From the author: This is a manual for young people who are puzzled and exhausted by the oddity of love. The instinctive basics of human conjugal behavior as a biological species are examined. There is a brief review of biological presuppositions at the beginning, followed by scrutinizing the instinctive criteria for choice of a marriage partner for people, and practical advice. And in conclusion there is an ethological review of instinctive behavioral motivations of people. A greatly abbreviated version of the given material was published in " Chemistry and life - XXI century" N7 of 1997 magazine in the article "About the captain Rzhevsky and cornet Obolensky without any white lies". If you'd like to read this Treatise in Russian or Spanish please click on the links below.
Russian original       En Espanol       In Bulgarian       Write to author       Download ZIP       FAQ       All articles of the author

Anatoly Protopopov

as it is recognized by awful bore

second edition

Authorized translation from Russian by Mikhail Linetsky
with helpful remarks by Alexander Kositsky, Michael Fournier, Yekaterina Bogdanova and others

Everything real - is rational;
Everything rational - is real.
(H. Hegel)

Genuine knowledge - is a
knowledge of the reasons.

(G. Galileo)

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 alcohol
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
Ethological continuation
About optical illusions and observational selection
About specifics of behavior
About egocentrism
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.

To the English reader

      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...

A few words about human ethology
Foreword written to the publication of this book in Bulgaria in 2002

      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.

About the subject

Question to an Armenian radio station:
How to avoid pregnancy?
Answer: Drink mineral water.
Question: When - before or after?
Answer: Instead of.
(old anecdote)

      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.

Why, properly speaking, is reproduction needed?

Who has come in this world - his grief is clear
He must come back to nonexistence.
(Omar Khaiam)

      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.

Budding and sexual reproduction.

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.

About hermaphrodites and evolution of reproduction methods.

Do not multiply the fundamentals needlessly.
(W. Occam)

      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.

About different genders and sexual selection.

- Do you love me?
- Yes!
- Ah! But where are the bees?
(From the talk of two flowers)

      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
fundamental principle of dioecious propagation is the principle of female's irreplaceability.
      For accelerating selection and making it purposeful, some part of possibly potent males by all means will be excluded from reproduction process, with the growing share of the others.
      From the principle of female's irreplaceability follows the fundamental differences between males and females behavior. As females are of a far greater value for the population and males are born in significantly higher numbers than needed to sustain specimen reproduction, thus, their personal value for the species is far lower. This circumstance is fixed in appropriate instincts which require from female to be more careful, avoid risk, take care of themselves in the first place and demand caring from surrounding people. For example, it is well in line with this instinct that women are more egocentric and trust more intuition and feelings than logic. Intuition and feelings are based on practical experience, including the experience of a whole species, so they are proved with practice and considered to be something more reliable. We will return to this subject below any number of times but once and look it through with greater details at the end.

About variety and risk

Without any born to creep - the others cannot fly.
(it is ascribed to Maxim Gorky)

      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.

About conjugal strategy

A lecture in a zoological college:
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!
(an old student anecdote)

      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.
      And what if a female has such a unique gene? What should her behavior be in order not to sink this gene into oblivion, but rather transfer it to the future generations? In general, it is also possible to increase the number of children but ... Will the frequent changing of the males help a woman to increase the number of children? Absolutely not, but this could significantly lower the quality of children! That's why public opinion treats women's infidelity with much louder condemnation. A woman unscrupulous in her sexual partners does not take care of her future children! If a man transferring his genes fathered a child with an unsuitable woman, he did not lose anything. He can repeat the same literally the very next day with a better woman, it found. But a woman conceived from an unsuitable man cannot correct her fault so soon (nature does not know abortion). Moreover, the number of such trials is very limited in general. To fix her genes in descendants more reliably, a woman should strengthen the severity of selection for the candidates, in order not to mix her own, supposedly unique genes with any other male genes deemed unfit. However, she should be attractive to all men in order to have a possibility to choose from. The more men are attracted to her the wider the choice that she has. The ideal case is to make all men fall in love with her, but admit only one, or maybe, none at all. The copulation itself is an almost incidental side effect of the seduction process.
     So, the instinctive goal of female conjugal behavior is
more man's hearts, nice and different.
      After a man's heart is captured, a woman can lose any active interest in him, just continue keeping him for her collection, meanwhile seducing the others.
      It is necessary to make a point that only the base of the differences of conjugal strategy is described here. Below we will look at instinctive factors which fill this base with specific content.

About our primeval "ego".

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...
(V. Vysotcky)

      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.

