Monogamy

2022-03-17T05:57:53Z

2001:1970:4A5F:A900:41E6:CADA:1DCB:E42: Just finished drafting a new article.

{{Short description|Form of dyadic relationship}}
{{Other uses}}
{{Close relationships |types}}{{Anthropology of kinship |concepts}}

'''Monogamy''' ({{IPAc-en|m|ə|ˈ|n|ɒ|g|ə|m|i}} {{Respell|mə|NOG|ə-mee}}) is a form of [[Dyad (sociology)|dyadic]] [[Intimate relationship|relationship]] in which an individual has only one [[Significant other|partner]] during the length of the relationship. Having only one partner at any one time, whether that be for life or whether that be [[Monogamy#Serial monogamy|serial monogamy]], contrasts with various forms of [[non-monogamy]] (e.g., [[polygamy]] or [[polyamory]]).<ref name="BRIT"/>

The term is also applied to the [[social behavior]] of some [[animal]]s, referring to the state of having only one [[Mating|mate]] at any one time. A monogamous relationship can be sexual or [[emotion]]al, but it's usually both. Many modern relationships are monogamous.

==Terminology==
The word ''monogamy'' derives from the [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] μονός, ''monos'' ("alone"), and γάμος, ''gamos'' ("marriage").<ref name="BRIT">Cf. "Monogamy" in ''Britannica World Language Dictionary'', R.C. Preble (ed.), Oxford-London 1962, p. 1275:''1. The practice or principle of marrying only once. opp. to digamy now ''rare'' 2. The condition, rule or custom of being married to only one [[person]] at a time (opp. to polygamy or bigamy) 1708. 3. [[Zoology|Zool.]] The habit of living in pairs, or having only one mate''; The same text repeats ''The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary'', W. Little, H.W. Fowler, J. Coulson (ed.), C.T. Onions (rev. & ed.,) Oxford 1969, 3rd edition, vol.1, p.1275; [http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00314586 OED Online]. March 2010. Oxford University Press. 23 Jun. 2010 Cf. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monogamy Monogamy] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150623232650/http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monogamy }} in Merriam-Webster Dictionary</ref>

The term "monogamy" may be referring to one of various relational types, depending upon context. Generally, there are four overlapping definitions.
* ''marital monogamy'' refers to [[marriage]]s of only two people.
* ''[[Social monogamy in mammalian species|social monogamy]]'' refers to two partners living together, having sex with each other, and cooperating in acquiring basic resources such as shelter, food and money.
* ''sexual monogamy'' refers to two partners remaining sexually exclusive with each other and having no outside sex partners.<ref name="Reichard,2003">{{cite book |first1=Ulrich H. |last1=Reichard |chapter=Monogamy: past and present |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zIu2K6KFsXEC&pg=PA3 |pages=3–25 |year=2003 |editor1-first=Ulrich H. |editor1-last=Reichard |editor2-first=Christophe |editor2-last=Boesch |title=Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-52577-0 |access-date=2016-01-05 |archive-date=2016-06-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160603161358/https://books.google.com/books?id=zIu2K6KFsXEC&pg=PA3 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* ''genetic monogamy'' refers to sexually monogamous relationships with genetic evidence of [[Paternity (law)|paternity]].<ref name="Reichard,2003"/>

For instance, [[biologist]]s, [[biological anthropologist]]s, and [[behavioral ecologist]]s often use ''monogamy'' in the sense of sexual, if not genetic (reproductive), exclusivity.<ref name="Low, 2003">Low B.S. (2003) [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bobbi_Low/publication/237010580_Ecological_and_social_complexities_in_human_monogamy/links/0deec51ae3e528b821000000.pdf Ecological and social complexities in human monogamy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180713201500/https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bobbi_Low/publication/237010580_Ecological_and_social_complexities_in_human_monogamy/links/0deec51ae3e528b821000000.pdf }}. Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals:161–176.</ref> When cultural or social [[anthropologist]]s and other [[social scientists]] use the term monogamy, the meaning is social or marital monogamy.<ref name="Low, 2003"/><ref name="Reichard,2003"/>

Marital monogamy may be further distinguished between:
# ''classical monogamy'', "a single relationship between people who marry as [[Virginity|virgins]], remain sexually exclusive their entire lives, and become [[Celibacy|celibate]] upon the death of the partner"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201407/seven-forms-non-monogamy|author=Sheff, Elisabeth|title=Seven Forms of Non-Monogamy|website=Psychology Today}}</ref>
# [[#Serial monogamy|''serial monogamy'']], marriage with only one other person at a time, in contrast to [[bigamy]] or [[polygamy]]<ref name="BRIT"/>

==Frequency in humans==
[[File:Old marriage at Plac Kaszubski.jpg|right|thumb|320px|Bronze sculpture of an elderly [[Kashubians|Kashubian]] married couple located in Kaszubski square, [[Gdynia]], Poland, which commemorates their monogamous fidelity, through the time of their separation, while he temporarily worked in the [[United States]]<ref>{{cite web|url= http://krodo.pl/atrakcja/szczegoly/2263/Plac_Kaszubski_W_Gdyni|title= Kaszubski square in Gdynia|access-date= 2011-11-02|language= pl|url-status= dead|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110916205746/http://krodo.pl/atrakcja/szczegoly/2263/Plac_Kaszubski_W_Gdyni|archive-date= 2011-09-16}}</ref>]]

===Distribution of social monogamy===
According to the ''[[Ethnographic Atlas]]'' by [[George P. Murdock]], of 1,231 societies from around the world noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional [[polygyny]]; 588 had more frequent [[polygyny]]; and 4 had [[polyandry]].<ref name=Atlas>[http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf ''Ethnographic Atlas Codebook''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121118232413/http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf }} derived from George P. Murdock's ''Ethnographic Atlas'' recording the marital composition of 1231 societies from 1960 to 1980</ref> (This does not take into account the relative population of each of the societies studied; the actual practice of [[polygamy]] in a tolerant society may actually be low, with the majority of aspirant polygamists practicing monogamous marriage.)<ref>{{cite book|last=Zeitzen|first=Miriam Koktvedgaard|title=Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis|year=2008|publisher=Berg|location=Oxford|page=5}}</ref>

Divorce and remarriage can thus result in "serial monogamy", i.e. multiple marriages but only one legal spouse at a time. This can be interpreted as a form of plural mating, as are those societies dominated by female-headed families in the [[Caribbean]], [[Mauritius]] and [[Brazil]] where there is frequent rotation of unmarried partners. In all, these account for 16 to 24% of the "monogamous" category.<ref>{{cite book|last=Fox|first=Robin|title=Reproduction & Succession: Studies in Anthropology, Law and Society|year=1997|publisher=Transaction Publishers|location=New Brunswick, NJ|page=34}}</ref>

===Prevalence of sexual monogamy===
The prevalence of sexual monogamy can be roughly estimated as the percentage of married people who do not engage in [[extramarital sex]]. The [[Standard Cross-Cultural Sample]] describes the amount of extramarital sex by men and women in over 50 pre-industrial cultures.<ref name="Divale,2000">Divale, W. (2000). [http://worldcultures.org/SCCS1.pdf Pre-Coded Variables for the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, Volume I and II] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217131745/http://worldcultures.org/SCCS1.pdf }}. Jamaica, NY: York College, CUNY. Distributed by World Cultures. See Variable 170 and Variable 171.</ref><ref name="Murdock,White,1969">{{cite journal |doi=10.2307/3772907 |author=Murdock, G.P. |author2=White, D.R. |title=Standard cross-cultural sample |journal=Ethnology |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=329–369 |year=1969 |jstor=3772907 }}</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.

Surveys conducted in non-Western nations (2001) also found cultural and gender differences in extramarital sex. A study of sexual behavior in [[Thailand]], [[Tanzania]] and [[Côte-d'Ivoire|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.<ref name="O'Conner,2001">{{cite journal |doi=10.2307/2673807 |author=O'Connor, M.L. |title=Men who have many sexual partners before marriage are more likely to engage in extramarital intercourse |journal=International Family Planning Perspectives |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=48–9 |year=2001 |jstor=2673807 }}</ref> 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">{{cite journal |author=Isiugo-Abanihe, U.C. |title=Extramarital relations and perceptions of HIV/AIDS in Nigeria |journal=Health Transition Review |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=111–125 |year=1994 |pmid=10150513 }}</ref><ref name="Ladebo,Tanimowo,2002">{{cite journal |doi=10.2307/3583130 |author=Ladebo, O.J. |author2=Tanimowo, A.G. |title=Extension personnel's sexual behaviour and attitudes toward HIV/AIDS in South-Western Nigeria |journal=African Journal of Reproductive Health |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=51–9 |year=2002 |pmid=12476716 |jstor=3583130 }}</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>

Many surveys asking about extramarital sex in the [[United States]] have relied on convenience samples: surveys given to whoever happens to be easily available (e.g., volunteer college students or volunteer magazine readers).<ref name="Extramarital sex: Prevalence and co">{{cite journal |last1=Wiederman |first1=M. W. |title=Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. |journal=Journal of Sex Research |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=167–174 |doi=10.1080/00224499709551881}}</ref> Convenience samples may not accurately reflect the population of the United States as a whole, which can cause serious biases in survey results.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lohr |first1=S. L. |title=Sampling: Design and Analysis |publisher=Chapman and Hall/CRC.}}</ref> Sampling bias may, therefore, be why early surveys of extramarital sex in the United States have produced widely differing results:<ref name="Extramarital sex: Prevalence and co"/> such early studies using convenience samples (1974, 1983, 1993) reported the wide ranges of 12–26% of married women and 15–43% of married men engaged in extramarital sex.<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). [http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-97237-000 The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002174428/https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-97237-000 }}. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</ref> Three studies have used nationally representative samples. These studies in 1994 and 1997 found that about 10–15% of women and 20–25% of men engage in extramarital sex.<ref name="Clements,1994">{{cite news |author=Clements, M. |title=Sex in America today: A new national survey reveals how our attitudes are changing |publisher=Parade Magazine |pages=4–6 }}</ref><ref name="Laumann,Gagnon,Michael,Michaels,1994">Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T, & Michaels, S. (1994). [https://books.google.com/books?id=3RbyuQAYsdMC The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190522194826/https://books.google.com/books?id=3RbyuQAYsdMC&printsec=frontcover }}. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</ref><ref name="Wiederman,1997">{{cite journal |doi=10.1080/00224499709551881 |author=Wiederman, M. W. |title=Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey |journal=Journal of Sex Research |volume=34 |pages=167–174 |year=1997 |issue=2 }}</ref>

