Difference between revisions of "Monogamy" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
m
m
 
(80 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
[[Category:Anthropology]]
 
[[Category:Anthropology]]
 
[[Category:Sociology]]
 
[[Category:Sociology]]
 +
[[Category:Lifestyle]]
 +
[[Category:Marriage and family]]
 +
[[Category:Image wanted]]
 +
{{Copyedited}}{{Paid}}{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}
  
<b>Monogamy</b> is the custom or condition of having only one mate during a period of time. The word monogamy comes from the Greek word <i>monos</i>, which means one or alone, and the Greek word <i>gamos</i>, which means marriage or union. It literally means being married to one person. People currently apply the term monogamy to both married and unmarried couples.  
+
The term '''monogamy''' (literally “one marriage” or “one union” in [[Greek language|Greek]]) is the practice of [[marriage]] or [[human sexuality|sexual]] partnering with one spouse (as opposed to [[polygamy]] where each person has several partners simultaneously). In human society, polygamy has been condemned or restricted by the majority of the world's [[religion]]s. [[Anthropology|Anthropologists]] have observed that, while many societies have permitted polygamy, the majority of human partnerships are in fact monogamous.
 +
{{toc}}
 +
Polygamous or successive monogamous partnerships have proven valuable for many species, and for human beings under certain conditions. However, non-monogamous relationships have many challenges that affect not only those involved in the partnership but also their children. Commitment to a monogamous relationship offers much support in the achievement of happiness and maturity as an individual, establishment of a harmonious [[family]] and prosperous [[lineage]], and support for contributing to society as a whole.
  
 +
==Definition==
 +
Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate. The word "monogamy" comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word <i>monos</i>, which means one or alone, and <i>gamos</i>, which means [[marriage]] or union.
  
==Monogamy in Non-Human Animals==
+
Marriage is the institution through which a man and a woman typically expect to share their lives intimately in a monogamous relationship, usually referred to in the vows stated at their wedding ceremony. Raising children in a [[family]], holding [[property]], [[sexual reproduction|sexual behavior]], relationship to society, [[inheritance]], [[emotion]]al intimacy, [[health care]], and [[love]] are a few examples of the rights and obligations often shared by a married couple. The term monogamy, however, may also be applied to a couple who are not formally married, but maintain an exclusive [[human sexuality|sexual]] relationship.
  
{{main article|Animal sexuality}}
+
Alternatives to monogamy include [[sexual abstinence]]&mdash;the choice not to participate in sexual activity&mdash;and polyamorous relationships involving multiple sexual partners. [[Polygamy]], [[polygyny]], and [[polyandry]] are [[anthropology|anthropological]] terms referring respectively to multiple marriages, marriages of multiple women to one man, and of multiple men to one woman.
  
Monogamy is one of several mating systems observed in animals. The amount of social monogamy in animals varies across taxa, with over 90 percent of birds engaging in social monogamy but only 3 percent of mammals engaging in social monogamy. The amount of sexual monogamy appears quite rare in the animal kingdom.  
+
===Varieties of Monogamy===
 +
[[Biology|Biologists]] have described three types of monogamy: '''social monogamy''', '''sexual monogamy''', and '''genetic monogamy'''. Social monogamy refers to a couple that lives together, has sex with one another, and cooperates in acquiring basic resources such as [[food]] and shelter. Sexual monogamy refers to a couple that remains sexually exclusive with one another and neither person has outside sex partners. Genetic monogamy refers to the fact that two partners only have offspring with one another, so that all the offspring raised by the pair are genetically related to each partner. Beyond these distinctions, certain combinations of factors may occur:
 +
<blockquote>Social monogamy refers to a male and female's social living arrangement (e.g., shared use of a territory, behaviour indicative of a social pair, and/or proximity between a male and female) without inferring any sexual interactions or reproductive patterns. In humans, social monogamy equals monogamous marriage. Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male based on observations of sexual interactions. Finally, the term genetic monogamy is used when DNA analyses can confirm that a female-male pair reproduce exclusively with each other. A combination of terms indicates examples where levels of relationships coincide, e.g., sociosexual and sociogenetic monogamy describe corresponding social and sexual, and social and genetic monogamous relationships, respectively.<ref>Ulrich H. Reichard, “Monogamy: Past and present” in ''Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans, and Other Mammals'', edited by Ulrich H. Reichard and Christophe Boesch (eds.), 3-25 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 0521525772).</ref></blockquote>
  
Socially monogamous species are scattered throughout the animal kingdom. A few insects are socially monogamous; a few fish are socially monogamous; a lot of birds are socially monogamous; and a few mammals are socially monogamous. These species did not inherit social monogamy from a common ancestor. Instead, social monogamy has evolved independently in different species.
+
'''Serial monogamy''' is a form of monogamy in which participants have only one sexual partner at any one time, but have more than one sexual partner in their lifetime. The term "serial monogamy" is more often more descriptive than prescriptive, in that those involved did not plan to have subsequent relationships while involved in each monogamous partnership.
 
 
==Monogamy in Humans==
 
Barash and Lipton have eloquently summarized the complexity of human monogamy: "Monogamy among animals is a matter of biology. So is monogamy among human beings. But in the human case, monogamy is more. It is also a matter of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, law, ethics, theology, literature, history, philosophy, and most of the remaining humanities and social sciences as well." (Barash & Lipton, 2001, pages 191-192)<ref name="Barash,Lipton,2001">Barash, D.P. & Lipton, J.E. (2001). The Myth of Monogamy. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.</ref>
 
 
 
==Varieties of Monogamy==
 
 
 
Recent discoveries have led biologists to talk about three types of monogamy: social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy. Social monogamy refers to two people who live together, have sex with one another, and cooperate in acquiring basic resources such as food, clothes, and money. Sexual monogamy refers to two people who remain sexually exclusive with one another and have no outside sex partners. Genetic monogamy refers to the fact that two partners only have offspring with one another. All the offspring raised by the pair are genetically related to each partner. The distinction between social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy are important in the modern understanding of monogamy.
 
 
 
The <b>varieties of monogamy</b> refer to the distinction between social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy.
 
 
 
Social monogamy refers to two people who live together, have sex with one another, and cooperate in acquiring baic resources such as food, clothes, and money. Sexual monogamy refers to two people who remain sexually exclusive with one another and have no outside sex partners. Genetic monogamy refers to the fact that two partners only have offspring with one another.
 
 
 
Biologists now have solid evidence that monogamous pairs of animals are not always sexually exclusive. Many animals that form pairs to mate and raise offsrping regularly engage in sexual activities with extra-pair partners
 
<ref name="Ågren,Zhou,Zhong,1989">Ågren, G., Zhou, Q. & Zhong, W. (1989). Ecology and social behaviour of Mongolian gerbils Meriones unguiculatus, at Xiliuhot, Inner Mongolia, China. Animal Behaviour, 37, 11-27.</ref>
 
<ref name="Barash,1981">Barash, D.P. (1981). Mate guarding and gallivanting by male hoary marmots (Marmota caligata). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 9, 187-193.</ref>
 
<ref name="Birkhead,Møller,1995">Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. (1995). Extra-pair copulations and extra-pair paternity in birds. Animal Behaviour, 49, 843-848.</ref>
 
<ref name="Birkhead,Møller,1996">Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. (1996). Monogamy and sperm competition in birds. In J. M. Black (Ed.), Partnerships in Birds: The Study of Monogamy (pp. 323-343). Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref>
 
<ref name="Foltz,1981">Foltz, D.W. (1981). Genetic evidence for long-term monogamy in a small rodent, Peromyscus polionotus. American Naturalist, 117, 665-675.</ref>
 
<ref name="Gursky,2000">Gursky, S.L. (2000). Sociality in the spectral tarsier, Tarsius spectrum. American Journal of Primatology, 51, 89-101.</ref>
 
<ref name="Hasselquist,Sherman,2001"> Hasselquist, D. S. & Sherman, P.W. (2001). Social mating systems and extrapair fertilizations in passerine birds. Behavioral Ecology, 12, 457-66.</ref>
 
<ref name="Hubrecht,1985">Hubrecht, R.C. (1985). Home range size and use and territorial behavior in the common marmoset, Callithrix jacchus jacchus, at the Tapacura Field Station, Recife, Brazil. International Journal of Primatology, 6, 533-550.</ref>
 
<ref name="Mason,1966">Mason, W.A. (1966). Social organization of the South American monkey, Callicebus moloch: a preliminary report. Tulane Studies in Zoology, 13, 23-28.</ref>
 
<ref name="McKinney,Derrickson,Mineau,1983">McKinney, F., Derrickson, S.R., & Mineau, P. (1983). Forced copulation in waterfowl. Behaviour, 86, 250-294.</ref>
 
<ref name=Reichard,1995">Reichard, U. (1995). Extra-pair Copulations in a Monogamous Gibbon (Hylobates lar). Ethology, 100, 99-112.</ref>
 
<ref name="Reichard,2002">Reichard, U.H. (2002). Monogamy—A variable relationship. Max Planck Research, 3, 62-67.</ref>
 
<ref name="Richardson,1987">Richardson, P.R.K. (1987). Aardwolf mating system: overt cuckoldry in an apparently monogamous mammal. South African Journal of Science, 83, 405-412.</ref>
 
<ref name="Welsh,Sedinger,1990"> Welsh, D. & Sedinger, J.S. (1990). Extra-Pair copulations in Black Brant. The Condor, 92, 242-244.</ref>
 
<ref name="Westneat,Stewart,2003>Westneat, D.F. & Stewart, I.R.K. (2003). Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34, 365-396.</ref>
 
Sometimes these extra-pair sexual activities lead to offspring. Genetic tests frequently show that some of the offspring raised by a monogamous pair come from the female having sex with an extra-pair male partner.
 
<ref name="Birkhead,Møller,1995"/>
 
<ref name="Birkhead,Møller,1996"/>
 
<ref name="Owens,Hartley,1998">Owens, I.P.F. & Hartley, I.R. (1998). Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, B265, 397–407.</ref>
 
<ref name="Solomon,Keane,Knoch,Hogan,2004">Solomon, N.G., Keane, B., Knoch, L.R., & Hogan, P.J. (2004). Multiple paternity in socially monogamous prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 82, 1667-1671.</ref> These discoveries have led biologists to adopt new ways of talking about monogamy:
 
<blockquote>
 
"Social monogamy refers to a male and female's social living arrangement (e.g., shared use of a territory, behaviour indicative of a social pair, and/or proximity between a male and female) without inferring any sexual interactions or reproductive patterns. In humans, social monogamy equals monogamous marriage. Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male based on observations of sexual interactions. Finally, the term genetic monogamy is used when DNA analyses can confirm that a female-male pair reproduce exclusively with each other. A combination of terms indicates examples where levels of relationships coincide, e.g., sociosexual and sociogenetic monogamy describe corresponding social and sexual, and social and genetic monogamous relationships, respectively." (Reichard, 2003, page 4) <ref>Reichard, U.H. (2003). Monogamy: Past and present. In U.H. Reichard and C. Boesch (Eds.), Monogamy: Mating strategies and parnternships in birds, humans, and other
 
mammals (pp.3-25).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>
 
</blockquote>
 
Whatever makes a pair of animals socially monogamous does not necessarily make them sexually or genetically monogamous. Social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy can occur in different combinations.
 
 
 
When applying these terms to people, it's important to remember that social monogamy does not always involve marriage. Social monogamy simply refers to two people who live together, have sex with one another, and cooperate in acquiring basic resources such as food, clothes, and money. A married couple is almost always a socially monogamous couple. But couples who choose to [[cohabitation | cohabit]] without getting married can also be socially monogamous.
 
 
 
The term [[serial monogamy | serial monogamy]] does not refer to a fourth type of monogamy. The three types of monogamy recognized by biologists (social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogfamy) describe the relationship between a particular pair of partners. The term serial monogamy describes the history of a single individual across multiple socially monogamous relationships.
 
  
 
==Incidence of Monogamy==
 
==Incidence of Monogamy==
 +
===Mating Systems in Animals===
 +
Monogamy is one of several mating systems observed in [[animal]]s. The percentage of monogamous species is greater in some ''taxa'' than in others. Biologists estimate up to 90 percent of [[bird|avian]] species are socially monogamous.<ref name="Lack,1968">David Lack, ''Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds'' (Chapman and Hall, 1968< ISBN 0412112205). </ref><ref name="Moller,1986">A. P. Moller, “Mating systems among European passerines: a review,” ''Ibis'' 7(1986): 234-250.</ref> In contrast, biologists estimate only 3 percent of [[mammal]]ian species are socially monogamous, although up to 15 percent of [[primate]] species are monogamous.<ref name="Reichard,2002">Ulrich. H. Reichard, “Monogamy—A variable relationship,” ''Max Planck Research'' 3(2002): 62-67.</ref>
  
A large majority of human beings around the world enter socially monogamous relationships at some point in their lives. Most people who enter socially monogamous relationships remain sexually monogamous for the duration of the relationship. However, the amount of sexual monogamy varies across cultures, and women tend to be more sexually monogamous than men. Genetic monogamy also varies across cultures but is generally high overall.  
+
===In Human Beings===
 +
The United Nations World Fertility Report of 2003 noted that 89 percent of all women and men in the world get married by age forty-nine.<ref name=UnitedNations,2004">United Nations, [http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility/World_Fertility_Report.htm ''World Fertility Report: 2003''] (2004). Retrieved August 17, 2007.</ref> Not all marriages are socially monogamous. Anthropological studies have reported that 80-85 percent of societies allow [[polygamy|polygamous]] marriage.<ref name="Murdock,1967">George Peter Murdock, ''Ethnographic Atlas'' (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1969, ISBN 0822931141).</ref>
 +
<ref name="White,Veit,1999">D. R. White and C. Veit, [http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ethnoatlas/nindex.html White-Veit EthnoAtlas.] (1999). Retrieved August 17, 2007.</ref>
 +
<ref name="Murdock,1981">George Peter Murdock, ''Atlas of World Cultures'' (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1981, ISBN 0822934329).</ref>
  
The <b>incidence of monogamy</b> refers to the frequency with which monogamy occurs.  
+
Yet, most of the men in societies that allow polygamy do not obtain sufficient wealth or status to have multiple wives, so the majority of marriages in these societies involve one husband and one wife. Murdock (1981)<ref name="Murdock,1981" /> estimated that 80 percent of marriages in societies that allow polygamy involve only one husband and one wife, a figure confirmed by White's (1988) analysis of marriages in polygamous societies.<ref name="White,1988"> D. R. White,"Rethinking polygyny: Co-wives, codes, and cultural systems," ''Current Anthropology'' 29(1988): 572.</ref>
 +
<blockquote>An impartial observer employing the criterion of numerical preponderance, consequently, would be compelled to characterize nearly every known human society as monogamous, despite the preference for and frequency of polygyny in the overwhelming majority.<ref name="Murdock,1949">George Peter Murdock, ''Social Structure'' (New York, NY: Free Press, 1965, ISBN 0029222907).</ref></blockquote>
 +
Since this estimate of 80 percent applies to societies where polygamous marriage is a legal or culturally accepted option, the percent of socially monogamous marriages is significantly higher in the world as a whole when societies that do not permit polygamy are included.  
  
This article deals with the incidence of monogamy in human beings. To learn about the incidence of monogamy in animals, which is generally lower than the incidence of monogamy in human beings, see the Wikipedia article on [[Animal sexuality#Mating Systems | Animal Sexuality]].
+
Studies have found that approximately 85-90 percent of married women and around 75-80 percent of married men in the [[United States]] are [[human sexuality|sexually]] monogamous throughout their marriages.<ref name="Laumann,Gagnon,Michael,Michaels,1994">Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels, ''The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States'' (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994, ISBN 0226469573).</ref><ref name="Wiederman,1997>M. W. Wiederman, M. W., “Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey,” ''Journal of Sex Research'' 34(1997): 167-174.</ref> Results from a variety of other countries have also shown that the majority of married people are sexually monogamous during their marriages. The incidence of sexual monogamy varies across cultures, and women appear to be more sexually monogamous than men. Based on the data, it can be concluded that a large majority of people enter socially monogamous relationships at some point in their lives.
  
A large majority of human beings around the world enter socially monogamous relationships at some point in their lives. Most people who enter socially monogamous relationships remain sexually monogamous for the duration of the relationship. However, the amount of sexual monogamy varies across cultures, and women tend to be more sexually monogamous than men. Genetic monogamy also varies across cultures but is generally high overall.  
+
==Causes of Monogamy==
 +
Socially monogamous species are scattered throughout the animal kingdom. A few [[insect]]s are socially monogamous; a few [[fish]] are socially monogamous; many [[bird]]s are socially monogamous; and a few [[mammal]]s are socially monogamous. These species did not inherit social monogamy from a common ancestor. Instead, social monogamy has evolved independently in different species.  
  
 +
Some factors that have been suggested as contributing to the evolution of social monogamy include:
 +
* Resources available in the surrounding environment<ref name="Harding,Almany,Houck,Hixon,2003"> J. A. Harding, G. R. Almany, L. D. Houck, and M. A. Hixon, “Experimental analysis of monogamy in the Caribbean cleaner goby, Gobiosoma evelynae,” ''Animal Behaviour'' 65(2003): 865–874.</ref>
 +
* Geographic distribution of mates<ref name="Komers,Brotherton,1997">P. E. Komers and P. N. M. Brotherton, “Female space use is the best predictor of monogamy in mammals,” ''Proceedings of the Royal Society of London'' Series B, 264(1997): 1261-1270.</ref>
 +
* Incidence of parasites and sexually transmitted diseases <ref name="Altizer,etal,2003">S. Altizer, et al. “Social organization and parasite risk in mammals: Integrating theory and empirical studies,” ''Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics'' 34(2003): 517-547.</ref>
 +
* Amount of parental care given to offspring <ref name="Lack,1968" />
 +
* mate guarding behaviors<ref name="Mathews,2003">L. M. Mathews, “Tests of the mate-guarding hypothesis for social monogamy: Male snapping shrimp prefer to associate with high-value females,” ''Behavioral Ecology'' 14(2003): 63-67.</ref>
 +
* Infanticide<ref name="Palombit,1999">R. A. Palombit, “Infanticide and the evolution of pair bonds in nonhuman primates,” ''Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews'' 7(1999): 117-129.</ref>
 +
* Length of breeding season<ref name="Weatherhead,1979">P. J. Weatherhead, “Ecological correlates of monogamy in tundra-breeding Savannah Sparrows,” ''The Auk'' 96(1979): 391-401.</ref>
 +
* Chemical mechanisms of bonding in the brain <ref name="Young,Wang,Insel,1998">L. J. Young, Z. Wang, and T. R. Insel, “Neuroendocrine bases of monogamy,” ''Trends in Neuroscience'' 21(1998): 71-75.</ref>
  
===Incidence of Social Monogamy===
+
Other factors may also contribute to the evolution of social monogamy. Moreover, different sets of factors may explain the evolution of social monogamy in different species. There appears to be no "one-size-fits-all" explanation of why different species evolved monogamous mating systems.
The United Nations World Fertility Report of 2003 reports that 89% percent of all women and men get married by age forty-nine.
 
<ref name=UnitedNations,2004">United Nations (2004). World Fertility Report: 2003. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility/World_Fertility_Report.htm .</ref> This is, of course, an average. The percent of women and men who marry by age forty-nine drops to nearly 50% in some nations and reaches 100% in other nations.
 
<ref name="UnitedNations,2000">United Nations (2000). World Marriage Patterns 2000. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldmarriage/worldmarriagepatterns2000.pdf .</ref>
 
On average, though, 89% of all people in the world marry by age forty-nine.
 
  
Not all marriages are socially monogamous. Anthropological studies have reported that 80-85% of societies allow polygamous marriage.
+
==Human monogamy==
<ref name="Murdock,1967">Murdock, G.P. (1967). Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.</ref>
+
Even in the realm of animals, where [[instinct]] and [[genetics]] dominate sexual behavior, science cannot predict whether or not a species will be monogamous. How much more complex is the issue in human beings, where the mind is able to choose beyond the tendencies and instincts of the physical body, and where the purpose of life is complex and multi-dimensional. Barash and Lipton (2001) have eloquently summarized the complexity of human monogamy:  
<ref name="White,Veit,1999">White, D.R. & Veit, C. (1999). White-Veit EthnoAtlas. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ethnoatlas/nindex.html.</ref>
+
<blockquote>Monogamy among animals is a matter of biology. So is monogamy among human beings. But in the human case, monogamy is more. It is also a matter of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, law, ethics, theology, literature, history, philosophy, and most of the remaining humanities and social sciences as well.<ref name="Barash,Lipton,2001">David P. Barahs and Judith Eve Lipton, ''The Myth of Monogamy'' (New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2001, ISBN 0716740044).</ref> </blockquote>
<ref name="Murdock,1981">Murdock, G. P. (1981). Atlas of World Cultures. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.</ref>
 
Yet, most of the men in societies that allow polygamy do not obtain sufficient wealth or status to have multiple wives, so the majority of marriages in these societies involve one husband and one wife. Murdock has estimated that 80% of marriages in societies that allow polygamy involve only one husband and one wife.
 
