Is Linden Labs biased towards Monogomy

I figure since Strife him/her self (Strife has never said either way to my knowledge) that doing a new thread would be appropriate to avoid thread necromancy so here it is. I am neutral in this btw, I just figure I'll take Strife up on his/her suggestion.

As another resident already pointed out a resident can create a group and have their multiple "partners" join it.

It has nothing to do with bias. There's already one text field for a partner on a Profile. It would be a huge waste of coding time to add multiple fields.

Are there any other dead horses we can beat today or do we have to marry them first?

Lol, I knew I would be accused of that but I figured since Strife closes everything that he/she doesn't personally approve as an acceptable topic I might as well take Strife up on essentially an open offer to start a new thread.

Strife most likely felt the prior thread had outlived its usefullness or there was nothing new to add but left it open that if someone could add new info or a new angle then they could go and create a new thread. It's unlikely that Strife has a bias for or against any threads but simply wishes to keep things tidy.

I will not join in on the rank speculations about Strife (personally, I think he is Mook the Martian from My Favorite Martian, if you fancy really OLD TV shows that only exist on DVD today).

HOWEVER.

It is an irrefutable fact that women are in favor of monogamy, and they are approximately half the world population. It is also irrefutable that a significant number of men are in favor of monogamy - witness the (male-dominated) Catholic church's adherence to the principle, the Protestant churches' adherence, the Eastern Orthodox churches' adherence, and the brute fact that even in cultures where polygamy is permitted the vast majority of men take only one wife (at a time). So, majority vote on this subject is depressingly clear.

It follows that LL, despite its San Francisco origins, is merely following the lead of and conforming to the World Majority.

(Full disclosure, ladies: Most men adhere to the e.e. cummings principle on this subject: "I have been true to you, Cynara! ...in my fashion." Old e.e. disclosed more than he should have, IMHO.)

Actually, women make up more than half the world's population (males suffer higher attrition due to all sorts of causes), but thanks for going out on a limb there and breaking the Earth humanoids with two sexes into fifty-fifty.

*Rolls his eyes at the rest of the post and then readjusts his foil hat for better reception for messages from the Space Pope*

This poll does show a little usefull information, though.

Apparently everyone knows what monogomy is! I'm impressed!!

Yep. Monogamy is a kind of dark wood.

: /

My apartment smells of rich monogamy.

Nawww. The old thread was just broadly offensive.

I prefer polyandry myself - but that's not on the voting options

The old thread was closed because of Nekoromancing.

Nekos should learn to control themselves.

Old rhyme

"Higamous hogamous - woman is monogamous
Hogamous higamous - man is poligamous"

The obvious answer to the question is "no."

The semi-joke response to the whole thread is "No, if anything they discriminate against the 'nonogamists' by offering a partner option."

doubt they`ll get bored enough to wonder about something as stupid as this...

Do you know where you're going to?
Do you like the things that life is showing you?

Whatever LL does to resolve this would be wrong I guess (aside from adding more load on the database). Let's say they allow two partners. Where does that leave Dominants with 3 or 4 submissives? There could also be people with a dozen or more partners out there. Any upper limit wouldn't be sufficient for some hardcore... ehm... dunnowhatwordtoputhere.

The res mods do not close threads that they personally disapprove of as you stated. As far as I know they refer to specific criteria provided by Linden Labs when making a determination if a thread is acceptable or not and when the content of the thread cannot be governed via the criteria provided then it's is submitted for review by Linden Labs.

I have a RL g/f that I live with that also plays SL. We were SL partners for about 3 hours in SL once before we moved in together. It spiraled into a huge fight that ended with her divorcing me and me taking all the buildings I made from her land.

We eventually calmed down and resolved the issue (don't even remember what it was now!) and have never felt the urge to become each others' SL partner since.

I don't know about your Second Lives but I go to mine to escape drama...not pursue it. Adding the ability to have multiple partners is just asking for trouble!

What I would like is the option of Partner to be an individual or a group. With some actual effect behind it, always editable with Friends list over-rides. This would be useful for BUSINESS partnerships more than social ones. But one can do this through Groups, except for the social distinction of This-Is-My-Partner notice.

A more fundamental bias: your avatar must be Male or Female. Just because I choose just one consistently doesn't mean I do not know some who wish there were alternatives; and I see their point. - no puns intended.

Ah, but there are alternatives.

Just in the last couple of days I have seen a robot avatar, a triceratops avatar, and an entire flock of dragon avatars, and no-one, even the owners of the avatars, know what gender they are, if any. Don't like your avatar - create or buy a different one.

LOL - Men wanted "monogamy" as much as women. Where do you think the old "Double Standard" comes from?

He wanted his wife monogamous - while he plays around some nights when feeling restless.

The concepts date far before the Catholic church and are rooted in inheretance. Basically without a faithful wife, or a DNA test, how can a man make sure his children are his?

It is actually a concept that predates written history.

It wasnt until later where many Men attained enough wealth that he could Maintain and secure multiple wives (in many cultures) that Polygamy as an institution develops.

Polygamy tends to follow cultures of realtive wealth. The Middle East was on top of strong trade routes at the time of the culture that spawned Islam, for example.

The reverse where a woman takes more than one husband is far more rare. The most notable example (some traditional areas of tibet) has 2 brothers marrying one woman, this is used to prevent an estate being divided and diluted.

I guess the basic gist of Anthropology and Monogamy is that its not what women want/wanted that drove the institutions. Its what men wanted, and what they wanted to happen with who they called their kids (esp Sons) and who they gave their Stuff.

Its only realtively recently in a historical sense that women had a officially recognized "vote" on these institutions, and that wasnt until monogamy was the already well established norm.

They could just have the text field in the profile read: (Multiple)

like they do when Prims have multiple creators and owners if you select them at the same time.

This is very silly

It's interesting how much a patrilineal line you assume - that knowing the father should determine inheritance. In many culture around the world, some or all inheritance and familial associations were determined matrilineally - who's yer momma rather than who's yer daddy.

Sadly, many cultures which had matrilineal inheritance did not fair well when western cultures especially christian missionaries imposed patrilineal property rights. Even the men in those cultures often suffered, because loss of female ownership made it easier also for colonialists to acquire the land or resource access they desired. Matrilineal inheritance still exists, some places, in some cultures, in some contexts... although I don't know if it is flourishing anywhere...

And I do think in those cultures there is more polyandry, which makes perfect biological sense (the woman invests FAR more in pregnancy and children then men do, biologically speaking). Some have theorized that the illusion of monogamy and patrilineal descent (yep, pretty much unknowable until very recently) is a psycho-social bribe mechanism to encourage males to support their children.