kiss by constantin brancusi


The Ultimate Taboo


The Extreme Perversion of a Heterosexual Monogamous Couple


Natalija Grgorinic & Ognjen Raden





What first comes to one’s mind when observing a pair, two people, one male, one female, about the purpose of them being together? Is it really necessary to broaden the context slightly and say the two of them are not in any sort of blood relation, before one can come to the “natural” conclusion that they must be attempting to have sex, are contemplating on having sex, had just had sex, will necessarily have sex…?

The fact that those two people stand side by side can be justified exclusively through sexual activity. The reason for their very existence in respect to one another can be found only in the interchange of bodily fluids resulting in a new life. They are not people themselves, they are mere prerequisites, a pair of laboratory utensils, a pipette and a Petrie dish required for the experiment of the miracle of creation. This fact alone makes a heterosexual monogamous pair both the extreme perversion and the ultimate taboo known to our society.

In the broadest possible sense a taboo can be defined as something everybody knows everything about, but no one talks about. This could be used to argue that a taboo is a knowledge a person acquires through no actual discourse, but rather through absence of any discourse, a knowledge avoided in such a wide circle that the gap, the space left uncovered by conventional discourse in itself provides the best education.

It is the purpose of this text to show how and why and by whom are those universal, consensual blank spaces generated. It is also the purpose of this text to show that this is by no means a consequence of any random sequence of events but rather a product of what is called the Western Civilization with the individual as its building block.

An individual could be regarded as a person singular both in number and in the identity[1] and it is exactly this singularity of identity that is challenged when such an individual becomes a member of a pair.

A pair can, in return, be defined as a group consisting of any two persons, complete with their separate identities, working on the development of their mutual, third identity. A pair is that only unit of the society in which an individual represents a majority. There can be no pair where there is dominance of one individual over the other, of one sex over the other. A pair as an active social unit is possible only in a society in which both sexes, and all persons have equal rights.

The society is a medium of communication between members of the society, individuals or groups of individuals, but, at the same time, it is a medium of control which the system applies onto the members of the society.

The system[2] is an abstract organism, or an abstract mechanism of control. It acquires its existence through control and in part corresponds to Foucault’s idea of power[3].


In this context sexuality can be viewed as a super-social attribute, in the same way nationality or religious affiliation are super-social attributes. Social attributes would be characteristics by which persons determine their position within the society, measurable abilities such as quality or quantity of work, by which persons have a legitimate opportunity to ascend in the society. Super-social attributes on the other hand would be those which a person recognizes as determining for him or herself, but those which should not influence his or her position within the society. Super-social attributes are public in the sense that they correspond to institutions (church) or larger groups (nation), but are private in the sense that they fall under the domain of the personal – one has the exclusive right to choose which congregation he or she belongs to. On the other hand, with the social attributes (such as work) decisions and evaluation are made in consensus with the entire community.



sexuality – system


The aim of the system is to reduce all super-social attributes to the level of social attributes in order to be able to control them. The more repressive the system gets the more likely will an individual be forced to make his or her religious, national or sexual orientation public. This does not mean that the system wishes to control religion or sexuality, the repression is not aimed at sexuality, but at the individual, and thus there is no repressed sexuality, but only repressed individuals which make up the society.

This is evident in the modern (Western) society where there is no obvious limit to the discourse on sexuality. Quite the contrary, it is perceived as a form of taboo to practice sexual behavior in silence and secrecy, not to discuss sexuality is the most obscene thing one can do, and in return the forced discourse becomes a form of repression. Instead of being told what not to do, think, or say, members of this society are being programmed to do, think, and say exactly what has been expected of them. Therein lies the seeming paradox of the American society, where on one side there is a strong neo-puritanical initiative from the government to sanitize sexual discourse (Federal Communications Commission bans the very word “fuck” as obscene), and on the other media conglomerates, such as Viacom, consider launching homosexual television networks. The fact is that in both cases it is the system that is on the winning side. In both cases of, either “cleaning up” the discourse or broadening it up, the system profits from the control it establishes over the issue of sexuality, both prohibition and authorization function as tools of manipulation with something over which the system has no factual jurisdiction. By making it either public, or labeling it illegal the system is trying to dislodge the attribute of sexuality from the place it should hold in respect to the society as a super-social or private attribute.

