The Codes Of Moral Matrices

Major Law Of Matrix
What forms Matrices
Matrix And Self Identity
Beauty and Sex Protocols
Early History of Matrices
Economy and Matrix
Politics and Matrix
Conversion from Hetero to Gay

Revision of History

Social Paradoces
Empire of Israel
View of Garry Kasparov
Investigation of the Historical Dating
Civilizing Events
Egyptian Horoscopes
Classical Texts


"Book of civilization" 
Open Ended Time
"Investigation of English history"
Available books

Take Action

About the website
Disscuss on Google+
Codes of Moral Martices:   Sex Protocols



Laws of Matrix

Beauty and Sex Protocols


  Each word of the language in our brain is associated with some emotional value, and the content of this value can be very different, having positive or negative characteristics. Let’s explore the term ‘Fuck You’. In jail, using this expression towards some boss of criminal authority would be a risk to your life, and indeed, cons use it rarely understanding the gravity of the insult. Between teenagers of some New Jersey High School the same term could be used instead of ‘Good Morning’; since children create miniature subcultures copying visible part of the moral code and imitating adult reality while playing. For our purposes let’s call this imitation the ‘gaming reflection’, because the outer details of behaviour are duplicated without filling the real sense of the word, which sometimes looks like a parody.
          Each matrix provides us with a moral scale, judging what is good, bad, beautiful or ugly; and indeed, the definition of beauty is tremendously various from century to century, and from place to place, depending on the moral mix in any given society. But for a better understanding how the sense of attractiveness builds itself in the human head, one should review male and female engagement algorithms, studying each matrix separately - strict Hierarchy, like the Russian criminals in the earlier mentioned examples; strict monogamy like the USA in the 1950s; and modern constructing attentionalism.

          Such separated studying per matrix is an abstraction, often used by various sciences to investigate the real processes, while to find a purely hierarchical or monogamous person is practically impossible in the modern world. Also for better systematization, one should call these connective algorithms engagements or sex protocols.
          As mentioned before, humans have 2 channels of sexuality – active and passive for transmitting and receiving emotional information between individuals. Any beauty perceived by the human brain goes only through the passive sexual channel while producing it through active one. Some parts of the attractiveness database in our minds are changing fast and called ‘fashion’, while other parts might stay stable for a longer period and mistakenly considered as nature given.
          Well, how can we tell what is beauty? Trying to answer this question from matrix point of view would be completely wrong, because like notion ofnormality’ the word is overloaded with a thousand senses, where practically each person has his own emotional understanding of loveliness. For example, many people are scared of spiders, but others adore them; western men are aspiring to a muscular body, but many eastern women like men with a big belly, where much fat equals much success, and the list can be continued. So we should understand the relativity of beauty; let’s call beautiful any visual, audio or other information capable of transferring itself positively as a reaction from a passive to active channel, causing a desire to act on it.
          Most of the animals have certain sex protocols before coitus including visual stimulators, sound calling, smelling attractions and behavioural patterns like competition challenges or chasing after a possible partner – for example, the lioness indicates her readiness to copulate by shaking her hips. While having all the listed abilities of the engagement protocols humans are capable of dynamically changing or combining all of the available ingredients, creating algorithms never seen in nature, where they adjust themselves to various property surroundings. The areas of change include not only the visual definition of beauty, tone of speech and the style of music, but also what is considered to be good aroma or bad smell, the meaning of touch and even “normal” or masochistic reaction on pain. And each bundle of reactions is fully different per matrix.
          As strange as it might sound but strictly hierarchical men are deeply homosexual in their definition of beauty, and it’s obvious to understand why. The pyramid of authority forces the average man to obey a higher masculinity in the form of a symbol, idol, idea or real man. This obedience passes through the passive sexual channel and creates strong woman type sexual connection to the higher authority. Millions of people adored Stalin, Hitler or Saddam Hussein with all the symptoms of passive sexual excitement - tears, patient adoration, idolization and commitment to any pronounced word without any critical analysis. 

