child, the more pedagogical efforts should be exerted for bearing a decent and educated person. It is also important that a tutor should have a ranking potential not lower then a child, (it is usually said that a "tutor should be authoritative over the child"), otherwise all these pedagogical efforts will lead nowhere.
Researches of monozygotic twins separated in babyhood show that the role of heredity in the educational process is diminished and there is no way to correct (nor to damage) everything by education. Quite often such twins living separately in different countries behave themselves like they grew up in one family side by side. This detraction of the role of heredity in a world and especially in Marxist pedagogy goes back to idealistic and utopian conceptions of the past - forerunners of Marxism.
We can accept as proven the fact that friendliness or its main components are predetermined genetically. A man bred out a dog selecting the friendliest wolf cubs for reproduction.
Who is a lover??|
- Just the same, as husband, but he
does not need to wash the dishes.
All the illnesses are caused by nerves.
Here we will not examine a lover like a sponsor or a source of material
welfare but let's consider a lover only as the means to satisfy a woman's
It has been proven that any woman can be physiologically satisfied by any man (if we don't take into account medical pathologies like complete absence of genitals). Most cases of dissatisfaction are in nervous and psychological sphere. Something to notice is that the majority of dissatisfied women get satisfaction doing masturbation. It is not a penis that satisfies a woman but a MAN. And he satisfies not as a physical body but as IMAGE, which meets more or less some criteria. If this image fits these criteria quite sufficiently, a woman starts getting a "tuning" to this probably fantasized man. It can be a kind of amorousness, interest, curiosity or anything else... Without this "tuning", satisfaction can be problematic particularly to highly primative women. But if some women can "tune" easily to any man, the others can somehow "tune" to only one of hundreds. Obviously the first probably have low-ranking potential and/or low primativeness while for the second they are high. The "tuning" appears more often with a man whose ranking potential is not lower than that of the female and his behavior goes along with the primeval conjugal rituals. The cases when there is no satisfaction with a husband but rape satisfies instead illustrate that well because a rape is usually performed in a swine-like fashion like it was done in a primeval herd by the high-ranking males. By the way, such a phenomenon is not the last reason why women often do not report a rape to police and in some cases even protect and cover the rapists! Married by the rational decision of the mind, a woman can remain dissatisfied at least for the first time until she gets used to this man. As a proverb says, love comes with habit.
Do you want to force a husband to wash clothes, to clean floors or to look after the baby, etc? Did high-ranking males in primeval herd do such a contemptible job? If you succeed in this (but this is unlikely if he was not inclined to it by himself) your mind probably will be satisfied for some time. However, your primeval "ego" will immediately recognize the lowering of the rank of this male... and you will want to get a lover.
I had forty surnames|
I had seven passports
Seventy women loved me
I had two hundred enemies...
In mass media and in informal conversations the opinion is often expressed
that loneliness of women is caused by the lack of men. However, there is a
well-known fact that there are more boys born than girls! The results of a
census in Russia clearly show that the initial predominance of boys remains
until the age of 35, from 35 to 45 men and women are approximately equal in
numbers and then women dominance becomes obvious. The fact that there are more
women than men ON AVERAGE perplexes the society. Women over 50 (who are really
much more than men) are not the objects of any real interest as conjugal and
sexual partners. But the men are prevalent in their reproductive age. That
means that the average statistical woman has a choice during the whole
reproductive period and that probably has a very profound biological meaning.
I suppose that there is a strong visual selection here - women always tell about their marital problems often and without any uneasiness, but having such problems for men was always shameful and therefore carefully hidden. If a child does not cry, a mother does not realize. A men's deficit could take place if one woman would have been able to marry a few men even unofficially. In this case the other women actually would not have gotten any man. However, in reality women are more inclined to congregate in the secret harems of high ranking married men and they often exhibit such an enviable loyalty that it leaves nothing to do for the other available men. And such women are considered to be single! Meanwhile if the number of men and women is approximately equal (not counting the percentage and even this is on the women's side) so according to "the law of connected vessels" the bigger number of women in single men harems the more other men are forced to pose as staunch bachelors. As a rule, a man who is a lover of a married woman is married himself and he is never faithful so much to both of them that the other women would have no chances.
Research of conjugal behavior on animals shows that a family should be
distinguished as a household unit and grouping of specimens with the purpose of
mating. The fact that in reality both roles are very often combined does not
mean that there cannot be any other way.
For instance, those species where one parent is capable of upbringing the offspring alone, family as a household team mostly consists from this parent and its offspring. That means that a male-female union here pursues only the goal of mating and has nothing to do with the family itself, as we understand it. The same can be said about the species practicing R-strategy of reproduction where the parents do not take any care of their posterity. This is one pole of the conjugal world.
