Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pyrite]

If you want to suggest polyamory/polygamy as a future feature of civilizations, you should create a thread in the suggestions forum for that.

Gender Dimorphism is another suggestion, and frankly I'm completely happy with female dwarves who are indistinguishable from their male counterparts, though I wouldn't necessarily mind seeing it in other civs. The problem with it is that it is literally impossible to define these traits without leaping headfirst into sexism, by trying to define which gendered traits we observe are cultural and which are natural. Some sort of proceedural sorting of traits and roles would be one way, similar to how civs have proceedurally generated outfits.

[Deboche]

There are definitely reasons for monogamy. Social stability being a big one. The bigger a social circle is the more volatile it's going to be, it's kind of unavoidable. And on a stability related note, avoiding population growth, which dwarves really can't deal with very well.

Now we're getting somewhere. I still think biologically no animal will ever not try to reproduce every chance it gets. Dwarves need to have sex drives, which is why discussing their evolution would be relevant. Small tribes of primitive people practice polygamy and have no problems with social stability. In fact, in such a society crimes of passion are less likely to happen.

If you want to suggest polyamory/polygamy as a future feature of civilizations, you should create a thread in the suggestions forum for that.

Gender Dimorphism is another suggestion, and frankly I'm completely happy with female dwarves who are indistinguishable from their male counterparts, though I wouldn't necessarily mind seeing it in other civs. The problem with it is that it is literally impossible to define these traits without leaping headfirst into sexism, by trying to define which gendered traits we observe are cultural and which are natural.

I think I will make a suggestion for it, though I hope I don't need to repeat everything I've said in this thread.

Here is where the dychotomy you said I made comes in handy because history shows that female education is the best way to stop out of control population growth. Educated and empowered women are less likely to let themselves be mothers of 10+ children.

[Pyrite]

I still think biologically no animal will ever not try to reproduce every chance it gets.

I raise you the giant panda, which has to be shown giant panda pornography to inspire it to mate.

[Deboche]

Indeed, they're still not monogamous though.

[Pyrite]

I wasn't saying they were, merely seeking to disprove your assertion about every animal mating every chance it got.

[Aslandus]

There are definitely reasons for monogamy. Social stability being a big one. The bigger a social circle is the more volatile it's going to be, it's kind of unavoidable. And on a stability related note, avoiding population growth, which dwarves really can't deal with very well.

Now we're getting somewhere. I still think biologically no animal will ever not try to reproduce every chance it gets. Dwarves need to have sex drives, which is why discussing their evolution would be relevant. Small tribes of primitive people practice polygamy and have no problems with social stability. In fact, in such a society crimes of passion are less likely to happen.

In a small tribe it would be a lot easier to handle since the "social circle" would likely cover the entire tribe. It's far less likely to work over long term in a large civilization, where it wouldn't instantly be known by everyone that matters as soon as those crimes take place. I don't know why you want to add polygamy and rape (which would probably happen if you gave dwarves a sex drive) into the game, but I entirely disagree.

[Deboche]

But dwarven communities are small. We don't know the Dunbar's number for dwarves - Dunbar's number is the number of people with whom a person can maintain stable relationships which has been estimated to be around 150 - but that number is related to how big a population gets.

It's pretty dishonest of you to tie my opinion with an endorsement of rape. In my view, rape is more likely to happen in a society that represses natural sexual behaviour.

[Aslandus]

But dwarven communities are small. We don't know the Dunbar's number for dwarves - Dunbar's number is the number of people with whom a person can maintain stable relationships which has been estimated to be around 150 - but that number is related to how big a population gets.

It's pretty dishonest of you to tie my opinion with an endorsement of rape. In my view, rape is more likely to happen in a society that represses natural sexual behaviour.

I'll give you the small communities thing, but what? Rape has been happening throughout history, no matter the culture, most cultures just don't report it and some don't acknowledge it. Also, I'm pretty sure 150 is the maximum number of people you can consider as people rather than parts of the scenery, not the number of people you can maintain stable relationships with (but again, they're dwarves, who knows how many relationships they can maintain)...

Maybe if we ever get the ability to play human fortresses this could become relevant, but as I said, I don't think dwarves should ever become polygamous due to being dwarves that have their specific culture.
PS: Is your name supposed to be pronounced "De-boash" like "the-boats" or "De-botch" Like "debauchery"... oh and it would be "inaccurate" not "dishonest," unless I'm making your arguments for you...

[Deboche]

It's intellectually dishonest unless you're just not very intelligent, which I don't think is the case.

Sure, rape happens, that's not the point. The point is polygamy isn't more likely to produce instances of rape.

You speak of dwarven specific culture but if someone had asked you before you played DF whether dwarves approve of homossexuality what would you have replied? If we can use the argument that dwarven culture "just is" why not apply it to homossexuality as well and say "dwarven culture just doesn't include homossexuality"? I think both homossexuality, bissexuality and polygamy should be considered.

It's pronounced De Bosh as in debauch but with a sh sound.

[Aslandus]

Perhaps I misstated, I didn't mean to imply that polygamy increased rape, the way I understand it, rape is a natural result of sexual drive, obsession with domination and lack of self control (at least two of the three). Two of those are personal factors and one is biological (with current personality and emotion systems it would end up with overseers atomsmashing every migrant that had one or both personality traits if they wanted to play rape control). What you or I view as causing rape however is irrelevant, I certainly hope it is never put into the game, even if polygamy does become a DF reality.

