The more we evolve we base our lives and decisions on logic (or at least we claim to) and we

start looking more and more as happy as a machine in our search for happiness.

"Поведенчески отклонения породени от социалните представи и изисквания за

сексуално поведение в контекста на моногамията, полигамията и серийната
моногамия."

"Sex is hereditary. If your parents never had it...chances are you won't either."
-- Joseph Fischer

Сексуалните отношения са наследствени. Ако родителите ти никога не са имали

такива… шансовете са, че и ти няма да имаш.

Увод

Дефиниция на понятията

1. Моногамия
2. Серийна моногамия
3. Полигамия
4. Социални концепции
5. Психично здраве

Исторически постановки

1. Развитие на моногамията в исторически аспект

- Животните и сексуалните и социални порядки
- Различните националности, култури, митове и т.н.
- Съвременно разбиране
2. Развитие на полигамията в исторически аспект
- Животните и сексуалните и социални порядки
- Различните националности, култури, митове и т.н.
- Съвременно разбиране
3. Развитие на серийната моногамия в исторически аспект
- Животните и сексуалните и социални порядки
- Различните националности, култури, митове и т.н.
- Съвременно разбиране

Теоретични постановки

1. Психоанализа
2. Емоционална интелигентност
3. Социология
- Религия
- Емпирични данни
 - Законодателство
- Обществени норми

Теза

1. Влияние на обществото върху индивидуалния избор за сексуални отношения

- Семейна среда
- Културна среда
- Работна среда
- Религиозна среда
- Приятелски кръг
- Влияние
- Медии
- изкуство
2. Влияние на личностните характеристики върху избора на сексуални отношения
- Темперамент
- Интелект
- Ценностна система
- Емоционална интелигентност
- Възраст
- Пол
- Тип емоционалност
3. Изследване върху психологичните характеристики на моногамните индивиди
4. Изследване върху психологичните характеристики на полигамните индивиди
5. Изследване върху психологичните характеристики на серийната моногамия

Заключение

Моногамията е вид взаимоотношение, при което индивида има само един партньор.
Тази връзка може да бъде с определена продължителност или доживотна. Ако
индивида участва във връзка с един партньор, след което връзката бива прекратена и
започне връзка с друг пртньор – това се нарича серийна моногамия. В контраст с
моногамията са полигамията, полиандрията и полиаморията. Термина „моногамия“ се
използва както за връзките между хора, така и за някои животински видове.

Обща информация

От голямо значение е да бъде ясно изразена номенклатурата на термина „моногамия“,

понеже учените го използват във връзка с различни типове отношения. Биолозите,
биолози-антрополози и поведенческите рколози често използват термина моногамия в
смисъл на сексуална, ако не генетична, моногамия. Съвременните биолози-
изследователи, които използват еволюционната терия се отнасят към човешката
моногамия, както към тази при останалите животински видове. Те постулират следните
четири аспекта на моногамията:
  Брачната моногамия се отнася до брака между двама човека.
 Социалната моногамия се отнася до двама партньора, които живеят заедно, имат
сексуални взаимоотношения един с друг и си сътрудничат при придобиване на
основни ресурси, като подслон, храна и пари.
 Сексуална моногамия се отнася до двама партньора, които имат сексуално
отношения само по между си и с никого другого.
 Генетичната моногамия се отнася до сексуално моногамно взаимоотношения с
генетично доказателство за бащинство. [3]

Когато културни или социални антрополози и други социолози използват термина

моногамия, значението е социална или брачна моногамия. Брачната моногамия би
могла да се разграничава според:.[2][3]

1. Брак веднъж в живота;

2. Брак с един човек по едно и също време (серийна моногамия), което е различно
от двубрачие или полигамия;[1]

Моногамията има различни аспекти, изучавани съответно от различни науки –

например законовите аспекти се изучават от правистите, докато философските от
философите – антрополози и религиозните философи, както и от теолозите.

Етимология

Думата моногмия издва от гръцкото μονός /монос/, което означава сам и γάμος /гамос/,
което означава брак.[1]

Честота на моногамията при хората

Разпределение на социалната моногамия

Според Етнографския атлас от 1,231 общества забелязано по света, 186 са моногамни,

453 понякога са пологамни, 588 по-често упражняват полигамия и 4 упражняват
полиандрия.[6] Това изследване, обаче няма предвид отношението между населиението
на тези общества и че действителната практика на полигамия сред толерантните
общества би могла всъщност да е доста ниска, с по-голямата част от кандидатите
желаещи да практуват полигамия, участващи в моногамни бракове. [7]

Много общества, които ние смятаме за моногамни всъчност позволяват лесен развод. В
много западни общества процента на разводи достига 50 %. Тези, които се женят
отново го правят средно по три пъти. По този начин развод и нова женитба се
превръщат в серийна моногамия, т.е. много бракове, но само по един легален партньор
на веднъж. Това може да бъде интерпретирано като форма на множествено
размножаване, както в тези общества, доминирани от семейства, оглавявани от жени в
Карибите, Мавритските острови и Бразилия, където се наблюдфава честа ротация на
неженените партньори. Като цяло това са 16 % до 24 % от „моногамната“ категория. [8]

Разпространение на сексуалната моногамия

Разпространението на сексуалната моногамия може грубо да се прогнозира според

процента на хора встъпили в брак, които нямат извънбрачни сексуални
взаимоотношения. Стандратната Междукултурна Извдка описва количеството
извънбрачни сексулни връзки между мъже и жени в над 50 пре-индустриални
общества.[9][10] Колочеството извънбрачни връзки на мъже е описано като
„универсално“ в 6 общества, „средно“ в 29 общества, „случайно“ в 6 обшества и
„необичайно“ в 15 общества. Изследването поддържа теорията, че количеството
извънбрачен секс в различните общества и при различните полове варира.

Скорошни проучвания, проведени сред не-западни нации също установяват културни и

полови различия що се отнася до извънбрачния секс. Проучване на сексуалното
поведение в Тайланд, Танзания и Кот д'Ивоар показва, че 16 % до 34 % от мъжете
взимат участие е извънбрачни сексуални отношения, докато много по-малка част от
жените го правят.[11] Проучвания в Нигерия откриват, че около 47% до 53 % от мъжете
и 18 % до 36 % от жените участват в извънбрачни сексуални отношения.[12][13]
Проучване от 1999 година на двойките встъпили в брак или живеещи заедно в
Зимбабве открива, че 38 % от мъжете и 13 % от жените са имали извънбрачни
сексуални отношения през последните 12 месеца. [14]

Проблема за извънбрачния секс е често изследван в Съединените Щати. Много

проучвания касаещи извънбрачните сексуални отношения в САЩ ползват удобни
образци. „Удобен образец“ означава, че запитването се предоставя на всеки, който е
лесно достижим (доброволци студенти или читетели на списание, например). Тези
„удобни образци“ не рефлектират населението на САЩ като цяло, което може да
предизвика сериозни отклонения в резултатите от проучването. И съотвентно не е
учудващо, че проучванията, касаещи извънбрачния секс в САЩ дават доста различни
резултати. Тези проучвания съобщават, че около 12 % до 26 % от омъжените жени и 15
% до 43 % от женените мъже имат извънбрачни сексуални връзки.[15][16][17] Единственият
начин, обаче, да се извлекат научно точни данни относно извънбрачните сексуални
взаимоотношения е да се използват образци, които са национално представителни. Три
проучвания използват нционално представителни образци и те откриват, че около 10 %
до 15 % от жените и 20% до 25 % от мъжете имат извънбрачни сексуални отношения.[18]
[19][20]

Изследване проведено от Колийн Хофон върху 566 хомосексуални мъжки двойки от

Сан Франсиско разкрива, че 45 % имат моногамни връзки. Изследването е субсидирано
от Националният Институт за Психично.[21] Кампанията за Човешки Права, обаче
базирайки се на изследване проведено от Института Рокуей разкрива, че младите GLBT
искат да прекарат живота си като възрастни в дълготрайно връзки, отглеждайки деца.
По-точно над 80 % от изледваните хомосексуални индивиди очакват да са в моногамна
връзка след 30тата си годишнина. [22]

Най-голямата част от хората в брак остават моногамни по време на брачните си

отношения. Броя на хората в брак, които имат извънбрачни сексулани отношения
никога не надвишава 50 % в изледванията, които са извършени сред големи или
национално обхващаши образци. Все пак честотата на сексуланата моногамия варира
според културите – хората в някои култури са сексуално по-моногамни от тези в други.

Разпространение на генетичната моногамия

Честотата на генетичната моногамия може да се определи според броя на

извънбрачното бащинство. Чифтосването извън двойката е тип смесен вид на
чифтосване при моногамни видове. Докато моногамията се случва, когато един
индивид от мъжки пол избере да се чифтоса единствено с един индивид от женски пол,
като формират дългосрочна връзка и съединяват усилията си да отгледат потомството;
чифтосването извън двойката се случва, когато един от тези индивиди се чифтосва
извън двойката. Колко е честа генетичната моногамия може да се определи според
честотата на бащинството извън двойката, т.е. когато потомството отгледано от
моногамна двойка е продукт от това, че майката се е чифтосала с друг мъж. Честотата
на бащинството извън двойката не е изследвана особено екстенсивно сред хората.
Доста от докладите за ивънбрачно бащинство се основават на слухове, анекдоти и
непубликувани констатации.[23] Симонс, Фирман, Родес и Питърс разглеждат 11
изследвания на извънбрачно бащинство от различни локации в Съединените Щати,
Франция, Швейцария, Великобритания, Мексико и сред Северниамерикансите
Яномамо индиянци.[24] Количеството извънбрачно бащинство варира от 0.03% до 11.8%
въпреки че на повечето места извънбрачното бащинство е в много малко количество.
Средната величина на извънбрачното бащинство е 1.8%. Друг преглед на 17
изследвания проведен от Белис, Хюджис и Аштон разкрива малко по-завишено
количество на извънбрачно бащинство.[25] Количеството варира от 0.8% до 30% в тези
изследвания, със реден показател от 3.7%. Следователно количеството от 1.8% до 3.7%
извънбрачно бащинство предполага количество от 96% до 98% генетична моногамия.
Въпреки че, генетичната моногамия варира от 70 % до 99 % сред различните култури и
социални среди, много голямо количество от двойките във моногамна връзка я
поддържат генетично моногамна. Въпреки че честотата на генетичната моногамия
може да варира от 70% до 99% в различни култури или социални среди, голяма част от
двойките остават генетично моногамни по време на връзките си. Наскоро Кърмит Дж.
Анферсон публикува ревю на 67 различни проучвания свързани с извънбрачното
бащинство, като някои от тях поакзват съвсем ниски стойности от 0.4%, а други
достигат до 50%. [26]

Генотипните грешки и грешките свързани с произхода са често срещана причина за

нрточности при медицинските проучвания. При опитите за проучване на медицинските
недъззи и техните генетични компоненти е много важно да се разяснят генотипните
грешки и процента извънбрачни деца. Има доста софтуерни приложения и процедури,
които поправят изследователските данни от генотипни грешки.[27][28][29]

Еволюционно и историческо развитие на моногамията при хората

Биологични аргументи

Моногамията, или поне социалната моногамия съществува в много общества по целия

свят,[30] и е важно да се разбере как тези брачни системи са се развили. При всеки един
вид има три основни аспекта, които комбинирани създават условия за моногамни
репродуктивни системи: бащина грижа, достъп до ресурси и избор на партньор;[3] при
хората обаче, най-значимият теоретичен източник за момогамия е бащината грижа и
екстремният екологичен стре.[2] Бащината грижа е изключително важна при хората
заради допълнителните хранителни изисквания, дължащи се на уголеменият ни мозък и
продължителното развитие на децата ни.[31][32][33] Именно по тези причини еволюциата
на моногамията при хората е отзвук на увеличената нужда от грижа от страна на двата
родителя.[31][32][33] Също така моногамията се развива в райони с завишен екологичен
стрес, защото успеха на мъжката репродуктивност би трябвало да е по-голям когато
ресурсите са фокусирани върху осигуряването на оцеляването на потомството,
отколкото търсене на нови партньори.[2] Въпреки това доказателствата не поддържат
тези твърдения.[2] Поради крайната социалност и завишената интелигентност при
хората, хомо сапиенс са разрешили много проблеми, които като цяло са довели до
моногамия, като тези изброени по-горе.[2] Например, както Марлов показва
моногамията е пряко свързана с родителската грижа,[32] но не е породена от нея, тий
като хората значително намалят нуждата от грижа от страна на двама родителя, чрез
помощта на роднини.[2] Още повече човешката интелигентност и материална култура
позволява по-добро адаптиране към различни и по-сурови екологични зони, по-този
начин намалявайки връзката междъ моногамни бракове и екологична среда. [2]

Палеоантропологията и генетичните проучвания предоставят две перспективи върху

това кога моногамията се развива сред хората: палеоантрополозите предлагат
хипотетични доказателства, че моногамията се е появила доста роно в развитието на
човешкото общество[34] докато генетичните проучвания показват, че моногамията се е
разпространила много по-скоро, по-малко от преди 10 000 до 20 000 години.[35][36]

Палеоантропологичните оценки на времевата рамка на еволюциата на моногамията се

основават главно на нивото на сексуален диморфизъм наблюдаван върху
вкаменелостите 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.[37] According to Reno et al., the sexual dimorphism of
Australopithecus afarensis, a human ancestor from approximately 3.9–3.0 million years ago,
[38]
was within the modern human range, based on dental and postcranial morphology.[34]
Although careful not to say that this indicates monogamous mating in early hominids, the
authors do say that reduced levels of sexual dimorphism in A. afarensis “do not imply that
monogamy is any less probable than polygyny”.[34] However, Gordon, Green and Richmond
claim that in examining postcranial remains, A. afarensis is more sexually dimorphic than
modern humans and chimps with levels closer to those of orangutans and gorillas.[35]
Furthermore, Homo habilis, living approximately 2.3 mya,[38] is the most sexually dimorphic
early hominid.[39] 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.[40]

The genetic evidence for the evolution of monogamy in humans is more complex but much
easier to interpret. While female effective population size (the number of individuals
successfully producing offspring thus contributing to the gene pool), as indicated by
mitochondrial-DNA evidence, increased around the time of human (not hominid) expansion
out of Africa about 80,000–100,000 years ago, male effective population size, as indicated by
Y-chromosome evidence, did not increase until the advent of agriculture 18,000 years ago.
This means that before 18,000 years ago, many females would be reproducing with the same
few males.[36]

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.[2] 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 Eurasian 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).[41] Goody demonstrates a statistical correlation between this
cultural complex and the development of intensive plough agriculture in those areas.[42]
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
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.[43] 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.[44] 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.[45] 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.[46]

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.[2][47][48] 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 copulations.[47] 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.[48] Thus, the wealth and power of the family would pass to the “celibate” younger
brother of the church.[48] 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.[47][48] Furthermore, the laws of the Christian
Church, in particular, were important in the evolution of social monogamy in humans.[48] They
allowed, even encouraged, poor men to marry and produce offspring which reduced the gap in
reproductive success between the rich and poor, thus resulting in the quick spread of
monogamous marriage systems in the western world.[48] 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.[2]

Other theorists use cultural factors influencing reproductive success to explain monogamy.
During times of major economic / demographic transitions, investing more in a fewer
offspring (social monogamy not polygyny) increases reproductive success by ensuring the
offspring themselves have enough initial wealth to be successful.[2] This is seen in both
England and Sweden during the industrial revolution[2] and is currently being seen in the
modernization of rural Ethiopia.[49] 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.[2]

Arguments from outside the scientific community

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 ethical personalistic norm, and thus the only means of making true human
love possible.[50]

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 Mexico, Inca Peru, India and
China.[51]

Ancient Mesopotamia and Assyria

Both the Babylonian and 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 concubine.[52] According to 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.[53]

Ancient Egypt

Although an Egyptian man was free to marry several women at a time, and some wealthy men
from Old and Middle Kingdoms did have more than one wife, monogamy was the norm.[54]
There may have been some exceptions, e.g. a 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 right to ask
for a divorce if her husband took a second wife. Many tomb reliefs testify to 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. 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 of her
barrenness.[55]

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 Middle East
much earlier. In Israel's pre-Christian era, an essentially monogamous ethos underlay the
Jewish creation story (Gn 2) and the last chapter of Proverbs.[56][57] During the Second Temple
period (530 BCE to70 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.[56] Study shows that ancient Middle East societies, though not strictly
monogamous, were practically (at least on commoners' level) monogamous.[53][54] 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.
1 Tm 3:2,12; Tt 1:6), which conformed with Jesus' approach.[56] 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."[58]

Under Judges and the monarchy, old restrictions went into disuse, especially among royalty,
though the Books of Samuel and 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, Proverbs, 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 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. Ho 2:4f; Jer 2:2; 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".[57][59]

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

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

Roman customs, which prohibited polygamy, may have enhanced such an attitude[original research?]
- especially after 212 AD, when all the Jews became Roman citizens.[56] 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.[60]

A synod convened by Gershom ben Judah around 1000 CE banned polygamy among
Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.[61]

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.[61][62]

Early Christianity

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the
talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met.
(November 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Jesus Christ contended that core problem was faithfulness to the Torah. According to him,
monogamy was a primordial will of the Creator described in Genesis, darkened by the
hardness of hearts of the Israelites. 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 personal gift to one
another:

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. [63]

Contemporary societies

International

Western European societies established monogamy as their marital norm.[64] Monogamous

marriage is normative and is legally enforced in most of the world's highly developed
countries.[65] Laws prohibiting polygyny were adopted in 1880 in Japan, 1953 in China, 1955
in India and 1963 in Nepal.[65]

The women's rights movements in these nations want to make monogamy the only legal form
of marriage. The United Nations joined these efforts in 1979 when the General Assembly
adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,
an international bill of rights for women that over 180 nations have agreed to implement.
Article 16 of the Convention requires nations to give women and men equal rights in
marriage. Polygamy is interpreted as inconsistent with Article 16 when it extends the right of
multiple spouses to men but not to women. The United Nations has established the Committee
on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)[66] to monitor the progress of
nations implementing the Convention. The United Nations is thus working through the
Convention and CEDAW to promote women's equality by making monogamy the only legal
form of marriage worldwide.

People's Republic of China

Main article: Marriage in the People's Republic of China

The founders of Communism believed monogamy oppressed women and had no place in
communist society.[citation needed] However, the Communist revolution in China changed these
ideas as the communist revolutionaries in China viewed monogamy as a means of giving
women and men equal rights in marriage. The newly formed Communist government
established monogamy as the only legal form of marriage.

"The 1950 Marriage Law called for sweeping changes in many areas of family life. It forbade
any 'arbitrary and compulsory' form of marriage that would be based on the superiority of
men and would ignore women’s interests. The new democratic marriage system was based on
the free choice of couples, monogamy, equal rights for both sexes, and the protection of the
lawful interests of women. It abolished the begetting of male offspring as the principal
purpose of marriage and weakened kinship ties which reduced the pressure on women to bear
many children, especially sons. With arranged marriages prohibited, young women could
choose their own marriage partners, share the financial cost of setting up a new household,
and have equal status in household and family decision-making. The Government then
initiated an extensive campaign of marriage-law education, working jointly with the
Communist Party, women’s federations, trade unions, the armed forces, schools and other
organizations."[67]

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
of the protocol states that "monogamy is encouraged as the preferred form of marriage and
that the rights of women in marriage and family, including in polygamous marital
relationships are promoted and protected."[68][69] The protocol entered into force November 25,
2005.

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.[70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]
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.[83][84][85][86] These discoveries have led biologists to adopt new ways of
talking about monogamy:

"Social monogamy refers to a male and female's social living arrangement (e.g., shared use of
a territory, behaviour indicative of a social pair, and/or proximity between a male and female)
without inferring any sexual interactions or reproductive patterns. In humans, social
monogamy equals monogamous marriage. Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive
sexual relationship between a female and a male based on observations of sexual interactions.
Finally, the term genetic monogamy is used when DNA analyses can confirm that a female-
male pair reproduce exclusively with each other. A combination of terms indicates examples
where levels of relationships coincide, e.g., sociosexual and sociogenetic monogamy describe
corresponding social and sexual, and social and genetic monogamous relationships,
respectively." (Reichard, 2003, page 4)[87]

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 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".

Serial monogamy
Serial monogamy is a mating practice in which individuals may engage in sequential
monogamous pairings,[88] or in terms of humans, when men or women can marry another
partner but only after ceasing to be married to the previous partner.[89]

One theory is that this pattern pacifies the elite men and equalizes reproductive success. This
is called the Male Compromise Theory.[90] Such serial monogamy may effectively resemble
polygyny in its reproductive consequences because some men are able to utilize more than
one woman’s reproductive lifespan through repeated marriages.[91]

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.[92][93]

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.[91]
Accordingly, males developed many behavior strategies that allow them to acquire more
reproductively capable sexual partners.[91] Therefore, in order to monopolize periods of more
than one female’s reproductive life span without being considered polygamous and thus
breaking social norms of a monogamous society, males try to remarry women younger than
themselves. A study done in 1994 found a significant difference between ages of remarried
men and women because the men have a longer reproductive window.[94][95]

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.[96] As
divorce has continued to become more accessible, more individuals have availed themselves
of it, and many go on to remarry.[97] Barry Schwartz, author of The Paradox of Choice: Why
less is more, 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.[98][99][100]

Mating system

Main article: Monogamous pairing in animals

Monogamy is one of several mating systems observed in animals. However, a pair of animals
may be socially monogamous but that does not necessarily make them sexually or genetically
monogamous. Social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy can occur in
different combinations.[87]

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.[87] 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.[79][101] Social monogamy has also been observed in reptiles, fish, and insects.

Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male
based on observations of sexual interactions.[87] However, scientific analyses can test for
paternity, for example by DNA paternity testing or by 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.[87]

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 percent or more of the baby birds in any nest [are] sired by someone other than
the resident male."[102] Patricia Adair Gowaty has estimated that, out of 180 different species
of socially monogamous songbirds, only 10% are sexually monogamous.[103] Offspring are far
more successful when both the male and the female members of the social pair contribute
food resources.

An example of this was seen when scientists studied red winged blackbirds. These birds are
known for remaining in monogamous relationships during the course of mating season.
During the course of the study, the researchers gave a few select males vasectomies just
before mating season. The male birds behaved like they do every season, establishing
territory, finding a mate, and attempting to make baby birds. Despite apparent social
monogamy, the female birds whose partners were surgically altered still became pregnant,
indicating that overt social monogamy did not predict for sexual fidelity.[103] These babies
were cared for by their sterile adoptive fathers.[104]

The highest known frequency of reproductively successful extra-pair copulations are found
among fairywrens Malurus splendens and Malurus cyaneus where more than 65 percent of
chicks are fathered by males outside the supposed breeding pair.[101] 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.[105]

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. There is
even a parasitic worm, Schistosoma mansoni, that in its female-male pairings in the human
body is monogamous.[106] 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.
The low occurrence of social monogamy in placental mammals has been claimed to be related
to the presence or absence of estrus—or oestrus—the duration of sexual receptivity of a
female. This, however, doesn't 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.

Researchers have observed a mixed mating system of monogamy and polygyny in the
European pied flycatcher.[107]

Psychology of monogamy

Psychological studies of social monogamy have relied heavily on observations of married

couples. These studies focus on relationship satisfaction, duration and attachment.

Neuroendocrine bases of monogamy

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 Microtis 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 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. This difference in neuropeptide effect is attributed to the
location, density, and distribution of OT and AVP receptors. 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. 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 neuropeptides.

The myth of monogamy

According to studies of the animal world, most of us are naturally inclined to "cheat"

Highlights of article By David Barash

Source: http://www.salon.com/sex/feature/2001/01/23/monogamy/index.html

This excerpt, with full credit, is being shared under the Fair Use provision of the U.S.
Copyright laws and International treaties for educational purposes with no financial
gain.

Jan. 23, 2001 | For most biologists, the fact that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had an
illegitimate child by one of his staffers is neither surprising nor a revelation. We've
known for a long time that males from many species tend to be interested in sexual
variety, particularly in having more than one partner.

Consider, for instance, this story: A missionary visited a Maori village in 19th century
New Zealand and there was a feast in his honor. After the feast, the Maori chief called
out, "A woman for the bishop." Noting the scowl on the prelate's face, the obliging chief
roared again, even louder: "Two women for the bishop!"

Given the choice, most men would rather have two women than one (although not
necessarily at the same time). And they'd rather have three than two. As Margaret
Mead once pointed out, monogamy is the most difficult of all marital arrangements. For
some time, biologists have had a good idea why. Men are sperm makers. Sperm are
cheap and easily replaced. Unlike eggs, they do not require that the guy doing the
fertilizing become pregnant, give birth and then nurse his young.

For women -- and females of most other species as well -- the situation is quite different,
and, not surprisingly, females tend to be comparison shoppers, and sexually reticent
compared to their male counterparts. So the interesting thing about the Jackson affair
isn't Jackson's behavior. After all, ever since "The Scarlet Letter" we've been told that
even men of the cloth are still men, under the cloth. Rather, it's why Karin Stanford, his
paramour, went along.

And here, biologists have finally begun to catch up with common sense. Women, too,
have extramarital affairs, and these need not be limited to an unmarried woman having
sex with a married man, as with Stanford and Jackson (though it has been reported that
she had a boyfriend at the time of her affair with Jackson), or Monica Lewinsky and
President Clinton, or Donna Rice and Gary Hart, or ... There are plenty of Madame
Bovarys and Anna Kareninas. Adultery is a favorite human topic, in more ways than
one.

Enter DNA fingerprinting, and not just for Monica's fabled blue dress. This laboratory
technique isn't only useful for identifying unknown soldiers or freeing the falsely
convicted. In recent years, it has surprised biologists with a whole new world of screwing
around among animals, with likely implications for that troubled animal, Homo sapiens,
the one that tries so hard to be monogamous and finds it so terribly difficult.

When we examine the genes of baby birds, even those species long thought to be absolute
paragons of monogamous fidelity, we find that 10, 20, sometimes 30 percent of the
offspring are not genetically connected to the socially identified father. Social monogamy
(what biologists still call, somewhat quaintly, a pair bond) is not the same as sexual
monogamy. Several decades ago experimenters vasectomized redwinged blackbirds in
the hope of controlling their numbers. But many females, ostensibly mated to only those
vasectomized males, laid eggs that hatched! Something funny was going on. But only
now, with the accumulation of literally dozens of research studies using DNA data, do
we know for sure: Females, even females in species long thought to be sexually faithful,
often are not.

- Deleted long discussion of various animal studies showing non-mongomay the norm -

The evidence is now undeniable: Monogamy among animals is more myth than reality.
What about human beings?

Here, too, there is no doubt. We are not naturally monogamous. Anthropologists report
that the overwhelming majority of human societies either are polygynous or were
polygynous prior to the cultural homogenization of recent decades. They also suggest
that individuals are mildly polygynous, having evolved in a system in which one man
maintains a harem.

Why, then, does monogamy occur at all? Maybe it's like Winston Churchill's
observation that democracy is the worst possible form of government except for all the
others that have been tried. At least monogamy is a great equalizer (in theory). It
assures that in a species with equal numbers of males and females, no one need be left
out. But at the same time, it cannot and does not prevent individuals of either sex from
looking elsewhere.

Imagine a society of rigid social monogamy in which women nonetheless seek to be

inseminated by the best possible males. Such males are rare, and likely to be already
taken. So women might well adopt a kind of ratcheting-up tactic, in which they pair with
the best man they can get, and thereby obtain his child-rearing assistance as well as
whatever additional material resources he can provide, while also making themselves
available for men further up in the hierarchy -- probably charismatic men like Jesse
Jackson.

Such a motivation need not be conscious. In fact, a woman who has an affair with an
attractive married man may intentionally avoid becoming pregnant. The point is that
part of the underlying sexual motivation for the affair likely derives from these factors.

When right-wing Christian moralists worry that family values are under assault, they
don't know how right they are! Monogamy, perhaps the poster child of family values, is
under profound assault -- but not from any progressive, gay or feminist agenda. Rather,
nature is the culprit.

Dave notes that mongomy was also not the norm in biblical culture. Adultery was only
wrong for a married women, never a married man who could have as many wives and
concubines as he wished, as long as they were single - not owned by another man.

About the writer

David P. Barash is professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle.
His most recent book, "The Myth of Monogamy," coauthored with his wife, Judith Eve
Lipton, M.D., is to be published this spring.

Animals

The evolution of mating systems in animals has received an enormous amount of attention
from biologists. This section briefly reviews three main findings about the evolution of
monogamy in animals.

The amount of social monogamy in animals varies across taxa, with over 90% of birds
engaging in social monogamy while only 3% of mammals are known to do the same.[1][2]

This list is not complete. Other factors may also contribute to the evolution of social
monogamy. Moreover, different sets of factors may explain the evolution of social monogamy
in different species. There is no one-size-fits-all explanation of why different species evolved
monogamous mating systems.
Sexual dimorphism

Sexual dimorphism refers to differences in body characteristics between females and males. A
frequently studied type of sexual dimorphism is body size. For example among mammals,
males typically have larger bodies than females. In other orders, however, females have larger
bodies than males. Sexual dimorphism in body size has been linked to mating behavior.[3][4][5][6]
In polygynous species, males compete for control over sexual access to females. Large males
have an advantage in the competition for access to females, and they consequently pass their
genes along to a greater number of offspring. This eventually leads to large differences in
body size between females and males. Polygynous males are often 1.5 to 2.0 times larger in
size than females. In monogamous species, on the other hand, females and males have more
equal access to mates, so there is little or no sexual dimorphism in body size. From a new
biological point of view, monogamy could result from mate guarding and is engaged as a
result of sexual conflict.[7]

Some researchers have attempted to infer the evolution of human mating systems from the
evolution of sexual dimorphism. Several studies have reported a large amount of sexual
dimorphism in Australopithecus, an evolutionary ancestor of human beings that lived between
2 and 5 million years ago.[4][5][8][9] These studies raise the possibility that Australopithecus had
a polygamous mating system. Sexual dimorphism then began to decrease. Studies suggest
sexual dimorphism reached modern human levels around the time of Homo erectus 0.5 to 2
million years ago.[4][5][8][10] This line of reasoning suggests human ancestors started out
polygamous and began the transition to monogamy somewhere between 0.5 million and 2
million years ago.

Attempts to infer the evolution of monogamy based on sexual dimorphism remain

controversial for three reasons:

 The skeletal remains of Australopithecus are quite fragmentary. This makes it

difficult to identify the sex of the fossils. Researchers sometimes identify the
sex of the fossils by their size, which, of course, can exaggerate findings of
sexual dimorphism.
 Recent studies using new methods of measurement suggest Australopithecus
had the same amount of sexual dimorphism as modern humans.[11][12] This
raises questions about the amount of sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus.
 Humans may have been partially unique in that selection pressures for sexual
dimorphism might have been related to the new niches that humans were
entering at the time, and how that might have interacted with potential early
cultures and tool use. If these early humans had a differentiation of gender
roles, with men hunting and women gathering, selection pressures in favor of
increased size may have been distributed unequally between the sexes.
 Even if future studies clearly establish sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus,
other studies have shown the relationship between sexual dimorphism and
mating system is unreliable.[3][4] Some polygamous species show little or no
sexual dimorphism. Some monogamous species show a large amount of sexual
dimorphism.

Studies of sexual dimorphism raise the possibility that early human ancestors were
polygamous rather than monogamous. But this line of research remains highly controversial.
It may be that early human ancestors showed little sexual dimorphism, and it may be that
sexual dimorphism in early human ancestors had no relationship to their mating systems.

Testis size

The relative sizes of male testes often reflect mating systems.[13][14][15][16] In species with
promiscuous mating systems, where many males mate with many females, the testes tend to
be relatively large. This appears to be the result of sperm competition. Males with large testes
produce more sperm and thereby gain an advantage impregnating females. In polygynous
species, where one male controls sexual access to females, the testes tend to be small. One
male defends exclusive sexual access to a group of females and thereby eliminates sperm
competition.

Studies of primates, including humans, support the relationship between testis size and mating
system.[15][16][17] Chimpanzees, which have a promiscuous mating system, have large testes
compared to other primates. Gorillas, which have a polygynous mating system, have smaller
testes than other primates. Humans, which have a socially monogamous mating system,
accompanied by moderate amounts of sexual non-monogamy (see incidence of monogamy),
have moderately sized testes. The moderate amounts of sexual non-monogamy in humans
may result in a low to moderate amount of sperm competition. Also, notably, in the case of an
avowedly sexually monogamous society, the occurrence of sexual nonmonogamy is typically
culturally stigmatized, and therefore detecting its prevalence is inherently difficult, if indeed it
is at all possible. At best, such statistics can be viewed as general approximations with a wide
margin of error.

Monogamy as a best response

In species where the young are particularly vulnerable and may benefit from protection by
both parents, monogamy may be an optimal strategy. Monogamy tends to also occur when
populations are small and dispersed. This is not conductive to polygamous behavior as the
male would spend far more time searching for another mate. The monogamous behavior
allows the male to have a mate consistently, without having to waste energy searching for
other females. Furthermore, there is an apparent connection between the time a male invests
in their offspring and their monogamous behavior. A male which is required to care for the
offspring to ensure their survival is much more likely to exhibit monogamous behavior over
one that does not. The selection factors in favor of different mating strategies for a species of
animal, however, may potentially operate on a large number of factors throughout that
animal's life cycle. For instance, with many species of bear, the female will often drive a male
off soon after mating, and will later guard her cubs from him. It is thought that this may be
due to the fact that too many bears close to one another may deplete the food available to the
relatively small but growing cubs. Monogamy may be social but rarely genetic.[citation needed] For
example, in the cichlid species Variabilichromis moorii, a monogamous pair will care for
their eggs and young but the eggs are not all fertilized by the same male.[18] Thierry Lodé[19]
argued that monogamy should result from conflict of interest between the sexes called sexual
conflict.

Monogamous species
While it is difficult to find monogamous relationships in nature, there are a few species which
have adopted monogamy with great success. For instance, the prairie vole will mate
exclusively with the first female he ever mates with. The vole is extremely loyal and will go
as far as to even attack other females that may approach him. This type of behavior has been
linked to the hormone vasopressin. This hormone is released when a male mates and cares for
young. Due to this hormone's rewarding effects, the male experiences a positive feeling when
they maintain a monogamous relationship. To further test this theory, the receptors that
control vasopressin were placed into another species of vole that is promiscuous. After this
addition, the originally unfaithful voles became monogamous with their selected partner.
These very same receptors can be found in human brain, and have been found to vary at the
individual level -- which could explain why some human males tend to be more loyal than
others. [20][21][22]

Black vultures stay together as it is more beneficial for their young to be taken care of by both
parents. They take turns incubating the eggs, and then supplying their fledglings with food.
Black vultures will also attack other vultures that are participating in extra pair copulation,
this is an attempt to increase monogamy and decrease promiscuous behavior. [23] Similarly,
emperor penguins also stay together to care for their young. This is due to the harshness of the
arctic weather, predators and the scarcity of food. One parent will protect the chick, while the
other finds food. However, these penguins only remain monogamous until the chick is able to
go off on their own. After the chick no longer needs their care, approximately 85% of parents
will part ways and typically find a new partner every breeding season.

Hornbills are a socially monogamous bird species that usually only have one mate throughout
their lives, much like the prairie vole. The females will close herself up in a nest cavity, sealed
with a nest plug, for two months. At this time, she will lay eggs and will be cared for by her
mate. The males are willing to work to support himself, his mate, and his offspring in order
for survival; however, unlike the emperor penguin, the hornbills do not find new partners each
season. [24]

It is relatively uncommon to find monogamous relationships in fish, amphibians and reptiles;

however, the red-backed salamander as well as the Caribbean cleaner goby practice
monogamy as well. However, the male Caribbean cleaner goby fish has been found to
separate from the female suddenly, leaving her abandoned. In a study conducted by Oregon
State University, it was found that this fish practices not true monogamy, but serial
monogamy. This essentially means that the goby will have multiple monogamous
relationships throughout its life - but only be in one relationship at a time. [25] The red-backed
salamander exhibited signs of social monogamy, which is the idea that animals form pairs to
mate and raise offspring, but still will partake in extra pair copulation with various males or
females in order to increase their biological fitness. This is relatively new concept in
salamanders, and has not been seen frequently - it is also concerning that the act of
monogamy may inhibit the salamanders reproductive rates and biological success. However,
the study which was conducted in cooperation by the University of Louisiana, Lafayette, and
the University of Virginia showed that the salamanders are not inhibited by this monogamy if
they show alternative strategies with other mates. [26]

Azara's night monkeys are another species that proved to be monogamous. In an 18 year study
conducted by the University of Pennsylvania, these monkeys proved to be entirely
monogamous, exhibiting no genetic information or visual information that could lead to the
assumption that extra pair copulation was occurring. This explained the question as to why the
male owl monkey invested so much time in protecting and raising their own offspring.
Because monogamy if often referred to "placing all your eggs in one basket" the male wants
to ensure his young survive, and thus pass on his genes. [27]

Other monogamous species include wolves, otters, a few hooved animals, some bats, certain
species of fox, and the Eurasian beaver. This beaver is particularly interesting as it is
practicing monogamy in its reintroduction to certain parts of Europe; however, its' American
counterpart is not monogamous at all and often partakes in promiscuous behavior. The two
species are quite similar in ecology but American beavers tend to be less aggressive than
European beavers. In this instance, the scarcity of the European beavers' population could
drive its monogamous behavior; moreover, it lowers the risk of parasite transmission which is
correlated with biological fitness. Monogamy is proving to be very efficient for this beaver, as
their population is climbing. [28]

Historical perspective

Modern philosophical-scientific thinking on the problem can be traced back to Erasmus

Darwin in the 18th century; it also features in Aristotle's writings. The thread was later picked
up by August Weismann in 1889, who argued that the purpose of sex was to generate genetic
variation, as is detailed in the majority of the explanations below. On the other hand, Charles
Darwin concluded that the effects of hybrid vigor (complementation) "is amply sufficient to
account for the ... genesis of the two sexes." This is consistent with the repair and
complementation hypothesis, given below under "Other explanations."

Several explanations have been suggested by biologists including W. D. Hamilton, Alexey

Kondrashov, George C. Williams, Harris Bernstein, Carol Bernstein, Michael M. Cox,
Frederic A. Hopf and Richard E. Michod to explain how sexual reproduction is maintained in
a vast array of different living organisms.

Questions

Some questions biologists have attempted to answer include:

 Why sexual reproduction exists, if in many organisms it has a 50% cost (fitness
disadvantage) in relation to asexual reproduction?[5]
 Did mating types (types of gametes, according to their compatibility) arise as a result
of anisogamy (gamete dimorphism), or did mating types evolve before anisogamy?[6][7]
 Why do most sexual organisms use a binary mating system?[8] Why do some
organisms have gamete dimorphism?

Two-fold cost of sex

This diagram illustrates the twofold cost of sex. If each individual were to contribute to the
same number of offspring (two), (a) the sexual population remains the same size each
generation, where the (b) asexual population doubles in size each generation.