About hierarchy in a herd.

Impudence is a second fortune.
(commonly known banality)

In theater as in life, the most demanding
person is the one who has not paid for a
(a French proverb)

      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 [1], 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.

About primativeness and culture

What is the difference between woman's logic and
iron logic?
- Woman's does not rust.
(an old anecdote)

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.
      In contrast to the majority of animals, different people are subject to instinct's influence with different degree. If someone is not subjected to instinct's influence completely, but lives by rational thinking that means such a person is absolutely non-primative (in real life such people do not exist). The other man that is directed in life only by feelings, that is to say is fully subject to the instincts, is absolutely primative (such people sometimes exist in real life). D. Zaraiski introduces a term "power of the model", which is an index of ability of a given behavioral program to dominate among similar ones. This is because for each situation a brain usually has several behavioral programs, among which there are both innate and obtained, and which one of them will be accepted for execution under other equal conditions depends on the power of each behavioral model. So, primativeness is a degree of domination (power) of instinctive over rational models.
      Rudiments of non-primative behavior are observed among many higher-level animals, more significant traces of it are seen among Primates, but only in human society did non-primativeness become relatively mass phenomenon.
      The term "primativeness" is not identical to the term "culture". Culture is kind of a derivative of primativeness. Among artistic people, even with a highest level of culture and decency, the people with high primativeness are predominant as such people live in a world of feelings.
      Although a term "culture" is intuitively clear without any explanations, it is very difficult to give it a precise definition. It is obvious only that culture is a product of upbringing and education (in the broad sense) and primativeness is something inborn. Primeval motivation of a cultural man is suppressed by upbringing and is replaced by requirements of the laws and societal traditions. However, it can appear on occasions when the laws and traditions do not determine the situation strictly and leave some freedom, and also under influence of alcohol or in times of strong stress. The higher the primativeness, the more often and stronger the appearances are. The old dispute about physicists and lyric poets is actually a dispute about primativeness.
      The primativeness correlates more with emotionality than with culture. Instinctive programs, when finding resemblance of internal signaling attributes with some factors of outside situation, create corresponding emotions and a highly primative person gladly submits to them. A low primative person, feeling the same forceful emotions, is capable of acting contrary to them.
      As ranking potential, the degree of primativeness is basically determined genetically and by uterine growth conditions. It changes inconsiderably during upbringing and education, however, it can have influence on the behavioral manageability and the ability and propensity to certain kind of education. It can happen that a man with a strong scientific education does not trust his knowledge in everyday matters, relying more on feelings, and vice versa. A man with very low primativeness lives kind of outside of primeval hierarchy. On the other hand, a highly primative person is very sensitive to the rank of the people around, recognizing the smallest display of concession as a signal for beginning of hierarchical attack, but meeting someone with superior rank causes him a will paralysis and vile toadying.
      The higher the inborn primativeness the greater the pedagogical efforts are needed to make a cultured person. In the next generation, everything repeats once more. The man whose culture achieved only by immense pedagogical efforts can have extremely uncultured children because the base remained the same. A newborn child, of course, has no mind and therefore lives according to instincts regardless of the level of inborn primativeness, but soon this level will begin revealing itself. There is a very important nuance: primativeness is not an indicator of a power or a weakness of one's mind. It is a degree of confidence to one's mind in practical cases. Highly primative but highly intellectual scientist can easily combine strong scientific knowledge with sincere religious faith which dates back to the instinct of submission to alpha.
      As was mentioned above, women trust intuition and feelings more than logical conclusions, this composes a so-called woman's logic. I.e. the highly primative specimens are prevalent among women. It is known that girls study better than boys in schools, universities and other institutions even in ones with technical majors. While studying, not only theory is lectured, but also practical tasks are solved, and laboratory works are held. And girls are doing this better than boys! But when the time comes to utilize the knowledge in practice, the much needed thought does not come to mind.
      The fact that women are more religious is also caused by higher primativeness - there is no rank higher than God's, but it does not really matter whether a God exists or not in the first place.
      Undisputedly, a man as a social being is very multidimensional and is not completely fitted into the three dimensional space: low-high primativeness, alpha-omega, and high-low culture. However, the events interesting to us occur exactly in this space. And also it is worth to make a point that primativeness is a general notion, showing average power of all instinctive behavioral programs. However there are quite a lot of such programs, including contradictory ones, and each can have different power, and that tangles up even more the observable scene.