<ref name="Murdock,1981">Murdock, G. P. (1981). Atlas of World Cultures. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.</ref>  
 
White has analyzed the distribution of husbands by number of wives in societies that allow polygamy (see Table 1 in White, 1988, pages 535-539).
 
<ref name="White,1988">White, D.R. (1988). Rethinking polygyny: Co-wives, codes, and cultural systems. Current Anthropology, 29, 572.</ref>
 
His analysis also supports the claim that around 80% of marriages in these societies involve only one husband and one wife. In fact, so many marriages are socially monogamous that Murdock had years earlier stated:
 
<blockquote>
 
"An impartial observer employing the criterion of numerical preponderance, consequently, would be compelled to to characterize nearly every known human society as monogamous, despite the preference for and frequency of polygyny in the overwhelming majority.” (Murdock, 1949, pages 27-28) <ref name="Murdock,1949">Murdock, G.P. (1949). Social Structure. New York: Free Press.</ref>
 
</blockquote>
 
Keep in mind the estimate of 80% socially monogamous marriages applies to societies where polygamous marriage is a legal or culturally accepted option. The percent of socially monogamous marriages is higher in societies where social monogamy is the only legal form of marriage. Social monogamy is the only legal form of marriage in several of the world’s most populous nations including China, members of the European Union, United States, Russia, and Japan. Based on population estimates from the CIA World Factbook 2006
 
<ref name="CIA,2006">Central Intelligence Agency (2006). The World Factbook 2006. Retrieved April 30, 2006 from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ .</ref>, a little over one-third of the world's population lives in these nations.
 
  
 +
Additionally, since [[human being]]s spend a lifetime rearing their children, the nature of the [[parent]]al bond impacts the next generation to a greater extent than it does in the majority of animal species. The monogamous bond of husband and wife provides a unique relationship that supports the resulting [[family]]. Two parents united in the common goal of [[parenting]] their children can ensure that their [[lineage]] is secure, healthy, and prosperous. When parents are not monogamous, the family structure is less clear, and the children experience a variety of adults with varying degrees of commitment to their future. Consequently, children raised by non-monogamous adults do not fare as well as those raised by monogamous parents.
  
<i>Selected Populations from CIA World Factbook 2006</i> <ref name="CIA,2006" />
+
[[Culture]] influences the incidence of social monogamy in human beings. Many cultures have passed [[law]]s making social monogamy the only legal form of [[marriage]]. The passage of such laws in many cases reflects [[religion|religious]] beliefs. In the late twentieth century, international organizations such as the [[United Nations]] and the African Union started to promote social monogamy as a way to give women and men equal rights in marriage.
<div>
 
<table>
 
<tr><td align=left><b>Nation</b></td><td><b>Population</b></td>
 
<tr><td align=left>China</td><td align=right>1,313,973,713</td></tr>
 
<tr><td align=left>European Union members</td><td align=right>456,953,258</td></tr>
 
<tr><td align=left>United States</td><td align=right>298,444,215</td></tr>
 
<tr><td align=left>Russia</td><td align=right>142,893,540</td></tr>
 
<tr><td align=left>Japan</td><td align=right>127,463,611</td></tr>
 
<tr><td align=right><i>Sum</i></td><td align=right>2,339,728,337</td></tr>
 
<tr><td align=right><i>World Total</i></td><td align=right>6,525,170,264</td></tr>
 
<tr><td align=right><i>Percent</i></td><td>35.8%</td></tr>
 
</table>
 
</div>
 
Thus, a large majority of people enter socially monogamous relationships at some point in their lives. Almost 9 out of 10 people around the world marry by age 49. No fewer than 80% of these marriages are socially monogamous, and close to 100% of marriages are socially monogamous for one-third of the world's population.
 
  
===Incidence of Sexual Monogamy===
+
However, it is clear that when the monogamous path is not chosen, consequences occur on all levels, and are enduring:
The incidence of sexual monogamy can be roughly estimated as the percentage of married people who do <u>not</u> engage in extramarital sex. Several studies have looked at the percentage of people who engage in extramarital sex. These studies have shown that extramarital sex varies across cultures and across genders.
+
<blockquote>That sick, used feeling of having given a precious part of myself ... to so many and for nothing, still aches. I never imagined I'd pay so dearly and for so long.<ref>Thomas Lickona, "The Neglected Heart," ''American Educator'' (Summer 1994): 36-37.</ref></blockquote>
  
The Standard Cross-Cultural Sample describes the amount of extramarital sex by men and women in over 50 pre-industrial cultures.
+
Such an experience is all too common, and all too pervasive. When human beings choose to practice non-monogamous [[human sexuality|sexual]] relationships, [[Monogamy#Health Issues|health issues]] affect the physical body, [[Monogamy#Psychological Issues|psychological issues]] affect our individual state of mind, and [[Monogamy#Social Issues|social issues]] affect our relationships with others, and [[Monogamy#Spiritual Issues|spiritual issues]] affect our eternal [[soul]] and our relationship with [[God]].
<ref name="Divale,2000">Divale, W. (2000). Pre-Coded Variables for the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, Volume I and II. Jamaica, NY: York College, CUNY.  Distributed by World Cultures at http://worldcultures.org/SCCS1.pdf. See Variable 170 and Variable 171.</ref>
 
<ref name="Murdock,White,1969">Murdock, G.P., & White, D.R. (1969). Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology, 8, 329-369.</ref>
 
The amount of extramarital sex by men is described as "universal" in 6 cultures, "moderate" in 29 cultures, "occasional" in 6 cultures, and "uncommon" in 10 cultures. The amount of extramarital sex by women is described as "universal" in 6 cultures, "moderate" in 23 cultures, "occasional" in 9 cultures, and "uncommon" in 15 cultures. These findings support the claim that the amount of extramarital sex differs across cultures and across genders.  
 
  
Recent surveys conducted in non-Western nations have also found cultural and gender differences in extramarital sex. A study of sexual behavior in Thailand, Tanzania and Côte d'Ivoire suggests about 16-34% of men engage in extramarital sex while a much smaller (unreported) percentage of women engage in extramarital sex.
+
===Health Issues===
<ref name="O'Conner,2001">O’Connor, M.L. (2001). Men who have many sexual partners before marriage are more likely to engage in extramarital intercourse. International Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 48-49.</ref>
+
[[Sexually transmitted disease]]s (STDs) are both a medical and a social problem. Since the chances of contracting a sexually transmitted disease increase with the number of partners one has, monogamy is a safer option. STDs can affect more than one generation, since many diseases can be transferred at birth. In other cases, the debilitating, even terminal, effects of certain STDs make good [[parenting]] difficult if not impossible.
Studies in Nigeria have found around 47-53% of men and to 18-36% of women engage in extramarital sex.
 
<ref name="Isiugo-Abanihe,1994">Isiugo-Abanihe, U.C. (1994). Extramarital relations and perceptions of HIV/AIDS in Nigeria. Health Transition Review, 4, 111-125</ref>
 
<ref name="Ladebo,Tanimowo,2002">Ladebo, O.J., & Tanimowo, A.G. (2002). Extension personnel's sexual behaviour and attitudes toward HIV/AIDS in South-Western Nigeria. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 6, 51-59.</ref>
 
A 1999 survey of married and cohabiting couples in Zimbabwe reports that 38% of men and 13% of women engaged in extra-couple sexual relationships within the last 12 months.
 
<ref name="NationalAIDSCouncil,2002">National AIDS Council, Ministry of Health and Child Welfare, The MEASURE Project, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC/Zimbabwe). AIDS in Africa During the Nineties: Zimbabwe. A review and analysis of survey and research results. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2002.</ref> 
 
  
Nowhere has extramarital sex been examined more frequently than in the United States. Many surveys asking about extramarital sex in the United States have relied on convenience samples. A convenience sample means surveys are given to whomever happens to be easily available (e.g., volunteer college students or volunteer magazine readers). Convenience samples do not accurately reflect the population of the United States as a whole, which can cause serious biases in survey results. It should not be suprising, therefore, that surveys of extramarital sex in the United States have produced widely differing results. A few studies relying on convenience samples have tried to compensate for biases by surveying large numbers of people. These studies report that about 12-26% of married women and 15-43% of married men engage in extramarital sex.
+
Beyond the transmission of disease, a potential (often intended) consequence of sexual activity is [[pregnancy]]. Even when [[birth control]] is used, this is a common outcome. The months of pregnancy, [[childbirth|birth]], and rearing of a child for a woman not involved in a committed monogamous relationship is challenging to say the least. Thus, [[abortion]] is a common choice. Even when legally permitted, there are health risks involved in abortion, and beyond the physical consequences are psychological and social scars.
<ref name="Hunt,1974">Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy Press. </ref>
 
<ref name="Blumstein,Schwartz,1983">Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company.</ref>
 
<ref name="Janus,Janus,1993">Janus, S.S. & Janus, C.L. (1993). The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</ref>
 
Although surveying large numbers of people helps to counteract the biases of convenience samples, the only way to get scientifically reliable estimates of extramarital sex is to use nationally representative samples. Three studies have used nationally representative samples. These studies have found that about 10-15% of women and 20-25% of men engage in extramarital sex.
 
<ref name="Clements,1994">Clements, M. (1994, August 7). Sex in America today: A new national survey reveals how our attitudes are changing. Parade Magazine, 4-6.</ref>
 
<ref name="Laumann,Gagnon,Michael,Michaels,1994">Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T, & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</ref>
 
<ref name="Wiederman,1997>Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167-174.</ref>
 
Around 85-90% of married women and around 75-80% of married men in the United States are sexually monogamous throughout their marriages.
 
  
A majority of married people remain sexually monogamous during their marriages. The number of married partners who engage in extramarital sex never exceeds 50 percent in studies using large or nationally representative samples. Yet, the incidence of sexual monogamy varies across cultures. People in some cultures are more sexually monogamous than people in other cultures. Women also appear to be more sexually monogamous than men.
+
===Psychological Issues===
 +
Beyond the physical dangers of uncommitted, multiple sexual relationships are the effects on one's psychological health.<ref>International Educational Foundation, ''Educating for True Love: Explaining Sun Myung Moon's Thought on Morality, Family and Society'' (New York, NY, 2006, ISBN 1891958070).</ref> These effects include:
 +
*Stunting of spiritual and moral growth
 +
*Character corruption
 +
*Guilt, regret and diminished sense of worth
 +
*Heartbreak and destructive behavior
 +
*Spiritual disorientation
 +
*Degradation of love, life, and lineage
  
===Incidence of Genetic Monogamy===
+
These consequences can be more profound and long-lasting than the physical consequences. For those who do not recognize the commitment necessary in entering into a [[human sexuality|sexual]] relationship, particularly [[adolescence|adolescents]], [[friendship]]s can be ruined by the introduction of sexual activity in the relationship. From a caring, mutually beneficial relationship involving communication and activities shared in a larger social group, the sexually active couple becomes self-centered and possessive, quickly becoming suspicious and jealous of any attention their partner pays to another. When one individual is not committed to a monogamous relationship, the expectation of commitment from the partner is also lowered.
The incidence of genetic monogamy may be estimated from rates of extrapair paternity. Unfortunately, rates of extrapair paternity have not been extensively studied in people. Many reports of extrapair paternity are little more than quotes based on heresay, anecdotes, and unpublished findings.
 
<ref name="Macintyre,Sooman,1991">Macintyre, S. & Sooman, A. (1991). Non-paternity and prenatal genetic screening. Lancet, 338, 869-871.</ref>
 
Simmons, Firman, Rhodes, and Peters reviewed 11 published studies of extra-pair paternity from various locations in the United States, France, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Mexico, and the Yanamamo Indians in South America. 
 
<ref name="Simmons,Firman,Rhodes,Peters,2004">Simmons, L.W., Firman, R.E.C., Rhodes, G., & Peters, M. (2004). Human sperm competition: testis size, sperm production and rates of extrapair copulations. Animal Behaviour, 68, 297-302.</ref>
 
The rates of exptrapair paternity ranged from 0.03% to 11.8% although most of the locations had low percentages of extrapair paternity. The median rate of extrapair paternity was 1.8%. A separate review of 17 studies by Bellis, Hughes, Hughes, and Ashton found slightly higher rates of extrapair paternity.
 
<ref name="Bellis,Hughes,Hughes,Ashton,2005">Bellis, M.A., Hughes, K., Hughes, S., & Ashton, J.R. (2005). Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 749-754</ref>
 
The rates varied from 0.8% to 30% in these studies, with a median rate of 3.7% extrapair paternity. A range of 1.8% to 3.7% extrapair paternity implies a range of 96% to 98% genetic monogamy. Although the incidence of genetic monogamy may vary from 70% to 99% in different cultures or social environments, a large percentage of couples remain genetically monogamous during their relationships.  
 
  
==Evolution of Monogamy==
+
The desire for romantic love is natural and healthy in adolescents, and part of normal psychological development. However, the inclusion of sexual activity prematurely has been noted to greatly reduce the [[creativity]] and [[emotion]]al excitement of young people, leaving them "flat-souled" and impoverished in ideals, hopes and imagination.<ref>Allen Bloom, ''The Closing of the American Mind'' (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster, 1988, ISBN 0671657151).</ref>
  
The evolution of monogamy in human beings remains highly speculative. Researchers have attempted to draw inferences about the evolution of monogamy from comparisons with closely related species, from sexual dimorphism in hominid fossils, and from relative testis size. The evidence raises the possibility that early human ancestors were not monogamous. However, the evidence remains so problematic and controversial that firm conclusions cannot be drawn.  
+
[[psychology|Psychological]] studies of monogamous relationships have revealed three significant issues: First, [[Monogamy#Satisfaction|satisfaction]] is often raised to initial high levels, but equally often declines during the first years of marriage. Second, [[Monogamy#Attachment|attachment]], the need for physical and emotional closeness, plays an important role in many aspects of monogamous relationships. Finally, although some people question the [[Monogamy#Duration|duration]] of marriage as a worthwhile goal, most people expect their marriages to last a long time. If it fails, the psychological consequences of ending a sexual relationship have been found to be emotionally traumatic.
  
The evolution of [[monogamy]] refers to the natural history of mating systems in which species reproduce by forming pairs to raise offspring.  
+
====Satisfaction====
 +
The events of falling in [[love]] and getting [[marriage|married]] raise people's feelings of [[happiness]] and satisfaction to unusually high levels. It is natural for these feelings of happiness and satisfaction to return to more normal levels over time.  
  
 +
When two people fall in love and develop an intimate relationship, they begin to include their partners in their concepts of themselves. People feel like they acquire new capabilities because they have the support of close partners. "I might not be able to handle parenthood by myself, but with the help of my partner's good parenting skills, I'll be a good parent." This overlap of the concepts of self and partner has been called "self-expansion."<ref name="Aron,Norman,Aron,Lewandowski,2002">A. Aron, C. C. Norman, E. N. Aron, and G. Lewandowski, “Shared participation in self-expanding activities: Positive effects on experienced marital quality” in ''Understanding Marriage: Developments in the Study of Couple Interaction''. edited by Patricia Noller and Judith A. Feeney, 177-194 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 0521803705).</ref>
  
=== Evolution of Monogamy in Animals ===
+
People generally experience a high level of self-expansion at the beginning of relationships when they constantly learn new things about themselves and their partners. Rapid self-expansion pushes satisfaction to very high levels. However, as the relationship matures, the rate of self-expansion slows, and people experience a relative decline in satisfaction.
  
The evolution of mating systems in animals has received an enormous amount of attention from biologists. It would take a book, or perhaps even several books, to thoroughly review everything biologists have learned about the evolution of animal mating systems. This section briefly reviews three main findings about the evolution of monogamy in animals.
+
Once couples are married, they have to deal with the inevitability of arguments and conflict. Couples who deal poorly with arguments and conflict build up a history of negative emotional interactions that erodes marital satisfaction.
 
 
<h3>Types of Monogamy</h3>
 
Biologists now have solid evidence that monogamous pairs of animals are not always sexually
 
exclusive. Many animals that form pairs to mate and raise offsrping regularly engage in sexual
 
activities with extra-pair partners
 
<ref name="Ågren,Zhou,Zhong,1989">Ågren, G., Zhou, Q. & Zhong, W. (1989). Ecology and
 
social behaviour of Mongolian gerbils Meriones unguiculatus, at Xiliuhot, Inner Mongolia, China. Animal Behaviour, 37, 11-27.</ref>
 
<ref name="Barash,1981">Barash, D.P. (1981). Mate guarding and gallivanting by male hoary
 
marmots (Marmota caligata). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 9, 187-193.</ref>
 
<ref name="Birkhead,Møller,1995">Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. (1995). Extra-pair copulations
 
and extra-pair paternity in birds. Animal Behaviour, 49, 843-848.</ref>
 
<ref name="Birkhead,Møller,1996">Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. (1996). Monogamy and sperm
 
competition in birds. In J. M. Black (Ed.), Partnerships in Birds: The Study of Monogamy (pp. 323-343). Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref>
 
<ref name="Foltz,1981">Foltz, D.W. (1981). Genetic evidence for long-term monogamy in a small
 
rodent, Peromyscus polionotus. American Naturalist, 117, 665-675.</ref>
 
<ref name="Gursky,2000">Gursky, S.L. (2000). Sociality in the spectral tarsier, Tarsius spectrum. American Journal of Primatology, 51, 89-101.</ref>
 
<ref name="Hasselquist,Sherman,2001"> Hasselquist, D. S. & Sherman, P.W. (2001). Social
 
mating systems and extrapair fertilizations in passerine birds. Behavioral Ecology, 12, 457-466.</ref>
 
<ref name="Hubrecht,1985">Hubrecht, R.C. (1985). Home range size and use and territorial
 
behavior in the common marmoset, Callithrix jacchus jacchus, at the Tapacura Field Station, Recife, Brazil. International Journal of Primatology, 6, 533-550.</ref>
 
<ref name="Mason,1966">Mason, W.A. (1966). Social organization of the South American
 
monkey, Callicebus moloch: a preliminary report. Tulane Studies in Zoology, 13, 23-28.</ref>
 
<ref name="McKinney,Derrickson,Mineau,1983">McKinney, F., Derrickson, S.R., & Mineau, P.
 
(1983). Forced copulation in waterfowl. Behaviour, 86, 250-294.</ref>
 
<ref name=Reichard,1995">Reichard, U. (1995). Extra-pair Copulations in a Monogamous Gibbon
 
(Hylobates lar). Ethology, 100, 99-112.</ref>
 
<ref name="Reichard,2002">Reichard, U.H. (2002). Monogamy—A variable relationship. Max
 
Planck Research, 3, 62-67.</ref>
 
<ref name="Richardson,1987">Richardson, P.R.K. (1987). Aardwolf mating system: overt
 
cuckoldry in an apparently monogamous mammal. South African Journal of Science, 83, 405-
 
412.</ref>
 
<ref name="Welsh,Sedinger,1990"> Welsh, D. & Sedinger, J.S. (1990). Extra-Pair copulations in
 
Black Brant. The Condor, 92, 242-244.</ref>
 
<ref name="Westneat,Stewart,2003>Westneat, D.F. & Stewart, I.R.K. (2003). Extra-pair paternity
 
in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34, 365-396.</ref>
 
Sometimes these extra-pair sexual activities lead to offspring. Genetic tests frequently show that some of the offspring raised by a monogamous pair come from the female having sex with an extra-pair male partner.
 
<ref name="Birkhead,Møller,1995"/>
 
<ref name="Birkhead,Møller,1996"/>
 
<ref name="Owens,Hartley,1998">Owens, I.P.F. & Hartley, I.R. (1998). Sexual dimorphism in
 
birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proceedings of the Royal Society,
 
London, B265, 397–407.</ref>
 
<ref name="Solomon,Keane,Knoch,Hogan,2004">Solomon, N.G., Keane, B., Knoch, L.R., &
 
Hogan, P.J. (2004). Multiple paternity in socially monogamous prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 82, 1667-1671.</ref> These discoveries have led biologists to adopt new ways of talking about monogamy:
 
<blockquote>
 
"Social monogamy refers to a male and female's social living arrangement (e.g., shared use of a  
 
territory, behaviour indicative of a social pair, and/or proximity between a male and female) without inferring any sexual interactions or reproductive patterns. In humans, social monogamy equals monogamous marriage. Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male based on observations of sexual interactions. Finally, the term genetic monogamy is used when DNA analyses can confirm that a female-male pair reproduce exclusively with each other. A combination of terms indicates examples where levels of relationships coincide, e.g., sociosexual and sociogenetic monogamy describe corresponding social and sexual, and social and genetic monogamous relationships, respectively." (Reichard, 2003, page 4) <ref>Reichard, U.H. (2003). Monogamy: Past and present. In U.H. Reichard and C. Boesch (Eds.), Monogamy: Mating strategies and parnternships in birds, humans, and other mammals (pp.3-25).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>
 
</blockquote>
 
Whatever makes a pair of animals socially monogamous does not necessarily make them sexually or genetically monogamous. Social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy can occur in
 
different combinations.
 