          Having passive channel preoccupied with the same gender, our abstract hierarchical men completely ignore any other definition of beauty, where they copy the signs of power as a form of attractiveness from the higher authority. For example, criminals would cover the whole body with tattoos, trying to imitate being cool and roughness, impressing or scaring any possible competitor and preferably forcing them to play a passive role. These tattoos are intrinsically associated with hierarchical beauty; they are produced by men and targeted for men, having only a violent meaning.
          The sex protocol between hierarchical men and women is incredibly simple; it can be initiated from both sides, but strangely enough, it is more often began by women. Since sexuality is strongly associated with violence in this moral universe, men feel a certain degree of stress before each encounter, like a student before an exam. It limits male activity significantly, and typically makes the female imitate a challenge. Usually the challenge is common for ‘masochistic’ behaviour, described in modern psychological literature as abnormality, while we should remember that normality is different to the specific matrix.
          Trying to activate man’s sexuality, hierarchical females pretend to question his authority, joking or behaving inappropriately, resulting in an immediate reaction that is expressed as anger. At the moment when she feels the male is angry enough, she quickly switches to a passive sexuality, pretending to give up before his power as required by the moral code, making him switch from violence to sex. Such encounters often end up with the female being beaten or sodomized, and is generally accompanied by extreme swearing or other sings of aggression. However, without having a better choice, many women not only got used to this ‘masochism’, but find full sexual satisfaction from it, manipulating their men as the real puppet master.
          Strict hierarchical men have a poor recognition of female beauty, and using this fact many prostitutes, unattractive to other men, find clients, knowing how to behave with them. Literally thousands of old, fat and drunken hookers find employment, performing according described protocol; despite the fact that people from other matrices can’t imagine being with them. Interestingly enough, if the male doesn’t respond to the mentioned ‘challenge play’, the female usually downgrades him as a ‘sucker’ or ‘faggot’, treating him as if ‘he is not a real man’.

          Having sex as an act of dominance, the Chimp Matrix forces its carrier to think in this dimension, where one can hear stories like: “Can you imagine? She has a PhD in Maths and I fucked her”. Sex with a high status woman boosts the rank of the chimp male in his own eyes, and one should notice that it is the same motivation that stands behind many rapes of old women in North America, usually performed by young males – the appearance doesn’t really matter for chimp matrix.
          The women of the hierarchical moral code are deeply masochistic, automatically responding to male violent behaviour as a sign of higher status, and finding themselves attracted to the abuser. It is a widely known fact that hundreds of women write letters to serial killers in jail, professing their love and attraction.
          The ‘Stockholm syndrome’ is based on the same principle, where the victim of a kidnapping feels sexual desire toward the kidnapper. Let’s now examine how modern social science tries to explain this phenomenon: “Historically the ratio bride kidnapping has been very common practices. Women who were kidnapped and consistently fought back were likely to be killed or imprisoned and thus not have children. But women who bonded with and submitted to their captors were more likely to have children and their children were more likely to receive the genes that made their mothers more passive and bonding towards their captors. And over several generations, this made the population of humans more genetically prone to submission and bonding when kidnapped.” [Wikipedia,
Stockholm syndrome]

          The fallacy of these explanations is confirmed by the simple fact that not all women are responsive to the ‘Stockholm syndrome’, nor do they come close to it. If a woman is passionately in love with somebody [monogamy] or being a strong feminist [Bonobo], she will not bond with her kidnapper. The nature of the hierarchical matrix seems to be more reasonable explanation of emotional surrender to the abuser, and not only for women. Many captive Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan were converted to Islam, fully accepting the local lifestyle and within several years they showed a resistance to change their views after release.
          To support its violent nature, the Chimp Matrix invents exercises when “great ideas” enter the passive sexual channel and cause certain pleasure to the believer. This is where stooping multiple times before God and similar procedures come to the rescue – obedience and sacrifice before a higher symbolical idol opens the passive channel for the force of a higher power. Trained [brainwashed] in this way, having the passive channel ready for violent entry, humans can easy accept any hierarchical system.
          The religious ecstasy during self-
flagellation is well described in the medieval Christians and modern Muslim Shiites tradition, which makes perfect sense from a hierarchical point of view. Surrendering to a higher idea, man hurts himself by filling his passive sexual channel with pain and violence, experiencing a deep masochistic sexual arousal and delight. As in any woman, the passive complete or incomplete orgasm fills the mind with the warm emotion of belonging to the active partner, idea or figure of authority. The desire to belong to something ‘greater than us’ always comes from the passive channel; especially after the symbolic submissive act, and it’s typical of old Catholicism, Islam, Communism, Fascism, Mormonism and many other forms of hierarchy.
  After Stalin died, practically 80% of soviet people physically cried, including men, experiencing the same emotions as a wife with regard to her dead husband in a monogamous relationship. Losing probably the worse tyrant in the history of humanity, emptied the passive sexual channel of millions of people, causing panic and bewilderment: “how we will live without him?” Such a reaction is completely typical for any person being connected with their partner passively, while the active connection demonstrates certain anger after the separation.
          The primitive tribal system is the first mix of the chimp code with monogamy, where a female can squeeze some of her beauty through the passive male channel. In this system, men consider children as a labour force and people often worship the large female breast and belly as a sign of high fertility – statues of women with enormous childbearing and feeding organs are found all over Europe and Asia. The following picture would be a supermodel of a tribal beauty competition:

          Any human emotion, including beauty, has a dynamic and changeable record in our brain, not only formed in each matrix uniquely, but can seriously differ from one person to another, depending on their multiple personal experiences. The visible reaction on characters is strongly based on what is expected of the passive sexual channel – a hierarchical human is ready for violent images with scars, a monogamous person, for beautiful young skin, and an attentionalist, for playful attention. Young Polynesian woman might find a heavily tattooed man with a large ring in the nose extremely attractive, and the same man would reject a European model as thin, ugly and horribly smelling, proving that beauty is dependent on cultural factors. Nevertheless, western culture has been producing the sense of what is considered to be lovely for centuries.
          Monogamy was born when society made up inheritance laws and parents gained an absolutely different perspective on their kids; they highly valued the heir and encouraged the mother to keep a strong connection to the child as much as possible. As we remember, in primitive tribes when the husband dies, the children and wife are usually transferred to a close relative, like a brother or cousin, but in developed monogamy, the wife is not interested in being transferred, due to the size of her property and the desire to be independent. This is why the matrix developed an idea to have equal ages for the groom and bride. This custom was infused so deeply into the minds of current generations that everybody considers ’ a large age difference between lovers to be unnatural, but it is only economic reasons that cause this moral code to exist, and all other matrices accept uneven ages,  having other methods of wealth management. 
          The social norm of same age partners has been invented for the purpose of reducing the risk of dying while raising the inheritor, which usually takes a  long time; so together with the age equality matrix, comes the tradition of marrying young. Any big commitment or decision is accompanied by a process of careful selection. This is especially true in the case of marriage; even if the decision is made not by the bride or groom. Choosing between possible candidates from both genders, there are defining standards of attractiveness for men and women, where youth is viewed as a major sign of beauty and health. In this way, the Matrix of Gibbons creates a normality that entails a complex mix of health and wealth attributes for a young person, sourcing multiple standards for a smooth, young looking skin without wrinkles, a fat free muscled body, expensive clothes and a cool car etc. Each of these measurements only makes sense in the context of the current reality, which changes itself from generation to generation.
          There is an old opinion about a man’s facial scars increasing his attractiveness to women; some social studies cared enough to support it statistically. This is true for any female mind that is touched by the influence of the hierarchical matrix. The hierarchical code is still present at the bottom of western society– in bad or poor neighbourhoods, in prison or immigrant areas, where the social mind is influenced by tattoos, scars and huge muscles. The Monogamy Matrix ignores them persistently, whereas the developing Bonobo Matrix creates multiple gaming reflections which copy tattoos, scaring, swearing and piercing, and at the same time destroy their meaning on the way by excluding violence.
          Another inevitable sign of monogamy is jealousy. Gibbon apes in Africa recognize an adult competitor’s visit by the smell of their feces or urine, which usually produces rage as a result, which is needed to chase the stranger away. Our monogamous moral code copies this ability, creating a whole culture of swearing and disgust toward these harmless biological substances, naming it ‘shit’:

shit – poop
shitty – bad
shitface – pooface
shithead – jerk
dumbshit – idiot
shitting – pooping
shithouse – bathroom
shitstain – poop
shitfaced – Drunk
bullshit – poop
dumshit – idiot
shitter – defecator
dipshit – idiot
shittiest – worst
shitbagger – idiot
shitcunt - idiot

homodumbshit – idiot
shitdick – idiot
assshit – idiot
shitbrains – idiot
shitbag – idiot
shitass – idiot
shithole – idiot
cockshit – idiot
shitbreath - Bad Breath
shitspitter – butt
shitcanned - Fired
  The repulsion toward poop is so typical, that one can measure the amount of monogamy in a person’s head by testing one’s adverse reaction to human excrement, both visually or through the sense of smell; while the strict hierarchical person or Bonobo might demonstrate a neutral reaction on the subject – for life in flock such aversion is harmful.
  As mentioned before, for separating sexuality and property into categories of ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ monogamy needs the emotional tools to disgrace the unfitting behaviour of men, and women dividing a whole array of human deeds on terms of ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’, where the emotional term ‘shit’ is a major tool to bring something into the ‘dirty’ category. In the moral eyes of the homophobic monogamist, gay men are strongly associated with anal sex, which causes a typical reaction of disgust, which is similar to the attitude towards ‘crap’, and it also brings the hierarchical word faggot’ into the picture. The same moral pollution is directed towards woman in the case of misconduct, where she is called a ‘whore’ or other similar expressions.
          The emotional protocol of categorising something as ‘dirty’ consists of two parts. First comes an observation of misbehaviour, which enters into the passive sexual channel arising monogamist sexuality, then the agitation can’t reach the active sexual channel being interrupted by the moral barrier, which converts itself into aggression. Interrupted sexual excitement is a basis for the behavioural pattern called ‘jealousy’, which is typical to the monogamous matrix. The inquisitive husband or wife wants to know all the details of the [possible] affair, getting them sexually aroused from the knowledge and inevitably resulting in hostility, going through the cycle again and again, until the situation fails to support sexual arousal. The negativity and aggression of suppressed excitement usually needs the moral justification, which one can call the ‘dirty attack of Gibbons’[DAG];  the assaulting monogamist sets dirty definitions for the misconduct, commonly bringing a‘ clean’ reasoning to the matter, for example, ‘for the sake of the children’, ’what will people say?’, ’think about honor of the genus’ and so on.

