A description of the essential dynamics of male-female intercourse is presented which appears to have universal application. One novelty of the system is in providing a foundation for the formal treatment of human interaction directly, with only minimal recourse to animal models.

Following research in other fields (Sheppard, 1994a; 1994b) the author embarked upon an investigation of the social habits of the Amsterdam population, particularly the young females, using the summaries of contemporary knowledge of sex differences by Moir and Jessel (1989), Wilson (1989) and some of the ideas of Dawkins (1976), Smith (1982) and Axelrod (1984) as a basis. Amsterdam is some degree in advance of other centres in sexual mores and the Dutch encouragement of free expression provided for an uncluttered analysis of human behaviour. The following analysis was accomplished by concentrating on the most critical evolutionary process, that of sexual selection, and it appears that the model so obtained can be generally applied. A remarkable consistency in some behaviours was observed.

The following system is presented as a theoretical framework to allay criticism of the field method employed, which was mass observation continually tested against evolution theory. This study did not rely on self-reported data, upon which other work may be over-reliant. It was also undertaken without reference to contemporary psychological literature and is expected to provide a fresh perspective and usefully supplement evolutionary psychology.

It is certainly disadvantageous to players of certain strategies to have their policies exposed and so some resistance to these concepts is to be expected. This system consists of four major elements, as follows. Finally, a number of distinct procedures are detailed.

1. The Costs and Benefits of Sex;
2. Signals, Markers, Tokens and Handles;
3. The Dynamical Laws;
4. The DSoD Theory.

Preliminary Sex Differences

While males are adept at manipulating things, the primary activity of the female is relationships, i.e. sex. In this system sex is any activity which is not business, thus any non-monetary relationship is a sexual activity.

Many females formerly died in childbirth. Harris (1978: 25) relates that a primitive method of abortion was to place a plank over the stomach of a pregnant woman and jump on it until blood spurted out of her vagina, a practice which would have been likely to kill the prospective mother as well as the child. Crude potions were also used to induce abortions. Because of the high costs of physical sex for females a variety of mechanisms have evolved to limit it.

Since males are adept at manipulating things, the female imitates the male. Females are superior at manipulating relationships and hence some males will imitate the female, but it is proposed that imitation is a female strategy. The basic strategies are that males compete, selecting for maximum fitness, while females conspire, instinctively acting together to raise the value of sex and promote monogamy.

Since males vary more than females (Darwin, 1874: 340-345; Moir & Jessel, 1989: 89; Wilson, 1989: 107-108), and some males express female characteristics, the situation arises in which some males express female traits more strongly than do females themselves. Monogamous males are an example of males expressing a female characteristic which has been reinforced by successive selection for the trait by females.

Any organism seeks to minimize its costs and maximize its benefit, with the payoff for an evolution strategy (and the only one which really matters in evolutionary terms) being the number of offspring which is produced, including how successfully they in turn produce offspring.

Procedures

This system is not concerned with individuals necessarily but with the disparate male and female evolutionary strategies and particularly, some of their sub-strategies or procedures. A procedure is an innate behavioural sequence by which an organism advances in its competition with a symbiont; most particularly in this analysis, the opposite sex. If, as both Maynard Smith and Axelrod agree, a strategy is a specification of what an individual will do in any situation, then a strategy may be regarded as the complete set of possible procedures. Specifically, a procedure should be capable of being modelled mathematically while a complete human strategy set, because of its complexity, is unlikely to be.

A procedure can also be regarded as a sequence of moves in a human game. Moves in the game are made using signals, markers, tokens and handles. A game-theoretic model of male-female interaction has been prepared and an adapted Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma model is proposed in which the most advantageous female policy is Disguised Defection. A general mathematical model for human behaviour has been formulated using Mesterton-Gibbons and Dugatkin’s (1992) Cooperator’s Dilemma.