Research by Colleen Hoffon of 566 [[homosexual]] male couples from the [[San Francisco Bay Area]] (2010) found that 45% had monogamous relationships.<ref name=gay>{{cite web|url=http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-16/entertainment/21985570_1_hiv-prevention-gay-couples-gay-men|title=Many gay couples negotiate open relationships|website=sfgate.com|access-date=26 April 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100720210237/http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-16/entertainment/21985570_1_hiv-prevention-gay-couples-gay-men|archive-date=20 July 2010}}</ref> However, the [[Human Rights Campaign]] has stated, based on a [[Rockway Institute]] report, that "LGBT" young people... want to spend their adult life in a long-term relationship raising children." Specifically, over 80% of the homosexuals surveyed expected to be in a monogamous relationship after age 30.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/9679.htm |title=HRC | Equally Speaking |access-date=2010-10-03 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100314031632/http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/9679.htm |archive-date=2010-03-14 }}</ref>

===Prevalence of genetic monogamy===
The incidence of genetic monogamy may be estimated from rates of [[Extra-pair paternity|extrapair paternity]]. Extrapair paternity is when offspring raised by a monogamous pair come from the female mating with another male. Rates of extrapair paternity have not been extensively studied in people. Many reports of extrapair paternity are little more than quotes based on hearsay, anecdotes, and unpublished findings.<ref name="Macintyre,Sooman,1991">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/0140-6736(91)91513-T |author=Macintyre, S. |author2=Sooman, A. |title=Non-paternity and prenatal genetic screening |journal=Lancet |volume=338 |issue=8771 |pages=869–871 |year=1991 |pmid=1681226 |s2cid=41787746 |url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/40b17e627b5f4b682c4acbf244874591015e1828 |access-date=2020-02-03 |archive-date=2020-10-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002174433/https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Non-paternity-and-prenatal-genetic-screening-Macintyre-Sooman/40b17e627b5f4b682c4acbf244874591015e1828 |url-status=live }}</ref> Simmons, Firman, Rhodes, and Peters reviewed 11 published studies of extra-pair paternity from various locations in the [[United States]], [[France]], [[Switzerland]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Mexico]], and among the native [[Yanomami|Yanomami Indians]] of [[Amazon forest]] in [[South America]].<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.11.013 |author=Simmons, L.W. |author2=Firman, R.E.C. |author3=Rhodes, G. |author4=Peters, M. |title=Human sperm competition: testis size, sperm production and rates of extrapair copulations |journal=Animal Behaviour |volume=68 |pages=297–302 |year=2004 |issue=2 |s2cid=52483925 |url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eb8d866135fe95598bac8ef179ec01a284d7c68e }}</ref> The rates of extrapair 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">{{cite journal |doi=10.1136/jech.2005.036517 |author=Bellis, M.A. |author2=Hughes, K. |author3=Hughes, S. |author4=Ashton, J.R. |title=Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences |journal=Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health |volume=59 |issue=9 |pages=749–754 |year=2005 |pmid=16100312 |pmc=1733152 }}</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. A review paper, surveying 67 other studies, reported rates of extrapair paternity, in different societies, ranging from 0.4% to over 50%.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Anderson, Kermyt G. |title=How Well Does Paternity Confidence Match Actual Paternity? Evidence from Worldwide Nonpaternity Rates |journal=Current Anthropology |volume=48 |issue=3 |pages=511–8 |doi=10.1086/504167 |year=2006 |s2cid=56318457 |url=http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/A/Kermyt.G.Anderson-1/papers/worldwidepc.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060830231352/http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/A/Kermyt.G.Anderson-1/papers/worldwidepc.pdf |archive-date=2006-08-30 }}</ref>

Covert [[Legitimacy (family law)|illegitimacy]] is a situation which arises when someone who is presumed to be a child's father (or mother) is in fact not the biological father (or mother). Frequencies as high as 30% are sometimes assumed in the media, but research<ref name=2009gilding>{{cite journal |last1= Gilding |first1= Michael |year= 2005 |title= Rampant misattributed paternity: the creation of an urban myth |journal= People and Place |volume= 13 |issue= 12 |pages= 1–11 |url= http://arrow.monash.edu.au/hdl/1959.1/480786 |archive-date= 2020-10-02 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20201002174433/https://bridges.monash.edu/articles/journal_contribution/Rampant_misattributed_paternity_the_creation_of_an_urban_myth/4975400 |url-status= live }}</ref><ref name=2009bgilding>{{Cite journal | last1 = Gilding | first1 = M. | doi = 10.1177/0038038508099102 | title = Paternity Uncertainty and Evolutionary Psychology: How a Seemingly Capricious Occurrence Fails to Follow Laws of Greater Generality | journal = Sociology | volume = 43 | pages = 140–691 | year = 2009 | s2cid = 145367552 }}</ref> by [[sociologist]] Michael Gilding traced these overestimates back to an informal remark at a 1972 conference.<ref name=1973philipp>Philipp EE (1973) "Discussion: moral, social and ethical issues". In: Wolstenholme GEW, Fitzsimons DW, eds. ''Law and ethics of AID and embryo transfer''. Ciba Foundation symposium. Vol 17. London: Associated Scientific 63–66</ref>

The detection of unsuspected illegitimacy can occur in the context of medical genetic screening,<ref name=2005bellis>{{cite journal |vauthors=Bellis MA, Hughes K, Hughes S, Ashton JR |title=Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences |journal=J Epidemiol Community Health |volume=59 |issue=9 |pages=749–54 |pmid=16100312 |pmc=1733152 |doi=10.1136/jech.2005.036517 }}</ref> in genetic family name research,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Sykes | first1 = B | last2 = Irven | first2 = C | year = 2000 | title = Surnames and the Y chromosome | journal = Am J Hum Genet | volume = 66 | issue = 4| pages = 1417–1419 | doi=10.1086/302850 | pmid=10739766 | pmc=1288207}}</ref><ref name=2009king>{{citation|last1=King|first1=Turi E.|last2=Jobling|first2=Mark A.|title=Founders, Drift, and Infidelity: The Relationship between Y Chromosome Diversity and Patrilineal Surnames|pmc=2668828|journal=Molecular Biology and Evolution|volume=26|issue=5|year=2009|pmid=19204044|doi=10.1093/molbev/msp022|pages=1093–102}}</ref> and in immigration testing.<ref name="ForsterEtAl">{{cite journal | last1 = Forster | first1 = P | last2 = Hohoff | first2 = C | last3 = Dunkelmann | first3 = B | last4 = Schürenkamp | first4 = M | last5 = Pfeiffer | first5 = H | last6 = Neuhuber | first6 = F | last7 = Brinkmann | first7 = B | year = 2015 | title = Elevated germline mutation rate in teenage fathers | journal = Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences| volume = 282 | issue = 1803 | page = 20142898 | doi = 10.1098/rspb.2014.2898 | pmid = 25694621 | pmc = 4345458 }}</ref> Such studies show that covert illegitimacy is in fact less than 10% among the sampled African populations, less than 5% among the sampled Native American and [[Polynesians|Polynesian]] populations, less than 2% of the sampled Middle Eastern population, and generally 1–2% among European samples.<ref name="2005bellis"/>

Pedigree errors are a well-known source of error in medical studies. When attempts are made to try to study medical afflictions and their genetic components, it becomes very important to understand non-paternity rates and pedigree errors. There are numerous software packages and procedures that exist for correcting research data for pedigree errors.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Suna L, Wildera K, McPeeka MS |title=Enhanced Pedigree Error Detection |journal=Human Heredity |volume=54 |issue=2 |pages=99–110 |year=2002 |pmid=12566741 |doi=10.1159/000067666 |s2cid=26992288 |url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ded2fe82136db606da641e3e6f9b2fa209bf02a8 |access-date=2020-02-03 |archive-date=2020-10-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002174431/https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Enhanced-Pedigree-Error-Detection-Sun-Wilder/ded2fe82136db606da641e3e6f9b2fa209bf02a8 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1086/301904 |vauthors=O'Connell JR, Weeks DE |title=PedCheck: a program for identification of genotype incompatibilities in linkage analysis |journal=Am J Hum Genet |volume=63 |issue=1 |pages=259–266 |pmid=9634505 |pmc=1377228 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Lathrop GM, Hooper AB, Huntsman JW, Ward RH |title=Evaluating pedigree data. I. The estimation of pedigree error in the presence of marker mistyping |journal=Am J Hum Genet |volume=35 |issue=2 |pages=241–262 |pmid=6573130 |pmc=1685535 }}</ref>

==Evolutionary and historical development in humans==
[[File:Kaka-Parrots.jpg|thumb|right|A pair of [[New Zealand kaka]] parrots at [[Auckland Zoo]]]]