For the other species, upbringing of offspring becomes impossible without outside help and thus there is a reason to bring in the second parent as a helper. Species with a strictly paired family structure (for example, birds, especially nesting birds) are another pole of the conjugal world. Here the mating and upbringing of posterity looks as something naturally inseparable. However, as it was mentioned before in such conjugated families spouses do not always keep copulative fidelity. Up to one quarter of all the chicks might be conceived from someone other then the "lawful husband", although from a household point of view such couples might represent idyllic picture.
Well, the second parent is not the only possible helper in this business. Grandmothers and sisters can be brought in and a kindergarten of some sort can be created and so on. For example, a female hare nurtures with milk the first found baby hare regardless of its relationship to her. But which way is more preferable? If the main parent (i.e. the one who fulfills the major part of the job of caring for offspring, most often it is a female but sometimes it can be a male) needs only some additional help that does not play a principally important role, then the help from the whole group in general is preferable. This is done by the canines for example. However if the required help borders on self-sacrifice then this way becomes unreliable. A personal commitment is required here.
How was our predecessor's business being done? Probably the "main parent" was female. It is obvious as well that not every grandmother lived to see her grandchildren, the sisters have their own children and clearly women are worse hunters then men. At the same time a child or a fetus devoid of sufficient proteinaceous food could seriously suffer from malnutrition. In these conditions the help from the men had to play the main role, though not excluding secondary help from the other members of the group.
A typical feature of the hominid behavior is the complete absence of instinctive programs of male's caring for babies and for females outside of rut period. When our predecessors did not differ from regular apes there was no necessity in these programs. Females managed quite well themselves or with minor help from grandmothers. But when our primogenitors became bipedal and the volume of the brain began to increase (with the corresponding intellectual growth) the female started failing to manage alone. From one point the size of the fetus head increased, from another point upright stance narrowed the pelvis of primeval women. This complicated child labor to the point that the child had to be born very prematurely in biological terms and that meant helpless to follow in the tribal paths. From the third point, the growth of intellect entails prolongation of the period for brain formation and training, i.e. an even longer lasting childhood and period of child's helplessness. In fact, humans have the longest childhood relative to their lifetime among all animals. Human childhood comprises approximately from one-fifth to one-quarter of the whole life. Of course, the children of our primogenitors had a shorter childhood. If a contemporary child is helpless almost up to six years old then helplessness of HOMO ERECTUS lasted probably up to two years old, which is long enough.
So we have: a child with the mother who needed prolonged and serious care, forming a smart brain required proteinaceous food (meaning meat) that could not be obtained by a mother burdened by a helpless child, but a male did not have an instinct of caring for the female. Intellect that would have been enable to make such a rational decision was rudimental and was incapable of such action. So what to do?
Since instinctive behavioral programs cannot appear out of nowhere, hence it is required to find out what other instinctive action could serve as the bases for the appearing of instincts of caring for females and babies in primeval males. What can serve as a base for developing an instinct of fatherhood? The most realistic way is sexual affection. However, there is one very important obstacle in the way of using it. The problem is that for most species female's (and often male's) sexual activity is obviously of cyclical nature. Their sexual readiness lasts only for several days during a year; outside of this period (period of rut) the females of such species are absolutely incapable of copulation. Nonetheless, this is the most effective way since sexual attraction is one of the strongest. Probably, one of the ways, if not the only way, is increasing the time limits of rut (specifically, widening the time limits of female's ability to copulate without being fertilized) and concealing the external attributes of the very moment of ovulation itself (see 2 for details). And in reality women are unique among the animated world in their sexual readiness around the year. If a male's year-round sexual readiness is reasonably frequent, then menstruation is known only among females of the HOMO SAPIEN species and none other.
Now a female has something to offer! Thus a male gets a stimulus for her nourishing and other ways of caring for her during the whole reproductive period, (and other manners of caring for her) and by the way the fertilization of this female in general may not be expected. To be more specific, a male in accordance with principle of unlimited sexual expansion, desires the maximum number of fertilized females and is somehow subconsciously interested in impregnating this female. Especially if one keeps in mind that alimony was paid not for the number of children but for the number of copulations. But a primal woman needed only one conception a year for childbirth and not just from anyone but from one the strongest and highest ranking. But who is going to feed her?
