The decomposed and warped West is also dragging us down with all its might, into the abyss of animal life and lower astral habits and interests. If we do not understand the destructiveness of this, then we will also turn into unpretentious intelligent animals ...
Every adult free man chooses his own path. A child comes into this world clean, with wide-open eyes. He is not yet able to choose his own path, he is not yet familiar with our world. We show him this way: mom, dad, society. What is the way we show our children?
The molestation and corruption of minor children, discrimination against the institution of the family is the principle policy of our state. Silencing this policy, while exposing the existing insane picture without (s)limits, is dooming the people to blind, desperate extinction. And our people need to know this course of the state, because. this knowledge will give guidance, will be able to mobilize people to fight for their property - children. And as long as propaganda of depravity flows in a continuous stream, no one will be able to prove the opposite. Because the state pursues either a policy of corruption or a policy of preventing corruption. There cannot be a third.
Virginity, morality, purity of children are core values which are treasured by every state thinking about the future. And only an insane state will destroy these values and allow them to do this with their children. Or a state ruled by the enemies of its own people.
Why do people allow themselves to be treated like this? A nation that has always been invincible to enemies? And the trail of glory of the victories of our ancestors still saves the lives of sailors. Somali pirates, seeing the flag of the USSR, often refuse to seize the ship, realizing that the ship is guarded by the Russians. And it doesn't matter how many Russians there are. They know one thing Russians don't give up, they will fight until last breath. So what happened to our people? Why do we live under the influence of a sleeping pill, why do we allow ourselves to be blinded, covering up this blindness with a deadly stereotype: “We have no right to prevent others from doing what they want”?
We are deceived by the stereotype of mirage freedom.
And the reaction of people to the important information that they are trying to convey to those who have already understood where “legs grow from” never ceases to amaze. Basically, initially the information is not perceived, it is rejected with the conviction: “This cannot be!” People do not believe, or rather, I would even say do not want to believe their own eyes. Because any accepted such information makes you think. And almost everyone understands that this is true. And people who allow themselves not only to listen, but hear, begin to respond to this information with actions. And this is work, and this hearing can drastically change lives. And it won't be easy. That's why units allow themselves hear.
After all, we quite often hear the phrase: “It’s best not to know this, but just live. It's easier that way." I myself have heard this many times. Yes, I agree it's easier. But then, when warnings about some events turn into statements of facts, few people think that everything could have been prevented by showing minimal courage and making a decision. hear. But even more shocking, unwillingness to see already obvious And egregious.
No one is surprised by the already rapidly increasing number of teenagers drinking alcohol on every corner, smoking on an already uncontrolled scale and swearing without embarrassment. It surprises no one that the age of these same teenagers, leading the early, often ugly sexual life . Society is getting used to it. It becomes the norm in our lives. This is taken for granted.
Sometimes someone can be indignant at the blatant depravity of the youth, throwing a few condemning words, and the matter does not go beyond this indignation. And just seeing how corruption touches them own children, some parents often begin to sound the alarm. And many parents simply do not notice this. I would even say - don't want to notice. I became a witness to the conversation two six year olds in kindergarten. I will describe this case:
The boy is sitting on a bench and a girl comes up to him, sits next to him, and, like a real adult coquette woman, hugs him by the shoulders, saying languidly seductive voice:
- I want sex with you.
The boy moves away from her, tries to escape from her embrace and says in a far from childish voice:
“I don't want sex with you.
The girl repeated this phrase three times as she approached different sides She just circled around him. And the boy also repeated his phrase three times. At the same time, he did not look like a wary child who did not understand what they wanted from him. Apparently, he had some associations of his own with this word.
Why has our society come to the point where such talk six year olds began to be taken lightly? Some parents even find such conversations quite amusing. They rejoice at the fact that their children are already grown up. Tell me, how can zombie parents raise free children? Who can they educate? The same zombies as they are! They lay to children the information with which they themselves are zombified daily.
Our children are massively influenced by cartoons that put non-childish images in their heads, and films with sex scenes that influence and form sexually active children at a young age. Here is the result of one psychological study.
Most girls are six years old already see themselves as sexual objects. An experiment was conducted using paper dolls. This made it possible to find out the attitude of girls aged 6-9 to the issue of sexuality. So, two dolls were dressed in a sexy way, and the rest were in loose clothes. The participants in the experiment had to choose a doll that looked like themselves, a doll that they would like to be like, and a doll that they associate with a popular girl in school. Of the 60 participants, 68% chose a sex doll, answering the question of how they themselves want to look. 72% admitted: this doll is more popular. In the mind of the child, sexuality was closely linked to popularity, according to the study leader.
Depravity zombifies the subconscious of our children at an ever earlier age.
Walking with my child on the playground, I have heard more than once how many mothers say that they will adapt their children to new conditions in very original ways. They themselves plan to give alcohol to drink, they themselves plan to treat the children to the first cigarette and they themselves will tell their children how to use contraceptives as soon as possible. They are guided by the statement: “Let it be like everyone else, I don’t want my son (my daughter) to stand out in some way. I will help my child to be as everybody to make it easier for him." This is them main mistake.
According to the results of many studies, it becomes clear that children whose parents themselves offered to try the "taste" modern life, many times more vulnerable to the promoted corruption. The state creates only appearance of care about the future of the nation, about the morality of children. There is an allegedly open "propaganda" of morality and hidden sinister propaganda of debauchery. This is an invisible genocide of our people for the main, most of the population.
AND one more fact, confirming the policy of corruption of children by the state, or rather, by those who hide behind it. autumn small town in the Kyiv region visited a mobile children's amusement park, as usual, housed in a city park. Passing by, I was shocked by the next picture. Most of the attractions featured aggressive pictures of boys and girls, half-naked girls. Moreover, these girls were frankly visible certain intimate parts of the body. There was a song playing English language, while the number of words "sex" in this song, to some extent, even me was zombified. It just didn't get out of my head for a while.
Now think about it. Who looked at these pictures and listened to the music? Little kids up to 5 years old! No one paid attention to the pictures, no one looked closely at them, except for these little children. They stared wide-eyed at the images and bounced around in their wheelchairs. But we know how music and illustrated material influence the formation of the horizons of children and their knowledge of the world, and How dangerous is it for them?. Where did the city authorities look when giving permission to place such an amusement park? After all, children are the most vulnerable to information, it easily enters their subconscious, forming their worldview. And then in 10 years, parents will hardly recognize their children when their children begin to apply in their lives all the inherent skills in practice.
We also know how full of erotic content the Internet is, and how accessible the Internet is now to children. The period of formation of sexuality is childhood and adolescence. Considering the easy availability of such information and the unformed psyche of children, consider how much we can destroy sexuality and cripple children for the rest of their lives.
