Writing 404: Marriage not found

[CommonSense]

Here's the premise:
-It's a fantasy medieval world, around beginning of age of renaissance, with magics ofc.
-It is a world where concept of marriage doesn't develop.
-Sex it self is still seen as the same, an activity to have fun as well as a sacred ritual to have a child.
- ̷A̷ ̷w̷o̷m̷a̷n̷ ̷i̷s̷ ̷n̷o̷t̷e̷d̷ ̷a̷s̷ ̷"̷c̷l̷a̷i̷m̷e̷d̷"̷ ̷i̷f̷ ̷s̷h̷e̷'̷s̷ ̷p̷r̷e̷g̷n̷a̷n̷t̷,̷ ̷o̷r̷ ̷l̷i̷v̷e̷ ̷t̷o̷g̷e̷t̷h̷e̷r̷ ̷a̷n̷d̷ ̷s̷l̷e̷e̷p̷ ̷o̷n̷ ̷a̷ ̷s̷a̷m̷e̷ ̷b̷e̷d̷r̷o̷o̷m̷ ̷w̷i̷t̷h̷ ̷a̷ ̷m̷a̷n̷.̷
- ̷"̷C̷l̷a̷i̷m̷e̷d̷"̷ ̷w̷o̷m̷e̷n̷ ̷i̷s̷ ̷l̷o̷o̷s̷e̷l̷y̷ ̷b̷e̷c̷a̷m̷e̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷m̷a̷n̷'̷s̷ ̷r̷e̷s̷p̷o̷n̷s̷i̷b̷i̷l̷i̷t̷y̷ ̷i̷n̷ ̷e̷x̷c̷h̷a̷n̷g̷e̷ ̷t̷o̷ ̷t̷e̷n̷d̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷h̷i̷s̷ ̷n̷e̷e̷d̷s̷.̷ ̷T̷h̷e̷ ̷w̷o̷m̷a̷n̷ ̷a̷n̷d̷ ̷m̷a̷n̷ ̷s̷t̷i̷l̷l̷ ̷f̷r̷e̷e̷ ̷t̷o̷ ̷h̷a̷v̷e̷ ̷s̷e̷x̷ ̷w̷i̷t̷h̷ ̷o̷t̷h̷e̷r̷ ̷p̷e̷o̷p̷l̷e̷ ̷t̷h̷o̷.̷
-Blood relation only count from mother side, so same father but different mother doesn't count as siblings.
-Incest is still frowned upon, but still somewhat acceptable and quite common. (No inbreeding damage btw, cuz magic)

I'd like to discuss the effect of those norm to society. Like, how would the society build? Will the society lean towards matriarchy instead? How will homosexuality viewed?

EDIT: screw two of those, since as pointed by weakbywords, they're contradictory.

 

[Kldran]

Whether it becomes a Matriarchy or not would depend a lot on how much people care about blood relations. In a society where possessions, titles, and responsibilities are passed down from parents to children, then tracking bloodlines through mothers, and not fathers, would likely result in a matriarchy (as passing things down requires clear tracking of the link between parent and child to avoid dispute).

I'd note though, that there are plenty of other ways to structure the passing on of ownership and title upon death, than through blood relations. It wasn't uncommon in the past for some things to just get passed on to whomever the owner wanted, without regard for blood relations or other such claims, however, that does require that a next in line be figured out in advance.

 

[LilithFairen]

How in the world would matriarchy result from a system where a woman is deemed to be "claimed" by a man?

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Here's the premise:
-It's a fantasy medieval world, around beginning of age of renaissance, with magics ofc.
-It is a world where concept of marriage doesn't develop.
-Sex it self is still seen as the same, an activity to have fun as well as a sacred ritual to have a child.
-A woman is noted as "claimed" if she's pregnant, or live together and sleep on a same bedroom with a man.
-"Claimed" women is loosely became the man's responsibility in exchange to tending his needs. The woman and man still free to have sex with other people tho.
-Blood relation only count from mother side, so same father but different mother doesn't count as siblings.
-Incest is still frowned upon, but still somewhat acceptable and quite common. (No inbreeding damage btw, cuz magic)

I'd like to discuss the effect of those norm to society. Like, how would the society build? Will the society lean towards matriarchy instead? How will homosexuality viewed?