Getting a high-ranking male as a breadwinner is a dream but with almost no chances of realization. As a getter, he is not really bad at all (including at the expense of robbery of low-ranking males) but he is in high demand neither is he physically able to feed and support all the females who want him. But maybe only one or two favorite wives. Neither he has any stimulus to this. Why should he pay for copulation if he has it for free? If it were possible to own him monopolistically (as it was said - it would have been the ultimate dream come true) then all the problems would have been solved once and for all. However such monopolistic ownership of a high-ranking male was virtually impossible. Even the "favorite wife" could not rely on him. Of course, she could rely on his preferential (once again - not monopolistic) treatment, but not on his sexual fidelity. Sure it seems like a female does not need much of sexual fidelity itself. At least once a year he will find a time to fertilize her. However, sexual infidelity of such male had certain serious consequences for the female. First, there was the risk of loosing her "favorite wife" status. Second, there was a risk for her of diminishing sexual activity from this male and that means insufficiency of pleasures (low-ranking males are bad substitutes and they do not deliver such satisfaction). And even furthermore, the loss of the "favorite wife" status means lowering her own rank in the hierarchy. But here we are talking only about the "favorite wives" which were mostly the females with high enough ranking potential. What to do for the others?
It is very simple! For conceiving a child and for one's own enjoyment, a high-ranking male was preferred, invoking the jealousy of his "favorite wives" and at the same time deceiving several low-ranking males pouring gifts in wavering hope for a long awaited sexual act that was delayed by the female for as long as possible, up to the complete avoidance in favor of a high-ranking male. But all these low-ranking males simply did not have any other choice but to pay for their access to the body. Even considering that he probably will not be the father of most of the children of this primeval woman. In reality such practice is a paradigm of polyandry. I'd like to point out that this necessity for females to have a breadwinner opened a gate for low-ranking males to have a real chance to transfer their altruistic genes to the descendants. Isn't this connected to the abrupt acceleration of social evolution of mankind observed in the last couple of hundred thousand years based on the strengthening altruistic tendencies in people's behavior?
Furthermore, during the development of humanity, during the transition from gathering to agrarian society (sometimes called the "Neolithic revolution") at some moment getting food from several different men became unnecessary, one became enough, or a rich one became enough for a few females, and even she became herself an economically more viable subject. In these conditions the disappearance of necessity to get food from a few men lead to the automatic disappearance of necessity to give herself to the many men! Due to this fact, our ancestors' desire to secure a nuptial union (either monogamous or polygynous) seems like natural. This not only reflected the new economic realities but hampered the spread of venereal diseases. Automatically it also met some ideals of justice - instead of the primeval "one male has everything, others - nothing, "there appeared" a woman to every man." I have no intentions of exaggerating the influence of ideas of equality on people of the Neolithic revolution, but in this case the equality happened as a side-effect of the above mentioned factors and taken alone was not really meaningful. Moreover, at the beginning there was a predominance of polygyny as more habitual for high-ranking males, but seriously unfair for low-ranking ones.
There is one more important thing to notice. The attitude toward a female as a thing that can be bought (and that does not object to being bought) multiplied by the absence of the male's instinct of caring for the female lead at last to the system known as patriarchy. Matriarchy as the a mass phenomenon did not exist among our ancestors at least for the last ten million years since they moved to the Savannah and probably it never existed at all. There was no instinctive, economic, or any other presuppositions for that. (see 1 for details) And even otherwise, by the reason of high danger living in the Savannah, the role of males as defenders increased together with a kind of militarization of the population, resulting in giving privileges to the defenders (including at the expense of the female's rights). The practice of tracing a relationship based on the mother's genealogy among few peoples reflected only the impossibility of establishing a firm fatherhood under active promiscuity and nothing more. But nonetheless, since patriarchy formed relatively late, it was fixed in instincts weakly and thus could not void the fundamental principle of the female irreplaceability, that is at least half a billion years old. But every time the juridical pressure diminished, the woman became a selecting subject. Let's remember medieval knights. Moreover, even in the midst of patriarchy, a groom himself did not select a bride. It was done by a third party. (usually by parents)
Who makes a choice? In the animal world it is always a female who chooses
the male. If a male chooses this will conflict with the fundamental principle
of gender separation - a principle of female's irreplaceability. Those few
species where visually a male makes a choice can be considered as a short-term
evolutionary deviation and even there the female's choice is probably rather
camouflaged. For example, a female can make no choice by herself but instead
she can provoke males to fight each other and then prefer a winner (or might
become capricious and not prefer anyone at all...). The main feature of the
selection is that there are a few males on "input" but only one on "output" and
the mechanism of this selection significantly varies from species to species.
It is obvious that exactly such reflected selection takes place among people.
It is considered indecent and even impossible for a woman to make a choice
directly without a preceding competition or even fight among men, even if in
absentia or imaginary (let us recall medieval knights). Afterwards it is very
hard for her not to prefer a man who demonstrates the behavior of a winner.
