Talk:Monogamy

On body dimorphism

I disagree with the assertion that the comparatively small body dimorphism between the sexes indicates monogomous behaviour in humans. It is clear we are a polygynous species, anthropology and biology demonstrate as such. Whilst the majority of polygynous mammals have evolved substantial physical differences between the sexes, it doesn't follow that because we haven't, we must be monogomous. Our intelligence has always been the single most decisive force in separating humanity from the animal kingdom. Could it not simply be that it is the quickest of wit who wins the women? Why must evolution have selected our physical strength as the ultimate determination of our sexual prowess, when our minds were ripe for competition and a collective advance of the intellect? Sexual selection chose intelligence over strength in humanity, compared to our fellow beasts who without intelligence must suffice with the vulgur pursuits of battle. Strange that men continue to wage war. Perhaps sexual selection kept her eye on physical prowess after all! (Matt1705 (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Where is that asserted? I can't find anything in the article. Oh and btw, intelligence is used for war in lieu of strength. Fresheneesz (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a point worth mentioning

It is logically impossible for men and women to have different rates of extramarital sex - well, that is assuming that large numbers of men don't secretly have sex with eachother and not tell anybody about it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.188.47 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No. You're wrong. Its more or less impossible for the number of incidences of extramarital sex to be different between sexes. However, if say married women have sex with tons of unmarried guys - its easy to see how that doesn't have to be the case for the opposite sex. Not everyone's married. duh.. Fresheneesz (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are Humans A Monogamous Species?

Note also that unlike some other species, Homo sapiens is not "automatically" monogamous, and the existence of a legally monogamous relationship (marriage) is no guarantee of a monogamous one in fact. Some societies have formally or semiformally recognized that married persons may have other sexual partners outside of the marriage relationship, while in societies that do not condone this practice it is nevertheless not unusual.

Homo sapiens isn't at all monogamous. It is naturally polygynous and a lot of anthropological and biological evidence supports it. --Taw

New Comment: This is a very controversial statement.

Let me preface my criticisms by saying I'm arguing that social monogamy is natural and prevalent in humans. I'm not arguing that sexual fidelity is natural and prevalent. It's critically important to distinguish between social monogamy and sexual fidelity. Social monogamy just means two people live together, acquire food together, manage a household together, have sex with each other, and raise offspring together. They do not have to be sexually exclusive with one another in order to be socially monogamous. The fact that most monogamous species are socially monogamous and not sexually fidelitous is is one of the more interesting biological findings about mating systems in recent years. I'm arguing this same pattern is predominant in humans.

While a large majority of societies express acceptance of polygyny, a large majority of males in those same societies do not actually practice polygyny. Polygyny tends to be something practiced by social elites and wealthy males. Some estimate that only 5-10% of men in the 'polygynous' societies actually have more than one wife simultaneously, which implies that somewhere around 90-95% of males practice social monogamy. It's also interesting to note that the Standard Cultural Sample, which included 186 of the best described pre-industrial societies from various regions around the world, classifies cultures as fully polygynous if 20% or more the males engage in polygyny. This means up to 80% of males could be practicing social monogamy and the culture would still be classified as fully polygynous. Even Murdock, who authored the ethonographic atlas so frequently cited as evidence of the prevalence of polygyny, once wrote: "An impartial observer employing the criterion of numerical preponderance, consequently, would be compelled to characterize nearly every known human society as monogamous, despite the preference for and frequency of polygyny in the overwhelming majority." (Murdock, G.P., 1949, Social Structure, pp. 27-28, New York, Free Press)

Human anatomy argues against a high prevalence of polygyny in our recent evolutionary history. Polygynous species tend to exhibit a large amount of body dimorphism because males have to aggressively compete for female mates. This is true for birds as well as mammals. In polygynous primates (e.g., baboons, orangutans, and gorillas), males are roughly twice the size of females. Socially monogamous species, on the other hand, show very little body dimorphism between males and females. Human males and females show very little dimorphism compared to other primate species. Human males and females have dimoprhism that is about equal to or less than the dimorphism shown in chimpanzees, which are clearly not polygynous. This suggests social monogamy has been around long enough in the human evolutionary heritage to affect body characteristics. Controversy has arisen concerning the dimoprhism shown in australopithecines. Early evidence suggested large dimorphism, but more recent analyses have cast those conclusions in doubt. If the evidence tips in favor of relatively little dimorphism in australopithecines, that would argue for social monogamy dating back 2-3 millions years in human evolution.

