Monstrous Regiment --why don't I love it?
- Thread starter Trish
- Start date
poohbcarrot said:
You aren't a mormon by any chance, are you?
You're advocating polygamy!
And I've never said anything even remotely MCP-ish!
You're advocating polygamy!
And I've never said anything even remotely MCP-ish!
As Nanny Ogg might say 'suck it and see...' Put it this way - with polygamy you get to test drive lots of models in 1 go so it's more exciting than serial monogamy (and much cheaper on the divorce fees as well), always have a courtesy ride whilst one's in for their MOT and saves time looking for spare parts too :twisted:
Dunno about the reverse side of things Dotsie - one women & several men (deliberate FCP bit coming up Pooh...
) as the more hirsute gender tend to squabble when in groups more and can you imagine the sulking when it's not their 'turn'? :twisted:Dotsie, you ought to have gotten married in Nepal. When you marry a Nyinban man, you're automatically married to all of his brothers too!
Jan Van Quirm, "polygamy" actually means "multiple spouses". If you want to be gender specific you'll need to use "Polygyny" (multiple wives) and "Polyandry" (multiple husbands).
I don't know why the first thing people think of when discussing polygamy is sex. The largest benefits are financial.
Come to that, you don't need to be polygamous to "test drive a lot of models". If you believe the often-quoted numbers roughly half the people out there are Polyamorous anyway.
Jan Van Quirm, "polygamy" actually means "multiple spouses". If you want to be gender specific you'll need to use "Polygyny" (multiple wives) and "Polyandry" (multiple husbands).
I don't know why the first thing people think of when discussing polygamy is sex. The largest benefits are financial.
Come to that, you don't need to be polygamous to "test drive a lot of models". If you believe the often-quoted numbers roughly half the people out there are Polyamorous anyway.
Good 'un kakaze!
Serial monogamy is where you only eat "Weetabix" for breakfast every day.
Polygamy is where you have a big bowl full of cornflakes, rice crispies, cocopops, honey nut loops, shredded wheat, porridge and kippers for breakfast every day.
In polygamy can't they be one after the other, or do they all have to be at the same time in one go?
Serial monogamy is where you only eat "Weetabix" for breakfast every day.
Polygamy is where you have a big bowl full of cornflakes, rice crispies, cocopops, honey nut loops, shredded wheat, porridge and kippers for breakfast every day.
In polygamy can't they be one after the other, or do they all have to be at the same time in one go?
Depends how much you've got to go around doesn't it? PMSL
And I'm not looking at it from a gender perspective necessarily - females just tend to get on better in groups by and large - one cockerel in a henhouse tends to do OK for instance:
So the multiple spouses concept isn't gender-specific except by custom (one woman or man to many of the opposite sex) and I was looking at it from a 'viability' PoV where there is a legal contract in place (not necessarily marriage but 'official' as it were since many countries only recognise the trad hetero coupledom) and not 'adventures' outside of the contractual parties...?
Now I'm getting confused too - what would happen if all involved in the contract were allowed as many spouses as they wanted? Or were homosexual or bi-sexual? *screams in confusion*
I've merely cited the more common male singleton/female poly-way and not necessarily from the sexual aspect, to whit -
As for polygamy and harems - you always know who the old man's with and where; have back-up if you have a headache/have to wash your hair/need a bloody good gossip and at least a couple of nights off a week... plus you always have someone to go shopping for shoes with and/or talk to instead of having to listen to non-stop drivel about football (any sort) or how great the new car is?
Based on female physiology and social tendencies... :twisted: I'm sure there are non-sexual advantages the other way around too - it's just from personal obvservations down fifty-odd years males tend to not to like to share so much...
EDIT - which, by a circuitous route, kind of brings us back onto topic again on the point that women are possibly less keen on war-mongering than men. Something I think we were actually getting a consensus on before the attractions or otherwise of polygamy intervened... :twisted:
Speaking only for myself and again from bitter experience, one husband is more than enough trouble and effort for me and frankly I'd far rather have a cup of tea - and a choccy hob-nob of course
And I'm not looking at it from a gender perspective necessarily - females just tend to get on better in groups by and large - one cockerel in a henhouse tends to do OK for instance
: So the multiple spouses concept isn't gender-specific except by custom (one woman or man to many of the opposite sex) and I was looking at it from a 'viability' PoV where there is a legal contract in place (not necessarily marriage but 'official' as it were since many countries only recognise the trad hetero coupledom) and not 'adventures' outside of the contractual parties...?