1. The Costs and Benefits of Sex

It may be deduced that the trade in sex in Amsterdam and its perception as a commodity gives rise to its costs being more clearly defined. Table 1 lists the ten costs and benefits of sex; it is proposed that every possible circumstance is contained within them. The female strategy is to increase the costs of sex while the male instinct is to reduce them. This decomposition appears to encompass the costs and benefits of human interaction in their entirety.

For an example of the application of this scheme, suppose that a male is out one night and is signalled by a female. He approaches her and is then beaten up by her boyfriend. The fight qualifies as an unwanted relationship involving unwanted disorders (bruises and possibly broken bones) as well as Diminishment of Self (e.g. feeling bad about oneself). Energy and time would be lost as well as information (that he is not such a good fighter). The time spent in recovery might also result in the disturbance of existing sexual and business activities.

In another scenario, we imagine that a tipsy employee has made a pass at his boss’s wife at a Christmas party. If the event were related shortly afterwards it might be passed over amid the joviality of the season, but if instead the information is withheld until the man is considered for promotion some months later, and the wife then divulges an embellished version of the incident, the employee may not be promoted but dismissed. This situation illustrates how the costs of sex can be increased by the control of information.

There should be no situation in which the acquisition of a disorder is considered a benefit, however it is possible to desire such an eventuality. In love (which is treated as Paragonism), a partner may wish to share everything, even including a pathogen.

For an example of the application of this scheme, suppose that a male is out one night and is signalled by a female. He approaches her and is then beaten up by her boyfriend. The fight qualifies as an unwanted relationship involving unwanted disorders (bruises and possibly broken bones) as well as Diminishment of Self (e.g. feeling bad about oneself). Energy and time would be lost as well as information (that he is not such a good fighter). The time spent in recovery might also result in the disturbance of existing sexual and business activities.

In another scenario, we imagine that a tipsy employee has made a pass at his boss’s wife at a Christmas party. If the event were related shortly afterwards it might be passed over amid the joviality of the season, but if instead the information is withheld until the man is considered for promotion some months later, and the wife then divulges an embellished version of the incident, the employee may not be promoted but dismissed. This situation illustrates how the costs of sex can be increased by the control of information.

There should be no situation in which the acquisition of a disorder is considered a benefit, however it is possible to desire such an eventuality. In love (which is treated as Paragonism), a partner may wish to share everything, even including a pathogen.

2. Signals, Markers, Tokens and Handles

It is proposed that any transaction can be analyzed in terms of the following four components:

Signal. Ambiguous; a signal is an ambiguous gesture, particularly one of a sexual nature.

Marker. Unambiguous; a marker is an unambiguous indication of involvement.

Token. Ambiguous; a token is when one thing means another.

Handle. Unambiguous; a handle is a request which evokes a fixed and predetermined response.

2.1.1. Signals

A signal must have at least two possible interpretations. (There is no such thing as an unambiguous signal because this is defined as a marker.) The distinction, temporarily, is made between ‘body language’ and signals: signals in this context are usually sexual in nature while ‘body language’ is taken to describe general non-verbal communication. A small number of non-sexual signals are mentioned however because of their importance. The Basic Signal is looking or pointing at something for someone to respond by doing something with it. Examples are a guest looking at a kettle as a cue for the host to take it off the boil, or pointing to a lighter to have it passed to the hand.

The analysis of signals, which are inherently ambiguous, is perforce difficult and considering their nature the following summary may be a significant advance on earlier attempts (e.g. Krebs & Dawkins, 1984: 401). For the purpose of optimal manipulation of a human opponent they are evolutionarily adapted to be difficult to classify.

The evolutionary origin of female signalling is that it would advertise her fertility, at which time the signal would indicate her readiness to procreate. The costs of sex for females are huge compared to those for males (the male can simply walk away) and hence the female has evolved mechanisms to provide her with early control of sex. The ambiguity of signals can be used at the onset of a relationship to test a male’s suitability as a mate, or equivalently, his susceptibility to manipulation by the female. That is, his appropriateness to care and tend for both the female and their child after it is born. Signalling is the female strategy: it is passive, safe (the female can always deny her intent) and the inherent ambiguity of signals is manipulative.

