Why is monogamy so common?

[ShaLeah]

The idea that a woman wants her man's resources on Zalanthas screams real world bullshit cause on Zalanthas men and women are equal, women don't need men's resources,  they have their own.

Think about it for a while. You have people in Allanak starving on the streets. You have run down children who are wearing rags ready to fall off of them.

Do they seem like the product of successful, strong, independent womyn?

Clearly their mother and father together are having trouble providing for them. Single parents are going to have it even worse.

EDIT: Successful single mothers are a luxury of a highly productive, technological society, with either the ex paying support or the government subsidizing them. You won't find family courts or SNAP cards on Zalanthas.

I have thought about it. Have you?

PC's in Nak are the top tier barring a very select few rinthi pcs STARTING off.  They all start with a shit load of cash, end up in a job or training place within a real life week usually... unless the PLAYER chooses not to and most players who choose that are experienced and never have to worry about sid.

Your defense holds no water at all. People on Zalanthas that are starving and find themselves knocked up are more likely to sell that whelp into slavery than demand the father support both of them.  The pcs having babies are rich enough to take care of them and hell,  even hire nannies!

I have never heard of a pc in game that was starving and destitute get pregnant in game. Not once.

Maybe you're playing a normal poverty stricken homeless friendless jobless street scavenger but by FAR most ain't.

[BrokenRomance]

Personally I find romantic relationships to add a new layer of intrigue to my roleplay experience, and prefer monogamy because while I want that extra layer I don't want it to become some TV show my mum probably watches while she eats chips and dip in bed. For me, going outside of a single person means opening the possibility that I'm going to be betrayed by more than one person. Who's to say I won't be dating Amos and Talia, and Amos and Talia discover they like one another and want me out of the picture? I mean, I think monogamy is common (if it even is, considering some comments in this thread and my own experience to boot) because there's no solid ground in a place like Zalanthas to really want to put your trust in more than one person at that level.

[Eyeball]

The idea that a woman wants her man's resources on Zalanthas screams real world bullshit cause on Zalanthas men and women are equal, women don't need men's resources,  they have their own.

PC's in Nak are the top tier barring a very select few rinthi pcs STARTING off.  They all start with a shit load of cash, end up in a job or training place within a real life week usually... unless the PLAYER chooses not to and most players who choose that are experienced and never have to worry about sid.

I see, so we've gone from "a woman wants her man's resources" to "PC's in Nak". That's a common fallacy called "moving the goalposts".

Go ahead and play a female PC who has each kid from a different dad if that pleases you. It's pretty easy to play independent-super-mom when the kids are all virtual, isn't it. Right up until mom dies and the kids are orphaned (a common fate for a PC), but we don't think about that, do we.

[Krath]

Here is my take.....

1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist  - role-play a monogamist

3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.

[WithSprinkles]

Polygamy's never really been my thing IG because when (and if) my characters have relationships, I like to properly focus my attention and at MAX think I could handle the possible complications and drama that come with two other people (and only if that made sense). Generally though, if a partner is spreading their attention thin, I don't get mad, but get bored and eventually end up nudging them toward their other partners so I can busy myself with other stuff or find someone compatible with my preferred play style.

The documentation itself is more interesting if you have fun with it. It is broadly worded to say commoner people can do whatever they want in this regard, they just shouldn't expect a cookie for it either way. It's almost like genealogy today. I'm sure some of our families have a book on a shelf that tells who was who generations back, but a fair chunk of us have to ask this aunt or this parent by word of mouth the same as any Zalanthan would (silly family tree projects). We're fortunate to have access to written records if we really want them, though.

What's eyebrow raising to me is that GMH family members are pretty much tracked by the government. Marriages are formally contracted and legitimate children are documented. Monogamy is important for these select commoners during those contractual periods. As per the docs, to make a new MMH, once you reach a certain level, your bloodline becomes important.. which would likely have you registering a contracted spouse and children to the templarate!

