Print

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

[Putnam]

No, any definition I find says multiple partners...

I think polygyny seems more like it'd be multiple wives?

[Sheb]

Yeah, polygamous should mean multiple partners from the ethymology.

[SixOfSpades]

Whoops, edited. Chalk it up to me being sleepy.

Etymology.

[Urist Tilaturist]

Polygyny refers to a situation where only men are allowed multiple partners.

All dwarves are not masculine, since a female dwarf would not be thought of as masculine by other dwarves. The dwarven concepts of masculinity and femininity do not really extend much past genitals and beards, or lack thereof. Dwarves might seem masculine to humans, but they would not see things the same way.

[Deboche]

Getting back to real-life biology for a minute: In general, males feel cheated on when their mate has physical sex with males OTHER than him--thus increasing the chance that the offspring she bears will not carry on the male's genes, so that the time & energy spent on courting her was wasted, not to mention the fact that he might be using HIS energy to help support some OTHER male's offspring.
In contrast, females primarily feel cheated on when their mate's emotional, rather than physical, attentions are directed at females other than her. He can inseminate all the women he wants to, that's not going to affect the genetics or welfare of HER children . . .

Here's where I established the link between patriarchy, hoarding of wealth and monogamy. If there was no wealth and dwarves lived in a communist fortress, none of these things would be true.

I think monogamy comes from a need to know who your offspring are so they can inherit your wealth - as far as men are concerned - and from the need to keep the man around as a provider - which in DF as it exists now would be unnecessary since everyone is provided for equally.

[Urist Tilaturist]

A need for males to know that their legitimate heirs are theirs leads to restrictions on married women's sexual behaviour, not true dwarven style monogamy. It has no effect on prostitutes, mistresses, or men marrying multiple wives, since in the first 2 cases the offspring are bastards and will not inherit and in the last case all the heirs are legitimate. This patriarchal system creates a double standard where female virginity is prized and married women are expected to stay loyal while men can continue to copulate with mistresses, prostitutes and in some cases additional wives. If a man is cuckolded, his heirs may not be his, but any children he conceives outside marriage do not matter because they cannot inherit anyway. This is not a true monogamous system as seen with dwarves, but rather one of mixed monogamy and polygamy where respectable women are far more obliged than men are to be monogamous.

A truly monogamous system, where standards are the same for both partners, is not sexist. Birds do not behave this way, with both parents supporting the offspring, because they have property and wealth to pass on. While dwarves are almost certainly mammals and therefore more likely to behave like other mammals, note that dwarven fathers also receive happy thoughts from their children. This does not fit with a culture where nobody knows who the father is. We do not know what the dwarven gods preach yet, but one of their teachings may be that both parents are supposed to stay together to support a child. It is all speculation now. Whether the way is free love or monogamy could depend on which gods the dwarves worship.

[SixOfSpades]

Dwarves might seem masculine to humans, but they would not see things the same way.

Yes & no. When even the most namby-pamby, silk-clad idler of a race wouldn't even bat an eye at tunneling through hundreds of feet of solid rock & then heading outside to strangle, butcher, and roast a dingo for supper, plus a host of other activities that would make Ron Swanson jealous, then that race is pretty dang manly. But--in the current version, at least--the dwarves themselves see no distinction between a citizen who actually does these things, and a citizen who merely can do them but instead prefers to stay at home, cut pretty gemstones, and sew stylish clothing. It's not just that dwarves don't see certain careers as being typical of a gender, it's that the dwarves don't even seem to perceive any difference between the careers at all, at least in terms of sexual attraction.
Now, it would add a nice layer of depth if dwarves considered the relative athleticism of their prospective partners' chosen professions, and especially any effects that it had on their respective physiques--which would be a change that I would quite like to see, by the way--but at present, that is not the case. All 40.23 dwarves are equally masculine . . . which is to say very masculine.

Here's where I established the link between patriarchy, hoarding of wealth and monogamy. If there was no wealth and dwarves lived in a communist fortress, none of these things would be true.