This system is problematic from many points of view. Even when a formal marriage didn't exist, de facto marriages and relationships more uxorio would be still a thing. Marriage evolved as a social institution across so many cultures for a reason.

 

[AliceShiki]

Well, without the institution of marriage, I guess it would be harder to make some political arrangements maybe?

Though one could argue that they could still be handled mostly the same way, but with them deciding which people will go sleep with whom, instead of who will marriage with whom.

I'm not sure any significant changes would happen tbh. Feels like it would basically be the same as usual, but with sex being viewed more loosely.

 

[Arexio]

Sex in this culture seems more relaxed and casual. By extension, homosexuality in this culture would most likely be as relaxed unless there are religious elements involved.

I mean, this seems like the type of culture that would have sex orgies as part of a harvest festival or something, so gender doesn't really matter in those circumstances. ?

 

[BenJepheneT]

Sex in this culture seems more relaxed and casual. By extension, homosexuality in this culture would most likely be as relaxed unless there are religious elements involved.

I mean, this seems like the type of culture that would have sex orgies as part of a harvest festival or something, so gender doesn't really matter in those circumstances. ?

so ancient rome?

 

[weakwithwords]

The "claimed" concept is basically primitive society's early form of marriage and that "free to have sex" is either hedonism or polyamory.

Besides the lack of magic, how is this that much different from the real world nowadays?

When there's smoke, there won't always be a fire, but we can be sure something's causing the smoke. Your matriarchy has no apparent cause to emerge.

Also, nothing in the setting can be used to hypothesize if homosexuality will be marginalized or accepted.

 

[CommonSense]

Whether it becomes a Matriarchy or not would depend a lot on how much people care about blood relations. In a society where possessions, titles, and responsibilities are passed down from parents to children, then tracking bloodlines through mothers, and not fathers, would likely result in a matriarchy (as passing things down requires clear tracking of the link between parent and child to avoid dispute).

I'd note though, that there are plenty of other ways to structure the passing on of ownership and title upon death, than through blood relations. It wasn't uncommon in the past for some things to just get passed on to whomever the owner wanted, without regard for blood relations or other such claims, however, that does require that a next in line be figured out in advance.

I think it'll also depend on who's the which gender most populous workforce tho... Like, parent would naturally want to pass down their works to their blood related child. In this society it'll be easy for mothers to pass down their legacy, but fathers will conflict about passing his life work to a child possibly not his. That's why also i think it'll go toward matriarchy. Passing down without regard of blood relation is interesting but it seems will force a lot of dark morals.
This however also mean that society probably put emphasis on heir of family. Like, there would be no incompetent heir unless they plan to ruin a family. All incompetent ones probably will be discarded without exception. Hmm... interesting. Noted.

This system is problematic from many points of view. Even when a formal marriage didn't exist, de facto marriages and relationships more uxorio would be still a thing. Marriage evolved as a social institution across so many cultures for a reason.

Back then marriage had very little to do with love or with religion. Proto-marriages primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a mans children were truly his biological heirs. IDK if it's true but google said that love only starts getting involved in marriage around medieval era. That's why i'm curious what if there's no marriage concept on beginning of renaissance era and if blood relation only counts from mother (thus defeating the purpose of proto-marriage).
Also, the reason of spread of current marriage system is because of religion.

Well, without the institution of marriage, I guess it would be harder to make some political arrangements maybe?

Though one could argue that they could still be handled mostly the same way, but with them deciding which people will go sleep with whom, instead of who will marriage with whom.

I'm not sure any significant changes would happen tbh. Feels like it would basically be the same as usual, but with sex being viewed more loosely.

Political arrangements. Noted.
But if sex viewed more loosely, won't value of sex go down? Like, it'll have no value as political card since u can have sex as much as you like....

The "claimed" concept is basically primitive society's early form of marriage and that "free to have sex" is either hedonism or polyamory.

Besides the lack of magic, how is this that much different from the real world nowadays?