This is how in a consumerist society sexuality becomes the object of trade[4], both as an “illegal substance” and as a conventional commodity. In that respect there is no difference between prostitution and pornography, they are equally sources of profit, something which unregulated sexuality could never be. In the same process sexuality is devoid of any spirituality, the kind it possesses in Eastern cultures[5]. Eastern sexuality has a spiritual dimension, a sexual act is a spiritual act as well, it is an act of completion, while in its Western form it becomes an act of separation in the way that a worker within the confines of the capitalist society becomes separated from its labor. The system in the Western society took very good care to divide different aspects of a sexual act, making it an object of profit, a means of reproduction or an issue of political debate. It is under the rule of such a system that terms “obscene” and “non-marketable” come to mean the same thing. 



individual – sexuality


The perfect individual is the perfect consumer. The perfect individual is not capable of doing anything for him or herself. Everything the perfect individual does is for the system. The illusion created by the system is that an individual does everything for money. In return, the system provides for such an individual. Money is the currency of the system, and not the currency of the exchange of the goods.

In such a context engaging in a sexual activity equals acquiring an automobile. In order to operate a motor vehicle an individual needs a permit issued by the system. The institution of marriage is the attempt of the system to regulate sexual behavior in the same manner. Both the driver’s license and the marriage license mean that an individual is ready to claim the authority over his or herself, but it’s not the driving or the sexual intercourse the system has anything against. It’s the fact that an individual by coming of age becomes less controllable that the system resents.

The similarity between operating a motor vehicle and having sex is that they both could be considered forms of communication. While participating in traffic a person is exposed to complete control, there are traffic signs and traffic lights, police and rules, cameras on intersections. In order to achieve the same control over participation in a sexual act the system has implemented the division between pleasure and meaning in the sexual activity. Sexual pleasure becomes a meaning for itself, whereas meaning of the sexual act is connected with love, obligation, commitment. This way the system solved at least one half of its problem. Those interested in sex purely for pleasure will find lights of brothels and striptease clubs as guiding as traffic lights, pornography and medical textbooks will provide the driving manuals, pimps and priests will serve as law enforcement officers and those who indulge in the actual intercourse will film themselves of their own free will. But what is with the other half?



pair – sexuality


Sexuality appears to be the only legitimate context for the existence of a pair, the connection between sexuality and reproduction functions as the only acceptable social role of a pair. This is for purely biological reasons most obvious on the example of a heterosexual pair.

In the discourse on sexuality one could perceive a long-term heterosexual relationship as the most extreme perversion regardless to the course it might take in view of reproduction. What is more perverse than two people insisting on having sex exclusively with each other, all the while trying to or not minding to have children? Maybe just a pair having sex while attempting not to conceive a child. In comparison to such behavior the usual recreational promiscuity seems benign. A married man visiting a prostitute does so to relieve his marriage of the unnecessary sexual tensions which only get in the way of procreation. A woman seeking a short term sexual diversion outside of her more serious long term relationship does so for the same reason as the man does, if not to acquire experience and expertise in sex which would enable her to be more receptive of her official mate, as well as to prove to herself that by having a child with him she is making the best possible choice. And if these examples seem to be a bit outdated, one can always take a look at the more modern practice of applying commercial, consumerist principle on the life in a couple. Here one is under constant obligation to switch between partners according to the fashion industry’s rule of “trying something new” every season. People in our lives are scheduled to appear as stars do in popular sitcoms. If a good citizen supporting a nation’s, let’s say, automobile industry, is required to purchase a new model of a car every two or three years, why wouldn’t a good citizen contributing to the same nation’s GDP, invest in establishing a new “long term relationship” in the exact same intervals?[6]