Is our society is rapidly degrading. Each generation is more degraded than the previous one, and this acceleration is accelerating at an unimaginable rate. We must think not only about ourselves, about our souls, but also about other people, about our Motherland, about our people. AND our debt- to save the nation from destruction, from extinction, to protect our heritage, our children. This is the duty to the Motherland, to our ancestors who shed their blood for our land, for us, for our lives. Thanks to their feat, we live. And this is also our duty to future generations, who will either hate us, dying out like the last goyim, or will be proud of us.
By allowing our children to be destroyed, we destroying life itself we are destroying ourselves, our Motherland. If there are no our children, there will be neither us nor the memory of us as a people. And the descendants of those whom we allow ourselves to destroy now will despise our warped descendants, ridiculing and spitting on them as the descendants of the "great Russ".
This is one of the most provocative and difficult chapters of my book to accept. But I am not afraid of accusations of chauvinism and misogyny, because I have long been known as such, I will risk encroaching on the myth of the “moral purity of women” and express my thought directly and unambiguously: “ morality, as a characteristic of a person, generally speaking, is not peculiar to a woman».
I am well aware that most women will be infuriated and hysterical by this chapter.
Here it is necessary to make a very important remark explaining the essence of my statement.
I do not believe that every woman is always immoral in her behavior, but I say that the very concept of morality is, most often, incomprehensible to her.
There are "moral" men, and there are immoral ones. And the woman DOES NOT understand the formulation of this problem. She is excluded from this plane, she is OUTSIDE. Well, like a cat.
There are no moral or immoral women. Women exist OUTSIDE of morality, they are not subject to it.
What is meant by the concept of morality in the first place? The presence of conscience, firm concepts of good and evil, an inner striving for truth and justice, concern for the public good - categories, the supervalue of which is unconditionally accepted by a moral person.
The formalization of these qualities at the level of social, interpersonal relationships and social attitudes we call morality.
Good and evil. These categories in a woman are flattened to personal acceptance or rejection. By goodness, she often means restraint, non-aggression, ostentatious disposition, smiling, helpfulness. In general, good is that which is pleasant and profitable. First of all, the woman herself. Good "just" for a woman does not exist.
Evil in her concept is the antipode of the above. So, a woman says: “You are evil” when you didn’t get what you wanted from a man; "I'm kind," she thinks, lisping with a cat.
As for good and evil in general, you are unlikely to meet a woman who seriously comprehends these categories abstractly from a specific situation.
Simply put, well, she will not puzzle over whether her act is moral or not. But here are the questions she will definitely ask herself:
- Is it beneficial for me?
- what will happen to me for this, will I not lose, will I not be punished?
- How will this affect other people's attitudes towards me, especially those on whom I depend or who I need?
The very system of coordinates "moral-immoral", lies OUTSIDE of the understanding and attitude of a woman, is perceived by a woman as something abstruse, artificial, superfluous.
But a woman knows how to DESIGN morality. Which, most often, she does, but only as long as it is beneficial for her. A woman is a chameleon, she skillfully mimics when she is interested in achieving a goal, when it is profitable.
What could be this benefit?
Attracting a potential man, formal compliance with his intuitively caught concept of what a woman should be;
- some social status, ostentatious decency, "decency";
- direct self-interest;
- the ability to manipulate using categories, deep meaning which the woman does not accept;
A woman KNOWS the formal rules of morality and ethics of relationships with people (they are usually voiced when a girl is raised by parents, school, elders), but does not understand their meaning, essence and significance. Morality for a woman, it is necessary IN CERTAIN CASES to "color" the chameleon, a kind of formal ritual, the implementation of which she takes upon herself as necessary. But as soon as this attire ceases to be profitable, then the woman simply does what she needs.
Modern life, almost completely freed from pressure on a woman moral laws, confirms the COMPLETE ABSENCE in women of internal moral core as the structure underlying the personality. Speaking of this, I do not at all blame women for this, they are what they are. But men should always remember this feature of women.
I go even further: and I affirm that morality Hinders the main natural program of a woman, i.e., receiving and subordinating the resources of a man. It is precisely for this reason that it is not reliably instilled in her: no matter what educational measures are taken in a woman’s childhood, but if the game of morality is not beneficial for her, then the woman will not think about this topic. If there is no external moral influence of the level of society, family, laws, church, then we have a female who goes ahead to achieve her goals.
“Men invented morality and this… expediency—women would never have invented that,” she says loudly, knowing that I am in a hurry to follow her.
Zakhar Prilepin, "The shadow of a cloud on the other side"
Now it is often repeated that a woman is a social being, in fact, by this she means the sociability of women and the ability to establish and build relationships with people. But these relationships usually do not rise above the level of the mother, girlfriends, lover, husband, work colleagues, in other words, the "inner circle", people in the sphere of direct interest of a woman. Morality in the female sense, or rather its visual picture, outer side, and serves precisely these relationships.
Conversely, male morality arose at the dawn of history as a means of universal communication within and between communities, serving the needs of the emerging diversified social production. To put it simply, people needed universal non-material values and general norms, rules of conduct adopted by the majority of people to facilitate industrial and trade relations, laws to establish trust-based coordination of joint actions. To kill a tribesman for no reason is evil, to deceive a partner in a primitive business is evil, to take someone else's property or wife is evil. It was then that such concepts as reputation and business ethics were born.
It was then that religion was born as an institution for maintaining morality, while the formidable gods-super-hierarchs were accepted and revered as the main measure of people's actions, their correctness or incorrectness.
The Judeo-Christian civilization erected a pedestal for altruism and established service to the public interest as one of the highest virtues.
The progress of the human race was colossal: men who came out of the caves and received moral norms universal for all, were able to create a prototype of a separate (diversified) social production and trade, albeit still in the form of barter!
Such and such was engaged in the manufacture of arrowheads and exchanged them for bread baked by that one, one community or clan exchanged the fish they caught for skins mined by their neighbors. Honesty in such transactions and the cooperativeness of men in "slaughtering the mammoth" formed the basis of the emerging moral standards. A person realized the public (clan, tribal, community) interest and developed laws for its protection, which became beneficial for everyone to observe together.
Unnatural from the point of view of some modern psychologists male friendship has an ancient and solid foundation in the person of male cooperativeness and mutual assistance of hunters and warriors.
The first inter-clan and inter-communal military alliances appeared. Sociums were enlarged, accepting universal norms of behavior.
Of course, I am exaggerating for clarity, I am not a historian, I do not indicate exactly when, where and how this happened, it is important for me to convey the essence, the principle itself: the institution moral values was obliged to appear for the public good, peaceful coexistence, industrial progress and the protection of the family and private property.
Then people came out of the caves... but the women didn't come out of the caves. Their sphere of competence remained the house, the life of the family, the birth and upbringing of offspring.
Social communications? Husband, children, neighbors in "wigwams". The means of these communications is the ability to understand internal state other people, psychological adjustment, cunning, manipulation, intrigue.