When there's smoke, there won't always be a fire, but we can be sure something's causing the smoke. Your matriarchy has no apparent cause to emerge.

Also, nothing in the setting can be used to hypothesize if homosexuality will be marginalized or accepted.

How in the world would matriarchy result from a system where a woman is deemed to be "claimed" by a man?

I think this will affect a lot of cultures. Based on what i researched,
-on ancient age group of men and women share body with each other and loosely form a "family"
-a proto marriage invented as a way to make sure a man's heir is biologically his.
-concept of marriage for love began to popular.
By that, if marriage don't form then i think culture of love stories won't begun. Sex will stay as "recreational" or a mean to produce offspring, both lack of love. I'm wondering how society will be without the concept of love-marriage and sex.
About matriarchy thing, like i said above, it's bcuz blood relation and familial bonds.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Here's the premise:
-It's a fantasy medieval world, around beginning of age of renaissance, with magics ofc.
-It is a world where concept of marriage doesn't develop.
-Sex it self is still seen as the same, an activity to have fun as well as a sacred ritual to have a child.
-A woman is noted as "claimed" if she's pregnant, or live together and sleep on a same bedroom with a man.
-"Claimed" women is loosely became the man's responsibility in exchange to tending his needs. The woman and man still free to have sex with other people tho.
-Blood relation only count from mother side, so same father but different mother doesn't count as siblings.
-Incest is still frowned upon, but still somewhat acceptable and quite common. (No inbreeding damage btw, cuz magic)

I'd like to discuss the effect of those norm to society. Like, how would the society build? Will the society lean towards matriarchy instead? How will homosexuality viewed?

You say it yourself. If you already know that love and marriage a recent phenomenon - indeed consent was a Christian innovation. before that the woman had even less to say whom she married -, so why do you insist then on the concept of no-marriage? For sexual freedom?

And what do you even mean by proto-marriage? Marriage derives from the Latin matrimonium, which is as a legal institution already 2400 years old as was later adopted by the Christians.

As for blood relationships. the mother is always sure, the father never. During Roman times, blood was passed only through the male line while the female line was completely irrelevant. So they had a similar system as you want.

 

[CommonSense]

You say it yourself. If you already know that love and marriage a recent phenomenon - indeed consent was a Christian innovation. before that the woman had even less to say whom she married -, so why do you insist then on the concept of no-marriage? For sexual freedom?

And what do you even mean by proto-marriage? Marriage derives from the Latin matrimonium, which is as a legal institution already 2400 years old as was later adopted by the Christians.

As for blood relationships. the mother is always sure, the father never. During Roman times, blood was passed only through the male line while the female line was completely irrelevant. So they had a similar system as you want.

Why i'm insisting, well, because i'm wondering?
Anyway, what i mean proto-marriage is "marriage without love" prior to religion and culture intervention. More of a way to differentiate it from current "marriage of love" rather than a proper term.
As i said before, marriage begin as a need to ensure of a man's biological heir. That why i'm wondering, what would happen if those became unimportant and reverse it as guaranteed biological heir from woman, thus eliminating the cause for concept of marriage to begin.
Thanks for Roman tips btw!

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Why i'm insisting, well, because i'm wondering?
Anyway, what i mean proto-marriage is "marriage without love" prior to religion and culture intervention. More of a way to differentiate it from current "marriage of love" rather than a proper term.
As i said before, marriage begin as a need to ensure of a man's biological heir. That why i'm wondering, what would happen if those became unimportant and reverse it as guaranteed biological heir from woman, thus eliminating the cause for concept of marriage to begin.
Thanks for Roman tips btw!

In Rome, marriage was a contract and civil institution. Love was an ideal. but not a requisite. I think it was Cicero - can't remember who exactly -who gave his wife - he divorced - to his best friend who married her then to produce an heir. After all was over, his friend divorced and Cicero remarried her. Everything perfectly legal under Roman customs.

 

[weakwithwords]

Paradoxes are stuff of religious doctrines and science fiction.

Matriarchy signifies females being the ruling class. The females being "claimed", attending to the male's needs and being that male's responsibility is akin to being servant wives or wife slaves. Do you really not see the contradiction?