The most common qualification a heterosexual monogamous relationship can earn is “boring”. And it certainly seems to be boring when observed from the outside (even celebrity couples extremely rarely perform any sexual acts in public). The second most frequent argument would be that it’s not “natural”, especially in the context of the modern way of life, where we cannot spend the entire twenty four hours of each day with just one person, we have work to do, places to go, other people to meet, and no guarantee at all that one of those other people isn’t a “more true love” than the one we already have. But it’s the system which is constantly viewing couples from the outside, and it’s the system which is controlling the concept of what is boring or not, and what is natural or not. In its attempt to “come to life” (in the most Frankensteinian sense of the words) the system places itself between any two people, with the desire to become the only friend, only partner, only lover and only master to the each of them. Thus, in order to break up the human couple the system strives to label it as unattractive, boring, unnatural, not marketable, obscene.            



individual – system


The system recognized that in order to survive it doesn’t need the pair. Through process of institutionalizing (adopting into itself) it has managed to by-pass the process of purely biological reproduction. For this purpose the system has institutionalized the individual, since it requires him or her as a biological basis for the manufacturing of the population. Groups and ideas have been institutionalized as well. Groups such as those against the woman’s right to abortion. Because in a highly individualized society the expecting mother is not an indivisible individual, she can be opened up like a Russian babushka doll, and inside of her we find a perfect individual according to the requirements of the system – the fetus. Ideas such as that it is an additional and separate crime to harm a fetus (“Unborn Victims of Violence Act” signed by US President George W. Bush on April Fools’ Day, 2004.).

There is practically no independent science, since it is generally accepted that on the present technological level any sort of scientific research can only be done with funds originating either from the government or from the corporations which support it. The system has employed science, namely medicine (but also biology, genetics etc.) to translate a natural process into a technological process – with artificial insemination, the system has found a way to completely exclude the couple from the process of reproduction. Thus, working its way around the couple, the system is one step closer to achieving a society of complete individuals. This would be a society of exclusively single parent families functioning as psychological cloning machines where it is not the genetic imprint that gets passed along, but rather the culture of solitude and reliance on not the other human being but on the cold shoulder of the system[7].

The size of the threat presented by the misuse of institutionalized ideas is obvious in the case of a strong movement, even one aimed against the prevailing system, such as is the movement of feminism[8].

The old patriarchy can very well be rebuilt in the name of the independence of the individual. Women are biologically more preconditioned for reproduction or technologically more applicable than men, since they are in the direct physical connection with the process of bearing new life. Many women will always, or at least for some considerable time, have the need to have children, and the system will facilitate their reproductive urges by offering artificial insemination. At the same time the feminist ideology will provide psychological incentive and support for women to become single parents. Providing for the children on their own with the participation of the system, they will become more dependable on the system (until they are completely dependable). On the other hand men, serving merely as sperm donors, will have their hands free to be even more actively involved in institutions of government and control. In this way it is quite plausible to imagine that the division, which the feminist movement had fought against, between women as mere child bearers and men as providers, will become even deeper.

In the same manner the movement for the rights of homosexuals can be institutionalized[9]. Once adopted by the system the fact that homosexual couples are biologically incapable of having children propels them into the higher class of the consumerist society since they are able to work longer hours and need to spend only on themselves. In the context of the new futurist patriarchy, homosexual couples, and eventually homosexual individuals will be allowed to acquire offspring not by biological means, but by law, financial status and technology.

What’s more, society will divide into homosexual patriarchy[10], on one side, and on the other, single heterosexual women will serve as the reproductive base for the system, together with single heterosexual men representing the poor lower class.

This hypothetical argument is by no means directed against women, or homosexuals, or any particular group fighting for equal rights. It is directed against the very thing they are fighting against – the system of extreme individualism. Because it is quite easy to predict that, at the time when an equivalent of the artificial uterus becomes widely available, the system will take over the reproductive function from human beings and be able to produce as many subjects as it requires. The effect of that is that every member of the society, whether man, woman or a child, becomes a child of the system[11], an individual to be provided for by the system, and consequently completely controlled by the system as well.