 
 
<h3>Incidence of Monogamy</h3>
 
 
 
Biologists agree that social monogamy is rare in the animal kingdom. The percentage of monogamous species is greater in some taxa than in others. Biologists estimate up to 90 percent of avian species are socially monogamous.
 
<ref name="Lack,1968">Lack, D. (1968). Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds. London: Methuen.</ref><ref name="Moller,1986">Moller, A.P. (1986). Mating systems among European passerines: a review. Ibis, 7, 234-250.</ref> In contrast, biologists estimate only 3 percent of mammalian species are socially monogamous, although up to 15 percent of primate species are monogamoys.<ref name="Reichard,2002">Reichard, U.H. (2002). Monogamy—A variable relationship. Max Planck Research, 3, 62-67.</ref>
 
Of course, sexual monogamy and genetic monogamy are even more rare than social monogamy, since so many socially monogamous species are not sexually monogamous. Gowaty has estimated that, out of 180 different species of socially monogamous songbirds, only 10 percent are sexually monogamous.<ref name="Gowaty,Morell,1998">Research conducted by Patricia Adair Gowaty. Reported by Morell, V. (1998). Evolution of sex: A new look at monogamy. Science, 281, 1982-1983.</ref>
 
 
 
<h3>Causes of Monogamy</h3>
 
 
 
Socially monogamous species are scattered throughout the animal kingdom. A few insects are socially monogamous; a few fish are socially monogamous; a lot of birds are socially monogamous; and a few mammals are socially monogamous. These species did not inherit social monogamy from a common ancestor. Instead, social monogamy has evolved independently in different species.
 
 
 
Some factors that contribute to the evolution of social monogamy include:
 
<blockquote>
 
* resources available in the surrounding environment <ref name="Harding,Almany,Houck,Hixon,2003"> Harding, J.A., Almany, G.R., Houck, L.D., & Hixon,
 
M.A. (2003). Experimental analysis of monogamy in the Caribbean cleaner goby, Gobiosoma evelynae. Animal Behaviour, 65, 865–874.</ref>
 
* geographic distribution of mates <ref name="Komers,Brotherton,1997"> Komers, P.E. &
 
Brotherton, P.N.M. (1997) Female space use is the best predictor of monogamy in mammals.
 
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 264, 1261-1270.</ref>
 
* incidence of parasites and sexually transmitted diseases <ref name="Altizer,etal,2003"> Altizer, S., et al. (2003). Social organization and parasite risk in mammals: Integrating theory and empirical studies. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34, 517-547.</ref>
 
* amount of parental care given to offspring <ref name="Lack,1968">Lack, D. (1968). Ecological
 
Adaptations for Breeding in Birds. London: Methuen.</ref>
 
* mate guarding behaviors<ref name="Mathews,2003">Mathews, L.M. (2003). Tests of the mate-
 
guarding hypothesis for social monogamy: male snapping shrimp prefer to associate with high-value females. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 63-67.</ref>
 
* infanticide <ref name="Palombit,1999">Palombit, R. A. (1999). Infanticide and the evolution of pair bonds in nonhuman primates. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 7, 117-129.</ref>
 
* length of breeding season <ref name="Weatherhead,1979">Weatherhead, P.J. (1979). Ecological
 
correlates of monogamy in tundra-breeding Savannah Sparrows. The Auk, 96, 391-401.</ref>
 
* chemical mechanisms of bonding in the brain <ref name="Young,Wang,Insel,1998">Young, L.J.,
 
Wang, Z., & Insel, T.R. (1998). Neuroendocrine bases of monogamy. Trends in Neuroscience, 21, 71-75.</ref>
 
</blockquote>
 
This list is not complete. Other factors may also contribute to the evolution of  social monogamy. Moreover, different sets of factors may explain the evolution of social monogamy in different species. There is no one-size-fits-all explanation of why different species evolved monogamous mating systems.
 
 
 
=== Evolution of Monogamy in Humans ===
 
 
 
The evolution of monogamy in humans is a particularly difficult problem. Human behaviors do not
 
fossilize, so there is no way to know for certain whether or not human ancestors were monogamous. Researchers are forced to draw inferences from characteristics believed to be related to mating systems (e.g., sexual dimorphism and testes size). These inferences are often weakened by questionable assumptions and conflicting data. The evolution of monogamy in humans remains largely a matter of speculation and educated guesses.
 
 
 
<h3> Closest Genetic Relatives </h3>
 
DNA evidence has established the evolutionary relationships between humans, chimpanzees,
 
bonobos, and gorillas. All four of these species once shared a common ancestor. The first split
 
between the species occurred when gorillas diverged from the common ancestor of humans, bonobos, and chimpanzees. The next split occurred when humans diverged from the common ancestor of bonobos and chimpanzees. The split between bonobos and chimpanzees occurred most recently. This makes bonobos and chimpanzees the closest genetic relatives to humans. (If you'd like to learn more about the evolutionary family tree, see the Wikipedia articles on [[Human Evolution]] and [[Ape | Apes]].)
 
 
 
What can the mating systems of close genetic relatives reveal about the evolution of monogamy in humans? One answer to this question is that, because humans are genetically closest to bonobos and chimpanzees, humans may still have genes for promiscuity. Another answer to the question is that, because humans are most closely related to bonobos and chimpanzees, the promiscuity of bonobos and chimpanzees serves as the best model for mating in the early ancestors of humans. Both answers suggest human ancestors may have been promiscuous rather than monogamous.
 
 
 
Unfortunately, both of these answers assume millions of years of evolution have not changed the mating systems of bonobos and chimpanzees. This assumption is strongly challenged by fossil evidence. Fossils of [[Sahelanthropus]] suggest the common ancestor of humans, bonobos and chimpanzees was not like a modern bonobo or a modern chimpanzee.
 
<blockquote>
 
"Most surprising of all may be what Sahelanthropus reveals about the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Paleoanthropologists have typically imagined that that creature resembled a chimp in having, among other things, a strongly projecting lower face, thinly enameled molars and large canines. Yet Sahelanthropus, for all its generally apelike traits, has only a moderately prognathic face, relatively thick enamel, small canines and a brow ridge larger than that of any living ape. 'If Sahelanthropus shows us anything, it shows us that the last common ancestor was not a chimpanzee,' Berkeley’s White remarks. 'But why should we have expected otherwise?' Chimpanzees have had just as much time to evolve as humans have had, he points out, and they have become highly specialized, fruit-eating apes." (Wong, 2003, page 61) <ref name="Wong,2003">Wong, K. (2003). An ancestor to call our own. Scientific American, 288, 54-63.</ref>
 
</blockquote>
 
Fossils of [[Australopithecus]] suggest early human ancestors were highly sexually dimorphic, a
 
characteristic not shared by modern bonobos and chimpanzees. A high amount of sexual dimorphism
 
sometimes indicates a polygamous mating system.
 
<ref name="Owens,Hartley,1998">Owens, I.P.F. & Hartley, I.R. (1998). Sexual dimorphism in
 
birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proceedings of the Royal Society of
 
London B, 265, 397-407.</ref>
 
<ref name="Frayer,Wolpoff,1985">Frayer, D.W. & Wolpoff, M.H. (1985). Sexual dimorphism.
 
Annual Review of Anthropology, 14, 429-473.</ref>
 
<ref name="Geary,Flinn,2001"> Geary, D.C., & Flinn, M.V. (2001). Evolution of human parental
 
behavior and the human family. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1, 5-61.</ref>
 
Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus raises questions about the validity of comparing modern bonobos and chimpanzees to human ancestors.
 
 
 
Bonobos and chimpanzees have undergone millions of years of evolution since they split from the
 
common ancestor with humans. Sexual promiscuity in bonobos and chimpanzees may have evolved
 
<i>after</i> the split from the common ancestor with humans. In that case, humans would not share the genes for promiscuity, and modern bonobos and chimpanzees would not be good models for sexual behavior in early human ancestors. It is simply not possible to draw conclusions about the evolution of monogamy in humans by studying the mating systems of modern bonobos and
 
chimpanzees.
 
 
 
<h3>Sexual Dimorphism</h3>
 
[[Sexual dimorphism]] refers to differences in body characteristics between males and females. A frequently studied type of sexual dimorphism is body size. Males typically have larger bodies than females. In some species, however, females have larger bodies than males. Sexual dimorphism in body size has been linked to mating behavior.
 
<ref name="Owens,Hartley,1998">Owens, I.P.F. & Hartley, I.R. (1998). Sexual dimorphism in
 
birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proceedings of the Royal Society of
 
London B, 265, 397-407.</ref>
 
<ref name="Frayer,Wolpoff,1985">Frayer, D.W. & Wolpoff, M.H. (1985). Sexual dimorphism.
 
Annual Review of Anthropology, 14, 429-473.</ref>
 
<ref name="Geary,Flinn,2001"> Geary, D.C., & Flinn, M.V. (2001). Evolution of human parental behavior and the human family. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1, 5-61.</ref>
 
<ref name="Dunn,Whittingham,Pitcher,2001">Dunn, P.O., Whittingham, L.A., & Pitcher, T.E. (2001). Mating systems, sperm competition, and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in birds. Evolution, 55, 161–175.</ref>
 
In polygamous species, males compete for control over sexual access to females. Large males have an advantage in the competition for access to females, and they consequently pass their genes along to a greater number of offspring. This eventually leads to large differences in body size between males and females. Polygamous males are often 1.5 to 2.0 times larger in size than females. In monogamous species, on the other hand, males and females have more equal access to mates, so there is little or no sexual dimorphism in body size.
 
 
 
Some researchers have attempted to infer the evolution of human mating systems from the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Several studies have reported a large amount of sexual dimorphism in <i>[[Australopithecus]]</i>, an evolutionary ancestor of human beings that lived between 2 and 4 million years ago.
 
<ref name="Frayer,Wolpoff,1985">Frayer, D.W. & Wolpoff, M.H. (1985). Sexual dimorphism.
 
Annual Review of Anthropology, 14, 429-473.</ref>
 
<ref name="Geary,Flinn,2001"> Geary, D.C., & Flinn, M.V. (2001). Evolution of human parental
 
behavior and the human family. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1, 5-61.</ref>
 
<ref name="Flinn,Ward,2004">Flinn, M.V. & Ward, C.V. (2004). Ontogeny and Evolution of the
 
Social Child. In: Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development, B. Ellis & D. Bjorklund (Eds.), chapter 2, pp. 19-44. London: Guilford Press.</ref>
 
<ref name="Lockwood,Richmond,Jungers,Kimbel,1996">Lockwood, C.A., Richmond, B.G.,
 
Jungers, W.L., & Kimbel, W.H. (1996). Randomization procedures and sexual dimorphism in
 
Australopithecus afarensis. Journal of Human Evolution, 31, 537-548.</ref>
 
These studies raise the possibility that <i>Australopithicus</i> had a polygamous mating system. Sexual dimorphism then began to decrease. Studies suggest sexual dimorphism reached modern human levels around the time of <i>[[Homo Erectus]]</i> 0.5 to 2 million years ago.
 
<ref name="Frayer,Wolpoff,1985">Frayer, D.W. & Wolpoff, M.H. (1985). Sexual dimorphism.
 
Annual Review of Anthropology, 14, 429-473.</ref>
 
<ref name="Geary,Flinn,2001"> Geary, D.C., & Flinn, M.V. (2001). Evolution of human parental
 
behavior and the human family. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1, 5-61.</ref>
 
<ref name="Flinn,Ward,2004">Flinn, M.V. & Ward, C.V. (2004). Ontogeny and Evolution of the
 
Social Child. In: Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development, B. Ellis & D. Bjorklund (Eds.), chapter 2, pp. 19-44. London: Guilford Press.</ref>
 
<ref name="Arsuaga,Carretero,Lorenzo,Gracia,Martinez,BermudezdeCastro,Carbonell,1997">Arsuaga,
 
J.L., Carretero, J.M., Lorenzo, C.,  Gracia, A., Martínez, I., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., &
 
Carbonell, E. (1997). Size variation in Middle Pleistocene humans. Science, 277, 1086-1088.</ref>
 
This line of reasoning suggests human ancestors started out polygamous and began the transition to monogamy somewhere between 0.5 million and 2 million years ago.
 
 
 
Attempts to infer the evolution of monogamy based on sexual dimorphism remain controversial for three reasons:
 
<blockquote>
 
* The skeletal remains of <i>Australopithecus</i> are quite fragmentary. This makes it difficult to identify the sex of the fossils. Researchers sometimes identify the sex of the fossils by their size, which, of course, can exaggerate findings of sexual dimorphism.
 
* Recent studies using new methods of measurement suggest <i>Australopithecus</i> had the same amount of sexual dimorphism as modern humans. <ref name="Reno,Meindl,McCollum,Lovejoy,2003">Reno, P.L., Meindl, R.S., McCollum, M.A.,
 
& Lovejoy, C.O. (2003). Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of
 
modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 9404-9409.</ref><ref name="Larsen,2003">Larsen, C.S. (2003). Equality for the sexes in human evolution? Early
 
hominid sexual dimorphism and implications for mating systems and social behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 9103-9104.</ref> This raises questions about the amount of sexual dimorphism in <i>Australopithecus</i>.
 
* Even if future studies clearly establish sexual dimorphism in <i>Australopithecus</i>, other studies have shown the relationship between sexual dimorphism and mating system is unreliable. <ref name="Owens,Hartley,1998">Owens, I.P.F. & Hartley, I.R. (1998). Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, B265, 397–407.</ref> <ref name="Frayer,Wolpoff,1985">Frayer, D.W. & Wolpoff, M.H. (1985). Sexual dimorphism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 14, 429-473.</ref> Some polygamous species show little or no sexual dimorphism. Some monogamous species show a large amount of sexual dimorphism.
 
</blockquote>
 
Studies of sexual dimorphism raise the possibility that early human ancestors were polygamous rather than monogamous. But this line of research remains highly controversial. It may be that early human ancestors showed little sexual dimorphism, and it may be that sexual dimorphism in early human ancestors had no relationship to their mating systems.
 
 
 
<h3>Testis Size</h3>
 
The relative sizes of male testes often reflect mating systems. <ref name="Pitcher,Dunn,Whittingham,2005">Pitcher, T.E., Dunn, P.O., & Whittingham, L.A. (2005). Sperm competition and the evolution of testes size in birds. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 18, 557–567.</ref>
 
<ref name="Simmons,Firman,Rhodes,Peters,2004">Simmons, L.W., Firman, R.E.C., Rhodes, G., & Peters, M. (2004). Human sperm competition: testis size, sperm production and rates of extrapair copulations. Animal Behaviour, 68, 297-302.</ref>
 
<ref name="Dixson,Anderson,2001">Dixson, A., & Anderson, M. (2001). Sexual selection and the comparative anatomy of reproduction in monkeys, apes, and human beings. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 121-144.</ref>
 
<ref name="Harcourt,Harvey,Larson,Short,1981">Harcourt, A.H., Harvey, P.H., Larson, S.G., & Short, R.V. (1981). Testis weight, body weight and breeding system in primates. Nature, 293, 55-57.</ref> In species with promiscuous mating systems, where many males mate with many females, the testes tend to be relatively large. This appears to be the result of sperm competition. Males with large testes produce more sperm and thereby gain an advantage impregnating females. In polygynous species, where one male controls sexual access to females, the testes tend to be small. One male defends exclusive sexual access to a group of females and thereby eliminates sperm competition.
 
 
 
Studies of primates, including humans, support the relationship between testis size and mating system. <ref name="Dixson,Anderson,2001">Dixson, A., & Anderson, M. (2001). Sexual selection and the comparative anatomy of reproduction in monkeys, apes, and human beings. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 121-144.</ref>
 
<ref name="Harcourt,Harvey,Larson,Short,1981">Harcourt, A.H., Harvey, P.H., Larson, S.G., & Short, R.V. (1981). Testis weight, body weight and breeding system in primates. Nature, 293, 55-57.</ref> Chimpanzees, which have a promiscuous mating system, have large testes compared to other primates. Gorillas, which have a polygynous mating system, have smaller testes than other primates. Humans, which have a socially monogamous mating system, accompanied by moderate amounts of sexual non-monogamy, have moderately sized testes. The moderate amounts of sexual non-monogamy in humans may result in a low to moderate amount of sperm competition.
 
 
 
Although testis size in humans is consistent with the modern pattern of social monogamy accompanied by moderate sexual non-monogamy, this fact reveals little about when the modern pattern evolved. Did Homo Erectus have testes similar in size to modern humans? What about Australopithecus? It is not possible to measure the size of testes in the fossil remains of human ancestors. This limits the usefulness of testis size in understanding the evolution of monogamy in humans.
 
 
 
<h3>Cultural Evolution</h3>
 
Culture has clearly increased the incidence of social monogamy. Many modern cultures have passed laws making social monogamy the only legal form of marriage. The passage of such laws in many cases reflects the spread of Christianity. However, in recent years, international organizations such as the United Nations and the African Union have started to promote social monogamy as a way to give women and men equal rights in marriage.
 
 
 
The United Nations started to promote social monogamy as the preferred form of marriage in 1979
 
when the General Assembly adopted the [http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women], an international bill of rights for women that over 180 nations have agreed to implement. Article 16 of the Convention requires nations to give women and men equal rights in marriage. Polygamy is interpreted as inconsistent with Article 16 because it extends the right of multiple spouses to men but not to women. The United Nations has established the [http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women], or CEDAW, to monitor the progress of nations implementing the Convention. The United Nations is thus working through the Convention and CEDAW to promote women's equality by making monogamy the only legal form of marriage worldwide.
 
 
 
The African Union has recently adopted the <i>Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa</i>.
 
While the protocol does not suggest making polygamous marriage illegal, article 6 of the protocol states that "monogamy is encouraged as the preferred form of marriage and that the rights of women in marriage and family, including in polygamous marital relationships are promoted and protected."
 
<ref name="AmnestyInternational,2006">Amnesty International, 2006. The Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa: Strengthening the promotion and protection of women’s human rights in Africa. Retrieved May 29, 2006 from http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR630052004
 
.</ref><ref name="UniversityMinnesota,2006">University of Minnesota Human Rights Library,
 
2006. Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in
 
Africa. Retrieved May 29, 2006 from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/protocol-
 
women2003.html .</ref>
 
The protocol entered into force November 25, 2005.
 
 
 
 
 
==Psychology of Monogamy==
 
 
 
Psychological studies of monogamous relationships have usually focused on marriages. This article deals with three important topics in the psychology of monogamous relationships. First, satisfaction usually declines during the first years of marriage. The decline in satisfaction may represent normal rebound, emotional erosion, and/or motivational erosion. Second, although some people question the duration of marriage as a worthwhile goal, most people expect their marriages to last a long time. Studies of couples in laboratories and studies of people in long-lasting marriages have identified several factors that contribute to the duration of monogamous relationships. Third, attachment, the need for physical and emotional closeness, plays an important role in many aspects of monogamous relationships. Psychologists and neuroscientists have devoted much research to understanding the processes of attachment.
 
 
 
The '''psychology of monogamy''' deals with the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that commonly occur in monogamous relationships. This article deals with the psychology of monogamy in human beings.
 
 
 
Psychological studies of sexual monogamy are sparse. Psychologists tend to be more interested in sexual non-monogamy, especially the causes and consequences of sexual infidelity. The topic of sexual non-monogamy is covered in several Wikipedia articles listed on the [[Poly relationship]] page.
 
 
 
Psychological studies of social monogamy have relied heavily on observations of married couples. These studies have identified several important topics:
 
* '''[[Psychology of Monogamy#Relationship Satisfaction|Relationship Satisfaction]]''' Satisfaction usually declines during the first years of marriage. The decline in satisfaction may represent normal rebound, emotional erosion, and/or motivational erosion.
 
* '''[[Psychology of Monogamy#Relationship Duration|Relationship Duration]]''' Many marriages end in divorce, leading some people to question the duration of marriage as a worthwhile goal. Studies of people in long-lasting marriages and studies of married couples in laboratories have identified several factors that contribute to the duration of monogamous relationships.
 
* '''[[Psychology of Monogamy#Attachment|Attachment]]''' Attachment, the need for physical and emotional closeness, plays an important role in many aspects of monogamous relationships. Psychologists and neuroscientists have devoted much research to understanding the processes of attachment.
 