Their main life task remained the search, attraction and attachment of a strong and prolific male, redistribution of resources within the family in favor of themselves and their offspring, exchanging "love" and care for the man's house for them. Men developed and complicated universal moral norms, being their creators, carriers and guardians, overthrowers, but for women, in fact, nothing has changed: the tasks are the same. Moreover, the morality implanted by men came into conflict with the main biological task of women.
If you look at the history of Mankind and woman from this angle, it becomes quite clear that the formation and strengthening of civilizations was accompanied by the obligatory suppression and curbing of pernicious and destructive female instincts. A woman, her very inner essence, contradicts the moral norms, in particular, of the Judeo-Christian Civilization. Our ancestors were well aware of this and did not allow women to serve in the priesthood and judicial functions. What a pity that this wisdom, developed and carried through the centuries and millennia of the History of Man, is so thoughtlessly trampled upon!
"How so?" - the reader will ask me, “After all, we have been taught to perceive a woman as a standard of moral purity.” This is one of the most dangerous myths that a young man faces in life.
Yes, a woman may well behave in accordance with moral principles, as well as a cat does not always steal sour cream. Especially when full.
Men themselves, alas, tend to invent some kind of “moral purity” of a woman. And this, among other things, lies our craving for harmony: we try to endow the being of an angelic appearance with those personality traits that, according to our inner conviction, should be inherent in it. We subconsciously strive for perfection and completeness and speculatively "finish" a woman. At the same time, the possibility of objective perception and analysis of the qualities of a woman is blocked by sensuality and romanticization.
Most often, painful, in our time almost inevitable, resolution of the conflict between reality and the fictional morality of a woman, leads a man into a state of shock.
King Shlomo (Solomon) wrote three thousand years ago: " I found one righteous man among a thousand, but among a thousand women I did not find a single one."
(Ecclesiastes 7:1-29)
One way or another, but smartest representatives modern times, they guessed about the oppressive animal essence of a woman, although they did not dare to announce their discovery loudly and decisively.
Andrei Prozorov, the hero of the play "Three Sisters" by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, admits with anguish:
“A wife is a wife. She is honest, decent, well, kind, but for all that there is something in her that reduces her to a small, blind, sort of rough animal. Anyway, she's not human."
Anton Pavlovich himself, in one of his letters to his friend and publisher Alexei Suvorin, writes:
“Most of all, women are unsympathetic due to their injustice and the fact that justice, it seems, is not inherent in them organically. Mankind instinctively kept them away from social activities; it, God willing, will come to this with the mind. IN peasant family the peasant is smart, and prudent, and just, and God-fearing, and the woman—God forbid!”
Cesare Lombroso in his book Woman criminal and prostitute" to explain the immoral and criminal behavior women prefers to talk about "moral insanity" as a kind of personality defect, illness, thus asserting in it exceptions to the rule. Poor Mr. Lombroso! In his naivety of his still romantic age, he assumed the immorality of women as isolated deviations from the norm, he conducted an outstanding study of the varieties of such deviations for his time, but he did not have the courage to suggest the simple idea that morality as such is unusual for a woman.
As an excuse, Lombroso admits that he did not demand much from female morality, having defined the “normal female type”, based on two qualities: maternal feeling and modesty.
I certainly am not a model of morality, although I have aspirations for this. And I will say with all frankness that such concepts as "honesty", "passionarity", "altruism", "truth", "friendship", "mutual assistance", "decency" are not an empty phrase for me at all, but the subject of my thoughts and constant inner work. So for women, for their absolute majority, the very formulation of this task is absent - understand me correctly: this DOES NOT TAKE CARE of them and DOES NOT INTEREST.
The story of "I went on vacation" from the women's forum.
Came back from vacation three weeks ago. Were with a friend in Turkey in the city of Kemer. How many stories I heard about incendiary and hot nights in this beautiful country, but I went with full confidence that this would not affect me, since I am married. I was happy for my friend that she could come off here !! For two days we lay by the sea and on the third day we decided to go shopping in the city. And I met him there! Modest and very good speaking Russian. At first he gave his business card like come again, but we chatted and chatted and in the end he says give your phone to the disco in the evening.) and I gave it!! And in general it started!! Dates, night walks, night cafes with Turkish cuisine and lots of sex!!! Upon arrival home, we correspond every day, just SMS, then Facebook, we don’t see each other on Skype because of the time difference and it works until 24 hours. I myself came home, but my soul remained there!! I dream about Türkiye almost every night! My husband knows almost everything, but his behavior just amazed me, he didn’t do anything, didn’t yell. said no and calmed down!! Indifference? And having arrived in my native Murmansk, I decided to leave to live in Turkey!! Well, I don’t want to live in Russia and freeze my ass! My Turkish boy does not know that I am going to move, he only knows that I will arrive in September for three weeks, and I am going to solve the issue of a residence permit, I want to open my own business there, Turkish is not a problem! Very scary!!! But life is one!! And no matter how the relationship with the Turkish guy develops, I want to go to Turkey!! Sea Sun!!!
I have read over 700 comments from women. Whatever the ladies did not write: both ridicule, and wishes of happiness, calls to change their minds and reproaches for stupidity.
But I didn't find any, I emphasize: NO ONE
Some men have an incredibly serious and even exaggerated attitude towards the virginity of their chosen one.
Well, for such men there is the following therapeutic metaphor: "It doesn't matter how many were before you. What matters is whether you can make sure that there is no one after you."
However, let's hear what anyone thinks:
The question is not for virgins, is it embarrassing for you to look into the eyes of a guy, knowing that before him you had other people's members?
This is how the opinions of the girls participating in the survey were divided:
Open voting.
Yes, but there is nothing to be done - 21.2% (96 people)
No, I'm slutty - 55.8% (253 people)
When how - 23% (104 people)
Netizens commented on the survey as follows:
My husband even knows my ex-boyfriend.
Any woman would like to return her virginity, but, alas, no luck.
I think if you treat virginity so reverently, this is a pathology. It was like that for me too. The sexologist has solved this question. Now I happy wife and mother of two children.
Does your husband consider himself a man? Or is he pleased that his wife has accepted other members before him?
Not to be a whore, obviously. It does not apply to those girls who are still with the one who tore their hymen.
Well, my ex-husband is the father of my daughter, they are obliged to know and respect each other.
Everything is correct, I think. Ex-husband should know with whom his daughter lives! These are normal relationships between people.
A normal man marries a virgin or one who was a virgin before him, and then he took a used one, and even with a trailer, is this a man in your opinion? A real man he does not take used trash as his wife, and even with back-biters, this is below his dignity. Only virgins deserve a real man.
Virginity is a trump card at all times!
Can still remain chaste all his life. Thank heavens that I'm not with my first man, it's better to lose innocence than to live all my life with a man who is mediocre in sex and not know the differences.