In most multicellular sexual species, the population consists of two sexes, only one of which
is capable of bearing young (with the exception of simultaneous hermaphrodites). In an
asexual species, each member of the population is capable of bearing young. This implies that
an asexual population has an intrinsic capacity to grow more rapidly with each generation.
The cost was first described in mathematical terms by John Maynard Smith.[9] He imagined an
asexual mutant arising in a sexual population, half of which comprises males that cannot
themselves produce offspring. With female-only offspring, the asexual lineage doubles its
representation in the population each generation, all else being equal. Technically this is not a
problem of sex but a problem of some multicellular sexually reproducing organisms. There
are numerous isogamous species which are sexual and do not have the problem of producing
individuals which cannot directly replicate themselves.[10] The principal costs of sex is that
males and females must search for each other in order to mate, and sexual selection often
favours traits that reduce the survival of individuals.[9][clarification needed]

Evidence that the cost is surmountable comes from George C. Williams, who noted the
existence of species which are capable of both asexual and sexual reproduction, such as
certain lizards. These species time their sexual reproduction with periods of environmental
uncertainty, and reproduce asexually when conditions are more favourable. The important
point is that these species are observed to reproduce sexually when they could choose not to,
implying that there is a selective advantage to sexual reproduction.[11]

It is widely believed that a disadvantage of sexual reproduction is that a sexually reproducing

organism will only be able to pass on 50% of its genes to each offspring. This is a
consequence of the fact that gametes from sexually reproducing species are haploid.[12] This,
however, conflates sex and reproduction which are two separate events. The "two-fold cost of
sex" may more accurately be described as the cost of anisogamy. Not all sexual organisms are
anisogamous. There are numerous species which are sexual and do not have this problem
because they do not produce males or females. Yeast, for example, are isogamous sexual
organisms which have two mating types which fuse and recombine their haploid genomes.
Both sexes reproduce during the haploid and diploid stages of their life cycle and have a
100% chance of passing their genes into their offspring.[10]

The two-fold cost of sex may be compensated for in some species in many ways. Females
may eat males after mating, males may be much smaller or rarer, or males may help raise
offspring.

Sex decoupled from reproduction

Some species avoid the cost of 50% of sexual reproduction, although they have "sex" (in the
sense of genetic recombination). In these species (e.g., bacteria, ciliates, dinoflagellates and
diatoms), "sex" and reproduction occurs separately.[5][13]

Promotion of genetic variation

August Weismann proposed in 1889[14] an explanation for the evolution of sex, where the
advantage of sex is the creation of variation among siblings. It was then subsequently
explained in genetics terms by Fisher[15] and Muller[16] and has been recently summarised by
Burt in 2000.[17]

George C. Williams gave an example based around the elm tree. In the forest of this example,
empty patches between trees can support one individual each. When a patch becomes
available because of the death of a tree, other trees' seeds will compete to fill the patch. Since
the chance of a seed's success in occupying the patch depends upon its genotype, and a parent
cannot anticipate which genotype is most successful, each parent will send many seeds,
creating competition between siblings. Natural selection therefore favours parents which can
produce a variety of offspring (see lottery principle).

A similar hypothesis is named the tangled bank hypothesis after a passage in Charles Darwin's
The Origin of Species:

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many
kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with
worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately
constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so
complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us."[18]

The hypothesis, proposed by Michael Ghiselin in his 1974 book, The Economy of Nature and
the Evolution of Sex, suggests that a diverse set of siblings may be able to extract more food
from its environment than a clone, because each sibling uses a slightly different niche. One of
the main proponents of this hypothesis is Graham Bell of McGill University. The hypothesis
has been criticised for failing to explain how asexual species developed sexes. In his book,
Evolution and Human Behavior (MIT Press, 2000), John Cartwright comments:

"Although once popular, the tangled bank hypothesis now seems to face many
problems, and former adherents are falling away. The theory would predict a greater
interest in sex among animals that produce lots of small offspring that compete with
each other. In fact, sex is invariably associated with organisms that produce a few
large offspring, whereas organisms producing small offspring frequently engage in
parthenogenesis [asexual reproduction]. In addition, the evidence from fossils suggests
that species go for vast periods of [geologic] time without changing much."

In contrast to the view that sex promotes genetic variation, Heng,[19] and Gorelick and Heng[20]
reviewed evidence that sex actually acts as a constraint on genetic variation. They consider
that sex acts as a coarse filter, weeding out major genetic changes, such as chromosomal
rearrangements, but permitting minor variation, such as changes at the nucleotide or gene
level (that are often neutral) to pass through the sexual sieve.

Advantages conferred by sex

It is important to mention that the concept of sex includes two fundamental phenomena: the
sexual process (fusion of genetic information of two individuals) and sexual differentiation
(separation of this information into two parts). Depending on the presence or absence of these
phenomena, the existing ways of reproduction can be divided into asexual, hermaphrodite and
dioecious forms. The sexual process and sexual differentiation are different phenomena, and,
in essence, are diametrically opposed. The first creates (increases) diversity of genotypes, and
the second decreases it in half.
Reproductive advantages of the asexual forms are in quantity of the progeny and the
advantages of the hermaphrodite forms – in maximum diversity. Transition from the
hermaphrodite to dioecious state leads to a loss of at least half of the diversity. So, the main
question is to explain the advantages given by sexual differentiation, i.e. the benefits of two
separate sexes compare to hermaphrodites rather than to explain benefits of sexual forms
(hermaphrodite + dioecious) over asexual ones. It has already been understood that since
sexual reproduction is not associated with any clear reproductive advantages, as compared
with asexual, there should be some important advantages in evolution.[21]

Advantages due to genetic variation

For the advantage due to genetic variation, there are three possible reasons this might happen.
First, sexual reproduction can combine the effects of two beneficial mutations in the same
individual (i.e. sex aids in the spread of advantageous traits). Also, the necessary mutations do
not have to have occurred one after another in a single line of descendants.[22][unreliable source?]
Second, sex acts to bring together currently deleterious mutations to create severely unfit
individuals that are then eliminated from the population (i.e. sex aids in the removal of
deleterious genes). However, in organisms containing only one set of chromosomes,
deleterious mutations would be eliminated immediately, and therefore removal of harmful
mutations is an unlikely benefit for sexual reproduction. Lastly, sex creates new gene
combinations that may be more fit than previously existing ones, or may simply lead to
reduced competition among relatives.

For the advantage due to DNA repair, there is an immediate large benefit of removing DNA
damage by recombinational DNA repair during meiosis, since this removal allows greater
survival of progeny with undamaged DNA. The advantage of complementation to each sexual
partner is avoidance of the bad effects of their deleterious recessive genes in progeny by the
masking effect of normal dominant genes contributed by the other partner.

The classes of hypotheses based on the creation of variation are further broken down below. It
is important to realise that any number of these hypotheses may be true in any given species
(they are not mutually exclusive), and that different hypotheses may apply in different
species. However, a research framework based on creation of variation has yet to be found
that allows one to determine whether the reason for sex is universal for all sexual species, and,
if not, which mechanisms are acting in each species.

On the other hand, the maintenance of sex based on DNA repair and complementation applies
widely to all sexual species.

Novel genotypes
This diagram illustrates how sex might create novel genotypes more rapidly. Two
advantageous alleles A and B occur at random. The two alleles are recombined rapidly in a
sexual population (top), but in an asexual population (bottom) the two alleles must
independently arise because of clonal interference.

Sex could be a method by which novel genotypes are created. Because sex combines genes
from two individuals, sexually reproducing populations can more easily combine
advantageous genes than can asexual populations. If, in a sexual population, two different
advantageous alleles arise at different loci on a chromosome in different members of the
population, a chromosome containing the two advantageous alleles can be produced within a
few generations by recombination. However, should the same two alleles arise in different
members of an asexual population, the only way that one chromosome can develop the other
allele is to independently gain the same mutation, which would take much longer. Several
studies have addressed counterarguments, and the question of whether this model is
sufficiently robust to explain the predominance of sexual versus asexual reproduction.[23]:73–86

Ronald Fisher also suggested that sex might facilitate the spread of advantageous genes by
allowing them to better escape their genetic surroundings, if they should arise on a
chromosome with deleterious genes.

Supporters of these theories respond to the balance argument that the individuals produced by
sexual and asexual reproduction may differ in other respects too – which may influence the
persistence of sexuality. For example, in the heterogamous water fleas of the genus
Cladocera, sexual offspring form eggs which are better able to survive the winter versus those
the fleas produce asexually.

Increased resistance to parasites

One of the most widely discussed theories to explain the persistence of sex is that it is
maintained to assist sexual individuals in resisting parasites, also known as the Red Queen's
Hypothesis.[12][23]:113–117[24][25]

When an environment changes, previously neutral or deleterious alleles can become

favourable. If the environment changed sufficiently rapidly (i.e. between generations), these
changes in the environment can make sex advantageous for the individual. Such rapid
changes in environment are caused by the co-evolution between hosts and parasites.

Imagine, for example that there is one gene in parasites with two alleles p and P conferring
two types of parasitic ability, and one gene in hosts with two alleles h and H, conferring two
types of parasite resistance, such that parasites with allele p can attach themselves to hosts
with the allele h, and P to H. Such a situation will lead to cyclic changes in allele frequency -
as p increases in frequency, h will be disfavoured.

In reality, there will be several genes involved in the relationship between hosts and parasites.
In an asexual population of hosts, offspring will only have the different parasitic resistance if
a mutation arises. In a sexual population of hosts, however, offspring will have a new
combination of parasitic resistance alleles.

In other words, like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen, sexual hosts are continually "running"
(adapting) to "stay in one place" (resist parasites).
Evidence for this explanation for the evolution of sex is provided by comparison of the rate of
molecular evolution of genes for kinases and immunoglobulins in the immune system with
genes coding other proteins. The genes coding for immune system proteins evolve
considerably faster.[26][27]

Further evidence for the Red Queen hypothesis was provided by observing long‐term
dynamics and parasite coevolution in a "mixed" (sexual and asexual) population of snails
(Potamopyrgus antipodarum). The number of sexuals, the number asexuals, and the rates of
parasite infection for both were monitored. It was found that clones that were plentiful at the
beginning of the study became more susceptible to parasites over time. As parasite infections
increased, the once plentiful clones dwindled dramatically in number. Some clonal types
disappeared entirely. Meanwhile, sexual snail populations remained much more stable over
time.[28][29]

However, Hanley et al.[30] studied mite infestations of a parthenogenetic gecko species and its
two related sexual ancestral species. Contrary to expectation based on the Red Queen
hypothesis, they found that the prevalence, abundance and mean intensity of mites in sexual
geckos was significantly higher than in asexuals sharing the same habitat.

In 2011, researchers used the microscopic roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans as a host and
the pathogenic bacteria Serratia marcescens to generate a host-parasite coevolutionary system
in a controlled environment, allowing them to conduct more than 70 evolution experiments
testing the Red Queen Hypothesis. They genetically manipulated the mating system of C.
elegans, causing populations to mate either sexually, by self-fertilization, or a mixture of both
within the same population. Then they exposed those populations to the S. marcescens
parasite. It was found that the self-fertilizing populations of C. elegans were rapidly driven
extinct by the coevolving parasites while sex allowed populations to keep pace with their
parasites, a result consistent with the Red Queen Hypothesis.[31][32]

Critics of the Red Queen hypothesis question whether the constantly changing environment of
hosts and parasites is sufficiently common to explain the evolution of sex. In particular, Otto
and Nuismer [33] presented results showing that species interactions (e.g. host vs parasite
interactions) typically select against sex. They concluded that, although the Red Queen
hypothesis favors sex under certain circumstances, it alone does not account for the ubiquity
of sex. Otto and Gerstein [34] further stated that “it seems doubtful to us that strong selection
per gene is sufficiently commonplace for the Red Queen hypothesis to explain the ubiquity of
sex.” Parker [35] reviewed numerous genetic studies on plant disease resistance and failed to
uncover a single example consistent with the assumptions of the Red Queen hypothesis.

Deleterious mutation clearance

Mutations can have many different effects upon an organism. It is generally believed that the
majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious, which means that they will cause a decrease
in the organism's overall fitness.[36] If a mutation has a deleterious effect, it will then usually
be removed from the population by the process of natural selection. Sexual reproduction is
believed to be more efficient than asexual reproduction in removing those mutations from the
genome.[37]

There are two main hypotheses which explain how sex may act to remove deleterious genes
from the genome.
Evading harmful mutation build-up

Main article: Muller's ratchet

While DNA is able to recombine to modify alleles, DNA is also susceptible to mutations
within the sequence that can affect an organism in a negative manner. Asexual organisms do
not have the ability to recombine their genetic information to form new and differing alleles.
Once a mutation occurs in the DNA or other genetic carrying sequence, there is no way for
the mutation to be removed from the population until another mutation occurs that ultimately
deletes the primary mutation. This is rare among organisms. Hermann Joseph Muller
introduced the idea that mutations build up in asexual reproducing organisms. Muller
described this occurrence by comparing the mutations that accumulate as a ratchet. Each
mutation that arises in asexually reproducing organisms turns the ratchet once. The ratchet is
unable to be rotated backwards, only forwards. The next mutation that occurs turns the ratchet
once more. Additional mutations in a population continually turn the ratchet and the
mutations, mostly deleterious, continually accumulate without recombination.[38] These
mutations are passed onto the next generation because the offspring are exact genetic clones
of their parent. The genetic load of organisms and their populations will increase due to the
addition of multiple deleterious mutations and decrease the overall reproductive success and
fitness.

For sexually reproducing populations, mutations in the DNA are more likely to be removed
due to recombination in the process of meiosis. The offspring are also not direct genetic
clones of a single parent. The alleles from both parents contribute to the offspring. This
creates the ability to mask a mutation in the form of heterozygotes. Selection can also work in
removing mutations from a sexual population. The lessened amounts of harmful mutations
within an organism can lead to increased reproductive success. Natural selection will select
for the reduced number of deleterious mutations. Many believe that this ability to evade the
accumulation of harmful and possibly lethal mutations produces a substantial advantage for
sexually reproducing populations.

Removal of deleterious genes

Diagram illustrating different relationships between numbers of mutations and fitness.

Kondrashov's model requires synergistic epistasis, which is represented by the red line[39][40] -
each subsequent mutation has a disproportionately large effect on the organism's fitness.

This hypothesis was proposed by Alexey Kondrashov, and is sometimes known as the
deterministic mutation hypothesis.[37] It assumes that the majority of deleterious mutations are
only slightly deleterious, and affect the individual such that the introduction of each additional
mutation has an increasingly large effect on the fitness of the organism. This relationship
between number of mutations and fitness is known as synergistic epistasis.
By way of analogy, think of a car with several minor faults. Each is not sufficient alone to
prevent the car from running, but in combination, the faults combine to prevent the car from
functioning.

Similarly, an organism may be able to cope with a few defects, but the presence of many
mutations could overwhelm its backup mechanisms.

Kondrashov argues that the slightly deleterious nature of mutations means that the population
will tend to be composed of individuals with a small number of mutations. Sex will act to
recombine these genotypes, creating some individuals with fewer deleterious mutations, and
some with more. Because there is a major selective disadvantage to individuals with more
mutations, these individuals die out. In essence, sex compartmentalises the deleterious
mutations.

There has been much criticism of Kondrashov's theory, since it relies on two key restrictive
conditions. The first requires that the rate of deleterious mutation should exceed one per
genome per generation in order to provide a substantial advantage for sex. While there is
some empirical evidence for it (for example in Drosophila[41] and E. coli[42]), there is also
strong evidence against it. Thus, for instance, for the sexual species Saccharomyces cerevisiae
(yeast) and Neurospora crassa (fungus), the mutation rate per genome per replication are
0.0027 and 0.0030 respectively. For the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the
mutation rate per effective genome per sexual generation is 0.036.[43] Secondly, there should
be strong interactions among loci (synergistic epistasis), a mutation-fitness relation for which
there is only limited evidence. Conversely, there is also the same amount of evidence that
mutations show no epistasis (purely additive model) or antagonistic interactions (each
additional mutation has a disproportionally small effect).

Other explanations

Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex

Geodakyan suggested that sexual dimorphism provides a partitioning of a species' phenotypes

into at least two functional partitions: a female partition that secures beneficial features of the
species and a male partition that emerged in species with more variable and unpredictable
environments. The male partition is suggested to be an "experimental" part of the species that
allows the species to expand their ecological niche, and to have alternative configurations.
This theory underlines the higher variability and higher mortality in males, in comparison to
females. This functional partitioning also explains the higher suceptibility to disease in males,
in comparison to females and therefore includes the idea of "protection against parasites" as
another functionality of male sex. Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex was developed in
Russia in 1960-80 and was not known to the West till the era of the Internet. Trofimova, who
analysed psychological sex differences, pointed out that the male sex might also provide a
"redundancy pruning" function.[44]

Speed of evolution

Ilan Eshel suggested that sex prevents rapid evolution. He suggests that recombination breaks
up favourable gene combinations more often than it creates them, and sex is maintained
because it ensures selection is longer-term than in asexual populations - so the population is
less affected by short-term changes.[23]:85–86[45] This explanation is not widely accepted, as its
assumptions are very restrictive.

It has recently been shown in experiments with Chlamydomonas algae that sex can remove
the speed limit[clarification needed] on evolution.[46]

An information theoretic analysis using a simplified but useful model shows that in asexual
reproduction, the information gain per generation of a species is limited to 1 bit per
generation, while in sexual reproduction, the information gain is bounded by , where is the
size of the genome in bits.[47]

DNA repair and complementation

As discussed in the earlier part of this article, sexual reproduction is conventionally explained
as an adaptation for producing genetic variation through allelic recombination. As
acknowledged above, however, serious problems with this explanation have led many
biologists to conclude that the benefit of sex is a major unsolved problem in evolutionary
biology.

An alternative "informational" approach to this problem has led to the view that the two
fundamental aspects of sex, genetic recombination and outcrossing, are adaptive responses to
the two major sources of "noise" in transmitting genetic information. Genetic noise can occur
as either physical damage to the genome (e.g. chemically altered bases of DNA or breaks in
the chromosome) or replication errors (mutations)[48][49][50] This alternative view is referred to
as the repair and complementation hypothesis, to distinguish it from the traditional variation
hypothesis.

The repair and complementation hypothesis assumes that genetic recombination is

fundamentally a DNA repair process, and that when it occurs during meiosis it is an
adaptation for repairing the genomic DNA which is passed on to progeny. Recombinational
repair is the only repair process known which can accurately remove double-strand damages
in DNA, and such damages are both common in nature and ordinarily lethal if not repaired.
For instance, double-strand breaks in DNA occur about 50 times per cell cycle in human cells
[see DNA damage (naturally occurring)]. Recombinational repair is prevalent from the
simplest viruses to the most complex multicellular eukaryotes. It is effective against many
different types of genomic damage, and in particular is highly efficient at overcoming double-
strand damages. Studies of the mechanism of meiotic recombination indicate that meiosis is
an adaptation for repairing DNA.[51][52] These considerations form the basis for the first part of
the repair and complementation hypothesis.

In some lines of descent from the earliest organisms, the diploid stage of the sexual cycle,
which was at first transient, became the predominant stage, because it allowed
complementation — the masking of deleterious recessive mutations (i.e. hybrid vigor or
heterosis). Outcrossing, the second fundamental aspect of sex, is maintained by the advantage
of masking mutations and the disadvantage of inbreeding (mating with a close relative) which
allows expression of recessive mutations (commonly observed as inbreeding depression). This
is in accord with Charles Darwin,[53] who concluded that the adaptive advantage of sex is
hybrid vigor; or as he put it, "the offspring of two individuals, especially if their progenitors
have been subjected to very different conditions, have a great advantage in height, weight,
constitutional vigor and fertility over the self fertilised offspring from either one of the same
parents."

However, outcrossing may be abandoned in favor of parthenogenesis or selfing (which retain

the advantage of meiotic recombinational repair) under conditions in which the costs of
mating are very high. For instance, costs of mating are high when individuals are rare in a
geographic area, such as when there has been a forest fire and the individuals entering the
burned area are the initial ones to arrive. At such times mates are hard to find, and this favors
parthenogenic species.

In the view of the repair and complementation hypothesis, the removal of DNA damage by
recombinational repair produces a new, less deleterious form of informational noise, allelic
recombination, as a by-product. This lesser informational noise generates genetic variation,
viewed by some as the major effect of sex, as discussed in the earlier parts of this article.

Libertine bubble theory

The evolution of sex can alternatively be described as a kind of gene exchange that is
independent from reproduction.[54] According to the Thierry Lodé's "libertine bubble theory",
sex originated from an archaic gene transfer process among prebiotic bubbles.[55][56] The
contact among the pre-biotic bubbles could, through simple food or parasitic reactions,
promote the transfer of genetic material from one bubble to another. That interactions
between two organisms be in balance appear to be a sufficient condition to make these
interactions evolutionarily efficient, i.e. to select bubbles that tolerate these interactions
(“libertine” bubbles) through a blind evolutionary process of self-reinforcing gene
correlations and compatibility.[57]

The "libertine bubble theory" proposes that meiotic sex evolved in proto-eukaryotes to solve a
problem that bacteria did not have,[58] namely a large amount of DNA material, occurring in
an archaic step of proto-cell formation and genetic exchanges. So that, rather than providing
selective advantages through reproduction, sex could be thought of as a series of separate
events which combines step-by-step some very weak benefits of recombination, meiosis,
gametogenesis and syngamy.[59] Therefore, current sexual species could be descendants of
primitive organisms that practiced more stable exchanges in the long term, while asexual
species have emerged, much more recently in evolutionary history, from the conflict of
interest resulting from anisogamy.

Origin of sexual reproduction

Life timeline
view • discuss • edit
-4500 —
–
-4000 —
–
-3500 —
–
-3000 —
–
-2500 —
–
-2000 —
–
-1500 —
–
-1000 —
–
-500 —
–
0—
water
Single-celled
life
photosynthesis
Eukaryotes
Multicellular
life
Land life
Dinosaurs
Mammals
Flowers

Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. In the
eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1.2 billion years ago in the
Proterozoic Eon.[60] All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a single-celled
common ancestor.[1][52][61][62] There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature,
such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants.

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The
necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of
sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a damaged section of their DNA via
homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is
presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in a haploid individual, on the other hand, is more
likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the
original undamaged sequence was.[48] The most primitive form of sex may have been one
organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in
order to repair itself.[63]

If, as evidence indicates, sexual reproduction arose very early in eukaryotic evolution, the
essential features of meiosis may have already been present in the prokaryotic ancestors of
eukaryotes.[61][64] In extant organisms, proteins with central functions in meiosis are similar to
key proteins in bacterial transformation. For example, recA recombinase, that catalyses the
key functions of DNA homology search and strand exchange in the bacterial sexual process of
transformation, has orthologs in eukaryotes that perform similar functions in meiotic
recombination (see Wikipedia articles RecA, RAD51 and DMC1). Both bacterial
transformation and meiosis in eukaryotic microorganisms are induced by stressful
circumstances such as overcrowding, resource depletion and DNA damaging conditions.[57]
This suggests that these sexual processes are adaptations for dealing with stress, particularly
stress that causes DNA damage. In bacteria, these stresses induce an altered physiologic state,
termed competence, that allows active take-up of DNA from a donor bacterium and the
integration of this DNA into the recipient genome (see Natural competence) allowing
recombinational repair of the recipients’ damaged DNA.[65] If environmental stresses leading
to DNA damage were a persistent challenge to the survival of early microorganisms, then
selection would likely have been continuous through the prokaryote to eukaryote transition,[59]
and adaptative adjustments would have followed a course in which bacterial transformation
naturally gave rise to sexual reproduction in eukaryotes.

Sex may also have been present even earlier, in the RNA world that is considered to have
preceded DNA cellular life forms.[66] A proposal for the origin of sex in the RNA world was
based on the type of sexual interaction that is known to occur in extant single-stranded
segmented RNA viruses such as influenza virus, and in extant double-stranded segmented
RNA viruses such as reovirus.[67] Exposure to conditions that cause RNA damage could have
led to blockage of replication and death of these early RNA life forms. Sex would have
allowed re-assortment of segments between two individuals with damaged RNA, permitting
undamaged combinations of RNA segments to come together, thus allowing survival. Such a
regeneration phenomenon, known as multiplicity reactivation, occurs in influenza virus [68] and
reovirus[69]

Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements
that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and
propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of
parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi).[70] Bacterial conjugation, a form of
genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction, but rather
an example of horizontal gene transfer. However, it does support the selfish genetic element
theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.[63] Similarly, it has
been proposed that sexual reproduction evolved from ancient haloarchaea through a
combination of jumping genes, and swapping plasmids.[71]

A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate
another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was
incorporated into the 'eater' organism.[63]

Sex may also be derived from another prokaryotic process. A comprehensive 'origin of sex as
vaccination' theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan
unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearised genomes
containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against
horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then
evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont
genomes.[72]

Mechanistic origin of sexual reproduction

While theories positing fitness benefits that led to the origin of sex are often problematic,
several theories addressing the emergence of the mechanisms of sexual reproduction have
been proposed.

Viral eukaryogenesis
Main article: Viral eukaryogenesis

The viral eukaryogenesis (VE) theory proposes that eukaryotic cells arose from a combination
of a lysogenic virus, an archaeon and a bacterium. This model suggests that the nucleus
originated when the lysogenic virus incorporated genetic material from the archaeon and the
bacterium and took over the role of information storage for the amalgam. The archaeal host
transferred much of its functional genome to the virus during the evolution of cytoplasm but
retained the function of gene translation and general metabolism. The bacterium transferred
most of its functional genome to the virus as it transitioned into a mitochondrion.[73]

For these transformations to lead to the eukaryotic cell cycle, the VE hypothesis specifies a
pox-like virus as the lysogenic virus. A pox-like virus is a likely ancestor because of its
fundamental similarities with eukaryotic nuclei. These include a double stranded DNA
genome, a linear chromosome with short telomeric repeats, a complex membrane bound
capsid, the ability to produce capped mRNA, and the ability to export the capped mRNA
across the viral membrane into the cytoplasm. The presence of a lysogenic pox-like virus
ancestor explains the development of meiotic division, an essential component of sexual
reproduction.[74]

Meiotic division in the VE hypothesis arose because of the evolutionary pressures placed on
the lysogenic virus as a result of its inability to enter into the lytic cycle. This selective
pressure resulted in the development of processes allowing the viruses to spread horizontally
throughout the population. The outcome of this selection was cell-to-cell fusion. (This is
distinct from the conjugation methods used by bacterial plasmids under evolutionary pressure,
with important consequences.)[73] The possibility of this kind of fusion is supported by the
presence of fusion proteins in the envelopes of the pox viruses that allow them to fuse with
host membranes. These proteins could have been transferred to the cell membrane during
viral reproduction, enabling cell-to-cell fusion between the virus host and an uninfected cell.
The theory proposes meiosis originated from the fusion between two cells infected with
related but different viruses which recognised each other as uninfected. After the fusion of the
two cells, incompatibilities between the two viruses result in a meiotic-like cell division. [74]

The two viruses established in the cell would initiate replication in response to signals from
the host cell. A mitosis-like cell cycle would proceed until the viral membranes dissolved, at
which point linear chromosomes would be bound together with centromeres. The homologous
nature of the two viral centromeres would incite the grouping of both sets into tetrads. It is
speculated that this grouping may be the origin of crossing over, characteristic of the first
division in modern meiosis. The partitioning apparatus of the mitotic-like cell cycle the cells
used to replicate independently would then pull each set of chromosomes to one side of the
cell, still bound by centromeres. These centromeres would prevent their replication in
subsequent division, resulting in four daughter cells with one copy of one of the two original
pox-like viruses. The process resulting from combination of two similar pox viruses within
the same host closely mimics meiosis.[74]

Neomuran revolution

An alternative theory, proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith, was labeled the Neomuran

revolution. The designation "Neomuran revolution" refers to the appearances of the common
ancestors of eukaryotes and archaea. Cavalier-Smith proposes that the first neomurans
emerged 850 million years ago. Other molecular biologists assume that this group appeared
much earlier, but Cavalier-Smith dismisses these claims because they are based on the
"theoretically and empirically" unsound model of molecular clocks. Cavalier-Smith's theory
of the Neomuran revolution has implications for the evolutionary history of the cellular
machinery for recombination and sex. It suggests that this machinery evolved in two distinct
bouts separated by a long period of stasis; first the appearance of recombination machinery in
a bacterial ancestor which was maintained for 3 Gy,[clarification needed] until the neomuran
revolution when the mechanics were adapted to the presence of nucleosomes. The archaeal
products of the revolution maintained recombination machinery that was essentially bacterial,
whereas the eukaryotic products broke with this bacterial continuity. They introduced cell
fusion and ploidy cycles into cell life histories. Cavalier-Smith argues that both bouts of
mechanical evolution were motivated by similar selective forces: the need for accurate DNA
replication without loss of viability.[75]

The social construction of sexual behavior—its taboos, regulation, and social and political
impact—has had a profound effect on the various cultures of the world since prehistoric
times.

The study of the history of human sexuality

The work of Swiss jurist Johann Bachofen made a major impact on the study of the history of
sexuality. Many authors, notably Lewis Henry Morgan and Friedrich Engels, were influenced
by Bachofen, and criticized Bachofen's ideas on the subject, which were almost entirely
drawn from a close reading of ancient mythology. In his 1861 book Mother Right: An
Investigation of the Religious and Juridical Character of Matriarchy in the Ancient World
Bachofen writes that in the beginning human sexuality was chaotic and promiscuous. This
"aphroditic" stage was replaced by a matriarchal "demeteric" stage, which resulted from the
mother being the only reliable way of establishing descendence. Only upon the switch to
male-enforced monogamy was paternity certainty possible, giving rise to patriarchy - the
ultimate "apolloan" stage of humanity. While the views of Bachofen are not based on
empirical evidence, they are important because of the impact they made on thinkers to come,
especially in the field of cultural anthropology. Modern explanations of the origins of human
sexuality are based in evolutionary biology, and specifically the field of human behavioral
ecology. Evolutionary biology shows that the human genotype, like that of all other
organisms, is the result of those ancestors who reproduced with greater frequency than others.
The resultant sexual behavior adaptations are thus not an "attempt" on the part of the
individual to maximize reproduction in a given situation - natural selection does not "see" into
the future. Instead, current behavior is probably the result of selective forces that occurred in
the Pleistocene.[1] For example, a man trying to have sex with many women all while avoiding
parental investment is not doing so because he wants to "increase his fitness", but because the
psychological framework that evolved and thrived in the Pleistocene never went away.[2]

Sources

Sexual speech—and by extension, writing—has been subject to varying standards of decorum

since the beginning of history. For most of historic time writing has not been used by more
than a small part of the total population of any society. Only in the 19th century and later are
there societies where over half the population are basically literate. The resulting self-
censorship and euphemistic forms translate today into a dearth of explicit and accurate
evidence on which to base a history. There are a number of primary sources that can be
collected across a wide variety of times and cultures, including the following:
  Records of legislation indicating either encouragement or prohibition
 Religious and philosophical texts recommending, condemning or debating the topic
 Literary sources, perhaps unpublished during their authors' lifetimes, including diaries
and personal correspondence
 Medical textbooks treating various forms as a pathological condition
 Linguistic developments, particularly in slang.
 More recently, studies of sexuality

Sex in various cultures

India

Main article: History of sex in India

Further information: Kama Sutra

India played a significant role in the history of sex, from writing one of the first literature that
treated sexual intercourse as a science, to in modern times being the origin of the
philosophical focus of new-age groups' attitudes on sex. It may be argued that India pioneered
the use of sexual education through art and literature. As in many societies, there was a
difference in sexual practices in India between common people and powerful rulers, with
people in power often indulging in hedonistic lifestyles that were not representative of
common moral attitudes.

The first evidence of attitudes towards sex comes from the ancient texts of Hinduism,
Buddhism and Jainism, the first of which are perhaps the oldest surviving literature in the
world. These most ancient texts, the Vedas, reveal moral perspectives on sexuality, marriage
and fertility prayers. Sex magic featured in a number of Vedic rituals, most significantly in the
Asvamedha Yajna, where the ritual culminated with the chief queen lying with the dead horse
in a simulated sexual act; clearly a fertility rite intended to safeguard and increase the
kingdom's productivity and martial prowess. The epics of ancient India, the Ramayana and
Mahabharata, which may have been first composed as early as 1400 BCE, had a huge effect
on the culture of Asia, influencing later Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan and South East Asian
culture. These texts support the view that in ancient India, sex was considered a mutual duty
between a married couple, where husband and wife pleasured each other equally, but where
sex was considered a private affair, at least by followers of the aforementioned Indian
religions. It seems that polygamy was allowed during ancient times. In practice, this seems to
have only been practiced by rulers, with common people maintaining a monogamous
marriage. It is common in many cultures for a ruling class to practice polygamy as a way of
preserving dynastic succession

The most publicly known sexual literature of India are the texts of the Kama Sutra. These
texts were written for and kept by the philosopher, warrior and nobility castes, their servants
and concubines, and those in certain religious orders. These were people that could also read
and write and had instruction and education. The sixty four arts of love-passion-pleasure
began in India. There are many different versions of the arts which began in Sanskrit and were
translated into other languages, such as Persian or Tibetan. Many of the original texts are
missing and the only clue to their existence is in other texts. Kama Sutra, the version by
Vatsyayana, is one of the well-known survivors and was first translated into English by Sir
Richard Burton and F. F. Arbuthnot. The Kama Sutra is now perhaps the most widely read
secular text in the world. It details ways in which partners should pleasure each other within a
marital relationship.

When the Islamic and Victorian English culture arrived in India, they generally had an
adverse impact on sexual liberalism in India. Within the context of the Indian religions, or
dharmas, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, sex is generally either seen as a
moral duty of each partner in a long term marriage relationship to the other, or is seen as a
desire which hinders spiritual detachment, and so must be renounced. In modern India, a
renaissance of sexual liberalism has occurred amongst the well-educated urban population,
but there is still discrimination and forced marriage incidents amongst the poor.

Within certain schools of Indian philosophy, such as Tantra, the emphasis in sex as a sacred
duty, or even a path to spiritual enlightenment or yogic balance is greatly emphasized. Actual
sexual intercourse is not a part of every form of tantric practice, but it is the definitive feature
of left-hand Tantra. Contrary to popular belief, "Tantric sex" is not always slow and sustained,
and may end in orgasm. For example, the Yoni Tantra states: "there should be vigorous
copulation". However, all tantra states that there were certain groups of personalities who
were not fit for certain practices. Tantra was personality specific and insisted that those with
pashu-bhava (animal disposition), which are people of dishonest, promiscuous, greedy or
violent natures who ate meat and indulged in intoxication, would only incur bad karma by
following Tantric paths without the aid of a Guru who could instruct them on the correct path.
In Buddhist tantra, actual ejaculation is very much a taboo, as the main goal of the sexual
practice is to use the sexual energy towards achieving full enlightenment, rather than ordinary
pleasure. Tantric sex is considered to be a pleasurable experience in Tantra philosophy. 71

China

In the I Ching (The Book of Changes, a Chinese classic text dealing with divination) sexual
intercourse is one of two fundamental models used to explain the world. With neither
embarrassment nor circumlocution, Heaven is described as having sexual intercourse with
Earth. Similarly, with no sense of prurient interest, the male lovers of early Chinese men of
great political power are mentioned in one of the earliest great works of philosophy and
literature, the Zhuang Zi (or Chuang Tzu, as it is written in the old system of romanization).

China has had a long history of sexism, with even moral leaders such as Confucius giving
extremely pejorative accounts of the innate characteristics of women. From early times, the
virginity of women was rigidly enforced by family and community and linked to the monetary
value of women as a kind of commodity (the "sale" of women involving the delivery of a
bride price). Men were protected in their own sexual adventures by a transparent double
standard. While the first wife of a man with any kind of social status in traditional society was
almost certainly chosen for him by his father and/or grandfather, the same man might later
secure for himself more desirable sexual partners with the status of concubines. In addition,
bondservants in his possession could also be sexually available to him. Naturally, not all men
had the financial resources to so greatly indulge themselves.

Chinese literature displays a long history of interest in affection, marital bliss, unabashed
sexuality, romance, amorous dalliances, homosexual alliances—in short, all of the aspects of
behavior that are affiliated with sexuality in the West. Besides the previously mentioned
Zhuang Zi passages, sexuality is exhibited in other works of literature such as the Tang
dynasty Yingying zhuan (Biography of Cui Yingying), the Qing dynasty Fu sheng liu ji (Six
Chapters of a Floating Life), the humorous and intentionally salacious Jin Ping Mei, and the
multi-faceted and insightful Hong lou meng (Dream of the Red Chamber, also called Story of
the Stone). Of the above, only the story of Yingying and her de facto husband Zhang fail to
describe homosexual as well as heterosexual interactions. The novel entitled Rou bu tuan
(Prayer mat of flesh) even describes cross-species organ transplants for the sake of enhanced
sexual performance. Among Chinese literature are the Taoist classical texts.[3] This
philosophical tradition of China has developed Taoist Sexual Practices which have three main
goals: health, longevity, and spiritual development.

The desire for respectability and the belief that all aspects of human behavior might be
brought under government control has until recently mandated to official Chinese spokesmen
that they maintain the fiction of sexual fidelity in marriage, absence of any great frequency of
premarital sexual intercourse, and total absence in China of the so-called "decadent capitalist
phenomenon" of homosexuality. The result of the ideological demands preventing objective
examination of sexual behavior in China has, until very recently, made it extremely difficult
for the government to take effective action against sexually transmitted diseases, especially
AIDS. At the same time, large migrations to the cities coupled with China's gender imbalance
and significant amounts of unemployment have led to resurgence of prostitution in
unregulated venues, a prominent accelerant of the propagation of STDs to many ordinary
members of society.

In recent decades the power of the family over individuals has weakened, making it
increasingly possible for young men and women to find their own sexual and/or marriage
partners.

Japan

In what is often called the world's first novel, the Genji Monogatari (Tale of Genji), which
dates back to around the eighth century AD, eroticism is treated as a central part of the
aesthetic life of the nobility. The sexual interactions of Prince Genji are described in great
detail, in an objective tone of voice, and in a way that indicates that sexuality was as much a
valued component of cultured life as music or any of the arts. While most of his erotic
interactions involve women, there is one telling episode in which Genji travels a fairly long
distance to visit one of the women with whom he occasionally consorts but finds her away
from home. It being late, and intercourse already being on the menu of the day, Genji takes
pleasure in the availability of the lady's younger brother who, he reports, is equally
satisfactory as an erotic partner.

From that time on to at least as late as the Meiji Reformation, there is no indication that
sexuality was treated in a pejorative way. In modern times homosexuality was driven out of
sight until it reemerged in the wake of the sexual revolution with seemingly little if any need
for a period of acceleration. Yukio Mishima, probably the best-known Japanese writer in the
outside world, frequently wrote about homosexuality, and its relationship with Japanese
culture new and old. Likewise, prostitution, pornography, the tradition of the Geisha, and
countless types of fetish and sadomasochism have resurfaced after decades underground.