=== Biological arguments ===
Monogamy exists in many societies around the world,<ref name="Murdock,1981">Murdock GP (1981) Atlas of world cultures. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.</ref> resulting in extensive scientific research which tries to understand how these marriage systems might have evolved. In any species, there are three main aspects that combine to promote a monogamous mating system: paternal care, resource access, and [[mate choice]];<ref name="Reichard,2003"/> however, in humans, the main theoretical sources of monogamy are paternal care and extreme ecological stresses.<ref name="Low, 2003"/> Paternal care should be particularly important in humans due to the extra nutritional requirement of having larger brains and the lengthier developmental period.<ref name="Lovejoy,1981">{{cite journal | author = Lovejoy CO | year = 1981 | title = The Origin of Man | journal = Science | volume = 211 | issue = 4480| pages = 341–350 | doi = 10.1126/science.211.4480.341 | pmid = 17748254 | bibcode = 1981Sci...211..341L }}</ref><ref name="Marlowe,2000">{{cite journal | author = Marlowe FW | year = 2000 | title = Paternal investment and the human mating system | url = https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/15456df2bbafd841782a379b0444b23dd55cfcaa | journal = Behav Processes | volume = 51 | issue = 1–3 | pages = 45–61 | doi = 10.1016/S0376-6357(00)00118-2 | pmid = 11074311 | s2cid = 26937001 | access-date = 2020-02-03 | archive-date = 2020-10-02 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201002174431/https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Paternal-investment-and-the-human-mating-system-Marlowe/15456df2bbafd841782a379b0444b23dd55cfcaa | url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="Barrett,Dunbar,Lycett,2002">Barrett L, Dunbar RIM, Lycett J (2002) Human evolutionary psychology. Palgrave, Basingstoke.</ref> Therefore, the evolution of monogamy could be a reflection of this increased need for bi-parental care.<ref name="Lovejoy,1981"/><ref name="Marlowe,2000"/><ref name="Barrett,Dunbar,Lycett,2002"/> Similarly, monogamy should evolve in areas of ecological stress because male [[reproductive success]] should be higher if their resources are focused on ensuring offspring survival rather than searching for other mates.<ref name="Low, 2003"/> Due to the extreme sociality and increased intelligence of humans, ''H. sapiens'' have solved many problems that generally lead to monogamy, such as those mentioned above.<ref name="Low, 2003"/> For example, monogamy is certainly correlated with paternal care, as shown by Marlowe,<ref name="Marlowe,2000"/> but not caused by it because humans diminish the need for bi-parental care through the aid of siblings and other family members in rearing the offspring.<ref name="Low, 2003"/> Furthermore, human intelligence and material culture allows for better adaptation to different and rougher ecological areas, thus reducing the causation and even correlation of monogamous marriage and extreme climates.<ref name="Low, 2003"/> However, some scientists argue that monogamy evolved by reducing within-group conflict, thus giving certain groups a competitive advantage against less monogamous groups.<ref name="Henrich, Boyd & Richardson,2012">{{cite journal | author = Henrich J | year = 2012 | title = The puzzle of monogamous marriage | journal = Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences| volume = 367 | issue = 1589| pages = 657–669 | doi = 10.1098/rstb.2011.0290 | pmid=22271782 | pmc=3260845}}</ref>

[[Paleoanthropology]] and genetic studies offer two perspectives on when monogamy evolved in the human species: paleoanthropologists offer tentative evidence that monogamy may have evolved very early in human history<ref name="Reno,Meindle,McCollum,Lovejoy,2003">{{cite journal |vauthors=Reno PL, Meindl RS, McCollum MA, Lovejoy CO | year = 2003 | title = Sexual dimorphism in ''Australopithecus afarensis'' was similar to that of modern humans | journal = Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A | volume = 100 | issue = 16 | pages = 9404–9409 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.1133180100 | pmid = 12878734 | pmc = 170931 | bibcode = 2003PNAS..100.9404R | doi-access = free }}</ref> whereas genetic studies suggest that monogamy might have evolved much more recently, less than 10,000 to 20,000 years ago.<ref name="Gordon,Green,Richmond,2008">{{cite journal |vauthors=Gordon AD, Green DJ, Richmond BG | year = 2008 | title = Strong postcranial size dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis: Results from two new resampling methods for multivariate data sets with missing data | journal = Am J Phys Anthropol | volume = 135 | issue = 3| pages = 311–328 | doi = 10.1002/ajpa.20745 | pmid = 18044693 }}</ref><ref name="Dupanloup,Pereira,Bertorelle,Calafell,Prata,Amorim,Barbujani,2003">{{cite journal |vauthors=Dupanloup I, Pereira L, Bertorelle G, Calafell F, Prata MJ, Amorim A, Barbujani G | year = 2003 | title = A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity | journal = J Mol Evol | volume = 57 | issue = 1| pages = 85–97 | doi = 10.1007/s00239-003-2458-x | pmid = 12962309 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.454.1662 | bibcode = 2003JMolE..57...85D | s2cid = 2673314 }}</ref>

[[File:Sumatran orangutan family in Toronto Zoo.JPG|left|thumb|200px|[[Orangutan]] males are not monogamous and compete for access to females.]]
Paleoanthropological estimates of the time frame for the evolution of monogamy are primarily based on the level of [[sexual dimorphism]] seen in the fossil record because, in general, the reduced male-male competition seen in monogamous mating results in reduced sexual dimorphism.<ref name="Møller,2003">Moller AP (2003) The evolution of monogamy: mating relationships, parental care and sexual selection. Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals:29–41.</ref> According to Reno ''et al.'', the sexual dimorphism of ''[[Australopithecus afarensis]]'', a human ancestor from approximately 3.9–3.0 million years ago,<ref name="Ash,Robinson,2010">Ash P, Robinson D (2010) [https://books.google.com/books?id=JUlSYsyC-NQC The emergence of humans: an exploration of the evolutionary timeline] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190523083245/https://books.google.com/books?id=JUlSYsyC-NQC&printsec=frontcover }}. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, UK ;Hoboken, NJ.</ref> was within the modern human range, based on dental and postcranial morphology.<ref name="Reno,Meindle,McCollum,Lovejoy,2003" /> Although careful not to say that this indicates monogamous mating in early [[hominid]]s, the authors do say that reduced levels of sexual dimorphism in ''A. afarensis'' "do not imply that monogamy is any less probable than polygyny".<ref name="Reno,Meindle,McCollum,Lovejoy,2003"/> However, Gordon, Green and Richmond claim that in examining postcranial remains, ''A. afarensis'' is more sexually dimorphic than modern [[human]]s and [[chimpanzee]]s with levels closer to those of [[orangutan]]s and [[gorilla]]s.<ref name="Gordon,Green,Richmond,2008"/> Furthermore, ''Homo habilis'', living approximately 2.3 mya,<ref name="Ash,Robinson,2010"/> is the most sexually dimorphic early hominid.<ref name="McHenry,1992">{{cite journal | author = McHenry HM | year = 1992 | title = Body size and proportions in early hominids | journal = Am J Phys Anthropol | volume = 87 | issue = 4| pages = 407–431 | doi = 10.1002/ajpa.1330870404 | pmid = 1580350 }}</ref> Plavcan and van Schaik conclude their examination of this controversy by stating that, overall, sexual dimorphism in australopithecines is not indicative of any behavioral implications or mating systems.<ref name="Plavcan,van Schaik,1997">{{cite journal | author = Plavcan JM | year = 1997 | title = Interpreting hominid behavior on the basis of sexual dimorphism | journal = J Hum Evol | volume = 32 | issue = 4| pages = 345–374 | doi = 10.1006/jhev.1996.0096 | pmid = 9085186 | last2 = Van Schaik | first2 = CP }}</ref>

Currently the oldest ethnic group in Africa, the continent where ''Homo sapiens'' species emerged, is the [[San people]] of Southern Africa.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oldest.org/people/african-tribes/|title=7 Oldest African Tribes|first=Shasha|last=Neil}}</ref> Most San are monogamous, but if a hunter is able to obtain enough food, he can afford to have a second wife as well. The monogamy practiced by this ethnic group is the serial monogamy. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.exploring-africa.com/en/botswana/san-or-bushmen/san-people|title = The San people|date = 6 September 2017}}</ref>

===Cultural arguments===
[[File:Detail of Les tres riches heures - March.jpg|thumbnail|Plough agriculture. The castle in the background is Lusignan. Detail from the calendar ''Les très riches heures'' from the 15th century. This is a detail from the painting for March.]]
Despite the human ability to avoid sexual and genetic monogamy, social monogamy still forms under many different conditions, but most of those conditions are consequences of cultural processes.<ref name="Low, 2003"/> These cultural processes may have nothing to do with relative reproductive success. For example, anthropologist [[Jack Goody]]'s comparative study utilizing the ''[[Ethnographic Atlas]]'' demonstrated that monogamy is part of a cultural complex found in the broad swath of [[Eurasia]]n societies from [[Japan]] to [[Ireland]] that practice social monogamy, sexual monogamy and dowry (i.e. "diverging devolution", that allow property to be inherited by children of both sexes).<ref>{{cite book|last=Goody|first=Jack|title=Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain|year=1976|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|page=7}}</ref> Goody demonstrates a statistical correlation between this cultural complex and the development of intensive plough agriculture in those areas.<ref>{{cite book|last=Goody|first=Jack|title=Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain|year=1976|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|pages=27–9}}</ref> Drawing on the work of [[Ester Boserup]], Goody notes that the sexual division of labour varies in intensive plough agriculture and extensive shifting horticulture. In plough agriculture [[Agriculture|farming]] is largely men's work and is associated with private property; marriage tends to be monogamous to keep the property within the [[nuclear family]]. Close family ([[endogamy]]) are the preferred marriage partners to keep property within the group.<ref>{{cite book|last=Goody|first=Jack|title=Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain|year=1976|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|pages=33–4}}</ref> A molecular genetic study of global human genetic diversity argued that sexual polygyny was typical of human reproductive patterns until the shift to sedentary farming communities approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years ago in Europe and Asia, and more recently in Africa and the Americas.<ref name="Dupanloup,Pereira,Bertorelle,Calafell,Prata,Amorim,Barbujani,2003"/> A further study drawing on the Ethnographic Atlas showed a statistical correlation between increasing size of the society, the belief in "high gods" to support human morality, and monogamy.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Roes|first=Frans L.|title=The Size of Societies, Monogamy, and Belief in High Gods Supporting Human Morality|journal=Tijdschrift voor Sociale Wetenschappen|year=1992|volume=37|issue=1|pages=53–58|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/size-of-societies-stratification-and-belief-in-high-gods-supportive-of-human-morality/0515A283CCF11A9B6393D1872CDFE211|access-date=2018-07-13|archive-date=2018-07-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180713200833/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/size-of-societies-stratification-and-belief-in-high-gods-supportive-of-human-morality/0515A283CCF11A9B6393D1872CDFE211|url-status=live}}</ref> A survey of other cross-cultural samples has confirmed that the absence of the plough was the only predictor of polygamy, although other factors such as high male mortality in warfare (in non-state societies) and pathogen stress (in state societies) had some impact.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Ember|first=Carol R.|title=What we know and what we don't know about variation in social organization: Melvin Ember's approach to the study of kinship|journal=Cross-Cultural Research|year=2011|volume=45|issue=1|pages=27–30|doi=10.1177/1069397110383947|s2cid=143952998}}</ref>
[[File:Nuba farming 1.jpg|thumbnail|Woman farming, using a [[digging stick]] in the [[Nuba Mountains]], southern Sudan]]

