|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
07-05-2007 18:53
From: Cloud Bracken 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.
As Har's quote was mainly about "Our" culture and its roots - Basically Western Civilization and Monogamy, I was mainly refering to that. Western Civilization having- as you mention- a patrilineal tradition. I beleive it dates back to the rise of cultures and Agriculture as practiced in Western Middle East/Asia in the cultures that developed into the ancestors of Western Civilation. (The settlements around Jericho, Leading to Sumer also Egypt, etc. Its true that not all systems developed like that - However from a population size standpoint, Im fairly sure inheretance through the father would encompas far more people than through the mother - even before the Eurpoeans decided the world was going to become dominated by their traditions. |
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
07-05-2007 18:56
From: Cloud Bracken
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.
Its also interesting to note that in one of the most often studied examples of Polyandry - its still a patrilineal inheritance, That of Polyandry in (some traditional areas of) Tibet. Where two brothers marry the same woamn for property reasons. |
|
Wilhelm Neumann
Runs with Crayons
Join date: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 2,204
|
07-05-2007 19:00
there wasn't a selection that said. LInden lab couldn't care how many avatars you have as mates because they are too busy worrying about other stuff. So they took the "average" outlook on thinds and plugged it into a profile thingy. Honestly I"m surprised to see any partner slot at all as it doesn't mean a whole lot.
I guess people get their knickers in a twist over silly things if you are polygamous in second life great carry on in your virtual life as you see fit. your not hurting anyone and LInden labs really couldn't care about it in any way shape or form.
/shrug
|
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
07-05-2007 19:03
From: Wilhelm Neumann there wasn't a selection that said. LInden lab couldn't care how many avatars you have as mates because they are too busy worrying about other stuff. So they took the "average" outlook on thinds and plugged it into a profile thingy. Honestly I"m surprised to see any partner slot at all as it doesn't mean a whole lot.
I guess people get their knickers in a twist over silly things if you are polygamous in second life great carry on in your virtual life as you see fit. your not hurting anyone and LInden labs really couldn't care about it in any way shape or form.
/shrug I think you are right, I dont think LL cares how many people Residents want to be "married" too. I think mainly they added the partner line into the profile to assist peopel who use SL for playing house. Lets face it most people into that sort of thing in Second Life practice serial Polygamy anyhow. Especially the "monogamous" ones. |
|
Suzy Hazlehurst
Offensive Broad
Join date: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 323
|
07-06-2007 03:08
From: Har Fairweather It is an irrefutable fact that women are in favor of monogamy, *Polyamorous woman raises her hand to refute your 'fact'...*
_____________________
No children, elderly or animals were harmed during the creation of my second life.
|
|
bilbo99 Emu
Garrett's No.1 fan
Join date: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 3,468
|
07-06-2007 03:29
Somebody quite clearly pointed out in the closed thread that there would probably be cries of "Oi, why is soandso, higher than me in the list?" if LL had a multiple box for partners.
Considering they give us a blank box on the same page for explaining whether RL or SL, wife, husband, partner, master, mistress, slave, pet, robot etc you wish to broadcast your affiliation to, do we need the partner box at all?
And for certain ployamorous/polygamists/etc .. would they *want* to advertise the fact anyway?
Sorry? .. what was that Morgaine my dear? ... on my way!!!!
_____________________
Be polite .. that newbie could be your next ex-partner.
|
|
Mandy Carbenell
Recent Item
Join date: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 847
|
07-06-2007 03:48
I don't need multiple partners, I have one and that's more then enough. Monogamy for me anyday.
Mandy C
_____________________
Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level. 
|
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
07-06-2007 04:01
From: Mandy Carbenell I don't need multiple partners, I have one and that's more then enough. Monogamy for me anyday.
Mandy C Monogamy, by itself isn't such a bad thing.......  Good Morning Mandy. 
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
|
|
Mandy Carbenell
Recent Item
Join date: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 847
|
07-06-2007 04:05
From: Brenda Connolly Monogamy, by itself isn't such a bad thing....... Good Morning Mandy.  Good morning Brenda. Mandy C
_____________________
Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level.
|