In Japan, sexuality was governed by the same social forces that make its culture considerably
different from that of China, Korea, India, or Europe. In Japanese society, the primary method
used to secure social control is the threat of ostracism. Japanese society is still very much a
shame society.[citation needed] More attention is paid to what is polite or appropriate to show others
than to which behaviors might make a person seem "corrupt" or "guilty", in the Christian
sense of the words. The tendency of people in Japanese society to group in terms of "in
groups" and "out groups" - residue of its long history as a caste society - is a source of great
pressure on every facet of society, via pop culture (reflected in the tribal, often materialistic,
and very complex nature of teenage subcultures) as well as more traditional standards (as in
the high-pressure role of the salaryman). Sexual expression ranges from a requirement to a
complete taboo, and many, especially teenagers, find themselves playing many otherwise
strictly-separate roles during the week.

A frequent locus of misconceptions in regard to Japanese sexuality is the institution of the

geisha. Rather than being a prostitute, a geisha was a woman trained in arts such as music and
cultured conversation, and who was available for non-sexual interactions with her male
clientele. These women differed from the wives that their patrons probably had at home
because, except for the geisha, women were ordinarily not expected to be prepared for
anything other than the fulfillment of household duties. This limitation imposed by the normal
social role of the majority of women in traditional society produced a diminution in the
pursuits that those women could enjoy, but also a limitation in the ways that a man could
enjoy the company of his wife. The geisha fulfilled the non-sexual social roles that ordinary
women were prevented from fulfilling, and for this service they were well paid. The geisha
were not deprived of opportunities to express themselves sexually and in other erotic ways. A
geisha might have a patron with whom she enjoyed sexual intimacy, but this sexual role was
not part of her role or responsibility as a geisha.

As a superficial level, in traditional Japanese society women were expected to be highly

subservient to men and especially to their husbands. So, in a socionormal description of their
roles, they were little more than housekeepers and faithful sexual partners to their husbands.
Their husbands, on the other hand, might consort sexually with whomever they chose outside
of the family, and a major part of male social behavior involves after-work forays to places of
entertainment in the company of male cohorts from the workplace—places that might easily
offer possibilities of sexual satisfaction outside the family. In the postwar period this side of
Japanese society has seen some liberalization in regard to the norms imposed on women as
well as an expansion of the de facto powers of women in the family and in the community
that existed unacknowledged in traditional society.

In the years since people first became aware of the AIDS epidemic, Japan has not suffered the
high rates of disease and death that characterize, for example, some nations in Africa, some
nations in Southeast Asia, etc. In 1992, the government of Japan justified its continued refusal
to allow oral contraceptives to be distributed in Japan on the fear that it would lead to reduced
condom use, and thus increase transmission of AIDS.[4] As of 2004, condoms accounted for
80% of birth control use in Japan, and this may explain Japan's comparably lower rates of
AIDS.[5]

Classical antiquity

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding
citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(November 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Greece

In ancient Greece, the phallus, often in the form of a herma, was an object of worship as a
symbol of fertility. This finds expression in Greek sculpture and other artworks. One ancient
Greek male idea of female sexuality was that women envied penises of males. Wives were
considered as commodity and instruments for bearing legitimate children. They had to
compete sexually with eromenoi, hetaeras and slaves in their own homes.

Both Homosexuality and Bisexuality, in the form of pederasty, were social institutions in
ancient Greece, and were integral to education, art, religion, and politics. Relationships
between adults were not unknown but they were disfavored. Lesbian relations were also of a
pederastic nature.

In ancient Greece, it was common for men to have sexual relationships with youths. These
practices were a sign of maturity for youths, who looked up to men as sexual mentors.

Ancient Greek men believed that refined prostitution was necessary for pleasure and different
classes of prostitutes were available. Hetaera, educated and intelligent companions, were for
intellectual as well as physical pleasure, Peripatetic prostitutes solicited business on the
streets, whereas temple or consecrated prostitutes charged a higher price. In Corinth, a port
city, on the Aegean Sea, the temple held a thousand consecrated prostitutes.

Rape - usually in the context of warfare - was common and was seen by men as a “right of
domination”. Rape in the sense of "abduction" followed by consensual lovemaking was
represented even in religion: Zeus was said to have ravished many women: Leda in the form
of a swan, Danaë disguised as a golden rain, Alkmene disguised as her own husband. Zeus
also ravished a boy, Ganymede, a myth that paralleled Cretan custom.

Etruria

The ancient Etruscans had very different views on sexuality, when compared with the other
European ancient peoples, most of whom had inherited the Indo-European traditions and
views on the gender roles.

Greek writers, such as Theopompus and Plato named the Etruscan 'immoral' and from their
descriptions we find out that the women commonly had sex with men who were not their
husbands and that in their society, children were not labelled "illegitimate" just because they
did not know who the father was. Theopompus also described orgiastic rituals, but it is not
clear whether they were a common custom or only a minor ritual dedicated to a certain deity.
[citation needed]

Rome

The citizen's duty to control his body was central to the concept of male sexuality in the
Roman Republic.[6] "Virtue" (virtus, from vir, "man") was equated with "manliness." The
equivalent virtue for female citizens of good social standing was pudicitia, a form of sexual
integrity that displayed their attractiveness and self-control.[7] Female sexuality was
encouraged within marriage. In Roman patriarchal society, a "real man" was supposed to
govern both himself and others well, and should not submit to the use or pleasure of others.[8]
Same-sex behaviors were not perceived as diminishing a Roman's masculinity, as long as he
played the penetrative or dominating role. Acceptable male partners were social inferiors such
as prostitutes, entertainers, and slaves. Sex with freeborn male minors was formally prohibited
(see Lex Scantinia). "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" thus did not form the primary
dichotomy of Roman thinking about sexuality, and no Latin words for these concepts exist.[9]

Depictions of frank sexuality are abundant in Roman literature and art. The fascinum, a
phallic charm, was a ubiquitous decoration. Sexual positions and scenarios are depicted in
great variety among the wall paintings preserved at Pompeii and Herculaneum. Collections of
poetry celebrated love affairs, and The Art of Love by the Augustan poet Ovid playfully
instructed both men and women in how to attract and enjoy lovers. Elaborate theories of
human sexuality based on Greek philosophy were developed by thinkers such as Lucretius
and Seneca. Classical myths often deal with sexual themes such as gender identity, adultery,
incest, and rape.[citation needed]

Like other aspects of Roman life, sexuality was supported and regulated by traditional Roman
religion, both the public cult of the state and private religious practices and magic.[10] Cicero
held that the desire to procreate (libido) was "the seedbed of the republic," as it was the cause
for the first form of social institution, marriage, which in turn created the family, regarded by
the Romans as the building block of civilization.[11] Roman law penalized sex crimes
(stuprum), particularly rape, as well as adultery. A Roman husband, however, committed the
crime of adultery only when his sexual partner was a married woman.

Prostitution was legal, public, and widespread. Entertainers of any gender were assumed to be
sexually available (see infamia), and gladiators were sexually glamorous. Slaves lacked legal
personhood, and were vulnerable to sexual exploitation.

The dissolution of Republican ideals of physical integrity in relation to political liberty

contributes to and is reflected by the sexual license and decadence associated with the Roman
Empire.[12] Anxieties about the loss of liberty and the subordination of the citizen to the
emperor were expressed by a perceived increase in passive homosexual behavior among free
men.[13] Sexual conquest was a frequent metaphor for Roman imperialism.:[14])

French Polynesia

The Islands have been noted for their sexual culture. Many sexual activities seen as taboo in
western cultures were viewed as appropriate by the native culture. Contact with Western
societies has changed many of these customs, so research into their pre-Western social history
has to be done by reading antique writings.[15][16]

Children slept in the same room as their parents and were able to witness their parents while
they had sex. Intercourse simulation became real penetration as soon as boys were physically
able. Adults found simulation of sex by children to be funny. As children approached 11
attitudes shifted toward girls.
Premarital sex was not encouraged but was allowed in general, restrictions on adolescent
sexuality were incest, exogamy regulations, and firstborn daughters of high-ranking lineage.
After their firstborn child, high-ranking women were permitted extramarital affairs.

The next day, as soon as it was light, we were surrounded by a still greater multitude of these
people. There were now a hundred females at least; and they practised all the arts of lewd
expression and gesture, to gain admission on board. It was with difficulty I could get my crew
to obey the orders I had given on this subject. Amongst these females were some not more
than ten years of age. But youth, it seems, is here no test of innocence; these infants, as I may
call them, rivalled their mothers in the wantonness of their motions and the arts of allurement.

— Yuri Lisyansky in his memoirs[17]

Adam Johann von Krusenstern in his book[18] about the same expedition as Yuri's, reports that
a father brought a 10-12-year-old girl on his ship, and she had sex with the crew. According to
the book[19] of Charles Pierre Claret de Fleurieu and Étienne Marchand, 8-year-old girls had
sex and performed other sexual acts in public.

Twentieth Century: Sexual revolution

Main article: Sexual revolution

The second sexual revolution was a substantial change in sexual morality and sexual
behaviour throughout the West in the 1960s and early 1970s. One factor in the change of
values pertaining to sexual activities was the invention of new, efficient technologies for the
personal control of ability to enter pregnancy. Prime among them, at that time, was the first
birth control pill.[citation needed] Liberalized laws on abortion in many countries likewise made it
possible to safely and legally break off an unwanted pregnancy without having to invoke a
birth posing grave danger to the health of the mother.[20]

Same-sex relations

Societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships have varied over time and place, from
expecting all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through
acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and
judicial mechanisms, and to proscribing it under penalty of death.

In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of pre-industrial cultures,

"strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or
ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported
homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon." [21]

In cultures influenced by Abrahamic religions, the law and the church established sodomy as
a transgression against divine law or a crime against nature. The condemnation of anal sex
between males, however, predates Christian belief. It was frequent in ancient Greece;
"unnatural" can be traced back to Plato.[22]

Many historical figures, including Socrates, Lord Byron, Edward II, and Hadrian,[23] have had
terms such as gay or bisexual applied to them; some scholars, such as Michel Foucault, have
regarded this as risking the anachronistic introduction of a contemporary construction of
sexuality foreign to their times,[24] though others challenge this.[25]

A common thread of constructionist argument is that no one in antiquity or the Middle Ages
experienced homosexuality as an exclusive, permanent, or defining mode of sexuality. John
Boswell has countered this argument by citing ancient Greek writings by Plato,[26] which
describe individuals exhibiting exclusive homosexuality.

Religion and sex

Main article: Religion and sexuality

Judaism

In Jewish law, sex is not considered intrinsically sinful or shameful when conducted in
marriage, nor is it a necessary evil for the purpose of procreation. Sex is considered a private
and holy act between a husband and wife. Certain deviant sexual practices, enumerated
below, were considered gravely immoral "abominations" sometimes punishable by death. The
residue of sex (as with any lost bodily fluid) was considered ritually unclean outside the body,
and required ablution.[27]

Recently, some scholars have questioned whether the Old Testament banned all forms of
homosexuality, raising issues of translation and references to ancient cultural practices. [28]
However, rabbinic Judaism had unambiguously condemned homosexuality.

Mosaic law

 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the
earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and
over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28)

The Torah, while being quite frank in its description of various sexual acts, forbids certain
relationships. Namely, adultery, all forms of incest, male homosexuality, bestiality, and
introduced the idea that one should not have sex during the wife's period:

 You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, to become defiled by her. (Lev.
18:20)
 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
 And with no animal shall you cohabit, to become defiled by it. And a woman shall not
stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it; this is depravity. (Lev. 18:23)
 And to a woman during the uncleanness of her separation, you shall not come near to
uncover her nakedness. (Lev. 18:19)

The above passages may, however, be open to modern interpretation. The original meanings
of these verses did not change, but their interpretation may have changed after they were
translated into English and other languages. This view however, has been counteracted by
conservatives.

Christianity
Christianity re-emphasised the Jewish attitudes on sexuality with two new concepts. First,
there was the re-iterated idea that marriage was absolutely exclusive and indissoluble, placing
further guidance on divorce and expanding on the reasons and principles behind those laws.
Second, in Old Testament times marriage was almost universal, in continuity with the total
matrimony in Eden, but in the New Testament, the trajectory is extended forward to the goal
of no marriage in the new heavens and new earth (see Matthew 22). Practically therefore the
new age after Jesus now has marriage as only normative, but celibacy is a valuable gift in and
of itself.[citation needed]

New Testament

The New Testament is quite clear on principles regarding sexual relations. In one of his letters
to the Corinthian church, Paul directly answers some questions they had asked about this.

1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is well for a man not to
touch a woman.' 2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have
his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife
her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have
authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not
have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another
except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then
come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-
control. 6 This I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I
myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another
a different kind." (1 Corinthians 7:1-9, NRSV)

Paul is speaking into a situation where the church was falling into lust, and some members
even using prostitutes (6:16), while others advocated a 'higher spirituality' that wrongly
denied pleasure from earthly things, including abstinence from sex (7:1). Paul writes to them
to explain the right context for sex in marriage, and the importance of couples keeping having
sex and giving each other pleasure, but encourages them to pursue celibacy (as he later
explains [7:32-35], so that they may devote more time and energy to others) wherever God
has granted that gift (7:7).

Many other passages refer to sex or marriage.

Later Christian thought

St. Augustine opined that before Adam's fall, there was no lust in the sexual act, but that it
was entirely subordinate to human reason. Later theologians similarly concluded that the lust
involved in sexuality was a result of original sin, but nearly all agreed that this was only a
venial sin if conducted within marriage without inordinate lust.

In Reformed schools, as represented for example by the Westminster Confession, three

purposes of marriage are drawn out: for mutual encouragement, support, and pleasure; for
having children; and to prevent lustful sin.

Today, many Christians have adopted the view that there is no sin whatsoever in the
uninhibited enjoyment of marital relations. Some Christians will tend to limit the
circumstances and degree to which sexual pleasure is morally licit, for example to build self-
control to prevent sex becoming addictive, or as a fast.

This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may
be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to
additional sources. (January 2013)

Hinduism

In India, Hinduism accepted an open attitude towards sex as an art, science and spiritual
practice. The most famous pieces of Indian literature on sex are Kamasutra (Aphorisms on
Love) and Kamashastra (from Kama = pleasure, shastra = specialised knowledge or
technique). This collection of explicit sexual writings, both spiritual and practical, covers
most aspects of human courtship and sexual intercourse. It was put together in this form by
the sage Vatsyayana from a 150 chapter manuscript that had itself been distilled from 300
chapters that had in turn come from a compilation of some 100,000 chapters of text. The
Kamasutra is thought to have been written in its final form sometime between the third and
fifth century AD.

Also notable are the sculptures carved on temples in India, particularly the Khajuraho temple.
The frank depiction of uninhibited sex hints towards a liberated society and times where
people believed in dealing openly with all aspects of life. On the other hand, a group of
thinkers believe that depiction of sexually implicit carvings outside the temples indicate that
one should enter the temples leaving desires (kama).

Apart from Vatsyayana's Kamashastra, which is no doubt the most famous of all such
writings, there exist a number of other books, for example:

 The Ratirahasya, literal translation - secrets (rahasya) of love (rati, the union);
 The Panchasakya, or the five (panch) arrows (sakya);
 The Ratimanjari, or the garland (manjari) of love (rati, the union)
 The Anunga Runga, or the stage of love.

The Secrets of Love was written by a poet named Kukkoka. He is believed to have written this
treatise on his work to please one Venudutta, considered to be a king. This work was
translated into Hindi years ago and the author's name became Koka in short and the book he
wrote was called Koka Shastra. The same name crept into all the translations into other
languages in India. Koka Shastra literally means doctrines of Koka, which is identical with
the Kama Shastra, or doctrines of love, and the names Koka Shastra and Kama Shastra are
used indiscriminately.

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding
citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Islam

In Islam sexual intercourse is allowed only after marriage and only with one's spouse. Sex
outside of marriage is prohibited, called zina, as is adultery, which is considered a sin and is
strictly prohibited and punishable. According to the chapter Al-Israa', verse 32 of the Qur'an,
Allah (God) prohibits Muslims from getting close to (engaging in) zina, and having relations
with anyone other than one's spouse. And since marriage is only between a man and a woman,
any sexual intercourse between two men is prohibited.

Technology and sex

In the mid 20th century advances in medical science and modern understanding of the
menstrual cycle led to observational, surgical, chemical and laboratory techniques to allow
diagnosis and the treatment of many forms of infertility.

Pederasty

Many cultures normalized or promoted adult males and male youths, usually teenagers,
entering into pedagogic friendships or love affairs that also had an erotic dimension. These
were usually sexually expressed, but chaste ones were not infrequent. If sexual, that phase of
the relationship lasted until the youth was ready for adulthood and marriage. Other cultures
saw such relationships as inimical to their interests – often on religious grounds – and tried to
stamp them out.

See Pederasty, Shudo, Pederasty in ancient Greece

Zoophilia

Main article: History of zoophilia

Zoophilia or bestiality—sexual activity between humans and animals—probably dates back to

prehistory. Depictions of humans and animals in a sexual context appear infrequently in rock
art in Europe beginning around the onset of the Neolithic and the domestication of animals.[29]
Bestiality remained a common theme in mythology and folklore through the classical period
and into the Middle Ages (e.g. Leda and the Swan)[30] and several ancient authors purported to
document it as a regular, accepted practice – albeit usually in "other" cultures.

Explicit legal prohibition of human sexual contact with animals is a legacy of the Abrahamic
religions:[30] the Hebrew Bible imposes the death penalty on both the person and animal
involved in an act of bestiality.[31] There are several examples known from medieval Europe
of people and animals executed for committing bestiality. With the Age of Enlightenment,
bestiality was subsumed with other sexual "crimes against nature" into civil sodomy laws,
usually remaining a capital crime.

Bestiality remains illegal in most countries and condoned in none. Though religious and
"crime against nature" arguments may still be used to justify this, today the central issue is the
ability of non-human animals to give consent: it is argued that sex with animals is inherently
abusive.[32] In common with many paraphilias, the internet has allowed the formation of a
zoophile community that has begun to lobby for zoophilia to be considered an alternative
sexuality and for the legalisation of bestiality.[33]

Prostitution

Main article: History of prostitution

Prostitution is the sale of sexual services, such as oral sex or sexual intercourse. Prostitution
has been described as the "world's oldest profession". Gonorrhoeae is recorded at least up to
700 years ago and associated with a district in Paris formerly known as "Le Clapiers". This is
where the prostitutes were to be found at that time.[27]

In some cultures, prostitution has been an element of religious practices. Religious

prostitution is well documented in the ancient cultures of the near East, such as Sumer,
Babylon, ancient Greece and Israel, where prostitutes appear in the Bible. In Greece the
hetaerae were often women of high social class, whereas in Rome the meretrices were of
lower social order. The Devadasi, prostitutes of Hindu temples in south India, were made
illegal by the Indian government in 1988.

Sexually transmitted diseases

Main articles: Sexually transmitted diseases and Safe sex

For much of human history, sexually transmitted diseases have been a scourge of humanity.
They raged unchecked through society until the discovery of antibiotics.[citation needed] The
development of inexpensive condoms and education about sexually transmitted diseases has
helped reduce risks. For a period of about thirty years (in the second half of the twentieth
century) their threat subsided.[citation needed] However, due to the free movement of people and
uncontrolled distribution of antibiotics, organisms resistant to antibiotics quickly spread and
at the present time pose a threat to people who have more than one sex partner.

AIDS

Main article: AIDS

AIDS has profoundly changed modern sexuality. It was first noticed (although many
historians feel that the first case was in 1959) spreading among gay men and intravenous drug
users in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, the majority of victims are heterosexual women, men,
and children in developing countries. In most developing countries, fear of epidemic has
drastically changed many aspects of twentieth century human sexuality. Fear of contracting
AIDS has driven a revolution in sex education, which now centers far more the use of
protection and abstinence, and spends much more time discussing sexually transmitted
diseases.

Further effects of this disease run deep, radically impacting the expected average lifespan as
reported by the BBC News: "[The expected average lifespan] is falling in many African
countries - a girl born today in Sierra Leone could expect only to live to 36, in contrast to
Japan, where today's newborn girl might reach 85 on average."[34]

The birth control movement in the United States was a social reform campaign from 1914
to around 1945 that aimed to increase the availability of contraception in the U.S. through
education and legalization. The movement began in 1914 when a group of political radicals in
New York City, led by Emma Goldman, Mary Dennett, and Margaret Sanger, became
concerned about the hardships that childbirth and self-induced abortions brought to low-
income women. Sanger, in particular, simultaneously sought to connect birth control to the
organized eugenics movement, regularly appealing to the authority of eugenic scientists Karl
Pearson, Charles Davenport, and others in her Birth Control Review from the early 1920s [1]
Such figures sought to prevent population segments they deemed genetically 'undesirable'
from reproducing. While seeking legitimacy for the birth control movement partly through the
approval of organized eugenics, Sanger and other activists also worked on the political front.
Since contraception was considered to be obscene at the time, the activists targeted the
Comstock laws, which prohibited distribution of any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious"
materials through the mail. Hoping to provoke a favorable legal decision, Sanger deliberately
broke the law by distributing The Woman Rebel, a newsletter containing a discussion of
contraception. In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, but
the clinic was immediately shut down by police, and Sanger was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

A major turning point for the movement came during World War I, when many U.S.
servicemen were diagnosed with venereal diseases. The government's response included an
anti-venereal disease campaign that framed sexual intercourse and contraception as issues of
public health and legitimate topics of scientific research. This was the first time a U.S.
government institution had engaged in a sustained, public discussion of sexual matters; as a
consequence, contraception transformed from an issue of morals to an issue of public health.

Encouraged by the public's changing attitudes towards birth control, Sanger opened a second
birth control clinic in 1923, but this time there were no arrests or controversy. Throughout the
1920s, public discussion of contraception became more commonplace, and the term "birth
control" became firmly established in the nation's vernacular. The widespread availability of
contraception signaled a transition from the stricter sexual mores of the Victorian era to a
more sexually permissive society.

Legal victories in the 1930s continued to weaken anti-contraception laws. The court victories
motivated the American Medical Association in 1937 to adopt contraception as a core
component of medical school curricula, but the medical community was slow to accept this
new responsibility, and women continued to rely on unsafe and ineffective contraceptive
advice from ill-informed sources. In 1942, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America
was formed, creating a nationwide network of birth control clinics. After World War II, the
movement to legalize birth control came to a gradual conclusion, as birth control was fully
embraced by the medical profession, and the remaining anti-contraception laws were no
longer enforced.

Ephebophilia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents,

generally ages 15 to 19.[1][2] The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century.
[2]
It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical
term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent
sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction.

In research environments, specific terms are used for chronophilias: for instance, ephebophilia
to refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents,[1][3] hebephilia to refer to the
sexual preference for earlier pubescent individuals, and pedophilia to refer to the sexual
preference for prepubescent children.[3][4] However, the term pedophilia is commonly used by
the general public to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent,
regardless of their level of physical or mental development.[5]
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending,
and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The term ethics derives from the
Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit,
"custom"). The branch of philosophy axiology comprises the sub-branches of ethics and
aesthetics, each concerned with values.[2]

As a branch of philosophy, ethics investigates the questions "What is the best way for people
to live?" and "What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?" In practice, ethics
seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil,
right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral
philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value
theory.

Three major areas of study within ethics recognised today are:[1]

1. Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions,

and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
2. Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of
action
3. Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific
situation or a particular domain of action[1]

Defining ethics

Rushworth Kidder states that "standard definitions of ethics have typically included such
phrases as 'the science of the ideal human character' or 'the science of moral duty'".[3] Richard
William Paul and Linda Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us
in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".[4] The Cambridge Dictionary
of Philosophy states that the word ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ...
and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition,
group or individual."[5] Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in
accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law and don't treat ethics as a
stand-alone concept.[4]

The word "ethics" in English refers to several things.[6] It can refer to philosophical ethics or
moral philosophy—a project that attempts to use reason in order to answer various kinds of
ethical questions. As the English philosopher Bernard Williams writes, attempting to explain
moral philosophy: "What makes an inquiry a philosophical one is reflective generality and a
style of argument that claims to be rationally persuasive."[7] And Williams describes the
content of this area of inquiry as addressing the very broad question, "how one should live"[8]
Ethics can also refer to a common human ability to think about ethical problems that is not
particular to philosophy. As bioethicist Larry Churchill has written: "Ethics, understood as the
capacity to think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of such values,
is a generic human capacity."[9] Ethics can also be used to describe a particular person's own
idiosyncratic principles or habits.[10] For example: "Joe has strange ethics."

The English word ethics is derived from an Ancient Greek word êthikos, which means
"relating to one's character". The Ancient Greek adjective êthikos is itself derived from
another Greek word, the noun êthos meaning "character, disposition".[11]
Meta-ethics

Main article: Meta-ethics

Meta-ethics asks how we understand, know about, and what we mean when we talk about
what is right and what is wrong.[12] An ethical question fixed on some particular practical
question—such as, "Should I eat this particular piece of chocolate cake?"—cannot be a meta-
ethical question. A meta-ethical question is abstract and relates to a wide range of more
specific practical questions. For example, "Is it ever possible to have secure knowledge of
what is right and wrong?" would be a meta-ethical question.

Meta-ethics has always accompanied philosophical ethics. For example, Aristotle implies that
less precise knowledge is possible in ethics than in other spheres of inquiry, and he regards
ethical knowledge as depending upon habit and acculturation in a way that makes it
distinctive from other kinds of knowledge. Meta-ethics is also important in G.E. Moore's
Principia Ethica from 1903. In it he first wrote about what he called the naturalistic fallacy.
Moore was seen to reject naturalism in ethics, in his Open Question Argument. This made
thinkers look again at second order questions about ethics. Earlier, the Scottish philosopher
David Hume had put forward a similar view on the difference between facts and values.

Studies of how we know in ethics divide into cognitivism and non-cognitivism; this is similar
to the contrast between descriptivists and non-descriptivists. Non-cognitivism is the claim that
when we judge something as right or wrong, this is neither true nor false. We may for
example be only expressing our emotional feelings about these things.[13] Cognitivism can
then be seen as the claim that when we talk about right and wrong, we are talking about
matters of fact.

The ontology of ethics is about value-bearing things or properties, i.e. the kind of things or
stuff referred to by ethical propositions. Non-descriptivists and non-cognitivists believe that
ethics does not need a specific ontology, since ethical propositions do not refer. This is known
as an anti-realist position. Realists on the other hand must explain what kind of entities,
properties or states are relevant for ethics, how they have value, and why they guide and
motivate our actions.[14]

Normative ethics

Main article: Normative ethics

Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of ethics that investigates the
set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.
Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness
and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language and the
metaphysics of moral facts.[12] Normative ethics is also distinct from descriptive ethics, as the
latter is an empirical investigation of people's moral beliefs. To put it another way, descriptive
ethics would be concerned with determining what proportion of people believe that killing is
always wrong, while normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a
belief. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes called prescriptive, rather than descriptive.
However, on certain versions of the meta-ethical view called moral realism, moral facts are
both descriptive and prescriptive at the same time.[15]
Traditionally, normative ethics (also known as moral theory) was the study of what makes
actions right and wrong. These theories offered an overarching moral principle one could
appeal to in resolving difficult moral decisions.

At the turn of the 20th century, moral theories became more complex and are no longer
concerned solely with rightness and wrongness, but are interested in many different kinds of
moral status. During the middle of the century, the study of normative ethics declined as
meta-ethics grew in prominence. This focus on meta-ethics was in part caused by an intense
linguistic focus in analytic philosophy and by the popularity of logical positivism.

In 1971 John Rawls published A Theory of Justice, noteworthy in its pursuit of moral
arguments and eschewing of meta-ethics. This publication set the trend for renewed interest in
normative ethics.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior,
and is used to describe the ethics of Socrates, Aristotle, and other early Greek philosophers.
Socrates (469–399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars
and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of
humankind. In this view, knowledge bearing on human life was placed highest, while all other
knowledge were secondary. Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and
inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within his capabilities to
his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a
person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he
wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good, if they
know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the result of ignorance. If a criminal was truly
aware of the intellectual and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither commit
nor even consider committing those actions. Any person who knows what is truly right will
automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he
similarly equated virtue with joy. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is
good, and therefore be happy.[16]:32–33

Aristotle (384–323 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "self-realizationism". In
Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full
potential, he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential
person. To become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized.
Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to
failed goals and a poor life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Therefore, it is
imperative for people to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents in
order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things,
such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the awareness of
one's nature and the development of one's talents, is the surest path to happiness.[16]:33–35

Aristotle asserted that man had three natures: vegetable (physical/metabolism), animal
(emotional/appetite) and rational (mental/conceptual). Physical nature can be assuaged
through exercise and care, emotional nature through indulgence of instinct and urges, and
mental through human reason and developed potential. Rational development was considered
the most important, as essential to philosophical self-awareness and as uniquely human.
Moderation was encouraged, with the extremes seen as degraded and immoral. For example,
courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Man
should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue. This is
regarded as difficult, as virtue denotes doing the right thing, to the right person, at the right
time, to the proper extent, in the correct fashion, for the right reason.[16]:35–37

Stoicism

The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity.
Peace of mind, or Apatheia, was of the highest value; self-mastery over one's desires and
emotions leads to spiritual peace. The "unconquerable will" is central to this philosophy. The
individual's will should be independent and inviolate. Allowing a person to disturb the mental
equilibrium is in essence offering yourself in slavery. If a person is free to anger you at will,
you have no control over your internal world, and therefore no freedom. Freedom from
material attachments is also necessary. If a thing breaks, the person should not be upset, but
realize it was a thing that could break. Similarly, if someone should die, those close to them
should hold to their serenity because the loved one was made of flesh and blood destined to
death. Stoic philosophy says to accept things that cannot be changed, resigning oneself to
existence and enduring in a rational fashion. Death is not feared. People do not "lose" their
life, but instead "return", for they are returning to God (who initially gave what the person is
as a person). Epictetus said difficult problems in life should not be avoided, but rather
embraced. They are spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit, just as physical
exercise is required for the health of the body. He also stated that sex and sexual desire are to
be avoided as the greatest threat to the integrity and equilibrium of a man's mind. Abstinence
is highly desirable. Epictetus said remaining abstinent in the face of temptation was a victory
for which a man could be proud.[16]:38–41

Contemporary virtue ethics

Modern virtue ethics was popularized during the late 20th century in large part as a response
to G. E. M. Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy". Anscombe argues that consequentialist
and deontological ethics are only feasible as universal theories if the two schools ground
themselves in divine law. As a deeply devoted Christian herself, Anscombe proposed that
either those who do not give ethical credence to notions of divine law take up virtue ethics,
which does not necessitate universal laws as agents themselves are investigated for virtue or
vice and held up to "universal standards", or that those who wish to be utilitarian or
consequentialist ground their theories in religious conviction.[17] Alasdair MacIntyre, who
wrote the book After Virtue, was a key contributor and proponent of modern virtue ethics,
although MacIntyre supports a relativistic account of virtue based on cultural norms, not
objective standards.[17] Martha Nussbaum, a contemporary virtue ethicist, objects to
MacIntyre's relativism, among that of others, and responds to relativist objections to form an
objective account in her work "Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach".[18] Complete
Conduct Principles for the 21st Century[19] blended the Eastern virtue ethics and the Western
virtue ethics, with some modifications to suit the 21st Century, and formed a part of
contemporary virtue ethics.[19]

Hedonism

Main article: Hedonism

Hedonism posits that the principal ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. There
are several schools of Hedonist thought ranging from those advocating the indulgence of even
momentary desires to those teaching a pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of
consequences, they range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and
expense to others, to those stating that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and
happiness for the most people.[16]:37

Cyrenaic hedonism

Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, Cyrenaics supported immediate gratification or pleasure.

"Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Even fleeting desires should be indulged, for
fear the opportunity should be forever lost. There was little to no concern with the future, the
present dominating in the pursuit for immediate pleasure. Cyrenaic hedonism encouraged the
pursuit of enjoyment and indulgence without hesitation, believing pleasure to be the only
good.[16]:37

Epicureanism

Main article: Epicureanism

Epicurean ethics is a hedonist form of virtue ethics. Epicurus "presented a sustained argument
that pleasure, correctly understood, will coincide with virtue".[20] He rejected the extremism of
the Cyrenaics, believing some pleasures and indulgences to be detrimental to human beings.
Epicureans observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative
consequences. Some experiences were therefore rejected out of hand, and some unpleasant
experiences endured in the present to ensure a better life in the future. To Epicurus the
summum bonum, or greatest good, was prudence, exercised through moderation and caution.
Excessive indulgence can be destructive to pleasure and can even lead to pain. For example,
eating one food too often will cause a person to lose taste for it. Eating too much food at once
will lead to discomfort and ill-health. Pain and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially
good, barring pain and illness. Death was not to be feared. Fear was considered the source of
most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead to a happier life.
Epicurus reasoned if there was an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If
there was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear or worry; he
would be non-existent in death. It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not exist,
such as one's state in death in the absence of an afterlife.[16]:37–38

State consequentialism

Main article: State consequentialism

State consequentialism, also known as Mohist consequentialism,[21] is an ethical theory that

evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the basic goods of
a state.[21] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Mohist consequentialism,
dating back to the 5th century BC, as "a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality
of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of human welfare".[22] Unlike utilitarianism, which
views pleasure as a moral good, "the basic goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking are ...
order, material wealth, and increase in population".[23] During Mozi's era, war and famines
were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious society.
The "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs like shelter and
clothing, and the "order" of Mohist consequentialism refers to Mozi's stance against warfare
and violence, which he viewed as pointless and a threat to social stability.[24]

Stanford sinologist David Shepherd Nivison, in The Cambridge History of Ancient China,
writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth, then more
reproduction; more people, then more production and wealth ... if people have plenty, they
would be good, filial, kind, and so on unproblematically."[23] The Mohists believed that
morality is based on "promoting the benefit of all under heaven and eliminating harm to all
under heaven". In contrast to Bentham's views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian
because it is not hedonistic or individualistic. The importance of outcomes that are good for
the community outweigh the importance of individual pleasure and pain.[25]

Consequentialism/Teleology

Main article: Consequentialism

See also: Ethical egoism

Consequentialism refers to moral theories that hold that the consequences of a particular
action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action (or create a structure for
judgment, see rule consequentialism). Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally
right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This view is often
expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means".

The term "consequentialism" was coined by G. E. M. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral
Philosophy" in 1958, to describe what she saw as the central error of certain moral theories,
such as those propounded by Mill and Sidgwick.[26] Since then, the term has become common
in English-language ethical theory.

The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the
consequences in evaluating the rightness and wrongness of actions.[27] In consequentialist
theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh other considerations. Apart
from this basic outline, there is little else that can be unequivocally said about
consequentialism as such. However, there are some questions that many consequentialist
theories address:

 What sort of consequences count as good consequences?

 Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
 How are the consequences judged and who judges them?

One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to
matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs. According to
utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase in a positive effect, and the best
action is one that results in that effect for the greatest number. Closely related is eudaimonic
consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the
same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an
aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one
might fix on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might pursue an
increase in material equality or political liberty instead of something like the more ephemeral
"pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally.
Whether a particular consequentialist theory focuses on a single good or many, conflicts and
tensions between different good states of affairs are to be expected and must be adjudicated.

Utilitarianism

Main article: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues the proper course of action is one that
maximizes a positive effect, such as "happiness", "welfare", or the ability to live according to
personal preferences.[28] Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are influential proponents of
this school of thought. In A Fragment on Government Bentham says 'it is the greatest
happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong' and describes this as
a fundamental axiom. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation he talks
of 'the principle of utility' but later prefers "the greatest happiness principle".[29][30]

Utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This form of

utilitarianism holds that what matters is the aggregate positive effect of everyone and not only
of any one person. John Stuart Mill, in his exposition of utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy
of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than
the pursuit of other pleasures.[31] Other noteworthy proponents of utilitarianism are
neuroscientist Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape, and moral philosopher Peter
Singer, author of, amongst other works, Practical Ethics.

There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. In act
utilitarianism the principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in a situation of
choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results (or the least
amount of bad results). In rule utilitarianism the principle of utility is used to determine the
validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by
looking at the consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in
which promises were binding. Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking
those rules.[32]

Deontology

Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -
logia) is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or
the rules and duties that the person doing the act strove to fulfill.[33] This is in contrast to
consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act, and not the act
by itself. In deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad
consequence,[34] if it follows the rule that "one should do unto others as they would have done
unto them",[35] and even if the person who does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in
doing the act.[citation needed] According to deontology, people have a duty to act in a way that does
those things that are inherently good as acts ("truth-telling" for example), or follow an
objectively obligatory rule (as in rule utilitarianism). For deontologists, the ends or
consequences of people's actions are not important in and of themselves, and people's
intentions are not important in and of themselves.

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[36]
[37]
First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon).[38]
Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or
wrong but the motives (maxime) of the person who carries out the action. Kant's argument
that to act in the morally right way, one must act from duty, begins with an argument that the
highest good must be both good in itself, and good without qualification.[39] Something is
'good in itself' when it is intrinsically good, and 'good without qualification' when the addition
of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that
are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be
either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears to not
be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone
suffer, they make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that
is truly good:

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived
which could be called good without qualification except a good will.[39]

Pragmatic ethics

Main article: Pragmatic ethics

Associated with the pragmatists, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and especially John
Dewey, pragmatic ethics holds that moral correctness evolves similarly to scientific
knowledge: socially over the course of many lifetimes. Thus, we should prioritize social
reform over attempts to account for consequences, individual virtue or duty (although these
may be worthwhile attempts, provided social reform is provided for).[40]

Role ethics

Main article: Role ethics

Role ethics is an ethical theory based on family roles.[41] Unlike virtue ethics, role ethics is not
individualistic. Morality is derived from a person's relationship with their community. [42]
Confucian ethics is an example of role ethics.[41] Confucian roles center around the concept of
filial piety or xiao, a respect for family members.[43] According to Roger Ames and Henry
Rosemont, "Confucian normativity is defined by living one's family roles to maximum
effect." Morality is determined through a person's fulfillment of a role, such as that of a parent
or a child. Confucian roles are not rational, and originate through the xin, or human emotions.
[42]

Anarchist ethics

Main article: Anarchism

Anarchist ethics is an ethical theory based on the studies of anarchist thinkers. The biggest
contributor to the anarchist ethics is the Russian zoologist, geographer, economist and
political activist Peter Kropotkin. The anarchist ethics is a big and vague field which can
depend upon different historical situations and different anarchist thinkers, but as Peter
Kropotkin explains, "any “bourgeois” or “proletarian” ethics rests, after all, on the common
basis, on the common ethnological foundation, which at times exerts a very strong influence
on the principles of the class or group morality." Still, most of the anarchist ethics schools are
based on three fundamental ideas, which are: "solidarity, equality and justice". Kropotkin
argues that Ethics is evolutionary and is inherited as a sort of a social instinct through History,
and by so, he rejects any religious and transcendental explanation of ethics.[44] Kropotkin
suggests that the principle of equality which lies at the basis of anarchism is the same as the
Golden rule:

This principle of treating others as one wishes to be treated oneself, what is it but the very
same principle as equality, the fundamental principle of anarchism? And how can any one
manage to believe himself an anarchist unless he practices it? We do not wish to be ruled.
And by this very fact, do we not declare that we ourselves wish to rule nobody? We do not
wish to be deceived, we wish always to be told nothing but the truth. And by this very fact, do
we not de- clare that we ourselves do not wish to deceive anybody, that we promise to always
tell the truth, nothing but the truth, the whole truth? We do not wish to have the fruits of our
labor stolen from us. And by that very fact, do we not declare that we respect the fruits of
others' labor? By what right indeed can we demand that we should be treated in one fashion,
reserving it to ourselves to treat others in a fashion entirely different? Our sense of equality
revolts at such an idea.[45]

Postmodern ethics

Main article: Postmodernism

This article or section possibly contains previously unpublished synthesis of
published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources.
Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (July 2009) (Learn how and when
to remove this template message)

The 20th century saw a remarkable expansion and evolution of critical theory, following on
earlier Marxist Theory efforts to locate individuals within larger structural frameworks of
ideology and action.