Virginity should be lost only with the person with whom you will be until the end of your life, otherwise you will be a whore. These are obvious things that need to be hammered into the head of all women from childhood. Lost your virginity - you are already a pariah, the last grade.
And my husband and I don’t have to remember the former. And the guy, you see, is so dumb that his girls only have to yearn for the members of their ex-boyfriends.
Maybe you like the taste of cum on his younger lips. But I'm ashamed to admit it. Here he asks. Looking for someone who is not ashamed.
You envy virgins, obviously. The loss of virginity for a woman is the loss of her only value.
Isn't he ashamed to look into my honest eyes, knowing that his penis has been in someone's pussy (and not one), or even assholes? Oh, I forgot about the mouth. Now the member is shoved wherever possible.
Do not envy, I calmly hang out with schoolgirls and do not know grief, while the unmarried are content with shabby carcasses of non-virgins.
Well, judging by the internet, now "virgins" are not so virgin after all! Che horrible they do and hide behind a film! Russian virgins are virgin in only one place. Does not it confuse you?
Only an insecure boy can be adamant in his choice (they say, the wife must be virgin), you can fall in love with a whore, and an adequate man will not deny this. If he is categorical in his choice, this only speaks of his complexes (either a micro-member, some defects, or heifers were thrown). Many things come to mind.
So a man who had many women is handsome! And a woman, if many had, then she is a shabby sperm receptacle.
Under-men only succumb to emotions, which include love, a normal man controls himself and naturally marries a virgin.
I don't want my virginity back. Nafig is needed and I don’t treat her somehow in a special way. It is, rather, the trump card of dumb chickens. Or morons guys. My opinion - you can call me a whore, but I don't care and everything is fine in my life!
How it bombs you from the realization that you are no match for 16-year-old virgin girls! Sex with a virgin is the best thing ever.
Bombs at the women like hell. The main thing - in fact, they understand that the main trump cards for women are virginity and youth. Well, they are no match for young nyashki nezalapanny, that's mad. Girls themselves love those who are in demand, no one loves virgins, but men love virgins, it has always been and will be so.
So it's clear that time can't be turned back and that they can be of interest only to second-rate peasants who don't need much. And a virgin girl can claim to be an alpha male, she will receive the honor of loving and respecting him.
Second-rate men sticking their genitals in innocent 16 year old girls is just some kind of horror.
Offended, of course, your youth has long passed, your virginity was mediocrely pissed off, it remains only to envy the young nyash and grow old.
A man should be - like expensive cognac, with a long exposure, and should be with one, and if he is with many, then this is no longer cognac, but draft beer - have you heard that? I don’t know how anyone, but it’s unpleasant for me to hear when my man had a bunch of women, and how he had them and in what holes. Rough, but true.
If men love virgins, then with whom do they lose their virginity? Don't tell me, I don't seem to want to know anymore.
Even the women themselves write about men, they say, fu, a virgin. Have you ever seen men write about girls: "fu, virgin"? On the contrary - virgins can claim everything!
Why fu? My husband got it all. Such a cuteness. Such absurdity and innocence was. It is necessary that all men get married in whole. So cute!
My youth did not rest on me anywhere, I am now smarter, more beautiful, more experienced. With regards to virginity - yes, the first man loves me very much all my life, but I met my fate much later. I don't regret anything, by the way.
I would be ashamed to start a relationship with a man who had a lot of women. Not only is he a completely unreliable person, it is clearly not possible to create a family with him, so he is probably also all rotten from venereal diseases.
The guy didn’t get a virgin and he tears and mosques? Relax man, everything in this world comes to balance. So soon there will be no pure and immaculate ones left, because it’s not good to spoil. Any innocent girl is spoiled by some freak like you.
No, because my husband is the first and last man in every sense. I don't regret anything that I kept for him.
You know, kitty, when I slept with my "first", I thought he was "the one" and "for life". After a while - it turned out to be an ordinary goat. I was "green", stupid, and could not face the truth with my "pink glasses". From this "goat" no one is immune. So girls don't always lose their "jewel" just because of their natural lust. There is no need to go to such extremes. Not everyone is lucky to "give" it to their "only". You guys don't put your finger in your mouth either. For most of you, this is like a "trophy". Bred fools, and then brag to your friends. And then again, and after a while, as you grow up, shout that there are whores everywhere. You can count the good guys on your fingers. As well as those girls who were lucky enough to give themselves to "that one." Usually, a freak like you takes a girl's virginity.
More beautiful for whom? Well, think for yourself how not to try to paint over with makeup, anyway, a young 16-17 year old female will be preferable for any man, since the main value of a woman is chastity and youth, face the truth.
I will not look at non-virgins, I respect myself. Only a young virgin can count on my favor.
How do you know if she's a natural virgin? The spit can now be easily restored. Pretend to be a sheep for a while. And that's all. The man will lead the way. I have a friend who married a rich man. She returned the virgin - and pretended to be.
The best age is not youth, not 17 years old with hormones and stupid thoughts, best age- this is when a woman is smart and experienced, and with elastic skin without wrinkles, flourishing, so to speak. Time is inexorable, everyone grows old, the main thing is not that perfect.
Nothing that the development of the female body goes up to 25-27 years? 30 years - the heyday female beauty.
Is it easy for you to look into the eyes of virgins, knowing that before that you were jumping different holes? Is it normal for an innocent maiden to take in a dirty cock?
So from a woman a young body and integrity are required, a girl is made by nature to give birth. Men are always drawn to young girls, at any age, just like nature. Women age early, a few more or less look at 30, the Indian age is very short, even with 99% of those who look normal at 30 - wash off makeup, and horror will be there.
All questions are related to biology and human physiology, but the luminaries of these sciences voice just such figures. It is impossible to exclude factors that affect negatively, but old age in a woman begins only with the onset of menopause.
If it believes that girls grow old at 30, then it probably communicates with some heroin addicts who look 60 at 30. Personally, I don't even have to paint. Well, the hymen as the main value - no comment at all!
I didn't read everything. But excuse me, something I have never seen a shadow of embarrassment in the eyes of men whose members before me were in other people's vaginas. I don't think I should be embarrassed either.
Why can't you accept the fact that any self-respecting man will choose a young virgin of 16 years old, and not a shabby woman of 25 years old? Innocent girls are better than you? By the age of 18, you lose all value.
It's a shame for them, everyone wants to be in demand, consider themselves queens. But in fact, no one has unnecessary pieces of an aging calf. Prostitutes, not worth a penny.
Why put up with the fact that some men are not confident in themselves? So do not care at all.
When all the sexists will gather and dump on Mars, have each other in different places? Oh, they probably get hot from the fact that a living person with the most high iq- woman.
And what about confidence in general? It's just that nature has laid down that real men always like young females, and not those who are already over 25 years old. Who else has retained morality and morality, coupled with a young body.
