Monogamy

From New World Encyclopedia
Previous (Monocotyledon)
Next (Monolatrism)


Definition

Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate during a period of time. The word monogamy comes from the Greek word monos, which means one or alone, and the Greek word gamos, 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. 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)[1]

Varieties of Monogamy

Biologists describe 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.

"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) [2]

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. Partners can be married or unmarried, but there are never more than one at a time. The term "serial monogamy" is more often descriptive than prescriptive: relatively few people consciously expect or want their relationships to end. (This may in part be due to social norms, conventions, and expectations.) Serial monogamy tends to refer to a series of generally monogamous relationships which can often include more than one marriage.

Incidence of Monogamy

The incidence of monogamy refers to the frequency with which monogamy occurs.

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.

Evolution of Monogamy

The evolution of monogamy refers to the natural history of mating systems in which species reproduce by forming pairs to raise offspring.

Mating Systems in Animals

Monogamy is one of several mating systems observed in animals. 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.

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. [3][4] In contrast, biologists estimate only 3 percent of mammalian species are socially monogamous, although up to 15 percent of primate species are monogamoys.[5]

Causes of Monogamy

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:

  • resources available in the surrounding environment [6]
  • geographic distribution of mates [7]
  • incidence of parasites and sexually transmitted diseases [8]
  • amount of parental care given to offspring [3]
  • mate guarding behaviors[9]
  • infanticide [10]
  • length of breeding season [11]
  • chemical mechanisms of bonding in the brain [12]

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.

Cultural Evolution

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 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 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.

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.

Relationship Satisfaction

Psychologists have spent decades studying marital satisfaction. 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.

Normal Rebound

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 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. [13] [14] 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.

Another example of a rebound explanation is the self-expansion model. [15] The self-expansion model has two main ideas:

  • 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.

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. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] 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.

Emotional Erosion

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. [21] As the name implies, the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model involves three main concepts:

  • 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.

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.

Motivational Erosion

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. [22] 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:

  • 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.

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. [23] Shifts from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivation may help explain declines in satisfaction as a marriage matures.

Relationship Duration

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.

The factors that influence relationship satisfaction, some of which are discussed in the previous section of this article, also contribute to relationship duration.

One pattern that predicts relationship duration is the balance of positive and negative interactions. [24] 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.[25] The four horsemen include:

  • 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.

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 ) [24]

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.

Attachment

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.

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.

Recent studies have looked at which areas of the human brain play a role in attachment. [26] [27] 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.

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. 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.

The value of monogamy refers to people's views about the contributions monogamy makes, good or bad, to individual and social well-being.

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.[28] [29] [30] See the Wikipedia articles listed on the Poly relationship page to learn about various forms of family organization. Wikipedia also has articles on marriage, cohabitation, and extended families.

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.


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.

It is not possible to review all criticisms of monogamy in a single section. This section simply introduces two relatively common criticisms of monogamy.

Monogamous Marriage Oppresses Women

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.

"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)[31]

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.

Some 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?" [32] 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.

Monogamy is Unnatural and Unrealistic

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.

  • "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) [33]
  • "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) [34]
  • "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) [35]
  • "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) [36]
  • "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)[1]

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. [37] [38] [5] [39] 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. [28] [29] [30] Studies of extramarital affairs and divorce provide evidence that lifelong sexual monogamy is unrealistic. Substantial numbers of people engage in extramarital sex. [40] [41] [42] About half of married people in the United States divorce, and the majority of divorced people find new partners and marry again. [43] Many people, perhaps the majority, simply do not live up to the expectation of lifelong sexual monogamy.

Defense of Monogamy

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.

Monogamy Can Promote Women's Equality

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.

"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) [44]

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 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 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 Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa. 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." [45][46] The protocol entered into force November 25, 2005.

Monogamy Promotes Secure Relationships

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, [47] [48] [49] 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 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) [34]
  • "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) [50]
  • "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) [51]
  • "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) [52]
  • "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) [53]

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. [54] [55] Some studies report at least 80% of people in open marriages experience jealousy over their extramarital relationships. [56] [57] 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)[58]