          The tremendous variety of these attacks, open or hidden, written or verbal, keeps the Matrix of Gibbons alive, while not allowing anyone to suggest a possible alternative. Even the modern critics of Freud in social ‘science’ perform the dirty attack of Gibbons accusing him of having [filthy] sexual material in his works, which supposedly ‘lures some unstable minds to his admiration’. Well, for all humans, it’s impossible to write or to read about sexual relationships and not to be engaged with the subject. However, the separation of emotional response from abstract analysis is a pretty simple skill, and Freud masters it perfectly as an absolutely candid scientist from this perspective.
          Using DAG procedures, gibbon morality prohibits thousands of activities and sets the norms for dress codes, politeness algorithms, handshaking, touching protocols and perfume values etc. Basically, in strict monogamy, everything sexual is forbidden, except relations between a husband and wife, making the engagement protocol quite complicated in presence of restricted sexuality.
  The prolonged abstinence of sexual interactions causes a certain accumulation of desire and a possibly explosive release when sexual relationships are fulfilled. Simply speaking, sailors from a submarine returning from a long trip might experience a full orgasm on just having a first dance with a random girl.
          After years of prohibiting any sexuality in young men or women, monogamy uses this reaction of wild liberation to set the goals of a relationship by saying, ‘here you are allowed’. The explosive sexual reaction and fixation on the object that follows is completely expected, justifying the myth t of “love forever”. One can question the originality of exclusive relationships by asking “if monogamy is our nature why does sexual desire decrease in men and women after a short period of satisfaction?” On the contrary, the intrusive wishes of new relationships can follow men and women to the end of their lives, indicating the presence of group instincts, whereas monogamous customs limit one woman per one man, brainwashing everyone about the natural way to live.
  Modern ethnology describes the habituation of sexual arousal in men and women pretty well: “Study demonstrating habituation (declining dopamine response) to the same sexual stimuli (audiotapes), and an increase in sexual arousal (increased dopamine) when exposed to a novel sexual stimuli.” [University of Maine, Department of Psychology.1991.] Simplifying the above note, one might formulate it as “I want anyone but not spouse” – most of monogamous families face the situation sooner or later. Interesting, that current social science tries to explain it reasoning with a need of children protection, despite the fact that many pedophiles rape their own kids. This suggests that such behavior is not guarded by any natural, built-in instincts or reflexes and depends solely on the prevailing moral pattern in the rapist head.
  Struggling with sex crimes the monogamists are ruthless, judging pedophiles, sadists, gays and transsexuals in the same manner. Any deviation from their norms is labeled as "freak", whereas monogamous moral normality is maintained in the same way as fashion – usually population is divided on pro-change “progressive” people and against-change “conservative” ones.
  In the modern times male roles are disappearing in our society, being replaced by maternal alternatives:
  - mother
  - housekeeper
  - carrier woman
  - lesbian
  - gay man
  - transsexual man.

  One should note that from all male roles in our society, there is only one left - an unmarried man, as the paternity of a modern matriarchy turned into motherhood. Fathers do not teach children to fight, swear, drink or smoke - this type has vanished. Today's daddy should just copy what mommy does, wiping snots, changing diapers, checking homework and attending to the meetings at school. If not - the child can be repossessed due to the "immoral behavior of their parents".
  And as the role of "father" is losing its specificity, merging with the role of "mother", his gender is becoming absolutely not important. Technically you can call yourself "holy father", but if your behavior does not differ from that of mother, then you are the mother, despite all the talks about what is natural and what not.

  Speaking of natural, the very division of genders is different in the Gibbon Matrix, compared to the simple hierarchical rules, and the female has an important role of luring the male into the big commitment of marriage, using a whole culture of gestures– looks, smells and sounds, collectively called ‘beauty’, which require endless corrections of the definition between females, prompting women always to check each other and fashion magazines for the smallest change in what is considered to be pretty today. This is why women need to ‘go out’ regularly, adjusting to different social circumstances: a restaurant, a party between friends, a dinner with in-laws, a wedding celebration or even a burial ceremony. All these events are heavily used for updating the latest fashion and behavioural code for women, men and children.