As we already clarified above, a woman, building her relationship with the men, instinctively pursues two, perhaps loosely connected, goals. Form one side she wants to get as much as possible material benefits from the men (not only instinctively but consciously as well!), from the other side she wants the one who would win her heart. In primeval times any kind of convergence of these goals in one male were possible only for very few females, the majority of others achieved those goals by promiscuity - the impossibility of being fully provided by one high-ranking male, was compensated by the high number of low-ranking males, at the same time given a chance a high-ranking male was usually preferred for sexual service.
However, with the growth of economic development of humanity the necessary conditions for arranging permanent conjugal relationships in a form of monogamous or polygamous marriage. Hence, free changing of the partners after creating a union was prohibited either legally or traditionally. Naturally, the sexual relationships outside of the marital union as the rule were forbidden. Historically this happened at a very late time and that's why it was not fixed in instincts - feelings as usually continued existing in a "primeval herd" state.
In these conditions if potential spouses were given any freedom of choice, then the future wife was put into a very complicated and mostly contradictory situation. From one side she needs a HUSBAND, i.e. who is an assistant in family business and who is able to treat her as a HUMAN BEING but from the other side, since copulating was allowed only with the husband, she wanted someone with whom it would be pleasant, someone she would feel for from the bottom of her heart. As a rule this is a high-ranking male.
At the same time (again, if any freedom of choice was given) it was considered preferable and purposeful to make a choice based on a call of love, which was in full accordance with the instinct of sexual preference, and that's why there was no cause for any objections from those getting married. But by this, family values as a way of mutual upbringing of the children and other mutual support were actually supposed to be left out of consideration. More specifically, it was suggested to rely on luck, though marriage was meant to be for life (the span of a lifetime was necessitated by economic reasons). Although divorce could be permitted but one way or another, it was condemned. Specifically it was suggested to strive for love to the very end. Alas, we well know where it leads in reality. A bewildered mind confuses everything, once and for all, making at last a random or a known non-optimal decision.
Since now personal freedom and with it a freedom of choosing a partner is uplifted into a cult, nothing restrains instinctive calls. Naturally, all women wish to choose a high-ranking man naively thinking that they can easily set a monopoly possession on him. Since in most of the countries a monogamous marriage is established and high-ranking men aren't enough for every women then a deceiving situation appears that it is the men who choose. The fact that not all men can choose goes almost unnoticed. Low-ranking men shamefully keep silence about their personal problems. Yes, having a big success with women, high-ranking men indeed have a possibility of a widespread choice and can realize their choice without burdening themselves with thoughts of a long-term relationship ("HE HAS TAKEN" for his wife... - this is said about them). A dominant man objectively does not need a marriage. Such a man can get whatever he wants from women. Without any problems he will find a woman (and not one) who will cook for him, wash his clothes, serve sexually, and will resignedly raise his children alone, despairingly dreaming about him as a husband.
It is worse for women. The instinct of sexual preference requires choosing high-ranking men, but the reality of contemporary life requires creating a family. By my estimates, high-ranking men are about 10-20% of all men. Therefore all women desiring high ranking dominants create the contest of 5-10 women per vacancy. The so desired men for monogamous families actually are not enough for all - this is the source of all groans about the lack of men. This is another example of visual selection - women's stares get fixed only on captains, the memory carefully stores only their images (although not always pleasant) and speaking about the men "in general" women unconsciously mean only them. Plus of course there is objective selection, which will be described below. In a primeval herd this 10-20% of males would have fertilized all females, all females would have been satisfied, including sexually as well. However, one wants him to belong only to herself, isn't that true? But he has a different opinion regarding this ...
The low-ranking men are in the worst position. Everybody gets at them - omega is beaten by everyone, but concerning women - they get "only grief". However, from the side of family values they are more preferable over "alphas" . At least, they are more faithful. Their problem and the reason for loneliness is they do not excite any interest in women. Therefore, among the men liked by women there are really only a few decent ones.
A low-ranking man mainly needs a marriage only for getting sex and having children. Without marriage he is "slapped in his face" and even in family life he is constantly in danger being deprived even if he gets his luck and succeeds in getting married. (But is it really a luck if such men do not get good wives?). So a low-ranking man is sometimes allowed to have sex in exchange for doing other home chores, with which he copes better then high ranking ones. Due to egocentrism and visual selection, women are biased to exaggerate men's inability to self-service as well as the burden of women's fate. Thus, cooking and washing are not the main motive for low-ranking men to get married.
It's better be forgiven later then missed now.
It is obvious that it has a sense to recommend something to "cornets"
because "captains" easily manage without any advice. By the way it make no
sense to ask advice from "captain" either or it will be like in the anecdote.
