450 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I question how much of it was based on religion and how much has to do with family law. I know that in 1890, the legal status of women was much different than it is today, but most of our family law and dependent benefit status is based around the expectation of a certain type of nuclear family.

No, I meant that the commitment to polygamy couldn't have been that strong if they were willing to discard it in return for political status.

[Seraphim24]

Uh, no. I made this thread because I thought it would be interesting to discuss how it would be worked into the game and to see what people thought about the idea. And god knows we can never have enough romance-threads. 

 

Well I didn't bother to check the entire thread but it certainly became that way, whether it was intended as such I can't say with so little information in the OP. 

[Toasted Llama]

Yes, it could, but it's inevitably become a harem due to the nature of how you're the protagonist where the attention would be focusing on you. 

 

Although a lot of people when they said there are polygamy in Fallout 4 due to the lack of acknowledgement, what they really mean is that there is a harem in Fallout 4. For games with marriage mechanism, people said they can't choose, that's why they want to have everyone. That's also just a harem mechanism. It's very hard to fulfill and make it a 3 person relationship instead of both characters cater to the PC. It would mean that the other characters must have interaction with each other outside of the PC as well, and you do things together as 3 people. It would then make the resource for this particular romance to be a lot more than a typical romance. 

 

The resource argument is a fair point, but the question "would you accept being part of a harem" just almost felt rhetoric to me, making polyamory seem a lot more selfish than it truly is.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Seeing some of these latest posts, just a reminder of the Site Rules: 

 

• Personal attacks: Do not insult, degrade or criticize any person or group of people. Personal attacks are hurtful and destroy useful discussion. Examples of personal attacks include calling someone stupid, saying "you suck," "I wish you would die," or "you should be fired."
• Attacks on groups: Attacking groups of people, companies, or user locations, including, but not limited to, home countries, is prohibited.
• Intolerance/Hate: Attacks specifically regarding race, politics, religion, or sexual orientation are grounds for immediate suspension or banning.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Just a reminder, I didn't attack anyone though, I just stated the facts, and shared a wikipedia page. 

 

It's the Mormons who "attacked" and killed all those people, share the rules with them, they are the ones who clearly need it. 

*looks at all the reparations and things the LDS church has given to the victims and their descendants* Yeah, they've acknowledged that it was terrible. Did ever since it happened.

 

Also, it's more than just them I am referring to. You have also targeted other groups like just the Western states in general and the "mainstream liberal ideological terrorist" as you called them. 

 

It's also against Site Rules to bring up real world stuff, like history and politics. These forums are about the games, and Bioware wants to keep it that way. 

[Seraphim24]

*looks at all the reparations the LDS church has given to the descendants of those killed* Yeah, they've acknowledged that it was terrible. Did ever since it happened.

 

Also, it's more than just them I am referring to. You have also targeted other groups like just the Western states in general and the "mainstream liberal ideological terrorist" as you called them. 

 

It's also against Site Rules to bring up real world stuff, like history and politics. 

 

Again, these are labels I think some of them don't actually dispute, it's not against any rule to tell someone or call a group exactly what they themselves, or to report on their activities they themselves undertake, and essentially proclaim themselves to be, as for bringing up history and politics that wasn't me that was everyone else here, and it would be inconsistent to call me out on it when it was literally the OP who put it in there and other people that ran with it. 

 

In fact my only point was to answer the question, I've never met a Mormon (as in truly adopts Mormonism) who was anything other than an insanely disgusting wretch of a human being, that's just my experience, my own, first hand, personal experience, not an attack, just observation, whether there is one out there, who can say, but that's just my experience and I don't categorically judge them either it was literally their "doctrinal emphasis" i.e. as a matter of doctrine hatred was incorporated into their teachings. 

 

I think there are some people here who are fortunate enough to have not encountered LDS and are consequently just sort of confused by this concept of "polygamy" filtering in (and which was apparently accidental by the OP?) but it's just something my dad read a bunch about and consequently learned information and such which I felt like sharing, information. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Again, these are labels I think some of them don't actually dispute, it's not against any rule to tell someone or call a group exactly what they themselves, or to report on their activities they themselves undertake, and essentially proclaim themselves to be, as for bringing up history and politics that wasn't me that was everyone else here, and it would be inconsistent to call me out on it when it was literally the OP who put it in there and other people that ran with it. 