Antihumanists such as Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault and structuralists such as Roland
Barthes challenged the possibilities of individual agency and the coherence of the notion of
the 'individual' itself.[clarification needed] As critical theory developed in the later 20th century, post-
structuralism sought to problematize human relationships to knowledge and 'objective' reality.
Jacques Derrida argued that access to meaning and the 'real' was always deferred, and sought
to demonstrate via recourse to the linguistic realm that "there is nothing outside context" ("il
n'y a pas de hors-texte" is often mistranslated as "there is nothing outside the text"); at the
same time, Jean Baudrillard theorised that signs and symbols or simulacra mask reality (and
eventually the absence of reality itself), particularly in the consumer world.

Post-structuralism and postmodernism argue that ethics must study the complex and relational
conditions of actions. A simple alignment of ideas of right and particular acts is not possible.
There will always be an ethical remainder that cannot be taken into account or often even
recognized. Such theorists find narrative (or, following Nietzsche and Foucault, genealogy) to
be a helpful tool for understanding ethics because narrative is always about particular lived
experiences in all their complexity rather than the assignment of an idea or norm to separate
and individuated actions.

Zygmunt Bauman says Postmodernity is best described as Modernity without illusion, the
illusion being the belief that humanity can be repaired by some ethic principle. Postmodernity
can be seen in this light as accepting the messy nature of humanity as unchangeable.
David Couzens Hoy states that Emmanuel Levinas's writings on the face of the Other and
Derrida's meditations on the relevance of death to ethics are signs of the "ethical turn" in
Continental philosophy that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. Hoy describes post-critique
ethics as the "obligations that present themselves as necessarily to be fulfilled but are neither
forced on one or are enforceable" (2004, p. 103).

Hoy's post-critique model uses the term ethical resistance. Examples of this would be an
individual's resistance to consumerism in a retreat to a simpler but perhaps harder lifestyle, or
an individual's resistance to a terminal illness. Hoy describes Levinas's account as "not the
attempt to use power against itself, or to mobilize sectors of the population to exert their
political power; the ethical resistance is instead the resistance of the powerless"(2004, p. 8).

Hoy concludes that

The ethical resistance of the powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is
therefore what imposes unenforceable obligations on us. The obligations are unenforceable
precisely because of the other's lack of power. That actions are at once obligatory and at the
same time unenforceable is what put them in the category of the ethical. Obligations that were
enforced would, by the virtue of the force behind them, not be freely undertaken and would
not be in the realm of the ethical. (2004, p.184)

In present-day terms the powerless may include the unborn, the terminally sick, the aged, the
insane, and non-human animals. It is in these areas that ethical action in Hoy's sense will
apply. Until legislation or the state apparatus enforces a moral order that addresses the causes
of resistance these issues will remain in the ethical realm. For example, should animal
experimentation become illegal in a society, it will no longer be an ethical issue on Hoy's
definition. Likewise one hundred and fifty years ago, not having a black slave in America
would have been an ethical choice. This later issue has been absorbed into the fabric of an
enforceable social order and is therefore no longer an ethical issue in Hoy's sense.

Applied ethics

Main article: Applied ethics

Applied ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life
situations. The discipline has many specialized fields, such as engineering ethics, bioethics,
geoethics, public service ethics and business ethics.

Specific questions

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (May 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Applied ethics is used in some aspects of determining public policy, as well as by individuals
facing difficult decisions. The sort of questions addressed by applied ethics include: "Is
getting an abortion immoral?" "Is euthanasia immoral?" "Is affirmative action right or
wrong?" "What are human rights, and how do we determine them?" "Do animals have rights
as well?" and "Do individuals have the right of self determination?"[12]
A more specific question could be: "If someone else can make better out of his/her life than I
can, is it then moral to sacrifice myself for them if needed?" Without these questions there is
no clear fulcrum on which to balance law, politics, and the practice of arbitration—in fact, no
common assumptions of all participants—so the ability to formulate the questions are prior to
rights balancing. But not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For
example, making ethical judgments regarding questions such as, "Is lying always wrong?"
and, "If not, when is it permissible?" is prior to any etiquette.

People in-general are more comfortable with dichotomies (two opposites). However, in ethics
the issues are most often multifaceted and the best proposed actions address many different
areas concurrently. In ethical decisions the answer is almost never a "yes or no", "right or
wrong" statement. Many buttons are pushed so that the overall condition is improved and not
to the benefit of any particular faction.

Particular fields of application

Bioethics

Main article: Bioethics

Bioethics is the study of controversial ethics brought about by advances in biology and
medicine. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships
among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. It also includes
the study of the more commonplace questions of values ("the ethics of the ordinary") that
arise in primary care and other branches of medicine.

Bioethics also needs to address emerging biotechnologies that affect basic biology and future
humans. These developments include cloning, gene therapy, human genetic engineering,
astroethics and life in space,[46] and manipulation of basic biology through altered DNA, RNA
and proteins,e.g.- "three parent baby,where baby is born from genetically modified embryos,
would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor.[47] Correspondingly, new
bioethics also need to address life at its core. For example, biotic ethics value organic
gene/protein life itself and seek to propagate it.[48] With such life-centered principles, ethics
may secure a cosmological future for life.[49]

Business ethics

Main article: Business ethics

Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics that
examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business
environment, including fields like Medical ethics. It applies to all aspects of business conduct
and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations.

Business ethics has both normative and descriptive dimensions. As a corporate practice and a
career specialization, the field is primarily normative. Academics attempting to understand
business behavior employ descriptive methods. The range and quantity of business ethical
issues reflects the interaction of profit-maximizing behavior with non-economic concerns.
Interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within
major corporations and within academia. For example, today most major corporations
promote their commitment to non-economic values under headings such as ethics codes and
social responsibility charters. Adam Smith said, "People of the same trade seldom meet
together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against
the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."[50] Governments use laws and regulations to
point business behavior in what they perceive to be beneficial directions. Ethics implicitly
regulates areas and details of behavior that lie beyond governmental control.[51] The
emergence of large corporations with limited relationships and sensitivity to the communities
in which they operate accelerated the development of formal ethics regimes.[52]

Machine ethics

Main article: Machine ethics

In Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen
conclude that issues in machine ethics will likely drive advancement in understanding of
human ethics by forcing us to address gaps in modern normative theory and by providing a
platform for experimental investigation.[53] The effort to actually program a machine or
artificial agent to behave as though instilled with a sense of ethics requires new specificity in
our normative theories, especially regarding aspects customarily considered common-sense.
For example, machines, unlike humans, can support a wide selection of learning algorithms,
and controversy has arisen over the relative ethical merits of these options. This may reopen
classic debates of normative ethics framed in new (highly technical) terms.

Military ethics

See also: Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg Principles

Military ethics are concerned with questions regarding the application of force and the ethos
of the soldier and are often understood as applied professional ethics.[54] Just war theory is
generally seen to set the background terms of military ethics. However individual countries
and traditions have different fields of attention.[55]

Military ethics involves multiple subareas, including the following among others:

1. what, if any, should be the laws of war.

2. justification for the initiation of military force.
3. decisions about who may be targeted in warfare.
4. decisions on choice of weaponry, and what collateral effects such weaponry may have.
5. standards for handling military prisoners.
6. methods of dealing with violations of the laws of war.

Political ethics

Main article: Political ethics

Political ethics (also known as political morality or public ethics) is the practice of making
moral judgements about political action and political agents.[56]

Public sector ethics

Main article: Public sector ethics

Public sector ethics is a set of principles that guide public officials in their service to their
constituents, including their decision-making on behalf of their constituents. Fundamental to
the concept of public sector ethics is the notion that decisions and actions are based on what
best serves the public's interests, as opposed to the official's personal interests (including
financial interests) or self-serving political interests.[57]

Publication ethics

Publication ethics is the set of principles that guide the writing and publishing process for all
professional publications. In order to follow the set of principles, authors should verify that
the publication does not contain plagiarism or publication bias.[58] As a way to avoid
misconduct in research these principles can also be applied to experiments which are
referenced or analyzed in publications by ensuring the data is recorded, honestly and
accurately.[59]

Plagiarism is the failure to give credit to another author’s work or ideas, when it is used in the
publication.[60] It is the obligation of the editor of the journal to ensure the article does not
contain any plagiarism before it is published.[61] If a publication which has already been
published is proven to contain plagiarism, then the editor of the journal can proceed to have
the article retracted.[62]

Publication bias occurs when the publication is one-sided or "prejudiced against results".[63] In
best practice, an author should try to include information from all parties involved, or affected
by the topic. If an author is prejudiced against certain results, than it can "lead to erroneous
conclusions being drawn.”[64]

Misconduct in research can occur when information from an experiment is falsely recorded or
altered.[65] Falsely recorded information occurs when the researcher "fakes" information or
data, which was not used when conducting the actual experiment.[65] By faking the data, the
researcher can alter the results from the experiment to better fit the hypothesis they originally
predicted. When conducting medical research, it is important to honor the healthcare rights of
a patient by protecting their anonymity in the publication.[58]

Relational ethics

Relational ethics are related to an ethics of care.[66]:62–63 They are used in qualitative research,
especially ethnography and autoethnography. Researchers who employ relational ethics value
and respect the connection between themselves and the people they study, and "between
researchers and the communities in which they live and work" (Ellis, 2007, p. 4).[67] Relational
ethics also help researchers understand difficult issues such as conducting research on
intimate others that have died and developing friendships with their participants.[68][69]
Relational ethics in close personal relationships form a central concept of contextual therapy.

Moral psychology

Main article: Moral psychology

Moral psychology is a field of study that began as an issue in philosophy and that is now
properly considered part of the discipline of psychology. Some use the term "moral
psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.[70] However,
others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics and
psychology (and philosophy of mind).[71] Such topics are ones that involve the mind and are
relevant to moral issues. Some of the main topics of the field are moral responsibility, moral
development, moral character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological
egoism, moral luck, and moral disagreement.[72]

Evolutionary ethics

Main article: Evolutionary ethics

See also: Evolution of morality

Evolutionary ethics concerns approaches to ethics (morality) based on the role of evolution in
shaping human psychology and behavior. Such approaches may be based in scientific fields
such as evolutionary psychology or sociobiology, with a focus on understanding and
explaining observed ethical preferences and choices.[73]

Descriptive ethics

Main article: Descriptive ethics

Descriptive ethics is on the less philosophical end of the spectrum, since it seeks to gather
particular information about how people live and draw general conclusions based on observed
patterns. Abstract and theoretical questions that are more clearly philosophical—such as, "Is
ethical knowledge possible?"—are not central to descriptive ethics. Descriptive ethics offers a
value-free approach to ethics, which defines it as a social science rather than a humanity. Its
examination of ethics doesn't start with a preconceived theory, but rather investigates
observations of actual choices made by moral agents in practice. Some philosophers rely on
descriptive ethics and choices made and unchallenged by a society or culture to derive
categories, which typically vary by context. This can lead to situational ethics and situated
ethics. These philosophers often view aesthetics, etiquette, and arbitration as more
fundamental, percolating "bottom up" to imply the existence of, rather than explicitly
prescribe, theories of value or of conduct. The study of descriptive ethics may include
examinations of the following:

 Ethical codes applied by various groups. Some consider aesthetics itself the basis of
ethics—and a personal moral core developed through art and storytelling as very
influential in one's later ethical choices.
 Informal theories of etiquette that tend to be less rigorous and more situational. Some
consider etiquette a simple negative ethics, i.e., where can one evade an uncomfortable
truth without doing wrong? One notable advocate of this view is Judith Martin ("Miss
Manners"). According to this view, ethics is more a summary of common sense social
decisions.
 Practices in arbitration and law, e.g., the claim that ethics itself is a matter of balancing
"right versus right", i.e., putting priorities on two things that are both right, but that
must be traded off carefully in each situation.
  Observed choices made by ordinary people, without expert aid or advice, who vote,
buy, and decide what is worth valuing. This is a major concern of sociology, political
science, and economics.

The science of morality may refer to various forms of ethical naturalism grounding morality
in rational, empirical consideration of the natural world.[1]

Overview

Moral science may refer to the consideration of what is best for, and how to maximize the
flourishing of, either particular individuals[2] or all conscious creatures.[3][4] It has been
proposed that "morality" can be appropriately defined on the basis of fundamental premises
necessary for any empirical, secular, and philosophical discussion and that societies can use
the methods of science to provide answers to moral questions.[5]

In sum, from the perspective of neuroscience and brain evolution, the routine rejection of
scientific approaches to moral behavior based on Hume’s warning against deriving ought
from is seems unfortunate, especially as the warning is limited to deductive inferences. The
dictum can be set aside for a deeper, albeit programmatic, neurobiological perspective on
what reasoning and problem-solving are, how social navigation works, how evaluation is
accomplished by nervous systems, and how mammalian brains make decisions.

-Patricia Churchland in her book Braintrust (emphasis added)

The norms advocated by moral scientists (e.g. rights to abortion, euthanasia, and drug
liberalization under certain circumstances) would be founded upon the shifting and growing
collection of human understanding.[6] Even with science's admitted degree of ignorance, and
the various semantic issues, moral scientists can meaningfully discuss things as being almost
certainly "better" or "worse" for promoting flourishing.[7]

History

In philosophy

Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham discussed some of the ways moral investigations are a science.[8]
He criticizes deontological ethics for failing to recognize that it needed to make the same
presumptions as his science of morality to really work – whilst pursuing rules that were to be
obeyed in every situation (something that worried Bentham).

W.V.O. Quine advocated naturalizing epistemology by looking to natural sciences like

psychology for a full explanation of knowledge.[further explanation needed] His work contributed to a
resurgence of moral naturalism in the last half of the 20th century. Paul Kurtz, who believes
that the careful, secular pursuit of normative rules is vital to society, coined the term
eupraxophy to refer to his approach to normative ethics. Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and Peter
Singer believe that we learn what is right and wrong through reason and empirical
methodology.[9][10]
Maria Ossowska used the methods of science to understand the origins of moral norms.

Maria Ossowska thought that sociology was inextricably related to philosophical reflections
on morality, including normative ethics. She proposed that science analyze: (a) existing social
norms and their history, (b) the psychology of morality, and the way that individuals interact
with moral matters and prescriptions, and (c) the sociology of morality.[11]

Popular literature

The theory and methods of a normative science of morality are explicitly discussed in Joseph
Daleiden's The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations
(1998). Daleiden's book, in contrast to Harris, extensively discusses the relevant philosophical
literature. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam
Harris's goal is to show how moral truth can be backed by "science", or more specifically,
empirical knowledge, critical thinking, philosophy, but most controversially, the scientific
method.

Patricia Churchland offers that, accepting Hume's is-ought problem, the use of induction from
premises and definitions remains a valid way of reasoning in life and science.[12]

Our moral behavior, while more complex than the social behavior of other animals, is similar
in that it represents our attempt to manage well in the existing social ecology....from the
perspective of neuroscience and brain evolution, the routine rejection of scientific approaches
to moral behavior based on Hume's warning against deriving ought from is seems unfortunate,
especially as the warning is limited to deductive inferences....The truth seems to be that values
rooted in the circuitry for caring—for well-being of self, offspring, mates, kin, and others—
shape social reasoning about many issues: conflict resolutions, keeping the peace, defense,
trade, resource distribution, and many other aspects of social life in all its vast richness.[13]

— Patricia Churchland, Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality

Daleiden and Leonard Carmichael warn that science is probabilistic, and that certainty is not
possible. One should therefore expect that moral prescriptions will change as humans gain
understanding.[14][note 1]

Views in Scientific Morality

See also: Moral psychology

Training to promote good behaviour

The science of morality may aim to discover the best ways to motivate and shape individuals.
Methods to accomplish this include instilling explicit virtues, building character strengths, and
forming mental associations. These generally require some level of practical reason. James
Rest suggested that abstract reasoning is also a factor in making moral judgements[16] and
emphasized that moral judgements alone do not predict moral behaviour: “Moral judgement
may be closely related to advocacy behaviour, which in turn influences social institutions,
which in turn creates a system of norms and sanctions that influences people’s behaviour.”[16]
Daleiden suggested that religions instill a practical sense of virtue and justice, right and
wrong. They also effectively use art and myths to educate people about moral situations.[17]

The role of government

Harris argues that moral science does not imply an "Orwellian future" with "scientists at every
door". Instead, Harris imagines data about normative moral issues being shared in the same
way as other sciences (e.g. peer-reviewed journals on medicine).[18]

Daleiden specifies that government, like any organization, should have limited power. He
says "centralization of power irrevocably in the hands of one person or an elite has always
ultimately led to great evil for the human race. It was the novel experiment of democracy – a
clear break with tradition – that ended the long tradition of tyranny.”[19] He is also explicit that
government should only use law to enforce the most basic, reasonable, evidence and widely
supported moral norms. In other words, there are a great many moral norms that should never
be the task of the government to enforce.[20]

The role of punishment

Main articles: Differential reinforcement and Prison

One author has argued that to attain a society where people are motivated by conditioned self-
interest, punishment must go hand-in-hand with reward.[21] For instance, in this line of
reasoning, prison remains necessary for many perpetrators of crimes. This is so, even if
libertarian free will is false. This is because punishment can still serve its purposes: it deters
others from committing their own crimes, educates and reminds everyone about what the
society stands for, incapacitates the criminal from doing more harm, goes some way to
relieving or repaying the victim, and corrects the criminal (also see recidivism). This author
argues that, at least, any prison system should be pursuing those goals, and that it is an
empirical question as to what sorts of punishment realize these goals most effectively, and
how well various prison systems actually serve these purposes.[22]

Research

See also: Positive psychology and Moral development

The brain areas that are consistently involved when humans reason about moral issues have
been investigated.[23] The neural network underlying moral decisions overlaps with the
network pertaining to representing others' intentions (i.e., theory of mind) and the network
pertaining to representing others' (vicariously experienced) emotional states (i.e., empathy).
This supports the notion that moral reasoning is related to both seeing things from other
persons’ points of view and to grasping others’ feelings. These results provide evidence that
the neural network underlying moral decisions is probably domain-global (i.e., there might be
no such things as a "moral module" in the human brain) and might be dissociable into
cognitive and affective sub-systems.

Other implications

Daleiden provides examples of how science can use empirical evidence to assess the effect
that specific behaviors can have on the well-being of individuals and society with regard to
various moral issues. He argues that science supports decriminalization and regulation of
drugs, euthanasia under some circumstances, and the permission of sexual behaviors that are
not tolerated in some cultures (he cites homosexuality as an example). Daleiden further argues
that in seeking to reduce human suffering, abortion should not only be permissible, but at
times a moral obligation (as in the case of a mother of a potential child who would face the
probability of much suffering). Like all moral claims in his book, however, Daleiden is
adamant that these decisions remain grounded in, and contingent on empirical evidence. [6][note 2]

The ideas of cultural relativity, to Daleiden, do offer some lessons: investigators must be
careful not to judge a person's behaviour without understanding the environmental context.
An action may be necessary and more moral once we are aware of circumstances.[24]
However, Daleiden emphasizes that this does not mean all ethical norms or systems are
equally effective at promoting flourishing[24] and he often offers the equal treatment of women
as a reliably superior norm, wherever it is practiced.

Criticisms

The idea of a normative science of morality has met with some criticisms. Critics include
physicist Sean M. Carroll, who argues that morality cannot be part of science.[25] He and other
critics cite the widely held "fact-value distinction", that the scientific method cannot answer
"moral" questions, although it can describe the norms of different cultures. In contrast, moral
scientists defend the position that such a division between values and scientific facts ("moral
relativism") is not only arbitrary and illusory, but impeding progress towards taking action
against documented cases of human rights violations in different cultures.[26]

Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion occupy "non-overlapping magisteria". To
Gould, science is concerned with questions of fact and theory, but not with meaning and
morality – the magisteria of religion. In the same vein, Edward Teller proposed that politics
decides what is right, whereas science decides what is true.[27]

During a discussion on the role that naturalism might play in professions like nursing,
Philosopher Trevor Hussey calls the popular view that science is unconcerned with morality
"too simplistic". Although his main focus in the paper is naturalism in nursing, he goes on to
explain that science can, at very least, be interested in morality at a descriptive level. He even
briefly entertains the idea that morality could itself be a scientific subject, writing that one
might argue "..that moral judgements are subject to the same kinds of rational, empirical
examination as the rest of the world: they are a subject for science – although a difficult one.
If this could be shown to be so, morality would be contained within naturalism. However, I
will not assume the truth of moral realism here." [note 3]

Moral psychology is a field of study in both philosophy and psychology. Some use the term
"moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.[1]
However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of
ethics, psychology, and philosophy of mind.[2] Some of the main topics of the field are moral
judgment, moral reasoning, moral sensitivity, moral responsibility, moral motivation, moral
identity, moral action, moral development, moral diversity, moral character (especially as
related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral forecasting, moral
emotion, affective forecasting, and moral disagreement.[3][4]
Moral psychology is a novel branch within the field of psychology. The study of moral
identity development is one aspect of psychology that shows the most potential for growth
due to the numerous sections within the field regarding its structure, mechanisms, and
dynamics.[5] A moral act is a type of behavior that refers to an act that has either a moral or
immoral consequence. Moral Psychology can be applied across a broad range of studies,
including philosophy and psychology. However it is implemented in different ways
depending on culture. In many cultures, a moral act refers to an act that entails free will,
purity, liberty, honesty, and meaning. An immoral act refers to an act that entails corruption
and fraudulence and usually leads to negative consequences.

Some psychologists that have worked in the field are: Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, Elliot
Turiel, Jonathan Haidt, Linda Skitka, Leland Saunders, Marc Hauser, C. Daniel Batson, Jean
Decety, Joshua Greene, A. Peter McGraw, Philip Tetlock, Darcia Narvaez, Tobias
Krettenauer, Liane Young and Fiery Cushman. Some philosophers that have worked in the
field are Stephen Stich, John Doris, Joshua Knobe, John Mikhail, Shaun Nichols, Thomas
Nagel, Robert C. Roberts, Jesse Prinz, Michael Smith, and R. Jay Wallace.

Background

Moral psychology began with early philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. They
believed that "to know the good is to do the good". They analyzed the ways in which people
make decisions with regards to moral identity. The battle of good versus evil has been studied
since the time moral psychology became accepted as a formal branch of
psychology/philosophy up until the present and it continues to expand. As the field of
psychology began to divide away from philosophy, moral psychology expanded to include
risk perception and moralization, morality with regards to medical practices, concepts of self-
worth, and the role of emotions when analyzing one's moral identity. In most introductory
psychology courses, students learn about moral psychology by studying the psychologist
Lawrence Kohlberg,[6] who introduced the moral development theory in 1969. This theory
was built on Piaget's observation that children develop intuitions about justice that they can
later articulate. The increasing sophistication of articulation of reasoning is a sign of
development. Moral cognitive development centered around justice and guided moral action
increase with development, resulting in a postconventional thinker that can "do no other" than
what is reasoned to be the most moral action. But researchers using the Kohlberg model found
a gap between what people said was most moral and actions they took. Today, some
psychologists and students alike rely on Blasi's self-model[citation needed] that link ideas of moral
judgment and action through moral commitment. Those with moral goals central to the self-
concept are more likely to take moral action. The individual feels responsible for taking the
moral action. However, those who are motivated will attain a unique moral identity[5]

History

Historically, early philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato engaged in both empirical research
and a priori conceptual analysis about the ways in which people make decisions about issues
that raise moral concerns. Moral psychological issues have been central theoretical issues
explored by philosophers from the early days of the profession right up until the present. With
the development of psychology as a discipline separate from philosophy, it was natural for
psychologists to continue pursuing work in moral psychology, and much of the empirical
research of the 20th century in this area was completed by academics working in psychology
departments.

Today moral psychology is a thriving area of research in both philosophy and psychology,
even at an interdisciplinary level.[7] For example, the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg
questioned boys and young men about their thought processes when they were faced with a
moral dilemma[8][9] producing one of many very useful empirical studies in the area of moral
psychology. As another example, the philosopher Joshua Knobe recently completed an
empirical study on how the way in which an ethical problem is phrased dramatically affects
an individual's intuitions about the proper moral response to the problem.[citation needed] More
conceptually focused research has been completed by researchers such as John Doris. Doris
(2002) discusses the way in which social psychological experiments—such as the Stanford
prison experiments involving the idea of situationism—call into question a key component in
virtue ethics: the idea that individuals have a single, environment-independent moral
character. As a further example, Shaun Nichols (2004) examines how empirical data on
psychopathology suggests that moral rationalism is false.

Measures

Philosophers and psychologists have created structured interviews and surveys as a means to
study moral psychology and its development.

Interview techniques

Since at least 1894, philosophers and psychologists attempted to evaluate the morality of an
individual, especially attempting to distinguish adults from children in terms of their
judgment, but the efforts failed because they "attempted to quantify how much morality an
individual had—a notably contentious idea—rather than understand the individual's
psychological representation of morality."[10] Lawrence Kohlberg addressed that difficulty in
1963 by modeling evaluative diversity as reflecting a series of developmental stages (à la Jean
Piaget). Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development are:[11]

1. Obedience and punishment orientation

2. Self-interest orientation
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation,
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles.

Stages 1 and 2 are combined into a single stage labeled "pre-conventional", and stages 5 and 6
are combined into a single stage labeled "post-conventional" for the same reason;
psychologists can consistently categorize subjects into the resulting four stages using the
"Moral Judgement Interview" which asks subjects why they endorse the answers they do to a
standard set of moral dilemmas.[12]

Rather than confirm the existence of a single highest stage, Larry Walker's cluster analysis of
a wide variety of interview and survey variables for moral exemplars found three types: The
"caring" or "communal" cluster was strongly relational and generative, the "deliberative"
cluster had sophisticated epistemic and moral reasoning, and the "brave" or "ordinary" cluster
was less distinguished by personality.[13]
Survey instruments

Between 1910 and 1930, in the United States and Europe, several morality tests were
developed to classify subjects as fit or unfit to make moral judgments.[10][14] Test-takers would
classify or rank standardized lists of personality traits, hypothetical actions, or pictures of
hypothetical scenes. As early as 1926, catalogs of personality tests included sections
specifically for morality tests, though critics persuasively argued that they merely measured
awareness of social expectations.[15]

Meanwhile, Kohlberg inspired a new wave of morality tests. The Defining Issues Test (DIT,
dubbed "Neo-Kohlbergian" by its constituents) scores relative preference for post-
conventional justifications[16] and the Moral Judgment Test (MJT) scores consistency of one's
preferred justifications.[17] Both treat evaluative ability as similar to IQ (hence the single
score), allowing categorization by high score vs. low score.

The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) is based on moral intuitions consistent across
cultures: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and
sanctity/degradation (liberty/oppression may be added). The focus on pre-conscious intuitions
contrasts with Kohlberg's focus on post-conscious justifications, although the questions do ask
respondents to rate what they consider morally relevant post-consciously (i.e. this is not a
behavioral measure). The purpose of the questionnaire is to measure the degree to which
people rely upon different sets of moral intuitions (which may coexist), rather than to
categorize decision-makers, but the first two foundations cluster together with liberal political
orientation and the latter three cluster with conservative political orientation. Thus, this survey
allows categorization of people into a plurality which may reflect evaluative types more
accurately than does political orientation by itself. [18][19]

The Moral DNA survey by Roger Steare asks respondents to rank their virtues, then divides
respondents by three virtue clusters: obedience, care, and reason. The survey was developed
for use in business settings, especially to raise awareness of ways perceived workplace
discrimination diminishes effective evaluative diversity.[20]

In 1999 some of Kohlberg's measures were tested when Anne Colby and William Damon
published a study in which the development of extraordinary moral development was
examined in the lives of moral exemplars. After finding participants that exhibited high levels
of moral commitment in their everyday behaviour the researchers then utilized the Kohlberg
interview, the moral judgement interviews (MJI), to compare the 23 exemplars they studied
with a more ordinary group of people. Along with the interviews with the 23 moral
exemplars, the researchers put them through two standard dilemmas to assess what level they
were on in Kohlberg's stages. The intention was to learn more about moral exemplars and to
examine the strengths and weaknesses of the Kohlberg measure. It was found that the MJI
scores were not clustered at the high end of Kohlberg's scale, they ranged from Stage 3 to
Stage 5. Half landed at the conventional level (stages 3, 3/4, and 4) and the other half landed
at the postconventional level (stages 4/5 and 5). It is to be noted that compared to the general
population that these measures have been on before in the past, the scores of the moral
exemplars may be somewhat higher than those of groups not selected for outstanding moral
behaviour. Researchers noted that the "moral judgement scores are clearly related to subjects'
educational attainment in this study". Among the participants that had attained college
education or above there was no difference in moral judgement scores between genders. The
study noted that although the exemplars' scores may have been higher than those of
nonexemplars, it is also clear that one is not required to score at Kohlberg's highest stages in
order to exhibit high degrees of moral commitment and exemplary behaviour.[21]

Theories

Recent attempts to develop an integrated model of moral motivation[22] have identified at least
six different levels of moral functioning, each of which has been shown to predict some type
of moral or prosocial behavior: moral intuitions, moral emotions, moral virtues/vices
(behavioral capacities), moral values, moral reasoning, and moral willpower. This Social
Intuitionist model of moral motivation[23] suggests that moral behaviors are typically the
product of multiple levels of moral functioning, and are usually energized by the "hotter"
levels of intuition, emotion, and behavioral virtue/vice. The "cooler" levels of values,
reasoning, and willpower, while still important, are proposed to be secondary to the more
affect-intensive processes.

The "Moral Foundations Theory" of psychologist Jonathan Haidt examines the way morality
varies between cultures and identifies five fundamental moral values shared to a greater or
lesser degree by different societies and individuals.[24] According to Haidt, these are: care for
others, fairness, loyalty, authority and purity.[25] Haidt's book for the general reader The
Happiness Hypothesis looks at the ways in which contemporary psychology casts light on the
moral ideas of the past. On the other hand, in a recent conference, Haidt expressed views that
may suggest he does not support a science of morality.[26]

Moral identity

While Kohlberg (1983) emphasized the role of moral reasoning and Hoffman (1971; 2001)
emphasized the role of moral emotion in moral action, empirical studies showed that
reasoning and emotion only moderately predicted moral action. Scholars, such as Blasi (1980;
1983), began proposing identity as a motivating factor in moral motivation. Blasi proposed
the self model of moral functioning, which described the effects of the judgment of
responsibility to perform a moral action, one's sense of moral identity, and the desire for self-
consistency on moral action. Studies of moral exemplars have shown that exemplary moral
action often results from the intertwining of personal goals and desires with moral goals, and
studies on moral behavior also show a correlation between moral identity and action.
However, there is great need for future research on the relationship between moral identity
and behavior. Hardy and Carlo (2005) raise critical questions about Blasi's model as well as
the topic in general, such as the nature of the causal relationship between moral identity and
behavior, the presence of mediating or moderating variables in the relationship, how moral
identity relates to more automatic and unconscious moral behavior, and more. Hardy and
Carlo (2005) also propose that researchers should seek to better operationalize and measure
moral identity and apply findings to moral education and intervention programs.[27]

A study was conducted by Anne Colby and William Damon[28] [29] regarding the lives of
individuals who exhibit extraordinary moral commitment. This article suggests that one's
moral identity is formed through that individual's synchronization of their personal and moral
goals. This unity of their self and morality is what distinguishes themselves from non-
exemplars and in turn makes them exceptional (pg.362). Colby and Damon studied moral
identity through the narratives of Virginia Foster Durr and Suzie Valadez, whose behavior,
actions, and life's work was considered to be morally exemplary by their communities and
those with whom they came in contact. For example, Virginia Durr was a leader in the
American civil rights movement for over 30 years, in particular she fought for voting rights of
African Americans as well as racial integration (pg. 346). Suzie Valdez on the other hand,
provided lifelong services to the poor and less fortunate people of Juarez, Mexico (pg. 346).
The author describes these exemplars as maintaining a "unity between self and morality" (pg.
362). Some common characteristics, that these moral exemplars possess are certainty (refers
to the exemplars' clarity about what they believe is right and about their own personal
responsibility to act on those beliefs), Positivity (refers to the exemplars' positive approach to
life, enjoyment of work, and optimism), and unity of self and moral goals (refers to the central
place of the exemplars' moral goals in their conception of their own identity) (pg.361-362).
The research suggests that a "transformation of goals" takes place during the evolution of
one's moral identity and development and therefore is not an exercise of self-sacrifice but
rather one done with great joy. Unlike modern Western societal thinking, which is
characterized by a split between moral goals and personal goals and seeing these in opposition
to one another, moral exemplars see their personal goals and moral goals as synonymous.
"Their lives make it clear that one need not see personal goals and responsibility to others as
necessarily in opposition" (pg. 368). This transformation is not always a deliberate process,
but can be described as a developmental process that takes place in ones personal beliefs,
affecting their conduct. Transformation is most often a gradual process, but can also be
rapidly set of by a "triggering event", or "sudden, unexpected occurrences that create powerful
emotional responses the 'trigger' a reexamination of one's life choices" (pg. 354). Triggering
events can be anything from a powerful moment in a movie, to a traumatic life event, or as
portrayed in the case of Suzie Valadez, the perception of a vision from God. This
transformation is brought about by powerful social interactions that will gradually change and
shape the persons goals. The research also found that there is not a "critical point" in one's life
when moral development takes place. In many of the moral exemplars who were interviewed,
their triggering events and goal transformation did not take place until their 40s. Moral
exemplars are said to have the same concerns and commitments as other moral people but to a
greater degree, "extensions in scope, intensity and breadth" (pg. 364). Furthermore, exemplars
possess the ability to be open to new ideas and experiences, also known as an "active
receptiveness" (pg. 350) to things exterior to themselves. Using this active receptiveness, a
relatively average person can experience a transformation of goals and become an exemplary
figure over time.[21]

Hart and Fegley (1995)[30] contribute to the literature on moral identity by providing research
on adolescent moral exemplars from diverse backgrounds. This study was conducted to see
how teenagers who conducted themselves in a caring manner throughout their communities
saw themselves, because up to this point, all research concerning teenagers only focused on
delinquents. Their findings suggest that adolescent caring exemplars formulate their self-
concept differently from comparable peers. Moral exemplars were found to have more
references to positive, moral, caring personality traits as well as moral and caring goals. They
were also more likely to emphasize academic goals and amoral typical activities. However, it
should also be noted that there were no significant differences between the exemplars and the
control group concerning moral knowledge. On a semantic space analyses, Hart and Fegley
also discovered that moral exemplars tend to view their actual self as more integrated with
their ideal self and expected self. This means that moral exemplars have fewer differences
between their schemas and each of these share very similar traits. In the conversation of moral
identity, this strongly implies that moral exemplarity is associated with a meaningful, moral
definition of one's own identity.
According to Blasi's theory on moral character, he stated that moral character is identified by
the person's set of the morality of virtues and vices. He theorized willpower, moral desires,
and integrity have the capability for a person to act morally by the hierarchical order of
virtues. He believed that the "highest" and complex of virtues are expressed by the concept of
willpower while the "lowest" and simplistic of virtues are expressed by the concept of
integrity. He essentially states that to have the lower virtues, one must have one or more of the
higher virtues. This is not to say that one is higher than the other. The will as desire is
expressed as the wanting to "move forward" towards the virtue whereas the will of self-
control is the wanting to "move backward" from the vice. Thus, will as desire is the moral
desire that contains the moral characters' virtues and vices. The ending goals of moral
development of character and identity are to establish core goals, act according to those goals
and values, and use one's strengths and gifts to make a difference.[31]

In an article written[citation needed] by David B. Wong, he talks about Cultural Pluralism, and
Moral Identity and how they correlate. He shows that in order to prove morality in terms of
culture, there are two stand points. One being that morality is a cultural invention that was
made so that people had something to strive towards. The other shows that any morality is as
good as any other, and is not a cultural invention. He delves into showing how morality can
be viewed much like language. While many places might have a certain way of looking at a
situation morally and believe it to be right, this can contradict a separate culture's
interpretation, (different moral dialects).

Moral self

A "moral" self is fostered by mutually-responsive parenting in childhood. Children with

responsive parents develop more empathy, prosociality, a moral self and conscience (e.g.,
Kochanska, 2002). Narvaez (2014) describes the neurobiological and social elements of early
experience and their effects on moral capacities.

The moral self is a differential process wherein some people integrate moral values into their
self-concept.[32] This construct specifically refers to motivational processes. Research on the
moral self has mostly focused on adolescence as a critical time period for the integration of
self and morality, which gives rise to a moral self.[33] In other words, self and morality are
traditionally seen as separate constructs that become integrated in adolescence. [34] However,
the moral self may be established around 2–3 years-old.[35][36] In fact, children as young as 5
years-old are able to consistently identify themselves as having certain moral behavioral
preferences reflective of the two internally consistent dimensions of the moral self:
preferences for prosocial and avoidance of anti-social behaviour.[37] Children's moral self is
also increasingly predictive of moral emotions with age.[37] Finally, children's moral self may
be a precursor to the development of one's moral identity, which formulates later in life.

Moral values

Kristiansen and Hotte[citation needed] review many research articles regarding people's values and
attitudes and whether they guide behavior. With the research they reviewed and their own
extension of Ajzen and Fishbein's theory of reasoned action, they conclude that value-
attitude-behavior depends on the individual and their moral reasoning. They also pointed out
that there are such things as good values and bad values. Good values are those that guide our
attitudes and behaviors and allow us to express and define ourselves. It also involves the
ability to know when values are appropriate in response to the situation or person that you are
dealing with. Bad values on the other hand are those that are relied on so much that it makes
you unresponsive to the needs and perspectives of others.