Another aspect of human anatomy inconsistent with polygyny is testes size. Males in polygynous species tend to have small testes relative to their body size because their sperm are not competing with the sperm of other males for reproductive success. Gorillas, for example, have proportionally small testes because they are polygynous, while chimpanzees have proportionally large testes because they are promiscuous. Humans males have testes that are intermediate between gorillas and chimpanzees. Recent studies of DNA related to sperm have also lent support sperm competition in human males. Evidence for a moderate amount of sperm competition in human males is more consistent with a pattern of social monogamy plus occasional extra-pair sexual relationships than with a pattern of polygyny.

It is by no means clear from anthropoligical evidence or biological evidence that human beings are predominantly polygynous. In fact, a close inspection of the evidence suggests the natural pattern for human beings is a high prevalence of social monogamy with a moderate prevalence of extra-pair sexual relationships.

Never heard a better joke for most (statistically) humans are trying to behave monogamous, even when they are obviously not mg.

The anthropological and biological data supports what the researchers want it to support. Some humans are inclined toward monogamy, while others are inclined toward polygamy, even asexuality. To take statistics indicating a high incidence of extra-pair copulation or any other such data and apply them to the whole of mankind is to discount all those who deviate from that norm. The nature of a sapient species is not so easily defined. More succinctly, H. sapiens is not monogamous, but neither is it polygamous. -- MLS

---

This sentence apparently means "sexual partner" rather than "spouse":

The practice of restricting contact to a single spouse for a limited period of time, then ending that relationship before beginning another (though in practice there may be a brief overlapping time-period) is refered to a "serial monogamy."

Since monogamy is a term that applies to sexual relationships in the animal kingdom (wolves, swans, etc.) in general, and only in a specific context to marriage, I'm of the opinion that the article should begin with the biological and then give the social example. Biology has been around longer (arguably) ;-)

Not only that, but in the dating world, the word "monogamy" gets used all the time to refer to a relationship in which both parties, though unmarried, have an exclusive arrangement and thus agree not to see anyone else. -- Egern

Also, doesn't the gamy part refer to sex or reproduction, and not necessarily marriage?

this is a usage question and cannot be answered by an appeal to etymology. Nor is there one correct or best usage. How people use the term depends on why they are using the terms.

When people use "monogamy" to compare and contrast different human societies, they are generally interested in social variation; therefore they compare and contrast different marriage practices. Conceptually, "monogamy" means the custom of having only one spouse at a time, and is contrasted to polygamy (multiple spouses). In this context, monogamy has nothing to do with sexual fidelity or sexual practices; there are many societies anthropologists and sociologists characterize as monogamous yet where many people have multiple sexual partners.

When people use "monogamy" to compare and contrast different animal species (including human beings), on the other hand, they are not intersted in cultural institutions (obviously, many other ansimal species do not have culture, as anthropologists define it); rather, they are comparing and contrasting mating practices.

obviously one can use the term monagamy in either sense when talking about people. But bno one usage should be priviliged, it all depends on what point you are trying to make in what context. -- SR

---

Does the external link to The Virtues of Promiscuity really belong in the monogamy article? It's interesting enough, but why is it here? Wouldn't it be a better fit elsewhere? -- Tlotoxl

I agree; the link would be much more appropriate to an article on polygamy. Alternatively, the link would be a better fit if the Monogamy article itself addressed the relative advantages of monogamy and polygamy. --MLS

Changed the statement on homo sapiens not being naturally monogamous. Using the term "natural" creates a surprisingly large number of philosophical assumptions. Better to bypass that statement and just state the fact that legal monogamy is no guarantee of sexual monogamy.