          The change in fashion occurs only when the matrix is shifting, reflecting all the modifications coded in appearance attributes. On this subject alone, one could dedicate a whole book, investigating the meaning of miniskirts in the 1970s, pants in the 1980s, underwear in the 21st century and the sudden fashion for skirts in 2011. During the 1950s women had to wear skirts, between the1970s and 1990s they wore pants to be equal with men, and by 2011 they were wearing skirts to underline man’s inability to wear the same and thereby, demonstrating their superiority.
          However, the scope of this book will not allow one to go into a detailed observation of fashion trends, leaving me to prove the major point that beauty metamorphoses, beginning from the obvious fact that in monogamy all the beauty belongs to women. The attempts to describe the beauty of man go back to ‘’David’ by Michelangelo, who tried to merge a woman’s beauty to a man’s body. Take a careful look:

 From a 21st century point of view, just replace the penis with a vagina on this picture, and one will get a supermodel. The whole point of beauty is to lure, and according to the monogamy protocol, the gender of man is not supposed to entice and this is why talking about a man’s beauty is unpopular and classified as ‘gay’. The Matrix of Gibbons forces man to use the active sexual channel, meaning man’s attractiveness is defined in his actions and it’s entirely welcome by monogamous women. They value man’s initiative: “His words made my head spin” and often don’t care about his appearance.
That is why women of exclusive moral code have a preference for seemingly ordinary men, not those they pejoratively call "handsome". Unlike Bonobo females, they do not hesitate to reject men whose appearance and manners are effeminate which makes it unpopular even talk about man’s beauty. For example in Russia women say, assessing the men: "A little better than monkey is handsome", or at best, they might say, "cool man", "classy guy" and all those who boast of their appearance, referred to as "gay", in this way launching “dirty attack of Gibbon” against unwanted man’s behaviour.

   Because the fashion depends on matrix and matrix is formed from economical productiveness, in places where the economy is not changing, fashion is not changing too, and the bride can wear the wedding dress inherited from her grandmother, being completely happy about it. When the mix of monogamy and hierarchy were slowly shifting, the fashion changed slowly as well, like between 1800-1850, when it mostly reflected urbanization and the city life style. The faster humanity was getting rich and prosperous (between 1950 and 2010), the quicker the styles changed where each 15 years became unique in its dressing standards, make up and looks.
          Additionally, despite popular opinion, fashion and beauty is the same thing, just having a different speed of change, according to the progress of the matrix. So in the eyes of one generation, styles of clothes change all the time, while the value for a young looking face always remains the same, making many philosophers come to conclusion about the importance of eternal youth, which is completely wrong. The matrix has a database of comeliness, where young skin has a high score and people will do anything to have it. If tomorrow, the matrix sets a high standard for baldness, women will shave their heads in great numbers. “The Matrix has them”, as is said in the aforementioned mentioned movie.

          Monogamous loveliness is highly based on the secret of restriction. If women would stop wearing clothes in public, the interest to their bodies will last a couple of hours, leaving no room for something special that is supposed to ignite the sexual act. Having certain parts of the body hidden, allows women to save the final lure to the important moment of copulation, causing sexual excitement in the men. However, the problem  with this monogamous sex protocol is the inability to function independently in small groups; if some women are wearing skirts above the knees in public and others have fully covered their legs in the hope of giving the fun of discovery to their husbands, the knees will cease to produce a sexual reaction in the men, destroying the sexual mystery. This is how the ‘innocent’ miniskirt can erase families better than an atomic weapon, and this is why the conservative women would launch the ‘dirty attack of Gibbons’ to target the more ‘progressive’ women in an effort to eliminate the unfair competition.

  The moral sentences like: “Every woman must be a bit mysterious" can easily be found in hundreds of books or on the Internet. Presence of "mystery" turns a man's imagination at full power, and then loving fervor reaches its summit. In the 19th century, when the fashion prescribed long dresses, covering ladies legs completely, flashed naked ankle could instantly inflame the men, because they drew in their mind the rest – much poetic literature of these times devoted to the subject.
  Monogamy has a tremendous culture for supporting its basic myths, especially about love and relationships. The very word ‘love’ for this matrix, plays a similar role to the notion of ‘normality’  in the process of self- identification, meaning everybody has their own particular opinion about what love is and its priority in relation to group interests. The amount of written literature about this conflict is huge, ‘Romeo and Juliet’ for example.
          From the point of view of a Pakistani Patriarch, Romeo and Juliet betrayed their tribal interests, allowing themselves to get involved with each other and certainly deserving death, while a romantically educated girl in the19th century would cry about this tragic love. This story of Shakespeare is a wonderful example of the fight between the priorities of hierarchy and monogamy.
          Love for monogamists is an unexplained and holy matter, resembling attitudes to God, which should be ‘felt in your heart’, while restrictive sexuality plays sometimes funny games with its followers.
  Producing beauty through her active channel, like brushing or powdering the nose [active behaviour], a girl accepts beauty through the passive channel, creating an auto-sexual cycle of training her channels, while adoring herself in the mirror, which is most typical for women of all times.
          However, learning to be beautiful from some idol, friend or fashion magazine, develops her active channel and results in the feeling of love. Simply speaking, most monogamous women experience at least one crush on the same gender. Fantastically enough, the matrix produced an indulgent attitude toward such involvements, viewing them ‘not serious’ or ‘minor’ incidents, because with the passivity of women the probability of a same gender connection is quite low, and the risks can be ignored. 
 So let’s summarize all the qualities of the exclusive sex protocol:

-      it creates forbidden sexuality to accumulate and assign it for needed   objects only

-       it creates the ‘dirty attack of Gibbons to maintain prohibition

-       it creates beauty as a lure for accumulated sexuality

-       it assigns  youth as a major standard for beauty defining an age for marriage

-       it creates the promise of ‘big love’ that will last forever

-       it supports a united standard for fashion to exclude unfair competition


On a personal level this engagement protocol is implying certain resistance from the ‘shameful’ female, protecting her ‘innocence’, and indeed, the truly monogamous male might deny copulation with a too ‘easy’ female, classifying her as ‘dirty’ and preferring the precise exclusive algorithm of dating, guarantying a ‘clean woman’.
          The first recorded Bonobo sex protocol, should probably be connected to the French nobility in the18th century, but in that period the moral code was severely influenced by the dominant hierarchical and monogamous relationships, so for the purpose of the study, one should investigate the middle of the 20th century, and later, when the attentionalism was born, and started to implement itself as a political system throughout the 21st century.
          The basics for this new matrix are incredibly different from all previous moral codes. First of all, as we know, Bonobo doesn’t differentiate between genders and are completely bisexual with both communication channels open for sexual connections of any kind. This order of things builds itself when women no longer need men as providers or defenders for reproductive purposes, being completely capable of managing the children on their own. How exactly female independence creates a bisexual society, one will review in the ‘Economy’ chapter, examining here only the sexual practices between people.
          As violence defines relationships for the Matrix of Chimps, private property forms the wicked protocols of the Gibbon Matrix; the relationships in the Bonobo Matrix are fully dependent on the attention distribution in a new information based society.
          Using violence, hierarchy creates a stable ranking [respect] and a very conservative society of power dominance – the power is real, the violence is stable. Similarly, monogamous behaviour produces all its rules around private property and money, for centuries forming traditions, laws and customs. In new born attentionalism personal status of individual strongly depends on the informational stream, showing a level of interest to the subject, switching incredibly fast between various events and creating a concentration of attention on different domains of popularity within a short period of time, or losing it even faster. How can the sex protocol be built on such shaky ground? One can only analyze it by studying the direction of the information flow in various societies.
          The strict hierarchical matrix allows information to flow only from the top to the bottom of the pyramid, where all perception of reality should pass through filters of the top authority, throwing away or distorting inconvenient information towards the needed direction, including news, opinions and events. This quality is fully demonstrated by communist countries, Islamic groups, religious sects like Mormons, Jewish Orthodox groups or many Christian unions.
  In attentionalism news is spread from many sources to many recipients, where practically everybody acts as a transmitter and receiver simultaneously, but concentrating attention on the main role players, and the most dramatic situations, inevitably producing ‘games’ on the way.
 New matrix creates its own lines of communication as a stream of attention, going conditionally "from below", meaning from the usual members of the community, to “high” ranked members, passively accepting the public interest. So, strictly speaking, any elite figure in new society is sexually passive. One absorbs a lot of attention of others and actively transmits it in the required forms – like Michael Jackson for example.
          The tragic demise of this singer reflects a deep conflict between moral matrices, in acceptance of his performance and lifestyle. Like any Bonobo human, he was genderless, adored kids and as a consequence was accused of molestation, while millions of old matrix carriers couldn’t recognize his sexual orientation or gender, automatically assigning him devilish attributes.

