Na'vi Divorce? and other mating rituals discussion! (PG-13)

Started by Zefanaya, February 27, 2010, 08:34:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Zefanaya

OFF TOPIC BUT IT IS DAMN IMPORTANT

http://forum.learnnavi.org/your-projects-other-resources/new-navi-stuff!!-(hello-kitty-of-doom!!)/

this is amazing help Seabass keep the lights on for this sight check out this thread.


AM 2012 - Uniting the Clans Planning Team
Zephaniah Washington - [email protected]

A Furry - FA: Tirey
AMERICANS FOR PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH

Tìng Eywatikìte'e

Heh, already have mine *feels special* They're pretty much amazing, I agree that everyone should have one!
Oeri lu Eywayä 'eveng


Tsu'roen

Quote from: Txur'Itan on March 02, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
It is not entirely clear how one becomes Tsahìk, but it would seem to be fairly easy to become Olo'eyktan if the current one dies (x2).  

While, it would seem that is the case that Clan leader and Tsahìk should be mates, but I do not think we yet have enough information to know that they must be mates.

We know from bit's and pieces in script and movie that to become Tsahik you need to go through a (most likely extended) period of training under the watch of the current Tsahik. The Movie shows Neytiri performing rituals that are most likely part of her training.
Also at the Tree of Souls we see that there are at least 2 other trainees besides Neytiri. So even if she would fall away for whatever reasons there would be a replacement.

For Olo'eyktan - as far as we know - you "just" need to be a proven warrior (not necessarily in a war though), in general the best of the clan.

So for both positions replacements are on hand if required - which makes a lot of sense if you ask me.

Oh, and for them becoming a pair - well, that may be a general rule but we do not know for sure if it is a solid law.
"There are many dangers on Pandora, and one of the subtlest is that you may come to love it too much" ~ Dr. Grace Augustine

"You have a strong heart. No fear. But stupid!  Ignorant like a child!" ~ Neytiri te Tskaha Mo'at'ite

10x (1x 2D, 3x Real 3D, 6x IMAX 3D)
1x Special Ed. (1x IMAX 3D)

Zefanaya

Quote from: Tsu'roen on March 03, 2010, 02:59:26 AM
Quote from: Txur'Itan on March 02, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
It is not entirely clear how one becomes Tsahìk, but it would seem to be fairly easy to become Olo'eyktan if the current one dies (x2).  

While, it would seem that is the case that Clan leader and Tsahìk should be mates, but I do not think we yet have enough information to know that they must be mates.

We know from bit's and pieces in script and movie that to become Tsahik you need to go through a (most likely extended) period of training under the watch of the current Tsahik. The Movie shows Neytiri performing rituals that are most likely part of her training.
Also at the Tree of Souls we see that there are at least 2 other trainees besides Neytiri. So even if she would fall away for whatever reasons there would be a replacement.

For Olo'eyktan - as far as we know - you "just" need to be a proven warrior (not necessarily in a war though), in general the best of the clan.

So for both positions replacements are on hand if required - which makes a lot of sense if you ask me.

Oh, and for them becoming a pair - well, that may be a general rule but we do not know for sure if it is a solid law.

I completely agree with the part about the Tsa'hik, however when it comes to being Olo'eyktan or Olo'eykte (depending on what clan you are in), I think that the Tsa'hik would take some of the best of the clan and present them to Eywa and Eywa would in turn pick the next Olo'eyktan/eykte, (speculation), this might not be the same for every clan (as some are not close to the tree of souls, but as far as we know every clan has a Tsa'hik) and access to Utral Aymokriya (speculation) ), either way I think that Eywa is involved somehow in the picking of the next Olo'eyktan/eykte, and am almost 100% sure that Eywa plays a major part in picking the ayeykan/te in the Omaticayan clan.
AM 2012 - Uniting the Clans Planning Team
Zephaniah Washington - [email protected]

A Furry - FA: Tirey
AMERICANS FOR PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH

Tsamsiyu Atsteu

#44
Humans are monogamous, so I don't quite get you. Almost every society (granted there are peoples that practice polygamy) is a union of only two people and they have codes and rules against extramarital affairs.  Are you saying that cheating is okay, then because it's 'biological'? I take a bit of offense to that, 'eylan. There are certain evolutionary traits that would make mating with only one person beneficial, such as less exposure to disease, less a drain on resources and a two parent home, considering how long it takes a human child to reach maturity and leave their parents' care. I do not belive that humans are anything but monogamous and those who say otherwise are generally trying to defend the male habits of cheating. Mating is something sacred and most if not all cultures share this view.