Sexual signals are given such emphasis in this analysis because they are both advantageous and heritable. Consider the following example of an archetypal female sexual signal, the Accident Signal. A woman is serving tea to a group of workmen. The men, perhaps 20 or 30 of them, stand in a queue and file past the woman who is pouring tea into the workmen’s mugs. One of the men she likes, and as she tilts the teapot to pour his tea she involuntarily spills it onto his hand instead: she has reflexively emitted the Accident Signal. The man is scalded, the woman fusses and frets apologetically and he reassures her that she should not worry; the caretaking instinct is inspired. As a result of this encounter they talk further, strike up a relationship, have sex and produce children. The gene which confers the propensity to signal in the female or, for the male, his propensity to respond to this particular signal in this particular way is carried on to the next generation. The mechanism is transmitted to the progeny of the union instigated by the signal and the signal-response couplet repeats. Almost 50 such signals were independently isolated in this study (Table 2).

Sexual signalling is an elemental mechanism by which neurosis is induced in males. Neurosis is here defined in Pavlovian terms, where neurosis is the stress induced when one stimulus evokes two (or more) responses. The female who emits a sexual signal can evoke eager anticipation while an awareness exists that the prize is unlikely to be won without cost, including a further elevation of neurosis.

Neurosis confuses males, rendering them easier to manipulate and control. The neurotic male further empowers the female, both at the individual level and the collective: a reinforcing cycle is established.

Females enjoy signalling and inducing neurosis in males. This explains why the less likely the male is to respond, in general, the more likely the female is to signal. Examples of this are waving (a strong signal) when separated by some physical barrier, such as from a motor coach or tourist boat, or the female tendency to observe passing males reflected in shop windows (thus avoiding issuing the Direct Look signal at close quarters). This is also the origin of exaggeratedly Affectionate Farewells: the female may signal most strongly at the very moment that sex can no longer take place.

A signal is called discriminate if it is directed at a particular individual; signalling by mode of dress (e.g. dressing provocatively) is typical indiscriminate signalling. Signals have been further categorized as Honest, False, Erroneous or Dysfunctional.

2.1.2. Honest, False, Erroneous and Dysfunctional Signals

A signal is called valid (‘soundly based’) if it has a sincere origin. All signals are compulsive to a greater or lesser extent.

Honest Signals are valid, involuntary and often unconscious. This category includes displays of bashfulness or shyness and mishaps which are signals for male help (e.g. Accident Signals, Blushing).

Many species emit False Signals as a defence mechanism. In humans, False Signals are likely to be deliberate, but can be knowingly emitted as invalid whether their emission is intentional or not. False Signals are purposefully, but not necessarily deliberately, invalid. The Basic False Signal is leaving a light on when no-one is at home. The smile exhibited by a male following rejection by a female in Inverted Transmission of Diminishment is another member of the False Signal group: the signal is invalid in its primary interpretation but it is not dysfunctional.

Erroneous Signals are uninhibited, valid but inappropriate. A decision is likely to have been made not to inhibit them; they may be intentionally uninhibited. Habit also plays a role in the inhibition of signals. In other words, Erroneous Signals are consciously or habitually uninhibited.

A female, if emitting an Erroneous Signal to a male, may have no capacity or intent to accede to the proposal which is made in response to it. In one scenario, the female may be signalling when she already has a partner. The signal was valid; she was genuinely attracted to the male and has indicated that attraction; this was the instigation of the signal. However the distinction can be made between a signal which starts involuntarily and is restrained before it is further emitted (an Honest Signal combination) and one which starts involuntarily and finishes intentionally. This latter instance is the closest which can be obtained at present to an exemplar for the Erroneous Signal.

Dysfunctional Signals are involuntary, unconscious and invalid. This form of excessive signalling may be due to emotional confusion arising from sexual abuse in childhood, sexual disorder or acute neurosis. In the case of abuse it appears that the signalling is more pronounced and the harm the more severe the earlier it takes place (the signals may be invalid for sex but valid for attention). The isolation of Dysfunctional Signals might provide a means of verifying claims of such abuse.