Campaign, everything is non-working there, or there is trouble with the size, so he strives to contact the one who has something to compare with. Thank God that when I was 16 years old, I didn’t come across such a thing that would consider me a “fresh carcass” and not deprive me of my virginity. My father would have snapped his neck. And I calmly studied and walked with my friends.
Young females are liked by primitive males. Moreover, the younger the female, the more primitive the male. The instinct of reproduction is laid down by nature, that is, all sorts of inventions about virginity have nothing to do with nature. Yes, and the topic of morality is raised not from your own highly moral concepts, but because of an inferiority complex.
When I am 40 years old, I will also continue to love young 17-year-old boys. It's nature, yes. Men love young people over the years. Baboons too. And I'll tear their kisses, it's so cute.
Only second-rate men can be content with females that have already been used before, real males choose the best. All men love young virgins, is it so hard to accept? This is nature. Aging is a different thing for a man and a woman. If a 40-year-old man can easily start a relationship with a 16-year-old girl, then hardly anyone will look at a 40-year-old woman.
What nonsense are you talking about, I am now 17 years old, I don’t feel much happiness from this, all living things someday grow old and die, alas, no one will need you in a few years, except for your loved ones. You say that as if this is a sentence, God created us this way, in general - rejoice that you were born healthy and live to this day. These are the foundations of morality with which you are so worn.
And then what about males and females in general? You just drove about nature. Just in nature, males love experienced females, strong and already giving birth to healthy offspring. This is the key to procreation. From the point of view of nature and the male - it is a strong, healthy giving birth female - the ideal, and the best. And a young female, there is a high probability that she will not be able to endure and give birth, or even die in childbirth. That's why she's at the bottom. So you are your craving for virgins than then explain? They were talking about nature. Now which option would you choose?
The fact that these are pure creations and no one has "tried" them before me. All the rest can be safely compared with whores, I already wrote.
That is, you think that since a virgin, it means that you didn’t give in the ass and mouth, and didn’t do petting? Or is only vaginal penetration important, and everything else is not considered and the girl is an innocent soul? In societies where the importance of virginity is high, girls are just so entertained until the husband, who solemnly shows the sheet after the wedding night. IN Muslim countries, For example.
These are the same whores, we are talking about self-respecting girls who lose their virginity only with a person with whom they will be with to the grave. Another woman is slutty.
A question for non-virgins - "are you not ashamed to look into the eyes of a girl before whom your penis has been to other vaginas?"
Everyone is well aware that nature actively ages women after the end of the main fertile age. The female body, as well as the psyche, are adjusted to the incubator, to the main function of the female sex. Of course, women themselves love demanded guys, but guys - exclusively virgins.
I think the guy serious problems with psyche. This clearly requires a psychological consultation.
This is already known, any man is attracted to the young, this is nature, the young female is more suitable for reproduction, it's just that not everyone gets the young, that's all.
A smart man will choose a mature, wise and experienced woman, in every sense. A smart man knows that a person's morality is not located in the region of his genitals.
You are trying to impose this pity, saying that only youth has value. To stand on a par with the young is to go down several steps in development.
So you are engaged in self-consolation, inventing for yourself some stages of development. A woman at 16 and 30 does not differ in intelligence, only with accumulated experience and negativity, that's all, well, except for wrinkles, the end of the fertile age, shabby body, patchy, and so on.
It is in your fictional world that women are all the same, only one with a virgin, others are whores. I haven't stepped out of reality yet. I don't need to invent anything. Morality is not a virgin between the legs and 16 years old. Is not nothing. Well, you don't get it.
Women do not become smarter with age, this is the privilege of men, and not all men become, and women do not. It's just that a dissolute woman, by primitive trials, learns to hide her debauchery. That's all.
No self-respecting woman will take a member who was everywhere. When you meet at least one of these, you will understand. I feel sorry for you, you seem to be surrounded only by women of questionable behavior and scum men who have these women.
And why should I not feel sorry for those women whose youth is long behind? I am sincerely sorry for you that I am not a person, or something, emotions are not alien to me. You have not been a virgin girl for a long time, and envy the untouched. Therefore, I feel sorry for you.
I would be ashamed to look a man in the eye if I am 30 years old and I am a virgin. But before the age of 18 it is better not to do this, but to study and study. And don't think about stupid underage dicks who don't give a damn about you.
- And what's shameful about that, we don't live in the 16th century, do we? And why should we be ashamed, the peasants are not ashamed that they had 200 whores of not very good quality before us?
Why are you so upset about the truth? No matter how you shout, anyway, a man who has many women will remain a handsome Casanova in society, and a woman who gives more than one man will be a whore, it has always been and will be. More than one man - you are cheap prostitutes. Deal with it. Men are getting smarter, soviet matriarchy is subsiding, we are returning to normality, we are slowly putting women back in their place, everything will be fine!
How I remember my first time! Ugh! I loved my first one, and after this nightmare, my libido disappeared from him! I found another, so I remember with relief that I don’t have to go through this again and rejoice in the upcoming sex.
The scoop was also built by men. How so? Why suddenly matriarchy?
In any case, complexes. A virgin a priori gives confidence that he will not be compared with anyone, that he is at least the best for her in sex, even if in reality he is none, and is not able to satisfy a woman. And a woman who knows what an orgasm is with such "men" will have nothing in common. Hence, he has a fad - deprivation of virginity.
Men are insignificant now, they used to be the main ones, now a woman can dress herself, put on shoes, feed and support a child. What's the point of a man, especially if he works for a penny? What the heck is needed, even to wash such socks, so you have been nobody for a long time and there is no way to call you. And all that remains for you is to bow before any pussy, either there was only your dignity, or the whole city was there.
Thus, they assert themselves at the expense of the weak and inexperienced. This is when older guys teach those who are younger, because they don’t roll with their peers. By the way, two Muslim women studied with me at the university. She worked as exotic strippers in closed club. They didn't have sex, but they sucked just fine. And in general, there are enough girls who tried blowjob before sex. This I mean that perhaps you not only had a lot of virgins, but also sucked more than one penis ..
It is easy to dominate any woman, women have such a nature, you yourself want someone who will tell you what to do. Therefore, the spiritual chastity of the female is important so that it does not arise and does not interfere with a man being a king. A real man is a selfish, lazy master.
A question for virgins, is it embarrassing for you to look into the eyes of a girl, knowing that you didn’t have sex before her and you don’t know how it is to cum without a fist?
Even flirting with more than one man is considered slutty and slutty, once you get into the details.
Men all their lives wanted to tie women to themselves and to please themselves! And chastity belts and harsh Shiria laws and so on. But feminine nature don't change! You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear!
Hello, judging by the survey, are you a representative of a company that provides gigolo-prostitutes on certain conditions for a long time? I am a wealthy virgin, where can I see all your boys and what is their face value?