"Captains" conduct themselves with women very differently and their high rank
is denoted not so much by their relaxed behavior but by a subtle self-assured
mimic and specific face expression.
The root of your problems regarding relationships with the women is in your low primeval status and you would like, of course, to raise it. I can tell how to do this right on the spot: you need to become rich or famous (for example - to make a career). It is also possiblllee to get drunk but this will not help for a long time. It is well known that the women love money very much but not everyone guesses that wealth is not the end goal for a woman but it is also an attribute of high primeval rank and women love not only money but also the men who managed to make them. Getting wealthy for low-ranking men was next to impossible in primeval herd. Higher superiors would have plundered everything. In contemporary society it is possible to achieve certain wealth but if your real rank is way below your wealth you might face with her infidelity later. It is pleasant to milk a breadwinner encouraging him with sex but she'd like to have someone different as a lover.
As far as the glory the best way is to become a pop super-star, and save you God from committing heroic deeds risking your own life. Readiness for self-sacrifice is definitely an attribute of a low rank but foul readiness to expose the others (to rule over the others) is the attribute of a high rank!
As it was mentioned above it is typical for people to have different levels of primativeness. The primativeness of animals, especially primitive ones, is always close to maximum. I will remind that a low primative man follows his mind rather than his instinctive programs in everyday life. Since instinctive nuptial rituals are dialogic like password-response, the unconformity of such man behavior to these rituals can seriously complicate his quest for a life companion. Such man may not be apprehended as a sexually mature male.
It is said that women love with ears. To say more this is typical not only for people! Songbird males sing the songs only for attraction of females. For the same purpose grasshoppers cricks, frog male croaks, male cat yawls in march and etc., etc., etc. It is not worth to mention the pop-stars. They are one of the most favorite category of men among women... And yea, they sing mainly about love!
What is more important for success - high rank or high primativeness? For sure, high rank! Captain is forgiven for everything including low primativeness. Moreover, high ranking men with low primativeness have often particular charm and have a big success with respectable decent women. However, they are not the ones who have the biggest harems. However primativeness is inborn feature and it is very difficult to change it even by hard training especially you do not have artistic gift.
Low chances can be compensated by the big number of attempts. Do not hesitate to use favorite women's tactic - having several romances in parallel but take certain measures to prevent crisscrossing of them. At least, you will gain practical experience and probably obtain lacking self-assurance. One of the other ways of gaining experience is to date by classified personal ads but do not treat them seriously. They are extremely ineffective as a search method for a life partner.
Of course, women tend to make fun of low-ranking men but treat this philosophically and do not quit attempting. In any case neither make a tragedy out of this nor fall into depression. Considering that we live in the world of probability and chance, and as it was mentioned above, high rank by itself is not a guarantee for the total success, and right contrary, low rank is not guarantee of a complete failure. All these are the factors which seriously affect the likelihood of mutuality. Besides that there exist an instinct of sexual curiosity...
And one more thing, if your rank is low try not to waste your time on high ranking women.
What should a hen running from a cock think about?|
-Am I running too fast?
As it was mentioned above, the number of copulations is the clearest
quantitative index of a rank. By allowing a male to approach her, a female
acknowledges her lower rank. Therefore consent for copulation is one of the
most striking signs of acknowledgment of submission. That's why the talks about
sex among men are often characterized by bragging and scorning to women and
among captains - not only chats. The usual component of curse is the phrase
like "F@@k you" that has unambiguous purpose to humiliate an opponent. Though,
it seems what can be humiliating in a natural physiological act? Their desire
to humiliate even more is considered to be a kind of valor because, although it
is sad but humiliation of the people around one is the most widespread way of
increasing one's own rank. Especially if it concerns a sexual partner. Of course,
women are offended when they are humiliated, but just try to take away such a
humiliating man from a highly primative woman. She will fight but will not give
Due to the same reason, men practicing masturbation are scorned. Women's masturbation does not cause such scorn even though it is barely less widespread then men's. The logic is the same: one masturbates -> means that one has no woman -> low-ranking one has no woman...
- What are you looking for? |
- I have lost the keys.
- And where have you lost them?
- Over there.
- Why are you searching them here?
- There is more light here.
Public opinion is full of the prejudices, especially in this sphere. For
example, the women are sure that it is much easier for a man to find a woman
than for a woman to find a man, although sociological research proves otherwise,
the majority of women are sure that it is a man who chooses a woman, even though
in reality it is exactly the opposite. In order to clarify the mechanism of
origination of such illusions let us imagine the following example, overdone for
There are one hundred men and the same number of women living in some village. Five out of these hundred men are arrant Lovelaces who change the women once a month in average. The other men stay home and rarely hang out. After a not so long period of time these Lovelaces will date all the women but the others will meet no more than one. As a result women meeting each other will be telling approximately the following: I dated six men and five of them were such a ... Of course they will come up with the wrong conclusion -- that 5/6 of all men are skunks, cheats, old foxes, easy riders and so on.