2.2. Markers

A marker usually involves the transmission of a thing. Buying someone a drink is a marker: a transfer of wealth is certainly unambiguous. Talking to someone is a marker; clearly there is involvement between the parties, even if the conversation is uncomplimentary to one of them (in this case the thing transmitted is information).

Marking can be of a thing or a person; an animal leaves its scent or a human might paint graffiti to similarly mark his territory. Other markers are leaving a coat, glass or pack of cigarettes at a seat, or decorating a room to a preferred colour scheme. Female markers often involve cleanliness and detail: a female marks a male by choosing or mending his clothes. There is a female trait, which is possibly normal, of wanting to have sex in unusual places or in every room of a new house; this is also an expression of marking.

Markers may be appetent or inappetent. An appetent marker is one for which something is desired or expected in return. Typical female appetent marking is holding a conversation with someone in order to demonstrate to others that a relationship exists.

2.3. Tokens

For the archetypal token we consider the piece of metal which can be given as a prize by a fruit machine: the value of the token is defined by the giver and its value is different for the giver and the receiver. Hints are commonplace expressions of the token.

A typical token is ‘Do you have a light?’ which may mean ‘Let’s open and talk,’ but tokens vary considerably in ambiguity. They also appear to be highly variable according to location. The situation has been observed in which females will preferentially ask each other for a light, reserving and reinforcing the token for its subsequent use on males. Another token is an invitation for tea or coffee; a common interpretation of this token is to share in the ritual of its preparation and to talk. The price of a cup of coffee in a café is a token since the cost of the drink itself is insignificant compared to the price charged to the customer, and this is tacitly understood by both parties.

2.4. Handles

The Basic Handle is knowing someone’s name; then calling the name evokes a response. Another handle is being able to touch or hold a person; in this case the product of the handle is actually the absence of a response, that the act is permitted and not spurned. Other handles are having an arrangement to meet and being married to someone.

2.5. Male and Female Instincts w.r.t. Signals, Markers, Tokens and Handles

Disparate male and female instincts exist for these four components. Females reinforce signals and tokens because they are ambiguous and therefore manipulative, while males prefer markers and handles because they are not. There is a female instinct to weaken markers by distributing them further, for example signalling to widen a conversation, while the male strategy is to raise the significance of markers because they are generally material and involve the wealth which he creates. The male instinct is to reduce the significance of sexual signals (but not to weaken societal ones such as traffic signals or distress signals from ships and aeroplanes by, for example, allowing faults or emitting invalid ones).

Markers are progressively transferred from the male domain to the female domain; all male markers may ultimately be adopted by the female. Prototype markers in this system were tattoos, electricity, the telephone and television, the latter all having been discovered or invented by males.

A number of procedures are employed by females to manipulate markers and handles. Females can display an enthusiasm for erasing existing markers. An example of this is wanting to obliterate the name of a former girlfriend from their partner’s tattoos. There is a male instinct to distribute inappetent markers, expressed by indiscriminately giving things away or talking to people. Females have a tendency to interpret inappetent markers as appetent ones and projection of a female tendency onto the male may be a factor in this. Projection, i.e. assuming that others act or perceive similarly, may be the single most important psychological mechanism. A marker may be transformed: a female believing that she is doing a male a favour by accepting a drink from him is an example of transforming a marker.

Another procedure is the mutation of a handle to a marker. A man who was married formerly had conjugal rights and this erosion is an institutionalized example of the mutation of a handle to a marker. Other examples of this mutation are a male making a proposal to a female without receiving a reply and it being interpreted merely as a statement of interest, or not replying to a letter. Greeting someone and being ignored is the mutation of a handle to a signal.

The origin of the female manipulation of markers and handles is avoiding obligations to provide physical sex. Raising the cost of sex is the pure female strategy which appears to underlie all female procedures.