Another issue that Kristiansen and Hotte discovered through their research was that
individuals tended to "create" values to justify their reactions to certain situations [citation needed].
Or in other words they used values as a "post-hoc justification of their attitudes (emotions)
and behaviors". Kristiansen and Hotte call this phenomenon the "Value Justification
Hypothesis". The authors use an example from Faludi's journal entry of how during the period
when women were fighting for their right to vote a New Rights group appealed to society's
ideals of "traditional family values" as an argument against the new law in order to mask their
own "anger at women's rising independence." Another theory that this can be equated to is
Jonathan Haidt's "Social Intuition Theory" where individuals justify their intuitive emotions
and actions through reasoning in a post-hoc fashion.

Kristiansen and Hotte also found that Independent selves had actions and behaviors that are
influenced by their own thoughts and feelings, but Interdependent selves have actions,
behaviors and self-concepts that were based on the thoughts and feelings of others.
Westerners have two dimensions of emotions, activation and pleasantness. The Japanese have
one more, the range of their interdependent relationships. Markus and Kitayama found that
these two different types of values had different motives. Westerners, in their explanations,
show self-bettering biases. Easterners, on the other hand, tend to focus on "other-oriented"
biases.[38]

Psychologist S. H. Schwartz (1999)[39] defines individual values as "conceptions of the

desirable that guide the way social actors (e.g.organisational leaders, policymakers, individual
persons) select actions, evaluate people an events, and explain their actions and evaluations."
In this definition, values are considered goals and ethics that guide one's life. Cultural values
form the basis for social norms, laws, customs and practices. While individual values vary
case by case (a result of unique life experience), the average of these values point to widely
held cultural beliefs (a result of shared cultural values).

Moral virtues

Morality as virtues suggests that the morality of a person depends on the traits and
temperaments that he or she possesses and values. Piaget and Kohlberg both developed stages
of development to understand the timing and meaning of moral decisions. For Lapsley and
Narvaez[40] in their paper (e.g., A Social-Cognitive Approach to Moral Personality) outline
how social cognition explains aspects of moral functioning that other theories alone could not
cover. The social cognitive approach to personality has six critical resources of moral
personality; cognition, self-processes, affective elements of personality, changing social
context, lawful situational variability, and the integration of other literature. Lapsley and
Narvaez suggest that our moral values and actions stem from more than our virtues and are
more so controlled by a set of schemas, cognititve structures that organize related concepts
and integrate past events, that we have created in our minds. They claim that schemas are
"fundamental to our very ability to notice dilemmas as we appraise the moral landscape"
(p. 197). As people add to their schemas through knowledge and experience, they deliberately
shape their view of morality. This idea fits in with Kohlberg's idea that moral reasoning is
what governs our actions. Although Kohlberg believes in virtues as an aspect of morality, he
stresses more of a justice reasoning approach to generate a consensus about moral
developmental dilemmas. Kohlberg also argues that virtues are not the same among different
cultures; different societies have different moral virtues by which they live. Lapsley and
Narvaez suggest that over time, we develop greater "moral expertise" (See also Narvaez,
2005; 2006) . In gaining this moral expertise, we align our goals to our moral self, seek out
and gain new knowledge of what it is to be moral, and develop highly practiced behavioral
routines, all for the ultimate goal of acting out what it means to be a moral person. Essentially
we are achieving a social cognitive account of personality advocated by Cervone and Shoda
(1999)[41] referred to as "personality coherence". Coherence in personality can be seen in the
dynamic interaction between dispositions and changing contexts. "Persons and contexts are
not static, orthogonal effects, but are instead in dynamic interaction" (Lapsley & Narvaez,
2004). This "phenomenological sense of self-coherence that orders our goals, preferences, and
values, and gives meaning to personal striving and motivated behavior" allows us to become
moral experts because, according to the social cognitive approach, personality processes do
not function independently but are instead are organized into coherent systems shaped by our
personal experience and social contexts (p. 11). The aforementioned social-cognitive
approach challenges the traditional trait approach that places emphasis on a structural basis of
individual differences. The trait approach proposes that differences in personality arise from
varying possession of traits, labeled as the "having" side (as opposed to "doing") of
personality theory (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2004).

Moral reasoning

Main article: Moral reasoning

In the history of moral psychology, there is perhaps no more central figure than Lawrence
Kohlberg, although Piaget (1932) was the inspiration for Kohlberg's work. Piaget watched
children play games and noted how their rationales for cooperation changed with experience
and maturation. He identified two stages, heteronomous (morality centered outside the self)
and autonomous (internalized morality). Kohlberg sought to expand Piaget's work. His
cognitive developmental theory of moral reasoning dominated the field for decades. Briefly
stated, he focused on moral development as one's progression in the capacity to reason about
justice. He used moral dilemmas or conflicts of interest. The most widely known moral
scenario used in his research is usually referred to as the Heinz dilemma. He interviewed
children and described what he saw in six stages.

Kohlberg identified six stages for moral judgment development. He used an interview method
with hypothetical dilemmas such as "Heinz and the drug." In the story Heinz's wife is dying of
cancer and the town's druggist has something that can help her but is charging more than
Heinz can afford so Heinz steals the drug to save his wife's life. Children aged 10, 13, and 16
years old were asked if what Heinz did was okay. In the story children go from stage one,
where they start to recognize higher authorities and that there are set rules and punishments
for breaking those rules; to stage six, where good principles make a good society. They also
start to define which of the principles are most agreeable and fair.[42] According to Kohlberg,
an individual is considered more cognitively mature depending on their stage of moral
reasoning. Kohlberg has found that an individual's stages of moral reasoning will grow as
they grow in both education and world experience. One of the examples that Kohlberg gives
is called "Cognitive-moral conflict" wherein an individual who is currently in one stage of
moral reasoning has their beliefs challenged by a surrounding peer group. Through this
challenge of beliefs the individual engages in "reflective reorganization" which allows for
movement to a new stage to occur.
Kohlberg argued that though these six stages are artificial classifications of what is in reality
much less discrete, they are the most logical. He claims that "anyone who interviewed
children about dilemmas and who followed them longitudinally in time would come to our six
stages and no others,"[43] and also that this is the best way to conceptualize not simply
morality, but also specifically the direction of growth and progression of moral reasoning at
the individual level over time.

Kohlberg's six stages emphasize the form or structure of morality over the content of
morality, thus claiming his findings as universal. Form focuses purely on how one thinks
about morality, or moral reasoning, shying away from explicitly defining what is or is not
moral.

Psychologist John Dewey claims that moral development is not being fostered in the
education system. He states that "the aim of moral education should be to stimulate people's
thinking ability over time in ways which will enable them to use more adequate and complex
reasoning patterns to solve moral problems."[44]

Despite the influence of Kohlberg, his views did not come without criticism and critique.
Previous moral development scales, particularly Kohlberg's, believe that moral reasoning is
dominated by one main perspective: justice. However, Gilligan and Attanucci argue that there
is an alternative to this approach known as the care perspective.[45] The justice view deals with
problems of inequality and oppression with equal rights and respect for all, whereas the care
perspective deals with attachment to others. Both are unique experiences found within human
development and experiences. Gilligan and Attanucci analyzed male and female responses to
moral situations using content analysis to identify their moral considerations. Overall the
study found that a majority of participants do represent both care and justice in their moral
orientations. In addition, they found that men do tend to use the justice view significantly
more than women and the same for women towards the care perspective.[45] This is significant
as it illustrates that females were prone to view moral situations is a way that previous
research did not account for and overlooked. At the time of production, this study really
opened multiple closed doors leading to answers and further understanding of what separates
men and women, specifically with how they handle and act upon moral situations. Solely
looking at justice when determining moral development may not be appropriate for both
genders. The results of this study indicate that one's moral standpoint—justice or caring—
may be an extension of one's identity or preferred perception of life. This is especially true
when a decision is made introspectively, or at the "postconventional" level. While this article
from Gilligan and Attanucci did need a broader spectrum of test subjects to really prove
authenticity, it is important to remember that not everyone views morality the same. In fact,
Gilligan and Attanucci stated that different viewpoints on morality may be beneficial. It is
possible to expand moral understanding if we acknowledge others' moral perspectives.
Reviews by Walker (2006) and Jaffee and Hyde (2001) found that Gilligan's theory was not
supported by empirical studies. In fact, in neo-Kohlbergian studies with the Defining Issues
Test, females tend to get higher scores than males, though generally not significantly so (Rest,
Narvaez, Bebeau & Thoma, 1999).

The neo-Kohlbergian approach to moral judgment modified Kohlberg's theory in systematic

ways including to describe moral judgment development as shifting distributions of moral
schemas. With age/maturation and education (higher education or equivalent) one uses more
and more postconventional thinking and less personal interest thinking or maintaining norms
thinking.
Moral willpower

Metcalfe and Mischel (1999)[46] offered a new theory of willpower that focused on the delay
of gratification paradigm. They propose a hot/cool structure of analysis to deprive the way
one controls the way stimulus is interpreted and willpower is exerted. The hot system is
referred to as the "go" system whereas the cool system is referred to as the "know" system.
The hot system is characterized as being highly emotional, reflexive, and impulsive. This
system leads to go response (instant gratification) and therefore undermines efforts in self-
control. It is specialized for quick emotional processing/response when confronted with "hot
stimulus" (stimulus that will sabotage self-control efforts). The Cool System is characterized
as being cognitive, emotionally neutral/flexible, slow, integrated, contemplative, and strategic.
It specializes in complex episodic representations. The hot system develops early in life,
whereas the cool system develops later as it relies on particular brain structures, notably the
prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, and particular cognitive capacities that develop later.
With age, there is a shift of dominance from the Hot System to the Cool System. However, it
is possible to have a balance between both the hot and cool system. The balance is determined
by stress, developmental levels, and a person's self-regulating dynamics.[47] Furthermore, the
different systems triggered decide how one reacts to different stimuli presented.

Baumeister, Miller and Delaney (2005) explores the notion of willpower by first defining the
self as being made up of three parts: reflexive consciousness, or the person's awareness of
their environment and of himself as an individual; interpersonal being, which seeks to mold
the self into one that will be accepted by others; and executive function, which encompasses
the concepts of choice, control, and self-regulation and is used as the starting point of the
authors' discussion of willpower. Baumeister, Miller and Delaney (2005) state that "[t]he self
can free its actions from being determined by particular influences, especially those of which
it is aware." (p. 68) Consciousness equips an individual with the ability to override instinctual
reactions; however, there is a substantial cost in resisting these natural reactions and
promoting moral ones. The three prevalent theories of willpower describe it as a limited
supply of energy, as a cognitive process, and as a skill that is developed over time. Research
has largely supported that willpower works like a "moral muscle" with a limited supply of
strength that may be depleted, conserved, or replenished.[48] Research shows that a single act
of self-control can significantly deplete the "supply" of willpower.[48] Baumeister, Miller, and
Delaney (2005) found that the depletion of willpower is caused by various "types of
responses, including controlling emotion, controlling thoughts, impulse control and resisting
temptation, and controlling performance." (p. 64) While volitional exertion reduces the ability
to engage in further acts of willpower in the short term, such exertions actually improve a
person's ability to exert willpower for extended periods in the long run. That is, much like a
regular muscle, the "moral muscle" is susceptible to depletion when heavily exerted, but
repeated exertion builds strength that makes future prolonged exertions easier. Muraven,
Baumeister and Tice (1999) demonstrate in their study that this moral muscle, when
exercised, is strengthened in capacity but not necessarily in power - meaning the subjects
became less susceptible to the depletion of self-regulatory faculties.[49] A second part of the
self-management theory is self-regulation. This includes recognizing the current situation,
computing a desired response, and initiating a substitute reaction.[48] For example, in the
Muraven, Baumeister and Tice (1999) study it was shown that more complex tasks like
regulating one's mood present substantive difficulty and may not be as effective in increasing
willpower as other, more straight forward activities like posture correction or maintaining a
food journal.[49] However, over time, the "moral muscle" may be exercised by performing
small tasks of self-control, such as attempting to correct slouched posture, resist desserts, or
complete challenging self-regulatory tasks. Similarly to the way an recovered alcoholic may
find it easier to consequently use self-control to quit smoking, someone who has exercised
their self-control muscle in one area may find themselves possessed of a greater level of self-
regulatory stamina for the next task they attempt.[49] Lastly, Baumeister argues that self-
management, or the ability to alter one's responses, is a kind of skill that develops as one
grows up.[48] There are also many little things that can help a person replenish this source of
will power, such as meditation, rest, and positive emotion between tasks.[49] They also showed
that there is a conservation effect when it comes to will power. Like in sports, once a person
uses their energy, (or in this case when a person's volition and self-control get used) they
begin to conserve the little they have left so they can be more productive later on. People tend
to realize that they are using up their stored up will volition and self-control and disperse it
when needed.[49] This might lead the individual to try to use self-control sparingly, in order to
avoid depleting this limited reserve, but the research done by Baumeister, Mauraven, and Tice
(1999) indicates that self-control can, as already mentioned, be strengthened through exercise,
offering a more encouraging outlook on the subject. If self-control can be strengthened
through practice, individuals can worry less about conserving their limited self-control
energy, and instead turn to the more empowering prospect of exercising their self-regulatory
muscle to increase their self-control capabilities over time, and thus be more successful at
achieving their goals.[49]

Moral behavior

James Rest (1983; Narvaez & Rest, 1995) reviewed the literature on moral functioning and
identified at least four components or processes that must go right for a moral behavior to take
place. (1) Moral sensitivity is noticing and interpreting what's happening; (2) Moral reasoning
about what to do and making a judgment about what is the best (most moral) option; (3)
Moral motivation (in the moment but also habitually, such as moral identity); (4) Moral
implementation—having the skills and perseverance to carry out the action.

Reynolds and Ceranic (2007) identified the various contributors to moral behavior, including
moral judgment and moral identity. Reynolds and Ceranic identified some major limitations
in these classic cognitive moral development theories. They sought to bring together the
concept of moral identity and moral judgment, rather than studying them as separate
contributors to moral behavior. This research suggests that moral identity and moral judgment
work both separately and together in shaping moral behavior. In addition, they have
researched the effects of social consensus on one's moral behavior. The study claims that
depending on the level of social consensus (high vs. low), moral behaviors will require greater
or lesser degrees of moral identity to motivate an individual to make a choice and endorse a
behavior. Also, depending on social consensus, particular behaviors may require different
levels of moral reasoning. This article seeks to demonstrate an integrated approach to
examining moral identity and moral judgment, as well as study the effects of social consensus
on moral judgment. [50]

Moral intuitions

In 2001, Jonathan Haidt introduced his Social Intuitionist Model which claimed that with few
exceptions, moral judgments are made based upon socially-derived intuitions. Moral
judgments are basically evaluations of the actions one makes, and depends on the "judgers"
set of virtues and culture. Moral reasoning happens in several steps. The first is searching for
relevant evidence, then weighing that evidence, coordinating the evidence with past theories,
and then reaching a decision. It can also be defined as a conscious mental activity that consists
of changing the information presented in order to reach a moral judgment. Moral intuitions
happen immediately and unconsciously, and is basically the conclusion a person who is faced
with a certain situation comes to and whether they think the situation is right or wrong
without really thinking about it in depth.[51]

This model suggests that moral reasoning is largely post-hoc rationalizations that function to
justify one's instinctual reactions. He provides four arguments to doubt causal importance of
reason. The first is research supporting a dual process system in the brain when making
automatic evaluations or assessments, Haidt proposes this applies to moral judgement. The
second is evidence from Chaiken that evolved social motives bias humans to cohere and relate
to other's attitudes in order to achieve higher societal goals, which in turn influences one's
moral judgment. Thirdly, Haidt found that people have post hoc reasoning when faced with a
moral situation, this a posteriori (after the fact) explanation gives the illusion of objective
moral judgement but in reality is subjective to one's gut feeling. Lastly, research has shown
that moral emotion has a stronger link to moral action than moral reasoning, citing Damasio's
research on psychopaths and Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis.[51]

In 2008, Joshua Greene published a compilation which, in contrast to Haidt's model,

suggested that fair moral reasoning does take place. A deontologist is someone who has rule-
based morality that is mainly focused on duties and rights. In contrast, a consequentialist is
someone who believes that only the best overall consequences ultimately matter.[52] Research
has found that, generally speaking, individuals who answer to moral dilemmas in a
consequential manner take longer to respond and show frontal-lobe activity (associated with
cognitive processing). Individuals who answer to moral dilemmas in a deontologically,
however, generally answer more quickly and show brain activity in the amygdala (associated
with emotional processing). Greene also proposes that a person is someone who is always an
identifiable individual and not a statistical someone. This makes moral answers to also be
determined based on whether you can or cannot identify with the other person. Research
suggests that, although intuitions largely influence morality (especially non-utilitarian
moralities), individuals are still capable of fair moral reasoning.[53]

In regard to moral intuitions, researchers Haidt and Graham performed a study to research the
difference between the moral foundations of political liberals and political conservatives. [54]
They challenge individuals to question the legitimacy of their moral world and introduce 5
psychological foundations of morality: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty,
authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Harm/Care started with the sensitivity to signs of
suffering in offspring and has developed into a general dislike of seeing suffering in others
and the potential to feel the emotion of compassion in response. Fairness/Reciprocity is
developed when someone observes or engages in reciprocal interactions. Virtues related to
fairness and justice have developed in all cultures. However, they can be overridden. In
particular, fairness "is an excellent candidate for a universal (though variably applied) value"
(p. 105). Ingroup/Loyalty constitutes recognizing, trusting, and cooperating with members of
one's ingroup as well as being wary and distrustful of members of other groups.
Authority/Respect is how someone navigates in a hierarchal ingroups and communities.
Lastly, Purity/Sanctity stems from the emotion of disgust that guards the body by responding
to elicitors that are biologically or culturally linked to disease transmission. The five
foundations theory are both a nativist and cultural-psychologica theory. Modern moral
psychology concedes that "morality is about protecting individuals" and focuses primarily on
issues of justice (harm/care & fairness/reciprocity) (p. 99). Their research found that "justice
and related virtues…make up half of the moral world for liberals, while justice-related
concerns make up only one fifth of the moral world for conservatives" (p. 99).[[54] ] Liberals
value harm/care and fairness/reciprocity significantly more than the other moralities, while
conservatives value all five equally. Additionally, their research illustrated social justice
research and social psychology are constrained in their discussion of morality by focusing on
harm and fairness. Their examination of these texts found that harm and fairness moral
foundations were endorsed highly by articles, while the three other moral domains were
associated more with vice than virtues because they conflicted with the harm and fairness
foundations.[54] Haidt and Graham propose that in order for open discussions to take place in
the political arena, liberals must recognize moral issues from a conservative perspective if
they are to understand the stances of conservatives and hope to enact change. Their paper
ultimately concludes with a call for tolerance between those who value different moral
foundations. It is necessary for progress to occur.[54]

This idea is challenged by Augusto Blasi, who is hesitant to whole-heartedly accept this
theory. Though Blasi recognizes that intuitions are sometimes valid and may motivate us to
do moral things, this is not always the case. Blasi emphasizes the importance of moral
responsibility and reflection as one analyzes an intuition (p. 423).[55] His main argument is that
some, if not most, intuitions tend to be self-centered and self-seeking (p. 397). Those desires
and intuitions do not create good moral actions. Blasi critiques Haidt in describing the average
person and questioning if this model (having an intuition, acting on it, and then justifying it)
always happens. He came to the conclusion that not everyone follows this model. He accuses
Haidt of being a magician, because he is causing a distraction. Haidt is causing people to
focus on intuitions and ignore all the other elements like identity or self. Blasi is concerned
that the design of experiments made by psychologists today not only reveal, but also hide
many parts of humanity. In other words, they are taking something extremely complex and
simplifying it, which creates a skewed perspective. In more detail, Blasi proposes Haidt's five
default positions on intuition. 1.) Normally moral judgments are caused by intuitions, whether
the intuitions are themselves caused by heuristics, or the heuristics are intuitions; whether
they are intrinsically based on emotions, or depend on grammar type of rules and externally
related to emotions. 2.) Intuitions occur rapidly and appear as unquestionably evident; either
the intuitions themselves or their sources are unconscious. 3.) Intuitions are responses to
minimal information, are not a result of analyses or reasoning; neither do they require
reasoning to appear solid and true. 4.) Reasoning may occur but infrequently. In any event, its
purpose, and the purpose of reasons, is not to lead to, and support, a valid judgment, but to
justify the judgment after the fact, either to other people or to oneself. Reasons in sum do not
have a moral function. 5.) Because such are the empirical facts, the "rationalistic" theories and
methods of Piaget and Kohlberg are rejected. Blasi argues that Haidt does not provide
adequate evidence to support his position (p. 412) [55]

Darcia Narvaez[56] emphasizes the interplay between intuitions and conscious processes as
normal moral functioning, especially in non-novices. In her 2014 book,[57] she shows how
intuitions are shaped in early life and underlie one's orientation to moral self-protection or
moral relational attunement in adulthood. Toxic early stress leads to stress reactivity and self-
protectionism. Human moral imagination can be hijacked by self-protectionism which
emerges from stress and stress reactivity, leading to oppositional or withdrawing moral
mindsets in everyday life. When a person is raised within the human evolved development
niche, imagination builds on capacities for relational attunement to form communal
imagination. Small-band hunter-gatherers and many indigenous societies, who raise their
children as nature intended, demonstrate these inherited moral capacities.
Moral emotions

Throughout history, thought about the basis of morality has been dominated by the reason
perspective (See Moral Reasoning). Moral reasoning has been the focus of most study of
morality dating all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. The emotive side of morality has been
looked upon with disdain, as subservient to the higher, rational, moral reasoning, with
scholars like Piaget and Kohlberg touting moral reasoning as the key forefront of morality [15]
However, in the last 30–40 years, there has been a rise in a new front of research: moral
emotions as the basis for moral behavior. As research has been done on the nature of moral
emotions and their role in determining morality, the moral emotion perspective has gained
credence. This development began with a focus on empathy and guilt, but has since moved on
to encompass new emotional scholarship stocks like anger, shame, disgust, awe, and
elevation. With the new research, theorists have begun to question whether moral emotions
might hold a larger in determining morality, one that might even surpass that of moral
reasoning.[58]

"One approach would be first to define morality and then to say that moral emotions are the
emotions that respond to moral violations or that motivate moral behavior".[59] There have
generally been two approaches taken by philosophers to define moral emotion. The first "is to
specify the formal conditions that make a moral statement (e.g., that is prescriptive, that it is
universalizable, such as expedience)[60]". This first approach is more tied to language and the
definitions we give to a moral emotions. The second approach "is to specify the material
conditions of a moral issue, for example, that moral rules and judgments 'must bear on the
interest or welfare either of society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or
agent'[61]". This definition seems to be more action based. It focuses on the outcome of a moral
emotion. The second definition is more preferred because it is not tied to language and
therefore can be applied to prelinguistic children and animals. Moral emotions are "emotions
that are linked to the interests or welfare either of society as a whole or at least of persons
other than the judge or agent." ([62])

There is a debate whether there is a set of basic emotions or if there are "scripts or set of
components that can be mixed and matched, allowing for a very large number of possible
emotions".[58] Even those arguing for a basic set acknowledge that there are variants of each
emotion. Ekman (1992) calls these variants "families". "The principal moral emotions can be
divided into two large and two small joint families. The large families are the 'other-
condemning' family, in which the three brothers are contempt, anger, and disgust (and their
many children, such as indignation and loathing), and the 'self-conscious' family (shame
embarrassment, and guilt)…[T]he two smaller families the 'other-suffering' family
(compassion) and the 'other-praising' family (gratitude and elevation)".[58] Haidt also leaves
theoretical room for cultural specificities. Different cultures, he suggests, can formulate
different local moral emotions that reflect the intrinsic values of that culture. For example,
eastern cultures may be more inclined to consider serenity/calmness as a moral emotion than
western cultures.

Jonathan Haidt argues that the studies of moral reasoning in moral psychology have done very
little to determine what it is that leads us to action. He criticizes the field's avoidance of
emotion and believes that it is emotion that drives us to act. As Haidt would suggest, the
higher the emotionality of a moral agent the more likely they are to act morally. He also uses
the term "disinterested elicitor" to describe someone who is less concerned with the self, and
more concerned about the well being of things exterior to him or herself. Haidt suggests that
society is made up of these disinterested elicitors and that each person's pro-social action
tendency is determined by his or her degree of emotionality. Haidt uses Ekman's idea of
"emotion families" and builds a scale of emotionality, from low to high. Combining this scale
with self-interested vs. disinterested, and you find a likelihood to act. If a person works on a
low level of emotion and has self-interested emotions, such as sad/happy, they are unlikely to
act. If the moral agent possesses a high emotionality and operates as a disinterested elicitor
with emotions such as elevation, they are much more likely to be morally altruistic.

Empathy also plays a large role in altruism. The empathy-altruism hypothesis states that
feelings of empathy for another leads to an altruistic motivation to help that person. [63] In
contrast, there may also be an egoistic motivation to help someone in need. This is the Hullian
tension-reduction model in which personal distress caused by another in need leads the person
to help in order to alleviate their own discomfort.[64]

Batson, Klein, Highberger, and Shaw[65] conducted experiments where they manipulated
people through the use of empathy-induced altruism to make decisions that required them to
show partiality to one individual over another. The first experiment involved a participant
from each group to choose someone to experience a positive or negative task. These groups
included a non-communication, communication/low-empathy, and communication/high-
empathy. They were asked to make their decisions based on these standards resulting in the
communication/high-empathy group showing more partiality in the experiment than the other
groups due to being successfully manipulated emotionally. Those individuals who they
successfully manipulated reported that despite feeling compelled in the moment to show
partiality they still felt they had made the more "immoral" decision since they followed an
empathy-based emotion rather than adhering to a justice perspective of morality.

Batson, Klein, Highberger, & Shaw conducted two experiments on empathy-induced altruism
proposing that this can lead to actions that violate the justice principle. The second experiment
operated similarly to the first using low-empathy and high-empathy groups. Participants were
faced with the decision to move an ostensibly ill child to an Immediate Help Group versus
leaving her on a waiting list after listening to her emotionally driven interview describing her
condition and the life it has left her to lead. Results from this second experiment were
consistent with the results found in the first experiment. Those who were in the high-empathy
group were more likely than those in the low-empathy group to move this child higher up the
list to receive treatment earlier. Participants that made this choice did so with the full
knowledge that this would put those children that were higher up in the list, for reason of
being on the list longer and having an estimated shorter amount of life worth to live as
compared with children later in the list, behind this other child and therefore delayed their
treatment. It was noted that when these participants were asked what was the more moral
choice to make in this instance they agreed that the more moral choice would have been to not
move this child ahead of the list at the expense of the other children. In this case it is evident
that when empathy induced altruism is at odds with what is seen as moral, oftentimes
empathy induced altruism has the ability to win out over morality. The results showed that
empathy-induced altruism and acting in accordance to the justice principle are independent of
one another. Empathy-induced altruism and justice are two independent prosocial motives,
each with their own unique ultimate goal. Resource-allocation situations in which these two
motives conflict cause empathy-induced altruism to become a source of immoral injustice.
Empathy-induced altruism and justice morality can work together in situations where the
empathy is felt towards a victim of injustice.[65]
Recently neuroscientist Jean Decety, drawing on empirical research in evolutionary theory,
developmental psychology, social neuroscience, and psychopathy, argued that empathy and
morality are neither systematically opposed to one another, nor inevitably complementary. [66]
[67]
Further, a better understanding of the relation between empathy and morality, may require
abandoning the notion of empathy in favor of more precise concepts, such as emotional
sharing, empathic concern, and affective perspective-taking.[68][69]

Moral conviction

One of the main questions within the psychological study of morality is the issue of what
qualitatively distinguishes moral attitudes from non-moral attitudes. Linda Skitka and
colleagues have introduced the concept of moral conviction, which refers to a "strong and
absolute belief that something is right or wrong, moral or immoral."[70] According to Skitka's
Integrated Theory of Moral Conviction (ITMC), attitudes held with moral conviction, known
as moral mandates, differ from strong but non-moral attitudes in a number of important ways.
Namely, moral mandates derive their motivational force from their perceived universality,
perceived objectivity, and strong ties to emotion.[71] Perceived universality refers to the notion
that individuals experience moral mandates as transcending persons and cultures; additionally,
they are regarded as matters of fact. Regarding association with emotion, ITMC is consistent
with Jonathan Haidt's Social Intuitionist Model in stating that moral judgments are
accompanied by discrete moral emotions (i.e., disgust, shame, guilt). Importantly, Skitka
maintains that moral mandates are not the same thing as moral values. Whether an issue will
be associated with moral conviction varies across persons.

One of the main lines of IMTC research addresses the behavioral implications of moral
mandates. Individuals prefer greater social and physical distance from attitudinally dissimilar
others when moral conviction was high. Importantly, this effect of moral conviction could not
be explained by traditional measures of attitude strength, extremity, or centrality. Skitka,
Bauman, and Sargis placed participants in either attitudinally heterogeneous or homogenous
groups to discuss procedures regarding two morally mandated issues, abortion and capital
punishment. Those in attitudinally heterogeneous groups demonstrated the least amount of
goodwill towards other group members, the least amount of cooperation, and the most
tension/defensiveness. Furthermore, individuals discussing a morally-mandated issue were
less likely to reach a consensus, compared to those discussing non-moral issues.[72]

Evolution

In Unto Others: the Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (1998), Elliott Sober and
David Sloan Wilson demonstrated that diverse moralities could evolve through group
selection. In particular, they dismantled the idea that natural selection will favor a
homogeneous population in which all creatures care only about their own personal welfare
and/or behave only in ways which advance their own personal reproduction.[73] Tim Dean has
advanced the more general claim that moral diversity would evolve through frequency-
dependent selection because each moral approach is vulnerable to a different set of situations
which threatened our ancestors.[74] Darcia Narvaez [75] emphasizes the epigenetics of morality
in a moral developmental systems theory [76] Humans evolved to have intensive, supportive
parenting which shapes neurobiology for moral agility, relational attunement and communal
imagination (apparent in small-band hunter-gatherers). In the last 1% of human existence, the
evolved developmental niche or nest (mostly evolved to fixation in social mammals 30-40
million years ago; see Melvin Konner, The Evolution of Childhood) has been dismantled,
undermining human development and human nature, leading to alienation from the natural
world and widespread illbeing.

Sociological applications

Some research shows that people tend to self-segregate based on moral or moral-political
values.[77][78]

Triune Ethics Theory (TET; Narvaez, 2008)

Triune Ethics Theory has been proposed by Darcia Narvaez (2008) as a metatheory, which
attempts to integrate the observations and explanations of multiple theories. In particular, it
highlights the relative contributions to moral development of biological inheritance (including
human evolutionary adaptations), environmental influences on neurobiology (including
epigenetic; the theory focuses especially on the relative effects of environments that either
replicate or deviate from the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness, or EEA), and the role
of culture. TET proposes three ethics that are the foundation or motivation for all ethics:
security (or safety), engagement, and imagination. TET suggests that ethic is engaged by one
of three unique, but interrelated, neural systems. Such systems differ, not only in the recency
of evolutionary development, but also in their relative capacity to override one another. [79]

Security

The security ethic is based in the oldest part of the brain, involving the R-complex or the
extrapyrimidal action nervous system.[80] The security ethic is triggered by the stress response
which activates primal instincts and fight or flight responses.[81] These are concerned or
centered on safety, survival, and thriving in an environment (or biological system). With these
systems present at birth, the security ethic is conditioned during sensitive periods of
development (such as infancy), life experience, and trauma.[79] Studies have shown that a
dearth of touch in early years result in an underdevelopment of serotonin receptors.[82]
Children with faulty serotonin receptors are susceptible to somatosensory affectional
deprivation (SAD), a condition related to depression, violent behavior, and stimulus seeking.
[83]
As an adult, if serotonin receptors are not properly functioning, an individual is more prone
to depression and anxiety.[84] If receptor are damaged, and one becomes fixated at this ethic,
they can be seen as cold, closed-minded, and aggressive. This ethic is most responsible for
racism and hate towards outside groups.

Engagement

The ethic of engagement is centered in the upper limbic system.[80] The limbic system allows
for external and internal emotional signaling and is critical to emotion, identity, memory for
ongoing experience and an individual's sense of reality and truth. The ethic of engagement
refers to relational attunement in the moment (which the stress response prevents), focusing
on social bonding. It relies significantly on caregiver influence for its scheduled development
in early childhood.[79] The engagement ethic is strongly associated with the hormone oxytocin,
which has a strong presence during breastfeeding between a mother and child. Oxytocin is
essential for building the trust between mother and child.

Imagination
The imagination ethic "allows a person to step away from the impetuous emotional responses
of the older parts of the brain and consider alternative actions based on logic and reason.[85] It
is centered in the neocortex and related thalamic structures, including the frontal lobes used
for reasoning and judgement skills.[80] It is focused on the outside world and allows for the
integration and coordination of the other parts of the brain to allow for imaginative thinking
and strategic problem solving. The ethic of imagination involves integrating internal
information with external information, allowing an adult to acknowledge and possibly reject
more emotional responses from the security or engagement ethics. The imagination ethic can
build on the self-protective states of the security ethic (vicious or detached imagination) or of
the prosocial engagement ethic (communal imagination).[79]

Topics

The subjects covered by moral psychology include:

 Action  Human  The  Moral  Humean

 Agency character structure commitme (David
 Personal  Ethical of action nt Hume)
identity temperam  Perceived  Rationality versus
 Psychologica ent causes in moral Anti-
l Egoism  Standards and matters Humean
 Altruism of events of  Moral theories of
 Moral evaluatio moral judgement motivation
rationalism n for action  Moral  Practical
moral  Emotions sensitivity reasoning
action in  Moral  Internalism
 Moral morality motivation and
luck  The and externalis
 Standards faculties identity m in ethics
of of the  The
personal mind relationshi
moral involved p between
success in moral ethics and
decision moral
 The action
interactio  The means
n of those by which
faculties moral
and the agents
emotions understand
each other

The evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course
of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong
conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior and not much
thought is given to the social conducts of other creatures. The emerging fields of evolutionary
biology and in particular sociobiology have argued that, though human social behaviors are
complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other
social animals. Sociobiological explanations of human behavior are still controversial. The
traditional view of social scientists has been that morality is a construct, and is thus culturally
relative, although others argue that there is a science of morality.

Animal sociality

See also: Social animal

Though animals may not possess moral behavior, all social animals have had to modify or
restrain their behaviors for group living to be worthwhile. Typical examples of behavioral
modification can be found in the societies ants, bees and termites. Ant colonies may possess
millions of individuals. E. O. Wilson argues that the single most important factor that leads to
the success of ant colonies is the existence of a sterile worker caste. This caste of females are
subservient to the needs of their mother, the queen, and in so doing, have given up their own
reproduction in order to raise brothers and sisters. The existence of sterile castes among these
social insects significantly restricts the competition for mating and in the process fosters
cooperation within a colony. Cooperation among ants is vital, because a solitary ant has an
improbable chance of long-term survival and reproduction. However, as part of a group,
colonies can thrive for decades. As a consequence, ants are one of the most successful
families of species on the planet, accounting for a biomass that rivals that of the human
species.[1][2]

The basic reason that social animals live in groups is that opportunities for survival and
reproduction are much better in groups than living alone. The social behaviors of mammals
are more familiar to humans. Highly social mammals such as primates and elephants have
been known to exhibit traits that were once thought to be uniquely human, like empathy and
altruism.[3][4]

Primate sociality

See also: Altruism in animals

Humanity’s closest living relatives are common chimpanzees and bonobos. These primates
share a common ancestor with humans who lived four to six million years ago. It is for this
reason that chimpanzees and bonobos are viewed as the best available surrogate for this
common ancestor. Barbara King argues that while primates may not possess morality in the
human sense, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of
morality. These traits include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a
sense of social norms, realization of "self", and a concept of continuity.[5][6][7] Frans de Waal
and Barbara King both view human morality as having grown out of primate sociality. Many
social animals such as primates, dolphins and whales have shown to exhibit what Michael
Shermer refers to as premoral sentiments. According to Shermer, the following characteristics
are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:

attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct
and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and
peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring
about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules
of the group.[8]
Shermer argues that these premoral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of
restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social
species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of
individualism. For example, lack
of group cohesion could make Social Evolution of Humans[9]
individuals more vulnerable to
attack from outsiders. Being part Period years ago Society type Number of individuals
of group may also improve the
chances of finding food. This is 6,000,000 Bands 10s
evident among animals that hunt
in packs to take down large or 100,000–10,000 Bands 10s–100s
dangerous prey.
10,000–5,000 Tribes 100s–1,000s
All social animals have
5,000–4,000 Chiefdoms 1,000s–10,000s
hierarchical societies in which
each member knows its own
4,000–3,000 States 10,000s–100,000s
place.[citation needed] Social order is
maintained by certain rules of
3,000–present Empires 100,000–1,000,000s
expected behavior and dominant
group members enforce order
through punishment. However, higher order primates also have a sense of reciprocity.
Chimpanzees remember who did them favors and who did them wrong.[citation needed] For
example, chimpanzees are more likely to share food with individuals who have previously
groomed them.[10] Vampire bats also demonstrate a sense of reciprocity and altruism. They
share blood by regurgitation, but do not share randomly. They are most likely to share with
other bats who have shared with them in the past or who are in dire need of feeding.[11]

Animals such as Capuchin monkeys[12] and dogs[13] also display an understanding of fairness,
refusing to co-operate when presented unequal rewards for the same behaviors.

Chimpanzees live in fission-fusion groups that average 50 individuals. It is likely that early
ancestors of humans lived in groups of similar size. Based on the size of extant hunter
gatherer societies, recent paleolithic hominids lived in bands of a few hundred individuals. As
community size increased over the course of human evolution, greater enforcement to achieve
group cohesion would have been required. Morality may have evolved in these bands of 100
to 200 people as a means of social control, conflict resolution and group solidarity. This
numerical limit is theorized to be hard coded in our genes since even modern humans have
difficulty maintaining stable social relationships with more than 100-200 people. According
to Dr. de Waal, human morality has two extra levels of sophistication that are not found in
primate societies. Humans enforce their society’s moral codes much more rigorously with
rewards, punishments and reputation building. People also apply a degree of judgment and
reason not seen in the animal kingdom[citation needed].