Betzig postulated that culture/society can also be a source of social monogamy by enforcing it through rules and laws set by third-party actors, usually in order to protect the wealth or power of the elite.<ref name="Low, 2003"/><ref name="Betzig,1992">{{cite journal | author = Betzig L. | year = 1992 | title = Roman Monogamy | url = https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/29876/1/0000226.pdf | journal = Ethol Sociobiol | volume = 13 | issue = 5–6 | pages = 351–383 | doi = 10.1016/0162-3095(92)90009-S | hdl = 2027.42/29876 | access-date = 2019-09-02 | archive-date = 2020-10-02 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201002174431/https://bitstream/handle/2027.42/29876/0000226.pdf;jsessionid=FDBE943DC0317FFDDD1812621065F3A3?sequence=1 | url-status = live | hdl-access = free }}</ref><ref name="Betzig,1995">{{cite journal | author = Betzig L. | year = 1995 | title = Medieval Monogamy | journal = Journal of Family History | volume = 20 | issue = 2| pages = 181–216 | doi = 10.1177/036319909602000204 | s2cid = 220072319 }}</ref> For example, [[Augustus Caesar]] encouraged marriage and reproduction to force the aristocracy to divide their wealth and power among multiple heirs, but the aristocrats kept their socially monogamous, legitimate children to a minimum to ensure their legacy while having many [[extra-pair copulation]]s.<ref name="Betzig,1992"/> Similarly—according to Betzig—the [[Christian Church]] enforced monogamy because wealth passed to the closest living, legitimate male relative, often resulting in the wealthy oldest brother being without a male heir.<ref name="Betzig,1995"/> Thus, the wealth and power of the family would pass to the "celibate" younger brother of the church.<ref name="Betzig,1995"/> In both of these instances, the rule-making elite used cultural processes to ensure greater reproductive fitness for themselves and their offspring, leading to a larger genetic influence in future generations.<ref name="Betzig,1992"/><ref name="Betzig,1995"/> According to B. S. Low, culture would appear to have a much larger impact on monogamy in humans than the biological forces that are important for non-human animals.<ref name="Low, 2003"/>

Other theorists use cultural factors influencing reproductive success to explain monogamy. During times of major economic/demographic transitions, investing more in fewer offspring (social monogamy not polygyny) increases reproductive success by ensuring the offspring themselves have enough initial wealth to be successful.<ref name="Low, 2003"/> This is seen in both [[England]] and [[Sweden]] during the [[Industrial Revolution|industrial revolution]]<ref name="Low, 2003"/> and is currently being seen in the modernization of rural [[Ethiopia]].<ref name="Gibson,Lawson,2011">{{cite journal |vauthors=Gibson MA, Lawson DW | year = 2011 | title = Modernization" increases parental investment and sibling resource competition: evidence from a rural development initiative in Ethiopia | journal = Evolution and Human Behavior | volume = 32 | issue = 2| pages = 97–105 | doi = 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.002 }}</ref> Similarly, in modern industrialized societies, fewer yet better-invested offspring, i.e. social monogamy, can provide a reproductive advantage over social polygyny, but this still allows for serial monogamy and extra-pair copulations.<ref name="Low, 2003"/>

===Arguments from outside the scientific community===
[[Karol Wojtyla|Karol Wojtyła]] (later, Pope John Paul II) in his book ''[[Love and Responsibility]]'' postulated that monogamy, as an institutional union of two people being in [[love]] with one another, was an embodiment of an [[ethics|ethical]] ''personalistic norm'', and thus the only means of making true human love possible.<ref>{{cite book| last=Wojtyla| first=Karol| chapter=Marriage. Monogamy and the indissolubility of Marriage| title=Love and Responsibility| year=1981| publisher=Ignatius Press| location=San Francisco| isbn=978-0-89870-445-7| pages=[https://archive.org/details/loveresponsibili00john/page/211 211–213]| chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/loveresponsibili00john| url=https://archive.org/details/loveresponsibili00john/page/211}}</ref> Some writers have suggested that monogamy may solve the problems they view as associated with non-monogamy and [[hypergamy]] such as [[inceldom]].<ref>{{Cite journal|url = https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-redistribution-professor-interviewed.html|title = An Interview with Robin Hanson, the Sex Redistribution Professor| journal=Slate |date = 2018-05-04|access-date = 2018-05-06|archive-date = 2018-05-06|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180506174745/https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-redistribution-professor-interviewed.html|url-status = live| last1=Weissmann | first1=Jordan }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/opinion/incels-sex-robots-redistribution.html|title = Opinion | the Redistribution of Sex|newspaper = The New York Times|date = 2018-05-02|last1 = Douthat|first1 = Ross|access-date = 2018-05-06|archive-date = 2020-02-01|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200201222133/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/opinion/incels-sex-robots-redistribution.html|url-status = live}}</ref>

[[Alexandra Kollontai]] in ''Make Way for the Winged Eros''<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.4edu.info/images/b/b6/Kollontai_Winged_Eros.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2018-11-14 |archive-date=2020-01-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200101170629/http://www.4edu.info/images/b/b6/Kollontai_Winged_Eros.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> argues that monogamy is an artifact of capitalist concepts of property and inheritance and wrote, "The social aims of the working class are not affected one bit by whether love takes the form of a long and official union or is expressed in a temporary relationship. The ideology of the working class does not place any formal limits on love." Later, "Modern love always sins, because it absorbs the thoughts and feelings of 'loving hearts' and isolates the loving pair from the collective. In the future society, such a separation will not only become superfluous but also psychologically inconceivable." One of the tenets of the new proletarian morality is "mutual recognition of the rights of the other, of the fact that one does not own the heart and soul of the other (the sense of property, encouraged by bourgeois culture)."

===Ancient societies===
The historical record offers contradictory evidence on the development and extent of monogamy as a social practice. Laura Betzig argues that in the six large, highly stratified early states, commoners were generally monogamous but that elites practiced de facto polygyny. Those states included [[Mesopotamia]], Egypt, [[Aztec Empire|Aztec Mexico]], [[Inca Empire|Inca Peru]], India and China.<ref>{{cite book|last=Betzig|first=Laura|title=Social Stratification and socioeconomic inequality Vol. 1|year=1993|publisher=Praeger|location=Westport CT|pages=37–74|chapter=Sex, succession, and stratification in the first six civilizations: How powerful men reproduced, passed power on to their sons, and used power to defend their wealth, women, and children|editor=Lee, Ellis}}</ref>

====Tribal societies====

Monogamy has appeared in some traditional tribal societies such as the [[Andamanese peoples|Andamanese]], [[Karen people|Karen]] in [[Burma]], [[Sami people|Sami]] and [[Ket people|Ket]] in northern [[Eurasia]], and the [[Pueblo Indians]] of the United States, apparently unrelated to the development of the Judeo-Christian monogamous paradigm.<ref>''The Ethnographic Atlas'', George P. Murdock</ref>

====Ancient Mesopotamia and Assyria====
Both the [[Babylonia]]n and [[Assyrian people|Assyrian]] families were monogamous in principle but not entirely so in practice since polygyny was frequently practiced by the rulers.

In the patriarchal society of Mesopotamia the nuclear family was called a "house". In order "to build a house" a man was supposed to marry one woman and if she did not provide him with offspring, he could take a second wife. The [[Code of Hammurabi]] states that he loses his right to do so if the wife herself gives him a slave as [[Concubinage|concubine]].<ref>Cf. R. de Vaux, ''Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions'', London 1980 (5th impr.), p. 24 {{ISBN|0-232-51219-1}}</ref> According to [[Assyria|Old Assyrian]] texts, he could be obliged to wait for two or three years before he was allowed to take another wife. The position of the second wife was that of a "slave girl" in respect to the first wife, as many marriage contracts explicitly state.<ref name=MES>M. Stol: ''Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia'', in: ''Civilizations of the Ancient Near East''. J. M. Sasson (ed.), J. Baines, G. Beckman, K. S. Rubinson (assist. ed.). Vol. 1. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995, pp. 488–493. {{ISBN|0-684-19720-0}}; Cf. Martha T. Roth, ''[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/age-at-marriage-and-the-household-a-study-of-neobabylonian-and-neoassyrian-forms/2F3521F910D7A19788DD66FB428620FF Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of the Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180713202817/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/age-at-marriage-and-the-household-a-study-of-neobabylonian-and-neoassyrian-forms/2F3521F910D7A19788DD66FB428620FF }}'', "Comparative Studies in Society and History" 29 (1987), and ''Babylonian Marriage Agreements 7th–3rd Centuries BC'' (1989).</ref>

====Ancient Egypt====
Although an Egyptian man was free to marry several women at a time, and some wealthy men from [[Old Kingdom of Egypt|Old]] and [[Middle Kingdom of Egypt|Middle Kingdoms]] did have more than one wife, monogamy was the norm.<ref name= EGY>G. Pinch: "Egyptian society seems to have been based on the "conjugal household." The basic family unit consisted of a man and a woman living together and any children they might have". ''Private Life in Ancient Egypt'' in: ''Civilizations of the Ancient Near East'', pp. 370–71</ref> There may have been some exceptions, e.g. a [[Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt|Nineteenth Dynasty]] official stated as proof of his love to his deceased wife that he had stayed married to her since their youth, even after he had become very successful (P. Leiden I 371). This may suggest that some men abandoned first wives of a low social status and married women of higher status in order to further their careers although even then they lived with only one wife. Egyptian women had the right to ask for a divorce if their husband took a second wife. Many tomb reliefs testify to the monogamous character of Egyptian marriages; officials are usually accompanied by a supportive wife. "His wife X, his beloved" is the standard phrase identifying wives in tomb inscriptions. The instruction texts belonging to wisdom literature, e.g., [[The Maxims of Ptahhotep|Instruction of Ptahhotep]] or [[Instruction of Any]], support fidelity to monogamous marriage life, calling the wife a ''Lady of the house''. The [[Instruction of Ankhsheshonq]] suggests that it is wrong to abandon a wife because she is not capable of pregnancy.<ref>Pinch Geraldine, ''Private Life in Ancient Egypt'' in: {{Cite book | title = Civilizations of the Ancient Near East| pages = 371–375}}</ref>