Roadrunner 04:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Gibbons

Why are Gibbons monogamous? How do they "learn" to behave monogamous without a pope? mk 20050910

No one is suggesting gibbons "learn" to be monogamous, I don't think. A number of species are monogamous, though there is usually a greater or larger amount of what we call "playing around". Its still a matter of discussion among ecologists, but most believe there are two predisposing factors:

1: If females are in short supply, like strong male competition or sparse population, it enables the male to keep at least one female to himself.

2: In a difficult environment if paternal provisioning or defence is helpful then it benefits the female. Chevin 18:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and Offtopic Problems

Is it just me, or is this article extremely focused on polygamy, with little discussion of monogamy? I'm not saying one is superior, just that an article on monogamy should probably be ABOUT monogamy, with links to related topics.

Switzerland, November 11, 2005 I could not agree more with the last commment. Reality is tough to deal with when we start from the wrong assumptions (and even there...); besides, what's the point about trying to change the meaning of words under the pretense of "political correctness", if not to impose your views to a larger group?

Agreed, this article needs a major overhaul. It reads like it was written by someone with an anti-monogamy agenda. Suggest wiping the slate clean and starting with a basic structure of "Monogamy can mean various things in various circumstances. The most common North American usage is a very loose idea of a romantic relationship between two people who have mutually agreed to not have romantic and sexual liaisons with anyone other than eachother." and then go on from there to discuss the anthropological "social monogamy" the zoological case of wild animals that mate for life, and a third section with alternate relationship models critical of monogamy in human society, with links to the articles on polygamy, polyamory, polyfidelity, asexuality, and swinging? Anyone else have any thoughts? Jason

I agree. Obviously, discussion of polygamy should take place in the article on polygamy. It should only be referenced in this article as an antonym, and other discussion should be on the topic of monogamy. James_Aguilar (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Animal monogamy needs its own page

If you look at how the categories are evolving, I think that you will see that "Animal monogamy" is way up in the "Sexuality" area and the "Human Sexualily" and (Human) "Sexuality and Society" are the big dividing line. It is very much like the relationship between the Alcohol/Alochols/Ethanol categories. Once you add humans, the complexity splays out. The only way to make sense of this is to make human involvement the dividing line. -- Fplay 17:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Practicing monogamy doesn't preclude a polyamorous orientation

I disagree with the point above that because 80-90% of males in a polygynous society practice monogamy, therefore these societies (and humanity at large) should be categorized as monogamous. It seems to me that the defining characteristic of a polygynous, polygamous, polyamorous, etc society (or individual relationship) is its acceptance of the appropriateness of multiple simultaneous relationships, rather than the actual current practice. Consider by analogy singles in American society. In practice, they're not even monogamous - they're practicing chastity, or perhaps onogamy would be a suitable term? But we don't disqualify them from being thought of as monogamous - it's their belief in monogamy as the appropriate relationship structure that determines whether or not they're monogamous. Likewise, if an individual or society accepts that multiple spouses or loving relationships are acceptable or desirable, the fact that the current number of spouses happens to be 1 doesn't seem to make someone monogamous (in my mind).

Of course, since most traditional societies are either polygynous or polyandrous, but generally not both, the number of people who actually have multiple spouses is naturally very limited. But if a modern society were to move to a gender-egalitarian form of polyamory or polygamy, the proportion of people participating in plural marriage could become quite high.

- Steve Anderson, 12 January 2006

Why shouldn't a society in which 80-90% of marriages are socially monogamous be categorized as as socially monogamous? This seems like an attempt to classify societies based on impression management (what someone wants people to think about human nature) rather than measured observation (what the numbers turn out to be when measurement are taken).

The real question, however, is why there are relatively few polygynous marriages even in societies that allow them. The answer to this question is complex and involves many factors. Some important factors that favor the formation of socially monogamous relationships include increased parental demands due to the altriciality of infants, the economics of polygyny (e.g., men simply can't afford it most of the time), and psychological processes of attachment and bonding (e.g., the need for bonding between parents and infants that doesn't get turned off in our adult romantic relationships). These factors don't go away just because one adopts a philosophy of gender-egalitarian polyamory.