I never did call you out specifically, did I? I just posted a reminder of the Site Rules regarding the territory being discussed. 

 

In fact my only point was to answer the question, I've never met a Mormon who was anything other than an insanely disgusting wretch of a human being, that's just my experience, my own, first hand, personal experience, not an attack, just observation, whether there is one out there, who can say, but that's just my experience and I don't categorically judge them either it was literally their "doctrinal emphasis" i.e. as a matter of doctrine hatred was incorporated into their teachings. 

Calling every member of a group an "insanely disgusting wretch of a human being" is exactly what a personal attack/attack on a group of people is. 

[Seraphim24]

I never did call you out specifically, did I? I just posted a reminder of the Site Rules regarding the territory being discussed. 

 

 

Calling every member of a group an "insanely disgusting wretch of a human being" is exactly what a personal attack/attack on a group of people is. 

 

I didn't though, I said "I never met a hardened member who wasn't" then I specifically stated "I don't categorically judge them either." 

 

I categorically state their religion as hipster because it is, and then it's also true (clearly at times historically) riddled with hate spew and violence that would make certain terrorist organizations froth with envy, if you don't want people to point out you killed a bunch of people due to your religion than don't kill a bunch of people due to your religion. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I didn't though, I said "I never met a hardened member who wasn't" then I specifically stated "I don't categorically judge them either." 

That's a personal attack on every one who are referring to. 

And saying their teachings incorporate hatred is an attack on them as a group. 

 

I think there are some people here who are fortunate enough to have not encountered LDS and are consequently just sort of confused by this concept of "polygamy" filtering in (and which was apparently accidental by the OP?) but it's just something my dad read a bunch about and consequently learned information and such which I felt like sharing, information. 

Well, most of your information is inaccurate. So best you stop now. 

Also, there are a lot of other groups in history that have practiced polygamy. The OP never pointed to any specific group since they didn't even mean polygamy but polyamory. 

 

Now, time to get back on topic. 

[Seraphim24]

That's a personal attack on every one who are referring to. 

And saying their teachings incorporate hatred is an attack on them as a group. 

 

Well, most of your information is inaccurate. So best you stop now. 

Also, there are a lot of other groups in history that have practiced polygamy. The OP never pointed to any specific group since they didn't even mean polygamy but polyamory. 

 

Now, time to get back on topic. 

 

Well again lets just leave Mormons out for a second and just say that saying the "Lannisters" incorporate hatred is not an attack on them as a group, it is repeating their house words practically. Some people/groups don't really pretend to be "good" even major nationalist institutions/personalities or people that do things in accord with the "law."

 

As for inaccuracies, well take it up with wikipedia, as stated my Dad was reading about them for like 2 years so I heard more than I ever really cared to hear personally wasn't interested in the topic. I also haven't met more than a handful of as I say hardened Mormons so my sample is super small....

 

But, yes, you are right it is all OT, I'm not trying to turn this into an anti-Mormon religion thread or something. As stated before, it may be theoretically "hardcore mormons" who are super.. um.. nice? I just haven't met any. 

[Seraphim24]

Anyway I got a few warning points because of "spam" and "attacking other users" which is of course both false since it was clearly indicated by non-prosecution in this thread of other spam. 

 

I'll just watch the thread and try and interpret what is not spam since all the discussion on polygamy was already spam and somehow not spam... actually I'll just go report on all those posts now. 

[SKAR]

Anyway I got a few warning points because of "spam" and "attacking other users" which is of course both false since it was clearly indicated by non-prosecution in this thread of other spam.

I'll just watch the thread and try and interpret what is not spam since all the discussion on polygamy was already spam and somehow not spam... actually I'll just go report on all those posts now.

I hear ya.

[Seraphim24]

I hear ya.