About princes and princesses

THE WOMAN - is a female who has a MAN;
THE MAN - is a male who has MONEY.
(an anecdote)

What a pity that generals get married while in
lieutenant's rank!
(from the conversation of two old virgins)

      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
 - 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.
If a man has a high rank ("captain") then women will forgive him almost any behavior and almost any weaknesses; if he has a low rank ("cornet") then even complete impeccability will not help him.
      Moreover, captain really does not see any problems with this. Neither he has them personally nor he even suspects that the other men might have them. Because he does not assert any efforts to conquering women (moreover, women themself often put up certain efforts to win him) and he sincerely thinks that women treat all other men the same. But who of these two will be a better husband (faithful, decent, hard-working...)? Anyone but the captain! But whom will women want to marry the most? You are right, the captain. And in addition to this, in original (movie "Hussar ballad") the captain Rzhevsky was an open and convinced opponent of Hymen.
      It is said that women love masters. This is true, but it is only individual case. Even possession of "strong elbows" i.e. the ability and readiness to fight for one's own interests, is an individual case in conjugal relationships. Love, as a call of instinct, can not contemplate and that's why it is often triggered on visual rank rather than on actual one. It happens that "captain" looks like pitiful whiner crying that he is so perfect and superior but the ungifted people around do not appreciate him; or like capricious child with child-women egoistic character and all people tiptoe around eagering to please him in every possible way (any other cases are possible). The main thing is that he is sincerely sure in his own superiority. It is obvious that such whiner and moaner is not the worthiest family continuer (even from primeval point of view) and the actual rank of these people as an indicator of their ability to succeed in life is very low. However, instinct formally reacts to the above mentioned assurance which is the main signaling attribute of a high rank. Since instinct does not bother itself with explanations and mind does not usually recognize such self-assurance as a merit so everybody feels hymned in poems and in prose a mystical and enigmatical sensation of love choice - because it is wanted against common sense and it is unclear what for.
      Whom do men love? A Princess is not necessarily required. Men's instinctive criteria of preference are simpler and radically different from women's ones. The main woman's qualities attracting men are the newness, availability and physical perfection. Of course, if all these qualities are combined in one woman then her attractiveness will be the highest and such woman will be the center of men's attention in the first place but only until either gaining access to her body or making sure of no chances to get it. However, this is correct only in respect of women as sexual partners. Men choose wives by rational judgement (only those who have choice and enough brain). The sensational criteria of men's preference of women are much fuzzier due to the higher diversity of men (and hence, their tastes) and less desperate necessity to make a choice. A male does not have to choose a females since he needs them all without any distinction. But women's rank, having big importance in relations between women, is relatively less important for a man. For sure, high ranking woman can turn men's heads more quickly but modest and shy (low ranking) wives were valued at all times. It is well-known that women much more often than men fall in love with their chiefs, bosses, tutors, and etc. whose high visual rank is manifested by their position and partially age.
      If high rank is a key to women's hearts for a man ensuring his freedom of choice but for a woman her high rank is a source of problems with men. Average-ranking men are not acceptable for her neither sexually nor platonically (not to mention low-ranking ones) but high-ranking men are very scares and most of them are easy-riders. And if they are not easy-riders then they are hopelessly engaged and not free. Low-ranking woman as every woman preferring "alpha" is still open-minded toward "omega". In some circumstances she can forgive a man his low rank and therefore his other strengths get the chance to be appreciated.

About the struggle of two "egos"

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"
(V. Vysotsky)

      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):

Table 1. Young men opinion
Successful girlDesirable wife
 1  Beautiful  Honest, fair +16
 2  Cheerful  Cheerful  0
 3  Likes to dance  Hardworking  +7
 4  With a sense of humour  Self-controlled +11
 5  Brave  Energetic  +2
 6  Clever  Likes her job  +8
 7  Tries to help the other    
 8  Energetic    
 9    Tries to help the other  -2
10  Hardworking  Clever  -4
11    With a sense of humour  -7
12  Strong-willed  Strong-willed  0
13    Beautiful -12
14  Likes her job  Brave  -9
15  Self-controlled  Likes to dance -12
16  Honest, Fair  Tall  +1
17  Tall    

Table 2. Opinions of the girls
Young man with success Desirable husband
 1  Energetic  Hardworking +13
 2  Cheerful  Honest, fair +11
 3  Handsome  Clever  +5
 4  Likes to dance  Self-controlled +12
 5  Tall  Brave  +6
 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
10  Strong-willed    
11  Brave  Energetic -10
13  Likes his job    
14  Hardworking  With a sense of humour  -8
15    Likes to dance -11
16  Self-controlled  Tall -11
17    Handsome -14