The punishment problems

While groups may benefit from avoiding certain behaviors, those harmful behaviors have the
same effect regardless of whether the offending individuals are aware of them or not.[14] Since
the individuals themselves can increase their reproductive success by doing many of them,
any characteristics that entail impunity are positively selected by evolution. [15] Specifically
punishing individuals aware of their breach of rules would select against the ability to be
aware of it, precluding any coevolution of both conscious choice and a sense of it being the
basis for moral and penal liability in the same species.[16]

Human Social Intelligence

The Social Brain Hypothesis, detailed by R.I.M Dunbar in the article The Social Brain
Hypothesis and Its Implications for Social Evolution, supports the fact that the brain originally
evolved to process factual information. The brain allows an individual to recognize patterns,
perceive speech, develop strategies to circumvent ecologically-based problems such as
foraging for food, and also permits the phenomenon of color vision. Furthermore, having a
large brain is a reflection of the large cognitive demands of complex social systems. It is said
that in humans and primates the neocortex is responsible for reasoning and consciousness.
Therefore, in social animals, the neocortex came under intense selection to increase in size to
improve social cognitive abilities. Social animals, such as humans are capable of two
important concepts, coalition formation, or group living, and tactical deception, which is the
ability to hold false beliefs. The fundamental importance of animal social skills lies within the
ability to manage relationships and in turn, the ability to not just commit information to
memory, but manipulate it as well.[17] An adaptive response to the challenges of social
interaction and living is Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind as defined by M. Brune, is the
ability to infer another individual’s mental states or emotions.[18] Having a strong Theory of
Mind is tied closely with possessing advanced social intelligence. Collectively, group living
requires cooperation and generates conflict. Social living puts strong evolutionary selection
pressures on acquiring social intelligence due to the fact that living in groups has advantages.
Advantages to group living include protection from predators and the fact that groups in
general outperform the sum of an individual’s performance. But, from an objective point of
view, group living also has disadvantages, such as, competition from within the group for
resources and mates. This sets the stage for something of an evolutionary arms race from
within the species.

Within populations of social animals, altruism, or an acts of behavior that are disadvantageous
to one individual while benefiting other group members has evolved. This notion seems to be
contradictory to evolutionary thought, due to the fact that an organism’s fitness and success is
defined by its ability to pass genes on to the next generation. According to E. Fehr, in the
article, The Nature of Human Altruism, the evolution of altruism can be accounted for when
kin selection and inclusive fitness are taken into account; meaning reproductive success is not
just dependent on the number of offspring an individual produces, but also the number of
offspring that related individuals produce.[19] Outside of familial relationships altruism is also
seen, but in a different manner typically defined by the Prisoner’s Dilemma, theorized by
John Nash. The Prisoner’s Dilemma serves to define cooperation and defecting with and
against individuals driven by incentive, or in Nash’s proposed case, years in jail. In
evolutionary terms, the best strategy to use for the Prisoner’s dilemma is tit-for-tat. In the tit-
for-tat strategy, an individual should cooperate as long others are cooperating, and not defect
until another individual defects against them. At their core, complex social interactions are
driven by the need to distinguish sincere cooperation and defection.

Brune details that Theory of Mind has been traced back to primates, but it is not observed to
the extent that it is in the modern human. The emergence of this unique trait is perhaps where
the divergence of the modern human begins, along with our acquisition of language. Humans
use metaphors and imply much of what we say. Phrases such as, “You know what I mean?”
are not uncommon and are direct results of the sophistication of the human Theory of Mind.
Failure to understand another’s intentions and emotions can yield inappropriate social
responses and are often associated with human mental conditions such as autism,
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, some forms of dementia, and psychopathy. This is especially
true for autism spectrum disorders, where social disconnect is evident, but non-social
intelligence can be preserved or even in some cases augmented, such as in the case of a
savant.[18] The need for social intelligence surrounding Theory of Mind is a possible answer to
the question as to why morality has evolved as a part of human behavior.

Evolution of religion

See also: Evolutionary origin of religions

Psychologist Matt J. Rossano muses that religion emerged after morality and built upon
morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural
agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans
discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative
groups.[20] The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival.[21][22]

The Wason selection task

See also: Wason selection task and Altruism § Scientific_viewpoints

In an experiment where subjects must demonstrate abstract, complex reasoning, researchers

have found that humans (as has been seen in other animals) have a strong innate ability to
reason about social exchanges. This ability is believed to be intuitive, since the logical rules
do not seem to be accessible to the individuals for use in situations without moral overtones.
[23]

Disgust

Disgust, one of the basic emotions, may have an important role in certain forms of morality.
Disgust is argued to be a specific response to certain things or behaviors that are dangerous or
undesirable from an evolutionary perspective. One example is things that increase the risk of
an infectious disease such as spoiled foods, dead bodies, other forms of microbiological
decomposition, a physical appearance suggesting sickness or poor hygiene, and various body
fluids such as feces, vomit, phlegm, and blood. Another example is disgust against
evolutionary disadvantageous mating such as incest (the incest taboo) or unwanted sexual
advances.[4] Still another example are behaviors that may threaten group cohesion or
cooperation such as cheating, lying, and stealing. MRI studies have found that such situations
activate areas in the brain associated with disgust.[24]

Sexual selection in humans concerns the concept of sexual selection, introduced by Charles
Darwin as an element of his theory of natural selection,[1] as it affects humans. The role of
sexual selection in human evolution has not been firmly established although neoteny has
been cited as being caused by human sexual selection.[2] It has been suggested that the human
brain is itself a product of sexual selection, i.e. it has developed as a sexual ornamentation to
be used in courtship rather than for survival itself,[3] and that it has developed in ways outlined
by Ronald Fisher in the Fisherian runaway model.[4][5][6][7][8] Fisher also stated that the
development of sexual selection was "more favourable" in humans.[9]
General hypotheses

Some hypotheses about the evolution of the human brain argue that it is a sexually selected
trait, as it would not confer enough fitness in itself relative to its high maintenance costs (a
quarter to a fifth of the energy and oxygen consumed by a human).[10]

Sexual selection's role in human evolution cannot be definitively established, as features may
result from an equilibrium among competing selective pressures, some involving sexual
selection, others natural selection, and others pleiotropy. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

"When you notice a characteristic of an animal and ask what its Darwinian survival
value is, you may be asking the wrong question. It could be that the characteristic you
have picked out is not the one that matters. It may have "come along for the ride",
dragged along in evolution by some other characteristic to which it is pleiotropically
linked."[11]

The German anthropologist Ferdinand Fellmann has proposed a modified form of sexual
selection, termed "emotional selection," as the pivot in human emotional evolution. The
survival edge is due to the talent of humans for long-term mating, which allows them to have
feelings about feelings: the origin of human consciousness.[12]

Darwin's sexual selection hypothesis

Charles Darwin described sexual selection as depending on "the advantage which certain
individuals have over others of the same sex and species, solely in respect of reproduction".[13]
Darwin noted that sexual selection is of two kinds and concluded that both kinds had operated
on humans.:[14] "The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between the individuals of
the same sex, generally the male sex, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females
remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the
same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which
no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners."[15]

Charles Darwin conjectured that the male beard, as well as the hairlessness of humans
compared to nearly all other mammals, were results of sexual selection. He reasoned that
since the bodies of females are more nearly hairless, the loss of fur was due to sexual
selection of females at a remote prehistoric time when males had overwhelming selective
power, and that it nonetheless affected males due to genetic correlation between the sexes. He
also hypothesized that contrasts in sexual selection acting along with natural selection were
significant factors in the geographical differentiation in human appearance of some isolated
groups, as he did not believe that natural selection alone provided a satisfactory answer.
Although not explicit, his observation that in Khoisan women "the posterior part of the body
projects in a most wonderful manner" (known as steatopygia)[16] implies sexual selection for
this characteristic. In the The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin
viewed many physical traits which vary around the world as being so trivial to survival[17] that
he concluded some input from sexual selection was required to account for their presence. He
noted that variation in these features among the various peoples of the world meant human
mate-choice criteria would also have to be quite different if the focus was similar, and he
himself doubted that, citing[18] reports indicating that ideals of beauty did not, in fact, vary in
this way around the world.

Geoffrey Miller hypothesis

Geoffrey Miller, drawing on some of Darwin's largely neglected ideas about human behavior,
has hypothesized that many human behaviors not clearly tied to survival benefits, such as
humor, music, visual art, some forms of altruism, verbal creativity or the fact that most
humans have a far greater vocabulary than that which is required for survival,[19] Miller (2000)
has proposed that this apparent redundancy is due to individuals using vocabulary to
demonstrate their intelligence, and consequently their "fitness", to potential mates. This has
been tested experimentally, and it appears that males do make greater use of lower-frequency
(more unusual) words when in a romantic mindset compared to a non-romantic mindset,
suggesting that vocabulary is likely to be used as a sexual display (Rosenberg & Tunney,
2008). All these qualities are considered courtship adaptations that have been favored through
sexual selection.[20]

In that view, many human artefacts could be considered subject to sexual selection as part of
the extended phenotype concept outlined by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in
his 1982 book The Extended Phenotype,[21] for instance clothing that enhances sexually
selected traits.[22]

Miller is critical of theories that imply that human culture arose as accidents or by-products of
human evolution. He believes that human culture arose through sexual selection for creative
traits. In that view, many human artifacts could be considered subject to sexual selection as
part of the extended phenotype, for instance clothing that enhances sexually selected traits. [22]
During human evolution, on at least two occasions, hominid brain size increased rapidly over
a short period of time followed by a period of stasis. The first period of brain expansion
occurred 2.5 million years ago, when Homo habilis first began using stone tools. The second
period occurred 500,000 years ago, with the emergence of archaic Homo sapiens. Miller
argues that the rapid increases in brain size would have occurred by a positive feedback loop
resulting in a Fisherian runaway selection for larger brains. Tor Nørretranders, in The
Generous Man conjectures how intelligence, musicality, artistic and social skills, and
language might have evolved as an example of the handicap principle, analogously with the
peacock's tail, the standard example of that principle. Another hypothesis[23] proposes that
human intelligence is a courtship indicator of health and resistance against parasites and
pathogens which are deleterious to human cognitive capabilities.[24]

Genital mutilation

This section's representation of one or more viewpoints about a controversial

issue may be unbalanced or inaccurate.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (September 2015)

Anthropologists believe that "male genitalia represent a critical target of sexual selection for
fertilization efficiency and sperm competition," and so have developed theories as to why
about 25% of societies practice some form of male genital mutilation.[25][page needed] In 2008,
Charles Wilson of Cornell University suggested that in societies where competition among
males is acute, male genital mutilation reduces the threat of conflict for female mates, and so
a young man who accepts male genital mutilation "gains immediate access to social and
sexual privileges that are suggested to outweigh the cost of the male genital mutilation
itself."[25][page needed]

The same author indicates that female genital mutilation (FGM) may play a similar
paradoxical role:

Under this 'sexual conflict' hypothesis, male genital mutilation functions in a parallel context
to female genital mutilation (FGM). Women who undergo vaginal infibulation or
clitoridectomy experience sexual sequelae that would tend to limit EPCs (extra-pair
copulations), including restriction of intromission and a reduced capacity to experience sexual
pleasure. This reduces the paternity uncertainty of a husband, increasing the trust and
investment he is selected to offer. These benefits to a woman and her children seem to
outweigh the heavy cost of the mutilation itself in societies with high paternity uncertainty. [25]
[page needed]

Sexual dimorphism

Further information: Sex differences in humans and Sexual dimorphism

Men are generally hairier than women, and Darwin was of the opinion that hairlessness was
related to sexual selection; however, several other explanations have been advanced to explain
human hairlessness, a leading one is loss of body hair to facilitate sweating.[26] This idea
closely relates to that of the suggested need for increased photoprotection and is part of the
most-commonly-accepted scientific explanation for the evolution of pigmentary traits. [27]

Indicating that a trait is under sexual selection can be difficult to prove through correlational
methods, as characters may result from different selective pressures, some involving sexual
selection, others natural selection, and some may be accidental and due to pleiotropy. For
example, monogamous primates are known to typically exhibit little sexual dimorphism such
as particularly large males armed with huge canines; however, powerful big-toothed males
can provide protection against predators and may be bigger for that reason, rather than in
order to win confrontations over females. Males and females differing in size can specialize
in, and more fully exploit, different food resources while avoiding competing with each other;
furthermore, body size can be useful in avoiding predators and may also be of assistance in
securing a mate. This is further complicated by the consideration that with larger body size,
the skeleton of mammals becomes much more robust and massive (relatively speaking).[28]
Bearing these caveats in mind, levels of sexual dimorphism are generally seen as a marker of
sexual selection. Studies have shown the earliest homininae were highly dimorphic and that
this tendency lessened over the course of human evolution, suggesting humans have become
more monogamous. In contrast, gorillas living in harems exhibit a much stronger sexual
dimorphism (see: homininae).[29]

A study found that there is an evolutionary trend for men to have relatively shorter upper
faces, and suggested that this trait may have been caused by sexual selection, possibly
because women have preferred men who looked masculine but not aggressive.[30][31]

Sexual anatomy
The theory of sexual selection has been used to explain a number of human anatomical
features. These include rounded breasts, facial hair, pubic hair and penis size. The breasts of
primates are flat, yet are able to produce sufficient milk for feeding their young. The breasts
of non-lactating human females are filled with fatty tissue and not milk. Thus it has been
suggested the rounded female breasts are signals of fertility.[32] Richard Dawkins has
speculated that the loss of the penis bone in humans, when it is present in other primates, may
be due to sexual selection by females looking for a clear sign of good health in prospective
mates. Since a human erection relies on a hydraulic pumping system, erection failure is a
sensitive early warning of certain kinds of physical and mental ill health.[33]

Homo has a thicker penis than the other great apes, though it is no longer than the
chimpanzee's.[34] It has been suggested the evolution of the human penis towards larger size
was the result of female choice rather than sperm competition, which generally favors large
testicles.[35] However, penis size may have been subject to natural selection, rather than sexual
selection, due to a larger penis' efficiency in displacing the sperm of rival males during sexual
intercourse. A model study showed displacement of semen was directly proportional to the
depth of pelvic thrusting, as an efficient semen displacement device.[36]

Phenotype

Sexual selection has continued to be suggested as a possible explanation for geographical

variation in appearance within the human species; in modern hypotheses, marriage practices
are proposed as the main determinant of sexual selection. John Manning[37] suggests that
where polygyny is common, men face intense competition for wives and are more likely to be
completely unsuccessful in reproducing, and the result is strong selection of males for traits
which are adaptive for successful reproduction. He proposes a link to skin color through
selection of males for testosterone-mediated traits which confer an ability to successfully
compete for females. He suggests testosterone makes the human immune system less
competent to resist pathogens. In this view the antimicrobial properties of melanin help
mitigate the susceptibility to disease that polygyny induces by increasing testosteronization.
According to this argument, the anti-infective qualities of melanin were more important than
protection from ultraviolet light in the evolution of the darkest skin types. Manning asserts
that skin color is more correlated with the occurrence of polygyny – explicable by it having an
antimicrobial function – than the latitudinal gradient in intensity of ultraviolet radiation, and
he points to the lack of very dark skin at equatorial latitudes of the New World and the
relatively light skin of Khoisan people in Africa.[37][38]

Research seems to contradict Manning's explanation about skin color. In 1978, NASA
launched the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, which was able to measure the ultraviolet
radiation reaching Earth's surface. Jablonski and Chaplin took the spectrometer's global
ultraviolet measurements and compared them with published data on skin color in indigenous
populations from more than 50 countries. There was an unmistakable correlation: The weaker
the ultraviolet light, the fairer the skin.[39] Rogers et al. (2004) performed an examination of
the variation in MC1R nucleotide sequences for people of different ancestry and compared the
sequences of chimpanzees and humans from various regions of the Earth. Rogers concluded
that, at the time of the evolutionary separation of chimpanzees and humans, the common
ancestors of all humans had light skin that was covered by dark hair. Additionally, our closest
extant relative, the chimpanzee, has light skin covered by thick body hair.[40] Over time human
hair disappeared to allow better heat dissipation through sweating[41] and the skin tone grew
darker to increase the epidermal permeability barrier[42] and protect from folate depletion due
to the increased exposure to sunlight.[43] When humans started to migrate away from the
tropics, there was less-intense sunlight, partly due to clothing to protect against cold weather.
Under these conditions there was less photodestruction of folate, and so the evolutionary
pressure stopping lighter-skinned gene variants from surviving was reduced. In addition,
lighter skin is able to generate more vitamin D (cholecalciferol) than darker skin, so it would
have represented a health benefit in reduced sunlight if there were limited sources of vitamin
D.[41] The genetic mutations leading to light skin experienced selective pressure due to
settlement in northern latitudes.[44]

Anthropologist Peter Frost has proposed that sexual selection was responsible for the
evolution of pigmentary traits of women in Northern and Eastern European populations. He
contends that the diversity of hair and eye color in Northeast European populations originated
as a consequence of intense female-female competition, and is an adaptation for reproductive
success in women.[45][46]

Opposing arguments

The role of sexual selection in human evolution has been considered controversial from the
moment of publication of Darwin's book on sexual selection (1871). Among his vocal critics
were some of Darwin's supporters, such as Alfred Wallace, who argued that animals and birds
do not choose mates based on their beauty or fine plumages, and that the artistic faculties in
humans belong to their spiritual nature and therefore cannot be connected to natural selection,
which only affects the animal nature.[47] Darwin was accused of looking to the evolution of
early human ancestors through the moral codes of the 19th century Victorian society. Joan
Roughgarden, citing elements of sexual behavior in animals and humans that cannot be
explained by the sexual-selection model, suggested that the function of sex in human
evolution was primarily social.[48]

Joseph Jordania suggested in 2011 that in explaining such human morphological and
behavioral characteristics as singing, dancing, body painting, wearing of clothes, Darwin and
proponents of sexual selection neglect another important evolutionary force, intimidation of
predators and competitors with the ritualized forms of warning display, which uses the same
arsenal of visual, audio, olfactory and behavioral features as sexual selection. According to
Jordania, most of these warning displays were incorrectly attributed to the forces of sexual
selection. Jordania proposed an aposematic model of human evolution, where most of the
human morphological and behavioral features that had been considered by Darwin as the
result of sexual selection, via female choice, are explained by the aposematic (intimidating)
display.[49]

Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism) is a class of metaethical theories all members of
which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the
stronger, modal, claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly
opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable, objective moral truths.

Defenders of some form of moral skepticism include David Hume, J. L. Mackie (1977), Max
Stirner, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Joyce (2001), Michael Ruse, Joshua Greene, Richard
Garner, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (2006b), and the psychologist James Flynn. Strictly
speaking, Gilbert Harman (1975) argues in favor of a kind of moral relativism, not moral
skepticism. However, he has influenced some contemporary moral skeptics.

Forms of moral skepticism

Moral skepticism divides into three subclasses: moral error theory (or moral nihilism),
epistemological moral skepticism, and noncognitivism.[1] All three of these theories share the
same conclusions, which are:

(a) we are never justified in believing that moral claims (claims of the form "state of
affairs x is good," "action y is morally obligatory," etc.) are true and, even more so
(b) we never know that any moral claim is true.

However, each method arrives at (a) and (b) by different routes.

Moral error theory holds that we do not know that any moral claim is true because

(i) all moral claims are false,

(ii) we have reason to believe that all moral claims are false, and so, because
(iii) since we are not justified in believing any claim we have reason to deny, we are
not justified in believing any moral claims.

Epistemological moral skepticism is a subclass of theory, the members of which include

Pyrrhonian moral skepticism and dogmatic moral skepticism. All members of epistemological
moral skepticism share two things in common: first they acknowledge that we are unjustified
in believing any moral claim, and second, they are agnostic on whether (i) is true (i.e. on
whether all moral claims are false).

 Pyrrhonian moral skepticism holds that the reason we are unjustified in believing any
moral claim is that it is irrational for us to believe either that any moral claim is true or
that any moral claim is false. Thus, in addition to being agnostic on whether (i) is true,
Pyrrhonian moral skepticism denies (ii).
 Dogmatic moral skepticism, on the other hand, affirms (ii) and cites (ii)'s truth as the
reason we are unjustified in believing any moral claim.

Finally, Noncognitivism holds that we can never know that any moral claim is true because
moral claims are incapable of being true or false (they are not truth-apt). Instead, moral
claims are imperatives (e.g. "Don't steal babies!"), expressions of emotion (e.g. "stealing
babies: Boo!"), or expressions of "pro-attitudes" ("I do not believe that babies should be
stolen.")

Moral error theory

Moral error theory is a position characterized by its commitment to two propositions: (i) all
moral claims are false and (ii) we have reason to believe that all moral claims are false. The
most famous moral error theorist is J. L. Mackie, who defended the metaethical view in
Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (1977). Mackie has been interpreted as giving two
arguments for moral error theory.
The first argument people attribute to Mackie, often called the Argument from Queerness,[2]
holds that moral claims imply motivation internalism (the doctrine that "It is necessary and a
priori that any agent who judges that one of his available actions is morally obligatory will
have some (defeasible) motivation to perform that action" [3]). Because motivation internalism
is false, however, so too are all moral claims.

The other argument often attributed to Mackie, often called the Argument from Disagreement,
[3]
maintains that any moral claim (e.g. "Killing babies is wrong") entails a correspondent
"reasons claim" ("one has reason not to kill babies"). Put another way, if "killing babies is
wrong" is true then everybody has a reason to not kill babies. This includes the psychopath
who takes great pleasure from killing babies, and is utterly miserable when he does not have
their blood on his hands. But, surely, (if we assume that he will suffer no reprisals) this
psychopath has every reason to kill babies, and no reason not to do so. All moral claims are
thus false.

Epistemological moral skepticism

All versions of Epistemological Moral Skepticism hold that we are unjustified in believing
any moral proposition. However, in contradistinction to moral error theory, epistemological
moral skeptical arguments for this conclusion do not include the premise that "all moral
claims are false." For example, Michael Ruse [4] gives what Richard Joyce [3] calls an
"evolutionary argument" for the conclusion that we are unjustified in believing any moral
proposition. He argues that we have evolved to believe moral propositions because our
believing the same enhances our genetic fitness (makes it more likely that we will reproduce
successfully). However, our believing these propositions would enhance our fitness even if
they were all false (they would make us more cooperative, etc.). Thus, our moral beliefs are
unresponsive to evidence; they are analogous to the beliefs of a paranoiac. As a paranoiac is
plainly unjustified in believing his conspiracy theories, so too are we unjustified in believing
moral propositions. We therefore have reason to jettison our moral beliefs.

Consequences

There are two different opinions that follow from moral skepticism.

Amoralism is the idea to drop morality.

John E. Hare claims there are some reasons to obey moral rules. He claims that amoralists are
logically consistent, but have plenty of disadvantages in their lives.[5]

Criticisms

Criticisms of moral skepticism come primarily from moral realists. The moral realist argues
that there is in fact good reason to believe that there are objective moral truths and that we are
justified in holding many moral beliefs.[citation needed] One moral realist response to moral error
theory holds that it "proves too much" — if moral claims are false because they entail that we
have reasons to do certain things regardless of our preferences, then so too are "hypothetical
imperatives" (e.g. "if you want to get your hair-cut you ought to go to the barber"). This is
because all hypothetical imperatives imply that "we have reason to do that which will enable
us to accomplish our ends" and so, like moral claims, they imply that we have reason to do
something regardless of our preferences. [6]
If moral claims are false because they have this implication, then so too are hypothetical
imperatives. But hypothetical imperatives are true. Thus the argument from the non-
instantiation of (what Mackie terms) "objective prescriptivity" for moral error theory fails.
Russ Shafer-Landau and Daniel Callcut have each outlined anti-skeptical strategies. Callcut
argues that moral skepticism should be scrutinized in introductory ethics classes in order to
get across the point that "if all views about morality, including the skeptical ones, face
difficulties, then adopting a skeptical position is not an escape from difficulty." [7]

Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and
the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most
valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly,
philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting
too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or
culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the
natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they
alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[2] The term "scientism" frequently
implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used
by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6]
and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example)
the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to
only that which is measurable.[9] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also
appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of
knowledge.[10]

Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of
two senses:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[11] This usage applies
equally in contexts where science might not apply,[12] such as when the topic is
perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is
insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an
excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept
any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to
scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science"
methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek
described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because
that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social
sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.
2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things
recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or
other inquiry",[13] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in
itself, independent of perspective"[7] with a concomitant "elimination of the
psychological dimensions of experience".[14][15]

The term "scientism" is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight
the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human
knowledge.[16][17][18][19][20]

For social theorists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas and Max
Horkheimer, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but
also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.[9][21] British writer and feminist thinker
Sara Maitland has called scientism a "myth as pernicious as any sort of fundamentalism."[22]

Overview

Reviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R.

Peterson[23] detects two main broad themes:

1. It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all

reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about
reality and the nature of things;
2. It is used, often pejoratively,[24][25][26] to denote a border-crossing violation in which the
theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to
another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this
second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or
primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of
meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

Mikael Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism.

[27]
In the Encyclopedia of science and religion, he writes that, while the doctrines that are
described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share
the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should
be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent
to science can now be understood as part of science (usually with science becoming the sole
or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension).[27]

According to Stenmark, the strongest form of scientism states that science has no boundaries
and that all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor, with due time, will be dealt
with and solved by science alone.[27] This idea has also been called the Myth of Progress.[28]

E. F. Schumacher, in his A Guide for the Perplexed, criticized scientism as an impoverished

world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. "The architects of
the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be
weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it
couldn't be counted, in other words, it didn't count."[29]

Intellectual historian T.J. Jackson Lears argues there has been a recent reemergence of
"nineteenth-century positivist faith that a reified 'science' has discovered (or is about to
discover) all the important truths about human life. Precise measurement and rigorous
calculation, in this view, are the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral
controversies." Lears specifically identifies Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker's work as
falling in this category.[30] Philosophers John N. Gray and Thomas Nagel have leveled similar
criticisms against popular works by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, neuroscientist Sam
Harris, and writer Malcolm Gladwell.[31][32][33]

Relevance to science/religion debates

Several scholars use the term to describe the work of vocal critics of religion-as-such.
Individuals associated with New Atheism have garnered this label from both religious and
non-religious scholars.[34][35] Theologian John Haught argues Daniel Dennett and other new
atheists subscribe to a belief system of scientific naturalism, which holds the central dogma
that "only nature, including humans and our creations, is real: that God does not exist; and
that science alone can give us complete and reliable knowledge of reality." [36] Haught argues
this belief system is self-refuting since it requires its adherents to assent to beliefs that violate
its own stated requirements for knowledge.[37] Christian Philosopher Peter Williams argues it
is only by conflating science with scientism that new atheists feel qualified to "pontificate on
metaphysical issues."[38]

Philosopher Daniel Dennett responded to religious criticism of his book Breaking the Spell:
Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by saying that "when someone puts forward a scientific
theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'". [39]

Non-religious scholars have also linked New Atheist thought with scientism. Atheist
philosopher Thomas Nagel argues neuroscientist Sam Harris conflates all empirical
knowledge with that of scientific knowledge.[40] Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton argues
Christopher Hitchens possesses an "old-fashioned scientistic notion of what counts as
evidence" that reduces knowledge to what can and cannot be proven by scientific procedure.
[41]
Agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny has also criticized New Atheist philosopher
Alexander Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality for resurrecting a self-refuting
epistemology of logical positivism and reducing all knowledge of the universe to the
discipline of physics.[42]

Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, draws a parallel between scientism and
traditional religious movements, pointing to the cult of personality that develops around some
scientists in the public eye. He defines scientism as a worldview that encompasses natural
explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism
and reason.[43]

The Iranian scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr has stated that in the West, many will accept the
ideology of modern science, not as "simple ordinary science", but as a replacement for
religion.[44]

Gregory R. Peterson writes that "for many theologians and philosophers, scientism is among
the greatest of intellectual sins".[23]

Susan Haack argues that the charge of "scientism" caricatures actual scientific endeavor. No
single form of inference or procedure of inquiry used by scientists explains the success of
science. Instead we find:

1. the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers

2. a vast array of tools of inquiry, from observational instruments to mathematical
techniques, as well as social mechanisms that encourage honesty. These tools are
diverse and evolving, and many are domain-specific.[45]

Philosophy of science

Main article: Philosophy of science

In his essay Against Method, Paul Feyerabend characterizes science as "an essentially
anarchic enterprise"[46] and argues emphatically that science merits no exclusive monopoly
over "dealing in knowledge" and that scientists have never operated within a distinct and
narrowly self-defined tradition. He depicts the process of contemporary scientific education as
a mild form of indoctrination, aimed at "making the history of science duller, simpler, more
uniform, more 'objective' and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchanging
rules."[47]

[S]cience can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular
humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and... non-scientific cultures,
procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so...
Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies,
must be protected from science... In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes,
and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of
state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and
science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth
and reality.

— Feyerabend, Against Method, p. viii[48]

Rhetoric of science

Main article: Rhetoric of science

Thomas M. Lessl argues that religious themes persist in what he calls scientism, the public
rhetoric of science.[49] There are two methodologies that illustrate this idea of scientism. One
is the epistemological approach, the assumption that the scientific method trumps other ways
of knowing and the ontological approach, that the rational mind reflects the world and both
operate in knowable ways. According to Lessl, the ontological approach is an attempt to
"resolve the conflict between rationalism and skepticism". Lessl also argues that without
scientism, there would not be a scientific culture.[49]

Religion and philosophy

Philosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even
self-refuting, as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven
scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically
to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically. [50][51]

Rationalization and modernity

Main article: Rationalization (sociology)

In the introduction to his collected oeuvre on the sociology of religion, Max Weber asks why
"the scientific, the artistic, the political, or the economic development [elsewhere]… did not
enter upon that path of rationalization which is peculiar to the Occident?" According to the
distinguished German social theorist, Jürgen Habermas, "For Weber, the intrinsic (that is, not
merely contingent) relationship between modernity and what he called 'Occidental
rationalism' was still self-evident." Weber described a process of rationalisation,
disenchantment and the "disintegration of religious world views" that resulted in modern
secular societies and capitalism.[52]
"Modernization" was introduced as a technical term only in the 1950s. It is the mark of a
theoretical approach that takes up Weber's problem but elaborates it with the tools of social-
scientific functionalism… The theory of modernization performs two abstractions on Weber's
concept of "modernity". It dissociates "modernity" from its modern European origins and
stylizes it into a spatio-temporally neutral model for processes of social development in
general. Furthermore, it breaks the internal connections between modernity and the historical
context of Western rationalism, so that processes of modernization… [are] no longer
burdened with the idea of a completion of modernity, that is to say, of a goal state after which
"postmodern" developments would have to set in. …Indeed it is precisely modernization
research that has contributed to the currency of the expression "postmodern" even among
social scientists.

— Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity

Habermas is critical of pure instrumental rationality, arguing that the "Social Life–World" is
better suited to literary expression, the former being "intersubjectively accessible experiences"
that can be generalized in a formal language, while the latter "must generate an
intersubjectivity of mutual understanding in each concrete case":[53][54]

The world with which literature deals is the world in which human beings are born and live
and finally die; the world in which they love and hate, in which they experience triumph and
humiliation, hope and despair; the world of sufferings and enjoyments, of madness and
common sense, of silliness, cunning and wisdom; the world of social pressures and individual
impulses, of reason against passion, of instincts and conventions, of shared language and
unsharable feelings and sensations…

— Aldous Huxley, Literature and Science

Dictionary meanings

Standard dictionary definitions include the following applications of the term "scientism":

 The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed
by scientists.[55]
 Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.[56][57]
 An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all
areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.[56]
 The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language.[58]
 The contention that the social sciences, such as economics and sociology, are only
properly sciences when they abide by the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific
method used by the natural sciences, and that otherwise they are not truly sciences.[59]
 "A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of
scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study
appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as
philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences."[60]
 "1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists. 2. The
belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or
justifiable in all fields of inquiry."[61]

A related word is "scientificism".[62]

Sociobiology is a field of scientific study that is based on the hypothesis that social behavior
has resulted from evolution and attempts to examine and explain social behavior within that
context. It is a branch of biology that deals with social behavior, and also draws from
ethology, anthropology, evolution, zoology, archaeology, population genetics, and other
disciplines. Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely allied to the fields of
Darwinian anthropology, human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.

Sociobiology investigates social behaviors, such as mating patterns, territorial fights, pack
hunting, and the hive society of social insects. It argues that just as selection pressure led to
animals evolving useful ways of interacting with the natural environment, it led to the genetic
evolution of advantageous social behavior.

While the term "sociobiology" can be traced to the 1940s, the concept did not gain major
recognition until the publication of Edward O. Wilson's book Sociobiology: The New
Synthesis in 1975. The new field quickly became the subject of controversy. Criticism, most
notably from Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, centered on the contention that genes
play a role in human behavior and that traits such as aggressiveness can be explained by
biology rather than social environment. Sociobiologists responded to the criticism by pointing
to the complex relationship between nature and nurture.

Definition

E. O. Wilson defines sociobiology as : “The extension of population biology and evolutionary

theory to social organization”.[1]

Sociobiology is based on the premise that some behaviors (social and individual) are at least
partly inherited and can be affected by natural selection. It begins with the idea that behaviors
have evolved over time, similar to the way that physical traits are thought to have evolved. It
predicts that animals will act in ways that have proven to be evolutionarily successful over
time. This can, among other things, result in the formation of complex social processes
conducive to evolutionary fitness.

The discipline seeks to explain behavior as a product of natural selection. Behavior is

therefore seen as an effort to preserve one's genes in the population. Inherent in
sociobiological reasoning is the idea that certain genes or gene combinations that influence
particular behavioral traits can be inherited from generation to generation.[citation needed]

Introductory example

For example, newly dominant male lions often will kill cubs in the pride that were not sired
by them. This behavior is adaptive in evolutionary terms because killing the cubs eliminates
competition for their own offspring and causes the nursing females to come into heat faster,
thus allowing more of his genes to enter into the population. Sociobiologists would view this
instinctual cub-killing behavior as being inherited through the genes of successfully
reproducing male lions, whereas non-killing behavior may have "died out" as those lions were
less successful in reproducing.

Support for premise

Genetic mouse mutants have now been harnessed to illustrate the power that genes exert on
behaviour. For example, the transcription factor FEV (aka Pet1) has been shown, through its
role in maintaining the serotonergic system in the brain, to be required for normal aggressive
and anxiety-like behavior.[2] Thus, when FEV is genetically deleted from the mouse genome,
male mice will instantly attack other males, whereas their wild-type counterparts take
significantly longer to initiate violent behaviour. In addition, FEV has been shown to be
required for correct maternal behaviour in mice, such that their offspring do not survive unless
cross-fostered to other wild-type female mice.[3]

A genetic basis for instinctive behavioural traits among non-human species, such as in the
above example, is commonly accepted among many biologists; however, attempting to use a
genetic basis to explain complex behaviours in human societies has remained extremely
controversial.[citation needed]

History

E. O. Wilson, a central figure in the history of sociobiology.

According to the OED, J. P. Scott coined the word "sociobiology" at a 1946 conference on
genetics and social behaviour, and it became widely used after it was popularized by Edward
O. Wilson in his 1975 book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. However, the influence of
evolution on behavior has been of interest to biologists and philosophers since soon after the
discovery of evolution itself. Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, written in
the early 1890s, is a popular example. Antecedents of modern sociobiological thinking can be
traced to the 1960s and the work of such biologists as Richard D. Alexander, Robert Trivers
and William D. Hamilton. The idea of the inheritance of behaviour arose from J B S
Haldane's idea about how "altruistic behaviour" (see Altruism) could be passed from
generation to generation [4] Nonetheless, it was Wilson's book that pioneered and popularized
the attempt to explain the evolutionary mechanics behind social behaviors such as altruism,
aggression, and nurturence, primarily in ants (Wilson's own research specialty) but also in
other animals (bees, wasps and termites).[5] The final chapter of the book is devoted to
sociobiological explanations of human behavior, and Wilson later wrote a Pulitzer Prize
winning book, On Human Nature, that addressed human behavior specifically.

Edward H. Hagen writes in The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology that sociobiology is,
despite the public controversy regarding the applications to humans, "one of the scientific
triumphs of the twentieth century." "Sociobiology is now part of the core research and
curriculum of virtually all biology departments, and it is a foundation of the work of almost
all field biologists" Sociobiological research on nonhuman organisms has increased
dramatically and continuously in the world's top scientific journals such as Nature and
Science. The more general term behavioral ecology is commonly used as substitute for the
term sociobiology in order to avoid the public controversy.[6]

Sociobiological theory

Sociobiologists believe that human behavior, as well as nonhuman animal behavior, can be
partly explained as the outcome of natural selection. They contend that in order to fully
understand behavior, it must be analyzed in terms of evolutionary considerations.
Natural selection is fundamental to evolutionary theory. Variants of hereditary traits which
increase an organism's ability to survive and reproduce will be more greatly represented in
subsequent generations, i.e., they will be "selected for". Thus, inherited behavioral
mechanisms that allowed an organism a greater chance of surviving and/or reproducing in the
past are more likely to survive in present organisms. That inherited adaptive behaviors are
present in nonhuman animal species has been multiply demonstrated by biologists, and it has
become a foundation of evolutionary biology. However, there is continued resistance by some
researchers over the application of evolutionary models to humans, particularly from within
the social sciences, where culture has long been assumed to be the predominant driver of
behavior.

Nikolaas Tinbergen, whose work influenced sociobiology.

Sociobiology is based upon two fundamental premises:

 Certain behavioral traits are inherited,

 Inherited behavioral traits have been honed by natural selection. Therefore, these traits
were probably "adaptive" in the species` evolutionarily evolved environment.

Sociobiology uses Nikolaas Tinbergen's four categories of questions and explanations of

animal behavior. Two categories are at the species level; two, at the individual level. The
species-level categories (often called “ultimate explanations”) are

 the function (i.e., adaptation) that a behavior serves and

 the evolutionary process (i.e., phylogeny) that resulted in this functionality.

The individual-level categories (often called “proximate explanations”) are

 the development of the individual (i.e., ontogeny) and

 the proximate mechanism (e.g., brain anatomy and hormones).

Sociobiologists are interested in how behavior can be explained logically as a result of

selective pressures in the history of a species. Thus, they are often interested in instinctive, or
intuitive behavior, and in explaining the similarities, rather than the differences, between
cultures. For example, mothers within many species of mammals – including humans – are
very protective of their offspring. Sociobiologists reason that this protective behavior likely
evolved over time because it helped those individuals which had the characteristic to survive
and reproduce. Over time, individuals who exhibited such protective behaviours would have
had more surviving offspring than those who did not display such behaviours, such that this
parental protection would increase in frequency in the population. In this way, the social
behavior is believed to have evolved in a fashion similar to other types of nonbehavioral
adaptations, such as (for example) fur or the sense of smell.

Individual genetic advantage often fails to explain certain social behaviors as a result of gene-
centred selection, and evolution may also act upon groups.[citation needed] The mechanisms
responsible for group selection employ paradigms and population statistics borrowed from
evolutionary game theory. E.O. Wilson argued that altruistic individuals must reproduce their
own altruistic genetic traits for altruism to survive. When altruists lavish their resources on
non-altruists at the expense of their own kind, the altruists tend to die out and the others tend
to grow. In other words, altruism is more likely to survive if altruists practice the ethic that
"charity begins at home". Altruism is defined as "a concern for the welfare of others". An
extreme example of altruism involves a soldier risking his life to help a fellow soldier. This
example raises questions about how altruistic genes can be passed on if this soldier dies
without having any children to exhibit the same altruistic traits.[7]

Within sociobiology, a social behavior is first explained as a sociobiological hypothesis by

finding an evolutionarily stable strategy that matches the observed behavior. Stability of a
strategy can be difficult to prove, but usually, a well-formed strategy will predict gene
frequencies. The hypothesis can be supported by establishing a correlation between the gene
frequencies predicted by the strategy, and those expressed in a population.