  
===Relationship Satisfaction===
+
How well couples handle conflict and stress depends on their vulnerabilities, the kinds of stresses they face, and their processes of adaptation.<ref name="Karney,Bradbury,1995">B. R. Karney and T. N. Bradbury, “The longitudinal course of material quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research,” ''Psychological Bulletin'' 118(1995): 3-34.</ref> Couples who handle conflict and stress poorly become less and less satisfied with their relationships over time. Those who succeed in dealing with conflict, through mutual support and good [[communication]], on the other hand, develop deep trust and closeness in their relationship. Such relationships result in greater satisfaction and long-lasting happiness that is qualitatively different from the excitement of the early stages of a relationship.
Psychologists have spent decades studying marital satisfaction. One of the more interesting and robust findings in Western societies is that satisfaction decreases during the first years of marriage. <ref name="Blood,Wolfe,1960">Blood, R. & Wolfe, D.W. (1960). Husbands and wives. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.</ref>
 
<ref name="Glenn,1990">Glenn, N.D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the 1980s: A critical review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818–831.</ref>
 
<ref name="Locke,Wallace,1959">Locke, H.J. & Wallace, K.M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255. </ref>
 
<ref name="Rollins,Feldman,1970">Rollins, B., & Feldman, H. (1970). Marriage satisfaction over the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 20–28.</ref>
 
<ref name="Tucker, Aron,1993">Tucker, P., & Aron, A. (1993). Passionate love and marital satisfaction at key transition points in the family life cycle. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 135–147.</ref>
 
<ref name="Aron,Norman,Aron,Lewandowski,2002">Aron, A., Norman, C.C., Aron, E.N.,
 
Lewandowski, G. (2002). Shared participation in self-expanding activities: Positive effects on experienced marital quality. In J.A. Feeney and P. Noller (Eds.), Understanding Marriage: Developments in the Study of Couple Interaction (pp. 177-194). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</ref>
 
A few couples escape this trend. But the large majority of married couples see their satisfaction decline over time. Psychologists have offered three types of explanations for these declines: normal rebound, emotional erosion, and motivational erosion. These are not mutually exclusive explanations. Combinations of all three factors could contribute to declines in marital satisfaction.
 
  
<h3>Normal Rebound</h3>
+
====Attachment====
The events of falling in love and getting married raise people's feelings of happiness and satisfaction to unusually high levels. It is natural for these feelings of happiness and satisfaction to return to more normal levels over time. In other words, some of the decline
+
Attachment is the tendency to seek closeness to another person, to feel secure when that person is present, and to feel anxious when that person is absent.  
in satisfaction during the first years of marriage may be a normal rebound effect, where unusually high levels of satisfaction return to more ordinary levels of satisfaction.
 
  
An example of a rebound explanation is the ''hedonic treadmill'' model.
+
[[Attachment theory]] was originally developed by [[John Bowlby]] and [[Mary Ainsworth]] to describe children's desires for closeness with their parents. Hazen and Shaver<ref name="Hazen,Shaver,1987">C. Hazan and P. Shaver, “Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process,” ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'' 52(1987): 511-524.</ref> noticed that interactions between adult romantic partners shared similarities to interactions between children and caregivers. Romantic partners desire to be close to one another. They feel comforted when their partners are present and anxious or lonely when their partners are absent. Romantic relationships serve as secure bases that help partners face the surprises, opportunities, and challenges life presents. People who have secure attachment styles have been found to express greater satisfaction with their relationships than people who have other attachment styles.<ref name="Brennan,Shaver,1995">K. A. Brennan and P. R. Shaver, “Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning,” ''Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin'' 21(1995): 267-283.</ref>  
<ref name="Brickman,Campbell,1971">Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory (pp. 287–305). New York: Academic Press.</ref>
+
<ref name="Feeney,1994">Judith A. Feeney, “Attachment style, communication patterns and satisfaction across the life cycle of marriage.” ''Personal Relationships'' 1(1994): 333-348.</ref><ref name="Feeney,Noller,Callan,1994">Judith A. Feeney, Patricia Noller, and V. J. Callan, V. J. “Attachment style, communication and satisfaction in the early years of marriage” in  ''Advances in Personal Relationships: Attachment Processes in Adulthood Vol. 5'' 269–308, edited by K. Bartholomew and D. Perlman (London: Jessica Kingsley, 1994).</ref> Secure attachment styles may lead to more constructive communication and more intimate self-disclosures, which in turn increase relationship satisfaction.<ref name="Feeney,1994"/>
<ref name="Lyubomirsky,Sheldon,Schkade,2005">Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K.M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111–131.</ref>
 
The word hedonic refers to pleasure or happiness. The basic idea of the hedonic treadmill model is that people have a set level of life satisfaction. Their set levels of life satisfaction are determined by a variety of factors including genes and life experiences. Happy events may temporarily make people more satisfied, and distressful events may temporarily make people less satisfied, but once these events pass, people return to their set levels of satisfaction. The events of falling in love and getting married cause people to report feeling very satisfied at the beginning of  their marriages. People subsequently begin to return to their set levels of satisfaction. This causes people to report a decrease in satisfaction. Recent studies have suggested that set points of satisfaction may be easier to change than psychologists originally theorized <ref name="Fujita,Diener,2005">Fujita, F. & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set point: Stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 158–164.</ref>, although it remains unclear whether or not marriage makes lasting changes to set points of satisfaction. <ref name="Lucas,Clark,Georgellis,Diener,2003">Lucas, R.E., Clark, A.E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 527–539.</ref>
 
<ref name="Lucas,Clark,2005">Lucas, R.E. & Clark, A.E. (2005). Do people really adapt to marriage? Working Paper Number 2005-41. Paris, France: Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques. Retreived June 11, 2006, from http://www.pse.ens.fr/document/wp200541.pdf .</ref>  
 
More research needs to be conducted to clarify how the hedonic treadmill contributes to decreases in marital satisfaction.  
 
  
Another example of a rebound explanation is the ''self-expansion'' model.
+
====Duration====
<ref name="Aron,Norman,Aron,Lewandowski,2002">Aron, A.,  Norman, C.C., Aron, E.N.,  & Lewandowski, G. (2002). Shared participation in self-expanding activities: Positive effects on experienced marital quality. In J.A. Feeney and P. Noller (Eds.), Understanding Marriage: Developments in the Study of Couple Interaction (pp. 177-194). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
+
Studies of couples in laboratories and studies of people in long-lasting marriages have identified several factors that contribute to the duration of monogamous relationships.  
University Press.</ref>
 
The self-expansion model has two main ideas:
 
<blockquote>
 
* People are motivated to increase their physical resources, social resources, knowledge, perspectives, and identities.
 
* People achieve this motivation by forming close relationships in which their partner's physical resources, social resources, knowledge, perspectives, and identities are treated to some extent as their own.
 
</blockquote>
 
When two people fall in love and develop an intimate relationship, they begin to include their partners in their concepts of themselves. People feel like they acquire new capabilities because they have the support of close partners. "I might not be able to handle parenthood by myself, but with the help of my partner's good parenting skills, I'll be a good parent." Several studies have shown that concepts of self and partner begin to overlap in the manner predicted by the self-expansion model.
 
<ref name="Aron,Norman,Aron,Lewandowski,2002">Aron, A.,  Norman, C.C., Aron, E.N.,  & Lewandowski, G. (2002). Shared participation in self-expanding activities: Positive effects on experienced marital quality. In J.A. Feeney and P. Noller (Eds.), Understanding Marriage: Developments in the Study of Couple Interaction (pp. 177-194). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</ref>
 
<ref name="Aron,Aron,Tudor,Nelson,1991">Aron, A., Aron, E.N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.</ref>
 
<ref name="Aron,Fraley,1999">Aron, A., & Fraley, B. (1999). Relationship closeness as including other in the self: Cognitive underpinnings and measures. Social Cognition, 17, 140–160. </ref>
 
<ref name="Aron,Paris,Aron,1995">Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E.N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102–1112.</ref>
 
<ref name="Aron,Norman,Aron,1998">Aron, A., Norman, C.C., & Aron, E.N. (1998). The self-expansion model and motivation. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 22, 1–13. </ref>
 
<ref name="Aron,Norman,Aron, McKenna,Heyman,2000">Aron, A., Norman, C.C., Aron, E.N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. (2000). Couples' shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 273–284.</ref>
 
According to the self-expansion model, people experience a lot of self-expansion at the beginning of relationships when they constantly learn new things about themselves and their partners. Rapid self-expansion pushes satisfaction to very high levels. However, as the relationship matures, the rate of self-expansion slows, and people experience a relative decline in satisfaction. This may help explain the loss of satisfaction as the marriage matures.
 
  
<h3>Emotional Erosion</h3>
+
One pattern that predicts relationship duration is the balance of positive and negative interactions.<ref name="Gottman,Coan,Carrere,Swanson,1998">J. M. Gottman, J. Coan, S. Carrere, S. and C. Swanson, “Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions,” ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'' 60(1998): 5-22.</ref> Positive interactions can repair damage done by negative interactions. Stable and happy couples consistently engage in at least five positive interactions for every one negative interaction. People who use humor and gentleness to soothe the feelings of their partners, and who respond calmly to the negative emotional expressions of their partners, are less likely to break up with their partners.
Once couples are married, they have to deal with the inevitability of arguments and conflict. Couples who deal poorly with arguments and conflict build up a history of negative emotional interactions that erodes marital satisfaction.
 
  
Karney and Bradbury reviewed over 100 studies of marital satisfaction and created the vulnerability-stress-adapation model.
+
Not everyone agrees the duration of a relationship indicates the success of a relationship. Some people reject the idea of "till death do us part" in favor of "as long as love shall last."<ref name="Pinsof,2002">W. M. Pinsof, “The death of 'till death do us part': The transformation of pair-bonding in the 20th century,” ''Family Process'' 41(2002): 135-157.</ref>
<ref name="Karney,Bradbury,1995">Karney, B.R. & Bradbury, T.N. (1995). The longitudinal course of material quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34.</ref>
 
As the name implies, the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model involves three main concepts:
 
<blockquote>
 
* Vulnerability - each partner brings strengths and weaknesses to the relationship, including personality, beliefs and attitudes about marriage, and social background.
 
* Stress - various life events can cause the partners to experience tension and stress.
 
* Adaptation - the partners engage in processes to deal with conflict, which vary in terms of how the partners communicate and support each other.
 
</blockquote>
 
How well couples handle conflict and stress depends on their vulnerabilities, the kinds of stresses they face, and their processes of adaptation. Couples who handle conflict and stress poorly become less and less satisfied with their relationships over time.
 
 
 
<h3>Motivational Erosion</h3>
 
Over time couples may feel they have drifted apart. They may no longer share the same relationship goals, and they may no longer support one another in achieving personal goals. This can reduce their motivation for being in the relationship. Loss of motivation for being in the relationship leads to less satisfaction.
 
 
 
Studies have shown that spousal support for goals affects marital satisfaction. One study, for example, distinguished between how much a spouse supports the fulfillment of one's personal goals and how much a spouse supports the fulfillment of mutually shared goals.
 
<ref name="Kaplan,Maddux,2002">Kaplan, M. & Maddux, J.E. (2002). Goals and marital satisfaction: Perceived support for personal goals and collective efficacy for collective goals. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 157-164</ref>
 
The study found each kind of support contributed positively to marital satisfaction. The more support a spouse provides for the fulfillment of personal and shared goals, the more satisfying the marriage. Loss of spousal support for goals may help explain declines in marital satisfaction.
 
 
 
Researchers have recently proposed a motivational model of marital satisfaction. The motivational model of marital satisfaction makes three basic claims:
 
<blockquote>
 
* Each person's motivational style influences his or her intimate relationship behaviors.
 
* The intimate relationship behaviors of both partners influence how couples perceive their adaptive behaviors.
 
* How the couple perceives their adaptive behaviors influences their satisfaction with the marriage.
 
</blockquote>
 
People have different motivational styles depending on whether behaviors are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivation means the behaviors are chosen and fully endorsed by the person performing them. Extrinsic motivation means the behaviors are coerced or imposed on the person performing them. An initial study of 63 couples has shown that different motivational styles influence relationship behaviors, which in turn influence relationship satisfaction.
 
<ref name="Blais,Sabourin,Boucher,Vallerand,1990">Blais, M.R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R.J. (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021-1031.</ref>
 
Shifts from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivation may help explain declines in satisfaction as a marriage matures.
 
 
 
===Relationship Duration===
 
Not everyone agrees the duration of a relationship indicates the success of a relationship. Some people reject the idea of "till death do us part" in favor of "as long as love shall last." <ref name="Pinsof,2002">Pinsof, W.M. (2002). The death of 'till death do us part': The transformation of pair-bonding in the 20th century. Family Process, 41, 135-157.</ref>
 
 
Constantine and Constantine have clearly summarized this perspective:
 
Constantine and Constantine have clearly summarized this perspective:
:"For our part, to stay together for the longest possible time is a poor goal for marriage. Other endsgrowth, fulfillment, happiness, among othersare more important and may demand shorter relationships if they are given priority. People change and the marriage that was valid at one time may lose its validity." (Constantine & Constantine, 1973, page 203) <ref name=Constantine,Constantine,1973">Constantine, L.L. & Constantine, J.M. (1973). Group Marriage. New York, NY: Collier Books.</ref>
+
<blockquote>For our part, to stay together for the longest possible time is a poor goal for marriage. Other ends&mdash;growth, fulfillment, happiness, among others&mdash;are more important and may demand shorter relationships if they are given priority. People change and the marriage that was valid at one time may lose its validity.<ref name=Constantine,Constantine,1973">Larry L. Constantine and Joan M. Constantine, ''Group Marriage'' (New York, NY: Collier Books, 1974, ISBN 002075910X).</ref></blockquote>
Whether or not the duration of a relationship indicates the success of a relationship depends on the values of the partners involved. This section does not argue for or against the value of relationship duration. This section merely discusses factors that contribute to longer lasting relationships. 
 
  
====Satisfaction====
+
Husbands and wives in long-lasting marriages have been found<ref>Jeanette C. Lauer and Robert H. Lauer, ''Til Death Do Us Part'' (New York, NY: Routledge, 1986. ISBN 978-0918393326).</ref> to agree on the following as the top seven reasons for their success:
Many psychologists view relationship satisfaction as a final common pathway to separation and divorce. Many factors may contribute to relationship satisfaction, but satisfaction ultimate motivates people to remain together or break up. People who are satisfied with their relationships tend to remain together. People who are not satisfied with their relationships tend to separate or divorce. The factors that influence relationship satisfaction, some of which are discussed in the [[Psychology of Monogamy#Relationship Satisfaction|previous section]] of this article, also contribute to relationship duration.
 
 
 
====Partner Interactions====
 
John Gottman and colleagues use detailed observations of how couples interact to predict whether or not their marriages will last. They can now predict with 81-87 percent accuracy whether or not a particular couples will remain married or get divorced.
 
<ref name="Carrere,Buehlman,Gottman,Coan,Ruckstuhl,2000">Carrere, S., Buehlman, K.T., Gottman, J.M., Coan, J.A., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Predicting marital stability and divorce in newly wed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 42-58.</ref>
 
Below are some patterns of the partner interactions that predict the duration of marriages.
 
 
 
One pattern that predicts relationship duration is the balance of positive and negative interactions.
 
<ref name="Gottman,Coan,Carrere,Swanson,1998">Gottman, J.M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting maritral happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5-22.</ref>
 
Positive interactions can repair damage done by negative interactions. However, negative interactions have a stronger impact than positive interactions, so couples need to engage in far more positive interactions than negative interactions to remain stable. Stable and happy couples consistently  engage in at least 5 positive interactions for every 1 negative interaction. Couples who maintain a 5:1 ratio of positive interactions to negative interactions are less likely to break up.
 
 
 
A second pattern that predicts relationship duration is a cascade of destructive interactions. Gottman has identfiied four destructive interactions which he calls the four horsemen.<ref name="Gottman,1994">Gottman, J.M. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail and how you can make your last. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.</ref> The four horsemen include:
 
<blockquote>
 
* Criticism - instead of complaining about a behavior, you attack your partner's personality or character, usually with blame. Criticism of personality also comes in the form of listing complaints about past behaviors and thereby suggesting a character fault.
 
* Contempt - contempt is criticism that is intended to insult and psychologically abuse a partner. Contempt reflects a very negative view of your partner.
 
* Defensiveness - defensiveness is a way of avoiding taking responsibility for setting things right by denying responsibility, making excuses, attributing negative thoughts to partners, using one's own complaints to counter a partner's complaints, and simply repeating oneself.
 
* Stonewalling - stonewalling is a break down of communication. The partners turn into 'stone walls' and stop responding to communication.
 
</blockquote>
 
Gottman sees these four destructive interactions as occurring in a cascade. Criticism leads to contempt; contempt leads to defensiveness; and defensiveness leads to stonewalling. Couples who go through this cascade are more likely to break up.
 
 
 
A third pattern that predicts relationship duration is the use of humor and soothing during arguments. Gottman and colleagues write:
 
:"We conclude that the marriages that wound up happy and stable had a softened start-up by the wife, that the husband accepted influence from her, that he de-escalated low-intensity negative affect, that she was likely to use humor to effectively soothe him, and that he was likely to use positive affect and de-escalation to effectively soothe himself. The alternative to the active listening model suggested by these analyses is a model of gentleness, soothing, and de-escalation of negativity (negativity by one spouse is followed by the partner's neutral affect)." (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1988, page ) <ref
 
name="Gottman,Coan,Carrere,Swanson,1998">Gottman, J.M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., Swanson, C. (1988). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5-22.</ref>
 
People who use humor and gentleness to soothe the feelings of their partners, and who respond calmly to the negative emotional expressions of their partners, are less likely to break up with their partners.
 
 
 
====Other Factors====
 
Studies of people in long-lasting marriages have identified a variety of factors that may contribute to the duration of relationships. Robyn Parker offers a good summary of these studies in an online article called [http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm60/rp.pdf Making Marriages Last].<ref name="Parker,2001">Parker, R. (2001). Making marriages last. Family Matters, 60, 81-89. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm60/rp.pdf .</ref> Based on a more technical review of the studies, Parker identifies several tasks that couples must accomplish to increase the chances of lasting marriages: <ref name="Parker,2002">Parker, R. (2002)Why marriages last: A discussion of the literature. Research Paper No. 28, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved June 14, 2006 from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/parker2.html .</ref>
 
<blockquote>
 
* Separating from the family of origin (parents, brothers, sisters, etc.)
 
* Building togetherness and creating autonomy
 
* Becoming parents
 
* Coping with crisis
 
* Making a safe place for conflict
 
* Exploring sexual love and intimacy
 
* Sharing laughter and keeping interests alive
 
* Providing emotional nuturance
 
* Preserving a double vision
 
</blockquote>
 
One problem with this type of research is that different researchers identify different factors associated the duration of marriages. For example, Klagsbrun identified the following key characteristics of marriages lasting 15 years or longer: <ref name="Klagsbrun,1985">Klagsbrun, F. (1985). Married People: Staying Together in the Age of Divorce, Toronto: Bantam Books.</ref>
 
<blockquote>
 
* Ability to change and adapt to change
 
* Ability to live with the unchangeable
 
* Assumption of permanence (i.e., the marriage will last a lifetime)
 
* Trust
 
* Balance of dependencies (power)
 
* Enjoyment of each other's company
 
* Cherished, shared history
 
* Luck
 
</blockquote>
 
Compare the lists above to the following list of five factors that Mackey and O'Brien consider critical for lasting marriages: <ref name="Mackey,OBrien,1995">Mackey, R.A. & O’Brien, B.A. (1995). Lasting Marriages: Men and Women Growing Together. Westport, CT: Praeger.</ref>
 
<blockquote>
 
* Containment of conflict
 
* Mutuality of decision-making
 
* Quality of communication
 
* Relational values of trust, respect, understanding, and equality
 
* Sexual and psychological intimacy
 
</blockquote>
 
Clearly there are common themes running through the lists described above. Yet, the lists reflect the interests and biases of the researchers, which means the lists should be considered initial findings that need to be confirmed by future studies.
 
 
 
One particularly interesting study asked 351 couples married 15 years or longer to list the main reasons for their marital success.
 
<ref name="Lauer,Lauer,1986">Lauer, J.C. & Lauer, R.H. (1986). 'Til Death Do Us Part. New York, NY: Haworth Press.</ref>  
 
Even though the spouses answered independently, the wives and the husbands produced identical lists of the top seven reasons for their success:
 
<blockquote>
 
 
* Spouse as best friend
 
* Spouse as best friend
 
* Liking spouse as a person
 
* Liking spouse as a person
Line 493: Line 120:
 
* Spouses becoming more interesting to each other
 
* Spouses becoming more interesting to each other
 
* Wanting the relationship to succeed
 
* Wanting the relationship to succeed
</blockquote>
 
The high amount of consensus between husbands and wives suggests these factors may indeed play a critical role in the duration of marriages.
 