 

My only point was to make that point, to be honest, that you can express completely non-emotional statements and people make the mistake of assuming you are attacking and so on, and moderators make the mistake of prosecuting clearly targeted things. I fully expected at least a few people to make those mistakes and go report happy as I'm sure they've done on other of my posts, that was literally the least surprising moment of my entire life almost... 

 

But like my mission isn't to point out to exaggerate every flaw in everything, only point out that many precious institutions and ideals they're worship are, sometimes problematic. 

 

I just think perhaps some people not familiar with America would be shocked at the degree of intolerance and hatred espoused on nearly every street corner. For me it's like, if you aren't from here, don't come here, to be honest. Even card carrying members of the patriarchy are ditching it for other countries.   

 

Anyway, I apologize for the OT. 

[SKAR]

My only point was to make that point, to be honest, that you can express completely non-emotional statements and people make the mistake of assuming you are attacking and so on, and moderators make the mistake of prosecuting clearly targeted things. I fully expected at least a few people to make those mistakes and go report happy as I'm sure they've done on other of my posts, that was literally the least surprising moment of my entire life almost...

But like my mission isn't to point out to exaggerate every flaw in everything, only point out that many precious institutions and ideals they're worship are, sometimes problematic.

I just think perhaps some people not familiar with America would be shocked at the degree of intolerance and hatred espoused on nearly every street corner. For me it's like, if you aren't from here, don't come here, to be honest. Even card carrying members of the patriarchy are ditching it for other countries.

Anyway, I apologize for the OT.

I guess there is no perfect society. Everyone adheres to different norms. Americans aren't the only ones who like to spread hate. I believe it's just human nature. Most of the time the mods give me warnings is because I disagree with a someone I believe is wrong and take a certain issue that I disagree with personally. a little too personally. That's my mistake. But when I see something I can't agree with I get the urge to speak out against it and that gets me in trouble. Sometimes I wish I could mind my own business and not care but I don't have that off switch. They say if you don't have anything good to say don't say it. Yet people speak hate. And I speak hate back. Guess that makes me a hypocrite and no better than them. It's not because I'm American. It's because I can. Free will.

[Monk]

I think cats are polyamorous.

[fizzypop]

How about you're a part of the harem instead of getting your own harem? Would people accept that? It seems like too much of a power fantasy. It's not the issue of jealousy, but it seems like it's always about the power fantasy where everyone just want them and willing to share you with each other. What if you're the one who's a part of the relationship? Like you and several other guys are in the same relationship with the female LIs. 

Actually you kind of already have that in a weird round about way. Iron Bull is non-monogamous and during his romance there isn't a "i'm monogamous to you now" scene. I assume he's continuing to see other women on the side or dudes. I would fully support that. I am poly after all. My bf HAS another gf. I have no issues with it. She's a cutie pie.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Actually you kind of already have that in a weird round about way. Iron Bull is non-monogamous and during his romance there isn't a "i'm monogamous to you now" scene. I assume he's continuing to see other women on the side or dudes. I would fully support that. I am poly after all. My bf HAS another gf. I have no issues with it. She's a cutie pie.

Yes there is. You can ask him about it and he says "As long as we're doing this, you've got my complete attention.". 

[fizzypop]

Yes there is. You can ask him about it and he says that as long as you and he are in a relationship, you are the only one he is with. 

Ah I didn't remember if he did, but still until that scene you can assume he is or at least wants too.

[Han Shot First]

Zevran and Isabela aren't monagamous.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Ah I didn't remember if he did, but still until that scene you can assume he is or at least wants too.

True. And I suppose if the player wants to headcanon it that way, you can just not ask the question that eventually leads to that line. 

[fizzypop]

Honestly, I would just settle for allowing us to tell our LIs that we aren't monogamous and they respect that. Maybe have 1 dude and 1 chick who are monogamous only and won't accept it (for some realism or drama so people won't whine about how it isn't "realistic" or w/e). That way it isn't intrusive in the game and people who want to be monogamous can just not have that talk. Simple!

I really like the idea of LIs having other love interests aside from PC so you could have those continue to play out if your PC is non-monogamous. That might be harder, but it would be cool to see. Either way the first option would work out just fine. Non-monogamy doesn't have to be drama-filled honestly.