Altruism between social insects and littermates has been explained in such a way. Altruistic
behavior, behavior that increases the reproductive fitness of others at the apparent expense of
the altruist,[8] in some animals has been correlated to the degree of genome shared between
altruistic individuals. A quantitative description of infanticide by male harem-mating animals
when the alpha male is displaced as well as rodent female infanticide and fetal resorption are
active areas of study. In general, females with more bearing opportunities may value offspring
less, and may also arrange bearing opportunities to maximize the food and protection from
mates.

An important concept in sociobiology is that temperamental traits within a gene pool and
between gene pools exist in an ecological balance. Just as an expansion of a sheep population
might encourage the expansion of a wolf population, an expansion of altruistic traits within a
gene pool may also encourage the expansion of individuals with dependent traits.

Sociobiology is sometimes associated with arguments over the "genetic" basis of intelligence.
While sociobiology is predicated on the observation that genes do affect behavior, it is
perfectly consistent to be a sociobiologist while arguing that measured IQ variations between
individuals reflect mainly cultural or economic rather than genetic factors. However, many
critics point out that the usefulness of sociobiology as an explanatory tool breaks down once a
trait is so variable as to no longer be exposed to selective pressures. In order to explain
aspects of human intelligence as the outcome of selective pressures, it must be demonstrated
that those aspects are inherited, or genetic, but this does not necessarily imply differences
among individuals: a common genetic inheritance could be shared by all humans, just as the
genes responsible for number of limbs are shared by all individuals.

Studies of human behavior genetics have generally found behavioral traits such as creativity,
extroversion, aggressiveness, and IQ have high heritability. The researchers who carry out
those studies are careful to point out that heritability does not constrain the influence that
environmental or cultural factors may have on those traits.[9][10]

Criminality is actively under study, but extremely controversial. There are arguments that in
some environments criminal behavior might be adaptive.[11] The novelist Elias Canetti also
has noted applications of sociobiological theory to cultural practices such as slavery and
autocracy.[12]

Differences from evolutionary psychology

Sociobiology differs in important ways from evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary
psychology studies the animal nervous system from an evolutionary perspective, including
aspects such as vision and navigation that are not necessarily related to social behavior.
Sociobiology is restricted to the biology of social behavior but also studies organisms like
plants. Evolutionary psychologists focus on the neural mechanisms that cause behavior
whereas sociobiologists usually study only behavior. Evolutionary psychology emphasizes
that, for humans, neural mechanisms evolved in an ancestral environment that differed from
the current environment whereas animal sociobiologists look at animal adaptions to the
current environment.[6]

Reception

In the decades after World War II, the term "eugenics" had taken on a negative connotation
and became increasingly unpopular within academic science. Many organizations and
journals that had their origins in the eugenics movement began to distance themselves from
the philosophy, as when Eugenics Quarterly became Social Biology in 1969.

Many critics[who?] draw an intellectual link between sociobiology and biological determinism,
the belief that most human differences can be traced to specific genes rather than differences
in culture or social environments. Critics also see parallels between sociobiology and
biological determinism as a philosophy underlying the social Darwinian and eugenics
movements of the early 20th century, and controversies in the history of intelligence testing.

Steven Pinker argues that critics have been overly swayed by politics and a fear of biological
determinism, accusing among others Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin of being
"radical scientists", whose stance on human nature is influenced by politics rather than
science,[13] while Lewontin, Steven Rose and Leon Kamin who drew a distinction between the
politics and history of an idea and its scientific validity[14] argue that sociobiology fails on
scientific grounds, independent of their political critiques as has Gould.[15]

Wilson and his supporters counter the intellectual link by denying that Wilson had a political
agenda, still less a right-wing one. They pointed out that Wilson had personally adopted a
number of liberal political stances and had attracted progressive sympathy for his outspoken
environmentalism. They argued that as scientists they had a duty to uncover the truth whether
that was politically correct or not. They argued that sociobiology does not necessarily lead to
any particular political ideology, as many critics implied. Many subsequent sociobiologists,
including Robert Wright, Anne Campbell, Frans de Waal and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, have used
sociobiology to argue quite separate points.

Noam Chomsky has expressed views on sociobiology on several occasions. During a 1976
meeting of the Sociobiology Study Group, as reported by Ullica Segerstråle, Chomsky argued
for the importance of a sociobiologically informed notion of human nature: "Chomsky even
stated that he thought it was important for political radicals to postulate a relatively fixed
human nature in order to be able to struggle for a better society. We need a clear view of
human needs in order to know the kind of society we want, Chomsky proclaimed. Not
surprisingly ... no Chomsky critique of sociobiology emerged."[16] Chomsky's argument that
human beings are biological organisms and ought to be studied as such, and his criticism of
the "blank slate" doctrine in the social sciences (which would inspire a great deal of Steven
Pinker's and others' work in evolutionary psychology), are revealed in Reflections on
Language:

The development of personality, behavior patterns, and cognitive structures in higher

organisms has often been approached in a very different way. It is generally assumed that in
these domains, social environment is the dominant factor. The structures of mind that develop
over time are taken to be arbitrary and accidental; there is no “human nature” apart from what
develops as a specific historical product. According to this view, typical of empiricist
speculation, certain general principles of learning that are common in their essentials to all (or
some large class of) organisms suffice to account for the cognitive structures attained by
humans, structures which incorporate the principles by which human behavior is planned,
organized, and controlled.

But human cognitive systems, when seriously investigated, prove to be no less marvelous and
intricate than the physical structures that develop in the life of the organism. Why, then,
should we not study the acquisition of a cognitive structure such as language more or less as
we study some complex bodily organ?[17]

Chomsky has hinted at the possible reconciliation of his anarchist political views and
sociobiology in a discussion of Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, which
focused more on altruism than aggression, suggesting that anarchist societies were feasible
because of an innate human tendency to cooperate.[18]

Wilson's claims that he had never meant to imply what ought to be, only what is the case are
supported by his writings, which are descriptive, not prescriptive. However, some critics have
argued that the language of sociobiology sometimes slips from "is" to "ought",[14] leading
sociobiologists to make arguments against social reform on the basis that socially progressive
societies are at odds with our innermost nature.[citation needed] Views such as this, however, are
often criticized as examples of the naturalistic fallacy, when reasoning jumps from
descriptions about what is to prescriptions about what ought to be. (A common example is the
justification of militarism if scientific evidence showed warfare was part of human nature.) It
has also been argued that opposition to stances considered anti-social, such as ethnic
nepotism, are based on moral assumptions, not bioscientific assumptions, meaning that it is
not vulnerable to being disproved by bioscientific advances.[19]:145 The history of this debate,
and others related to it, are covered in detail by Cronin (1992), Segerstråle (2000), and Alcock
(2001).[20][21][22]

See also

In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action, with the aim of
determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live (deontology), or to
describe the significance of different actions (axiology). It may be described as treating
actions themselves as abstract objects, putting value to them. It deals with right conduct and
good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively highly, valuable action may be
regarded as ethically "good" (adjective sense), and an action of low in value, or somewhat
relatively low in value, may be regarded as "bad".[citation needed] What makes an action valuable
may in turn depend on the ethic values of the objects it increases, decreases or alters. An
object with "ethic value" may be termed an "ethic or philosophic good" (noun sense).
Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of action or
outcomes. As such, values reflect a person's sense of right and wrong or what "ought" to be.
"Equal rights for all", "Excellence deserves admiration", and "People should be treated with
respect and dignity" are representative of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and
behavior. Types of values include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological (religious,
political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that are
not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some, such
as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues.

Study

Ethical value may be regarded as a study under ethics, which, in turn, may be grouped as
philosophy. Similar to that ethics may be regarded as a subfield of philosophy, ethical value
may be regarded as a subgroup of the more broad (and vague) philosophic value. Ethical
value denotes something's degree importance, with the aim of determining what action or life
is best to do, or at least attempt to describe the value of different actions. It may be described
as treating actions themselves as abstract objects, putting value to them. It deals with right
conduct and good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively highly, valuable action
or may be regarded as good, and an action of low, or at least relatively low, value may be
regarded as bad.

The study of ethical value is also included in value theory. In addition, values have been
studied in various disciplines: anthropology, behavioral economics, business ethics, corporate
governance, moral philosophy, political sciences, social psychology, sociology and theology.

Similar concepts

Ethical value is sometimes used synonymously with goodness. However, goodness has many
other meanings as well, and may be regarded as more ambiguous.

Personal versus cultural perspectives

Personal values exist in relation to cultural values, either in agreement with or divergence
from prevailing norms. A culture is a social system that shares a set of common values, in
which such values permit social expectations and collective understandings of the good,
beautiful and constructive. Without normative personal values, there would be no cultural
reference against which to measure the virtue of individual values and so cultural identity
would disintegrate.

Personal values

Personal values provide an internal reference for what is good, beneficial, important, useful,
beautiful, desirable and constructive. Values generate behaviour[1] and influence the choices
made by an individual.

Values may help solve common human problems for survival by comparative rankings of
value, the results of which provide answers to questions of why people do what they do and in
what order they choose to do them.[clarification needed] Moral, religious, and personal values, when
held rigidly, may also give rise to conflicts that result from a clash between differing world
views.[2]
Over time the public expression of personal values that groups of people find important in
their day-to-day lives, lay the foundations of law, custom and tradition. Recent research has
thereby stressed the implicit nature of value communication.[3]

Cultural values

The Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world, constructed by sociopolitical scientists

Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel based on the World Values Survey.

Individual cultures emphasize values which their members broadly share. One can often
identify the values of a society by noting which people receive honor or respect. In the United
States of America, for example, professional athletes at the top levels in some sports receive
more honor (measured in terms of monetary payment) than university professors. Surveys
show that voters in the United States would not willingly elect an atheist as president,
suggesting belief in a God as a generally shared value.

Values clarification differs from cognitive moral education:

 Value clarification consists of "helping people clarify what their lives are for and what
is worth working for. It encourages students to define their own values and to
understand others' values."[4]
 Cognitive moral education builds on the belief that students should learn to value
things like democracy and justice as their moral reasoning develops.[4]

Values relate to the norms of a culture, but they are more global and abstract than norms.
Norms provide rules for behavior in specific situations, while values identify what should be
judged as good or evil. While norms are standards, patterns, rules and guides of expected
behavior, values are abstract concepts of what is important and worthwhile. Flying the
national flag on a holiday is a norm, but it reflects the value of patriotism. Wearing dark
clothing and appearing solemn are normative behaviors to manifest respect at a funeral.
Different cultures reflect values differently and to different levels of emphasis. "Over the last
three decades, traditional-age college students have shown an increased interest in personal
well-being and a decreased interest in the welfare of others."[4] Values seemed to have
changed, affecting the beliefs, and attitudes of the students.
Members take part in a culture even if each member's personal values do not entirely agree
with some of the normative values sanctioned in that culture. This reflects an individual's
ability to synthesize and extract aspects valuable to them from the multiple subcultures they
belong to.

If a group member expresses a value that seriously conflicts with the group's norms, the
group's authority may carry out various ways of encouraging conformity or stigmatizing the
non-conforming behavior of that member. For example, imprisonment can result from conflict
with social norms that the state has established as law.[clarification needed]

Furthermore, institutions in the global economy can genuinely respect values which are of
three kinds based on a "triangle of coherence".[5] In the first instance, a value may come to
expression within the World Trade Organization (WTO), as well as (in the second instance)
within the United Nations - particularly in the Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) - providing a framework for global legitimacy through
accountability. In the third instance, the expertise of member-driven international
organizations and civil society depends on the incorporation of flexibility in the rules, to
preserve the expression of identity in a globalized world.[6]

Nonetheless, in warlike economic competition, differing views may contradict each other,
particularly in the field of culture. Thus audiences in Europe may regard a movie as an artistic
creation and grant it benefits from special treatment, while audiences in the United States may
see it as mere entertainment, whatever its artistic merits. EU policies based on the notion of
"cultural exception" can become juxtaposed with the policy of "cultural specificity" on the
liberal Anglo-Saxon side. Indeed, international law traditionally treats films as property and
the content of television programs as a service.[citation needed] Consequently, cultural
interventionist policies can find themselves opposed to the Anglo-Saxon liberal position,
causing failures in international negotiations.[7]

Transmission

Values are generally received through cultural means, especially transmission from parents to
children. Parents in different cultures have different values.[8] For example, parents in a
hunter–gatherer society or surviving through subsistence agriculture value practical survival
skills from a young age. Many such cultures begin teaching babies to use sharp tools,
including knives, before their first birthdays.[9] Italian parents value social and emotional
abilities and having an even temperament.[8] Spanish parents want their children to be
sociable.[8] Swedish parents value security and happiness.[8] Dutch parents value
independence, long attention spans, and predictable schedules.[8] American parents are
unusual for strongly valuing intellectual ability, especially in a narrow "book learning" sense.
[8]
The Kipsigis people of Kenya value children who are not only smart, but who employ that
intelligence in a responsible and helpful way, which they call ng'om. Luos of Kenya value
education and pride which they call "nyadhi".[8]

The reception of values can be regarded as a part of socialization.

Properties and forms

Relative or absolute
Relative values differ between people, and on a larger scale, between people of different
cultures. On the other hand, there are theories of the existence of absolute values,[10] which
can also be termed noumenal values (and not to be confused with mathematical absolute
value). An absolute value can be described as philosophically absolute and independent of
individual and cultural views, as well as independent of whether it is known or apprehended
or not. Ludwig Wittgenstein was pessimistic towards the idea that an elucidation would ever
happen regarding the absolute values of actions or objects; "we can speak as much as we want
about "life" and "its meaning," and believe that what we say is important. But these are no
more than expressions and can never be facts, resulting from a tendency of the mind and not
the heart or the will".[11]

Intrinsic or extrinsic

Philosophic value may be split into instrumental value and intrinsic values. An instrumental
value is worth having as a means towards getting something else that is good (e.g., a radio is
instrumentally good in order to hear music). An intrinsically valuable thing is worth for itself,
not as a means to something else. It is giving value intrinsic and extrinsic properties.

An ethic good with instrumental value may be termed an ethic mean, and an ethic good with
intrinsic value may be termed an end-in-itself. An object may be both a mean and end-in-
itself.

Summation

Intrinsic and instrumental goods are not mutually exclusive categories.[12] Some objects are
both good in themselves, and also good for getting other objects that are good.
"Understanding science" may be such a good, being both worthwhile in and of itself, and as a
means of achieving other goods. In these cases, the sum of instrumental (specifically the all
instrumental value) and instrinsic value of an object may be used when putting that object in
value systems, which is a set of consistent values and measures.

Intensity

The intensity of philosophic value is the degree it is generated or carried out, and may be
regarded as the prevalence of the good, the object having the value.[12]

It should not be confused with the amount of value per object, although the latter may vary
too, e.g. because of instrumental value conditionality. For example, taking a fictional life-
stance of accepting waffle-eating as being the end-in-itself, the intensity may be the speed that
waffles are eaten, and is zero when no waffles are eaten, e.g. if no waffles are present. Still,
each waffle that had been present would still have value, no matter if it was being eaten or
not, independent on intensity.

Instrumental value conditionality in this case could be exampled by every waffle not present,
making them less valued by being far away rather than easily accessible.

In many life stances it is the product of value and intensity that is ultimately desirable, i.e. not
only to generate value, but to generate it in large degree. Maximizing lifestances have the
highest possible intensity as an imperative.
Homology in physics

When comparing to the homologous measure in physics, then intensity in physics may not be
the best example, but may better be described as its area. In this sense, power in physics may
be compared to the amount of value per object, and physical intensity the product of value per
object and ethic intensity. If there is no physical area, then no energy is generated, regardless
of physical power. In the same way, if there is no ethic intensity, then no total value is
generated, regardless of value per object.

Positive and negative value

There may be a distinction between positive and negative philosophic or ethic value. While
positive ethic value generally correlates with something that is pursued or maximized,
negative ethic value correlates with something that is avoided or minimized.

Negative value may be both intrinsic negative value and/or instrumental negative value.

Protected value

A protected value (also sacred value) is one that an individual is unwilling to trade off no
matter what the benefits of doing so may be. For example, some people may be unwilling to
kill another person, even if it means saving many others individuals. Protected values tend to
be "intrinsically good", and most people can in fact imagine a scenario when trading off their
most precious values would be necessary.[13] If such trade-offs happen between two competing
protected values such as killing a person and defending your family they are called tragic
trade-offs.[14]

Protected values have been found to be play a role in protracted conflicts (e.g., the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict) because they can hinder businesslike (''utilitarian'') negotiations.[15] From
the perspective of utilitarianism, protected values are biases when they prevent utility from
being maximized across individuals.[16]

According to Jonathan Baron and Mark Spranca,[17] protected values arise from norms as
described in theories of deontological ethics (the latter often being referred to in context with
Immanuel Kant). The protectedness implies that people are concerned with their participation
in transactions rather than just the consequences of it.

Value system

A value system is a set of consistent values used for the purpose of ethical or ideological
integrity.

Consistency

As a member of a society, group or community, an individual can hold both a personal value
system and a communal value system at the same time. In this case, the two value systems
(one personal and one communal) are externally consistent provided they bear no
contradictions or situational exceptions between them.

A value system in its own right is internally consistent when

  its values do not contradict each other and
 its exceptions are or could be
o abstract enough to be used in all situations and
o consistently applied.

Conversely, a value system by itself is internally inconsistent if:

 its values contradict each other and

 its exceptions are
o highly situational and
o inconsistently applied.

Value exceptions

Abstract exceptions serve to reinforce the ranking of values. Their definitions are generalized
enough to be relevant to any and all situations. Situational exceptions, on the other hand, are
ad hoc and pertain only to specific situations. The presence of a type of exception determines
one of two more kinds of value systems:

 An idealized value system is a listing of values that lacks exceptions. It is, therefore,
absolute and can be codified as a strict set of proscriptions on behavior. Those who
hold to their idealized value system and claim no exceptions (other than the default)
are called absolutists.
 A realized value system contains exceptions to resolve contradictions between values
in practical circumstances. This type is what people tend to use in daily life.

The difference between these two types of systems can be seen when people state that they
hold one value system yet in practice deviate from it, thus holding a different value system.
For example, a religion lists an absolute set of values while the practice of that religion may
include exceptions.

Implicit exceptions bring about a third type of value system called a formal value system.
Whether idealized or realized, this type contains an implicit exception associated with each
value: "as long as no higher-priority value is violated". For instance, a person might feel that
lying is wrong. Since preserving a life is probably more highly valued than adhering to the
principle that lying is wrong, lying to save someone’s life is acceptable. Perhaps too simplistic
in practice, such a hierarchical structure may warrant explicit exceptions.

Conflict

Although sharing a set of common values, like hockey is better than baseball or ice cream is
better than fruit, two different parties might not rank those values equally. Also, two parties
might disagree as to certain actions are right or wrong, both in theory and in practice, and find
themselves in an ideological or physical conflict. Ethonomics, the discipline of rigorously
examining and comparing value systems, enables us to understand politics and motivations
more fully in order to resolve conflicts.

An example conflict would be a value system based on individualism pitted against a value
system based on collectivism. A rational value system organized to resolve the conflict
between two such value systems might take the form below. Note that added exceptions can
become recursive and often convoluted.

 Individuals may act freely unless their actions harm others or interfere with others'
freedom or with functions of society that individuals need, provided those functions do
not themselves interfere with these proscribed individual rights and were agreed to by
a majority of the individuals.
 A society (or more specifically the system of order that enables the workings of a
society) exists for the purpose of benefiting the lives of the individuals who are
members of that society. The functions of a society in providing such benefits would be
those agreed to by the majority of individuals in the society.
 A society may require contributions from its members in order for them to benefit from
the services provided by the society. The failure of individuals to make such required
contributions could be considered a reason to deny those benefits to them, although a
society could elect to consider hardship situations in determining how much should be
contributed.
 A society may restrict behavior of individuals who are members of the society only for
the purpose of performing its designated functions agreed to by the majority of
individuals in the society, only insofar as they violate the aforementioned values. This
means that a society may abrogate the rights of any of its members who fails to uphold
the aforementioned values.

Economic and philosophic value

Further information: Value (economics)

Philosophical value is distinguished from economic value, since it is independent on some

other desired condition or commodity. The economic value of an object may rise when the
exchangeable desired condition or commodity, e.g. money, become high in supply, and vice
versa when supply of money becomes low.

Nevertheless, economic value may be regarded as a result of philosophical value. In the

subjective theory of value, the personal philosophic value a person puts in possessing
something is reflected in what economic value this person puts on it. The limit where a person
considers to purchase something may be regarded as the point where the personal philosophic
value of possessing something exceeds the personal philosophic value of what is given up in
exchange for it, e.g. money. In this light, everything can be said to have a "personal economic
value" in contrast to its "societal economic value."

In psychology, an attitude is an expression of favor or disfavor toward a person, place,

thing, or event (the attitude object'). Prominent psychologist Gordon Allport once described
attitudes "the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary social
psychology."[1] Attitude can be formed from a person's past and present.[2] Key topics in the
study of attitudes include attitude measurement, attitude change, consumer behavior, and
attitude-behavior relationships.[3][4]

Definitions

Social psychology
An attitude is an evaluation of an attitude object, ranging from extremely negative to
extremely positive. Most contemporary perspectives on attitudes also permit that people can
also be conflicted or ambivalent toward an object by simultaneously holding both positive and
negative attitudes toward the same object. This has led to some discussion of whether
individual can hold multiple attitudes toward the same object.[5]

An attitude can be as a positive or negative evaluation of people, objects, events, activities,

and ideas. It could be concrete, abstract or just about anything in your environment, but there
is a debate about precise definitions. Eagly and Chaiken, for example, define an attitude as "a
psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of
favor or disfavor."[6] Though it is sometimes common to define an attitude as affect toward an
object, affect (i.e., discrete emotions or overall arousal) is generally understood to be distinct
from attitude as a measure of favorability.[7] Attitude may influence the attention to attitude
objects, the use of categories for encoding information and the interpretation, judgement and
recall of attitude-relevant information.[8] These influences tend to be more powerful for strong
attitudes which are easily accessible and based an elaborate knowledge structure. [9] Attitudes
may guide attention and encoding automatically, even if the individual is pursuing unrelated
goals.

Psychological factors

The attitude of a person is determined by psychological factors like this ideas, values, beliefs,
perception, etc. All these have a complex role in deteremining a erson's attitude For example,
if a person perceives thall all the workers are lazy, he is likely to develop a negative attitude
towards his workers.

Family

Family plays a significant role in the primary stage of attitudes held by individuals. Initially, a
person develops certain attitudes from his parents, brothers, sister, and elders in the family.
There is a high degree of relationship between parent and children in attitudes found in them.

Society

Societies play an important role in formatting attitudes of an individual. The culture, the
tradition, the language, etc., influences a person's attitudes. It is a society, tradition, and the
culture which teaches an individuals what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Political factors

Political factors such as, ideologies of political parties, political leaders and political stability
affect the attitudes of the people.

Economic factors

A person's attitude also depends on issues such as his salary, status, work as such, etc.

Jung's definition
Attitude is one of Jung's 57 definitions in Chapter XI of Psychological Types. Jung's
definition of attitude is a "readiness of the psyche to act or react in a certain way".[10] Attitudes
very often come in pairs, one conscious and the other unconscious. Within this broad
definition Jung defines several attitudes.

The main (but not only) attitude dualities that Jung defines are the following.

 Consciousness and the unconscious. The "presence of two attitudes is extremely

frequent, one conscious and the other unconscious. This means that consciousness has
a constellation of contents different from that of the unconscious, a duality particularly
evident in neurosis".[11]
 Extraversion and introversion. This pair is so elementary to Jung's theory of types that
he labeled them the "attitude-types".
 Rational and irrational attitudes. "I conceive reason as an attitude".[12]
 The rational attitude subdivides into the thinking and feeling psychological functions,
each with its attitude.
 The irrational attitude subdivides into the sensing and intuition psychological
functions, each with its attitude. "There is thus a typical thinking, feeling, sensation,
and intuitive attitude".[13]
 Individual and social attitudes. Many of the latter are "isms".

In addition, Jung discusses the abstract attitude. “When I take an abstract attitude...”. [14]
Abstraction is contrasted with creationism “CREATIONISM. By this I mean a peculiarity of
thinking and feeling which is the antithesis of abstraction”.[15]

Measurement

Many measurements and scales are used to examine attitudes. Attitudes can be difficult to
measure because measurement is arbitrary, meaning people have to give attitudes a scale to
measure it against, and attitudes are ultimately a hypothetical construct that cannot be
observed directly.

Following the explicit-implicit dichotomy, attitudes can be examined through direct and
indirect measures.

Whether attitudes are explicit (i.e., deliberately formed) versus implicit (i.e., subconscious)
has been a topic of considerable research. Research on implicit attitudes, which are generally
unacknowledged or outside of awareness, uses sophisticated methods involving people's
response times to stimuli to show that implicit attitudes exist (perhaps in tandem with explicit
attitudes of the same object). Implicit and explicit attitudes seem to affect people's behavior,
though in different ways. They tend not to be strongly associated with each other, although in
some cases they are. The relationship between them is poorly understood.

Explicit

Explicit measures tend to rely on self-reports or easily observed behaviors. These tend to
involve bipolar scales (e.g., good-bad, favorable-unfavorable, support-oppose, etc.).[16]
Explicit measures can also be used by measuring the straightforward attribution of
characteristics to nominate groups. Explicit attitudes that develop in response to recent
information, automatic evaluation were thought to reflect mental associations through early
socialisation experiences. Once formed, these associations are highly robust and resistant to
change, as well as stable across both context and time. Hence the impact of contextual
influences was assumed to be obfuscate assessment of a person's "true" and enduring
evaluative disposition as well as limit the capacity to predict subsequent behavior. [17] Likert
scales and other self-reports are also commonly used.

Implicit

Implicit measures are not consciously directed and are assumed to be automatic, which may
make implicit measures more valid and reliable than explicit measures (such as self-reports).
For example, people can be motivated such that they find it socially desirable to appear to
have certain attitudes. An example of this is that people can hold implicit prejudicial attitudes,
but express explicit attitudes that report little prejudice. Implicit measures help account for
these situations and look at attitudes that a person may not be aware of or want to show.[18]
Implicit measures therefore usually rely on an indirect measure of attitude. For example, the
Implicit Association Test (IAT) examines the strength between the target concept and an
attribute element by considering the latency in which a person can examine two response keys
when each has two meanings. With little time to carefully examine what the participant is
doing they respond according to internal keys. This priming can show attitudes the person has
about a particular object.[19] People are often unwilling to provide responses perceived as
socially undesirable and therefore tend to report what they think their attitudes should be
rather than what they know them to be. More complicated still, people may not even be
consciously aware that they hold biased attitudes. Over the past few decades, scientists have
developed new measures to identify these unconscious biases.[20]

Structure

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (September 2012)

The classic, tripartite view offered by Rosenberg and Hovland [21] is that an attitude contains
cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Empirical research, however, fails to support
clear distinctions between thoughts, emotions, and behavioral intentions associated with a
particular attitude.[22] A criticism of the tripartite view of attitudes is that it requires cognitive,
affective, and behavioral associations of an attitude to be consistent, but this may be
implausible. Thus some views of attitude structure see the cognitive and behavioral
components as derivative of affect or affect and behavior as derivative of underlying beliefs.
[23]

Despite debate about the particular structure of attitudes, there is considerable evidence that
attitudes reflect more than evaluations of a particular object that vary from positive to
negative.[24]
[25]
Among numerous attitudes, one example is people's money attitudes which may help
people understand their affective love of money motive, stewardship behavior, and money
cognition. These ABC components of attitudes formulate, define, and contribute to an overall
construct of Monetary Intelligence which, in turn, may be related to many theoretical work-
related constructs.[26][27][28][29]

There is also a considerable interest in intra-attitudinal and inter-attitudinal structure, which is

how an attitude is made (expectancy and value) and how different attitudes relate to one
another. Which connects different attitudes to one another and to more underlying
psychological structures, such as values or ideology.

Attitude component models

Multicomponent model is the most influential model of attitude. Where attitudes are
evaluations of an object that have cognitive, affective, and behavioural components. These
components are also known as taxi CAB, that will get you where you want to go.

 Cognitive component The cognitive component of attitudes refer to the beliefs,

thoughts, and attributes that we would associate with an object. Many times a person's
attitude might be based on the negative and positive attributes they associate with an
object.
 Affective component The affective component of attitudes refer to your feelings or
emotions linked to an attitude object. Affective responses influence attitudes in a
number of ways. For example, many people are afraid/scared of spiders. So this
negative affective response is likely to cause you to have a negative attitude towards
spiders.
 Behavioural component The behavioural component of attitudes refer to past
behaviours or experiences regarding an attitude object. The idea that people might
infer their attitudes from their previous actions. This idea was best articulated by
Bem .[30]

MODE Model

The theory of attitude evaluation. (Motivation and Opportunity as Determinants of the attitude
- behavior relation) When both are present, behavior will be deliberate. When one is absent,
impact on behavior will be spontaneous. The MODE Model was developed by Fazio . Your
attitude can be measured in two different ways:

 Explicit measure
 Implicit measure

Explicit measure are attitudes at the conscious level, that are deliberately formed and easy to
self-report. An Implicit measures are attitudes that are at an unconscious level, that are
involuntarily formed and are typically unknown to us.[31] Both explicit and implicit attitudes
can shape and individuals behavior. Implicit attitudes however, are most likely to affect
behavior when the demands are steep and an individual feels stressed or distracted.[32]

Function

Another classic view of attitudes is that attitudes serve particular functions for individuals.
That is, researchers have tried to understand why individuals hold particular attitudes or why
they hold attitudes in general by considering how attitudes affect the individuals who hold
them.[33] Daniel Katz, for example, writes that attitudes can serve "instrumental, adjustive or
utilitarian," "ego-defensive," "value-expressive," or "knowledge" functions.[34] The functional
view of attitudes suggests that in order for attitudes to change (e.g., via persuasion), appeals
must be made to the function(s) that a particular attitude serves for the individual. As an
example, the "ego-defensive" function might be used to influence the racially prejudicial
attitudes of an individual who sees themselves as open-minded and tolerant. By appealing to
that individual's image of themselves as tolerant and open-minded, it may be possible to
change their prejudicial attitudes to be more consistent with their self-concept. Similarly, a
persuasive message that threatens self-image is much more likely to be rejected. [35]

Daniel Katz classified attitudes into four different groups based on their functions

1. Utilitarian: provides us with general approach or avoidance tendencies

2. Knowledge: help people organize and interpret new information
3. Ego-defensive: attitudes can help people protect their self-esteem
4. Value-expressive: used to express central values or beliefs

Utilitarian People adopt attitudes that are rewarding and that help them avoid punishment. In
other words, any attitude that is adopted in a person's own self-interest is considered to serve a
utilitarian function. Consider you have a condo, people with condos pay property taxes, and as
a result you don't want to pay more taxes. If those factors lead to your attitude that "increases
in property taxes are bad" your attitude is serving a utilitarian function.

Knowledge People need to maintain an organized, meaningful, and stable view of the world.
That being said important values and general principles can provide a framework for our
knowledge. Attitudes achieve this goal by making things fit together and make sense.
Example:

 I believe that I am a good person.

 I believe that good things happen to good people.
 Something bad happens to Bob.
 So I believe Bob must not be a good person.

Ego-Defensive This function involves psychoanalytic principles where people use defense
mechanisms to protect themselves from psychological harm. Mechanisms include:

 Denial
 Repression
 Projection
 Rationalization

The ego-defensive notion correlates nicely with Downward Comparison Theory which holds
the view that derogating a less fortunate other increases our own subjective well-being. We
are more likely to use the ego-defensive function when we suffer a frustration or misfortune.

Value-Expressive

 Serves to express one's central values and self-concept.

 Central values tend to establish our identity and gain us social approval thereby
showing us who we are, and what we stand for.

An example would concern attitudes toward a controversial political issue.

Formation
According to Doob (1947), learning can account for most of the attitudes we hold. The study
of attitude formation is the study of how people form evaluations of persons, places or things.
Theories of classical conditioning, instrumental conditioning and social learning are mainly
responsible for formation of attitude. Unlike personality, attitudes are expected to change as a
function of experience. In addition, exposure to the 'attitude' objects may have an effect on
how a person forms his or her attitude. This concept was seen as the "Mere-Exposure Effect".
Robert Zajonc showed that people were more likely to have a positive attitude on 'attitude
objects' when they were exposed to it frequently than if they were not. Mere repeated
exposure of the individual to a stimulus is a sufficient condition for the enhancement of his
attitude toward it.[36] Tesser (1993) has argued that hereditary variables may affect attitudes -
but believes that they may do so indirectly. For example, consistency theories, which imply
that we must be consistent in our beliefs and values. As with any type of heritability, to
determine if a particular trait has a basis in our genes, twin studies are used.[37] The most
famous example of such a theory is Dissonance-reduction theory, associated with Leon
Festinger, which explains that when the components of an attitude (including belief and
behavior) are at odds an individual may adjust one to match the other (for example, adjusting
a belief to match a behavior).[38] Other theories include balance theory, originally proposed by
Heider (1958), and the self-perception theory, originally proposed by Daryl Bem.[39]

Change

Main article: Attitude change

Attitudes can be changed through persuasion and an important domain of research on attitude
change focuses on responses to communication. Experimental research into the factors that
can affect the persuasiveness of a message include:

1. Target Characteristics: These are characteristics that refer to the person who receives
and processes a message. One such trait is intelligence - it seems that more intelligent
people are less easily persuaded by one-sided messages. Another variable that has
been studied in this category is self-esteem. Although it is sometimes thought that
those higher in self-esteem are less easily persuaded, there is some evidence that the
relationship between self-esteem and persuasibility is actually curvilinear, with people
of moderate self-esteem being more easily persuaded than both those of high and low
self-esteem levels (Rhodes & Woods, 1992). The mind frame and mood of the target
also plays a role in this process.
2. Source Characteristics: The major source characteristics are expertise, trustworthiness
and interpersonal attraction or attractiveness. The credibility of a perceived message
has been found to be a key variable here; if one reads a report about health and
believes it came from a professional medical journal, one may be more easily
persuaded than if one believes it is from a popular newspaper. Some psychologists
have debated whether this is a long-lasting effect and Hovland and Weiss (1951)
found the effect of telling people that a message came from a credible source
disappeared after several weeks (the so-called "sleeper effect"). Whether there is a
sleeper effect is controversial. Perceived wisdom is that if people are informed of the
source of a message before hearing it, there is less likelihood of a sleeper effect than if
they are told a message and then told its source.
3. Message Characteristics: The nature of the message plays a role in persuasion.
Sometimes presenting both sides of a story is useful to help change attitudes. When
people are not motivated to process the message, simply the number of arguments
 presented in a persuasive message will influence attitude change, such that a greater
number of arguments will produce greater attitude change.[40]
4. Cognitive Routes: A message can appeal to an individual's cognitive evaluation to
help change an attitude. In the central route to persuasion the individual is presented
with the data and motivated to evaluate the data and arrive at an attitude changing
conclusion. In the peripheral route to attitude change, the individual is encouraged to
not look at the content but at the source. This is commonly seen in modern
advertisements that feature celebrities. In some cases, physician, doctors or experts are
used. In other cases film stars are used for their attractiveness.

Emotion and attitude change

Emotion is a common component in persuasion, social influence, and attitude change. Much
of attitude research emphasized the importance of affective or emotion components. Emotion
works hand-in-hand with the cognitive process, or the way we think, about an issue or
situation. Emotional appeals are commonly found in advertising, health campaigns and
political messages. Recent examples include no-smoking health campaigns and political
campaign advertising emphasizing the fear of terrorism. Attitudes and attitude objects are
functions of cognitive, affective and conative components. Attitudes are part of the brain’s
associative networks, the spider-like structures residing in long term memory that consist of
affective and cognitive nodes.

By activating an affective or emotion node, attitude change may be possible, though affective
and cognitive components tend to be intertwined. In primarily affective networks, it is more
difficult to produce cognitive counterarguments in the resistance to persuasion and attitude
change.

Affective forecasting, otherwise known as intuition or the prediction of emotion, also impacts
attitude change. Research suggests that predicting emotions is an important component of
decision making, in addition to the cognitive processes. How we feel about an outcome may
override purely cognitive rationales.

In terms of research methodology, the challenge for researchers is measuring emotion and
subsequent impacts on attitude. Since we cannot see into the brain, various models and
measurement tools have been constructed to obtain emotion and attitude information.
Measures may include the use of physiological cues like facial expressions, vocal changes,
and other body rate measures. For instance, fear is associated with raised eyebrows, increased
heart rate and increase body tension (Dillard, 1994). Other methods include concept or
network mapping, and using primes or word cues in the era.

Components of emotion appeals

Any discrete emotion can be used in a persuasive appeal; this may include jealousy, disgust,
indignation, fear, blue, disturbed, haunted, and anger. Fear is one of the most studied
emotional appeals in communication and social influence research.

Important consequences of fear appeals and other emotion appeals include the possibility of
reactance which may lead to either message rejections or source rejection and the absence of
attitude change. As the EPPM suggests, there is an optimal emotion level in motivating
attitude change. If there is not enough motivation, an attitude will not change; if the emotional
appeal is overdone, the motivation can be paralyzed thereby preventing attitude change.

Emotions perceived as negative or containing threat are often studied more than perceived
positive emotions like humor. Though the inner-workings of humor are not agreed upon,
humor appeals may work by creating incongruities in the mind. Recent research has looked at
the impact of humor on the processing of political messages. While evidence is inconclusive,
there appears to be potential for targeted attitude change is receivers with low political
message involvement.

Important factors that influence the impact of emotion appeals include self efficacy, attitude
accessibility, issue involvement, and message/source features. Self efficacy is a perception of
one’s own human agency; in other words, it is the perception of our own ability to deal with a
situation. It is an important variable in emotion appeal messages because it dictates a person’s
ability to deal with both the emotion and the situation. For example, if a person is not self-
efficacious about their ability to impact the global environment, they are not likely to change
their attitude or behavior about global warming.

Dillard (1994) suggests that message features such as source non-verbal communication,
message content, and receiver differences can impact the emotion impact of fear appeals. The
characteristics of a message are important because one message can elicit different levels of
emotion for different people. Thus, in terms of emotion appeals messages, one size does not
fit all.

Attitude accessibility refers to the activation of an attitude from memory in other words, how
readily available is an attitude about an object, issue, or situation. Issue involvement is the
relevance and salience of an issue or situation to an individual. Issue involvement has been
correlated with both attitude access and attitude strength. Past studies conclude accessible
attitudes are more resistant to change.

Attitude-behavior relationship

The effects of attitudes on behaviors is a growing research enterprise within psychology. Icek
Ajzen has led research and helped develop two prominent theoretical approaches within this
field: the theory of reasoned action[41] and, its theoretical descendant, the theory of planned
behavior.[42] Both theories help explain the link between attitude and behavior as a controlled
and deliberative process.