  
===Attachment===
+
These reasons indicate that marriage is most likely to be successful when both partners are committed to a monogamous relationship.
Attachmnent is the tendency to seek closeness to another person, to feel secure when that person is present, and to feel anxious when that person is absent. Many psychologists conceive attachment in terms of attachment theory. Attachment theory makes no specific claims about the neural processes that make attachment possible. Neuroscientists have identified some of the neural processes that contribute to pair bonding in animals, and a few intriguing studies suggest a role for neural processes in human attachment.  
+
 
 +
===Social Issues===
 +
[[Virginity]] has generally been held sacred within a society. The custom of the virgin bride stemmed from [[patriarchy|patriarchal]] ideas of ownership and entitlement, even though it was also the only form of [[birth control]]. Virginity has been recognized as a precious gift, to be shared with a special person, and not wasted on a casual fling.
  
[[Attachment theory]], created by [[John Bowlby]] and [[Mary Ainsworth]], originally focused on children's desires for closeness with their parents. In 1987, Cindy Hazen and Phillip Shaver extended attachment theory to adult romantic relationships. Research into adult attachment flourished, making attachment theory one of the leading theories for understanding adult romantic relationships. The concept of attachment has been related to a variety of other relationship phenomena including social cognition, satisfaction, affect regulation, support, intimacy, and jealousy.
+
When society regards monogamy as the [[norm]], the [[family]] unit is stable, [[human sexuality|sexual]] activity is maintained exclusively between the monogamous partners, and various social norms regarding sexual behavior are kept. When a society does not give high regard to monogamy, various social consequences ensue which impact families, communities, and the nation as a whole.
  
Studies of pair bonding in animals have allowed scientists to identify several chemicals in the brain related to social monogamy. Three chemicals which have received a lot of attention are [[oxytocin]], [[vasopressin]], and [[dopamine]]. These chemicals have been strongly linked to socially monogamous pair bonding in [[Prairie Vole|prairie voles]].
+
====Divorce====
<ref name="Carter,1998">Carter, C.S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779-818.</ref>
+
A culture that does not support monogamous, committed marriages for life does not provide the environment that is needed to allow a husband and wife to sustain a marriage in difficult times. When husband and wife do not seriously commit to practice fidelity to each other until death, many difficulties become insurmountable and [[divorce]] becomes the common, and accepted, result.
<ref name="Young,Wang,2004">Young, L.J. & Wang, Z. (2004). Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1048-1054.</ref>
 
<ref name="Insel,Young,2001">Insel, T.R. & Young, L.J. (2001). The neurobiology of attachment. Nature Reviews, 2, 129-136.</ref>
 
<ref name="Keverne,Curley,2004">Keverne, E.B. & Curley, J.P. (2004).  Vasopressin, oxytocin and social behaviour. Current Opinion in Neurobiology , 14, 777–783.</ref>
 
Some species of prairie voles form socially monogamous pair bonds following sexual behavior.  The pair bonds can be interrupted by injecting chemicals that interfere with oxytocin and vasopressin. The chemicals do not interfere with sexual behavior. The chemicals interefere with the normal activity of oxytocin and vasopressin and thereby prevent the formation of pair bonds. Conversely, injecting chemicals that increase the activity of oxytocin and vasopressin causes monogamous pair bonds to form more easily. Increasing the activity of oxytocin and vasopressin can lead to pair bonding without the need for sexual behavior. Studies have also compared species of prairie voles that form socially monogamous pair bonds versus species of prarie voles that do not form socially monogamous pair bonds. The brains of species that form socially monogamous pair bonds contain more neurons that are more sensitive to oxytocin and vasopressin. (This is because the neurons contain more receptors, or chemical "docking ports," for oxytocin and vasopressin.) The findings of many studies have consistently shown that oxytocin and vasopressin play a critical role in socially monogamous pair bonding in prairie voles.  
 
  
Part of the effects of oxytocin and vasopressin may be due to their influence on dopamine in the reward circuits of the brain.  
+
Extramarital affairs strike at the very heart of the [[family]]&mdash;the marriage vow. Infidelity destroys the trust and bonds of love; all involved are deeply affected. A marriage may survive infidelity, but only with serious commitment and effort on the part of all involved. In a society that does not value monogamy, such commitment and effort are often lacking and divorce becomes the likely outcome.
<ref name="Young,Wang,2004">Young, L.J. & Wang, Z. (2004). Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1048-1054.</ref>
 
<ref name="Insel,Young,2001">Insel, T.R. & Young, L.J. (2001). The neurobiology of attachment. Nature Reviews, 2, 129-136.</ref>
 
<ref name="Esch,Stefano,2005">Esch, T. & Stefano, G.B. (2005). The neurobiology of love. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 26, 175–192.</ref>
 
<ref name="Aragona,Liu,Curtis,Stephan,Wang,2003">Aragona, B.J., Liu, Y., Curtis, J.T., Stephan, F.K., & Wang, Z. (2003). A critical role for nucleus accumbens dopamine in partner-preference formation in male prairie voles. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 3483–3490.</ref>
 
  
Reward circuits are neurons in the brain responsible for feelings of pleasure and reinforcement in response to positive stimuli such as food, sex, and social interaction. Dopamine is one of the key chemicals that controls the reward circuits of the brain. Oxytocin and vasopressin may influence how dopamine acts on the reward circuits. Thus, oxytocin and vasopressin may facilitate attachment to relationship partners by influencing the activity of dopamine in reward circuits during positive interactions with those partners.
+
The results of divorce affect not only the partners, but also the children, leading to a new generation of adults for whom enduring, monogamous relationships are viewed as unattainable. Children of divorce have been found to suffer long-term consequences, including serious problems of personal [[identity]], [[alcoholism]] and [[drug abuse]], higher than average rates of [[suicide]], and fears of abandonment, mistrust in relationships, and an unwillingness to have children of their own.<ref>Judith Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee, ''The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study'' (Hyperion, 2001, ISBN 0786886161).</ref>
  
Although human brains contain oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine, human brains differ in many respects from animal brains. These differences may include changes in how oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine work. Neursocientists simply don't understand the differences between human brains and animal brains well enough to say these chemicals play a role in human pair bonding. Yet, initial studies look promising. Oxytocin reduces stress in human beings.
+
====Prostitution====
<ref name="Esch,Stefano,2005">Esch, T. & Stefano, G.B. (2005). The neurobiology of love. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 26, 175–192.</ref>
+
The business of [[prostitution]] and the practice of sex outside of marriage feed upon each other. Prostitutes are victims of the system that reduces them to sexual objects, many of whom become trapped in the sex [[slave trade]]. Prostitution has been responsible for the enslavement of large numbers of young girls, condemning them to a short life of violence, shame, and disease.
Oxytocin may facilitate attachment by reducing stress in response to the support and comfort offered by relationship partners. Oxytocin also increases trust in human beings.
 
<ref name="Kosfeld,Heinrichs,Zak,Fischbacher,Fehr,2005">Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P.J., Fischbacher, U. & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673-676.</ref>
 
<ref name="Zaka,Kurzband,Matzner,2005">Zaka, P.J., Kurzband, R., & Matzner, W.T. (2005). Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior, 48, 522–527.</ref>
 
Oxytocin may facilitate attachment by increasing trust between relationship partners. Brain scans have shown that areas of the human brain containing oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine are activated by looking at pictures of attachment figures but not by looking at pictures of other people.  
 
<ref name="Aron,Fisher,Mashek,Strong,Li,Brown2005"> Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D.J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L.L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94, 327–337.</ref>
 
<ref name="Bartels,Zeki,2000">Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. NeuroReport, 11, 3829–3834.</ref>
 
<ref name="Bartels,Zeki,2004">Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage, 21, 1155– 1166.</ref>
 
The coming decades promise a better understanding of how oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine function in human attachment.
 
  
Recent studies have looked at which areas of the human brain play a role in attachment.  
+
====Pornography====
<ref name="Bartels,Zeki,2000">Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. NeuroReport, 11, 3829–3834.</ref>
+
Although people regard [[pornography]] as a harmless outlet for sexual energy, it has been linked to [[crime]]s of [[rape]] and [[sexual abuse]].<ref>Michael J. McManus, ''Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography'' (Washington, DC: Rutledge Hill Press, 1986, ISBN 0934395438). </ref> Long-term exposure to pornography has also been shown to create emotional withdrawal, greater acceptance of violence toward women, less sympathy toward victims of rape, and a general desensitization to violence.<ref>Archibald Hart, ''The Sexual Man: Masculinity without Guilt'' (Thomas Nelson, 1995, ISBN 0849936845).</ref>
<ref name="Bartels,Zeki,2004">Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage, 21, 1155– 1166.</ref>  
 
These studies asked people to look at pictures of their romantic partners or pictures of their children. Some areas of the brain were activated by both pictures of romantic partners and pictures of children. These areas of the brain were involved in both romantic and parental attachment. But other areas of the brain were activated only by pictures of romantic partners or only by pictures of children. These areas of the brain appeared to be involved in either romantic attachment or parental attachment, but not both. These findings have opened the door to future studies clarifying how different areas of the brain function in attachment.
 
  
 +
====Illegitimate Children====
 +
Single parents, especially those who are still very young, face unprecedented challenges in rearing their children. A married couple, committed to each other and to their [[family]], encounter stress and difficulties in learning how to adjust to the needs of their growing children. A single person, dealing with the emotional, financial, and other practical aspects of raising a child, is in great danger of failure. Unmarried teenagers who become pregnant face almost insurmountable challenges to complete sufficient education to ensure a career that can support their children. [[Poverty]] is a common outcome, defrayed only by government [[welfare programs]].
  
 +
====Domestic Violence====
 +
Studies have shown that [[domestic violence]] between unmarried couples is significantly higher than those committed to a married, monogamous relationship.<ref>National Crime Victimization Survey (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992).</ref>
  
==Value of Monogamy==
+
===Spiritual Issues===
 +
The world's [[religion]]s have generally regarded the bond of [[marriage]] between a man and a woman as "divinely ordained," and [[adultery]] as the worst [[sin]]: "No other sin has such a baneful effect on the spiritual life."<ref name=worldscripture>Andrew Wilson (ed.), ''World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts'' (New York, NY: Paragon House, 1995, ISBN 1557787239).</ref>
  
People disagree strongly about the value of monogamy. For  example, some people believe monogamous marriage oppresses women and burdens people with unrealistic expectations of lifelong sexual monogamy. Monogamy from this perspective promotes sexism and leads to needless suffering. Other people believe monogamy promotes women's equality and provides a context to deepen trust and intimacy. Monogamy from this perspective provides a foundation for social progress and offers people more secure relationships. A thorough discussion of the different ways people view monogamy would require many articles. This article simply presents a few examples of criticism and defense to make readers aware that people do not view monogamy in the same way.  
+
In [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], it is written that "a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" ([[Genesis]] 2:24), emphasizing the depth of the connection between husband and wife. The immutability of this relationship is further emphasized in Christianity by [[Jesus of Nazareth|Jesus]]' commentary on that verse: "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" ([[Mark, Gospel of|Mark]] 10:8-9).
  
The <b>value of monogamy</b> refers to people's views about the contributions monogamy makes, good or bad, to individual and social well-being.
+
Religions also teach that a man should have only one wife, and a woman one husband:
 +
* “But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his body, but the wife does.” ([[Christianity]] - 1 Corinthians 7:2-4)
 +
* “The possession of many wives undermines a man's moral nature.” ([[Hinduism]] - Srimad Bhagavatam 11.3)
 +
* “You will not be able to deal equally between your wives, however much you wish to do so.” ([[Islam]] - Qur'an 4.129; note that the Qur'an sanctions a man to support as many as four wives, but that this concession was specific to times of [[war]], when there were few men to support the women who would otherwise remain widows and their children orphaned. However, monogamy is considered the only equitable arrangement.)<ref name=worldscripture/>
 +
* “It floats about, that boat of cypress wood, There by the side of the ho; With his two tufts of hair falling over his forehead, He was my only one; And I swear that till death I will not do the evil thing.” ([[Confucianism]] - Book of Songs, Ode 45)
 +
* “Whoever has many wives will have troubles in surfeit. He will be deceitful, he will lie, he will betray [some of them] to have them together. It is not certain that he can have peace to pray well.” ([[African Religion]] - Yoruba Poem from [[Nigeria]])
  
Some cultures value monogamy as an ideal form of family organization. However, many cultures prefer other forms of family organization. Anthropological data suggests a majority of societies prefer polygamous marriage as a cultural ideal.<ref name="Murdock,1967">Murdock, G.P. (1967). Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.</ref>
+
The uniqueness of the relationship between husband and wife is noted in the Judeo-Christian [[Ten Commandments|commandments]]: "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Exodus 20: 14-17). [[Adultery]] is regarded as a major [[sin]] throughout religious teachings, with serious consequences:
<ref name="White,Veit,1999">White, D.R. & Veit, C. (1999). White-Veit EthnoAtlas. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ethnoatlas/nindex.html.</ref>
+
* “Approach not adultery; for it is a shameful deed and an evil, opening the road to other evils.([[Islam]] - Qur'an 17:32)
<ref name="Murdock,1981">Murdock, G. P. (1981). Atlas of World Cultures. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.</ref> See the Wikipedia articles listed on the [[Poly relationship]] page to learn about various forms of family organization. Wikipedia also has articles on [[Marriage | marriage]], [[Cohabitation | cohabitation]], and [[Extended family | extended families]].
+
* “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and the adulterous.” ([[Christianity]] - Hebrews 13:4)
 +
* “We find that to every sin God is long-suffering, except to the sin of unchastity. Rabbi Azariah said, ‘All things can God overlook save lewdness.’” ([[Judaism]] - Midrash, Leviticus Rabbah 23:9)
 +
* “A wise man has nothing to do with lust. Lust is nothing but death, and lack of it is serenity. How can one who perceives this indulge in wanton behavior?” ([[Jainism]] - Acarangasutra 2:61)
 +
* “Four misfortunes befall a careless man who commits adultery: acquisition of demerit, disturbed sleep, third, blame; and fourth, a state of woe. There is acquisition of demerit as well as evil destiny. Brief is the joy of the frightened man and woman. The king imposes a heavy punishment. Hence no man should frequent another man's wife.” ([[Buddhism]] - Dhammapada 309-310)
 +
* “Do not approach thy neighbor's wife or maids.” ([[Daoism]] - Tract of the Quiet Way)
 +
* “The philanderer lusting after numerous women does not give up seeking on others' homes. What he does daily only brings regrets&mdash;in sorrow and greed he is shriveled up.” ([[Sikhism]] - Adi Granth, Dhanasari, M.5, p. 672)
 +
* “A man should not think incontinently of another's wife, much less address her to that end; for such a man will be reborn in a future life as a creeping insect. He who commits adultery is punished both here and hereafter; for his days in this world are cut short, and when dead he falls into hell.” ([[Hinduism]] - Vishnu Purana 3.11)
  
People disagree strongly about the value of monogamy. Although a complete review of arguments for and against monogamy would require several articles, a few examples can provide a feel for the diversity of people's views. Two common criticisms of monogamy are that socially monogamous marriage oppresses women and that lifelong sexual monogamy is unrealistic. After briefly reviewing examples of these criticisms, two opposing views are presented. These views claim that socially monogamous marriage can promote women's equality and that sexual monogamy facilitates intimate and lasting relationships.
+
This concern of religious teachings to warn people not to commit adultery but to practice fidelity to their spouse reflects the [[belief]] common to all faiths that the consequences of sexual activity that breaks the monogamous marital bond are extremely serious.
  
 +
==Value of Monogamy==
 +
People disagree strongly about the value of monogamy. For example, some people believe monogamous [[marriage]] oppresses women and burdens people with unrealistic expectations of lifelong sexual monogamy. Monogamy from this perspective promotes [[sexism]] and leads to needless [[suffering]]. Other people believe monogamy promotes women's equality and provides a context to deepen trust and intimacy. Monogamy from this perspective provides a foundation for social progress and offers people more secure relationships.
  
 
===Criticism of Monogamy===
 
===Criticism of Monogamy===
Criticisms of monogamy vary in scope. Some criticisms reject all types of monogamy as inherently negative. Other criticisms accept [[Varieties of Monogamy | social monogamy]] as a positive form of relationship, but reject [[Varieties of Monogamy | sexual monogamy]] as an unnatural constraint on sexual behavior. Still other criticisms accept all types of monogamy as positive forms of relationship, but reject that idea that monogamy should be imposed on all people as the only legal option.
+
Criticisms of monogamy vary in scope. Some criticisms reject all types of monogamy as inherently negative. Other criticisms accept social monogamy as a positive form of relationship, but reject sexual monogamy as an unnatural constraint on sexual behavior. Still other criticisms accept all types of monogamy as positive forms of relationship, but reject that idea that monogamy should be imposed on all people as the only legal option.  
 
 
It is not possible to review all criticisms of monogamy in a single section. This section simply introduces two relatively common criticisms of monogamy.  
 
  
<h3>Monogamous Marriage Oppresses Women</h3>
+
====Engels' View====
 +
[[Friedrich Engels]], a colleague of [[Karl Marx]] and pioneer in [[communism|communist]] [[philosophy]], wrote about monogamous [[marriage]] in his book, ''The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State''. Engels described monogamous marriage as a social institution designed for two main functions. First, monogamous marriage ensured wealth was passed down to biologically related offspring. Second, monogamous marriage trapped women in a life of unpaid domestic and childrearing labor. Engels believed the communist revolution would undermine both of these functions. A communist society would no longer allow wealth to be passed down to biological offspring, and a communist society would socialize the work of raising children. Monogamous marriage would then no longer serve any purpose and eventually would fade away.
  
Friedrich Engels, a colleague of Karl Marx and pioneer in communist philosophy, wrote about monogamous marriage in his book, [[The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State]]. Engels describes monogamous marriage as a social institution designed for two main functions. First, monogamous marriage ensured wealth was passed down to biologically related offspring. Second, monogamous marriage trapped women in a life of unpaid domestic and childrearing labor. Engels believed the communist revolution would undermine both of these functions. A communist society would no longer allow wealth to be passed down to biological offspring, and a communist society would socialize the work of raising children. Monogamous marriage would no longer serve any purpose in communist society. Eventually monogamous marriage would fade away.
+
According to Engels, the rise of monogamous marriage coincided with oppression of women by men:
 
+
<blockquote>Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: 'The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.' And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.<ref name="Engels,1884">Friedrich Engels, ''The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State'' (1884). [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family Available online.] Retrieved August 17, 2007.</ref>  
According to Engels, the rise of monogamous marriage coincided with oppression of women by men. <blockquote>
 
"Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: 'The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.' And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." (Engels, 1884, online text)<ref name="Engels,1884">Engels, F. (1884). The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family .</ref>
 
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
The way to undo this oppression, according to Engels, was to grant women and men equal rights in marriage and to socialize the care of children so women could work and earn their own livings. These changes would free women from financial dependency on men and allow women to dissolve marriages with tyranical husbands. Monogamous marriage would become an agreement people entered purely for love and desire. Later generations, growing up without the oppressive history of monogamous marriage, might find alternative ways of arranging their private relationships.
+
The way to undo this oppression, according to Engels, was to grant women and men equal rights in marriage and to socialize the care of children so women could work and earn their own livings. These changes would free women from financial dependency on men, and allow women to dissolve marriages with tyrannical husbands. Monogamous marriage would become an agreement people entered purely for [[love]] and desire. Later generations, growing up without the oppressive history of monogamous marriage, might find alternative ways of arranging their private relationships.
  
Some [[Feminism | feminists]] have criticized monogamous marriage for many of the same reasons Engels had criticized it. For example, Julia Penelope has claimed "Both monogamy and nonmonogamy name heteropatriarchal institutions within which the only important information is: how many women can a man legitimately own?" <ref name="Penelope,1985">Penelope, J. (1985). The
+
====Feminist View====
mystery of lesbians: II. Lesbian Ethics, 1, 29-67.</ref> However, feminism encompasses a broad range of writers and ideas, and it would be unfair to characterize all feminists as opposed to monogamous marriage. Feminism contains a diverse range of views about monogamous marriage.
+
Some [[Feminism|feminists]] have criticized monogamous marriage for many of the same reasons as Engels. For example, Julia Penelope has claimed "Both monogamy and non-monogamy name heteropatriarchal institutions within which the only important information is: how many women can a man legitimately own?"<ref name="Penelope,1985">Julia Penelope, “The mystery of lesbians: II.” ''Lesbian Ethics'' 1(1985): 29-67.</ref> However, feminism encompasses a broad range of writers and ideas with a diverse range of views on marriage, and it would be unfair to characterize all feminists as opposed to monogamous marriage.  
  
<h3>Monogamy is Unnatural and Unrealistic</h3>
+
Many authors have criticized lifelong [[human sexuality|sexual]] monogamy as unnatural and unrealistic. They contend that humans have never been a sexually monogamous species, and that cultural expectations of sexual monogamy place enormous burdens on individuals to fulfill all the sexual needs of their partners. These expectations are quite unrealistic given how much variety exists in people's sexual desires and sex drives. In addition, sexual desires and sex drives can change over time due to circumstances (such as periods of high stress or poor health) and due to normal aging (such as changes in hormonal levels). Loving partners can find themselves mismatched in terms of their current sexual desires or sex drives. Thus, it has been argued that the failure to live up to unrealistic expectations of lifelong sexual monogamy causes people needless [[suffering]].
  