In this context single people function more as halves, and the system imposes on them in an attempt to become their other half. The system doesn’t want an individual to have unsupervised sex with the other individual, it doesn’t want an individual to have a long-term relationship with the other individual, doesn’t want an individual to become a member of the autonomous working unit represented in a pair. The strategy of the system is to transform the pair into a mythical entity, so that it can force a singular person into a relationship with itself. In the ideal state  (according to the system) everybody would work, live, love with the state and it (the system, the state) would provide for them. The illusion of the system is that one needs the state, the governing structure. It is the abstract bureaucratic apparatus which aims to get in-between people to serve as a conductor (the transmitter) – in the present stage of the evolution of the system. Its final goal is that it becomes the only other member of a pair, the sole recipient of the life energy, feeding on the living, itself dead and cold, like a vampire.   





Within the current system a pair is recognized exclusively as a transition form or unit between an individual and a family. A fully functional pair (especially heterosexual and monogamous) is the worst possible participant in the economy, because it is the most self-sufficient unit in the society. Two persons within a pair are able to satisfy the majority of their needs without making it a question of production or consumption. The satisfaction of sexual desire within a pair doesn’t generate any profit for the industry or the system. The satisfaction of needs for contact, communication, exchange of ideas within a pair excludes psychoanalysts, priests, educators, media which are all more or less unwitting agents of the system. The space between two members of a pair is a blind spot for the system, it is the place of the least surveillance in the modern society, the least control[12]. The system knows – a pair needs to be broken.

In return, a pair acts as an anarchist cell towards the system, with its own rules, uncontrollable, constantly challenging the authority of the system, if not its very existence. A pair makes everything intimate, private – the product, the service, the communication – and by that is harming the economical principle. If it’s intimate, it cannot be profitable.

The economy hasn’t yet begun to observe a pair as a consumer unit, and it’s through the consumer division (like separate department store sections for each sex) that the system deepens the gap between men and women. The essence of every piece of advertisement is to make an individual feel unsatisfied, insecure and incomplete in order for him or her to purchase satisfaction, security and fulfillment in the form of the product. The only extent to which the marketing industry has gone in approaching a pair is to offer them a travel package for two, possibly making a sublimated message that a pair needs to go away, disappear from the face of the society completely.

A pair is an enemy to the system, economy and to any profitable sexual discourse. What’s more, every pair develops an interaction between two individuals, which is direct competition to, or even annulment of the outside system. It is a pair that represents the core of human communication, a pair as an embodiment of the dialogue. At the same time the system is founded on control, on monologue which is why it is constructed in the way to seek out any communication and destroy or contaminate it.

In an attempt to control the pair, the system has taken on itself to deal with all the “by-products” of a heterosexual monogamous couple. Already the system has laws governing rights, behavior, obligations of children, and men and women separately. It has even singled out the sexual activity and made it an object of industry, medical science, legislature and law enforcement. But so far the system has failed to charge a heterosexual monogamous couple for its existence, either financially or legally.

Instead it has succeeded in isolating and ignoring it which is why in the today’s society a pair has virtually no political, philosophical or religious function. How many couples work or are stimulated to work together? How many pairs are allowed to jointly obtain any public office? Which official religion has a priest and a priestess standing side by side in its ceremony? How many are there philosophies written in a true dialogue? [13]



pair – individual


It is only within a pair that a woman and a man can truly be equal. Overall, the society is predominantly constructed of divisions instigated by the system. This is because an individual is rendered incapable of recognizing any interest of the entire community. The effect which atomizing a society into individuals[14] has had is basically that an individual follows his or her own interests. Only if rights or privileges of an individual are broken does he or she seek an interest group or a community. And if someone else’s rights and not ours are violated do we not first try to either isolate that individual as a person separate from us, or perceive him or her as a member of some other group, disabling ourselves to identify with his or her problems? Nowhere in the society does an individual present a majority, which makes him or her a perfect object of manipulation for the system. In fact if the system wants to manipulate an individual it only needs to provide some more individuals (a group of different interests) to either openly oppose or to attempt to pacify him or her. The function of a group an individual is either inside or outside of is to relieve him or her of any identity, in order to facilitate the control practiced by the system.