There has always been depravity. And in ancient times, girls were deprived of innocence at a very young age, and they did not manage with one partner at all. If we return to the origins, then, along with young virgins, virgins and sodomy are the norm and pedophilia. But then the question is, how are we not ashamed? If before marriage sex is a sin, then let us turn, apparently, to the Bible. And it says that all people are brothers, which means that someone else's member is not someone else's, but native. Why then be ashamed of something? We continue to have sex. The problem of morality is removed.
Are you embarrassed to look into the eyes of a girl, knowing that before her you were in other people's pussy?
The golden rule of morality is not to climb into someone else's bed and into other people's underpants. I think you understand me.
What do you think?
Leaving public questions, let's move on to existential questions. Dostoevsky considered Tatyana Larina to be the moral ideal of a Russian person (in the same sense, we can probably talk about Lisa Kalitina, Natasha Rostova, and if we turn to Soviet literature, then, for example, Polina Vikhrova from the “Russian Forest” by Leonid Leonov, about the heroes “ village prose" etc.). Are these thoughts relevant to us now? In whom today we find moral ideal of the Russian people, and is it even correct to talk about such a concept in our time?
Yana SAFRONOVA:
IN " Pushkin speech» F. M. Dostoevsky, two thoughts are quite obvious on which her rhetoric is built. The first is about Pushkin's all-embracing talent, which combines many national literatures and cultures, and the second one is about the moral ideal of the Russian person, Tatyana Larina. One of the questions proposed for discussion at the seminar of criticism of the Council of Young Writers and the Sota Club is as follows: “Dostoevsky considered Tatyana Larina to be the moral ideal of a Russian person (in the same sense, we can probably talk about Liza Kalitina, Natasha Rostova, and if we turn to Soviet literature, then, for example, Polina Vikhrova from the "Russian Forest" by Leonid Leonov, about the heroes of village prose, etc.). Are these thoughts relevant to us now? In whom today do we find the moral ideal of the Russian people, and is it even correct to talk about such a concept in our time? - on this topic I would like to speculate.
The question, formulated by the Council of Young Writers, lists the classic women's literary images, perceived by the reader over the centuries as morally whole, in a sense, perfect personalities. All the more paradoxically, the statements of former school comrades at our beloved literature lessons five years ago echo in my memory. Of the above heroines, modern schoolchildren have the opportunity to “get acquainted” with only two: Tatyana Larina and Natasha Rostova. Their opinions about both heroines are quite unambiguous, the interpretations correspond to the general cultural background - Tatyana Larina was seen by young people as an “amorphous” and “surrendered” young lady, Natasha Rostova as a “frivolous incubator”. And the designated topic becomes all the more relevant: it is appropriate and correct to talk about the moral ideal in any era, because even if the established norm is interpreted in this way, then the need to put the right emphasis is obvious.
It is rather difficult to reproach Tatyana Larina for passivity, because throughout the whole novel she shows incredible strength spirit. Dostoevsky says this about this overcoming of oneself: “A Russian woman will boldly follow what she believes in, and she has proved it. But she is "given to another and will be faithful to him for a century." To whom, what is true? What are these responsibilities? To this old general, whom she cannot love, because she loves Onegin, but whom she married only because her “mother prayed with tears of spells” and in her offended, wounded soul there was then only despair and no hope, no lumen? Yes, faithful to this general, her husband, honest man, her loving, respecting her and proud of her. Let her “begged her mother,” but she, and no one else, agreed, she, after all, she herself swore to him to be his honest wife. Let her marry him out of desperation, but now he is her husband, and her betrayal will cover him with shame, shame and kill him. And how can a person base his happiness on the misfortune of another? Tatyana Larina accepted the most terrible fight and emerged from it as an absolute winner - that is why Dostoevsky assigns her the highest place on the pedestal: Tatyana defeated her feelings, she, relying on morality, "broke herself."
But two centuries have passed. And as if the need to overcome passions for the sake of duty and honor had lost its relevance, the stage of modernity in all its feminist beauty came strong women with the problems arising from this power. The change of vector could not but be reflected in the literature. Increasingly, on the pages you can meet women struggling (sometimes with windmills), outwardly indifferent, seemingly reinforced concrete. They, unlike Tatyana Larina, are often selfish and see only a source in love, and the power of their nature is determined not by a moral category, but by the ability to make strong-willed decisions in everyday matters.
You can be especially surprised to get acquainted with them on the pages of works written in last years and dedicated to the times of the Soviet Union. Two bestsellers, The Abode by Zakhar Prilepin and Zuleikha Opens Her Eyes by Guzeli Yakhina, which will be discussed below, belong to the category of premium prose, at one time they occupied the highest places in sales ratings. These two novels are often compared on thematic grounds, but I find it particularly amusing that there is a widespread opinion that the main success of both works is the correct distribution of gender roles in them. Indeed, this aspect is important, through it we can trace the emerging trend of dominance of the female image in all respects. It is worth noting that this trend does not exhaust all modern Russian literature, but it is perceptible in prose that is heavy in circulation (and therefore readable).
Notable, for example, is the image of Galina Kucherenko in Zakhar Prilepin's novel The Abode. Galina Kucherenko is a warden in the Solovetsky camps, concurrently - at the beginning of the novel, the mistress of the commandant Fyodor Eichmanis, then - the beloved of the protagonist Artyom Goryainov. And if Dostoevsky wrote about Tatyana: “Maybe Pushkin would have done even better if he had called his poem after Tatyana, and not Onegin, for it is undeniably main character poem,” then in the case of Galina, we can talk about moving the emotional stress of the text, because she dominates the space of the novel, suppressing Artyom with her energy. Galina's tragedy can be compared with Tatyana's situation: Galina loves Eichmanis wholeheartedly, but he is moderately indifferent to her. And then Galina decides to take a risky step, but she does not do it out of good intentions, the relationship with Artyom for her is just revenge on another man: “Yes, I take revenge. I wanted to take revenge - and not with a Chekist, not with an escort, but with this one. Which is all the more spinning before his eyes. Galina, unlike Tatyana, obeys her sensual impulses and does not think about Eichmanis or Artyom.
We can observe similar behavior in the novel “Zuleikha opens her eyes” by Guzeli Yakhina. Zuleikha lives in a village that is dark in all respects with her cruel husband Murtaza. A cruel patriarchy reigns in her family. The terrible time of dispossession comes, which also concerns the Zuleikha family. For disobedience to orders, an employee of the GPU and the future escort of the dispossessed kulaks, Ignatov, kills Murtaza in front of his wife. After a certain number of years of exile, having gone through fire and water with her husband's killer, Zuleikha finds her feminine happiness in him. Submissive at the beginning of the novel, she will even become the head of an artel of hunters, although this kind of activity is completely out of her character. Throughout the text, Zuleikha submits to circumstances and shows herself as a soft woman and useless in critical situations.