I'm not sure what the stigma against homosexuals has ever been about, but I am fairly sure it has to do with prior gender roles being upended, which dwarves don't have. So personally, I don't think dwarves would have a problem with homosexuality or bisexuality (they just haven't been in the game until now), but marriage has always been monogamous in dwarven culture (whether that will change in the future I don't know, but I personally think it shouldn't, at least for dwarves). Perhaps the issues with dwarves never remarrying after their spouse dies should be changed (I assume it's a bug, but if it's intended that's fine too).

Also, what does "intellectually dishonest" mean? I'm lying to myself or trying to say things that I know aren't true? I've never heard the term before...

[Deboche]

It means you make an irrational argument or take an irrational conclusion from one of mine, which happened when you said polygamy would bring rape with it.

Giving dwarves sexual drives isn't necessarily a variable you throw into their personality and watch what it does mixed with their other traits, leading to rape if the recipe goes bad. I think personalities would have to be incredibly complex for such a thing to be possible. We've yet to see how crime will happen when it's properly implemented.

DF seems to follow the same standards of censorship as the American rating system where violence of all kinds is perfectly fine but sexual content is heavily censored. There's a documentary about it. On the other hand, it might just be that Toady hasn't gotten around to implementing sex.

We're just going in circles at this point though. Your argument is "marriage has always been monogamous in dwarven culture" and mine is "so was homossexuality until the last update". I think it should all be in the game, free love, might as well enjoy life because dwarven lifes often end prematurely in violent and hilarious ways.

[Pyrite]

It means you make an irrational argument or take an irrational conclusion from one of mine, which happened when you said polygamy would bring rape with it.

Intellectual dishonesty is generally defined as the failure to apply rational standards of logic to your own arguments, and to yourself fall for a logical fallacy. At this point Alsandus has been clear that he didn't intend to imply that rape and polyamory were related, so continuing to restate that position and attributing it to him is just dishonest.

Giving dwarves sexual drives isn't necessarily a variable you throw into their personality and watch what it does mixed with their other traits, leading to rape if the recipe goes bad. I think personalities would have to be incredibly complex for such a thing to be possible. We've yet to see how crime will happen when it's properly implemented.

I think Toady's intention with Dwarf Fortress is to make nearly every aspect of the game incredibly complex.

DF seems to follow the same standards of censorship as the American rating system where violence of all kinds is perfectly fine but sexual content is heavily censored. There's a documentary about it. On the other hand, it might just be that Toady hasn't gotten around to implementing sex.

I'm sure that there's more than one documentary about it, and it honestly spreads to most english-speaking culture. I think that to a degree this stems from the fact that in most peoples lives, fantastic violence is completely outside of their frame of reference and so easily disconnected from them, while at the same time sexual violence is much more likely to become a reality.

We're just going in circles at this point though. Your argument is "marriage has always been monogamous in dwarven culture" and mine is "so was homossexuality until the last update". I think it should all be in the game, free love, might as well enjoy life because dwarven lifes often end prematurely in violent and hilarious ways.

Honestly further discussion of polyamory for dwarves should take place in the discussion thread:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=147160.0

[Urist Tilaturist]

Monogamy is very rare among mammals, but common among some birds. Birds like swans display either monogamy or serial monogamy: having only 1 partner at a time, though not necessarily for life. Dwarves are, it seems, one of the few monogamous species. While I doubt that adultery or rape would be likely among dwarves, they should be able to remarry after a lover has died or divorce if a lover has done something horrible like murder a child in a tantrum. Serial monogamy would suit dwarves and exists in nature.

Humans are far less pleasant than dwarves and should have the whole range of patriarchy, adultery, polygamy or concubinage, double standards, rape, sex slavery and so on. This will create ethics clashes between them and dwarves which could have interesting consequences. Elves appear to be matriarchal, so their society could be one of male drones surrounding dominant queens and competing for her influence by satisfying her...

What makes violence fantastic? The presence of a goblin? The act itself is often not unknown to the average paramedic. Dwarf crushed by falling logs? That happens. Body parts pulped by a hammer? That happens too, whether by accident or not. Car accidents feature parts exploding into gore and people burned to death, and are certainly not outside the experience of an English speaking person. The only kinds of DF violence I could consider to be truly fantastic - that is, they do not really happen - are the syndromes of forgotten beasts, but even these have many of their symptoms repeated by diseases or chemicals.

In my life I have seen 2 accidents where blood was gushing everywhere in a rather DF-like way. One time, the blood was mine. I have never seen an act of sexual violence. Not so outside the frame of reference. If anything, sexual violence is more outside the frame of reference in that it is usually perpetrated by somebody who knows the victim and out of sight. It is often an invisible crime. Personally I think the kind of exceptionalism that elevates sexual violence above all the other forms of violence only helps to keep it out of sight and out of mind.

It is very relieving not to have smeeprocket around for this.

[Caz]

Now we're getting somewhere. I still think biologically no animal will ever not try to reproduce every chance it gets.

Not really. Homosexual animals, asexual animals, plus a bunch of situations related to animal hierarchies and 'alpha males' etc. Just to give examples.

[Deboche]

Since we're off the subject of polygamy, I'll say this. I wasn't talking about sexual violence, I was talking about sex. Violence is fine, sex and nudity aren't.