====Ancient Israel====
As against Betzig's contention that monogamy evolved as a result of Christian socio-economic influence in the West, monogamy appeared widespread in the [[Ancient Near East|ancient Middle East]] much earlier. In Israel's pre-Christian era, an essentially monogamous [[ethos]] underlay the Jewish creation story ([[Book of Genesis|Gn]] 2) and the last chapter of [[Book of Proverbs|Proverbs]].<ref name = EJUDMO>{{cite book |chapter=Monogamy |title=Encyclopaedia Judaica | volume = 12|pages= 258–260}}</ref><ref name =EJUDMA/> During the [[Second Temple period]] (530 BCE to 70 CE), apart from an economic situation which supported monogamy even more than in earlier period, the concept of "mutual fidelity" between husband and wife was a quite common reason for strictly monogamous marriages.{{citation needed}} Some marriage documents explicitly expressed a desire for the marriage to remain monogamous. Examples of these documents were found in [[Elephantine]]. They resemble those found in neighbouring [[Assyria]] and [[Babylonia]].<ref name = EJUDMO/> Study shows that ancient Middle East societies, though not strictly monogamous, were practically (at least on commoners' level) monogamous.<ref name= MES/><ref name= EGY/> [[Halakha]] of the [[Dead Sea Sect]] saw prohibition of polygamy as coming from the [[Pentateuch]] ([[Damascus Document]] 4:20–5:5, one of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]). Christianity adopted a similar attitude (cf. [[First Epistle to Timothy|1 Tm]] 3:2,12; [[Epistle to Titus|Tt]] 1:6), which conformed with [[Jesus Christ|Jesus']] approach.<ref name = EJUDMO/> [[Michael Coogan]], in contrast, states that "Polygyny continued to be practised well into the biblical period, and it is attested among Jews as late as the second century CE."<ref name=coogan>{{cite book|last1=Coogan|first1=Michael|title=God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says|url=https://archive.org/details/godsexwhatbi00coog|url-access=registration|quote=god and sex.|access-date=May 5, 2011|edition=1st|publisher=Twelve. Hachette Book Group|location=New York, Boston|isbn=978-0-446-54525-9|page=[https://archive.org/details/godsexwhatbi00coog/page/78 78]}}</ref>

Under [[Biblical judges|Judges]] and the monarchy, old restrictions went into disuse, especially among royalty, though the [[Books of Samuel]] and [[Books of Kings|Kings]], which cover entire period of monarchy, do not record a single case of bigamy among commoners—except for [[Samuel]]'s father. The wisdom books e.g. [[Book of Wisdom]], which provides a picture of the society, [[Sirach]], [[Book of Proverbs|Proverbs]], [[Ecclesiastes|Qohelet]] portray a woman in a strictly monogamous family (cf. Pr 5:15-19; Qo 9:9; Si 26:1-4 and eulogy of perfect wife, Proverbs 31:10-31). The [[Book of Tobit|Book of Tobias]] speaks solely of monogamous marriages. Also prophets have in front of their eyes monogamous marriage as an image of the relationship of God and Israel. (Cf. [[Book of Hosea|Ho]] 2:4f; [[Book of Jeremiah|Jer]] 2:2; [[Book of Isaiah|Is]] 50:1; 54:6-7; 62:4-5; Ez 16). [[Roland de Vaux]] states that "it is clear that the most common form of marriage in Israel was monogamy".<ref name= EJUDMA>{{cite book |chapter=Marriage |title=Encyclopaedia Judaica | volume = 11|pages= 1026–27}}
</ref><ref>{{cite book |author= de Vaux R. O.P.|chapter=Marriage - 1. Polygamy and monogamy|title=Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions|pages=24–26}}</ref>

The [[Mishnah]] and the ''[[baraitot]]'' clearly reflect a monogamist viewpoint within Judaism ([[Nashim|Yevamot]] 2:10 etc.). Some sages condemned marriage to two wives even for the purpose of procreation (Ketubot 62b). R. Ammi, an ''amora'' states:

<blockquote>Whoever takes a second wife in addition to his first one shall divorce the first and pay her ''kettubah'' (Yevamot 65a)</blockquote>

[[Roman Empire|Roman]] customs, which prohibited polygamy, may have enhanced such an attitude{{original research inline}} - especially after 212 AD, when all the Jews became Roman citizens.<ref name = EJUDMO/> However, some Jews continued to practice bigamy (e.g. up to medieval times in Egypt and Europe).{{citation needed}} Fourth-century Roman law forbade Jews to contract plural marriages.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Scheidel | first1 = W. | year = 2009 | title = A peculiar institution? Greco-Roman monogamy in global context | url = https://web.stanford.edu/~scheidel/Scheidel_HISFAM.pdf | journal = History of the Family | volume = 14 | issue = 3 | page = 289 | doi = 10.1016/j.hisfam.2009.06.001 | s2cid = 52211464 | access-date = 2018-07-13 | archive-date = 2019-05-22 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190522064105/https://web.stanford.edu/~scheidel/Scheidel_HISFAM.pdf | url-status = live }}</ref>

A synod convened by [[Gershom ben Judah]] around 1000 CE banned polygamy among [[Ashkenazi]] and [[Sephardic]] Jews.<ref name="Scheidel June 2008">Walter Scheidel, [http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf Monogamy and polygyny in Greece, Rome, and world history] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019155732/http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf }}, Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, June 2008</ref>

==== Ancient Greece and ancient Rome ====

The ancient Greeks and Romans were monogamous in the sense that men were not allowed to have more than one wife or to cohabit with concubines during marriage.<ref name="Scheidel June 2008"/><ref>Scheidel W. 2009. A peculiar institution? Greco-Roman monogamy in global context. History Family14, 280–291 (doi:10.1016/j.hisfam.2009.06.001)10.1016/j.hisfam.2009.06.001</ref>

====Early Christianity====

As John Paul II interpreted the dialogue between Jesus and the [[Pharisees]] ([[Gospel of Matthew]] 19:3–8), Christ emphasized the primordial beauty of monogamic spousal [[love]] described in the Book of Genesis 1:26–31, 2:4–25, whereby a man and woman by their nature are each ready to be a beautifying, total and [[person]]al gift to one another:

<blockquote>Jesus avoids entangling himself in juridical or casuistic controversies; instead, he appeals twice to the "beginning". By doing so, he clearly refers to the relevant words of Genesis, which his interlocutors also know by heart. ... it clearly leads the interlocutors to reflect about the way in which, in the mystery of creation, man was formed precisely as "male and female," in order to understand correctly the normative meaning of the words of Genesis.<ref>{{cite book | author = John Paul II | title = Man and Woman He created Them. A Theology of the Body 1,2-4| pages= 132–133}}</ref></blockquote>

{{Dubious|reason=Section needs citation of and argumentation from early Christian primary texts and secondary scholarship on the subject}}

===Contemporary societies===

====International====
Western European societies established monogamy as their marital norm.<ref>MacDonald K. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/establishment-and-maintenance-of-socially-imposed-monogamy-in-western-europe/319BDB6481D8B26308470EF31B79FC13 The establishment and maintenance of socially imposed monogamy in Western Europe] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002174437/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/establishment-and-maintenance-of-socially-imposed-monogamy-in-western-europe/319BDB6481D8B26308470EF31B79FC13 }}. Politics Life Sci. 1995. 14, 3–23</ref> Monogamous marriage is normative and is legally enforced in most developed countries.<ref name=Henrich2012>{{cite journal |vauthors=Henrich J, Boyd R, Richerson PJ |title=The puzzle of monogamous marriage |journal= Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences|volume=367 |issue=1589 |pages=657–69 |year=2012 |pmid=22271782 |pmc=3260845 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2011.0290 }}</ref> Laws prohibiting polygyny were adopted in [[Japan]] (1880), [[China]] (1953), [[India]] (1955) and [[Nepal]] (1963).<ref name=Henrich2012/> [[Polyandry]] is illegal in most countries.

The [[women's rights]] movements seek to make monogamy the only legal form of marriage.{{citation needed}} The [[United Nations General Assembly]] in 1979 adopted the [[Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women]], Article 16 of which requires nations to give women and men equal rights in marriage. Polygamy is viewed as inconsistent with the Article as it gives men the right of multiple wives, but not to women. The United Nations has established the [[Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women]] (CEDAW)<ref>{{cite web | url =https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ | title =Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women | url-status =live | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20140103192421/http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ | archive-date =2014-01-03 }}</ref> to monitor the progress of nations implementing the convention.

====People's Republic of China====
{{Main|Marriage in the People's Republic of China}}
The founders of [[Communism]] determined that monogamous marriage inherently oppressed women and therefore had no place in communist society. [[Friedrich Engels]] stated that compulsory monogamy could only lead to increased prostitution and general immorality, with the benefits of restricting capital and solidifying the class structure. As he spelled out in ''[[The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State]]'' (1884),
<blockquote>The first class antagonism which appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamian marriage, and the first class oppression with that of the female sex by the male. ... [T]he wellbeing and development of the one group are attained by the misery and repression of the other.

The monogamous family is distinguished from the pairing family by the far greater durability of wedlock, which can no longer be dissolved at the pleasure of either party. As a rule, it is only the man who can still dissolve it and cast off his wife.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.readingfromtheleft.com/PDF/EngelsOrigin.pdf|author=Engels,Friedrich|title=The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State|access-date=2018-09-13|archive-date=2017-08-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170829070149/http://www.readingfromtheleft.com/PDF/EngelsOrigin.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
</blockquote>

However, the communist revolutionaries in [[China]] chose to take the Western viewpoint of monogamy as giving women and men equal rights in marriage. The newly formed Communist government established monogamy as the only legal form of marriage.

<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."<ref name="Cheng,1991">Cheng, C. (1991). [http://www.unescapsdd.org/files/documents/PUB_APPJ-Vol-6-No-3.pdf A speculative analysis of socio-economic influences on the fertility transition in China] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160316144637/http://www.unescapsdd.org/files/documents/PUB_APPJ-Vol-6-No-3.pdf }}. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 6, 3-24.</ref>
</blockquote>

====Africa====
The [[African Union]] has adopted the ''Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa'' (the [[Maputo Protocol]]). While the protocol does not suggest making polygamous marriage illegal, Article 6 does state 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 {{cite web |url=https://www.amnesty.org/documents/ior63/005/2004/en |title=The Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa: Strengthening the promotion and protection of women's human rights in Africa |access-date=2016-03-06 |archive-date=2020-10-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002174445/https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior63/005/2004/en/ |url-status=live }}.</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 {{cite web |url=http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/protocol-women2003.html |title=University of Minnesota Human Rights Library |access-date=2016-03-06 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160409050848/http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/protocol-women2003.html |archive-date=2016-04-09 }}.</ref> The protocol entered into force on 25 November 2005.