 However Bonobo moral code can’t exist in the presence of violence and modern western societies fight it pretty hard – rates of violent crimes have been reducing since the 70s, the wars are widely viewed as unacceptable deeds and various games have been becoming major tool of attracting attention.
  Game playing as a social phenomenon is widely spread between various animals, including birds, fish and all mammals. For instance, the wolf-mother brings a half dead catch to the cubs with the important purpose to organize hunting trials, which teach the offspring the skills of grabbing and killing. And not only animals, any complex automated system developed by humans, like robots, space automates or software projects, are first tried in testing mode, checking all modules for deployment. The first years of human life are spent in continual communication with toys, the best assistants in the development of motor coordination and getting the first impressions of the world.
  The structural pattern of attentionalism develops a diametrical opposite to hierarchy, creating its connection lines as the attention flows from the active bottom participants to the higher ranked members at the top, accepting this interest passively and modern kids became one of the most contributed acceptors of attention.
          The growing conflict around children is very illustrative in our modern time. In 2011 the question of the right to have kids clashed with the approach of having them as a privilege. Kids are taken away from low ranked parents, from drug or alcohol addicts on low income, or from mothers beating or abusing their children.  From this perspective the murder trial of Casey Anthony is classic. The young mother had been accused of killing her daughter, supposedly trying to get rid of her as she interfered with her partying lifestyle. The mass media created a huge popularity domain over this case, broadcasting the court sessions live over multiple TV channels and blogging it over Internet. There were endless discussions about Casey’s behaviour, her possible punishment, and most importantly, her right to give birth to another child – enormous popularity turned the very judicial process into gaming reflection, a testing mode where western society prepared itself for a new attitude towards children, where they are seen as a privilege that should be earned.
          Despite finding Casey not guilty, the public opinion turned against her, giving the ‘innocent’ person the negative status of a sex offender, which made it impossible for her to appear in public. As Bonobo apes sometimes rage against the misbehaviour of a group member, the Americans gave Casey concentrated negative attention, bending the existing moral matrix against child abuse and practically preparing a new law for parenting responsibility in the future.
          The conversion of any power structure into its parody is becoming universal,
each ideology or political process in the Bonobo society turns into a gaming reflection. You can be communist, but can’t jail rich people, you can be Muslim, but can’t restrict porn TV, you are allowed to be a Mormon, but may not have many wives, you can pronounce yourself as practically anything you want, nobody cares, but you can’t break the main rule of the game, which is incredibly simple – no abuse or violence of any kind is allowed. Even sadomasochistic games nowadays have safety exits and words to interrupt the play. How can you be a real sadist without real violence?
          Each game has its stars, its centre of attention, and lower ranked players are attracted to them, providing the popular person with a faithful audience. This pattern is supported by several studies; when 5 years old kids in a kindergarten wrote down the names of their group mates they wanted to play with; it showed the popularity of each child and defined the central figures between them.
          In non-violent environments ‘A’ grade pupils are usually more popular than other students, defining beauty standards between children, which can be significantly different, comparing to adults. Indeed, the popularity of kids has practically nothing to do with looks in the traditional sense. For example, the acceptation of being fat, as a negative quality, is imposed on kids by adults in later years, while in the early ages, it's widely considered to be an advantage: ‘I’m big and nobody can hurt me’.
           Kids are attracted to game winners because they have to copy from them the skills of winning. And attraction to a hero or heroine is a wonderful mechanism for learning. For example, worshipping Hanna Montana gives the fan the power to learn everything about ones idol automatically, without books, school, homework or exams. The most famous comedians started their careers copying jokes and behaviour from their favourite role model; usually a famous actor or performer.
          I had a good acquaintance with an 18 year old guy living in a rural area of Uzbekistan, who learned perfect English just by idolizing several American musicians, especially rappers. Later he became a tourist guide and people from California were often amused when hearing his slightly black intoned accent and the smooth English in the middle of the desert of KyzylKum.
          From an abstract perspective, an engagement between two genderless humans in a Bonobo-like society happens as an active attraction of X fan to Y high game performer, where X is the active sexual channel and Y is passive. Speaking simply, in this protocol, the initiator of sexual connection is delegating one’s own part of the rank to a passive recipient, which automatically gets higher. There is no gender difference in this algorithm, but having higher testosterone levels, makes males more active from one side and a good game player from another.
          Being a fan engages the active sexuality of dreaming about the target of your idolization [as man dreams about a girl in monogamy], which promotes certain behaviour patterns, such as, having a photograph of your obsession [a man has photos of a girl in monogamy], or meeting your favourite person and being too scared to talk etc. Having both channels open, the popular person might like the adoration and allow the admirer to engage in a certain union. The degree of idolization depends mostly on the popularity of the target, and thus the intensity of the experience can vary. For example, one might have a quiet crush on a neighbour, or indulge in the wild chasing of a rock superstar.
          But unlike monogamy, this engagement is needed only for a short period of learning and usually won’t last for a long time, which makes the personal life of gamers look like an endless chain of infatuations . With both channels are open, popular individual relates to worship, like an addict to drugs, and may come with a fan in an intimate union, as do many of the celebrities of both sexes, known for its numerous and erratic sexual connections; one can remember Brigitte Bardot and Marilyn Monroe.

          As previously explained, the Gibbon Matrix assigns beauty to the female, surrounding her with thousands of attributes, manners and behaviour patterns, depending on the collaboration with the hierarchical code, which is needed to hold large authority structures together. The Bonobo Matrix doesn’t need genders, but has to have games to keep the attention on certain subjects/domains to organize society, where it declares love attraction values within the game and completely redefines beauty as a factor for sexuality. As many times before the redefinition is made by assigning a different meaning to the word ‘beauty’.


Sense of beauty today

Sense of beauty of the past

 A newborn baby is considered beautiful

Considered ugly by 1900

A pregnant woman is viewed as beautiful

Considered ugly by 1940

A large man’s belly is ugly

Large man’s belly – sexually attractive as a sign of prosperity.

