3.2 Social context and monogamy

Show description|Hide description

This is an image of three men sat on a bench. The image is taken from behind the bench with the men facing away from the camera. The man in the middle sits closely to the man on the right, looking at him affectionately, whilst the man on the right and the man on the left hold hands behind his back.

In contrast to those who seek to uncover the biological/genetic foundations of human monogamy/infidelity, there are researchers and theoreticians whose interest is in the variable (temporal and geographical) ways that monogamy and infidelity manifest as a result of their social context. An example of this type of research comes from studies which have sought to improve the effectiveness of AIDS prevention campaigns by getting a better understanding of the socio-cultural contexts for extramarital sex of various communities (e.g. Smith, 2007; Tawfik and Watkins, 2007).

Findings include that in rural Papua New Guinea, sexual monogamy may not be seen as necessary for a happy marriage (Wardlow, 2007); that in the slums of Nairobi the range of types of marital status, including polygamous, influences women’s rates of sexual monogamy (Hattori and Dodoo, 2007); that in rural Mexico, men define ‘safe sex’ in terms of reputational not HIV risk, with the result that sex with other men is perceived as lower risk than sex with women (Hirsch et al., 2007). The point of these disparate examples is to underline how social-cultural geography influences how sexual infidelity is understood, defined and enacted.

Another way to study monogamy is to study (typically ‘Western’, often English-speaking) subgroups who practise non-monogamy. In practice this has often meant a focus on people who self-define as ‘swingers’ or ‘polyamorous’; the distinction is that typically swingers engage in ‘sexual’ non-monogamy while polyamorous people look for relationships which are consensually both sexually and emotionally non-monogamous.

Researchers have also focussed on sexual minority populations, particularly gay men, with the understanding that outside heterosexual norms people can, and do, have the opportunity to conduct relationships differently – including practising consensual non-monogamy. Moors et al. (2014) provide an example of this type of research with their paper titled: ‘It’s not just a gay male thing: Sexual minority women and men are equally attracted to consensual non-monogamy’.

In Activity 3.1 we looked at British research which suggests a hardening of attitudes against infidelity. However, there is other evidence that consensual non-monogamy may be becoming more common. A US study based on close to 9000 young single adults, found that more than one in five had engaged in consensual non-monogamy at some point in their life. While men and non-heterosexual people were more likely to report engagement in consensual non-monogamy, lots of other variables including age, ethnicity, income, education level, and religious and political affiliation, were not associated with having engaged in consensual non-monogamy (Haupert et al., 2016).

To check your understand of the various theories for monogamy and infidelity reviewed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 try the following matching activity.