Yes, except that even in the most egalitarian commune theoretically possible, there are always at least 3 forms of wealth: Food/water, labor, and combat prowess. Unless a colony of dwarves lives in circumstances where
1) there is so much infinitely renewable food that the supply will never run out, no matter how rapidly the dwarves reproduce,
2) the food is so easy to obtain that even the weakest child can gather enough to feed himself every day, without help, and
3) there is never any risk of attack, from inside or outside the colony,
then there will always be competition of some sort, and therefore pressure to ensure that one's own offspring will be better off than anyone else's. In all populations of more than 2 people, there is also a 4th kind of wealth: Mating partners. Everyone wants to secure, and keep, the most biologically advantageous mate--and hence, pressure for at least some form of monogamy.

[Deboche]

As Uristurister pointed out, that system promotes polygamy for men and enforced monogamy on women.

As it is now, food is pretty much infinite in DF and children are fed regardless of what their parents do. We've yet to see if this will change.

As for competition regarding mates, polygamy is still the way to go. Polygamy allows males to spread their seed as much as possible and it allows women to have sex with several males and therefore make sure the best sperm will make it.

[Urist Tilaturist]

You are pushing our concepts of masculinity onto a non human species. Since female hyenas are bigger than males and generally dominate, does that mean that they are masculine? No. A masculine hyena would be smaller and weaker. Dwarves see no gender differences beyond genitals, child bearing and beards. Their concepts of masculine and feminine would be associated only with these things, so a masculine female dwarf could be one with a beard - not something I have ever seen in my game.

The idea of several men's sperm competing is dubious since unless they copulate in very quick succession the first sperm get a head start even if they are weaker.

Everything related to raising children (parenting, apprenticeships and education) needs a big update in DF. Both parents should be involved with raising the child if dwarves stay monogamous.

[SixOfSpades]

You are pushing our concepts of masculinity onto a non human species.

Precisely--a human would likely regard most dwarven females as being very manly. I did not say that the dwarves themselves would view those females as being masculine.

Dwarves see no gender differences beyond genitals, child bearing and beards. Their concepts of masculine and feminine would be associated only with these things . . .

I see how my last post could have been misinterpreted, and have added 2 words in yellow to help clarify my meaning. But to say again: Regardless of how manly or butch certain activities might be regarded by human standards (whether in-game, or real-life), DF dwarves currently see no masculine / feminine traits whatsoever in other dwarves, apart from their actual, physical sex.

[Deboche]

The idea of several men's sperm competing is dubious since unless they copulate in very quick succession the first sperm get a head start even if they are weaker.

You might think so but two of the arguments for humans being naturally polygamous come from the shape and size of genitals. Gorillas are monogamous and have small genitals, chimps are highly promiscuous and have big genitals, humans are somewhere in between.

And the shape of the tip of the penis, it has been suggested, is meant to scoop out other males' sperm. Men tend to penetrate further during copulation if they suspect their partner has been unfaithful or after a long period of absence.(I have no idea how studies about this would be conducted though...)

Furthermore, it's also been found that a certain percentage of sperm cells are incapable of merging with the egg but are meant instead to attack competing sperm.

[Urist Tilaturist]

Link the studies that show this. Even you seem not to completely trust them.

[Deboche]

http://www.thedailysteak.com/content/secrets-phallus-why-penis-shaped
That article even mentions an experiment with artificial penises of different shapes that backs the initial claims. If the human penis was shaped like an ape penis, it wouldn't successfully scoop out other sperm.

And further rebuttal to your earlier point:
"Since sperm cells can survive in a woman’s cervical mucus for up to several days, this means that if she has more than one male sexual partner over this period of time, say within 48 hours, then the sperm of these two men are competing for reproductive access to her ovum."

[Urist Tilaturist]

A very good source. Thank you.

Are gorillas monogamous? I thought silverbacks usually had several females and were polygamous in the same way as sultans and their harems. The lack of penis adaptation is just because they fight off other males before they get the chance to mate.

[Deboche]

Yes, I think that's what it is. And it's the same with roosters. Which is why gorillas have small packages.