Mentioned above, observational selection is objective. It means that even impartial robots would have fallen into this trap. Besides there is also subjective selection which is derived from the peculiarity of human memory - emotionally meaningful events are remembered at their best. Those 5 Lovelaces will be mostly well remembered for a long time because they excited bright emotions. As a result the only one more or less decent man out of these six will not even be recalled.
It is very difficult not to fall under the influence of such illusions for an unprepared man. Mass media also endorses the distortion of a statistical situation preferring to inform about rare, unusual, untypical events and creating the illusion of their mass character and typicality.
I am a weak and helpless woman, I won't let you!|
I've already sued three tenants, and for such words
of yours you will be crawling at my feet!
So, biological roles of males and females are drastically different. Lower
viability of males due to, in part, more risky behavior, was mentioned above.
Obviously, the differences in behavior do not end here and certainly should suit
the biological roles. Since the personal value of each female is higher than
that of the male because males are born in much higher numbers than needed for
fertilization of all females, then there dominate in female behavior the care
for herself (and demand of such care from people around her), caution, avoiding
risk, and if a self-sacrifice needed then it must be only for the sake of her
children as the final goal of caring for herself. Societal traditions are
solitary with women primacy because naturally they go back to instinctive
behavioral programs - women and children are saved first from a sinking ship.
Besides, while there is a great number of the laws and resolutions showing
concern for women one way or another, there is none for men. The law takes care
either of a PERSON (any person) or a woman.
For example, marriage legislation of Russia and especially legislative practice in this sphere are openly discriminative toward men but nobody pays attention to it. For millions of years everybody got used to this. If a man killed another man in self-defense he would face long and not necessarily successful judicial hardships in Russia. Under the same circumstances a woman probably will be acquitted even without getting a court hearing. And moreover she will be praised. There are many public organizations and movements struggling for the rights of women but there is nothing heard about the same for men. In mass media women's problems are discussed deeper and more attentively than men's are. This is in addition to the fact that even without this, the women are idealized by both men and women and this also goes back to the principle of female's irreplaceability.
It is possible even to speak about men's "presumption of guilt". A husband beats his wife - he is blamed, a wife beats her husband - again, a man is blamed; rape - a man is blamed; divorce - the same; a woman cannot get married - once again, the men are to blame. Yea, men, those villains are to blame for women's unemployment as well. Examples abound. Innocence of a man should be proven every time in such cases. Should you fail to prove it - you are guilty by default! It is the most fertile ground for abuse. Why take care of men if even nature does not take care of them!
I think everybody will agree with the following:
Victor Dolnik deems that primates' hierarchy is formed by males only. Regarding macaques it might be true but for people it is clearly incorrect. Neither the differences in levels of inclination to conflicts among women nor the differences in power of elbows need any proof. Another thing is that women's hierarchical struggle is not characterized as an open one and generally speaking, is less dangerous for life because of irreplaceability of every female. We can also agree that women's hierarchy is built independently from men's, but they are closely linked together. Anyway, a comparison of male's and female's rank is totally correct. Ranking potential of some ladies is out of limits and easily can get above average men's ranking potential. Let us recall a famous "Tale about a fisherman and a golden fish" by A.S. Pushkin. Ranking potential of the old woman was much higher than of the old fisherman and that coupled with egocentrism lead to what it had lead. Should we throw away the fairy entourage the described situation becomes real and not so rare at all! A children's hierarchy also exists and in general independently from an adult one. However, not any grown-up can tame every high-ranking teenager. Forget about teenagers! Even high-ranking cat is capable of winding its master round its little finger...
Self-loving is the only romance that lasts for a life.
Egocentrism is inability to WISH to put oneself in another's place
or to get in another's shoes. Egoism is unwillingness to divest oneself
of one's own interests. There are the terms "reflection" and "empathy"
in psychology. The first term means the ability to adequate self-
evaluation in eyes of other people, the second term means ability to
apprehend emotions of others. Egocentric has both abilities diminished.