3. The Dynamical Laws

It is proposed that the essential dynamic of male-female interaction is encapsulated in the Dynamical Laws:

1. All the power that females have derives from males;
2. The only thing that females do with that power is use it against males.

The proof of these statements is in the inability to find a counterexample. Detailing the best counterexample which has yet been offered will serve to illustrate the application of the Laws.

Suppose a woman commits suicide. How is her power to do this derived from males? The ability to use will to over-ride an individual’s naturally strong self-preservation instincts involves logic and reason, which are male characteristics. Darwin’s theory is applied to conclude that females’ capacity in this regard is derived from males:

‘With many closely-allied species, following nearly the same habits of life, the males have come to differ from each other chiefly through the action of sexual selection, whilst the females have come to differ chiefly from partaking more or less of the characters thus acquired by the males’ (Darwin, 1874: 759).

If she jumps off a cliff there is nothing more to add. If she uses a tool, e.g. a gun, this is a thing, which falls into the domain of males. Practically all things have been discovered, invented and developed by males. Suppose, taking two extremes,

a) The female is young, reproductive and attractive; then her power is derived from males; she is perceived by them as desirable; male desire establishes her status;

b) She is old and ugly; then her status is low; since she is not reproductive, in evolutionary terms she is worthless.

In case a), by killing herself she deprives males of her function. In case b) she has little or no utility to males in any case (some primitive tribes ate their old women, in times of hardship, before they ate their dogs). If the female who is killing herself is pregnant she further deprives the male of his progeny.

4.1. The DSoD Theory: The Dishonest Submergence of Difference

A most profound theory relates to the perception of difference and is conveniently referred to as the DSoD Theory (pronounced dee-sod). It is proposed that the male and female cognitive apparatus perceives magnitudes of difference differently. The following observations were made:

1. Males make large differences larger and small differences smaller;
2. Females make large differences smaller and small differences larger.

These processes are analogous to expansion and compression as employed in the conditioning of audio signals. EFPoSD and AMSoSD dynamically oppose each other and DFSoLD and IMAoLD do likewise. The precise point of crossover, between what is considered small or large, determines culture. A possible mathematical model for this system exists using Fechner’s Law (Mesterton-Gibbons, Marden & Dugatkin, 1996).

AMSoSD: The Actual Male Submersion of Small Differences
EFPoSD: The Enhanced Female Perception of Small Differences
IMAoLD: The Inordinate Male Amplification of Large Differences
DFSoLD: The Dishonest Female Submersion of Large Differences

Due to the Actual Male Submersion of Small Differences (AMSoSD) males will work together, suppressing relatively minor differences in personality to achieve a common goal. The classical male grouping is the gang and members will be admitted to it on the sole criterion that they are useful. Males will fight to preserve differences but they will not risk injury and death fighting over issues they perceive as trivial.

Using her Enhanced Female Perception of Small Differences (EFPoSD) the female attempts to select an optimal mate and needs to know whether he is suitable as soon as possible, otherwise she may find herself pregnant by a male who subsequently leaves her unsupported. In the longer term the female seeks a male who has a compatible personality and will search out subtle graduations of character to establish whether her prospective partner is a suitable match for long-term cohabitation. EFPoSD also explains the superior acuity females possess in the discernment of non-verbal communication, which largely accounts for ‘female intuition.’

The essence of the Inordinate Male Amplification of Large Differences (IMAoLD) is competition. Males attempt to make things bigger, faster, grander or more compact because they compete and are interested in size (or even the lack of it). Males will go to war to preserve differences and must perceive the difference as large in order to justify sacrificing themselves for it.

A possible dominant origin of the Dishonest Female Submersion of Large Differences (DFSoLD) is the female abhorrence of violence. Not only are females more sensitive to its effects, any conflict she has with a male involving force will almost invariably be lost. Once a male perceives a difference as large enough to warrant aggression the female loses her power to manipulate, because such skills of subtlety are ineffective against brute strength. Further, it is in the collective female interest to minimize differences in age and attractiveness, as well as the wide disparity in practical ability between men and women. Thus females disclaim large differences between the sexes, between children and adults, between the different races of man and between humans and animals.