The woman here is characterized by external manifestations, which, by the way, are not motivated by anything. Zuleikha does not say to the murderer of her husband, Ignatov: “But I am given to another; I will be faithful to him for a century, ”she makes a choice directly opposite to Tatiana’s choice. Literally: betrays the memory of his breadwinner, legal husband, builds relationships not with anyone, but with his killer. I don’t know if this was done for artistic sharpness and brightness, but the moral ideal turns into an anti-ideal, moral choice is clearly wrong, victory over oneself is a loss to oneself, and the author's conclusion should be ambiguous, but no, this is a happy reunion: “They and Ignatov will see each other and stop<…>and she will feel that the pain that filled the world has not gone away, but has let her exhale. Bright positive color.
Perhaps, it is in relation to Tatyana and Zuleikha that talking about the pettiness of the decision is appropriate. Women are aware main value in life they honor the satisfaction of their desire, no matter what kind: revenge in the first case or sexual desire in the second. The moral integrity of the individual fades into the background, in contrast to Tatyana, the main thing for these women is the situation itself, and not its consequences. Minute results. Galina and Zuleikha are a variant of Tatiana, who chose Onegin at the end of the novel. “No, there are deep and firm souls who cannot consciously give up their shrine to shame, even if only out of infinite compassion. No, Tatyana could not follow Onegin ”- Tatyana could not, but for the given type of modern literary heroine this is the only way out, for her strength is to follow Onegin no matter what, literally, no matter what.
So to the question, in whom do we find the ideal of the Russian people now, I will answer - all in the same Tatyana Larina, Lisa Kalitina, Natasha Rostova, Polina Vikhrova, girls of this type, such a degree of perfection - the concept of morality has not been lost over the centuries, not changed, this category is non-variable. It’s just that today’s “fashionable” heroines, strong in relation to the impotence of the century, shine brighter, they are more convenient for writers, it is easier to convey them - they are not as subtle as Tatyana. “But the manner of looking down made it so that Onegin did not even recognize Tatiana at all when he met her for the first time, in the wilderness, in the modest image of a pure, innocent girl, who was so shy before him from the first time. He was unable to distinguish completeness and perfection in the poor girl, and indeed, perhaps, he took her for a "moral embryo." This is she, an embryo, this is after her letter to Onegin! If there is anyone who is a moral embryo in the poem, it is, of course, he himself, Onegin, and this is indisputable "- and so modern reader(and the writer) I see such Onegin: when the new Tatyana appears to him in literature, he may simply not see her. The task of criticism at this stage is to correctly place the accents, not to pass off anti-heroines as strong Russian women, to be able to convey that strength is in morality, and not in overcoming it.
Andrew GALAMAGA:
A RUSSIAN NOVEL FROM "EVGENIY ONEGIN" TO "DOCTOR ZHIVAGO" IN THE LIGHT OF DOSTOYEVSKY'S SPEECH OF PUSHKIN
In the beginning, we give a few well-known, but necessary for further understanding, quotes.
First, let's turn to V.G. Belinsky.
In the ninth article of the work “The Works of Alexander Pushkin”, the critic notes: “Pushkin’s feat is great, that he was the first in his novel to poetically reproduce Russian society of that time, and in the person of Onegin and Lensky, he showed his main, that is, the male side; but the feat of our poet is almost higher in that he was the first to poetically reproduce, in the person of Tatyana, a Russian woman.
Emphasis has already been placed here. Onegin and Lensky are masculine, and therefore the main side of society. Tatyana is assigned a deliberately secondary, service role; its purpose is to shade the images of the main characters in the novel.
Even more clearly, Belinsky builds a gender hierarchy dear to his heart in an article for the Petersburg Collection Published by N. Nekrasov: “One might notice, and not without reason, that Varenka’s face<Доброселовой>somehow not quite definite and finished; but, apparently, such is the fate of Russian women, that Russian poetry does not get along with them, and nothing more! We do not know who is to blame here, whether Russian women or Russian poetry; but we know that only Pushkin managed, in the person of Tatyana, to capture a few features of a Russian woman, and even then (emphasis added by me. - A.G.) he needed to make her a secular lady in order to impart certainty and originality to her character.
This reservation - "and even then" - involuntarily brings to mind the brilliant maxim of Gogol's character: "All are Christ-sellers. There is only one decent person there: the prosecutor; and even that one, to tell the truth, is a pig.”
The apotheosis of the pejorative attitude towards the female image, of course, can serve as a verdict passed by a frantic critic on the unlucky Eugene: “Yes, this criminal offense- do not value the love of a moral embryo! .. "
And only in “A Look at Russian Literature of 1847” Belinsky suddenly softens his discriminatory views: “The women of Mr. Goncharov are living creatures, true to reality. This is news in our literature.”
Really? Is that really news?
Now is the time to turn to the “Pushkin speech” by F.M. Dostoevsky, in which the writer managed, in our opinion, to comprehend the gender issue in Russian literature much more impartially.
First, let us recall what characteristics Dostoevsky distributes Pushkin's heroes"male sex".
“In Aleko, Pushkin has already found and ingeniously noted that unfortunate wanderer in native land, that historical Russian sufferer ... "Here it is, a phenomenon in our literature" proud man", who won the hearts of young ladies and literary critics: “All this, of course, is fantastic, but the“ proud man ”is real and aptly captured. For the first time he was captured by Pushkin.
However, the romantic, in its own way even grotesque Aleko is just a prototype of a genuine, realistic hero: “This is even more clearly expressed in Eugene Onegin, a poem no longer fantastic, but tangibly real.”
It turns out that the realistic hero experiences exactly the same problems as his romantic predecessor: “In the wilderness, in the heart of his homeland,<Онегин>Of course not at home, he is not at home. He does not know what to do here, and feels as if he were visiting himself.
Who is opposed to this universal despondency? But who: “Tatyana is not like that: this is a solid type, standing firmly on its own soil. She is deeper than Onegin and, of course, smarter than him. She already with her noble instinct foresees where and in what the truth is, which was expressed in the finale of the poem. Perhaps Pushkin would have done even better if he had named his poem after Tatyana and not Onegin, for she is undoubtedly the main character of the poem.
After reading the novel, it is easy to note that Tatyana's female pride is a hundred times stronger than Onegin's male pride, who, not by chance, received a ruthless characterization from our heroine: "Isn't he a parody?"
But let's go further. Appeal to the most iconic, key works Russian literature forces us to draw a paradoxical conclusion. The main characteristic property of the Russian novel is that a woman always stands in the center. And the woman is the main character. Whether Russian writers are more condescending to a woman, more merciful and tender. Whether male curiosity is affecting, since the vast majority of Russian novelists belong to the stronger sex. Revealing the character, creating the image of a woman is much more interesting than once again writing out the same eternal moral wanderer.
So, without going into unnecessary details, let's try to list, undoubtedly, the most outstanding examples of the Russian novel, in order to make sure that our thesis is not groundless.