It leads me to believe that it is power, influence and a desire to firmly control these things that is the driving force behind monogamy in Zalanthan society, not so much base survival needs. Marriage is a breeding program. If we want to look at it objectively, a commoner looking at someone with wealth and influence might see that this person can often (not always) be seen having fewer partners and try to emulate that behavior, not knowing the possibly whys and rhythms of it.

I'm gonna go a touch further and have a bit of fun with open-ended documentation. The GMH people believe they are free men and women, but it could be said that they are just as bound and accounted for as any Borsail slave or gemmed. Since the nobles conceivably are also part of this 'breeding program', wouldn't it be interesting if they were being exclusively born for particular attributes? Even noble bastards are firmly placed under thumb. None of what I just said may be completely RIGHT, but it's amusing to not be so serious about it and explore ideas, even if it ends up being TL:DR.

[ShaLeah]

The idea that a woman wants her man's resources on Zalanthas screams real world bullshit cause on Zalanthas men and women are equal, women don't need men's resources,  they have their own.

PC's in Nak are the top tier barring a very select few rinthi pcs STARTING off.  They all start with a shit load of cash, end up in a job or training place within a real life week usually... unless the PLAYER chooses not to and most players who choose that are experienced and never have to worry about sid.

I see, so we've gone from "a woman wants her man's resources" to "PC's in Nak". That's a common fallacy called "moving the goalposts".

Go ahead and play a female PC who has each kid from a different dad if that pleases you. It's pretty easy to play independent-super-mom when the kids are all virtual, isn't it. Right up until mom dies and the kids are orphaned (a common fate for a PC), but we don't think about that, do we.

I used Nak because:

You have people in Allanak starving on the streets. You have run down children who are wearing rags ready to fall off of them.

Do they seem like the product of successful, strong, independent womyn?

Stop moving the goal post. You said a woman wants her man's resources, I am saying that's more a real world belief than a Zalanthan reality based solely on equality of gender in the game and the fact that we play the successful ones, not the destitute like the NPCs unless we want to and I have yet in all my years seen a single starving pc breed. Not one.

Go ahead and play a female PC who has each kid from a different dad if that pleases you. It's pretty easy to play independent-super-mom when the kids are all virtual, isn't it. Right up until mom dies and the kids are orphaned (a common fate for a PC), but we don't think about that, do we.

Axhimas Kadius had two children (I think) out of marriage. One for her cousin Sia, and the other one cause she loved the guy. Taken care of by Kadius should she have an untimely death. Not monogamous in any way.

Blazing Moonrose the Sun Runner, had two too, one for a Bahak whose mother kept bugging him to make her a grandchild and one for the zarajiri she was emotionally monogamous to but not physically. Tribe is taking care of them.

Shy the whore, in a monogamous relationship with Jarls the wanted murderer and criminal of Allanak (yes, she was yet still working) got knocked up - she took a trip to Luir's, went into labor and murdered the infant when it came out because she didn't want it.

I take post mortem into consideration when my pcs have kids. Maybe I'm just more immersed than others but *I* end up with incredible guilt over the children my characters leave behind.

I think Krath said it well enough:

Here is my take.....

1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist  - role-play a monogamist

3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.

My opinion that monogamy shouldn't be the norm has come from THIS helpfile which states:
Given that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality, it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners.

My opinion that it really would not be a 'thing' that women would want their man's resources and that it's real life that's like that, not here, comes from this help file here which states: Avoid imposing your own interpretations and norms on the game world. For example, there is no sexism on Zalanthas; women and men are treated equally.

[valeria]

Monogamy is biological. It has to do with shared parental raising of children.

(A bunch of dubious social, not biological, arguments.)