Many authors criticize lifelong sexual monogamy as unnatural and unrealistic. They contend that humans have never been a sexually monogamous species, and that cultural expectations of sexual monogamy place enormous burdens on individuals to fulfill all the sexual needs of their partners. These expectations are quite unrealistic given how much variety exists in people's sexual desires and sex drives. In addition, sexual desires and sex drives can change over time due to circumstances (e.g., periods of high stress or poor health) and due to normal aging (e.g., changes in hormonal levels). Loving partners can find themselves mismatched in terms of their current sexual desires or sex drives. The failure to live up to unrealistic expectations of lifelong sexual monogamy causes people needless suffering. 
+
===Defense of Monogamy===
<blockquote>
+
The defense of monogamy is as varied and rich as its criticism. Generally, the viewpoint in defense of monogamy contends that monogamy actually promotes the equality of woman and secure relationships.
*"But heterosexual genital love, which has remained exempt from outlawry, is itself restricted by further limitations, in the shape of insistence upon legitimacy and monogamy. Present-day civilization makes it plain that it will only permit sexual relationships on the basis of a solitary, indissoluble bond between one man and one woman, and that it does not like sexuality as a source of pleasure in its own right and is only prepared to tolerate it because there is so far no substitute for it as a means of propogating the human race. This, of course, is an extreme picture. Everybody knows that it has proved impossible to put it into execution, even for quite short periods." (Freud, 1930/1961, page 52) <ref name="Freud,1961">Freud, S. (1930/1961). Civilization and Its Discontents. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.</ref>
 
 
 
*"None of the many restrictions that Christianity has placed upon sexual expression has been more highly valued—and more burdensome—than the doctrine that husband and wife must limit themselves sexually to each other from marriage until death. While our pious great-grandfathers may have regarded this as the natural and only moral way of life, it is so rare a pattern in anthropological and historical perspective that one is forced to consider it, if not unnatural, at least idiosyncratic and no more moral than any one of a hundred other alternatives. (Hunt, 1974, page 235) <ref name="Hunt,1974">Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy Press. </ref>
 
 
 
*"Currently, monogamy is the only lovestyle style considered legitimate by our culture, even though the evidence clearly indicates that humans are not monogamous by nature. The reality is that the majority of husbands and wives have extramarital affairs and often get divorced as a result. In fact, one form of polygamy, often called serial monogamy, is now the most common form of relationship found in our culture. But divorce and remarriage are extremely stressful for children as well as their parents. Might there not be a better way? " (Anapol, 2005, online article) <ref name="Anapol,2005">Anapol, D.T. (2005). Love without limits: The future of the
 
family and the fate of our children. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from http://www.lovewithoutlimits.com/future_family.html .</ref>
 
  
*"Monogamous couples are completely dependent on each other for affection and sex; and many become dissatisfied due to sexual incompatibilities, differences in level or frequency of sex, boredom with their sexual patterns. When they feel strong sexual attractions towards others they must repress these feelings or end their current relationship in order to have sex with someone else. Many complain bitterly that although they love their spouse and feel strongly attracted to him or her, the spouse doesn't want sex frequently enough or does not enjoy the same sexual activities. This leaves one partner always wanting more sex or more variety in sexual practices, and the other always feeling pressured for sex, often resulting in one partner having secret affairs with other lovers to fulfill their sexual needs." (Labriola, 2006, online article) <ref name="Labriola,2006">Labriola, K. (2006) Are you open to an alternative lifestyle? Retrieved June 2, 2006, from http://www.polyorlando.org/html/non-monogamy.htm .</ref>  
+
Despite [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]]' argument that monogamous [[marriage]] oppressed women, the [[communism|communist]] revolutionaries in [[China]] viewed monogamy as a means of giving women and men equal rights in marriage.<ref name="Cheng,1991">C. Cheng, “A speculative analysis of socio-economic influences on the fertility transition in China,” ''Asia-Pacific Population Journal'' 6(1991): 3-24.</ref> This view has since been echoed by women's rights movements in nations that allow [[polygamy]]. In nations that do allow polygamy, especially where it takes the form of [[polygyny]] (men taking several wives), women often feel the practice of polygamy makes them second-class citizens and lowers their quality of life. The women's rights movements in these nations want to make monogamy the only legal form of marriage.
  
*"Having looked, although briefly, at the diversity of human mateships, what can we conclude? For one thing, it seems undeniable that human beings have evolved as mildly polygynous creatures whose 'natural' mating system probably involved one man mated, when possible, to more than one woman. It is also clear that even in societies that institutionalized some form of polygyny, monogamy was nonetheless frequent, although, for men at least, this typically meant making the best of a bad situation. ...Certainly there is no evidence, either from biology, primatology, or anthropology, that monogamy is somehow 'natural' or 'normal' for human beings." (Barash & Lipton, 2001, page 153)<ref name="Barash,Lipton,2001">Barash, D.P. & Lipton, J.E. (2001). The Myth of Monogamy. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.</ref>
+
The [[United Nations]] began to promote social monogamy as the preferred form of marriage in 1979, when the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, an international bill of rights for women that over 180 nations have agreed to implement.<ref>UN General Assembly, [http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women] Division for the Advancement of Women (1979). Retrieved April 14, 2011.</ref> Article 16 of the Convention requires nations to give women and men equal rights in marriage. [[Polygamy]] is interpreted as inconsistent with Article 16, because it extends the right of multiple spouses to men but not to women.  
</blockquote>
 
Research supports the claim that lifelong sexual monogamy is unnatural and unrealistic. Biologists have strong evidence that social monogamy is rare among animals, and that sexual monogamy is even rarer, as most socially monogamous species are not sexually monogamous.
 
<ref name="Birkhead,Møller,1995">Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. (1995). Extra-pair copulations and extra-pair paternity in birds. Animal Behaviour, 49, 843-848.</ref>
 
<ref name="Birkhead,Møller,1996">Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. (1996). Monogamy and sperm competition in birds. In J. M. Black (Ed.), Partnerships in Birds: The Study of Monogamy (pp. 323-343). Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref>
 
<ref name="Reichard,2002">Reichard, U.H. (2002). Monogamy—A variable relationship. Max Planck Research, 3, 62-67.</ref>
 
<ref>Reichard, U.H. (2003). Monogamy: Past and present. In U.H. Reichard and C. Boesch (Eds.), Monogamy: Mating strategies and parnternships in birds, humans, and other mammals (pp.3-25).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>
 
It would be somewhat odd if people were sexually monogamous for life. The fact that 80-85% of societies allow polygynous marriage further argues against the idea that sexual monogamy is built in to human nature.
 
<ref name="Murdock,1967">Murdock, G.P. (1967). Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.</ref>
 
<ref name="White,Veit,1999">White, D.R. & Veit, C. (1999). White-Veit EthnoAtlas. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ethnoatlas/nindex.html.</ref>
 
<ref name="Murdock,1981">Murdock, G. P. (1981). Atlas of World Cultures. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.</ref>
 
Studies of extramarital affairs and divorce provide evidence that lifelong sexual monogamy is unrealistic. Substantial numbers of people engage in extramarital sex.
 
<ref name="Clements,1994">Clements, M. (1994, August 7). Sex in America today: A new national survey reveals how our attitudes are changing. Parade Magazine, 4-6.</ref>
 
<ref name="Laumann,Gagnon,Michael,Michaels,1994">Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T, & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</ref>
 
<ref name="Wiederman,1997>Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167-174.</ref>
 
About half of married people in the United States divorce, and the majority of divorced people find new partners and marry again.
 
<ref name="Kreider,Fields,2001">Kreider, R.M. & Fields,J.M. (2001). Number, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: Fall 1996. Current Population Reports, P70-80. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.</ref> Many people, perhaps the majority, simply do not live up to the expectation of lifelong sexual monogamy.
 
  
===Defense of Monogamy===
+
Many authors claim sexual monogamy promotes security, intimacy, and stability in relationships. Their claim stems from observations of couples exploring "open marriage" where partners agree that each is free to engage in extramarital sexual relationships. Although some people have happy and stable open marriages,<ref name="Rubin,1982">A. M. Rubin, “Sexually open versus sexually exclusive marriage: A comparison of dyadic adjustment,” ''Alternative Lifestyles'' 5(1982): 101-108.</ref><ref name="Rubin,Adams,1986">A. M. Rubin and J. R. Adams, “Outcomes of sexually open marriages,” ''Journal of Sex Research'' 22(1986): 311-319.</ref> sexual non-monogamy proves too difficult for most couples to manage and their relationships suffer as a consequence:
The defense of monogamy is as varied and rich as the criticism of monogamy. This section presents two examples to counterbalance the criticisms in the previous section. 
 
  
<h3>Monogamy Can Promote Women's Equality</h3>
+
<blockquote>Any number of sexual innovators, over the past 60 or 70 years, have argued for a third alternative&mdash;a combination of permanence with permissiveness: that is, permanent adherence to the marriage, for the sake of child-rearing and social stability, combined with freedom for each partner to have additional emotional and physical relationships outside the marriage, But thus far, all variations upon this theme have proven disruptive to the marriages of most of those who have practiced them, and too threatening to the majority of those who have not to be seriously tried out. Relatively few people, even today, manage to make permissive marriage work at all, let alone work better than exclusive marriage. For although marriage no longer has the structural support of religion, community, law, or practical necessity, today there is something else that makes exclusivity, or the appearance of it, immensely important&mdash;namely, the loneliness and disconnectedness of modern life, which creates a deep need in modern man and woman to belong, and to have a binding emotional connection to someone else. And since for most people sex is so closely bound up with deep emotions, extramarital sexual acts are severely threatening to the emotional identity and security that marriage seems to offer.<ref name="Hunt,1974">Morton Hunt, ''Sexual Behavior in the 1970s'' (Chicago, IL: Playboy Press, 1974, ISBN 0872233936). </ref></blockquote>
  
Although the founders of communism believed monogamy oppressed women and had no place in communist society, the communist revolution in China brought new ideas about monogamy. The newly formed communist government established monogamy as the only legal form of marriage.  
+
Sexual non-monogamy provokes jealousy and insecurity in most couples.<ref name="Buunk,1981"> B. Buunk, “Jealousy in sexually open marriages,” ''Alternative Lifestyles'' 4(1981): 357-372.</ref> Conversely, sexual monogamy reduces jealousy and builds the kind of trust and intimacy that makes relationships stable.<ref name="Pines,Aronson,1983">A. Pines and E. Aronson,“Antecedents, correlates, and consequences, of sexual jealousy,” ''Journal of Personality'' 51(1983): 108–136.</ref>
<blockquote>
 
"The 1950 Marriage Law called for sweeping changes in many areas of family life. It forbade any 'arbitrary and compulsory' form of marriage that would be based on the superiority of men and would ignore women’s interests. The new democratic marriage system was based on the free choice of couples, monogamy, equal rights for both sexes, and the protection of the lawful interests of women. It abolished the begetting of male offspring as the principal purpose of marriage and weakened kinship ties which reduced the pressure on women to bear many children, especially sons. With arranged marriages prohibited, young women could choose their own marriage partners, share the financial cost of setting up a new household, and have equal status in household and family decision-making. The Government then initiated an extensive campaign of marriage-law education, working jointly with the Communist Party, women’s federations, trade unions, the armed forces, schools and other organizations." (Cheng, 1991, page 5) <ref name="Cheng,1991">Cheng, C. (1991). A speculative analysis of socio-economic influences on the fertility transition in China. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 6, 3-24.</ref>
 
</blockquote>
 
The communist revolutionaries in China viewed monogamy as a means of giving women and men equal rights in marriage. This view has since been echoed by women's rights movements in nations that allow polygamy.
 
  
In nations that allow polygamy, women often feel the practice of polygamy makes them second-class citizens and lowers their quality of life. The women's rights movements in these nations want to make monogamy the only legal form of marriage. The United Nations joined these efforts in 1979 when the General Assembly adopted the [http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women], an international bill of rights for women that over 180 nations have agreed to implement. Article 16 of the Convention requires nations to give women and men equal rights in marriage. Polygamy is interpreted as inconsistent with Article 16 because it extends the right of multiple spouses to men but not to women. The United Nations has established the [http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women], or CEDAW, to monitor the progress of nations implementing the Convention. The United Nations is thus working through the Convention and CEDAW to promote women's equality by making monogamy the only legal form of marriage worldwide.  
+
Thus, many have concluded that the harmony of the conjugal relationship is best served by sexual exclusivity:
 +
<blockquote>It is not that I feel any deep-rooted moral objection to a lack of sexual exclusiveness in long-term relationships. It is rather that I am increasingly aware of the difficulties that the vast majority of humans have in coping with it. The ideal of the open marriage seems to me to be a fine one. In addition to the central primary relationship, it recognizes other less permanent, sexual or non-sexual relationships, which may in themselves be mutually rewarding and self-fulfilling. But few primary relationships can survive such apparent if unintended challenges. The essential security of the dyad is weakened, and further undermined by the ravages of jealousy.<ref name="Bancroft,1989">John Bancroft, ''Human Sexuality and its Problems'' (Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2008, ISBN 978-0443051616) </ref></blockquote>
  
The African Union has recently adopted the <i>Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa</i>. While the protocol does not suggest making polygamous marriage illegal, article 6 of the protocol states that "monogamy is encouraged as the preferred form of marriage and that the rights of women in marriage and family, including in polygamous marital relationships are promoted and protected." <ref name="AmnestyInternational,2006">Amnesty International, 2006. The Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa: Strengthening the promotion and protection of women’s human rights in Africa. Retrieved May 29, 2006 from http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR630052004 .</ref><ref name="UniversityMinnesota,2006">University of Minnesota Human Rights Library, 2006. Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa. Retrieved May 29, 2006 from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/protocol-women2003.html .</ref>
+
==Conclusion==
The protocol entered into force November 25, 2005.  
+
Human beings have free will, and thus have a choice whether to commit to a monogamous relationship or to choose another path. One alternative choice is [[sexual abstinence]]. This can be for religious, moral, or other reasons. While this choice can be the best for some, or for all during a limited time period (such as in [[adolescence]] and preparation for [[marriage]]), clearly abstinence cannot be the choice of all for all time or the human species would not continue.
  
<h3>Monogamy Promotes Secure Relationships</h3>
+
"Polyamory" is another alternative, which involves multiple loving relationships. As noted above, such relationships have proven difficult to maintain successfully. Communities which have tried [[group marriage]] have encountered serious difficulties, leading to the breakdown of the group. Issues of jealousy and feelings of inadequacy when faced with one's partner's continual intimate relationships with others surfaced despite members' best efforts to avoid them. Production of children led not to happy families with multiple parents, but the decision that group members should not procreate.
  
Many authors claim sexual monogamy promotes security, intimacy, and stability in relationships. Their claim stems from observations of couples exploring [[open marriage]]. Although some people have happy and stable open marriages,
+
Since the "[[Sexual Revolution]]" a common alternative to monogamy has become promiscuity&mdash; the practice of making relatively casual and indiscriminate choices. Applied to [[human sexuality|sexual]] behavior, it refers to sexual intercourse that is not in the framework of a long term monogamous sexual relationship. The impact of widespread promiscuity on society has been immense.
<ref name="Buunk,1980">Buunk B. (1980). Extramarital sex in the Netherlands: Motivations in social and marital context. Alternative Lifestyles, 3, 11-39.</ref>
 
<ref name="Rubin,1982">Rubin A. M. (1982). Sexually open versus sexually exclusive marriage: A comparison of dyadic adjustment. Alternative Lifestyles, 5, 101-108.</ref>
 
<ref name="Rubin,Adams,1986">Rubin A. M., & Adams J. R. (1986). Outcomes of sexually open marriages. Journal of Sex Research, 22, 311-319.</ref>
 
sexual non-monogamy proves too difficult for most couples to manage and their relationships suffer as a consequence.
 
<blockquote>
 
* "Any number of sexual innovators, over the past 60 or 70 years, have argued for a third alternative—a combination of permanence with permissiveness:that is, permanent adherence to the marriage, for the sake of child-rearing and social stability, combined with freedom for each partner to have additional emotional and physical relationships outside the marriage, But thus far, all variations upon this theme have proven disruptive to the marriages of most of those who have practiced them, and too threatening to the majority of those who have not to be seriously tried out. Relatively few people, even today, manage to make permissive marriage work at all, let alone work better than exclusive marriage. For although marriage no longer has the structural support of religion, community, law, or practical necessity, today there is something else that makes exclusivity, or the appearance of it, immensely important—namely, the lonliness and disconnectedness of modern life, which creates a deep need in modern man and woman to belong, and to have a binding emotional connection to someone else. And since for most people sex is so closely bound up with deep emotions, extramarital sexual acts are severely threatening to the emotional identity and security that marriage seems to offer." (Hunt, 1974, page 239-240) <ref name="Hunt,1974">Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy Press.</ref>
 
  
* "Images of 'open marriage' to the contrary, an extreme commitment to such a relationship can do more to weaken rather than to strengthen marital attractions. If one partner becomes immersed in relations that consciously exclude the other, the fullness of marital interaction may be threatened—depending, of course, on how the other spouse interprets the action. A jealous partner can perceive even a mild detachment as threatening. Some spouses may not be at all disturbed by their partner's withdrawal or alternate affairs, but such extreme tolerance is rare. A key question is whether the externally involved spouse will eventually prefer the alternative enough to desire a rupture of the present relationship." (Levinger, 1979, pages 42-43) <ref name="Levinger,1979">Levinger, G. (1979). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. In G. Levinger and O.C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes, and Consequences. New York, NY: Basic Books.</ref>
+
A perspective that is refreshingly clear, moving from the confusion of the twentieth century, comes from Crittenden:
 +
<blockquote>What we rarely hear is how liberating marriage can actually be. The negative, that we are no longer able to live entirely for ourselves, is also the positive: We no longer have to live entirely for ourselves.<ref>Danielle Crittenden, [http://www.boundless.org/relationships/2005/the-cost-of-delaying-marriage “The Cost of Delaying Marriage.”] From Danielle Crittenden, ''What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman'' (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000, ISBN 0684859599). Available online from ''Boundless'' Webzine. Retrieved October 6, 2014.</ref></blockquote>  
  
* "It is not that I feel any deep-rooted moral objection to a lack of sexual exclusiveness in long-term relationships. It is rather that I am increasingly aware of the difficulties that the vast majority of humans have in coping with it. The ideal of the open marriage seems to me to be a fine one. In addition to the central primary relationship, it recognises other less permanent, sexual or non-sexual relationships, which may in themselves be mutually rewarding and self-fulfilling. But few primary relationships can survive such apparent if unintended challenges. The essential security of the dyad is weakened, and further undermined by the ravages of jealousy." (Bancroft, 1989, page 10) <ref name="Bancroft,1989">Bancroft, J. (1989). Human Sexuality and its Problems. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.</ref>
+
Monogamy is the opportunity to grow beyond the borders of the self and live for the sake of someone else. Through the willingness to live in an exclusive special relationship, for the sake of that other, it may be that one's own dreams and desires are finally fulfilled. Certainly, when those dreams include the experience of long-lasting and deep [[love]], the creation of new life in the form of children, and the extension of one's [[lineage]] into future generations, a committed monogamous relationship offers much to be recommended over the alternatives.
  
* "Proponents feel that an open marriage does not substitute new regulations for old ones; rather, it suggests ways in which couples can learn to communicate openly with one another in order to arrive at a fully understood and mutual consensus for living. An open marriage encourages trust, freedom, and open communication, both within and outside the boundaries of marriage. If so desired, partners are free to engage in other sex friendships and even in extramarital sex —although the latter is a controversial area. All points considered, this nontraditional lifestyle is not practical for most couples since it is likely to promote feelings of insecurity, resentment toward outside parties, and sexual jealousy." (Turner, 1996, page 312) <ref name="Turner,1996">Turner, J.S. (1996). Encyclopedia of Relationships across the Lifespan. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.</ref>
+
==Notes==
+
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
* "Even if the problem of fairness can be solved, at least theoretically, by both spouses agreeing that each will have an affair, simple equality of extramarital sex is not a reliable solution: it only works if both spouses want the same mix of novelty and predictability in their sex lives. Often they don't. The traditional claim that men crave variety in sexual matters more than women is looking increasingly shaky. Between the era of Madame Bovary and today's covers of Cosmopolitan, many woman have become much more comfortable noticing and acknowledging an interest in sexual novelty. Still, the problem of a mismatch between two individuals married to each other is not resolved by invoking the average desires of men and women. The strategy of equal numbers of lovers for both spouses also assumes that jealousy disappears just because an arrangement is fair. Despite the sunny optimism of a phrase like 'open marriage,' real-life experiences are usually a lot messier." (Olds & Schwartz, 2000, page 40) <ref name="Olds,Schwartz,2000">Olds, J. &  Schwartz, R.S. (2000). Marriage in Motion: The Natural Ebb and Flow of Lasting Relationships. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.</ref>
+
<references />
</blockquote>
+
</div>
Sexual non-monogamy provokes jealousy and insecurity in most couples. Conversely, sexual monogamy reduces jealousy and builds the kind of trust and intimacy that makes relationships stable. This appears to be born out by research. People in sexually non-monogamous relationships experience jealousy more frequently than people in sexually monogamous relationships.
 