A pair on the other hand has its own protective identity which equally represents two individual identities. Only in pair there is a complete consensus, everywhere else in the society there can be only a compromise. In consensus both parties can realize their goals in the totality of the association. Within a larger group an individual must, more or less, sacrifice his or her rights for the will of the majority to be performed.

An individual is always in search of the other. Regardless of the sexual orientation an individual is both biologically and psychologically inclined to become a part of a pair. The duration of a pair is conditioned by the willingness of the individuals to practice consensus. There are no limitations as to how long an individual must stay in a pair, or how many pairs will he or she choose to constitute during a lifetime. The society should be obliged to recognize, facilitate and support any and all forms of a pair within itself, and not be affected by the model of a pair proscribed by the system. A married couple by no means implies a pair. Two people working eight to ten hours a day at separate jobs, filling their free time with different or even opposing interests, who only happen to share their bed for eight hours a day of separate oblivion and occasional (pseudo)reproductive activity do not constitute a pair. A pair is not defined by gender but based on free will of two individuals committed to expressing their combined identities.

The same way a pair is not a transitional form from two individuals to a family, an individual shouldn’t be regarded as an entity without identity, a mere stage between nonexistence and an existence within the confines of a pair.    





A truly free society would be the one consisted of all forms of human existence without intrusion of the system. Right now this is not the case. Right now we are witnessing the dictatorship of the number one, or actually the dictatorship of the system in the name of the one. So instead of having the system of control we need to work on implementing the community of communication. As the fight for equality of sexes continues there is a new cause to fight for being formed – the fight for equality of identities is only just beginning.

Among the present human rights the right to an identity needs to be included. A person, or persons have the right to choose and shape their identities as they seem fit in accordance with other people’s identities. The right to an identity needs to be acknowledged since it is the main object of communication in the society. An individual or a pair is not able to communicate without an identity. In fact, it is impossible to prove one’s existence without acknowledging one’s identity. The prevailing system is actively working on erasing people’s identities. Divisions inside of a society serve not to strengthen these identities but to eradicate them. A person who possesses an identity feels in contact with the rest of the society. A person who doesn’t acknowledge the problems of other members of the society as his or her own has no identity to communicate with.

The system needs to represent the service and not the authority. To neutralize the repressive system free communication must become the basis of the society. The society of the future needs to be a society of communication and not a society of control.


Work cited:

1) Michel Foucault, “The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction”, Vintage Books, New York, 1990.

2) Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari, “Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia”, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2003.

3) Sarah Dening, “The Mithology of Sex”, Macmillan, New York, 1996.

4) Reimut Reiche, “Sexuality and Class Struggle”, Praeger Publishers, New York – Washington, 1971.


[1] Important to bear in mind is the strong distinction between “individual” and “individuality”. It is quite possible to be an individual with no particular individuality, and to claim that one implies the other would be the same as to say that having an identity makes a person identical with any other person having any other identity.

[2] Throughout this text the system is referred to as one would refer to a living entity. There are several reasons for that. First, all emanations or incarnations of the system seem to share the same identity, same history and the same governing principles, which leaves no doubt that there has been one and the same system in place from the days of Roman Empire until the present day. This sameness is evident in the fact that all “different” systems tend to practice their authority over the human beings for whose benefit they are purportedly constructed. Secondly, this system is consisted from the people who more or less unwittingly enforce it. But while the individual servants of the system die, the system itself survives, and while people acquire certain characteristics from the system, it, in return, is not immune to some very “human” fallibilities. In fact it has learned to utilize the consciousness of the people who serve it to the extent that they themselves think of only what is good for the system they represent, disregarding what would be good for themselves and the fellow members of the community they belong to. The truth is the system has robbed them of their consciousness making it its own. It is this consciousness that has made the system come to life and made it realize that it is in fact alive, and anything or anyone aware of one’s own existence arranges this existence in attempt to make it ceaseless. So, yes, the system is alive, and what’s more, it doesn’t want to die.  