Humans aren't biologically monogamous. There are a bunch of people that try to figure out why current, westernized society started to trend monogamous, but all we have are theories. Meanwhile, if humans were naturally, biologically monogamous, we'd mate for life like truly monogamous species. There would be no cheating. There would be no "emotional infidelifty." There would be no divorce. There would be no cultures that practice polygany or polyandry. And yet... we have all those things as a species.

So no, monogamy isn't natural or biological. It's a social preference. One that, according to the helpfiles, doesn't exist in Zalanthas.

Speaking as a polyamorous person, I'll say that people handle polyamory in the game about as well as they do in real life. There is quite a bit of drama and jealousy, quite a bit of insecurity, some people who just want to fuck around, and more than a few people who decide they'd rather be monogamous. And I think that's fine. As long as people recognize that there is no PREFERENCE for monogamy in Zalanthas and don't socially stigmatize people who have multiple partners, I think whaever your or your character's preferences are are fine. Just like IG attitudes toward homosexuality.

No one's saying everyone has to be queer and polyamorous. But you shouldn't be stigmatizing people who are. If you are, you aren't playing according to the helpfiles.

[Eyeball]

I used Nak because:

Well, no. You started focusing on PCs, whereas I was talking in general.

I am saying that's more a real world belief than a Zalanthan reality based solely on equality of gender in the game and the fact that we play the successful ones, not the destitute like the NPCs unless we want to and I have yet in all my years seen a single starving pc breed. Not one.

Would it make you happier if I said a male parent trying to raise children would benefit from having a female parent trying to contribute too?

Clearly it would in the case where one of the parents dies, a common event on Zalanthas.

Selling your own children into slavery isn't a recipe for successful reproduction, by the way. Those who make the effort to provide a future for their children are going to pass on their genes. Doing everything you can for your children is built into human nature because the genes of those who did were more successfully propagated than those who didn't.

Axhimas Kadius had two children (I think) out of marriage. One for her cousin Sia, and the other one cause she loved the guy. Taken care of by Kadius should she have an untimely death. Not monogamous in any way.

A very specific example of a woman who had the resources of a wealthy, powerful family at her disposal, so she could afford to dispense with a husband. Most Zalanthanian's don't have this.

Blazing Moonrose the Sun Runner, had two too, one for a Bahak whose mother kept bugging him to make her a grandchild and one for the zarajiri she was emotionally monogamous to but not physically. Tribe is taking care of them.

Elves aren't even human, I'm not going to speculate about their biology. Nor about dwarves, who some believe simply spring out of holes in the ground.

Shy the whore, in a monogamous relationship with Jarls the wanted murderer and criminal of Allanak (yes, she was yet still working) got knocked up - she took a trip to Luir's, went into labor and murdered the infant when it came out because she didn't want it.

Killing her own children. Total failure of reproductive fitness.

The bottom line is that PCs are the about the worst reproducers ever. They take stupid risks, they die young, they rarely form lasting relationships, they behave as if the kids make no almost no claim on their time because they don't appear in the game, and they make no provision for their kids in the event of their disablement or death. They really are not a good example of how things are on Zalanthas, and they make you wonder why exceptional people keep being born if they go and eliminate themselves from the species the way they do.

EDIT: Here's another interesting point. Men and women on Zalanthas are equal, but while I've seen plenty of female characters who state they have children, I've seen exactly zero male single parent PCs.

[Eyeball]

Monogamy is biological. It has to do with shared parental raising of children.

(A bunch of dubious social, not biological, arguments.)

The social behaviors arise from what works to successfully propagate genes. An example of a behavior arising from reproductive success: men who pursue sex are more likely to reproduce than those who don't care about it. So men in general end up have strong sex drives, which leads to various sorts of social behavior.

In a society with sparse resources, a woman raising a kid is going to have a better chance if the man contributes than if the man just spreads his seed and walks away. I don't understand why this isn't obvious.

A man who sticks around to contribute is going to want a commitment from the woman, because those who don't care if the children aren't theirs end up having the genes that led to their not caring shrink out of the gene pool.