Non-egocentric person sometimes is called reflective but this is not
I do not allege that there are no egocentric persons among men (moreover, the champions of egocentrism have to be looked only among men!) but it is more typical for women in average. Whatever is said about women's emotionality, empathy is the ability to evaluate the emotions of others correctly but not intemperance of one's own reactions on the environment. The ability to read gestures and mimicry helps to read the emotions of others but in order to read the mimicry one has to want doing this in the first place! Meanwhile, the surrounding world and especially the inner world of the others is not interested for egocentric. He is interested only in the world of oneself, right up to self-admiration. This is indirectly proven by women's love to mirrors.
|From the biological point of view feminine egocentrism is justified, and moreover, more or less NORMAL!!!,|
All people are equal. However, some of them are more equal.
The subject of primeval hierarchy in our society is extremely interesting
itself and perhaps deserves a separate treatise. That's why I suggest in the end
to step aside from gender relationships and to look at relationships of the
people in general. Especially as this will allow us better understand gender
relationships as well.
Primeval hierarchy explicitly or implicitly runs through our society. We can observe this in relatively pure form inside many children groups, especially in orphanages, when mind is not fully developed yet. Gregarious hierarchy and propensity to be influenced by an authoritarian leader without any critical judgment of the one are the instinctive behavioral programs without any rational restrictions. By the way, the children from decent families very rarely find themselves in the orphanages. Therefore, this specific behavior is significantly predetermined genetically. Provoking anti-social behavior of teenagers (and not only them), unmotivated cruelty, baiting of "omegas" (who are objectively not the worse children) are the demonstration of a hierarchical struggle. A low-ranked child occupies not the best place in a street hierarchy hence there is no rational sense for him to take part in it. A low-primative child will do exactly this. He will distance himself from such hierarchy. A highly-primative child cannot do the same since his instinct powerfully requires taking part in hierarchy irrespectively how bad he feels in it. There was a perfect movie after R. Bykov "Scarecrow" where this primeval relations were shown with scientific accuracy. Unfortunately, the end of the film is not plausible. In reality, such repentance of hierarchical leaders is impossible.
Among adults hierarchy is well seen in conditions when civil rights are restricted one way or another. This is, for example, prisons; our army with all its violence and hazing; groups of people with a low culture and especially, criminal gangs, where each new person is evaluated from the point of his rank, and where there is extreme intolerance even to the hint of disrespect.
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
Never pull apart the fighting people - they|
are probably soul mates...
Ethological basics of agressiveness are described in K. Lorenz  and
V. Dolnik's book . I will allow to share some of my own considerations on
In the root of many crimes against a person lies a contradiction between criminal's high initial ranking potential and his low social status. This can happen if a man has no any other strengths than primeval impudence that is not enough thanks God for a good career in a modern society. If such situation combines with high primativeness then this man tries to realize his demand to dominate by any means. However, if his social status is low then these means are not a lot. That's the way he comes to crime as a method of realization of ranking ambitions.
In our Russian police high-primative dominants are prevalent that's why law-abiding population is afraid of police almost as much as of criminals. For these people service in police is also a way to realize their ranking ambitions and it is very bad that the form of realization is barely different from the form of criminals...
High aggressiveness of teenagers and their impudence towards adults is explained by that a teenager has to make his way in hierarchy from the bottom up. But this is very difficult because adults occupying the high stages of hierarchy make all the efforts to keep it that way. By making anti-social action a person declares to the people around: " I am alpha, I am above society, I do not want to submit to you but you should submit to me or prove that your rank is higher". I.e. anti-social behavior (contraposition of oneself to the people in a society) has very deep instinctive roots which are as deep as the aspiration to build the hierarchy.
How to recognize the rank of a person next to you? The closer your ranking potentials the harder it is to do, at least from the beginning. Besides obvious assurance and forwardness, high rank is shown indirectly (at least at men) by custom to undo a few upper buttons or to wear the clothes unfastened. And vice versa, fully fastened clothes, quiet voice and a custom to fold the arms mean low potential. But dangerous aggressiveness is typical for dominants with high primativeness.
And if meeting somebody, your eyes as magnetized lowers down, be sure that there is alpha in front of you. But he will stare right into others eyes gladly, noting with pleasure that the eyes are lowered down acknowledging his superiority. It is very important for him, since aggressive and highly primative dominant (tyrant) is usually coward and keeps power over the people only because they submit to him voluntarily. In mentioned above experiments with cocks researchers glued the combs to dominants and despite of their excellent fighting abilities they were downgraded. And this is so because nobody submitted to them voluntarily.
And what if one will try not to subjugate to people? If you rank is low it is extremely risky! No, there is no need to get humiliated either. You should avoid such situations. Your suddenly boiled over pride can give out one impulse of confliction but probably you will not be able to withstand its continuation. But he has already revealed your rank and he knows for sure that you will give up sooner or later. And a conflict is his environment, he gets high because of it. He will refuse to struggle with something what is out of his power (for example with power of nature) but you are right in his mercy! It is necessary to bridle such people but this should be done not by you. Owning a victory over you (and this is almost inevitable), he will harden even more in his aggressiveness. Getting involved into conflict with high-ranking ones is worth only when you are absolutely sure in your victory.