Quote from: Tsu'roen on February 28, 2010, 10:54:55 PM
Well, Na'vi are obviously monogamous by nature so "divorce" is by default unnecessary.
Don't make the mistake to impose human standards on the Na'vi as humans are by their nature polygamous and monogamy is only a religious or cultural rule.
Also, as the system is laid out Na'vi mates are tested for compatibility by Eywa before the bond is made. So unless Eywa makes mistakes the mates should be a perfect match and the bond should last.
I'd say the bond between Na'vi mates only ends with the death of one of the mates.
Of course that leaves them always the option for a divorce Italian style 8)
To live in the past is to die in the present.

Zefanaya

Quote from: Tsamsiyu Atsteu on March 03, 2010, 07:38:05 PM
Humans are monogamous, so I don't quite get you. Almost every society (granted there are peoples that practice polygamy) is a union of only two people and they have codes and rules against extramarital affairs.  Are you saying that cheating is okay, then because it's 'biological'? I take a bit of offense to that, 'eylan. There are certain evolutionary traits that would make mating with only one person beneficial, such as less exposure to disease, less a drain on resources and a two parent home, considering how long it takes a human child to reach maturity and leave their parents' care. I do not belive that humans are anything but monogamous and those who say otherwise are generally trying to defend the male habits of cheating. Mating is something sacred and most if not all cultures share this view.


Quote from: Tsu'roen on February 28, 2010, 10:54:55 PM
Well, Na'vi are obviously monogamous by nature so "divorce" is by default unnecessary.
Don't make the mistake to impose human standards on the Na'vi as humans are by their nature polygamous and monogamy is only a religious or cultural rule.
Also, as the system is laid out Na'vi mates are tested for compatibility by Eywa before the bond is made. So unless Eywa makes mistakes the mates should be a perfect match and the bond should last.
I'd say the bond between Na'vi mates only ends with the death of one of the mates.
Of course that leaves them always the option for a divorce Italian style 8)

Irayo ma tsmuke, I am glad you caught that as I did, not you are also completely correct.
AM 2012 - Uniting the Clans Planning Team
Zephaniah Washington - [email protected]

A Furry - FA: Tirey
AMERICANS FOR PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH

Tìng Eywatikìte'e

Um, humans aren't monogamous. The majority of cultures out there practice polygamy and even in monogamous societies there is usually a form of dating before marriage. 
Oeri lu Eywayä 'eveng


Zefanaya

Quote from: Tìng Eywatikìte'e on March 03, 2010, 09:28:49 PM
Um, humans aren't monogamous. The majority of cultures out there practice polygamy and even in monogamous societies there is usually a form of dating before marriage. 

I know when I said Tsamsiyu Atsteu was right I was speaking from personal belief I do not believe in polygamy, but I know the statistics.

Quote from: Tirey Hawnuyu on March 03, 2010, 08:50:24 PM
Quote from: Tsamsiyu Atsteu on March 03, 2010, 07:38:05 PM
Humans are monogamous, so I don't quite get you. Almost every society (granted there are peoples that practice polygamy) is a union of only two people and they have codes and rules against extramarital affairs.  Are you saying that cheating is okay, then because it's 'biological'? I take a bit of offense to that, 'eylan. There are certain evolutionary traits that would make mating with only one person beneficial, such as less exposure to disease, less a drain on resources and a two parent home, considering how long it takes a human child to reach maturity and leave their parents' care. I do not belive that humans are anything but monogamous and those who say otherwise are generally trying to defend the male habits of cheating. Mating is something sacred and most if not all cultures share this view.