==Varieties in biology==
{{anchor|Varieties of monogamy|Varieties_of_monogamy_in_biology}}
Recent discoveries have led biologists to talk about the three varieties of monogamy: social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy. The distinction between these three are important to the modern understanding of monogamy.

Monogamous pairs of animals are not always sexually exclusive. Many animals that form pairs to mate and raise offspring regularly engage in sexual activities with partners other than their primary mate. This is called [[extra-pair copulation]].<ref>
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/0003-3472(89)90002-X |author=Ågren, G. |author2=Zhou, Q. |author3=Zhong, W. |title=Ecology and social behaviour of Mongolian gerbils ''Meriones unguiculatus'', at Xilfudjeudeyjxidiuhot, Inner Mongolia, China |journal=Animal Behaviour |volume=37 |pages=11–27 |year=1989 |s2cid=53152632 |url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/68b453701188ccd97bf82672ed689f445f8d57d9 }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/BF00302936 |author=Barash, D.P. |title=Mate guarding and gallivanting by male hoary marmots (''Marmota caligata'') |journal=Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology |volume=9 |pages=187–193 |year=1981 |issue=3|s2cid=36862635 |url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/72c97e135aa29f7bd27660ad750b3f4ddd49c10b }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1086/283751 |author=Foltz, D.W. |title=Genetic evidence for long-term monogamy in a small rodent, Peromyscus polionotus |journal=American Naturalist |volume=117 |pages=665–675 |year=1981 |issue=5 |s2cid=84172119 }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1098-2345(200005)51:1<89::AID-AJP7>3.0.CO;2-7 |author=Gursky, S.L. |title=Sociality in the spectral tarsier, ''Tarsius spectrum'' |journal=American Journal of Primatology |volume=51 |issue=1 |pages=89–101 |year=2000 |pmid=10811442 |s2cid=46636797 }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/beheco/12.4.457 |author=Hasselquist, D. S. |author2=Sherman, P.W. |title=Social mating systems and extrapair fertilizations in passerine birds |journal=Behavioral Ecology |volume=12 |pages=457–66 |year=2001 |issue=4 |doi-access=free }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/BF02735575 |author=Hubrecht, R.C. |title=Home range size and use and territorial behavior in the common marmoset, ''Callithrix jacchus jacchus'', at the Tapacura Field Station, Recife, Brazil |journal=International Journal of Primatology |volume=6 |pages=533–550 |year=1985 |issue=5 |s2cid=36907987 |url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/645cbdf062f478d601331b597381e561150458a0 }}</ref><ref>*{{cite journal |author=Mason, W.A. |title=Social organization of the South American monkey, ''Callicebus moloch'': a preliminary report |journal=Tulane Studies in Zoology |volume=13 |pages=23–8 |year=1966 |url=https://archive.org/stream/cbarchive_49279_socialorganizationofthesoutham9999/socialorganizationofthesoutham9999#page/n1/mode/2up }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1163/156853983X00390 |author=McKinney, F. |author2=Derrickson, S.R. |author3=Mineau, P. |title=Forced copulation in waterfowl |journal=Behaviour |volume=86 |pages=250–294 |year=1983 |issue=3 }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1439-0310.1995.tb00319.x |author=Reichard, U. |title=Extra-pair Copulations in a Monogamous Gibbon (''Hylobates lar'') |journal=Ethology |volume=100 |pages=99–112 |year=1995 |issue=2 }}
*{{cite journal |author=Richardson, P.R.K. |title=Aardwolf mating system: overt cuckoldry in an apparently monogamous mammal |journal=South African Journal of Science |volume=83 |pages=405–412 |year=1987 |url=https://journals.co.za/content/sajsci/83/7/AJA00382353_5361?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf |access-date=2020-10-02 |archive-date=2020-10-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002174507/https://journals.co.za/docserver/fulltext/sajsci/83/7/6441.pdf?expires=1601661607&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=F1D1BEA757FA69CB78AA0685BF37279C |url-status=live }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.2307/1368407 |author=Welsh, D. |author2=Sedinger, J.S. |title=Extra-Pair copulations in Black Brant |journal=The Condor |volume=92 |issue=1 |pages=242–4 |year=1990 |jstor=1368407 }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132439 |author=Westneat, D.F. |author2=Stewart, I.R.K. |title=Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict |journal=Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics |volume=34 |pages=365–396 |year=2003 }}</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 mating with an extra-pair male partner.<ref>*{{cite journal |author=Birkhead, T.R. |author2=Møller, A.P. |title=Extra-pair copulations and extra-pair paternity in birds |journal=Animal Behaviour |volume=49 |issue=3 |pages=843–8 |year=1995 |doi=10.1016/0003-3472(95)80217-7 |s2cid=53156057 |url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c42feb3c04752cc8ace83fdd4a5d7cf37d848cd1 }}
*{{cite book |author=Birkhead, T.R. |author2=Møller, A.P. |chapter=Monogamy and sperm competition in birds |editor=Black, J.M. |title=Partnerships in Birds: The Study of Monogamy |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |year=1996 |pages=323–343 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tlHVc42WnOsC |isbn=9780191590542 |access-date=2017-03-10 |archive-date=2020-08-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200806032455/https://books.google.com/books?id=tlHVc42WnOsC |url-status=live }}
*{{cite journal |author=Owens, I.P.F. |author2=Hartley, I.R. |title=Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? |journal= Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences|volume= 265|issue=1394 |pages=397–407 |year=1998 |doi=10.1098/rspb.1998.0308 |pmc=1688905 }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1139/z04-142 |author=Solomon, N.G. |author2=Keane, B. |author3=Knoch, L.R. |author4=Hogan, P.J. |title=Multiple paternity in socially monogamous prairie voles (''Microtus ochrogaster'') |journal=Canadian Journal of Zoology |volume=82 |pages=1667–71 |year=2004 |issue=10 }}</ref> These discoveries have led biologists to adopt new ways of talking about monogamy:
{{Quote box
|quote=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.
|author=Reichard, 2003
|source=<ref name="Reichard2003">{{cite book |author=Reichard, U.H. |chapter=Monogamy: Past and present |editor=Reichard, U.H. |editor2=Boesch, C. |title=Monogamy: Mating strategies and partnerships in birds, humans, and other mammals |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |year=2003 |pages=3–25 |isbn=978-0-521-52577-0 }}</ref>(p. 4)
|align=center
|width=96%
|fontsize=96%
|bgcolor=#f5f5f5
}}

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.

Social monogamy does not always involve marriage in humans. 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 popular science author Matt Ridley in his book ''The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature'', described the human mating system as "monogamy plagued by adultery".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ridley |first=Matt |title=The Red Queen: sex and the evolution of human nature |publisher=Macmillan Pub. Co. |isbn=0-02-603340-2 |location=New York |oclc=28337617}}</ref>

===Serial monogamy===
Serial monogamy is a mating practice in which individuals may engage in sequential monogamous pairings,<ref name="Wright,1994">Wright R (1994) The moral animal: the new science of evolutionary psychology. Pantheon Books, New York.{{page needed}}</ref> or in terms of humans, when men or women can marry another partner but only after ceasing to be married to the previous partner.<ref name="Mulder,Mulder,2009">{{cite journal |vauthors=Mulder M, Mulder B | year = 2009 | title = Serial Monogamy as Polygyny or Polyandry? | journal = Human Nature | volume = 20 | issue = 2| pages = 130–150 | doi = 10.1007/s12110-009-9060-x | pmid = 25526955 | pmc = 5486523 }}</ref>

Serial monogamy may effectively resemble [[polygyny]] in its reproductive consequences because both men and women are able to utilize both sexes reproductive lifespan through repeated marriages.<ref name="Jokela,Rotkrich,Rickard,Pettay,Lummaa,2010">{{cite journal |vauthors=Jokela M, Rotkirch A, Rickard I, Pettay J, Lummaa V | year = 2010 | title = Serial monogamy increases reproductive success in men but not in women | journal = Behav Ecol | volume = 21 | issue = 5| pages = 906–912 | doi = 10.1093/beheco/arq078 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

Serial monogamy may also refer to sequential sexual relationships, irrespective of marital status. A pair of humans may remain sexually exclusive, or monogamous, until the relationship has ended and then each may go on to form a new exclusive pairing with a different partner. This pattern of serial monogamy is common among people in Western cultures.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = From Polygyny to Serial Monogamy: A Unified Theory of Marriage Institutions|url = https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v82y2015i2p565-607.html|journal = Review of Economic Studies|date = 2015-01-01|pages = 565–607|volume = 82|issue = 2|first1 = David|last1 = de la Croix|first2 = Fabio|last2 = Mariani|doi = 10.1093/restud/rdv001|s2cid = 8044548|url-status = live|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160203103110/https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v82y2015i2p565-607.html|archive-date = 2016-02-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|author=McVeigh, Tracy|title=Love hurts more than ever before (blame the internet and capitalism)|url=https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/12/love-marriage-romance-valentine|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102233928/https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/12/love-marriage-romance-valentine|archive-date=2 January 2017}}</ref>

====Reproductive success====
Evolutionary theory predicts that males would be apt to seek more mating partners than females because they obtain higher reproductive benefits from such a strategy.<ref name="Jokela,Rotkrich,Rickard,Pettay,Lummaa,2010"/> Men with more serial marriages are likely to have more children than men with only one spouse, whereas the same is not true of women with consecutive spouses.<ref name="Jokela,Rotkrich,Rickard,Pettay,Lummaa,2010"/> A study done in 1994 found that remarried men often had a larger age difference from their spouses than men who were married for the first time, suggesting that serial monogamy helps some men extract a longer reproductive window from their spouses.<ref name="Starks,Blackie,2000">{{cite journal |vauthors=Starks P, Blackie C | year = 2000 | title = The relationship between serial monogamy and rape in the United States (1960–1995) | journal = Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences | volume = 267 | issue = 1449| pages = 1259–1263 | doi = 10.1098/rspb.2000.1136 | pmid=10902693 | pmc=1690656}}</ref><ref name="Kunz,Kunz,1994">{{cite journal |vauthors=Kunz J, Kunz PR | year = 1994 | title = Social setting and remarriage: ages of husband and wife | journal = Psychological Reports | volume = 75 | pages = 719–722 }}</ref>