Let's Get This Article Rewritten

Okay, I hope we can get some agreement on three points.

First, biologists have recently discovered that many animals once presumed monogamous in fact have extra-couple sexual matings, sometimes leading to offspring. This has led a number of biologists to begin distinguishing "social monogamy," "sexual monogamy," and "reproductive monogamy." These three kinds of monogamy can occur in different combinations. If anyone doubts these claims, I can provide several academic references where they can read about it. These distinctions would probably be good to include in the definition of monogamy.

Second, there is genuine dispute about monogamy and human nature. Some of this dispute arises from incomplete scientific data. But some of this dispute also arises from a struggle over self-identity and social acceptance. To say that monogamy is "natural" or an intrinsic part of "human nature" implies that people who are sexually non-monogamous are somehow deviant or unnatural. This is not good for the self-identity or social acceptance of sexually non-monogamous people. To say that sexual non-monogamy is "natural" or an intrinsic part of "human nature" implies that people who are sexually monogamous are victims of socialization and behaving unnaturally. This is not good for the self-identity of sexually monogamous people (social acceptance not being such an issue for the majority group). So, people pick the claim that makes their own lifestyle out to be the "natural" one, and defend that claim like a religious belief. I don't think we should try to resolve this dispute. I think we should present both sides of the scientific evidence, and discuss the underlying social struggle over self-identity and social acceptance, and let readers draw their own conclusions. The section on monogamy and human nature should describe an ongoing dispute.

Third, an article about monogamy should be about monogamy and not about various forms of non-monogamy. The current section on human monogamy does in fact spend much more time on sexually non-monogamous lifestyles. Those are worthwhile topics. But they belong on other pages (we could link to those other pages as related topics).

If there is general agreement about these points, I volunteer to rewrite a new draft for the article.

Kelly

I am confused about the distinction you are attempting to make regarding sexual and reproductive monogamy; if you could clarify, that would be be appreciated. I would also be very happy to see a draft to this effect. You might think about writing one in a sandbox in your user space and then asking for comments before integrating it with the primary article. (Or Be bold and go for direct inclusion). -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I will write a draft and offer it for review by interested parties prior to modifying the actual article.

The distinction between sexual and reproductive monogamy is not mine, actually. It's in the biological literature. Basically it has to do with the fact that not all sexual encounters result in offspring. Reproductive monogamy is sometimes called genetic monogamy. Suppose the partners of a socially monogamous pair engage in extra-pair sexual activities. The extra-pair sexual activities constitute sexual non-monogamy. If the extra-pair sexual activities do not result in offspring, then the pair is:

• socially monogamous
• sexually non-monogamous
• reproductively (or genetically) monogamous

If, on the other hand, the extra-pair sexual activities do result in offspring, the pair is:

• socially monogamous
• sexually non-monogamous
• reproductively (or genetically) non-monogamous

I hope that helps clarify the distinction.

Here's a quote from a recent academic book on monogamy:

"Social monogamy refers to a male and female's social living arrangement (e.g., shared use of a territory, behaviour indicative of a social pair, and/or proximity between a male and female) without inferring any sexual interactions or reproductive patterns. In humans, social monogamy equals monogamous marriage. Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male based on observations of sexual interactions. Finally, the term genetic monogamy is used when DNA analyses can confirm that a female-male pair reproduce exclusively with each other. A combination of terms indicates examples where levels of relationships coincide, e.g., sociosexual and sociogenetic monogamy describe corresponding social and sexual, and social and genetic monogamous relationships, respectively." (Reichard, 2003: 4).