Let's talk right away. N.V. Gogol in his great dead souls ah" there is not a single "positive" female image, and this is a fact. But Gogol's work, as you know, is not a novel, but a poem; and therefore does not belong to the subject of our consideration.
But here we are opening the "Hero of Our Time" M.Yu. Lermontov. Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin is a typical " extra person"(according to the apt word of Turgenev). Even at the events in which he takes a lively part, he looks as if from the sidelines. And what, this character is boring? Still not boring. Extremely boring. (Sorry for the hidden quote from Venedikt Erofeev). Whether it's Bela's business, Princess Mary. Their images are written brightly, convexly. Why, even Vera is more interesting than Pechorin.
Let us return, following Belinsky, to F.M. Dostoevsky. Who main character? Is it really Makar Devushkin, this sluggish, weak-willed type? Of course not. The true hero of the novel is, of course, Varenka Dobroselova. You will envy her patience with which she gives Makar Devushkin a chance to take matters into his own hands. But at the decisive moment, it is she who takes upon herself the burden of making a decision, leaving our poor sufferer with nothing.
And here is I.S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov is a pitiful poseur, and in this he is ridiculous. It seems to me that the next episode should serve as the key moment of the novel, revealing the true essence of Bazarov.
“Sometimes Bazarov went to the village and, bantering as usual, entered into a conversation with some peasant ...
- What were you talking about? - asked him another peasant of middle years and a gloomy look, from a distance, from the threshold of his hut, who was present at his conversation with Bazarov. - About the arrears - what?
- What about the arrears, my brother! answered the first peasant, and in his voice there was no longer a trace of patriarchal melodiousness, but, on the contrary, some kind of careless severity was heard, - so, he chatted something; I wanted to scratch my tongue. It is known, master; does he understand?
- Where to understand! answered the other peasant, and, shaking their hats and pulling down their sashes, they both began to talk about their affairs and needs. Alas! contemptuously shrugging his shoulder, able to talk to peasants Bazarov (as he boasted in an argument with Pavel Petrovich), this self-confident Bazarov did not even suspect that in their eyes he was still something like a pea jester ... "
Your will, but in this way, the author cannot characterize the hero, whom he considers the main one. Not far from him and all the Kirsanovs - Nikolai Petrovich, Pavel Petrovich, Arkady Nikolaevich. Against their background, Anna Sergeevna Odintsova is a brilliant image, revealed in fullness; with all the contradictions that only further emphasize the depth of the image created by the writer.
L.N. Tolstoy. Anna Karenina is a rare case of an adequate title for a novel. Everything is clear enough here. Alexei Kirillovich Vronsky, judging strictly, is a complete insignificance in comparison with Anna.
But even "Resurrection", although the novel is far-fetched and sketchy, arranges the characters in order. Dmitri Ivanovich Nekhlyudov, a prisoner of conscience, inwardly squealing with happiness, finding freedom from his stupid, self-imposed obligations. But Katyusha Maslova, with all the caricature of the image, does things; which, unlike the male character, reveals a personality in her.
One more caveat. "War and Peace" is an epic novel, that is, in essence a poem, and, therefore, is also beyond the scope of our consideration.
Let's turn to I.A. Goncharov. "Oblomov". Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and Andrei Ivanovich Stolz. Both characters are straight, like axes in a flat coordinate system. On this battlefield, Olga Sergeevna Ilyinskaya is incomparably more textured and multifaceted.
And here is N.S. Leskov. "Nowhere." Reading and getting confused male characters. And soon after reading and completely forget. But Liza and Jenny are remembered forever. The same is true in the novel "On Knives". Of all the heroes, only Larisa and Glafira remain with the reader.
Separately, it is worth noting. A.N. Ostrovsky created a gallery of characters of a Russian woman, about which volumes have been written. And despite the fact that Ostrovsky is not a prose writer, but a playwright, his attitude to female images can serve, although indirectly, but the clearest confirmation of the tradition on which all the most outstanding works of Russian classics are based.
Could be an exception to the rule "The Life of Arseniev" by I.A. Bunin. Here there is a clear attempt to reverse the trend. But with regret, or without it at all, it must be admitted that the attempt to bring Aleksey Alexandrovich Arsenyev as the true protagonist, and push Lika Obolenskaya into the background, ended in complete failure ...
Claim number three. Sholokhov. " Quiet Don". Again, an epic novel, which we omit from our analysis.
No matter how you feel about the novel by V.V. Nabokov's "Lolita", but here too female character, which is reflected in the title, is central. Humbert Humbert is just another sufferer, albeit with a Freudian twist.
M.A. Bulgakov. "Master and Margarita". With all the absurdities of the novel, it also fits perfectly into our concept. Both the Master and Ivan Ponyrev the Homeless are completely primitive in comparison with Margarita Nikolaevna.
Finally, B.L. Parsnip. "Doctor Zhivago". Yuri Andreevich Zhivago. This restless, always looking for and always finding nothing character has always annoyed me. I even had to say that the poems attached to the novel could not have been written by Yuri Zhivago. With the exception of perhaps the most popular, pop and parody “A candle was burning on the table ...” Not far from Yuri, Pasha (Pavel Pavlovich) Antipov also left. And again, once again we find that female images– Tonya Gromeko and Lara Guichard are like shining stars against the backdrop of lifeless planets.
I would like to take this opportunity to express one more consideration about Doctor Zhivago. In this novel, Pasternak acted as a kind of anti-Gogol.
Let us recall the very beginning of "Dead Souls": "Entry<Чичикова>made absolutely no noise in the city and was not accompanied by anything special; only two Russian peasants, standing at the door of the tavern opposite the hotel, made some remarks, which, however, referred more to the carriage than to the person sitting in it. “You see,” one said to the other, “what a wheel! what do you think, will that wheel, if it happens, reach Moscow or not?” "He'll get there," replied the other. “But I don’t think he will reach Kazan?” “He won’t get to Kazan,” answered another. This conversation ended. Moreover, when the britzka drove up to the hotel, a young man met in white kanifas trousers, very narrow and short, in a tailcoat with attempts on fashion, from under which was visible a shirt-front, fastened with a Tula pin with a bronze pistol. The young man turned back, looked at the carriage, held his cap, which was almost blown off by the wind, and went on his way.
And after such a super-detailed description, both the peasants and the young man will disappear, never to appear again on the pages of the poem.
Pasternak is exactly the opposite. The smallest detail will definitely play a role later. Perhaps this introduces artificiality into the novel. But at the same time originality and, I would say, even uniqueness.
Finally advice young talents who decided to write a work that could someday claim the title of a great Russian novel. From the first lines, designate the main character - a man in an eternal and, as it turns out later, fruitless search for the meaning of being. Then gradually introduce the heroine, against the background of which the hero will fade away step by step until it fades completely and becomes completely “superfluous”. So, according to Turgenev.