Quote from: Tsu'roen on February 28, 2010, 10:54:55 PM
Well, Na'vi are obviously monogamous by nature so "divorce" is by default unnecessary.
Don't make the mistake to impose human standards on the Na'vi as humans are by their nature polygamous and monogamy is only a religious or cultural rule.
Also, as the system is laid out Na'vi mates are tested for compatibility by Eywa before the bond is made. So unless Eywa makes mistakes the mates should be a perfect match and the bond should last.
I'd say the bond between Na'vi mates only ends with the death of one of the mates.
Of course that leaves them always the option for a divorce Italian style 8)

Irayo ma tsmuke, I am glad you caught that as I did, not you are also completely correct.
AM 2012 - Uniting the Clans Planning Team
Zephaniah Washington - [email protected]

A Furry - FA: Tirey
AMERICANS FOR PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH

Tìng Eywatikìte'e

Well, yes, but personal/cultural belief does not count for the whole of humanity. While I too believe in only being with one person at a time, it is very different for other people of the world. Also, I have dated more than one person in my life so that shows that our monogamous habits are culture base rather than biological. 
Oeri lu Eywayä 'eveng


Tsamsiyu Atsteu

#49
Ah but, dating leads to marriage and monogamy so your argument there doesn't make sense to me. Humans are monogamous. Dating is not marriage but it is a form of mate selection. Polygamy is not accepted in most cultures that I know of (American, European, ect) . From what I learned in my anthropology course, Humans are for the most part monogamous. The majority of people in the world have only one spouse at a time, save for some tribes in the pacific, Africa and so on. Most people may marry after a divorce, or the death of their mate however, but most believe in mating for life.

Quote from: Tìng Eywatikìte'e on March 03, 2010, 09:28:49 PM
Um, humans aren't monogamous. The majority of cultures out there practice polygamy and even in monogamous societies there is usually a form of dating before marriage. 

Quote from: Tìng Eywatikìte'e on March 03, 2010, 11:59:31 PM
Well, yes, but personal/cultural belief does not count for the whole of humanity. While I too believe in only being with one person at a time, it is very different for other people of the world. Also, I have dated more than one person in my life so that shows that our monogamous habits are culture base rather than biological.  
To live in the past is to die in the present.

Tsa'räni

There are differing definitions of monogamy.  You can classify humans as either depending on which definition (usually which branch of study) you're using.  And I haven't seen anyone trying to defend the cheating ways of men here.  It is entirely possible to have a real discussion about the various meanings of monogamy as they relate to humans and not have it come off that way.

If you want my opinion, as a species from a purely scientific point of view, humans are not monogamous.  It is generally cultural practices that bring about the monogamy (when it does happen, which isn't always).  And even beyond that, as I said, that is only talking about one definition of monogamy.

Tsamsiyu Atsteu

#51
I'm sorry but I stand by the facts. Humans are monogamous. Plain and simple. There are obvious advantages to it as I have said. And, the world at large does not practice polygamy. Some isolated places still do it, but the ratio of women to men is usually in that case skewed and there is the other form of polygamy I can't recall that is one woman with many husbands, also resulting from skewed gender numbers. Those are adaptive traits and the exception not the rule.

Quote from: Tsa'räni on March 04, 2010, 12:12:36 AM
There are differing definitions of monogamy.  You can classify humans as either depending on which definition (usually which branch of study) you're using.  And I haven't seen anyone trying to defend the cheating ways of men here.  It is entirely possible to have a real discussion about the various meanings of monogamy as they relate to humans and not have it come off that way.

If you want my opinion, as a species from a purely scientific point of view, humans are not monogamous.  It is generally cultural practices that bring about the monogamy (when it does happen, which isn't always).  And even beyond that, as I said, that is only talking about one definition of monogamy.
To live in the past is to die in the present.

Tsu'roen

Quote from: Tìng Eywatikìte'e on March 03, 2010, 11:59:31 PM
Well, yes, but personal/cultural belief does not count for the whole of humanity. While I too believe in only being with one person at a time, it is very different for other people of the world. Also, I have dated more than one person in my life so that shows that our monogamous habits are culture base rather than biological.  
That's called serial monogamy and  "is characterized by a series of long- or short-term, exclusive sexual relationships entered into consecutively over the lifespan. This does not refer to a fourth variety of monogamy in regards to the three main types, but is a type of monogamy that can describe any of the three varieties.