Hair on woman’s body is considered ugly (1930-2011)

Hair on woman’s body is considered natural

A thin woman’s bottom is pretty

A thin woman’s bottom is ugly

A heavily scarred man’s face is ugly

 A heavily scarred man’s face is attractive

          The Bonobo Matrix teaches monogamous boys new ways by turning the process of getting to know  females into a special game of hunting, and they are called a ‘pick up artist’. Many guys grown up in traditional type families are very shy, where their shyness is a direct consequence of believing in love, and one should explain why.
           The Gibbon Matrix makes any male teenager feel ‘dirty’; especially after reaching puberty; since having the active channel open, the boy needs to masturbate, replacing real sexual activity with auto-sexuality, feeling completely insufficient. By the way, masturbation was considered 'dirty' up to 2008 in North America.
          Monogamy defines legal adulthood much later than puberty, prohibiting sex between the ages of 13 and 18, which hits boys especially hard. Additionally in the modern mix of gibbon and Bonobo moralities, the relationships are divided into categories of serious or not, where ‘seriousness’ means commitment and love.
   All girls want to be loved as much as possible in a serious way, elevating their status in attentionalism, while not hurrying to reply with the same. But for the monogamous teenage boy, as for any believer of love , it’s hard to say, ‘I love you’, because the matrix requires him to do it one time in his life, and saying this without a 'serious' meaning of sentiment is a mortal sin in the love religion.
          So most girls want to hear some variation of ‘I love you’ in order to engage, and most boys are not capable of saying it, being brainwashed by monogamous values, while technically experiencing sexual desire to another human being is love. What else can it be? [Per matrix of course]
          But scared boys mistakenly think their desire is dirty, filthy and repulsive, and thus try to learn funny tricks to entertain the female, or even hypnotize her, mostly enriching some ‘pickup guru’ on the way, when applying to paid seminars. The simplest advise one can give these teenagers – being horny is love, an erection is love, dreaming about boobies is love, there is nothing dirty in new the matrix, except violence.
          Generally speaking, this ‘seduction movement’ is a special game produced by the attacking moral code to convert monogamous males into promiscuous playful bisexuals; because in gender based relationships, deep concentration on female needs brings bisexuality or homosexuality into the picture [the same applies to other genders]. At first it might seem a farfetched claim, but let’s refresh our memory of what is gender and sexual orientation.
          While gender has a certain role in the hierarchical matrix or monogamy, with its strict assignment of channels, sexual orientation is just a simple skill of having intercourse, using passive or active communication paths. This is why the number of gays is much larger compared with transsexuals – the skill is much simpler to learn, compared to the whole role.
          When a man tries to please a woman, he places himself in ‘her shoes’ trying to understand her motives, he teaches himself a female type of behaviour and develops a passive sexual channel on the way. Henpecked husbands are practically the main source for the famous phenomenon of a sudden realization of being gay, where, after living for many years in a marriage, men decide to come out of the closet. Our matrix needs a ‘gay’ identity for the temporary period when, for economic and cultural purposes, people still live as couples and will definitely dissolve it, after a transition to community living.
  The last and important issue of sexual protocol Bonobo is a beauty algorithm in this hypothetical yet society, where nudity and sex is not forbidden, and sexual intercourse can be used instead of "good morning". It has already been mentioned that the school students, having been influenced by the parents to get the high grades, value the appearance of an A student much higher than C guys. In this way, morality Bonobo loads beauty and attractiveness. Weight, age and biological sex do not matter anymore.

 While children play “good marks” game in school, modern attentionalism converts any economic activity into similar gaming action. Simply put, any production, research or service company, sooner or later, must transform itself as a reality game, or go bankrupt. And since the number of these games is big, we can make a perfectly accurate conclusion - a single standard of beauty in Bonobo do not exist. One game can be won by an unshaved and fat man - his fans will not be shaving as well, accepting a big belly as "cool" because it’s "like him". In another virtual space a redheaded girl might win collective attention, establishing the hair color of her fans.
  Today, in 2012, many foreigners notice that Canadian and American women do not dress so bright and sexy, like in Russia. The fact that the provincial young Russian woman seeking for a man like monogamist of hierarchical sense, counting all women as the rival, while contemporary Canadian is trying to be liked by everyone, especially women, so her appearance is often neutral because she is not competing.
  The modern generation play rap, copy the tattoos, actually organizing a pseudo-hooligan culture. Why is it  pseudo? Because the real violence is excluded from this action - the winner is the one who sings about violence cooler. Pseudo-hooliganism and a whole genre of this kind have appeared precisely when new morality penetrated popular culture in the mid-20th century. For example, football hooligans are the "bottom" of Bonobo community, which uses football as measurement of the rating, success and beauty. Very similar is the case with Canadian hockey. Leagues for children, skating rinks and stadiums - everything is for free or very affordable, coaches and their assistants at the 99% of volunteers. All known players - adored people having high income, and the fastest growing sport - women's hockey and soccer. Again, the "hockey violence" is a well-regulated game in which there is no violence.
  Speaking of incomes - before we dig deeper into the future structures of Bonobo based society, one needs investigate the economics of human civilization.