      It was not the goal of the poll to find out the attitude to primeval rank. Otherwise, such feature as "to take everything of one's own from life" (and why not somebody's own as well, just to oneself) probably would have taken the first place in the left columns. But even without this, it is obvious that the left columns reflect the primeval ideals and the values of the family life are reflected in the right. Especially it is necessary to emphasize the liking to dance. While it is almost useless in family life, the dancing technique has important ritual meaning. Dance is a part of conjugal ritual of many animals including Primates. The non-dancing one does not demonstrate conjugal behavior and from primeval point of view looks like not sexually mature. It is very indicative that such qualities as hard-working and self-controlling take the last rows of the left columns. "Omegas" were the most uncomplaining in the primeval group and worked more than others... Also it is easy to notice that the left and the right columns are upside-down mirror reflections of each other. It is especially typical for polled women. Men's attitude toward women is a bit more consistent and that confirms the thesis that men trust more to their mind, i.e. they are less primative.
      It seems like an "upturning" of the requirements of mind and instinct is the main reason of difficulties in a search for a partner for highly educated people. Traditionally, it is customary to assume that the problem is in the high level of requirements. Taken alone, these requirements might not be so high after all, but they are very conflicting. The heart wants something that is justly rejected by the mind and the wishes of the mind do not satisfy the heart. Indeed, such qualities as kindness, decency, honesty, respect, tactfulness, clear conscience are considered to be the attributes of well-educated, polite, honest man and a good husband, but at the same time from the primeval point of view these are the attributes of low rank in the hierarchy!!!
      In the course of this argumentation, the seditious idea is creeping in that the former practice of joining a man and a wife by parental will is not so bad despite its obvious disadvantages. Of course, in terms of the present cult of love, it is stupid to stand up for its revival. This will not cause anything more than a storm of protests and a lot of mockery. Neither can I imagine how this can be implemented in real life now. But in the case of parents, who, searching for the matches for their children, evaluate the candidates from the civilized standpoints, even if they keep in mind their own interests, they thus make a self-selection of HOMO SAPIENS in the direction of increasing culture and development of civilization.
Trusting a call of instincts, mankind is drifting slowly back, to the primeval herd,
      And in my opinion, we already observe some attributes of such a drift. Intelligence, sensitivity, mutual respect becomes unfashionable. Opposite to this, brutal force and aggression, indulgence in a riot of desires and incontinence pours in from screens and pages. Writing off all this on the influence of everyday culture is incorrect. Household culture - is the generalized reflection of natural culture of all people. "Soap operas" are most popular among the elderly people whose whole conscious life passed in the soviet time, when totally different ideals were being cultivated.
      Lessening of the above mentioned selection at first leads to the growth of primativeness and average ranking potential, and then on this basis to the declining of the cultural level. And afterward, perhaps, Einstein will happen to be right, the fourth (if not already the third) world war will be fought with cudgels...

About alcohol

Our consciousness is determined by three things:
Being, beating, and drinking.
(ascribed to Karl Marx)

      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!
This is one of the reasons of ineffectiveness of the "dry laws" and other measures struggling for a sober way of life. Without releasing primeval instincts and raising the ranking potential, which is achievable by the alcohol in the easiest way, mankind would have faced difficulties with its own reproduction. And the biggest difficulties would have occurred with the worthiest people who personify civilized society - low ranked and low primative persons. We can only regret the negative effects of alcohol consumption and that it is mostly used by the people who do not need any releasing of primeval instincts.
      Since there are no alcoholics among animals hence sexual selection does not recognize what it is, and thus, the fact that a certain man is addicted to alcohol or simply a drunkard practically does not affect his popularity among women. Moreover, a majority of women who got stuck with such husbands, put up roughly the same pretext: "I thought he would start a family life (become a father and so on) and quit drinking." But there is no clear answer to the question: "Why did you jump to this conclusion?"

About Bastard and Fatherless Children.

A sleeping Reason gives birth to monsters.
(Francisco Goya)

      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.

About the husbands and the lovers

  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.
But only syphilis - by love.

(an old medical anecdote)

      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 sexual desires.
      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.

So, of whom are there more?

I had forty surnames
I had seven passports
Seventy women loved me
I had two hundred enemies...
(V. Vysotsky)

      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. Details
      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.

Origin of family, prostitution, and promiscuity

Dedicated to the cherished memory of F. Engels...

      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)

More about choice

      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.

What the men having no luck should do

It's better be forgiven later then missed now.
(from Murphy laws)

      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.