I'm back with another question. Apologies if I'm vague, I'd love the opportunity to expand on this. For context, I'm autistic and this completely boggles the pants off of me in general for human romances, so you can probably imagine its like getting jam pudding out of a rock. It does not want to move.

So as we all know, there are loads of different kinds of relationships people can have, like a spouse (romantic/sexual), a parent (platonic/family) or child, friends, etc, etc.

How could I go making something new up? What considerations do I need to make? Humans only have one type of romance (generally), and that's the one we're already experienced in and often the target of in cheesy rom-coms and valentines day deals.

Homestuck touches on four different kinds of romance based on suits of cards known as Quadrants; best friends and the like still exist, but then moirails (diamonds) exist, which is a special and exclusive relationship based on calming each other down and essentially being the 'mom friend' guardian in a world that basically has no real parents. There are types such as that based on positive emotions, and also Kismesissitude, which is basically romance except you literally hate each other instead.

For further information on what I generally mean, there's a link to quadrants here - http://mspaintadventures.wikia.com/wiki/Quadrants .

I'm looking for a way this would work. I know earth romance generally has an end goal in 'reproduction' and someone to 'affectionately spend the rest of your life with' - but would that change if the race has a much longer life span?

The race I'm creating is very warrior and magic focused, with a strong focus on duality - but doesn't tend to believe in monogamous relationships in the same sense as some humans do. The population is basically authoritarian so there is also a strong focus on well, breeding and the like. It controls pretty much every detail; the people who have the most power are abusing it in such a well organised way and layers of secrecy the average civillian has no real idea about.

More specifically, I'm looking for...

  • Some form(s) of romantic relationships to possibly base this off
  • Variation(s) of romantic relationships.
  • One of these relationships is a polygamous bonding similar to some sort of group wedding.
  • Another relation is more monogamous, though multiple instances may occur at once (ie. like having multiple friends). Aka persons A and B are together, but persons A and C are also together. Persons B and C are not together, however.
  • Similarities to earth relationships between humans are also encouraged for comparison purposes.
  • Biologically we're still dealing with at least 2 sexes.
  • Nobody sees or feels a need for gender or sexual preference, but the occasional person of this race may still have their own preference.
  • There is a high value in combat skills and less in appearance. Aka being good at fighting is '''s*xy''' and so are scars, and looking like an untrained, unfed, and disobedient child is generally met with scorn.
  • Magic is composed of different schools, some of which oppose each other and some that complement each other. Maybe I could do something with that?
  • The relationships likely arose due to an authoritarian society that's been in control for a very, very, long time - thanks to a series of time loops and a certain long lived being.
  • Sustained and safe procreation; multiple males (probably more males to females in a ratio) due to the fact that the females have increased gestation. the planet's wildlife makes it pretty much impossible for one 'couple' to do it alone. (And has done since before they became a civilised society; this may thus result in biological needs.)
  • $\begingroup$ ...What exactly are you asking? "How do I think of good ideas for completely new types of relationships?"? $\endgroup$ – AngelPray Aug 6 '17 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ @AngelPray : More along the lines of "How do I craft a new type of relationship, and what sort of effect may it have on the race in a social and possibly biological standpoint?" - does this make sense? $\endgroup$ – Revenant Aug 6 '17 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Raditz_35 : I'm looking for as many ideas as possible that'll fit into the romantic/platonic sides of things; possibly offshoots/consequences (eg how in-laws become a thing when you get married), maybe? I've added some extra information about the other questions in OP as well, I hope I helped to clarify! $\endgroup$ – Revenant Aug 6 '17 at 22:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for adressing my points. I still think you will have trouble keeping this question open since it is way too broad right now. If you want to keep it open, you should limit yourself to one type of relationship for example. Idea generation questions are not popular here. Btw, what do you mean by "learn" (2nd point)? Btw, is there any reasons why your people do not simply do whatever they want and enter relationships as they please? If monogamy no longer is desired, anything would be possible. For example have all great warriors engage in one big clusterf* relationship. $\endgroup$ – Raditz_35 Aug 6 '17 at 22:17
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the insight! I'll likely focus on romantic relationships first then; it's the harder of the two to grasp. I'm not entirely sure why I said learn in point two, mind, oops. Not quite sure what I was getting at there. The main reason the people don't do it is because it's seen as improper to 'just quit immediately' (but also because their governments can and will often force relationships to legally remain bound in order to secure reproduction and insists its for their '''happiness''', kinda messed up). Also the all great warriors in one big poly sounds fun, aha. I'll consider it :O $\endgroup$ – Revenant Aug 6 '17 at 22:25

Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of Evolution

By nothing, we mean NOTHING-AT-ALL. This includes any and all forms of behaviours, including group / social behaviours.

So if You want to add another type of social link, You have to ask Yourself how it came to be. What problem was solved by appearance of this new type of connection. Mind You that to keep this evolutionarily stable, the initial problem has to be constructed in a way that the moment this new type of link ceases to function/exist, the problem comes back again.

If You think carefully about all the existing types of relationships from this perspective, You will realise that You have placed Yourself before a tough challenge - the existing types are very flexible and can fill nearly any niche's one can think of. But I would like to encourage You, tough challenges are the best, most satisfying ones.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's about as wrong as can be while still being sort of true. In effect, you're ignoring the existence of neutral mutations, and they are widespread. It simply is not true that a trait or behavior must be either beneficial or harmful (in evolutionary terms). It is, in principle, entirely possible for something to have no net effect, or at least not in the long term. Such a trait will neither be selected for or against, and so has no meaning in the light of Evolution. $\endgroup$ – WhatRoughBeast Aug 7 '17 at 12:01
  • $\begingroup$ Oh come on, seriously, this 'only neutral' evolution was fancy few decades ago, but I think our current understanding, especially in the era of mass sequencing projects, has grown beyond that. This has been discussed through and through in the literature, but since then we had the 'nearly neutral' theory and all that came after. In the end NOTHING is stable without selective pressure simply because entropy will eat it one way or another. Genes die all the time because there is no pressure to keep them. Its a slow process, but we've seen it like... everywhere. $\endgroup$ – Maciej Aug 7 '17 at 12:12
  • $\begingroup$ Neutral and nearly neutral traits make sense in the light of evolution... in fact, mathematics of evolution imply that they must happen (in fact^2 this is how they were discovered - through math). In the end, the comments are not for extended discussion, so I would say that Your comment is as wrong as it can be. OP can request clarification and resources if he's interested, but I think this strays far from his question, so I wont get more into this without His explicit question. $\endgroup$ – Maciej Aug 7 '17 at 12:17

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.