Reichard, U.H. (2003). Monogamy: Past and present. In U.H. Reichard and C. Boesch (Eds.), Monogamy: Mating strategies and parnternships in birds, humans, and other mammals (pp.3-25).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

I really think that approaching this as a scientific question misses the boat entirely. I think that the stuff you're talking about would be appropriate to an article titled, to borrow from the book you quote, "Mating Strategies." To my mind that would a be a neutral, non-sociological zoological article about the various behaviors of different animals in their attempts to breed. To my mind, Monogamy is something unique to human sexuality and is a social value that has to be talked about in sociological terms. Attempts to justify one behavior over another, which is what the current articles on human sexuality are bogged down in, particularly by reference to other species are not particularly informative. To be truly NPOV, the article should note that as a value, Monogamy should be described, it should be noted that it was a valued social good in some societies, including modern mainstream western culture, and it should be noted that there are some societies historically and presently that do not value monogamy as a social good and instead place value on the integrity of some other sort of family structure. arguments for and against the current valuation of monogamy in western culture belong more in the articles about those movements in society attempting to challenge the status quo, like polyamory, swinging, etc. Links to those articles should be provided from this article, and this article should merely note that at present that at present there are several alternative sexual relationship structures which have been proposed by various groups and individuals to supplant monogamy as the normative model for western culture.JFQ 17:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to several points:

• The distinction between the types of monogamy is a small section of the overall article. It's an important distinction that can help in understanding human monogamy. People who are socially monogamous may or may not be sexually monogamous. I don't think that's a controversial viewpoint. The terminology introduced in that section helps us talk about variations in human monogamy.
• Sociology is a science. To take a sociological perspective is taking a scientific perspective. The draft actually draws very little on biology. It instead relies heavily on a variety of anthropological, psychological, and institutional information sources.
• You say monogamy should be described. The draft offers a broad definition of monogamy, followed by a delineation of three types of monogamy observed both in animals and humans, then reviews the incidence and psychology of monogamy in humans. The phenomenon of monogamy in humans is being described.
• I'll provide additional links in the related topics section that point to alternative family and mating structures (e.g., family, polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, and so forth). The article already mentions that 80-85% percent of cultures allow polygyny, and the article already contains criticims of monogamy as an ideal family or mating structure.
• Why should arguments about the value of monogamy only be the province of pages discussing challenges to the status quo? Monogamy is the very status quo they're trying to challenge. Monogamy is at the very heart of those arguments. Why is it better that authors of articles dealing with challenges to monogamy are the only ones who get to speak on the topic? How does letting just one side speak to the topic promote NPOV? Finally, a person doing research on monogamy should be made aware that people disagree about the value of monogamy, and that person may not visit the other articles challenging monogamy (e.g., their school report is on monogamy and not swinging or polyamory).
• If you have concerns about a POV being pushed in the draft, please let me know exactly what you see as the offending paragraphs and exactly what POV you believe they are pushing.

Discussion After the June 14th Revision

About the Revision

• There appeared to be sufficient material for several articles, so this article now serves to point readers to appropriate Wikipedia articles.
• Information about forms of relationships other than monogamy belong in the many Wikipedia articles devoted to poly relationships. Links to articles dealing with other forms of relationships have been included in all the monogamy articles.
• Obviously, I exercised the Wikipedia philosophy of being bold in making changes. I fully expect collaborative changes to the articles. kc62301

Religion and values of monogamy

The religious comments added to the description of the article on Value of Monogamy were not referenced to a credible source, which Wikipedia requires as part of its policy on verifiability. The article on Value of Monogamy is an appropriate place for religious discussion of monogamy. Please read the Value of Monogamy article first, and be sure that whatever improvements are made are based on verifiable sources. Kelly 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Monogamy as a virtue?

I find the classification of Monogamy in Category:Virtues a bit strange. Fidelity is a virtue, is just a condition... -Rdavout 09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean it is not a virtue? Well, even so, it is commonly held to be that by some people, so it might still be held there. As long as it is also held under an orientations (better term than 'condition') category to show the opposite viewpoint, it should be fine. Tyciol 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Monoamory redirect

I don't like that Monoamory redirects here, it deserves it's own article. Monogamy and Polygamy have often come to imply marriage, legal or otherwise. Amory refers more to love. Marriage is a bond meant to imply dedicated amory, although really, it has a separate meaning in loveless marriages. Amory does not require marriage, and cannot exist without love while marriage easily can. Thoughts? Consider how polyamory and polygamy have separate articles already. Tyciol 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Do it. Split them. Stevage 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Compliment