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Barash, D.P. & Lipton, J.E. (2001). The Myth of Monogamy. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  2. ↑ 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.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Lack, D. (1968). Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds. London: Methuen. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Lack,1968" defined multiple times with different content
  4. ↑ Moller, A.P. (1986). Mating systems among European passerines: a review. Ibis, 7, 234-250.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Reichard, U.H. (2002). Monogamy—A variable relationship. Max Planck Research, 3, 62-67.
  6. ↑ 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.
  7. ↑ 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.
  8. ↑ 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.
  9. ↑ 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.
  10. ↑ Palombit, R. A. (1999). Infanticide and the evolution of pair bonds in nonhuman primates. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 7, 117-129.
  11. ↑ Weatherhead, P.J. (1979). Ecological correlates of monogamy in tundra-breeding Savannah Sparrows. The Auk, 96, 391-401.
  12. ↑ Young, L.J., Wang, Z., & Insel, T.R. (1998). Neuroendocrine bases of monogamy. Trends in Neuroscience, 21, 71-75.
  13. ↑ 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.
  14. ↑ Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K.M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111–131.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 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. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Aron,Norman,Aron,Lewandowski,2002" defined multiple times with different content
  16. ↑ 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.
  17. ↑ Aron, A., & Fraley, B. (1999). Relationship closeness as including other in the self: Cognitive underpinnings and measures. Social Cognition, 17, 140–160.
  18. ↑ 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.
  19. ↑ Aron, A., Norman, C.C., & Aron, E.N. (1998). The self-expansion model and motivation. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 22, 1–13.
  20. ↑ 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.
  21. ↑ 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.
  22. ↑ 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
  23. ↑ 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.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 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. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Gottman,Coan,Carrere,Swanson,1998" defined multiple times with different content
  25. ↑ Gottman, J.M. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail and how you can make your last. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
  26. ↑ Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. NeuroReport, 11, 3829–3834.
  27. ↑ Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage, 21, 1155– 1166.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Murdock, G.P. (1967). Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 White, D.R. & Veit, C. (1999). White-Veit EthnoAtlas. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ethnoatlas/nindex.html.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Murdock, G. P. (1981). Atlas of World Cultures. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  31. ↑ 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 .
  32. ↑ Penelope, J. (1985). The mystery of lesbians: II. Lesbian Ethics, 1, 29-67.
  33. ↑ Freud, S. (1930/1961). Civilization and Its Discontents. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy Press. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Hunt,1974" defined multiple times with different content
  35. ↑ 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 .
  36. ↑ Labriola, K. (2006) Are you open to an alternative lifestyle? Retrieved June 2, 2006, from http://www.polyorlando.org/html/non-monogamy.htm .
  37. ↑ Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. (1995). Extra-pair copulations and extra-pair paternity in birds. Animal Behaviour, 49, 843-848.
  38. ↑ 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.
  39. ↑ 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.
  40. ↑ Clements, M. (1994, August 7). Sex in America today: A new national survey reveals how our attitudes are changing. Parade Magazine, 4-6.
  41. ↑ 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.
  42. ↑ Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167-174.
  43. ↑ 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.
  44. ↑ Cheng, C. (1991). A speculative analysis of socio-economic influences on the fertility transition in China. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 6, 3-24.
  45. ↑ 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 .
  46. ↑ 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 .
  47. ↑ Buunk B. (1980). Extramarital sex in the Netherlands: Motivations in social and marital context. Alternative Lifestyles, 3, 11-39.
  48. ↑ Rubin A. M. (1982). Sexually open versus sexually exclusive marriage: A comparison of dyadic adjustment. Alternative Lifestyles, 5, 101-108.
  49. ↑ Rubin A. M., & Adams J. R. (1986). Outcomes of sexually open marriages. Journal of Sex Research, 22, 311-319.
  50. ↑ 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.
  51. ↑ Bancroft, J. (1989). Human Sexuality and its Problems. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
  52. ↑ Turner, J.S. (1996). Encyclopedia of Relationships across the Lifespan. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  53. ↑ Olds, J. & Schwartz, R.S. (2000). Marriage in Motion: The Natural Ebb and Flow of Lasting Relationships. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
  54. ↑ 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.
  55. ↑ Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1983). Antecedents, correlates, and consequences, of sexual jealousy. Journal of Personality, 51, 108–136.
  56. ↑ Buunk B. (1981). Jealousy in sexually open marriages. Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 357-372.
  57. ↑ Ramey J. W. (1975). Intimate groups and networks: Frequent consequences of sexually open marriage. Family Coordinator, 24, 515-530.
  58. ↑ Weinberg, M.S., Williams, C.J., & Pryor, D.W. (1995). Dual Attraction: Understanding Bisexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.


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.

Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Monogamy&oldid=77118

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Copyright Logo
Powered by MediaWiki