The minimization of large differences in DFSoLD might be contrasted with the meticulous selection females exhibit while shopping (EFPoSD). The creation of a tranquil and evolutionarily advantageous environment for gestation may be a further phylogenetic origin of DFSoLD.

4.2. Feminization, Femination, Masculinization and Masculination

People behave differently according to whether they are involved in a relationship or not. A male is feminized if he is subject to the collective influence of females; he is feminated if he is under the personal influence of a female, has at least the illusion of control of sex and is sexually sated. Similarly a female can be masculinized and/or masculinated. It follows that each sex has four states, with examples being given for the male in Table 3.

A key observation during these investigations was that instincts are never annulled, they are only displaced (i.e. expressed by substitution or sublimation). If instincts cannot be expressed normally, they accumulate and their catharsis will invariably occur in some other, often less satisfactory way.

4.3. Super Masculine and Super Feminine States

It is proposed that any trait must be expressed both individually and collectively to be evolutionarily viable. Nation States can exist, although only temporarily, in a state of Super Masculinity or Super Femininity. Any State in a state of war becomes Super Masculine; if it does not, it loses the battle. This does not preclude a nation fighting in pursuit of feminine objectives, however.

1. The Super Masculine State dominates;
2. The Super Feminine State becomes extinct.

An obvious, and challenging, question then arises: When does a state change from being masculine (feminine) to being Super Masculine (Super Feminine)? The author’s conclusions in this regard are:

1. The Masculine State expels alien races;
2. The Super Masculine State kills them.
3. The Feminine State admits alien races;
4. The Super Feminine State interbreeds with them.

5. False Perception, Paragonism and Criminality

A Paragon is an ideal state or especially, an ideal partner. The importance of Paragonism to the human psyche cannot be over-estimated.

An initial hypothesis of these investigations was that females oblige males to be dishonest in order to obtain sex. The female is more perceptive of non-verbal communication and likely to detect a conscious attempt at deception. The male who deceives himself becomes more convincing and gains a reproductive advantage over other males. Wolpert (1992: 141) has observed that “the capacity for self-delusion, even among scientists, should never be underestimated: conviction can have profound effects on observation.” Humans may modify their perception to be consistent with their emotions and neither does perception have to be accurate to be evolutionarily advantageous.

In the traditional male and female roles the male was breadwinner and the female gave the male the illusion of control of sex while in fact largely retaining it. This is now practically defunct. In many contemporary Western societies, especially but not exclusively during sexual selection, all pretence has disappeared and it is obvious that females have total control, because females will accept no obligations in regard to sex whatever. It is argued that if females control sex then they control everything; in the short-term because of males’ sexual needs and in the long-term by denying reproductive facilities to males who are immune to female manipulation.

Paragonism is often an element of religion. An obvious Paragon is the Christ and in the Christian tradition women were ostensibly subordinate. With the modern demise of Christianity however the role of Paragon has to some extent been adopted by females and many males appear to believe that wickedness is exclusively a male characteristic. Consistently over 95% of prison populations are male. Criminality is expressed by the two sexes in different ways and is inequitably punished.

6. Advanced Disclosure = Debasement

An illustration of the progressive theme which developed during this study is provided by the advancement of Disclosure to Debasement. Disclosure takes place when a female divulges secrets (about former relationships for example) immediately before or after coitus to reinforce bonding. Disclosure is then advanced to become Debasement, testing a male’s loyalty well before coitus occurs. The exaggerated confessions of former sinful lives made by religious converts are also considered to be a form of Debasement; as sex becomes increasingly notional, Debasement becomes progressively so too. It is noteworthy that in each case of Debasement it is not only the confessor who is debased. This evolutionary construct is proposed as a more consistent model for the False Memory Syndrome and, in this system, it is a female characteristic.

7. Substitutes

Males are essentially polygamous pleasure-seekers while the dominant female strategy is to be a monogamous relationship-carer (although it appears that a highly advantageous female policy is serial monogamy: the female becomes more adept at manipulation as her skills are applied each time in a different context).

