Bot: robot, dating maintenance tag modified: {{Citation needed}}, {{Dubious}} and more

2023-06-30T11:26:38Z

robot, dating maintenance tag modified: {{Citation needed}}, {{Dubious}} and more

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 30 June 2023
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* ''genetic monogamy'' refers to sexually monogamous relationships with genetic evidence of [[Paternity (law)\|paternity]].<ref name="Reichard,2003"/>		* ''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"/>		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="Reichard,2003"/><ref name="Low, 2003"/>

	Marital monogamy may be further distinguished between:		Marital monogamy may be further distinguished between:
Line 59:		Line 59:
	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>		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>		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===		===Cultural arguments===
Line 114:		Line 114:
	<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>		<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}}		{{Dubious\|date= June 2023\|reason=Section needs citation of and argumentation from early Christian primary texts and secondary scholarship on the subject}}

	===Contemporary societies===		===Contemporary societies===
Line 209:		Line 209:
	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}}		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.		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\|date= June 2023}} 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===		===Psychology===

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

2022-03-17T05:57:53Z

Just finished drafting a new article.

Show changes

Monogamy - Revision history

Bot: robot, dating maintenance tag modified: {{Citation needed}}, {{Dubious}} and more

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