I just wanted to say what a great page this is. With the 'read more' links, you've really summarised a huge amount of material, and structured it very well. Even the Talk page is so well structured! --Duncan 23:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. I learn best about what something is through learning what it is not. The 'fluid relationships' bullet is very informative, but I wish I'd heard about it from a resource other than an encyclopedia. Maybe CNN needs to start consulting wikipedia for fresh stories. ^o^ 75.24.210.191 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No history

Disappointing to see that this article treats monogamy almost exclusively as a sociobiological matter, while completely neglecting its history as a social institution. The medieval Church played a huge role in establishing monogamy as the norm in Western countries, as you can find described in, for example, the work of Georges Duby. There's the ideal of companionate marriage coming from the (largely Protestant) bourgeoisie, and Romantic ideals dating from the late 18th century, to name just a few other influences.--WadeMcR 21:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• • There used to be paragraphs briefy describing the contents of the other essays on monogamy (see the related links). But, someone must have felt it is bad to let readers know about these other essays, so he or she deleted the paragraphs. The fact that anyone can be an editor means idiots can be editors. One of the major flaws of Wikipedia.

I'm not at all sure that the xtians established monogamy as the norm in Western countries. Monogamy was normative among the pre-xtian Romans and Celts. Qemist (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Biology vs. sociology (and Anthropocentrism POV, added by 195.49.248.147 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

The biological perspective is that humans are "animals", specifically mammals (a type of primate, to be precise).

But sociologically, and in most general discussions, humans are not animals.

I think that discussions of social relations should take the sociological perspective.

When listing the types of mammals in a biology article, primates should include homo sapiens as a species. But that's the only appropriate context for that designation. In English, nearly everyone in all other contexts acknowledges a distinction between:

• human beings
• all other living creatures

Let's follow established usage. --Uncle Ed 15:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Someone is wrong on the internet" comes to mind :). The thing is that "the established usage" is heavily anthropocentric. This distinction between human beings and all other living creatures is simply a cultural construct. But then again, Wikipedia is a product of our culture, so I'd expect it to be culturally biased. Still that doesn't stop me from saying that Anthropocentrism is not NPOV. I'd really like to see homo sapiens listed under primates. -195.49.248.147 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And of course sociology sees humans as special, because humans are it's object of study. Sociology has nothing to do with non-human animals. But biology studies all life and it clearly says that humans are animals. -195.49.248.147 (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Human being are naturally polygamous

Should this be noted in the article?--68.149.181.145 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra-pair copulations

The first reference is a link to an outside webpage that is nonscientific and does not cite any sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.176.178 (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this article way too short?

and why is half of the article about animals? What about the role it played in history of various cultures and its current status? Arguments in favor and against it? If there are separate articles for them, I think they need to be mentioned and linked to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.235.110 (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be lacking any information about human monogamy. The variations in the degree to which humans have practiced monogamy, both in time and between cultures, are surely worthy of note. Is there some wiki-taboo I don't know about? Qemist (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

biological basis

Just an idea. Maybe this article could do with information about the biological bases for monogamy, or evidence for it (which is probably relevant, considering the arguments of some, without any evidence, that monogamy is a cultural thing). Topics such as attachment, companionate love, the limbic system (bonding), oxytocin, jealousy in relationships, etc etc.. Also the obvious evolutionary basis, in that parents have incentive to know that their children are theirs (genetically), coupled with the fact that humans are the most helpless of all mammals after birth -- when humans evolved, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for a mother to have a child, take care of it, and at the same time provide food to feed both of them. If a father has an attachment to the mother, there is an obvious increase in the probability that he will help care for the mother and child and thus make the child more likely to reach adulthood. Peoplesunionpro (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge from lots of article

I've merged a bunch of different monogamy related articles here - because this page was too small for such a huge topic. Many things need to have a better organization - and the psycology section needs some summay content from its main article. I'd appreciate any help. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)