A typical sex substitute for the male is sport: he competes, reaches a climax, learns from any mistakes and then advances to the next competition. Primary female sex substitutes are food and relationships with domestic pets (the latter being a substitute for children).

Recreational drugs are proposed as an instance of a male sex substitute and this explains why most drug abuse is by males. The male ego craves control and the gratification drugs provide is under the control, initially at least, of the individual. Formerly a male, with one or more concubines in his cave or tribal dwelling (Darwin, 1874: 901), living together with various dependants, maximized his sexual pleasure while attempting to minimize the number of additional dependants which were produced. The male controlled his own reward.

8. Some Remaining Important Procedures. Conclusion

Diversionary Purpose is ostensibly pursuing one objective while actually seeking to accomplish another (e.g. attending college to secure a capable partner). A selection of some of the more important procedures is given in Table 4. Many female procedures have evolved to compensate for the greater physical strength of males. Two features common to many are the intensification of male breeding competition and the removal of Ambiguity of Intention from males. One instance of the Dispersive Procedure is saying ‘No’ as a joke in response to a mundane request, which can be a precursor to the refusal being made in earnest. Examples of Malign Encouragement abound, especially in the mass media.

Archetypal Spoiling is a trick used at public auctions in which a component is removed from a desired object in order to obtain it for a lower price. Another expression of Spoiling is a female emitting a False or Erroneous sexual signal, which annuls a male’s ability to respond to that particular signal. Numerous forms of Spoiling exist. Spoiling appears to be an advanced, possessive form of marking: primordial marking is leaving scent and primordial Spoiling is smearing excrement (as sometimes observed in the demented).

One of the most important procedures which was identified in this study is transduction. One example of transduction is the guilt felt by a customer on being observed by a security guard in a supermarket, even though nothing has been stolen. Overt transduction is laughing at someone unjustly, but this form of emotional manipulation seems to be most commonly encountered in leaving behaviour, such as quitting a place because a certain person has arrived or an unpalatable fact has been stated. Transduction is also used to promote DFSoLD but it is remarkable how widely the different races of man vary in their capacity to transduce and their susceptibility to it.

The most significant contemporary expression of Creative Transduction is over-population. Ultimately females use the power of reproduction conferred on them by males (by sex or using male technology like IVF) against males by over-populating (cf. the Dynamical Laws). Virtually all contemporary problems, such as pollution and environmental damage, have over-population as their source. Males are territorial and the less space they can command the more their instincts must be constrained. A high population also disrupts male sexual targeting strategies. It is in the female interest to increase the population.

Given the impelling nature of instinct, and that emotions can be falsely induced, it is clear that an impartial measure of female influence is required. In this system the male desire is to have sex while the female inclination is to have babies. Population level or population density are prospective bases for an objective measure of female influence.

Axelrod, R. M. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Darwin, C. (1874). The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (2nd ed.). London: John Murray.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harris, M. (1978). Cannibals and Kings: The Origin of Cultures. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
Krebs, J. R., & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.). Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, pp. 380-402.
Mesterton-Gibbons, M. & Dugatkin, L. A. (1992). Cooperation among unrelated individuals: Evolutionary factors. Quarterly Review of Biology 67: 267-281.
Mesterton-Gibbons, M., Marden, J. H. & Dugatkin, L. A. (1996). On wars of attrition without assessment. Journal of Theoretical Biology 181: 65-83.
Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (1989). Brain sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women. London: Mandarin.
Sheppard, S. (1994). Moroxydine: The story of a mislaid antiviral. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, Supplementum 183: 1-9.
Sheppard, S. G. (1994). A preliminary investigation of ibogaine: Case reports and recommendations for further study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 11: 379-385.
Smith, J. M. (1982). Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, G. (1989). The Great Sex Divide. London: Peter Owen.
Wolpert, L. (1992). The Unnatural Nature of Science. London: Faber and Faber.