[3] “… power is tolerable only on condition that it mask a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to its ability to hide its own mechanisms. Would power be accepted if it were entirely cynical? For it, secrecy is not in the nature of an abuse; it is indispensable to its operation. Not only because power imposes secrecy on those whom it dominates, but because it is perhaps just as indispensable to the latter: would they accept it if they did not see it as a mere limit placed on their desires, leaving a measure for freedom – however slight – intact? Power as a pure limit set on freedom is, at least in our society, the general form of its acceptability.” (Foucault, 86)

[4] “The whole sphere of sexuality is today biased in favour of the system. Sex is reduced to a commodity, the human body is de-eroticised, and a false sexuality imposed on life in general and on people’s relation to their products; the free expression of instinctual drives is turned into controlled aggression.” (Reiche, 25)

[5] “Unlike their modern Western equivalents, the purpose of these manuals [Kama Sutra, Ananga Ranga, The Perfumed Garden, etc.] was to show people how to unite body and spirit through the sexual encounter. The underlying philosophy was that regular sexual experience of a high quality was essential in order to be a complete human being.” (Dening, 110)

[6] The very beginning of a relationship between two people is the stage in which they are most inclined to consume in order to compensate for the insecurity each of them feels with his or her new partner. An already established stable relationship does not rely on hysterical shopping as a way of communication.

[7] This is not an argument against science, or artificial insemination, as it is not an argument against single parent families. The practice of surrogate motherhood has its benefits and its necessary function in the society. None of these concepts are ethically dubious themselves. But up till now it was not possible for an individual to reproduce him or herself alone. By institutionalising the achievements of medical science the system has found its way to control and possibly program the future society, where every family would be consisted of a parent working his or her entire day to provide for such a family, and a child who is left to the care of the system.

[8] There is the infamous example of the tobacco industry employing women’s liberation movement to promote smoking. Edward Bernays, one of the first public relation wizards in the 1920’s organized a march of young women with lit cigarettes as a part of the New York's Easter parade. The newspapers reported on the event as an actual piece of news with girls waving their “torches of liberty” in the name of women’s independence.

Even Foucault puts the system (power) in direct connection to any form of resistance to it. “Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never in the position of exteriority in relation to power.” (Foucault, 95)

[9] The system institutionalises only ideas or parts of ideas which it can misuse for its own survival.

[10] Even in case of female homosexuality, since the term “patriarchy” here is used to depict the rule according to the traditional male principle, and not necessarily the actual rule of male individuals.

[11] Would it be too easy to blame everything on Freud? After all it is him who provided the system with the concept of parental incompetence, blame, or responsibility, it is Freud who traced every psychological disturbance in any person to his or her parents. The mother and the father are the chief culprits, and all our problems originate from them – this is the doctrine embraced by the system, because it is the most direct incrimination of the pair as the unfit parents. Since parenthood is the only justification for the existence of the pair, proving that it doesn’t function in its only role makes it automatically obsolete. At the same time such an approach enables the system to regard an individual as a minor, as a child that will never grow up, his or her development blocked, denied by the existence of the “evil” pair of parents, and the system as his or her champion or guardian.

The fact is that feminism misused by the system serves not as to make men and women equal on the level still dominated by men. By replacing a pair with an individual as a reproductive unit, the system will effectively make men and women equal on the level from which the true feminism tries to elevate the female sex. With the help of science the system will more or less be able to literary impregnate both men and women; the individual will be put in the relationship where the system itself will take over the traditional role of a husband, the father, while an individual, regardless of sex, will serve as its wife, the mother. Through this, the system is openly transcending every taboo it has ever constructed for its subjects. This determination of the system to have a more intimate contact with an individual proves its perverse, paedophile, incestuous nature, since it, at the same time, needs an individual as a unit of reproduction, while treating it as a child, a minor.

This relates to Reiche’s idea of “perpetual puberty” (84-85).

“… while this process of education into independence is taking place within the family, counter processes are also working on the child from the outside, though in a disguised form, and using the influence of the family itself. The purpose of these is to keep him in a state of dependence so that he can be controlled and manipulated. The fact that people become independent of their families earlier today sheds light on this process rather than contradicts it. It is indicative that the family is ceasing to play its role, more especially when this ‘independence’ is not a genuine result of education given within the family, but represents the victory of external educative influences working against it, and especially when the individual’s independence of his family is really increased dependence on other sources of authority.