In common usage referring to humans, the two partners need not be married, but may be involved in a sexually monogamous relationship. This behavior is sometimes referred to as a form of, or replacement for, polygamy.
"   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_monogamy#Serial_monogamy)

According to evolutionary psychologists David Barash and Judith Lipton, from their 2001 book The Myth of Monogamy, there are several varieties of pair bonds:

  • Short-term pair-bond: a transient mating or associations
  • Long-term pair-bond: bonded for a significant portion of the life cycle of that pair
  • Lifelong pair-bond: mated for the life of that pair
  • Social pair-bond: attachments for territorial or social reasons, as in cuckold situations
  • Clandestine pair-bond: quick extra-pair copulations
  • Dynamic pair-bond: e.g. gibbon mating systems being analogous to "swingers"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bonding#Varieties)
"There are many dangers on Pandora, and one of the subtlest is that you may come to love it too much" ~ Dr. Grace Augustine

"You have a strong heart. No fear. But stupid!  Ignorant like a child!" ~ Neytiri te Tskaha Mo'at'ite

10x (1x 2D, 3x Real 3D, 6x IMAX 3D)
1x Special Ed. (1x IMAX 3D)

Tsa'räni


Tsamsiyu Atsteu

I do not want to get into a contest here or get in trouble so I will simply say that is what I learned in my college anthropology course and stick with that.



Quote from: Tsa'räni on March 04, 2010, 12:22:47 AM
I would be interested to see your facts.
To live in the past is to die in the present.

Tsu'roen

Quote from: Tsamsiyu Atsteu on March 04, 2010, 12:16:33 AM
I'm sorry but I stand by the facts. Humans are monogamous. Plain and simple. ...
Genetics stand against that:
"At least 10% of Australian and Canadian children are conceived in an affair. Some DNA studies put it as high as 15%.
In 2003 more than 3,000 DNA paternity tests were commissioned by Australian men. In almost a quarter of those cases, the test revealed that 'their' child had been fathered by someone else. In 30% of paternity tests commissioned by suspecting fathers and performed at the American Association of Blood Banks in the year 2000, the father was not the true biological parent." [11]
 
"There are many dangers on Pandora, and one of the subtlest is that you may come to love it too much" ~ Dr. Grace Augustine

"You have a strong heart. No fear. But stupid!  Ignorant like a child!" ~ Neytiri te Tskaha Mo'at'ite

10x (1x 2D, 3x Real 3D, 6x IMAX 3D)
1x Special Ed. (1x IMAX 3D)

Tsa'räni

Quote from: Tsamsiyu Atsteu on March 04, 2010, 12:29:35 AM
I do not want to get into a contest here or get in trouble so I will simply say that is what I learned in my college anthropology course and stick with that.



Quote from: Tsa'räni on March 04, 2010, 12:22:47 AM
I would be interested to see your facts.

Fair enough, but there are anthropologists who I think post on this board, and I have a feeling they are going to disagree with you.  I believe one of them already has.

Tsamsiyu Atsteu

That's Australia, ma 'eylan. You're beating a dead pa'li. They're not as monogamous as other places. I was engaged to one, I should know.

Quote from: Tsu'roen on March 04, 2010, 12:32:36 AM
Quote from: Tsamsiyu Atsteu on March 04, 2010, 12:16:33 AM
I'm sorry but I stand by the facts. Humans are monogamous. Plain and simple. ...
Genetics stand against that:
"In 2003 more than 3,000 DNA paternity tests were commissioned by Australian men. In almost a quarter of those cases, the test revealed that 'their' child had been fathered by someone else. In 30% of paternity tests commissioned by suspecting fathers and performed at the American Association of Blood Banks in the year 2000, the father was not the true biological parent. [11]"  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelity)
To live in the past is to die in the present.

Tsamsiyu Atsteu

What does that have to do with anything. I have a right to my opinion. All I did was state what I was taught *shrug*. I'm feeling backed into a corner here. :(

Quote from: Tsa'räni on March 04, 2010, 12:34:09 AM
Quote from: Tsamsiyu Atsteu on March 04, 2010, 12:29:35 AM
I do not want to get into a contest here or get in trouble so I will simply say that is what I learned in my college anthropology course and stick with that.



Quote from: Tsa'räni on March 04, 2010, 12:22:47 AM
I would be interested to see your facts.

Fair enough, but there are anthropologists who I think post on this board, and I have a feeling they are going to disagree with you.  I believe one of them already has.
To live in the past is to die in the present.

Tsa'räni

I won't continue the conversation, then.  But while you have a right to your opinion, you explicitly stated it as fact.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who takes that to mean it's open to counter arguments.  But anyway, I'm done.