<ref name="Trost,Brown,Morrison,1994">Trost, M. R., Brown, S., & Morrison, M. (1994). Jealousy as an adaptive communication strategy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Assocation, New Orleans, LA.</ref>
 
<ref name="Pines,Aronson,1983">Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1983). Antecedents, correlates, and consequences, of sexual jealousy. Journal of Personality, 51, 108–136.</ref>
 
Some studies report at least 80% of people in open marriages experience jealousy over their extramarital relationships.
 
<ref name="Buunk,1981">Buunk B. (1981). Jealousy in sexually open marriages. Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 357-372.</ref>  
 
<ref name="Ramey,1975">Ramey J. W. (1975). Intimate groups and networks: Frequent consequences of sexually open marriage. Family Coordinator, 24, 515-530.</ref>  
 
A five year study of bisexuals observed a shift from sexual non-monogamy to sexual monogamy in many participants because they "...felt that nonmonogamy was too time consuming, took too much energy, or was too complicated. They also thought that it got in the way of developing love, trust, and more intimate relationships with a partner." (Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1995, page 262)<ref name="Weinberg,Williams,Pryor,1995">Weinberg, M.S., Williams, C.J., & Pryor, D.W. (1995). Dual Attraction: Understanding Bisexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.</ref>
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references />
+
*Bancroft, John.'' Human Sexuality and its Problems''. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2008. ISBN 978-0443051616
 
+
*Barash, David P., and Judith Eve Lipton. ''The Myth of Monogamy''. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2001.  ISBN 0716740044
 
+
*Bartholomew, K., and D. Perlman (eds.). ''Advances in Personal Relationships: Attachment Processes in Adulthood''. London: Jessica Kingsley.
 
+
*Blakeslee, Sandra, and Judith Wallerstein. ''Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade after Divorce''. Boston, MA: Ticknor & Fields, 1989. ISBN 0899196489
 +
*Bloom, Allen. ''The Closing of the American Mind''. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster, 1988. ISBN 0671657151
 +
*Constantine, Larry L., and Joan M. Constantine. ''Group Marriage: A Study of Contemporary Multilateral Marriage''. New York: Collier Books, 1974. ISBN 002075910X
 +
*Crittenden, Danielle. ''What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman'' New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000. ISBN 0684859599
 +
*Georgas, James, John W. Berry, Van de Vijver, J.R. Fons, Çigdem Kagitçibasi, and Ype H. Poortinga (eds). ''Families Across Cultures: A 30-Nation Psychological Study''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 0521822971
 +
*Hart, Archibald. ''The Sexual Man''. Thomas Nelson, 1995. ISBN 0849936845
 +
*Hunt, Morton. ''Sexual Behavior in the 1970s''. Chicago, IL: Playboy Press, 1974. ISBN 0872233936
 +
*International Educational Foundation. ''Educating for True Love: Explaining Sun Myung Moon's Thought on Morality, Family and Society''. New York, 2006. ISBN 1891958070
 +
*International Educational Foundation. "Building Healthy Marriages" Volumes 8, 9, and 10 in series ''Searching for Life's True Purpose: Perspectives on Morality and Ethics''. 2002.
 +
*Korotayev, Andrey. ''World Religions and Social Evolution of the Old World Oikumene Civilizations: A Cross-cultural Perspective''. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2004. ISBN 0773463100
 +
*Lack, David. ''Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds''. Chapman and Hall, 1968. ISBN 0412112205
 +
*Lauer, Jeanette C., and Robert H. Lauer. ''Til Death Do Us Part: A Study and Guide to Long-Term Marriage''. Routledge, 1986. ISBN 978-0918393326
 +
*Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. ''The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States''. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994. ISBN 0226469573
 +
*McManus, Michael J. ''Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography''. Washington, DC: Rutledge Hill Press, 1986. ISBN 0934395438
 +
*Murdock, George Peter. ''Social Structure''. New York: Free Press, 1965. ISBN 0029222907
 +
*Murdock, George Peter. ''Ethnographic Atlas''. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1969. ISBN 0822931141
 +
*Murdock, George Peter. ''Atlas of World Cultures''. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press,1981. ISBN 0822934329
 +
*Noller, Patricia, and Judith A. Feeney (eds.) ''Understanding Marriage: Developments in the Study of Couple Interaction''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 0521803705
 +
*Reichard, Ulrich H., and Christophe Boesch (eds.). ''Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans, and other Mammals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0521525772
 +
*Saunders, Alan, and June Saunders. ''The Centrality of Marriage and Family in Creating World Peace''. Tarrytown, NY: Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace, 2004.
 +
*Waite, Linda J., and Maggie Gallagher. ''The Case for Marriage''. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000. ISBN 0767906322
 +
*Wallerstein, Judith, Julia M. Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee. ''The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study''. Hyperion, 2001. ISBN 0786886161
 +
*Whelan, Robert. ''Broken Homes and Battered Children''. London: Family Education Trust, 1993.
 +
*Wilson, Andrew (ed.) ''World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts''. New York: Paragon House, 1995. ISBN 1557787239
  
{{Credit6|Monogamy|59935805|Varieties_of_Monogamy|58541257|Incidence_of_Monogamy|58534841|Value_of_Monogamy|59580719|Psychology_of_Monogamy|61404738|Evolution_of_Monogamy|59220089|}}
+
{{Credits|Monogamy|59935805|Varieties_of_Monogamy|58541257|Incidence_of_Monogamy|58534841|Value_of_Monogamy|59580719|Psychology_of_Monogamy|61404738|Evolution_of_Monogamy|59220089|}}

Latest revision as of 23:15, 18 November 2014



The term monogamy (literally “one marriage” or “one union” in Greek) is the practice of marriage or sexual partnering with one spouse (as opposed to polygamy where each person has several partners simultaneously). In human society, polygamy has been condemned or restricted by the majority of the world's religions. Anthropologists have observed that, while many societies have permitted polygamy, the majority of human partnerships are in fact monogamous.

Polygamous or successive monogamous partnerships have proven valuable for many species, and for human beings under certain conditions. However, non-monogamous relationships have many challenges that affect not only those involved in the partnership but also their children. Commitment to a monogamous relationship offers much support in the achievement of happiness and maturity as an individual, establishment of a harmonious family and prosperous lineage, and support for contributing to society as a whole.

Definition

Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate. The word "monogamy" comes from the Greek word monos, which means one or alone, and gamos, which means marriage or union.

Marriage is the institution through which a man and a woman typically expect to share their lives intimately in a monogamous relationship, usually referred to in the vows stated at their wedding ceremony. Raising children in a family, holding property, sexual behavior, relationship to society, inheritance, emotional intimacy, health care, and love are a few examples of the rights and obligations often shared by a married couple. The term monogamy, however, may also be applied to a couple who are not formally married, but maintain an exclusive sexual relationship.

Alternatives to monogamy include sexual abstinence—the choice not to participate in sexual activity—and polyamorous relationships involving multiple sexual partners. Polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry are anthropological terms referring respectively to multiple marriages, marriages of multiple women to one man, and of multiple men to one woman.

Varieties of Monogamy

Biologists have described three types of monogamy: social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy. Social monogamy refers to a couple that lives together, has sex with one another, and cooperates in acquiring basic resources such as food and shelter. Sexual monogamy refers to a couple that remains sexually exclusive with one another and neither person has outside sex partners. Genetic monogamy refers to the fact that two partners only have offspring with one another, so that all the offspring raised by the pair are genetically related to each partner. Beyond these distinctions, certain combinations of factors may occur:

Social monogamy refers to a male and female's social living arrangement (e.g., shared use of a territory, behaviour indicative of a social pair, and/or proximity between a male and female) without inferring any sexual interactions or reproductive patterns. In humans, social monogamy equals monogamous marriage. Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male based on observations of sexual interactions. Finally, the term genetic monogamy is used when DNA analyses can confirm that a female-male pair reproduce exclusively with each other. A combination of terms indicates examples where levels of relationships coincide, e.g., sociosexual and sociogenetic monogamy describe corresponding social and sexual, and social and genetic monogamous relationships, respectively.[1]

Serial monogamy is a form of monogamy in which participants have only one sexual partner at any one time, but have more than one sexual partner in their lifetime. The term "serial monogamy" is more often more descriptive than prescriptive, in that those involved did not plan to have subsequent relationships while involved in each monogamous partnership.

Incidence of Monogamy

Mating Systems in Animals

Monogamy is one of several mating systems observed in animals. The percentage of monogamous species is greater in some taxa than in others. Biologists estimate up to 90 percent of avian species are socially monogamous.[2][3] In contrast, biologists estimate only 3 percent of mammalian species are socially monogamous, although up to 15 percent of primate species are monogamous.[4]

In Human Beings

The United Nations World Fertility Report of 2003 noted that 89 percent of all women and men in the world get married by age forty-nine.[5] Not all marriages are socially monogamous. Anthropological studies have reported that 80-85 percent of societies allow polygamous marriage.[6] [7] [8]

Yet, most of the men in societies that allow polygamy do not obtain sufficient wealth or status to have multiple wives, so the majority of marriages in these societies involve one husband and one wife. Murdock (1981)[8] estimated that 80 percent of marriages in societies that allow polygamy involve only one husband and one wife, a figure confirmed by White's (1988) analysis of marriages in polygamous societies.[9]

An impartial observer employing the criterion of numerical preponderance, consequently, would be compelled to characterize nearly every known human society as monogamous, despite the preference for and frequency of polygyny in the overwhelming majority.[10]

Since this estimate of 80 percent applies to societies where polygamous marriage is a legal or culturally accepted option, the percent of socially monogamous marriages is significantly higher in the world as a whole when societies that do not permit polygamy are included.

Studies have found that approximately 85-90 percent of married women and around 75-80 percent of married men in the United States are sexually monogamous throughout their marriages.[11][12] Results from a variety of other countries have also shown that the majority of married people are sexually monogamous during their marriages. The incidence of sexual monogamy varies across cultures, and women appear to be more sexually monogamous than men. Based on the data, it can be concluded that a large majority of people enter socially monogamous relationships at some point in their lives.

Causes of Monogamy

Socially monogamous species are scattered throughout the animal kingdom. A few insects are socially monogamous; a few fish are socially monogamous; many birds are socially monogamous; and a few mammals are socially monogamous. These species did not inherit social monogamy from a common ancestor. Instead, social monogamy has evolved independently in different species.

Some factors that have been suggested as contributing to the evolution of social monogamy include:

  • Resources available in the surrounding environment[13]
  • Geographic distribution of mates[14]
  • Incidence of parasites and sexually transmitted diseases [15]
  • Amount of parental care given to offspring [2]
  • mate guarding behaviors[16]
  • Infanticide[17]
  • Length of breeding season[18]
  • Chemical mechanisms of bonding in the brain [19]

Other factors may also contribute to the evolution of social monogamy. Moreover, different sets of factors may explain the evolution of social monogamy in different species. There appears to be no "one-size-fits-all" explanation of why different species evolved monogamous mating systems.

Human monogamy

Even in the realm of animals, where instinct and genetics dominate sexual behavior, science cannot predict whether or not a species will be monogamous. How much more complex is the issue in human beings, where the mind is able to choose beyond the tendencies and instincts of the physical body, and where the purpose of life is complex and multi-dimensional. Barash and Lipton (2001) have eloquently summarized the complexity of human monogamy:

Monogamy among animals is a matter of biology. So is monogamy among human beings. But in the human case, monogamy is more. It is also a matter of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, law, ethics, theology, literature, history, philosophy, and most of the remaining humanities and social sciences as well.[20]

Additionally, since human beings spend a lifetime rearing their children, the nature of the parental bond impacts the next generation to a greater extent than it does in the majority of animal species. The monogamous bond of husband and wife provides a unique relationship that supports the resulting family. Two parents united in the common goal of parenting their children can ensure that their lineage is secure, healthy, and prosperous. When parents are not monogamous, the family structure is less clear, and the children experience a variety of adults with varying degrees of commitment to their future. Consequently, children raised by non-monogamous adults do not fare as well as those raised by monogamous parents.

Culture influences the incidence of social monogamy in human beings. Many cultures have passed laws making social monogamy the only legal form of marriage. The passage of such laws in many cases reflects religious beliefs. In the late twentieth century, international organizations such as the United Nations and the African Union started to promote social monogamy as a way to give women and men equal rights in marriage.

However, it is clear that when the monogamous path is not chosen, consequences occur on all levels, and are enduring:

That sick, used feeling of having given a precious part of myself ... to so many and for nothing, still aches. I never imagined I'd pay so dearly and for so long.[21]

Such an experience is all too common, and all too pervasive. When human beings choose to practice non-monogamous sexual relationships, health issues affect the physical body, psychological issues affect our individual state of mind, and social issues affect our relationships with others, and spiritual issues affect our eternal soul and our relationship with God.

Health Issues

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are both a medical and a social problem. Since the chances of contracting a sexually transmitted disease increase with the number of partners one has, monogamy is a safer option. STDs can affect more than one generation, since many diseases can be transferred at birth. In other cases, the debilitating, even terminal, effects of certain STDs make good parenting difficult if not impossible.

Beyond the transmission of disease, a potential (often intended) consequence of sexual activity is pregnancy. Even when birth control is used, this is a common outcome. The months of pregnancy, birth, and rearing of a child for a woman not involved in a committed monogamous relationship is challenging to say the least. Thus, abortion is a common choice. Even when legally permitted, there are health risks involved in abortion, and beyond the physical consequences are psychological and social scars.

Psychological Issues

Beyond the physical dangers of uncommitted, multiple sexual relationships are the effects on one's psychological health.[22] These effects include:

  • Stunting of spiritual and moral growth
  • Character corruption
  • Guilt, regret and diminished sense of worth
  • Heartbreak and destructive behavior
  • Spiritual disorientation
  • Degradation of love, life, and lineage

These consequences can be more profound and long-lasting than the physical consequences. For those who do not recognize the commitment necessary in entering into a sexual relationship, particularly adolescents, friendships can be ruined by the introduction of sexual activity in the relationship. From a caring, mutually beneficial relationship involving communication and activities shared in a larger social group, the sexually active couple becomes self-centered and possessive, quickly becoming suspicious and jealous of any attention their partner pays to another. When one individual is not committed to a monogamous relationship, the expectation of commitment from the partner is also lowered.

The desire for romantic love is natural and healthy in adolescents, and part of normal psychological development. However, the inclusion of sexual activity prematurely has been noted to greatly reduce the creativity and emotional excitement of young people, leaving them "flat-souled" and impoverished in ideals, hopes and imagination.[23]

Psychological studies of monogamous relationships have revealed three significant issues: First, satisfaction is often raised to initial high levels, but equally often declines during the first years of marriage. Second, attachment, the need for physical and emotional closeness, plays an important role in many aspects of monogamous relationships. Finally, although some people question the duration of marriage as a worthwhile goal, most people expect their marriages to last a long time. If it fails, the psychological consequences of ending a sexual relationship have been found to be emotionally traumatic.

Satisfaction

The events of falling in love and getting married raise people's feelings of happiness and satisfaction to unusually high levels. It is natural for these feelings of happiness and satisfaction to return to more normal levels over time.

When two people fall in love and develop an intimate relationship, they begin to include their partners in their concepts of themselves. People feel like they acquire new capabilities because they have the support of close partners. "I might not be able to handle parenthood by myself, but with the help of my partner's good parenting skills, I'll be a good parent." This overlap of the concepts of self and partner has been called "self-expansion."[24]

People generally experience a high level of self-expansion at the beginning of relationships when they constantly learn new things about themselves and their partners. Rapid self-expansion pushes satisfaction to very high levels. However, as the relationship matures, the rate of self-expansion slows, and people experience a relative decline in satisfaction.

Once couples are married, they have to deal with the inevitability of arguments and conflict. Couples who deal poorly with arguments and conflict build up a history of negative emotional interactions that erodes marital satisfaction.

How well couples handle conflict and stress depends on their vulnerabilities, the kinds of stresses they face, and their processes of adaptation.[25] Couples who handle conflict and stress poorly become less and less satisfied with their relationships over time. Those who succeed in dealing with conflict, through mutual support and good communication, on the other hand, develop deep trust and closeness in their relationship. Such relationships result in greater satisfaction and long-lasting happiness that is qualitatively different from the excitement of the early stages of a relationship.

Attachment

Attachment is the tendency to seek closeness to another person, to feel secure when that person is present, and to feel anxious when that person is absent.

Attachment theory was originally developed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth to describe children's desires for closeness with their parents. Hazen and Shaver[26] noticed that interactions between adult romantic partners shared similarities to interactions between children and caregivers. Romantic partners desire to be close to one another. They feel comforted when their partners are present and anxious or lonely when their partners are absent. Romantic relationships serve as secure bases that help partners face the surprises, opportunities, and challenges life presents. People who have secure attachment styles have been found to express greater satisfaction with their relationships than people who have other attachment styles.[27] [28][29] Secure attachment styles may lead to more constructive communication and more intimate self-disclosures, which in turn increase relationship satisfaction.[28]

Duration

Studies of couples in laboratories and studies of people in long-lasting marriages have identified several factors that contribute to the duration of monogamous relationships.

One pattern that predicts relationship duration is the balance of positive and negative interactions.[30] Positive interactions can repair damage done by negative interactions. Stable and happy couples consistently engage in at least five positive interactions for every one negative interaction. People who use humor and gentleness to soothe the feelings of their partners, and who respond calmly to the negative emotional expressions of their partners, are less likely to break up with their partners.

Not everyone agrees the duration of a relationship indicates the success of a relationship. Some people reject the idea of "till death do us part" in favor of "as long as love shall last."[31] Constantine and Constantine have clearly summarized this perspective:

For our part, to stay together for the longest possible time is a poor goal for marriage. Other ends—growth, fulfillment, happiness, among others—are more important and may demand shorter relationships if they are given priority. People change and the marriage that was valid at one time may lose its validity.[32]

Husbands and wives in long-lasting marriages have been found[33] to agree on the following as the top seven reasons for their success:

  • Spouse as best friend
  • Liking spouse as a person
  • Marriage as a long term commitment
  • Agreement on aims and goals
  • Spouses becoming more interesting to each other
  • Wanting the relationship to succeed

These reasons indicate that marriage is most likely to be successful when both partners are committed to a monogamous relationship.

Social Issues

Virginity has generally been held sacred within a society. The custom of the virgin bride stemmed from patriarchal ideas of ownership and entitlement, even though it was also the only form of birth control. Virginity has been recognized as a precious gift, to be shared with a special person, and not wasted on a casual fling.

When society regards monogamy as the norm, the family unit is stable, sexual activity is maintained exclusively between the monogamous partners, and various social norms regarding sexual behavior are kept. When a society does not give high regard to monogamy, various social consequences ensue which impact families, communities, and the nation as a whole.

Divorce

A culture that does not support monogamous, committed marriages for life does not provide the environment that is needed to allow a husband and wife to sustain a marriage in difficult times. When husband and wife do not seriously commit to practice fidelity to each other until death, many difficulties become insurmountable and divorce becomes the common, and accepted, result.

Extramarital affairs strike at the very heart of the family—the marriage vow. Infidelity destroys the trust and bonds of love; all involved are deeply affected. A marriage may survive infidelity, but only with serious commitment and effort on the part of all involved. In a society that does not value monogamy, such commitment and effort are often lacking and divorce becomes the likely outcome.

The results of divorce affect not only the partners, but also the children, leading to a new generation of adults for whom enduring, monogamous relationships are viewed as unattainable. Children of divorce have been found to suffer long-term consequences, including serious problems of personal identity, alcoholism and drug abuse, higher than average rates of suicide, and fears of abandonment, mistrust in relationships, and an unwillingness to have children of their own.[34]

Prostitution

The business of prostitution and the practice of sex outside of marriage feed upon each other. Prostitutes are victims of the system that reduces them to sexual objects, many of whom become trapped in the sex slave trade. Prostitution has been responsible for the enslavement of large numbers of young girls, condemning them to a short life of violence, shame, and disease.

Pornography

Although people regard pornography as a harmless outlet for sexual energy, it has been linked to crimes of rape and sexual abuse.[35] Long-term exposure to pornography has also been shown to create emotional withdrawal, greater acceptance of violence toward women, less sympathy toward victims of rape, and a general desensitization to violence.[36]

Illegitimate Children

Single parents, especially those who are still very young, face unprecedented challenges in rearing their children. A married couple, committed to each other and to their family, encounter stress and difficulties in learning how to adjust to the needs of their growing children. A single person, dealing with the emotional, financial, and other practical aspects of raising a child, is in great danger of failure. Unmarried teenagers who become pregnant face almost insurmountable challenges to complete sufficient education to ensure a career that can support their children. Poverty is a common outcome, defrayed only by government welfare programs.