Now I'm getting confused too - what would happen if all involved in the contract were allowed as many spouses as they wanted? Or were homosexual or bi-sexual? *screams in confusion*
I've merely cited the more common male singleton/female poly-way and not necessarily from the sexual aspect, to whit -
As for polygamy and harems - you always know who the old man's with and where; have back-up if you have a headache/have to wash your hair/need a bloody good gossip and at least a couple of nights off a week... plus you always have someone to go shopping for shoes with and/or talk to instead of having to listen to non-stop drivel about football (any sort) or how great the new car is?
Based on female physiology and social tendencies... :twisted: I'm sure there are non-sexual advantages the other way around too - it's just from personal obvservations down fifty-odd years males tend to not to like to share so much...
EDIT - which, by a circuitous route, kind of brings us back onto topic again on the point that women are possibly less keen on war-mongering than men. Something I think we were actually getting a consensus on before the attractions or otherwise of polygamy intervened... :twisted:
Speaking only for myself and again from bitter experience, one husband is more than enough trouble and effort for me and frankly I'd far rather have a cup of tea - and a choccy hob-nob of course
Dwarf polygamy would be interesting coz (assuming you knew your own sex) you wouldn't know if you had 6 wives, 6 husbands or a combination somewhere inbetween.
In fact dwarf polygamy possibly took place in Snow White. Were they all male?
So the following old joke takes on a whole new meaning;
6 dwarves in a bath feeling happy, but he got out so they felt grumpy.
In fact dwarf polygamy possibly took place in Snow White. Were they all male?
So the following old joke takes on a whole new meaning;
6 dwarves in a bath feeling happy, but he got out so they felt grumpy.
I think this is where we hand it back to Sharlene as I am (amazingly) agreeing with you on that point poohb - I can't remember that point being made in the book either.
I have to go out now for the rest of the day (am soft-launching this new site) but before I do what I would say on that theory is that the book actually infers the very opposite as the Sarge, through recruiting so many disguised ladies for so long has created a cadre of mostly females in high military office. So what Borogravia actually has is female-led armed forces who are still waging war - badly!
I have to go out now for the rest of the day (am soft-launching this new site) but before I do what I would say on that theory is that the book actually infers the very opposite as the Sarge, through recruiting so many disguised ladies for so long has created a cadre of mostly females in high military office. So what Borogravia actually has is female-led armed forces who are still waging war - badly!
I've just read MR for the second time and I enjoyed it much more this time. Initially it didn't feel 'Discworldy' enough but once the recruits were all signed up with Igor, Maladict and Carborundum, it started to feel right. The short section with Sam Vimes just seemed like an addition to give the background to the war and it was not obvious what kind of part the Ankh Morpork contingent would play . I really liked the idea that spitting, farting and a judicially placed pair of socks could change a girl to a man . I loved Polly, definitely my kind of girl. Should I be worried by that? Well, she was the heiress to a pub!
. I really liked the idea that spitting, farting and a judicially placed pair of socks could change a girl to a man . I loved Polly, definitely my kind of girl. Should I be worried by that? Well, she was the heiress to a pub!
Just a quick point before I go out. I think the difference here is that the woman in command of the army etc. are different in that they have been pretending to be men for so long that they have almost become parodies of men - more masculine than men in an effort to disguise themselves.
It obviously has something to do with the wearing of socks.
Even though Polly goes back into the army; she goes back under her terms - as a woman - NOT a woman pretending to be a man.
It obviously has something to do with the wearing of socks.
Even though Polly goes back into the army; she goes back under her terms - as a woman - NOT a woman pretending to be a man.
Tonyblack said:
Even though Polly goes back into the army; she goes back under her terms - as a woman - NOT a woman pretending to be a man.
By staying in the army as a woman, surely it proves that women are just as war-mongerish as men and it wasn't just socks making her act aggressively.
It's been a long time since I read this book, but I don't remember getting a "women are non-militant" feel from it. More of a general "war is wasteful" theme.
I was going to bring up the Amazon warriors, but then I found out that they were just a legend.
I know we're about to get into the whole Nature vs. Nurture thing here, but I think it largely depends on how you were raised and the environment around you.
I was going to bring up the Amazon warriors, but then I found out that they were just a legend.
I know we're about to get into the whole Nature vs. Nurture thing here, but I think it largely depends on how you were raised and the environment around you.