Yes, behavior is not 100% determined by genetics, but it's huge factor.

And yes, men will sometimes be polygamous when they can get away with it. In the past, the ones for which this was a successful reproductive strategy were the apex males who had the resources for more than one family. Few men can be apex males.

And yes, women will sometimes be polyamorous, although they tend more to serial monogamy. Generally when they have enough of their own resources that they don't need a partner, they can just take them for pleasure. But this historically has been rare. They're more likely to simply cuckold their male partner and pass the child off as his.

[Riev]

Here is my take.....

1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist  - role-play a monogamist

3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.

Shit-reposting this.

This isn't a discussion on why people are monogamous or polygamist in general. This is about Zalanthas, which allows for both. Play what you want. If someone doesn't "get" your relationship, deal with it ICly.

[Eyeball]

This isn't a discussion on why people are monogamous or polygamist in general. This is about Zalanthas, which allows for both. Play what you want. If someone doesn't "get" your relationship, deal with it ICly.

Good grief. From the original post:

So, my question is why monogamy among commoners the default? Why isn't polygamy more of a default?

I don't see anything saying the question is specific to PCs.

[nauta]

It isn't documented that Zalanthans have genes.  Hence, there's no reason to suppose that they would be driven by any so-called 'genetic' urge (to reproduce or otherwise).  For all we know, Zalanthans are made up of the four elements and were created by the Urdragon Ishmael.
In a world that is harsh, like Zalanthas, any number of social arrangements can be had for raising children, where that relation can have as its terminus or termini: nobody at all (abandoned); one other person (single parent, male or female); two or more other people (be they the parents or complete strangers).

[Eyeball]

It isn't documented that Zalanthans have genes.  Hence, there's no reason to suppose that they would be driven by any so-called 'genetic' urge (to reproduce or otherwise).  For all we know, Zalanthans are made up of the four elements and were created by the Urdragon Ishmael.
In a word that is harsh, any number of social arrangements can be had for raising children, where that relation can have as its terminus or termini: nobody at all (abandoned); one other person (single parent, male or female); two or more other people (be they the parents or complete strangers).

Ok, the answer to the original post is "unicorns and rainbows" then. What does it matter anyhow. Still drives me batty though, how at one moment people will condemn those who don't extensively play out being wounded for being unrealistic, and almost in the next breath, say "Zalanthas isn't Earth" and people don't even have genetic material! 

[Riev]

Reading through 6 pages, I don't know that it was ever confirmed that "commoners are commonly monogamous" was ever confirmed. Monogamy is TYPICALLY about marriage, and even if its extended to sexual partners, there is no documentation that suggests that "commoners typically only take one mate at a time".

This thread was necro'd, but it is based off no real fact. There's no discussion because the question was "Why is monogamy so common?"

It isn't. In the virtual world of Zalanthas, it isn't. But we're players, roleplaying our parts in the world, and most people have a specific upbringing and comfort level. So among PCs, monogamy probably is stacked in favor of monogamy. We're playing a game. So.

Here is my take.....

1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist  - role-play a monogamist

3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.

[Eyeball]

This thread was necro'd

The thread was still on the front page of the forum, actually.

[Riev]

This thread was necro'd

The thread was still on the front page of the forum, actually.

It had been last discussed 5 months ago. But you were the one talking about "moving the goalposts" earlier, and now you're picking apart an argument over the etymology and meaning of a term, rather than the discussion.

I'm merely pointing out that in 6 pages of discussion, at no point was the fact "Commoners are, statistically, more likely to be monogamists". It is, actually, documented that Zalanthan Commoners have multiple sexual partners and this is the norm.

So the discussion is based on false pretenses, and everyone is discussion Real-Life Bleed rather than "how it is".

