Personally I like Steve Martin's suggestion that:
> Given that the planet Entekos is associated with women in at least two
> societies, and has a period of 31 days (close to earth's moon), it
> might make a better candidate.
Sounds good to me. Why change things from RW norm unless we have to?
Now, what do the Orlanthi know about the planet Entekos? What do they
call it?
Meanwhile Paul Harmaty notes that the Gloranthan year is almost exactly the human gestation period, which is an interesting thought in itself.
He then goes on to say:
> Given that the gestation period is nearly equal to a year in length, I
> wonder if Gloranthan women have only one (random) "season" each year
> in which they can conceive a child. I don't see why there would have to
> be a regular cycle of any predictable length. A sort of cosmic symmetry
> - one opportunity for one child each year.
Now here I disagree. I'm no expert on anthropology, but as I understand
it the whole of "human" society, from the time we came out of the trees
and maybe even before, was based around the fact that human females do
not go into season but are perpetually "available". If you want to change
that, there's an awful lot of other stuff would have to be re-thought.
Also, it would give Gloranthan "humans" real problems building up
population levels. Not a good move, surely?
A thought, BTW: this all *would* apply to female Telmori, wouldn't it?
If this is all new to you, try reading Desmond Morris' "The Naked Ape". I'm sure there are more up-to-date and scholarly works available, but this does give a good overview to the non-specialist.
Just think of the consequences! You and your six siblings all have birthdays in the same season. If there's only one menses per season, you're probably all within the same week, too! I'd guess that Gloranthans probably see the day/week/season you were born in as being like your astrological sign but more important: and your entire family is stuck with the same star-sign?
As for:
> I don't see why there would have to be a regular cycle of any predictable length.
well, just try studying human biology for a bit. Everything happens in
regular cycles of predictable length!
> Barring the radical approach stated above, I'd support the concept of one
> menses each Gloranthan season (excepting Sacred Time).
Why? Two per season seems to fit RW biology much better. I'm not sure
what the effect would be of changing it, but I'm sure there would be one
- - any biologists/doctors out there want to comment?
> But again, I don't see the rational for the cycle being a consistent
> number of days,
Because if it isn't, you're very ill.
> unless menses begins each season.
You really think all Gloranthan women have their menses synchronised?
They all have PMT at the same time? No way!
I might allow some alignment for priestesses of fertility-related
religions (maximum fertility in Fertility Week, say), but not for normal
women.
(Women living in a very close community do find themselves synchronising,
I'm told. And the cycle can certainly be shifted with drugs).
> After all Menses in Latin means months.
Because the RW moon happens to be close to the female cycle in length, no
doubt.
> So following the RW model. . . one per season.
Don't you mean one per week? Or rather, one per moon-cycle, choosing an
appropriate moon? Or one every 28-30 days, because that's the way the
human body works?
Jane Williams jane_at_williams.nildram.co.ukhttp://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~janewill/gloranth/index.shtml
Powered by hypermail