When this happens, it means that the young person has not achieved the transformation into adulthood which is the classic goal of puberty, but is held back in perpetual puberty.”


[12] “Loving means not allowing the directness of one’s own feelings to be interfered with by the ever present forces of mediation, of economy; fidelity mediates love to itself, and turns it into obstinate force of resistance… Sublimated social interests have the power to condition sexual desire, and make now this, now that among the thousandfold objects sanctioned by the system appear spontaneously attractive. But where a person remains faithful to his original love, he is able to stand up to the gravitational pull of society, despite all the intrigues with which it is bound to try and capture him” (Theodor W. Adorno, from aphorism “Constanze”,” Minima Moralia”, Reiche, 163)

[13] In order to corroborate this argument we have conducted a rather simple, but in our view very effective research. We have compared all the covers (well over 4000) of the “Time” magazine, to see how often they featured couples or pairs of people, and what kind of relationships did those pair represent. From December 31st, 1923 till February 16th, 2004 there had been the total of 182 pairs. Out of these 182, only 56 were pairs of persons of opposite sex, 71 were pairs of people collaborating, 50 pairs of people in direct opposition or conflict. Ninety-two (more than a half) of pairs were pairs of (male) politicians (most frequently candidates for the US presidency and their running mates, or US presidents with their vice-presidents). Second most frequent group were pairs of movie actors joined by films they collaborated on. Out of pairs consisted of persons of opposite sex less than a half were actual heterosexual couples, and majority of those were members of royalty (such a King George V and Queen Mary on May 30th, 1927) or members of “new royalty” (Eddie Cox and Tricia Nixon on June 14th, 1971). An anonymous heterosexual pair was used a number of times to depict different issues or themes such as “Sex and the Teenager” (August 21st, 1972.), “Old Age” (June 2nd, 1975.), “Herpes – Today’s Scarlet Fever” (August 2nd, 1982.) or “Why Are Men and Women Different” (January 20th, 1992. with a very young girl and a boy flexing his nonexistent muscles). It is indicative that even the US presidents who have by far appeared most frequently on the cover of the “Time” rarely did so with their wives. The only appearance of the former US president Bill Clinton with Hillary Rodham Clinton was at the time of the Whitewater scandal in which she was implicated (March 21st, 1994.). And the only other time he ever again showed up in the company of a woman at the “Time” cover was with Monica Lewinsky (February 2nd, 1998.). Actually, once all the couples who have worked together but didn’t live together, and those who have lived together but didn’t work together are subtracted from the number of heterosexual couples on the covers of the “Time”, the only man and woman who have lived and worked together remain William Masters and Virginia Johnson, the pioneers of human sexual behaviour research (May 25th, 1970.), unless one wants to include Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman (July 5th, 1999.). The blatant disregard if not intentional policy of denial of the fact that the majority of world’s population functions within some sort of, if not a pair, but at least a community is only mirrored on the covers of the “Time” magazine. And the course of such policy is maybe best illustrated by the cover from February 16th, 2004. featuring George W. Bush not face to face with his main opponent or his vice-president, or his wife, but with himself (“Does Bush Have a Credibility Gap?”) as the image of extreme individualism. (                  

[14] In their “Anti-Oedipus” Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari have recognized the fact that the individual does not function fully as a unit of the society simply because it is too easily controlled by the system. An individual in the traditional sense is incapable of dialogue which is the basis of any communication. The lack of communication results in excess of control. In order to by-pass this inadequacy Deleuze and Guattari introduce the concept of schizophrenia – by multiplying the identity of an individual they expect the dialogue to occur.

“Schizophrenia is like love: there is no specifically schizophrenic phenomenon or entity; schizophrenia is the universe of productive and reproductive desiring-machines, universal primary production as ‘the essential reality of man and nature’.” (Deleuze & Guattari, 5)

In this context one could claim that a pair provides that natural, functional form of schizophrenia.