====Breakup====
Serial monogamy has always been closely linked to [[divorce]] practices. Whenever procedures for obtaining divorce have been simple and easy, serial monogamy has been found.<ref>It is said to have been "rife" in ancient Rome ''[http://www.trivia-library.com/b/alternative-forms-of-marriage-serial-monogamy.htm Alternative Forms of Marriage Serial Monogamy] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080706013632/http://www.trivia-library.com/b/alternative-forms-of-marriage-serial-monogamy.htm }}'' at Trivia-Library.com.</ref> As divorce has continued to become more accessible, more individuals have availed themselves of it, and many go on to remarry.<ref>In Canada, 46% of divorcées will remarry according to ''[http://www.slaw.ca/2006/06/28/serial-monogamy-not/ Till death do us part? The risk of first and second marriage dissolution] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081107021623/http://www.slaw.ca/2006/06/28/serial-monogamy-not/ }}'' by Warren Clark and Susan Crompton.</ref> Barry Schwartz, author of ''[[The Paradox of Choice]]: Why More is Less'', further suggests that Western culture's inundation of choice has devalued relationships based on lifetime commitments and singularity of choice. It has been suggested, however, that high mortality rates in centuries past accomplished much the same result as divorce, enabling remarriage (of one spouse) and thus serial monogamy.<ref>{{cite book |author=Griswold, Robert L. |title=Family and Divorce in California, 1850–1890: Victorian illusions and everyday realities |publisher=State University of New York Press |location=Albany NY |year=1983 |pages=7–8 |isbn=978-0-87395-634-5 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.2307/2061160 |author=Goldman, Noreen |title=Changes in Widowhood and Divorce and Expected Durations of Marriage |journal=Demography |volume=21 |issue=3 |pages=297–307 |year=1984 |pmid=6479390 |jstor=2061160 |s2cid=30103970 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>Timothy J. Owston, [http://freespace.virgin.net/owston.tj/divorce.htm ''Divorce.''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081219193154/http://freespace.virgin.net/owston.tj/divorce.htm }} 2nd edition, April 2006</ref>

====Similarity with [[polygamy]]====

According to Danish scholar Miriam K. Zeitzen, anthropologists treat [[serial monogamy]], in which divorce and remarriage occur, as a form of [[polygamy]] as it also can establish a series of households that may continue to be tied by shared paternity and shared income.<ref name="Zeitzen">{{cite book |last=Zeitzen |first=Miriam Koktvedgaard |title=Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis |year=2008 |publisher=Berg |location=Oxford |isbn=978-1-84520-220-0}}</ref> As such, they are similar to the household formations created through divorce and serial monogamy.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=FALEN|first=DOUGLAS J.|title=Polygamy: a cross-cultural analysis by Zeitzen, Miriam Koktvedgaard|journal=Social Anthropology|volume=17|issue=4|pages=510–511|doi=10.1111/j.1469-8676.2009.00088_20.x|issn=0964-0282}}</ref>
<ref>For a popular press angle, see e.g. Rosie Wilby, ''Is Monogamy Dead?: Rethinking Relationships in the 21st Century'' (Cardiff: Accent Press, 2017), 107. {{ISBN|9781786154521}}. For deeper, scholarly analysis, see e.g. David Silverman, "The Construction of 'Delicate' Objects in Counselling", in ed. Margaret Wetherell et al., ''Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader'' (London: Sage, 2001), 123–27. {{ISBN|9780761971566}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Simpson |first=Bob |title=Changing Families: An Ethnographic Approach to Divorce and Separation |year=1998 |publisher=Berg |location=Oxford}}</ref>

===Mating system===
{{Main|Monogamous pairing in animals}}
Monogamy is one of several [[mating system]]s observed in animals. However, a pair of animals may be socially monogamous without necessarily being sexually or genetically monogamous. Social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy can occur in different combinations.<ref name="Reichard2003"/>

Social monogamy refers to the overtly observed living arrangement whereby a male and female share territory and engage in behaviour indicative of a social pair, but does not imply any particular sexual fidelity or reproductive pattern.<ref name="Reichard2003"/> The extent to which social monogamy is observed in animals varies across taxa, with over 90 percent of avian species being socially monogamous, compared to only 3 percent of mammalian species and up to 15 percent of primate species.<ref name="Reichard2002">{{cite journal|last=Reichard |first=U.H. |title=Monogamy—A variable relationship |journal=Max Planck Research |volume=3 |pages=62–7 |year=2002 |url=http://www.mpg.de/1028786/W001_Biology-Medicine_062_067.pdf |access-date=24 April 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514183645/http://www.mpg.de/1028786/W001_Biology-Medicine_062_067.pdf |archive-date=14 May 2011 }}</ref><ref name="Barash2001">Barash, D.P. & Lipton, J.E. (2001). The Myth of Monogamy. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.</ref> Social monogamy has also been observed in reptiles, fish, and insects.{{citation needed}}

Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male based on observations of sexual interactions.<ref name="Reichard2003"/> However, scientific analyses can test for paternity, for example by [[DNA paternity testing]] or by [[fluorescence|fluorescent]] [[pigment]] powder tracing of females to track physical contact. This type of analysis can uncover reproductively successful sexual pairings or physical contact. Genetic monogamy refers to DNA analyses confirming that a female-male pair reproduce exclusively with each other.<ref name="Reichard2003"/>

The incidence of sexual monogamy appears quite rare in other parts of the animal kingdom. It is becoming clear that even animals that are overtly socially monogamous engage in extra-pair copulations. For example, while over 90% of birds are socially monogamous, "on average, 30% or more of the baby birds in any nest [are] sired by someone other than the resident male."<ref name="Angier1990">Angier, Natalie (1990-08-21). "[https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/21/science/mating-for-life-it-s-not-for-the-birds-of-the-bees.html Mating for Life? It's Not for the Birds of the Bees] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314144709/http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/21/science/mating-for-life-it-s-not-for-the-birds-of-the-bees.html }}" ("of" rather than "or" is how it shows in the article !). The New York Times.</ref> Patricia Adair Gowaty has estimated that, out of 180 different species of socially monogamous songbirds, only 10% are sexually monogamous.<ref name="Morell1998">{{Cite journal | last1 = Morell | first1 = V. | title = EVOLUTION OF SEX:A New Look at Monogamy | doi = 10.1126/science.281.5385.1982 | journal = Science | volume = 281 | issue = 5385 | pages = 1982–1983 | year = 1998 | pmid = 9767050| s2cid = 31391458 }}</ref> Offspring are far more successful when both the male and the female members of the social pair contribute food resources.

The highest known frequency of reproductively successful extra-pair copulations are found among fairywrens ''[[Malurus splendens]]'' and ''[[Malurus cyaneus]]'' where more than 65% of chicks are fathered by males outside the supposed breeding pair.<ref name="Barash2001"/> This discordantly low level of genetic monogamy has been a surprise to biologists and zoologists, as social monogamy can no longer be assumed to determine how genes are distributed in a species.

''[[Elacatinus]]'', also widely known as neon gobies, also exhibit social monogamy. Hetereosexual pairs of fish belonging to the genus ''Elacatinus'' remain closely associated during both reproductive and non-reproductive periods, and often reside in same cleaning station to serve client fish.<ref>{{Cite journal |author1=Elizabeth A. Whiteman |author2=Isabelle M.Côté |title=Social monogamy in the Cleaning goby Elacatinus evelynae: ecological constraints or net benefit? |journal=Animal Behaviour |volume=66 |issue=2 |pages=281–291 |doi=10.1006/anbe.2003.2200 |s2cid=53176199 |url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aa72f08a94867a1d576e1d90640223c62458a6aa |access-date=2020-02-03 |archive-date=2020-10-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002174506/https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Social-monogamy-in-the-cleaning-goby-Elacatinus-or-Whiteman-C%C3%B4t%C3%A9/aa72f08a94867a1d576e1d90640223c62458a6aa |url-status=live }}</ref> Fish of this genus frequently mate with a new partner after they are widowed.

===Evolution in animals===
{{See also|Social monogamy in mammalian species}}
Socially monogamous species are scattered throughout the animal kingdom: A few insects, a few fish, about nine-tenths of birds, and a few mammals are socially monogamous.{{citation needed}} There is even a parasitic worm, ''[[Schistosoma mansoni]]'', that in its female-male pairings in the human body is monogamous.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.pt.2008.05.009 |vauthors=Beltran S, Boissier J |title=Schistosome monogamy: who, how, and why? |journal=Trends Parasitol. |volume=24 |issue=9 |pages=386–91 |pmid=18674968 }}</ref> The diversity of species with social monogamy suggests that it is not inherited from a common ancestor but instead evolved independently in many different species.{{citation needed}}

The low occurrence of social monogamy in [[placental mammals]] has been claimed{{by whom}} to be related to the presence or absence of estrus—or oestrus—the duration of sexual receptivity of a female.{{Citation needed}} This, however, does not explain ''why'' estrus females generally mate with any proximate male nor any correlation between sexual and social monogamy. Birds, which are notable for a high incidence of social monogamy, do not have estrus.