[dragonflight288]

Again, these are labels I think some of them don't actually dispute, it's not against any rule to tell someone or call a group exactly what they themselves, or to report on their activities they themselves undertake, and essentially proclaim themselves to be, as for bringing up history and politics that wasn't me that was everyone else here, and it would be inconsistent to call me out on it when it was literally the OP who put it in there and other people that ran with it. 

 

In fact my only point was to answer the question, I've never met a Mormon (as in truly adopts Mormonism) who was anything other than an insanely disgusting wretch of a human being, that's just my experience, my own, first hand, personal experience, not an attack, just observation, whether there is one out there, who can say, but that's just my experience and I don't categorically judge them either it was literally their "doctrinal emphasis" i.e. as a matter of doctrine hatred was incorporated into their teachings. 

 

I think there are some people here who are fortunate enough to have not encountered LDS and are consequently just sort of confused by this concept of "polygamy" filtering in (and which was apparently accidental by the OP?) but it's just something my dad read a bunch about and consequently learned information and such which I felt like sharing, information. 

 

Well, now you have. I happen to be one, and not a fundamentalist one either. 

 

Shame that you hold your view, but from here on let's keep things civil. 

 

Now, to the original topic of this thread.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to be monogamous in terms of relationships in Andromeda. However, should Bioware wish to implement a relationship similar to the Spirit Monk, Silk Fox and Dawn Star and having a polyamory relationship done in Jade Empire, such is their right and many people, myself included, may pursue it should they desire.

 

I'd prefer to be in a relationship with only one person at a time in-game however, if only to encourage replayability. Bioware is really good at getting people emotionally invested in its stories various characters. 

Modifié par dragonflight288, 06 juin 2016 - 04:53 .

[AnimalBoy]

No, I'm happy being monogamous. Not every type of relationship on planet earth should be in the game.

[Mikael_Sebastia]

I would actually go farther than that and argue that we're not monogamous now.
 

 

Thanks for answering, but I see that the original posting have been edited from the last time I looked into this thread, so delving much further into this topic would be off-topic and probably unproductive. I try to keep my answers prompt as possible, despite very broad subject matter. On my part I'll leave this conversation to this reply, as I don't have much to say on the current topic about polyamory.

 

In animals, monogamy is marked by a single lifelong mate. Humans don't do that. What we call serial monogamy - having one partner at a time - isn't monogamy. No biologist studying non-humans would call that monogamy.

 

The difference in terms is true, but as we are talking about humans (and possibly other hominidae), I feel that drawing attention to the distinction is splitting hairs somewhat. Historical and anthropological papers and other similar texts I've read quite often omit that and adjust the distinction, only when clarification is necessary or useful.

 

Regardless, not all animals which practice monogamy form lifelong pairs. There are quite many examples, like Emperor Penguins, which are monogamous while they take care of their young, but tend to find a new partner every breeding session.  Also some species of goby fish practice almost textbook like serial monogamy.

 

Even those which do, or to do so generally, can follow very human like patterns and variation in their sexual behavior. As an example grey wolves are mainly monogamous with lifelong mated pairs, but form new pairs quickly in case their previous mate dies. Failing to do so, male gray wolves can mate with different females of other packs without forming pair ponds with them.

 

Certain animals do form very strong pair bonds. which I guess you are referring to (mainly certain birds, like some swans, eagles, pigeons / doves, albatrosses, hornbills. Also some rodents like prairie voles). They are socially monogamous and can be characterized with "a single lifelong mate", but even they can occasionally cheat on their mates. Also they can "divorce" and form new pairs in case their mate dies, if and how frequently these happen depend on species, but no species to my knowledge is absolutely and categorically monogamous.

 

As to your actual question, I suggest you Google it. There's a mountain of current research on the topic. The sort of serial polygyny we see in humans now first appeared in protohumans about 3 million years ago, but it's been far from universal. Even now, the majority of human cultures are not universally monogamous. Western culture certainly isn't, try as it might to promote such a thing.