[ShaLeah]

It isn't documented that Zalanthans have genes.  Hence, there's no reason to suppose that they would be driven by any so-called 'genetic' urge (to reproduce or otherwise).  For all we know, Zalanthans are made up of the four elements and were created by the Urdragon Ishmael.
In a word that is harsh, any number of social arrangements can be had for raising children, where that relation can have as its terminus or termini: nobody at all (abandoned); one other person (single parent, male or female); two or more other people (be they the parents or complete strangers).

Ok, the answer to the original post is "unicorns and rainbows" then. What does it matter anyhow.

No. The answer to the original post is in the help file previously posted:

...THIS helpfile which states:
Given that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality, it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners.

So,

So, my question is why monogamy among commoners the default? Why isn't polygamy more of a default?

Because people aren't playing according to the docs.

[Eyeball]

This thread was necro'd

The thread was still on the front page of the forum, actually.

It had been last discussed 5 months ago. But you were the one talking about "moving the goalposts" earlier, and now you're picking apart an argument over the etymology and meaning of a term, rather than the discussion.

I'm merely pointing out that in 6 pages of discussion, at no point was the fact "Commoners are, statistically, more likely to be monogamists". It is, actually, documented that Zalanthan Commoners have multiple sexual partners and this is the norm.

So the discussion is based on false pretenses, and everyone is discussion Real-Life Bleed rather than "how it is".

Oh, just go away. I'd call you a grumpy old curmudgeon, except that I'm probably older than you are. 

[WithSprinkles]

(glances at the theories in her last post, shrugs and grabs popcorn)

I'll interject here that I have seen several single male PCs raising children before and have even done so myself IG.

[Tiktak]

This topic comes up every few years and the same two sides (for or against monogamy and the reasons behind it) rear up and weigh their worth.

It is NOT against documentation if your character is monogamous. It is NOT against documentation if your character is polyamorous. It is NOT against documentation if your character is a polygamist. It is NOt against documentation if your character is asexual.

While it is the normative that many Zalanthans do not find it practical to have just one mate given the harsh climes of the world, it is not some alien behavior to see it happen.

[ShaLeah]

It is NOT against documentation if your character is monogamous.

Tiktak is right. The documents don't say there is no monogamy. They just say it's common (ie the norm) to see Zalanthas with many SEX PARTNERS (not mates) so while not the norm it *does* happen.

I agree with OP that monogamy seems more prevalent.  It's been the normal request for at least one lover throughout all my characters.

[Marauder Moe]

Here is my take.....

1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist  - role-play a monogamist

3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.

I'm actually going to suggest pressuring each other into different lifestyle choices is just normal human behavior (aka roleplay), even to the point of being a dick about it.  Doesn't seem all that different to me from pressure towards doing drugs, racism, music genres, fashion, or pizza toppings.

[ShaLeah]

Here is my take.....

1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist  - role-play a monogamist

3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.

I'm actually going to suggest pressuring each other into different lifestyle choices is just normal human behavior (aka roleplay), even to the point of being a dick about it.  Doesn't seem all that different to me from pressure towards doing drugs, racism, music genres, fashion, or pizza toppings.

Will continue to pressure MM to stop FTBing.

[valeria]

I get that you disagree, Eyeball, and why you disagree. Neat theories, man. But monogamy is common in only about 10% of mammals and 25% of primates. Primates as a group are highly social, and issues with infanticide, paternity, and resources aren't limited strictly to humans. Still... monogamy in only 25% of primate species. I don't find it strange at all that Zalanthas cultures largely decided not to go the monogamy route and that multiple partners are common. I just don't disagree with your monogamy/biology theory. I think people play mongamists because that's their social role in real life and they're comfortable with it. No culture is a monolith, which is why I don't care what you play, as long as it's within the docs.

[cshoov]

My opinion that monogamy shouldn't be the norm has come from THIS helpfile which states:
Given that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality, it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners.

Would like to point out that the statement "polygamy is common" does not necessitate "polygamy is the most common" and further, neither of those statements necessitates "monogamy is uncommon."