===Psychology===
{{empty section}}

===Genetic and neuroendocrine bases===
The [[prairie vole]] is an animal example for its monogamous social behaviour, since the male is usually socially faithful to the female, and shares in the raising of pups. The [[woodland vole]] is also usually monogamous. Another species from the same genus, the [[meadow vole]], has promiscuously mating males, and scientists have changed adult male meadow voles' behaviour to resemble that of prairie voles in experiments in which a single gene was introduced into the brain by a [[virus]].<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1038/nature02539|title=Enhanced partner preference in a promiscuous species by manipulating the expression of a single gene| year= 2004| last1= Lim| first1= Miranda M.| last2=Wang| first2= Zuoxin| last3= Olazábal| first3= Daniel E.| last4= Ren| first4= Xianghui |last5= Terwilliger |first5= Ernest F.|last6=Young| first6= Larry J.| journal= [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume= 429| issue= 6993| pages= 754–7 |pmid=15201909|bibcode=2004Natur.429..754L|s2cid=4340500}} Referenced in {{cite news| first= Sarah| last= Graham| date= 2004-06-17| url= http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gene-linked-to-lasting-lo| title= Gene Linked to Lasting Love in Voles| work= [[Scientific American]]| access-date= 2020-06-08| archive-date= 2012-10-18| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20121018190124/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gene-linked-to-lasting-lo| url-status= live}}</ref> 

The behaviour is influenced by the number of repetitions of a particular string of [[microsatellite]] [[DNA]]. Male prairie voles with the longest DNA strings spend more time with their mates and pups than male prairie voles with shorter strings.<ref>{{cite journal| doi= 10.1126/science.1111427|title=Microsatellite Instability Generates Diversity in Brain and Sociobehavioral Traits|year=2005|last1=Hammock|first1=E. A. D.| journal= Science| volume= 308| issue= 5728| pages= 1630–4| pmid=15947188|last2=Young|first2=LJ|bibcode=2005Sci...308.1630H|s2cid=18899853}} Summarized in {{cite news| first= Nicholas| last= Wade| url= https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/science/10behave.html| title= DNA of Voles May Hint at Why Some Fathers Shirk Duties| work= [[The New York Times]]| date= 2005-06-10| access-date= November 17, 2017| archive-date= 2014-11-08| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141108070833/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/science/10behave.html| url-status= live}}</ref> However, other scientists have disputed the gene's relationship to monogamy, and cast doubt on whether the human version plays an analogous role.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1073/pnas.0602380103|pmid=16832060 |title=Mammalian monogamy is not controlled by a single gene |year=2006 |last1=Fink|first1=S. |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]]|volume=103|issue=29|pages=10956–10960|pmc=1544156|bibcode=2006PNAS..10310956F |doi-access=free }}</ref> Physiologically, pair-bonding behavior has been shown to be connected to [[vasopressin]], [[dopamine]], and [[oxytocin]] levels, with the genetic influence apparently arising via the number of receptors for these substances in the brain; the pair-bonding behavior has also been shown in experiments to be strongly modifiable by administering some of these substances directly.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Carter |first1=C. Sue |last2=Perkeybile |first2=Allison M. |title=The Monogamy Paradox: What Do Love and Sex Have to Do With It? |journal=Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution |volume=6 |doi=10.3389/fevo.2018.00202 |pmid=31840025 |pmc=6910656 |issn=2296-701X|doi-access=free }}</ref>

The North American microtine rodent's (vole) complex social structure and social behavior has provided unique opportunities to study the underlying neural bases for monogamy and social attachment. Data from studies using the ''[[Microtus ochrogaster]]'' or prairie vole indicate that the neuroendocrine hormones, oxytocin (in female prairie voles) and vasopressin (in male prairie voles) play a central role in the development of affiliative connections during mating. The effects of [[Intracerebroventricular injection|intracerebroventricular]] administration of oxytocin and vasopressin have been shown to promote affiliative behavior in the prairie vole but not in similar, but non-monogamous montane voles.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Hammock |first1=Elizabeth A.D |last2=Young |first2=Larry J |title=Oxytocin, vasopressin and pair bonding: implications for autism |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences |volume=361 |issue=1476 |pages=2187–2198 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2006.1939 |issn=0962-8436 |pmc=1764849 |pmid=17118932}}</ref> This difference in neuropeptide effect is attributed to the location, density, and distribution of OT and AVP receptors.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last1=Tolekova |first1=Anna |url=https://www.intechopen.com/state.item.id |title=The Effects of Some Neuropeptides on Motor Activity of Smooth Muscle Organs in Abdominal and Pelvic Cavities |last2=Hadzhibozheva |first2=Petya |last3=Georgiev |first3=Tsvetelin |last4=Mihailova |first4=Stanislava |last5=Ilieva |first5=Galina |last6=Gulubova |first6=Maya |last7=Leventieva-Necheva |first7=Eleonora |last8=Milenov |first8=Kiril |last9=Kalfin |first9=Reni |publisher=IntechOpen |isbn=978-953-51-0740-8 |language=en}}</ref> Only in the prairie voles are OT and AVP receptors located along the mesolimbic dopamine reward pathway, presumably conditioning the voles to their mates odor while consolidating the social memory of the mating episode.<ref name=":0" /> This finding highlights the role of genetic evolution in altering the neuroanatomical distribution of receptors, resulting in certain neural circuits becoming sensitive to changes in [[neuropeptide]]s.<ref name=":1" />

==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=18em}}
* [[Affair]]
* [[Amatonormativity]]
* [[Human bonding]]
* [[Monogamy in Christianity]]
* [[Pair bonding]]
* [[Paternal care]]
* [[Sexual intercourse]]
* [[The seven-year itch]]
{{div col end}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Bibliography==
{{Refbegin|30em}}
* {{cite book |author= de Vaux R. O.P.|chapter=Marriage - 1. Polygamy and monogamy|title=Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions|publisher=Darton, Longman & Todd |location=London |year=1973 |pages=24–26 |isbn=978-0-232-51219-9}}
* {{cite book | author = John Paul II | title = Man and Woman He created Them. A Theology of the Body 1,2-4| location = Boston | publisher = Paoline Books & Media| year = 2006 | isbn = 978-0-8198-7421-4 | others = M. Waldstein (trans.)|pages= 132–133}}
* {{cite book |chapter=Marriage |title=Encyclopaedia Judaica |publisher=Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem — The MacMillan Company |location=Jerusalem-New York |year=1971 | volume = 11|pages= 1026–1051}}
* {{cite book |chapter=Monogamy |title=Encyclopaedia Judaica |publisher=Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem — The MacMillan Company |location=Jerusalem-New York |year=1971 | volume = 12|pages= 258–260}}
* Pinch Geraldine, ''Private Life in Ancient Egypt'' in: {{Cite book | title = Civilizations of the Ancient Near East |editor1=J. M. Sasson |editor2=J. Baines |editor3=G. Beckman |editor4=K. S. Rubinson (assist.) | volume = 1 |location=New York |publisher= Simon & Schuster Macmillan| year= 1995 | pages = 363–381 | isbn = 978-0-684-19720-3}}
* Stol Marten: ''Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia'', in: {{Cite book | title = Civilizations of the Ancient Near East |editor1=J. M. Sasson |editor2=J. Baines |editor3=G. Beckman |editor4=K. S. Rubinson (assist.) | volume = 1 |location=New York |publisher= Simon & Schuster Macmillan| year= 1995 | pages = 486–501 | isbn = 978-0-684-19720-3}}.
* {{cite book| last=Wojtyła| first=Karol| author-link=Pope John Paul II| chapter=Marriage. Monogamy and the indissolubility of Marriage| title=Love and Responsibility| year=1981| publisher=Ignatius Press| location=San Francisco| isbn=978-0-89870-445-7| pages=[https://archive.org/details/loveresponsibili00john/page/211 211–216]| chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/loveresponsibili00john| url=https://archive.org/details/loveresponsibili00john/page/211}}
{{Refend}}

==Further reading==
{{Refbegin|30em}}
* Barash, David P., and Lipton, Judith Eve. ''The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People''. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co./Henry Hold and Co., 2001. {{ISBN|0-8050-7136-9}}.
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1086/409721 |author=Kleiman DG |title=Monogamy in mammals |journal=Q Rev Biol |volume=52 |issue=1 |pages=39–69 |pmid=857268 |s2cid=25675086 }}
* {{cite journal |author=Lim, Miranda M. |title=Enhanced Partner Preference in a Promiscuous Species by Manipulating the Expression of a Single Gene |journal=Nature |volume=429 |issue=6993 |pages=754–7 |pmid=15201909 |doi=10.1038/nature02539 |display-authors=etal |bibcode=2004Natur.429..754L |s2cid=4340500}} 
* Reichard, Ulrich H., and Christophe Boesch (eds.). ''Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals''. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. {{ISBN|0-521-81973-3}}, {{ISBN|0-521-52577-2}}.
* {{cite book |title=Mean Genes: from Sex to Money to Food, Taming Our Primal Instincts |url=https://archive.org/details/meangenesfromsex00burn |url-access=registration |edition=First |last=Burnham, Phelan |first=Terry, Jay |author-link=Andrey Korotayev |publisher=Cambridge, MA: Perseus Pub. |location=Cambridge, MA |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-14-200007-6 }}
* {{cite journal |vauthors=Lathrop GM, Huntsman JW, Hooper AB, Ward RH |title=Evaluating pedigree data. II. Identifying the cause of error in families with inconsistencies |journal=Hum. Hered. |volume=33 |issue=6 |pages=377–89 |year=1983 |pmid=6585347 |doi=10.1159/000153406}}
* Roth, Martha T. ''[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/age-at-marriage-and-the-household-a-study-of-neobabylonian-and-neoassyrian-forms/2F3521F910D7A19788DD66FB428620FF Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of the Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180713202817/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/age-at-marriage-and-the-household-a-study-of-neobabylonian-and-neoassyrian-forms/2F3521F910D7A19788DD66FB428620FF }}'', "Comparative Studies in Society and History" 29 (1987), and ''Babylonian Marriage Agreements 7th–3rd Centuries BC'' (1989)
* Gabbatiss, Josh. ''[http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160213-why-pairing-up-for-life-is-hardly-ever-a-good-idea Why pairing up for life is hardly ever a good idea] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160322020333/http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160213-why-pairing-up-for-life-is-hardly-ever-a-good-idea }}'' (February 2016), ''[[BBC Earth]]''
{{Refend}}

==External links==

* [http://www.libchrist.com/sexed/mythmonogamy.html The Myth of Monogamy]
* [http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/misattributed_paternity.htm#philipp1973 UK website on childsupport and paternity with many links to studies of paternity, nonpaternity and pedigree error rates]
* [https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-is-monogamy Web MD page on Monogamy]

{{Human sexuality}}
{{Sexual identities}}
{{Sexual ethics}}
{{Types of marriages|state=autocollapse}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Monogamy| ]]
[[Category:Sexual fidelity]]

Bharatpedia - User contributions [en]

Monogamy