 

I was merely curious about the original quoted statement in itself. As it implied you could pinpoint the emergence of monogamy by claiming that it was recent development in humans (quite likely it is not, but by extension of that claim, origins of different mating systems and strategies in general) with at least some level of certainty to a specific and precise period, place, people or etc. Advising to just google it, as if it was a simple matter of fact checking is to be honest quite.... disappointing.

 

Although you did answer my question partly, by claiming "a serial polygyny started in protohumans about 3 million years ago". I disagree with this, along with claims like "humans don't do a single lifelong mate", additionally I am confused about why even mention universality regarding monogamy (or polygyny, or etc). It is quite clear there is no such human universal culturally or socially, and probably not biologically. At least in a way that it could be easily characterized to something like humans are by their nature or originally polygamous / monogamous /promiscuous /etc. I am not claiming that humans would be the exception in Animalia either, I do believe we do have a biological foundation to our sexuality, but it's bit more complicated than reducing it any singular strategy or system. Humans are quite varied, and I'd say there are reasons for that. Not only socially enforced constructs, but biological incentives and physiological mechanism, which rewards various different models (that can sometimes contradict each other. Like desire to have sex and desire to form long-lasting attachments).
 

 

The sort of serial polygyny we see in humans now first appeared in protohumans about 3 million years ago, but it's been far from universal.

 

Did you mean to write serial monogamy instead of polygyny? It would make slightly more sense, but I wouldn't sign it either way. About the claim itself, are you referring to the unsettled debate about the degree of sexual dimorphism in different species of Australopithecus and early H-omo*, which according to some could explain their mating behavior? Or more general, albeit bigger evolutionary changes in hominids during those times (increasingly larger brain size, more dexterous hands and bipedalism. In general that higher intelligence become more adaptive than previously for some reason).

 

At any rate, it is dubious to claim anything that specific appeared or prevailed then (be it serial polygyny or monogamy), considering how little evidence there is. We are talking about low sample sizes of fossilized ape bones and teeth, apes which didn't produce artifacts nor buried their death. With almost total lack of these type of usual archeological evidence, there isn't too much to go on.

 

Those bones and teeth are not worthless as evidence. Obviously much can be deducted from them, being that some amount of sexual dimorphism can be concluded from skeleton like body-size or dental differences like canine height. Sexual dimorphism is somewhat related to sexual behavior. But drawing definitive conclusions about mating system is problematic. I am no way expert or even erudite on the subject, but nevertheless even I can name few reasons why this is so.

 

Few samples has made it hard to firmly establish the sex of some fossil specimen neither there is always consensus on their classification in taxonomically. Secondly, other typical signs of sexual dimorphism in primates do not fossilize at all, like hair or skin.  Thirdly, there can very likely be other influences, as an example for canine height there is diet, predator defense or even intra-female competition. Overall the whole process is not that well understood, nor can all factors reliably counted.

 

Lastly, these dental or body-size dimorphism do not correlate fully with mating systems, even in living primates. As an example, quite little morphological differences between bonobos and common chimpanzee, but drastic differences in mating systems and sexual behavior.

 

From the current evidence,  we can postulate various different believable scenarios of mating system of these extinct hominins, and many scholars believe they might've coexisted and varied at the same time, like with current humans.  This is not excluded to primates either, like Eurasian beaver is monogamous, but Northern American beaver is not, and it is believed to be mostly due adaptation to a different environment between otherwise closely related species.

 

 

monogamy is marked by a single lifelong mate. Humans don't do that.

 

Actually they do, not just exclusively so even in otherwise monogamous societies. But I am having my fill of BSN for this morning, and this would be another lengthy (off) topic, that I'd compare to trying to rigorously prove that Moon is not made of cheese. 

 

Edit: *Wow, wouldn't have guessed that hate word is censored. Keep on fighting the good fight, Biowur!

Modifié par Mikael_Sebastia, 07 juin 2016 - 05:41 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

-snip-

The anthropology is strong in this one.

I don't have anything like the necessary academic background to continue this discussion. I defer to your expertise.

My objective here was simply to sow doubt regarding the idea that there's any "right" way for an individual to live.