The rare superfecundation (twins from different fathers) can occur and more likely to occur with the lack of strict sexual mores.

Marriage without love is called a loveless marriage like in most marriages of convenience and with couples who fell out of love and stayed that way.

In marriages, couples are forever falling in and out of love, like some yin yang cycle. If you never have conflicts, maybe you're just very good friends and not actually lovers. If you're always in conflict, that's called hell.

 

[CommonSense]

Paradoxes are stuff of religious doctrines and science fiction.

Matriarchy signifies females being the ruling class. The females being "claimed", attending to the male's needs and being that male's responsibility is akin to being servant wives or wife slaves. Do you really not see the contradiction?

The rare superfecundation (twins from different fathers) can occur and more likely to occur with the lack of strict sexual mores.

Marriage without love is called a loveless marriage like in most marriages of convenience and with couples who fell out of love and stayed that way.

In marriages, couples are forever falling in and out of love, like some yin yang cycle. If you never have conflicts, maybe you're just very good friends and not actually lovers. If you're always in conflict, that's called hell.

Now you mention it, you're right...... let's scratch those two........
I'd like to believe that even without marriage, intimacy between people will lead to something. That's why i thought of a way to declare of special feeling of a couple to the world on such environment, but i guess that itself is contradictory.

Also, what i'm wondering is the effects of the absence of "concept of marriage"'s on society, not the marriage itself.

 

[AliceShiki]

Political arrangements. Noted.
But if sex viewed more loosely, won't value of sex go down? Like, it'll have no value as political card since u can have sex as much as you like....

But the point of marriages politically have nothing to do with sex?

It has to do with heirs and joining two families together and stuff...

 

[Amarathia]

I agree with weakwithwords and also want to point out that there have been a few cases of matriarchal societies in ancient history, although rare.

I think with your current setting it would still be likely to lean towards patriarchal just because of the fundamental difference in the biology of males and females. Females are the ones who birth children, by default they have to take the time and energy to do this, including nursing, and in general men have higher physical stats and testosterone than females. There is a chance to lean towards more matriarchal if as you noted, there is a difference in traditions such as inheriting the mother's name or that the mother has culturally been given more power in the household. Still, I am dubious if this would be enough.

Easily enough, if there is even a slight different in power, to say that females generally have more or stronger magical powers than males, then there is a larger chance that the society could have developed to be matriarchal, depending on how you flesh out the past history of the world.
Because in the end it's largely about power. Big physical strength = big deal in the earliest hunting and gathering societies = men go out to hunt and women stay home weaving baskets and laid up in bed while birthing children....besides a few rare exceptions.

Having it so sexist marriages don't develop also helps (as you tried to note) with free sex and no concept of marriage. The fewer traditions that stigmatize a woman's role as in the home and the 'child bearer' would in turn lead to women having more equality/power in this society. But I am also dubious if it is possible for a society to avoid adopting some 'term' or definition of marriage in the long term. Wives, harems, partners, and marriages is something almost ubiquitous for human societies across time.

In regards to homosexuality...there have also been many cases historically where that wasn't such a 'bad', stigmatized thing until later. There were even some traditions at which it was encouraged. Religion can also play a big role in this as you mentioned renaissance fantasy, as well as any emphasis on the importance of having children, because homosexuality means that you aren't really adding children into society (given they never have sex with the opposite gender). If in this society sex is regarded as a "sacred ritual to have children" then by default homosexual unions is implied to have less value. Having children was also given greater importance because less children survived and the average lifespan was much lower historically than in today. Thus, unions were meant to focus on heterosexual couples that can produce offspring. This wiki has interesting tidbits on different societal views on homosexuality over time--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality#Regions_and_historical_periods

 

[RepresentingCaution]

Here are some real-world examples you might want to consider:

These Matriarchal Societies Are Entirely Governed by Women

And they can be found across the globe.

www.townandcountrymag.com

On top of those, it was common for women to own the homes in North American indigenous cultures. Men might build a home, but it belonged to the women. A man would live with his mothers and sisters unless another woman invited him into her home. Modern anthropologists refer to this state of a man living in a lover's home as marriage. If the woman wanted to divorce a man, all she had to do was put his possessions outside her home, and he would pick them up and go back to his mother in tears.