What can be advised in this case? Commonly known advice is not to show the fear. This is true! If you fear that means that you admit your lower rank and hence, you are an easy prey. However, never try to pose as a high-ranking one without a good training. There is a high chance it will not work but an aggression will be provoked. Omega would-be alpha should be punished. The best way is not allow to have your rank revealed at all and to show that you do not play into hierarchical games. For example, if it is possible, do not pay any attention to him or show that you do not care. Without knowing your rank, such a one may not get into conflict because he is coward in a sense that he does not engage into fight unless sure of victory. But he gets such assurance only after your low rank is recognized. Afterwards he will not retreat halfway.
Religion as a system of undoubtedly civilized norms (I mean of course the
big universally recognized global religions) could not have carried out
civilizing functions if God had not had the highest rank, the highest position.
Otherwise, a highly primative society with low culture could not be persuaded
that making harm to the fellowman was inappropriate since from pragmatically
egoistic points of view it was exactly right! At least, in the nearest future.
But the fact that it harmed as much personally him as the whole humanity could
be simply neither accepted nor realized by a certain individual. In practice,
the super-hierarch was anthropomorphized with humanistic qualities which were
being digested by congregation as samples for repetition because of his highest
It is worth to pay attention that practically all religions appeared in the low levels of the society. It was extremely important for a person with low-ranking potential to have somebody "above" and at the same time it was wanted this one above to be just, kind, and merciful.
Aura of assurance which circumfluenting most of "saint books" (for example the Vedas) is the inexhaustible source of authority together with complete incomprehensibility of the content. Sense and value of these books are entirely lost for a modern man (not researcher) that's why their influence cannot be explained by the value of the contained information. On the contrary, self-criticism and public doubts which are typical for a real science severely damage the attitude to it from unscientific public.
Talented piece of art is also able to convince in anything as it directly affects subconsciously instinctive mechanism of brain. This is the purpose and the social destination of art - to convince in anything that is otherwise impossible to persuade or to prove logically (for whatever reason) in any way. However, whatever is proven this way is not always good in reality.
Modern advertising shamelessly and impudently exploits instinctive programs. Instincts are devoid the ability to rational analysis. So, finding the right hacking tool (template) to a man's instinctive programs makes possible to force a person to want virtually anything. The main point is to demonstrate assurance. Any proofs or detailed explanations beyond that is redundant. It is necessary to pay attention how the commercials are done. As a rule they are pretty illogical but very emotional. Information is presented in a very high pace, often tangled but attention is diverted with something flashing. Often text is read with a speed of machine gun. All this based on the fact that subconscious with its templates works much quicker than mind and if a mind is not given a chance and/or time to look into the situation (and probably to protest) thus making possible to instilled anything to man. The most deceptive mode of advertisement perception is to pay no attention to it. In fact, only mind misses it and it goes directly to subconscious. And that's what really needed.
1. V.R. Dolnik Ethological excursion in forbidden gardens of humanitarists "Priroda" N 1,2,3 for 1993y., accessible in Internet. 2. V.R. Dolnik A Gender - riddle of life or life - riddle of a gender? "Chemistry and life" N 3,5 for 1995y. 3. Two genders - what for and why? "A Science and life" N3 for 1966y. 4. A.A. Travin Etudes under the theory and practice of evolution "Chemistry and life" N 1,2,3 for 1997y., accessible in Internet. 5. V.A. Geodakian The Evolutionary theory of a gender "Priroda" N 8 for 1991y., accessible in Internet 6. S. Afonkin Well why we not hermaphrodites? "Chemistry and life" N 3 for 1997y.accessible in Internet 7. V.P.Ephroimson A pedigree of altruism. "New world" N 10 for 1961 y. accessible in Internet 8. V.R. Dolnik Such a long, nobody's understanded childhood.. accessible in Internet 9. K. Lorenz Das Zogenannte Bose: zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression (Wienn, 1963) 10. David Buss Evolution of Desire - strategies of human mating. FAQ accessible in Internet Original / Commented by Anatol Protopopov 11. A. Protopopov Correlation between Male and Female Populations for Different Age Groups with Respect to Problems of Choosing a Marriage Partner. Here 12. A. Protopopov Some Statistical Data Concerning Marriage Adverts Efficiency Here 13. A. Protopopov Phallus as a mirror of hierarchy Here .
1. W. Golding Lord of the flies Here