Domestic Violence

Studies have shown that domestic violence between unmarried couples is significantly higher than those committed to a married, monogamous relationship.[37]

Spiritual Issues

The world's religions have generally regarded the bond of marriage between a man and a woman as "divinely ordained," and adultery as the worst sin: "No other sin has such a baneful effect on the spiritual life."[38]

In Judaism and Christianity, it is written that "a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), emphasizing the depth of the connection between husband and wife. The immutability of this relationship is further emphasized in Christianity by Jesus' commentary on that verse: "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:8-9).

Religions also teach that a man should have only one wife, and a woman one husband:

  • “But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his body, but the wife does.” (Christianity - 1 Corinthians 7:2-4)
  • “The possession of many wives undermines a man's moral nature.” (Hinduism - Srimad Bhagavatam 11.3)
  • “You will not be able to deal equally between your wives, however much you wish to do so.” (Islam - Qur'an 4.129; note that the Qur'an sanctions a man to support as many as four wives, but that this concession was specific to times of war, when there were few men to support the women who would otherwise remain widows and their children orphaned. However, monogamy is considered the only equitable arrangement.)[38]
  • “It floats about, that boat of cypress wood, There by the side of the ho; With his two tufts of hair falling over his forehead, He was my only one; And I swear that till death I will not do the evil thing.” (Confucianism - Book of Songs, Ode 45)
  • “Whoever has many wives will have troubles in surfeit. He will be deceitful, he will lie, he will betray [some of them] to have them together. It is not certain that he can have peace to pray well.” (African Religion - Yoruba Poem from Nigeria)

The uniqueness of the relationship between husband and wife is noted in the Judeo-Christian commandments: "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Exodus 20: 14-17). Adultery is regarded as a major sin throughout religious teachings, with serious consequences:

  • “Approach not adultery; for it is a shameful deed and an evil, opening the road to other evils.” (Islam - Qur'an 17:32)
  • “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and the adulterous.” (Christianity - Hebrews 13:4)
  • “We find that to every sin God is long-suffering, except to the sin of unchastity. Rabbi Azariah said, ‘All things can God overlook save lewdness.’” (Judaism - Midrash, Leviticus Rabbah 23:9)
  • “A wise man has nothing to do with lust. Lust is nothing but death, and lack of it is serenity. How can one who perceives this indulge in wanton behavior?” (Jainism - Acarangasutra 2:61)
  • “Four misfortunes befall a careless man who commits adultery: acquisition of demerit, disturbed sleep, third, blame; and fourth, a state of woe. There is acquisition of demerit as well as evil destiny. Brief is the joy of the frightened man and woman. The king imposes a heavy punishment. Hence no man should frequent another man's wife.” (Buddhism - Dhammapada 309-310)
  • “Do not approach thy neighbor's wife or maids.” (Daoism - Tract of the Quiet Way)
  • “The philanderer lusting after numerous women does not give up seeking on others' homes. What he does daily only brings regrets—in sorrow and greed he is shriveled up.” (Sikhism - Adi Granth, Dhanasari, M.5, p. 672)
  • “A man should not think incontinently of another's wife, much less address her to that end; for such a man will be reborn in a future life as a creeping insect. He who commits adultery is punished both here and hereafter; for his days in this world are cut short, and when dead he falls into hell.” (Hinduism - Vishnu Purana 3.11)

This concern of religious teachings to warn people not to commit adultery but to practice fidelity to their spouse reflects the belief common to all faiths that the consequences of sexual activity that breaks the monogamous marital bond are extremely serious.

Value of Monogamy

People disagree strongly about the value of monogamy. For example, some people believe monogamous marriage oppresses women and burdens people with unrealistic expectations of lifelong sexual monogamy. Monogamy from this perspective promotes sexism and leads to needless suffering. Other people believe monogamy promotes women's equality and provides a context to deepen trust and intimacy. Monogamy from this perspective provides a foundation for social progress and offers people more secure relationships.

Criticism of Monogamy

Criticisms of monogamy vary in scope. Some criticisms reject all types of monogamy as inherently negative. Other criticisms accept social monogamy as a positive form of relationship, but reject sexual monogamy as an unnatural constraint on sexual behavior. Still other criticisms accept all types of monogamy as positive forms of relationship, but reject that idea that monogamy should be imposed on all people as the only legal option.

Engels' View

Friedrich Engels, a colleague of Karl Marx and pioneer in communist philosophy, wrote about monogamous marriage in his book, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. Engels described monogamous marriage as a social institution designed for two main functions. First, monogamous marriage ensured wealth was passed down to biologically related offspring. Second, monogamous marriage trapped women in a life of unpaid domestic and childrearing labor. Engels believed the communist revolution would undermine both of these functions. A communist society would no longer allow wealth to be passed down to biological offspring, and a communist society would socialize the work of raising children. Monogamous marriage would then no longer serve any purpose and eventually would fade away.

According to Engels, the rise of monogamous marriage coincided with oppression of women by men:

Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: 'The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.' And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.[39]

The way to undo this oppression, according to Engels, was to grant women and men equal rights in marriage and to socialize the care of children so women could work and earn their own livings. These changes would free women from financial dependency on men, and allow women to dissolve marriages with tyrannical husbands. Monogamous marriage would become an agreement people entered purely for love and desire. Later generations, growing up without the oppressive history of monogamous marriage, might find alternative ways of arranging their private relationships.

Feminist View

Some feminists have criticized monogamous marriage for many of the same reasons as Engels. For example, Julia Penelope has claimed "Both monogamy and non-monogamy name heteropatriarchal institutions within which the only important information is: how many women can a man legitimately own?"[40] However, feminism encompasses a broad range of writers and ideas with a diverse range of views on marriage, and it would be unfair to characterize all feminists as opposed to monogamous marriage.

Many authors have criticized lifelong sexual monogamy as unnatural and unrealistic. They contend that humans have never been a sexually monogamous species, and that cultural expectations of sexual monogamy place enormous burdens on individuals to fulfill all the sexual needs of their partners. These expectations are quite unrealistic given how much variety exists in people's sexual desires and sex drives. In addition, sexual desires and sex drives can change over time due to circumstances (such as periods of high stress or poor health) and due to normal aging (such as changes in hormonal levels). Loving partners can find themselves mismatched in terms of their current sexual desires or sex drives. Thus, it has been argued that the failure to live up to unrealistic expectations of lifelong sexual monogamy causes people needless suffering.

Defense of Monogamy

The defense of monogamy is as varied and rich as its criticism. Generally, the viewpoint in defense of monogamy contends that monogamy actually promotes the equality of woman and secure relationships.

Despite Engels' argument that monogamous marriage oppressed women, the communist revolutionaries in China viewed monogamy as a means of giving women and men equal rights in marriage.[41] This view has since been echoed by women's rights movements in nations that allow polygamy. In nations that do allow polygamy, especially where it takes the form of polygyny (men taking several wives), women often feel the practice of polygamy makes them second-class citizens and lowers their quality of life. The women's rights movements in these nations want to make monogamy the only legal form of marriage.

The United Nations began to promote social monogamy as the preferred form of marriage in 1979, when the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, an international bill of rights for women that over 180 nations have agreed to implement.[42] Article 16 of the Convention requires nations to give women and men equal rights in marriage. Polygamy is interpreted as inconsistent with Article 16, because it extends the right of multiple spouses to men but not to women.

Many authors claim sexual monogamy promotes security, intimacy, and stability in relationships. Their claim stems from observations of couples exploring "open marriage" where partners agree that each is free to engage in extramarital sexual relationships. Although some people have happy and stable open marriages,[43][44] sexual non-monogamy proves too difficult for most couples to manage and their relationships suffer as a consequence:

Any number of sexual innovators, over the past 60 or 70 years, have argued for a third alternative—a combination of permanence with permissiveness: that is, permanent adherence to the marriage, for the sake of child-rearing and social stability, combined with freedom for each partner to have additional emotional and physical relationships outside the marriage, But thus far, all variations upon this theme have proven disruptive to the marriages of most of those who have practiced them, and too threatening to the majority of those who have not to be seriously tried out. Relatively few people, even today, manage to make permissive marriage work at all, let alone work better than exclusive marriage. For although marriage no longer has the structural support of religion, community, law, or practical necessity, today there is something else that makes exclusivity, or the appearance of it, immensely important—namely, the loneliness and disconnectedness of modern life, which creates a deep need in modern man and woman to belong, and to have a binding emotional connection to someone else. And since for most people sex is so closely bound up with deep emotions, extramarital sexual acts are severely threatening to the emotional identity and security that marriage seems to offer.[45]

Sexual non-monogamy provokes jealousy and insecurity in most couples.[46] Conversely, sexual monogamy reduces jealousy and builds the kind of trust and intimacy that makes relationships stable.[47]

Thus, many have concluded that the harmony of the conjugal relationship is best served by sexual exclusivity:

It is not that I feel any deep-rooted moral objection to a lack of sexual exclusiveness in long-term relationships. It is rather that I am increasingly aware of the difficulties that the vast majority of humans have in coping with it. The ideal of the open marriage seems to me to be a fine one. In addition to the central primary relationship, it recognizes other less permanent, sexual or non-sexual relationships, which may in themselves be mutually rewarding and self-fulfilling. But few primary relationships can survive such apparent if unintended challenges. The essential security of the dyad is weakened, and further undermined by the ravages of jealousy.[48]

Conclusion

Human beings have free will, and thus have a choice whether to commit to a monogamous relationship or to choose another path. One alternative choice is sexual abstinence. This can be for religious, moral, or other reasons. While this choice can be the best for some, or for all during a limited time period (such as in adolescence and preparation for marriage), clearly abstinence cannot be the choice of all for all time or the human species would not continue.

"Polyamory" is another alternative, which involves multiple loving relationships. As noted above, such relationships have proven difficult to maintain successfully. Communities which have tried group marriage have encountered serious difficulties, leading to the breakdown of the group. Issues of jealousy and feelings of inadequacy when faced with one's partner's continual intimate relationships with others surfaced despite members' best efforts to avoid them. Production of children led not to happy families with multiple parents, but the decision that group members should not procreate.

Since the "Sexual Revolution" a common alternative to monogamy has become promiscuity— the practice of making relatively casual and indiscriminate choices. Applied to sexual behavior, it refers to sexual intercourse that is not in the framework of a long term monogamous sexual relationship. The impact of widespread promiscuity on society has been immense.

A perspective that is refreshingly clear, moving from the confusion of the twentieth century, comes from Crittenden:

What we rarely hear is how liberating marriage can actually be. The negative, that we are no longer able to live entirely for ourselves, is also the positive: We no longer have to live entirely for ourselves.[49]

Monogamy is the opportunity to grow beyond the borders of the self and live for the sake of someone else. Through the willingness to live in an exclusive special relationship, for the sake of that other, it may be that one's own dreams and desires are finally fulfilled. Certainly, when those dreams include the experience of long-lasting and deep love, the creation of new life in the form of children, and the extension of one's lineage into future generations, a committed monogamous relationship offers much to be recommended over the alternatives.

Notes

  1. Ulrich H. Reichard, “Monogamy: Past and present” in Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans, and Other Mammals, edited by Ulrich H. Reichard and Christophe Boesch (eds.), 3-25 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 0521525772).
  2. 2.0 2.1 David Lack, Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds (Chapman and Hall, 1968< ISBN 0412112205).
  3. A. P. Moller, “Mating systems among European passerines: a review,” Ibis 7(1986): 234-250.
  4. Ulrich. H. Reichard, “Monogamy—A variable relationship,” Max Planck Research 3(2002): 62-67.
  5. United Nations, World Fertility Report: 2003 (2004). Retrieved August 17, 2007.
  6. George Peter Murdock, Ethnographic Atlas (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1969, ISBN 0822931141).
  7. D. R. White and C. Veit, White-Veit EthnoAtlas. (1999). Retrieved August 17, 2007.
  8. 8.0 8.1 George Peter Murdock, Atlas of World Cultures (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1981, ISBN 0822934329).
  9. D. R. White,"Rethinking polygyny: Co-wives, codes, and cultural systems," Current Anthropology 29(1988): 572.
  10. George Peter Murdock, Social Structure (New York, NY: Free Press, 1965, ISBN 0029222907).
  11. Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994, ISBN 0226469573).
  12. M. W. Wiederman, M. W., “Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey,” Journal of Sex Research 34(1997): 167-174.
  13. J. A. Harding, G. R. Almany, L. D. Houck, and M. A. Hixon, “Experimental analysis of monogamy in the Caribbean cleaner goby, Gobiosoma evelynae,” Animal Behaviour 65(2003): 865–874.
  14. P. E. Komers and P. N. M. Brotherton, “Female space use is the best predictor of monogamy in mammals,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 264(1997): 1261-1270.
  15. S. Altizer, et al. “Social organization and parasite risk in mammals: Integrating theory and empirical studies,” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34(2003): 517-547.
  16. L. M. Mathews, “Tests of the mate-guarding hypothesis for social monogamy: Male snapping shrimp prefer to associate with high-value females,” Behavioral Ecology 14(2003): 63-67.
  17. R. A. Palombit, “Infanticide and the evolution of pair bonds in nonhuman primates,” Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 7(1999): 117-129.
  18. P. J. Weatherhead, “Ecological correlates of monogamy in tundra-breeding Savannah Sparrows,” The Auk 96(1979): 391-401.
  19. L. J. Young, Z. Wang, and T. R. Insel, “Neuroendocrine bases of monogamy,” Trends in Neuroscience 21(1998): 71-75.
  20. David P. Barahs and Judith Eve Lipton, The Myth of Monogamy (New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2001, ISBN 0716740044).
  21. Thomas Lickona, "The Neglected Heart," American Educator (Summer 1994): 36-37.
  22. International Educational Foundation, Educating for True Love: Explaining Sun Myung Moon's Thought on Morality, Family and Society (New York, NY, 2006, ISBN 1891958070).
  23. Allen Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster, 1988, ISBN 0671657151).
  24. A. Aron, C. C. Norman, E. N. Aron, and G. Lewandowski, “Shared participation in self-expanding activities: Positive effects on experienced marital quality” in Understanding Marriage: Developments in the Study of Couple Interaction. edited by Patricia Noller and Judith A. Feeney, 177-194 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 0521803705).
  25. B. R. Karney and T. N. Bradbury, “The longitudinal course of material quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research,” Psychological Bulletin 118(1995): 3-34.
  26. C. Hazan and P. Shaver, “Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(1987): 511-524.
  27. K. A. Brennan and P. R. Shaver, “Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(1995): 267-283.
  28. 28.0 28.1 Judith A. Feeney, “Attachment style, communication patterns and satisfaction across the life cycle of marriage.” Personal Relationships 1(1994): 333-348.
  29. Judith A. Feeney, Patricia Noller, and V. J. Callan, V. J. “Attachment style, communication and satisfaction in the early years of marriage” in Advances in Personal Relationships: Attachment Processes in Adulthood Vol. 5 269–308, edited by K. Bartholomew and D. Perlman (London: Jessica Kingsley, 1994).
  30. J. M. Gottman, J. Coan, S. Carrere, S. and C. Swanson, “Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60(1998): 5-22.
  31. W. M. Pinsof, “The death of 'till death do us part': The transformation of pair-bonding in the 20th century,” Family Process 41(2002): 135-157.
  32. Larry L. Constantine and Joan M. Constantine, Group Marriage (New York, NY: Collier Books, 1974, ISBN 002075910X).
  33. Jeanette C. Lauer and Robert H. Lauer, Til Death Do Us Part (New York, NY: Routledge, 1986. ISBN 978-0918393326).
  34. Judith Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study (Hyperion, 2001, ISBN 0786886161).
  35. Michael J. McManus, Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (Washington, DC: Rutledge Hill Press, 1986, ISBN 0934395438).
  36. Archibald Hart, The Sexual Man: Masculinity without Guilt (Thomas Nelson, 1995, ISBN 0849936845).
  37. National Crime Victimization Survey (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992).
  38. 38.0 38.1 Andrew Wilson (ed.), World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts (New York, NY: Paragon House, 1995, ISBN 1557787239).
  39. Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884). Available online. Retrieved August 17, 2007.
  40. Julia Penelope, “The mystery of lesbians: II.” Lesbian Ethics 1(1985): 29-67.
  41. C. Cheng, “A speculative analysis of socio-economic influences on the fertility transition in China,” Asia-Pacific Population Journal 6(1991): 3-24.
  42. UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Division for the Advancement of Women (1979). Retrieved April 14, 2011.
  43. A. M. Rubin, “Sexually open versus sexually exclusive marriage: A comparison of dyadic adjustment,” Alternative Lifestyles 5(1982): 101-108.
  44. A. M. Rubin and J. R. Adams, “Outcomes of sexually open marriages,” Journal of Sex Research 22(1986): 311-319.
  45. Morton Hunt, Sexual Behavior in the 1970s (Chicago, IL: Playboy Press, 1974, ISBN 0872233936).
  46. B. Buunk, “Jealousy in sexually open marriages,” Alternative Lifestyles 4(1981): 357-372.
  47. A. Pines and E. Aronson,“Antecedents, correlates, and consequences, of sexual jealousy,” Journal of Personality 51(1983): 108–136.
  48. John Bancroft, Human Sexuality and its Problems (Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2008, ISBN 978-0443051616)
  49. Danielle Crittenden, “The Cost of Delaying Marriage.” From Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000, ISBN 0684859599). Available online from Boundless Webzine. Retrieved October 6, 2014.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Bancroft, John. Human Sexuality and its Problems. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2008. ISBN 978-0443051616
  • Barash, David P., and Judith Eve Lipton. The Myth of Monogamy. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2001. ISBN 0716740044
  • Bartholomew, K., and D. Perlman (eds.). Advances in Personal Relationships: Attachment Processes in Adulthood. London: Jessica Kingsley.
  • Blakeslee, Sandra, and Judith Wallerstein. Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade after Divorce. Boston, MA: Ticknor & Fields, 1989. ISBN 0899196489
  • Bloom, Allen. The Closing of the American Mind. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster, 1988. ISBN 0671657151
  • Constantine, Larry L., and Joan M. Constantine. Group Marriage: A Study of Contemporary Multilateral Marriage. New York: Collier Books, 1974. ISBN 002075910X
  • Crittenden, Danielle. What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000. ISBN 0684859599
  • Georgas, James, John W. Berry, Van de Vijver, J.R. Fons, Çigdem Kagitçibasi, and Ype H. Poortinga (eds). Families Across Cultures: A 30-Nation Psychological Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 0521822971
  • Hart, Archibald. The Sexual Man. Thomas Nelson, 1995. ISBN 0849936845
  • Hunt, Morton. Sexual Behavior in the 1970s. Chicago, IL: Playboy Press, 1974. ISBN 0872233936
  • International Educational Foundation. Educating for True Love: Explaining Sun Myung Moon's Thought on Morality, Family and Society. New York, 2006. ISBN 1891958070
  • International Educational Foundation. "Building Healthy Marriages" Volumes 8, 9, and 10 in series Searching for Life's True Purpose: Perspectives on Morality and Ethics. 2002.
  • Korotayev, Andrey. World Religions and Social Evolution of the Old World Oikumene Civilizations: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2004. ISBN 0773463100
  • Lack, David. Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds. Chapman and Hall, 1968. ISBN 0412112205
  • Lauer, Jeanette C., and Robert H. Lauer. Til Death Do Us Part: A Study and Guide to Long-Term Marriage. Routledge, 1986. ISBN 978-0918393326
  • Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994. ISBN 0226469573
  • McManus, Michael J. Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. Washington, DC: Rutledge Hill Press, 1986. ISBN 0934395438
  • Murdock, George Peter. Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 1965. ISBN 0029222907
  • Murdock, George Peter. Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1969. ISBN 0822931141
  • Murdock, George Peter. Atlas of World Cultures. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press,1981. ISBN 0822934329
  • Noller, Patricia, and Judith A. Feeney (eds.) Understanding Marriage: Developments in the Study of Couple Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 0521803705
  • Reichard, Ulrich H., and Christophe Boesch (eds.). Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans, and other Mammals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0521525772
  • Saunders, Alan, and June Saunders. The Centrality of Marriage and Family in Creating World Peace. Tarrytown, NY: Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace, 2004.
  • Waite, Linda J., and Maggie Gallagher. The Case for Marriage. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000. ISBN 0767906322
  • Wallerstein, Judith, Julia M. Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study. Hyperion, 2001. ISBN 0786886161
  • Whelan, Robert. Broken Homes and Battered Children. London: Family Education Trust, 1993.
  • Wilson, Andrew (ed.) World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts. New York: Paragon House, 1995. ISBN 1557787239

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.