Of course, there is a lot of diversity among indigenous cultures over such a large landmass, and this is just one of several ways North American indigenous cultures did things. The same holds true for China, another large landmass with lots of diversity. I love this video. My personal favorite starts 28 minutes in:

 

[CommonSense]

But the point of marriages politically have nothing to do with sex?

It has to do with heirs and joining two families together and stuff...

Aahh, i thought u meant giving daughter to become a man's property as political move, sorry about that!
so i guess alliance between families will just stay the same? just with a bit different matrimony...
thanks for the tip!

I agree with weakwithwords and also want to point out that there have been a few cases of matriarchal societies in ancient history, although rare.

I think with your current setting it would still be likely to lean towards patriarchal just because of the fundamental difference in the biology of males and females. Females are the ones who birth children, by default they have to take the time and energy to do this, including nursing, and in general men have higher physical stats and testosterone than females. There is a chance to lean towards more matriarchal if as you noted, there is a difference in traditions such as inheriting the mother's name or that the mother has culturally been given more power in the household. Still, I am dubious if this would be enough.

Easily enough, if there is even a slight different in power, to say that females generally have more or stronger magical powers than males, then there is a larger chance that the society could have developed to be matriarchal, depending on how you flesh out the past history of the world.
Because in the end it's largely about power. Big physical strength = big deal in the earliest hunting and gathering societies = men go out to hunt and women stay home weaving baskets and laid up in bed while birthing children....besides a few rare exceptions.

Having it so sexist marriages don't develop also helps (as you tried to note) with free sex and no concept of marriage. The fewer traditions that stigmatize a woman's role as in the home and the 'child bearer' would in turn lead to women having more equality/power in this society. But I am also dubious if it is possible for a society to avoid adopting some 'term' or definition of marriage in the long term. Wives, harems, partners, and marriages is something almost ubiquitous for human societies across time.

In regards to homosexuality...there have also been many cases historically where that wasn't such a 'bad', stigmatized thing until later. There were even some traditions at which it was encouraged. Religion can also play a big role in this as you mentioned renaissance fantasy, as well as any emphasis on the importance of having children, because homosexuality means that you aren't really adding children into society (given they never have sex with the opposite gender). If in this society sex is regarded as a "sacred ritual to have children" then by default homosexual unions is implied to have less value. Having children was also given greater importance because less children survived and the average lifespan was much lower historically than in today. Thus, unions were meant to focus on heterosexual couples that can produce offspring. This wiki has interesting tidbits on different societal views on homosexuality over time--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality#Regions_and_historical_periods

Yeaahhhh..... Physiology and power difference, totally forgot about that... orz
Hmm.... so it'll stay as patriarchal with some difference on succession and familial bond....
I'm interested in the effect of absence of marriage, but it seems it's not really plausible? In the end we're biologically programmed to unite as man and woman. A group of man and woman loosely tied as family seems to be laxest society probable as far as absence of marriage.
I think that in a society absent of marriage homosexuality will flourish though, since there's no stigma of 'man must couple with woman'. It may have less value as familial bond/preservation, but probably accepted as recreational act.
Thanks for the tips and links!

Here are some real-world examples you might want to consider:

These Matriarchal Societies Are Entirely Governed by Women

And they can be found across the globe.

www.townandcountrymag.com

On top of those, it was common for women to own the homes in North American indigenous cultures. Men might build a home, but it belonged to the women. A man would live with his mothers and sisters unless another woman invited him into her home. Modern anthropologists refer to this state of a man living in a lover's home as marriage. If the woman wanted to divorce a man, all she had to do was put his possessions outside her home, and he would pick them up and go back to his mother in tears.

Of course, there is a lot of diversity among indigenous cultures over such a large landmass, and this is just one of several ways North American indigenous cultures did things. The same holds true for China, another large landmass with lots of diversity. I love this video. My personal favorite starts 28 minutes in:

Thank you for the link!
The akan tribe and indigenous american seems interesting to use as base. Political wise probably lean toward akan tribe while familial bonds towards indigenous american.