Theory of reasoned action

The theory of reasoned action (TRA), is a model for the prediction of behavioral intention,
spanning predictions of attitude and predictions of behavior. The subsequent separation of
behavioral intention from behavior allows for explanation of limiting factors on attitudinal
influence (Ajzen, 1980). The Theory of Reasoned Action was developed by Martin Fishbein
and Icek Ajzen (1975, 1980), derived from previous research that started out as the theory of
attitude, which led to the study of attitude and behavior. The theory was "born largely out of
frustration with traditional attitude–behavior research, much of which found weak correlations
between attitude measures and performance of volitional behaviors" (Hale, Householder &
Greene, 2003, p. 259).
Theory of planned behavior

The theory of planned behavior was proposed by Icek Ajzen in 1985 through his article
"From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior." The theory was developed from
the theory of reasoned action, which was proposed by Martin Fishbein together with Icek
Ajzen in 1975. The theory of reasoned action was in turn grounded in various theories of
attitude such as learning theories, expectancy-value theories, consistency theories,[2] and
attribution theory.[3] According to the theory of reasoned action, if people evaluate the
suggested behavior as positive (attitude), and if they think their significant others want them
to perform the behavior (subjective norm), this results in a higher intention (motivation) and
they are more likely to do so. A high correlation of attitudes and subjective norms to
behavioral intention, and subsequently to behavior, has been confirmed in many studies.[4]
The theory of planned behavior contains the same component as the theory of reasoned
action, but adds the component of perceived behavioral control to account for barriers outside
one's own control.[43]

Motivation and Opportunity as Determinants (MODE)

Russell H. Fazio proposed an alternative theory called "Motivation and Opportunity as

Determinants" or MODE. Fazio believes that because there is deliberative process happening,
individuals must be motivated to reflect on their attitudes and subsequent behaviors. [44] Simply
put, when an attitude is automatically activated, the individual must be motivated to avoid
making an invalid judgement as well as have the opportunity to reflect on their attitude and
behavior.

A counter-argument against the high relationship between behavioral intention and actual
behavior has also been proposed, as the results of some studies show that, because of
circumstantial limitations, behavioral intention does not always lead to actual behavior.
Namely, since behavioral intention cannot be the exclusive determinant of behavior where an
individual's control over the behavior is incomplete, Ajzen introduced the theory of planned
behavior by adding a new component, "perceived behavioral control." By this, he extended
the theory of reasoned action to cover non-volitional behaviors for predicting behavioral
intention and actual behavior.

The World Values Survey (WVS) is a global research project that explores people’s values
and beliefs, how they change over time and what social and political impact they have. It is
carried out by a worldwide network of social scientists who, since 1981, have conducted
representative national surveys in almost 100 countries.

The WVS measures, monitors and analyzes: support for democracy, tolerance of foreigners
and ethnic minorities, support for gender equality, the role of religion and changing levels of
religiosity, the impact of globalization, attitudes toward the environment, work, family,
politics, national identity, culture, diversity, insecurity, and subjective well-being.

The findings provide information for policy makers seeking to build civil society and
democratic institutions in developing countries. The work is also frequently used by
governments around the world, scholars, students, journalists and international organizations
and institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations (UNDP and UN-Habitat).
Data from the World Values Survey have for example been used to better understand the
motivations behind events such as the Arab Spring, the 2005 French civil unrest, the Rwandan
genocide in 1994 and the Yugoslav wars and political upheaval in the 1990s.[citation needed]

Romano Prodi, former Prime Minister of Italy and the tenth President of European
Commission said about the WVS work:

The growing globalization of the world makes it increasingly important to understand [...]
diversity. People with varying beliefs and values can live together and work together
productively, but for this to happen it is crucial to understand and appreciate their distinctive
worldviews.[1]

Insights

The WVS has over the years demonstrated that people’s beliefs play a key role in economic
development, the emergence and flourishing of democratic institutions, the rise of gender
equality, and the extent to which societies have effective government.

Inglehart–Welzel cultural map

Main article: Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world

A recreation of the 2010 Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world, created by political
scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel based on the World Values Survey.

Analysis of WVS data made by political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel
asserts that there are two major dimensions of cross cultural variation in the world:

1. Traditional values versus Secular-rational values and

2. Survival values versus Self-expression values.

The global cultural map (below) shows how scores of societies are located on these two
dimensions. Moving upward on this map reflects the shift from Traditional values to Secular-
rational and moving rightward reflects the shift from Survival values to Self–expression
values.[2]
Traditional values emphasize the importance of religion, parent-child ties, deference to
authority and traditional family values. People who embrace these values also reject divorce,
abortion, euthanasia and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride and a
nationalistic outlook.[2]

Secular-rational values have the opposite preferences to the traditional values. These societies
place less emphasis on religion, traditional family values and authority. Divorce, abortion,
euthanasia and suicide are seen as relatively acceptable.[2]

Survival values place emphasis on economic and physical security. It is linked with a
relatively ethnocentric outlook and low levels of trust and tolerance.[2]

Self-expression values give high priority to environmental protection, growing tolerance of

foreigners, gays and lesbians and gender equality, and rising demands for participation in
decision-making in economic and political life.[2]

Culture variations

A somewhat simplified analysis is that following an increase in standards of living, and a

transit from development country via industrialization to post-industrial knowledge society, a
country tends to move diagonally in the direction from lower-left corner (poor) to upper-right
corner (rich), indicating a transit in both dimensions.

However, the attitudes among the population are also highly correlated with the philosophical,
political and religious ideas that have been dominating in the country. Secular-rational values
and materialism were formulated by philosophers and the left-wing politics side in the French
revolution, and can consequently be observed especially in countries with a long history of
social democratic or socialistic policy, and in countries where a large portion of the
population have studied philosophy and science at universities. Survival values are
characteristic for eastern-world countries and self-expression values for western-world
countries. In a liberal post-industrial economy, an increasing share of the population has
grown up taking survival and freedom of thought for granted, resulting in that self-expression
is highly valued.

Examples

 Societies that have high scores in Traditional and Survival values: Zimbabwe,
Morocco, Jordan, Bangladesh.
 Societies with high scores in Traditional and Self-expression values: the U.S., most of
Latin America, Ireland.
 Societies with high scores in Secular-rational and Survival values: Russia, Bulgaria,
Ukraine, Estonia.
 Societies with high scores in Secular-rational and Self-expression values: Sweden,
Norway, Japan, Benelux, Germany, France, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Slovenia,
and some English speaking countries.

Gender values

Findings from the WVS indicate that support for gender equality is not just a consequence of
democratization. It is part of a broader cultural change that is transforming industrialized
societies with mass demands for increasingly democratic institutions. Although a majority of
the world’s population still believes that men make better political leaders than women, this
view is fading in advanced industrialized societies, and also among young people in less
prosperous countries.[3]

Religion

The data from the World Values Survey cover several important aspects of people’s religious
orientation. One of them tracks how involved people are in religious services and how much
importance they attach to their religious beliefs. In the data from 2000, 98% of the public in
Indonesia said that religion was very important in their lives while in China only three percent
considered religion very important.[4] Another aspect concerns people’s attitudes towards the
relation between religion and politics and whether they approve of religious spokesmen who
try to influence government decisions and people’s voting preferences.

In a factor analysis of the latest wave (6) of World Values Survey data, Arno Tausch
(Corvinus University Budapest) found that family values in the tradition of Joseph Alois
Schumpeter and religious values in the research tradition of Robert Barro can be an important
positive asset for society. Negative phenomena, like the distrust in the state of law; the
shadow economy; the distance from altruistic values; a growing fatigue of democracy; and the
lack of entrepreneurial spirit are all correlated with the loss of religiosity. Tausch based his
results on a factor analysis with promax rotation of 78 variables from 45 countries with
complete data, and also calculated performance indices for the 45 countries with complete
data and the nine main global religious denominations. On this account, Judaism and also
Protestantism emerge as most closely combining religion and the traditions of the
Enlightenment.[5]

Happiness and life satisfaction

The WVS has shown that from 1981 to 2007 happiness rose in 45 of the 52 countries for
which long-term data are available.[6] Since 1981, economic development, democratization,
and rising social tolerance have increased the extent to which people perceive that they have
free choice, which in turn has led to higher levels of happiness around the world, which
supports the human development theory.[6]

Findings

This section contains embedded lists that may be better presented using prose. You
can help by converting the list or lists to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available.
(November 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Some of the survey's basic findings are:

1. Much of the variation in human values between societies boils down to two broad
dimensions: a first dimension of “traditional vs. secular-rational values” and a second
dimension of “survival vs. self-expression values.”[7]
2. On the first dimension, traditional values emphasize religiosity, national pride, respect
for authority, obedience and marriage. Secular-rational values emphasize the opposite
on each of these accounts.[7]
3. On the second dimension, survival values involve a priority of security over liberty,
non-acceptance of homosexuality, abstinence from political action, distrust in
outsiders and a weak sense of happiness. Self-expression values imply the opposite on
all these accounts.[7]
4. Following the ‘revised theory of modernization,’ values change in predictable ways
with certain aspects of modernity. People’s priorities shift from traditional to secular-
rational values as their sense of existential security increases (or backwards from
secular-rational values to traditional values as their sense of existential security
decreases).[7]
5. The largest increase in existential security occurs with the transition from agrarian to
industrial societies. Consequently, the largest shift from traditional towards secular-
rational values happens in this phase.[7]
6. People’s priorities shift from survival to self-expression values as their sense of
individual agency increases (or backwards from self-expression values to survival as
the sense of individual agency decreases).[7]
7. The largest increase in individual agency occurs with the transition from industrial to
knowledge societies. Consequently, the largest shift from survival to self-expression
values happens in this phase.[7]
8. The value differences between societies around the world show a pronounced culture
zone pattern. The strongest emphasis on traditional values and survival values is found
in the Islamic societies of the Middle East. By contrast, the strongest emphasis on
secular-rational values and self-expression values is found in the Protestant societies
of Northern Europe.[8]
9. These culture zone differences reflect different historical pathways of how entire
groups of societies entered modernity. These pathways account for people’s different
senses of existential security and individual agency, which in turn account for their
different emphases on secular-rational values and self-expression values.[8]
10. Values also differ within societies along such cleavage lines as gender, generation,
ethnicity, religious denomination, education, income and so forth.[9]
11. Generally speaking, groups whose living conditions provide people with a stronger
sense of existential security and individual agency nurture a stronger emphasis on
secular-rational values and self-expression values.[9]
12. However, the within-societal differences in people’s values are dwarfed by a factor
five to ten by the between-societal differences. On a global scale, basic living
conditions differ still much more between than within societies, and so do the
experiences of existential security and individual agency that shape people’s values. [9]
13. A specific subset of self-expression values—emancipative values—combines an
emphasis on freedom of choice and equality of opportunities. Emancipative values,
thus, involve priorities for lifestyle liberty, gender equality, personal autonomy and the
voice of the people.[10]
14. Emancipative values constitute the key cultural component of a broader process of
human empowerment. Once set in motion, this process empowers people to exercise
freedoms in their course of actions.[11]
15. If set in motion, human empowerment advances on three levels. On the socio-
economic level, human empowerment advances as growing action resources increase
people’s capabilities to exercise freedoms. On the socio-cultural level, human
empowerment advances as rising emancipative values increase people’s aspirations to
exercise freedoms. On the legal-institutional level, human empowerment advances as
widened democratic rights increase people’s entitlements to exercise freedoms.[8]
16. Human empowerment is an entity of empowering capabilities, aspirations, and
entitlements. As an entity, human empowerment tends to advance in virtuous spirals or
to recede in vicious spirals on each of its three levels.[12]
17. As the cultural component of human empowerment, emancipative values are highly
consequential in manifold ways. For one, emancipative values establish a civic form of
modern individualism that favours out-group trust and cosmopolitan orientations
towards others.[13]
18. Emancipative values encourage nonviolent protest, even against the risk of repression.
Thus, emancipative values provide social capital that activates societies, makes
publics more self-expressive, and vitalizes civil society. Emancipative values advance
entire societies’ civic agency.[14]
19. If emancipative values grow strong in countries that are democratic, they help to
prevent movements away from democracy.[15]
20. If emancipative values grow strong in countries that are undemocratic, they help to
trigger movements towards democracy.[15]
21. Emancipative values exert these effects because they encourage mass actions that put
power holders under pressures to sustain, substantiate or establish democracy,
depending on what the current challenge for democracy is.[15]
22. Objective factors that have been found to favour democracy (including economic
prosperity, income equality, ethnic homogeneity, world market integration, global
media exposure, closeness to democratic neighbours, a Protestant heritage, social
capital and so forth) exert an influence on democracy mostly insofar as these factors
favour emancipative values.[15]
23. Emancipative values do not strengthen people’s desire for democracy, for the desire
for democracy is universal at this point in history. But emancipative values do change
the nature of the desire for democracy. And they do so in a double way.[16]
24. For one, emancipative values make people’s understanding of democracy more liberal:
people with stronger emancipative values emphasize the empowering features of
democracy rather than bread-and-butter and law-and-order issues.[16]
25. Next, emancipative values make people assess the level of their country’s democracy
more critical: people with stronger emancipative values rather underrate than overrate
their country’s democratic performance.[16]
26. Together, then, emancipative values generate a critical-liberal desire for democracy.
The critical-liberal desire for democracy is a formidable force of democratic reforms.
And, it is the best available predictor of a country’s effective level of democracy and
of other indicators of good governance. Neither democratic traditions nor cognitive
mobilization account for the strong positive impact of emancipative values on the
critical-liberal desire for democracy.[16]
27. Emancipative values constitute the single most important factor in advancing the
empowerment of women. Economic, religious, and institutional factors that have been
found to advance women’s empowerment, do so for the most part because they
nurture emancipative values.[10]
28. Emancipative values change people’s life strategy from an emphasis on securing a
decent subsistence level to enhancing human agency. As the shift from subsistence to
agency affects entire societies, the overall level of subjective well-being rises.[11]
29. The emancipative consequences of the human empowerment process are not a culture-
specific peculiarity of the ‘West.’ The same empowerment processes that advance
emancipative values and a critical-liberal desire for democracy in the ‘West,’ do the
same in the ‘East’ and in other culture zones.[17]
 30. The social dominance of Islam and individual identification as Muslim both weaken
emancipative values. But among young Muslims with high education, and especially
among young Muslim women with high education, the Muslim/Non-Muslim gap over
emancipative values closes.[18]

History

The World Values Surveys were designed to test the hypothesis that economic and
technological changes are transforming the basic values and motivations of the publics of
industrialized societies. The surveys build on the European Values Study (EVS) first carried
out in 1981. The EVS was conducted under the aegis of Jan Kerkhofs and Ruud de Moor and
continues to be based in the Netherlands at the Tilburg University. The 1981 study was
largely limited to developed societies, but interest in this project spread so widely that surveys
were carried out in more than twenty countries, located on all six inhabited continents. Ronald
Inglehart of the University of Michigan played a leading role in extending these surveys to be
carried out in countries around the world. Today the network includes hundreds of social
scientist from more than 100 countries.

Findings from the first wave of surveys pointed to the conclusion that intergenerational
changes were taking place in basic values relating to politics, economic life, religion, gender
roles, family norms and sexual norms. The values of younger generations differed
consistently from those prevailing among older generations, particularly in societies that had
experienced rapid economic growth. To examine whether changes were actually taking place
in these values and to analyze the underlying causes, a second wave of WVS surveys was
carried out in 1990–91. Because these changes seem to be linked with economic and
technological development, it was important to include societies across the entire range of
development, from low income societies to rich societies.[19]

A third wave of surveys was carried out in 1995–97, this time in 55 societies and with
increased attention being given to analysing the cultural conditions for democracy. A fourth
wave of surveys was carried out in 1999–2001 in 65 societies. A key goal was to obtain better
coverage of African and Islamic societies, which had been under-represented in previous
surveys. A fifth wave was carried out in 2005–07 and a sixth wave was carried out during
2011–12.[19]

Due to the European origin of the project, the early waves of the WVS were eurocentric in
emphasis, with little representation in Africa and South-East Asia. To expand, the WVS
adopted a decentralised structure, in which social scientists from countries throughout the
world participated in the design, execution and analysis of the data, and in publication of
findings. In return for providing the data from a survey in their own society, each group
obtained immediate access to the data from all participating societies enabling them to analyse
social change in a broader perspective.[19]

The WVS network has produced over 300 publications in 20 languages and secondary users
have produced several thousand additional publications.[19] The database of the WVS has been
published on the internet with free access.

The official archive of the World Values Survey is located in [ASEP/JDS] Madrid, Spain.

Methodology
The World Values Survey uses the sample survey as its mode of data collection, a systematic
and standardized approach to collect information through interviewing representative national
samples of individuals. The basic stages of a sample survey are Questionnaire design;
Sampling; Data collection and Analysis.

Questionnaire design

For each wave, suggestions for questions are solicited by social scientists from all over the
world and a final master questionnaire is developed in English. Since the start in 1981 each
successive wave has covered a broader range of societies than the previous one. Analysis of
the data from each wave has indicated that certain questions tapped interesting and important
concepts while others were of little value. This has led to the more useful questions or themes
being replicated in future waves while the less useful ones have been dropped making room
for new questions.[20]

The questionnaire is translated into the various national languages and in many cases
independently translated back to English to check the accuracy of the translation. In most
countries, the translated questionnaire is pre-tested to help identify questions for which the
translation is problematic. In some cases certain problematic questions are omitted from the
national questionnaire.

Sampling

Samples are drawn from the entire population of 18 years and older. The minimum sample is
1000. In most countries, no upper age limit is imposed and some form of stratified random
sampling is used to obtain representative national samples. In the first stages, a random
selection of sampling points is made based on the given society statistical regions, districts,
census units, election sections, electoral registers or polling place and central population
registers. In most countries the population size and/or degree of urbanization of these Primary
Sampling Units are taken into account. In some countries, individuals are drawn from national
registers.[21]

Data collection and field work

Following the sampling, each country is left with a representative national sample of its
public. These persons are then interviewed during a limited time frame decided by the
Executive Committee of the World Values Survey using the uniformly structured
questionnaires. The survey is carried out by professional organizations using face-to-face
interviews or phone interviews for remote areas. Each country has a Principal Investigator
(social scientists working in academic institutions) who is responsible for conducting the
survey in accordance with the fixed rules and procedures. During the field work, the agency
has to report in writing according to a specific check-list. Internal consistency checks are
made between the sampling design and the outcome and rigorous data cleaning procedures are
followed at the WVS data archive. No country is included in a wave before full
documentation has been delivered. This means a data set with the completed methodological
questionnaire.[22] and a report of country-specific information (for example important political
events during the fieldwork, problems particular to the country). Once all the surveys are
completed, the Principal Investigator has access to all surveys and data.

Analysis
The World Values Survey group works with leading social scientists, recruited from each
society studied. They represent a wide range of cultures and perspectives which makes it
possible to draw on the insights of well-informed insiders in interpreting the findings. It also
helps disseminate social science techniques to new countries.

Each research team, that has contributed to the survey, analyses the findings according to its
hypotheses. Because all researchers obtain data from all of the participating societies, they are
also able to compare the values and beliefs of the people of their own society with those from
scores of other societies and to test alternative hypotheses. In addition, the participants are
invited to international meetings at which they can compare findings and interpretations with
other members of the WVS network. The findings are then disseminated through international
conferences and joint publications.[23]

Usage

The World Values Survey data has been downloaded by over 100,000 researchers, journalists,
policy-makers and others. The data is available on the WVS website which contains tools
developed for online analysis.[24]

Governance and funding

The World Values Survey is organised as a network of social scientists coordinated by a

central body - the World Values Survey Association. It is established as a non-profit
organization seated in Stockholm, Sweden, with a constitution[25] and mission statement.[26]
The project is guided by an Executive Committee representing all regions of the world. The
Committee is also supported by a Scientific Advisory Committee, a Secretariat and an
Archive. The WVS Executive Committee provides leadership and strategic planning for the
association. It is responsible for the recruitment of new members, the organization of
meetings and workshops, data processing and distribution, capacity building and the
promotion of publications and dissemination of results. The WVS Executive Committee also
raises funds for central functions and assists member groups in their fundraising.

Each national team is responsible for its own expenses and most surveys are financed by local
sources. However, central funding has been obtained in cases where local funding is not
possible. Presently, the activities of the WVS Secretariat and WVS Executive Committee are
funded by the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. Other funding has been obtained
from the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (SIDA), the Volkswagen Foundation, the German Science Foundation
(DFG) and the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.

Media coverage

The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with Europe and the
Anglosphere and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may
improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as
appropriate. (July 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The World Values Survey data has been used in a large number of scholarly publications and
the findings have been reported in media such as BBC News,[27][28][29] Bloomberg
Businessweek,[30] China Daily,[31] Chinadialogue.net,[32] CNN,[33][34][35] Der Spiegel,[36][37][38] Der
Standard,[39] Discover,[40] Rzeczpospolita,[41] Gazeta Wyborcza,[42][43] Le Monde,[44] Neue
Zürcher Zeitung,[45][46] Newsweek,[47] Russia Today,[48] Süddeutsche Zeitung,[49][50] Time,[51][52]
[53]
The Economist,[54] The Guardian,[55] The New Yorker,[56] The New York Times,[57][58] The
Sydney Morning Herald,[59] The Washington Post,[60] and the World Development Report.[61]

World Values Paper Series: World Values Research

World Values Research (WVR), registered as ISSN 2000-2777, is the official online paper
series of the World Values Survey Association.[62] The series is edited by the Executive
Committee of the Association. WVR publishes research papers of high scientific standards
based on evidence from World Values Surveys data. Papers in WVR follow good academic
practice and abide to ethical norms in line with the mission of the World Values Survey
Association. Publication of submitted papers is pending on an internal review by the
Executive Committee of the World Values Survey Association. WVR papers present original
research based on data from the World Values Surveys, providing new evidence and novel
insights of theoretical relevance to the theme of human values.[63] An archive of published
WVR papers is available on the project's website.[62]

The years leading up to World War II (and during the conflict) saw great changes in the
sexual habits of European societies.

France

Paris 1944: Women accused of collaboration with Nazis are paraded through the streets.

In the occupation years as the French dealt with their humiliating defeat and surrender, the
morality of sex in the Vichy occupation changed. In his book 1940–1945, The Erotic Years:
Vichy, or, the Misfortunes of Virtue Patrick Buisson talks about “erotic shock ... or exploring
new territories of pleasure."[1] After the occupation he writes about French prisoners bedding
local German girls while back in their homeland French women had intimate relations with
their German occupiers. Local cinemas and even subway stations became synonymous
location for physical trysts during Allied bombings.[1] After Allied liberation any woman who
had a reputation for associating with the Germans were targeted as collaborators and faced
hazing or worse.

Germany

The German birth rate, like that in most industrial nations, had been falling for decades. When
Hitler and the Nazi Party took power in 1933 they implemented several revolutionary policies
in order to change the sexual practices of the German people and reverse this slide in birth
rates. At the same time that it forbade the mixing of Jewish and German through the
Nuremberg Laws, Nazi policy tried a number of policies designed to increase new births. One
action was to change the marriage laws via the 1938 divorce-reform law by the Minister of
Justice, Dr Gurtner.[2] Within two years 30,000 divorces were filed, 80% of which were
husbands casting off women over 45 years old.[3] While the divorce law increased new
marriages and children from these marriages, the Nazis looked to illegitimate births in
Germany as a way to increase Germany's birthrate.[3]

In the 1920s there were about 150,000 illegitimate births in Germany, before halving during
the depression and bouncing up to 100,000 in 1935.[3] The Nazis wanted to increase the
illegitimate births by encouraging out of wedlock births, especially those of Aryan heritage.
Part official policy, part propaganda, the Nazi policy manifested itself in the Lebensborn
program. The Lebensborn program provided a place where pregnant mothers could have their
babies out of wedlock in secret.[4]

Christening of a Lebensborn child

Only the most "pure" of its applicants were chosen to join its programs. Of all the women
who applied, only 40 percent passed the racial purity test (they had to show their family tree
three generations back) and were granted admission to the Lebensborn program. The majority
of mothers were unmarried, 57.6 percent until 1939, and about 70 percent by 1940.[5]

The Lebensborn program was given a further push when Himmler issued a proclamation that
every SS soldier should father a child before he left for war. The child could then be born and
raised at the Lebensborn facilities.[6] Through these policies the birth rate increased and
Himmler told his doctor Kerstern how proud he was to have a role in the change, "Only a few
years ago illegitimate children were considered a shameful matter ... [now] my men tell me
with shining eyes that a son has been born to them. Their girls consider it an honour, not a
source of shame."

Once World War II broke out and men were sent to the front, the Nazis changed their promise
of "every woman will have a man" to "every woman will have a child". A report to the
Ministry of Justice in 1944 stated that:

Leaders of the [German Girls' League have] intimated to their girls that they should bear
illegitimate children; these leaders have pointed out that in view of the prevailing shortage of
men, not every girl could expect to get a husband in future, and that the girls should at least
fulfil their task as German women and donate a child to the Fuhrer.[7]

As a mark of how much sexual attitudes had changed by the end of the war, 23% of all young
Germans were infected with a venereal disease, and prostitution had quadrupled.[8] Had the
Germans triumphed, Himmler and Bormann were considering a post-war institution of double
marriage for Nazi party officials and war heroes.[8]

Changes in gender roles in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism have
been an object of historical and sociological study.

Paraphilia (also known as sexual perversion and sexual deviation) is the experience of
intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, fetishes, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or
individuals.[1] No consensus has been found for any precise border between unusual sexual
interests and paraphilic ones.[2][3] There is debate over which, if any, of the paraphilias should
be listed in diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

The number and taxonomy of paraphilias is under debate; one source lists as many as 549
types of paraphilias.[4] The DSM-5 has specific listings for eight paraphilic disorders.[5]
Several sub-classifications of the paraphilias have been proposed, and some argue that a fully
dimensional, spectrum or complaint-oriented approach would better reflect the evidence. [6][7]
Terminology

Many terms have been used to describe atypical sexual interests, and there remains debate
regarding technical accuracy and perceptions of stigma. Sexologist John Money popularized
the term paraphilia as a non-pejorative designation for unusual sexual interests.[8][9][10][11]
Money described paraphilia as "a sexuoerotic embellishment of, or alternative to the official,
ideological norm."[12] Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard writes that despite efforts by Stekel and
Money, "the term paraphilia remains pejorative in most circumstances."[13]

Coinage of the term paraphilia (paraphilie) has been credited to Friedrich Salomon Krauss in
1903, and it entered the English language in 1913, in reference to Krauss by urologist William
J. Robinson.[14] It was used with some regularity by Wilhelm Stekel in the 1920s.[15] The term
comes from the Greek παρά (para) "beside" and φιλία (-philia) "friendship, love".

In the late 19th century, psychologists and psychiatrists started to categorize various
paraphilias as they wanted a more descriptive system than the legal and religious constructs of
sodomy[16] and perversion.[17] Before the introduction of the term paraphilia in the DSM-III
(1980), the term sexual deviation was used to refer to paraphilias in the first two editions of
the manual.[18] In 1981, an article published in American Journal of Psychiatry described
paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors
generally involving:[19]

 Non-human objects
 The suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner
 Children
 Non-consenting persons

Homosexuality and non-heterosexuality

Homosexuality was at one time discussed as a sexual deviation.[20] Sigmund Freud and
subsequent psychoanalytic thinkers considered homosexuality and paraphilias to result from
psychosexual non-normative relations to the Oedipal complex.[21] As such, the term sexual
perversion or the epithet pervert have historically referred to gay men, as well as other non-
heterosexuals (people who fall out of the perceived norms of sexual orientation).[20][21][22][23]

By the mid-20th century, mental health practitioners began formalizing "deviant sexuality"
classifications into categories. Originally coded as 000-x63, homosexuality was the top of the
classification list (Code 302.0) until the American Psychiatric Association removed
homosexuality from the DSM in 1974. Martin Kafka writes, "Sexual disorders once
considered paraphilias (e.g., homosexuality) are now regarded as variants of normal
sexuality."[22]

A 2012 literature study by clinical psychologist James Cantor, when comparing

homosexuality with paraphilias, found that both share "the features of onset and course (both
homosexuality and paraphilia being life-long), but they appear to differ on sex ratio, fraternal
birth order, handedness, IQ and cognitive profile, and neuroanatomy". The research then
concluded that the data seemed to suggest paraphilias and homosexuality as two distinct
categories, but regarded the conclusion as "quite tentative" given the current limited
understanding of paraphilias.[23]
Causes

The causes of paraphilic sexual preferences in people are unclear, although a growing body of
research points to a possible prenatal neurodevelopmental correlation. A 2008 study analyzing
the sexual fantasies of 200 heterosexual men by using the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire
exam, determined that males with a pronounced degree of fetish interest had a greater number
of older brothers, a high 2D:4D digit ratio (which would indicate excessive prenatal estrogen
exposure), and an elevated probability of being left-handed, suggesting that disturbed
hemispheric brain lateralization may play a role in deviant attractions.[24]

Behavioral explanations propose that paraphilias are conditioned early in life, during an
experience that pairs the paraphilic stimulus with intense sexual arousal.[25] Susan Nolen-
Hoeksema suggests that, once established, masturbatory fantasies about the stimulus reinforce
and broaden the paraphilic arousal.[25]

Diagnosis

There is scientific and political controversy regarding the continued inclusion of sex-related
diagnoses such as the paraphilias in the DSM, due to the stigma of being classified as a
mental illness.[26]

Some groups, seeking greater understanding and acceptance of sexual diversity, have lobbied
for changes to the legal and medical status of unusual sexual interests and practices. Charles
Allen Moser, a physician and advocate for sexual minorities, has argued that the diagnoses
should be eliminated from diagnostic manuals.[27]

Typical versus atypical interests

Albert Eulenburg (1914) noted a commonality across the paraphilias, using the terminology of
his time, "All the forms of sexual perversion...have one thing in common: their roots reach
down into the matrix of natural and normal sex life; there they are somehow closely
connected with the feelings and expressions of our physiological erotism. They
are...hyperbolic intensifications, distortions, monstrous fruits of certain partial and secondary
expressions of this erotism which is considered 'normal' or at least within the limits of healthy
sex feeling."[28]

The clinical literature contains reports of many paraphilias, only some of which receive their
own entries in the diagnostic taxonomies of the American Psychiatric Association or the
World Health Organization.[29][30] There is disagreement regarding which sexual interests
should be deemed paraphilic disorders versus normal variants of sexual interest. For example,
as of May 2000, per DSM-IV-TR, "Because some cases of Sexual Sadism may not involve
harm to a victim (e.g., inflicting humiliation on a consenting partner), the wording for sexual
sadism involves a hybrid of the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV wording (i.e., "the person has acted
on these urges with a non-consenting person, or the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause
marked distress or interpersonal difficulty").[31]

The DSM-IV-TR also acknowledges that the diagnosis and classification of paraphilias across
cultures or religions "is complicated by the fact that what is considered deviant in one cultural
setting may be more acceptable in another setting”.[32] Some argue that cultural relativism is
important to consider when discussing paraphilias, because there is wide variance concerning
what is sexually acceptable across cultures.[33]

Consensual adult activities and adult entertainment involving sexual roleplay, novel,
superficial, or trivial aspects of sexual fetishism, or incorporating the use of sex toys are not
necessarily paraphilic.[32] Paraphilial psychopathology is not the same as psychologically
normative adult human sexual behaviors, sexual fantasy, and sex play.[34]

Intensity and specificity

Clinicians distinguish between optional, preferred and exclusive paraphilias,[35] though the
terminology is not completely standardized. An "optional" paraphilia is an alternative route to
sexual arousal. In preferred paraphilias, a person prefers the paraphilia to conventional sexual
activities, but also engages in conventional sexual activities.

The literature includes single-case studies of exceedingly rare and idiosyncratic paraphilias.
These include an adolescent male who had a strong fetishistic interest in the exhaust pipes of
cars, a young man with a similar interest in a specific type of car, and a man who had a
paraphilic interest in sneezing (both his own and the sneezing of others).[36][37]

DSM-I and DSM-II

In American psychiatry, prior to the publication of the DSM-I, paraphilias were classified as
cases of "psychopathic personality with pathologic sexuality". The DSM-I (1952) included
sexual deviation as a personality disorder of sociopathic subtype. The only diagnostic
guidance was that sexual deviation should have been "reserved for deviant sexuality which
[was] not symptomatic of more extensive syndromes, such as schizophrenic or obsessional
reactions". The specifics of the disorder were to be provided by the clinician as a
"supplementary term" to the sexual deviation diagnosis; there were no restrictions in the
DSM-I on what this supplementary term could be.[38] Researcher Anil Aggrawal writes that
the now-obsolete DSM-I listed examples of supplementary terms for pathological behavior to
include "homosexuality, transvestism, pedophilia, fetishism, and sexual sadism, including
rape, sexual assault, mutilation."[39]

The DSM-II (1968) continued to use the term sexual deviations, but no longer ascribed them
under personality disorders, but rather alongside them in a broad category titled "personality
disorders and certain other nonpsychotic mental disorders". The types of sexual deviations
listed in the DSM-II were: sexual orientation disturbance (homosexuality), fetishism,
pedophilia, transvestitism (sic), exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism, and "other
sexual deviation". No definition or examples were provided for "other sexual deviation", but
the general category of sexual deviation was meant to describe the sexual preference of
individuals that was "directed primarily toward objects other than people of opposite sex,
toward sexual acts not usually associated with coitus, or toward coitus performed under
bizarre circumstances, as in necrophilia, pedophilia, sexual sadism, and fetishism."[40] Except
for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM-III onwards, this definition provided a
general standard that has guided specific definitions of paraphilias in subsequent DSM
editions, up to DSM-IV-TR.[41]

DSM-III through DSM-IV

The term paraphilia was introduced in the DSM-III (1980) as a subset of the new category of
"psychosexual disorders."

The DSM-III-R (1987) renamed the broad category to sexual disorders, renamed atypical
paraphilia to paraphilia NOS (not otherwise specified), renamed transvestism as transvestic
fetishism, added frotteurism, and moved zoophilia to the NOS category. It also provided
seven nonexhaustive examples of NOS paraphilias, which besides zoophilia included
telephone scatologia, necrophilia, partialism, coprophilia, klismaphilia, and urophilia.[42]

The DSM-IV (1994) retained the sexual disorders classification for paraphilias, but added an
even broader category, "sexual and gender identity disorders," which includes them. The
DSM-IV retained the same types of paraphilias listed in DSM-III-R, including the NOS
examples, but introduced some changes to the definitions of some specific types.[41]

DSM-IV-TR

The DSM-IV-TR describes paraphilias as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies,

sexual urges or behaviors generally involving nonhuman objects, the suffering or humiliation
of oneself or one's partner, or children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period
of six months" (criterion A), which "cause clinically significant distress or impairment in
social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" (criterion B). DSM-IV-TR
names eight specific paraphilic disorders (exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia,
sexual masochism, sexual sadism, voyeurism, and transvestic fetishism, plus a residual
category, paraphilia—not otherwise specified).[43] Criterion B differs for exhibitionism,
frotteurism, and pedophilia to include acting on these urges, and for sadism, acting on these
urges with a nonconsenting person.[35] Sexual arousal in association with objects that were
designed for sexual purposes is not diagnosable.[35]

Some paraphilias may interfere with the capacity for sexual activity with consenting adult
partners.[35]

In the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-
TR), a paraphilia is not diagnosable as a psychiatric disorder unless it causes distress to the
individual or harm to others.[1]

DSM-5

The DSM-5 adds a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders, stating that
paraphilias do not require or justify psychiatric treatment in themselves, and defining
paraphilic disorder as "a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the
individual or a paraphilia whose satisfaction has entailed personal harm, or risk of harm, to
others".[5]

The DSM-5 Paraphilias Subworkgroup reached a "consensus that paraphilias are not ipso
facto psychiatric disorders", and proposed "that the DSM-V make a distinction between
paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. [...] One would ascertain a paraphilia (according to the
nature of the urges, fantasies, or behaviors) but diagnose a paraphilic disorder (on the basis of
distress and impairment). In this conception, having a paraphilia would be a necessary but not
a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder." The 'Rationale' page of any paraphilia
in the electronic DSM-5 draft continues: "This approach leaves intact the distinction between
normative and non-normative sexual behavior, which could be important to researchers, but
without automatically labeling non-normative sexual behavior as psychopathological. It also
eliminates certain logical absurdities in the DSM-IV-TR. In that version, for example, a man
cannot be classified as a transvestite—however much he cross-dresses and however sexually
exciting that is to him—unless he is unhappy about this activity or impaired by it. This change
in viewpoint would be reflected in the diagnostic criteria sets by the addition of the word
"Disorder" to all the paraphilias. Thus, Sexual Sadism would become Sexual Sadism
Disorder; Sexual Masochism would become Sexual Masochism Disorder, and so on."[44]

Bioethics professor Alice Dreger interpreted these changes as "a subtle way of saying sexual
kinks are basically okay – so okay, the sub-work group doesn’t actually bother to define
paraphilia. But a paraphilic disorder is defined: that’s when an atypical sexual interest causes
distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others." Interviewed by Dreger, Ray
Blanchard, the Chair of the Paraphilias Sub-Work Group, explained: "We tried to go as far as
we could in depathologizing mild and harmless paraphilias, while recognizing that severe
paraphilias that distress or impair people or cause them to do harm to others are validly
regarded as disorders."[45]

Charles Allen Moser pointed out that this change is not really substantive as DSM-IV already
acknowledged a difference between paraphilias and non-pathological but unusual sexual
interests, a distinction that is virtually identical to what is being proposed for DSM-5, and it is
a distinction that, in practice, has often been ignored.[46] Linguist Andrew Clinton Hinderliter
argued that "Including some sexual interests—but not others—in the DSM creates a
fundamental asymmetry and communicates a negative value judgment against the sexual
interests included," and leaves the paraphilias in a situation similar to ego-dystonic
homosexuality, which was removed from the DSM because it was realized not to be a mental
disorder.[47]

The DSM-5 acknowledges that many dozens of paraphilias exist, but only has specific listings
for eight that are forensically important and relatively common. These are voyeuristic
disorder, exhibitionistic disorder, frotteuristic disorder, sexual masochism disorder, sexual
sadism disorder, pedophilic disorder, fetishistic disorder, and transvestic disorder.[5] Other
paraphilias can be diagnosed under the Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder or Unspecified
Paraphilic Disorder listings, if accompanied by distress or impairment.[48]

Management

Most psychologists believe that paraphilic sexual interests cannot be altered.[49] Instead, the
goal of therapy is normally to reduce the person's discomfort with their paraphilia and limit
any criminal behavior.[49] Both psychotherapeutic and pharmacological methods are available
to these ends.[49]

Cognitive behavioral therapy, at times, can help people with paraphilias develop strategies to
avoid acting on their interests.[49] Patients are taught to identify and cope with factors that
make acting on their interests more likely, such as stress.[49] It is currently the only form of
psychotherapy for paraphilias supported by evidence.[50]

Pharmacological treatments can help people control their sexual behaviors, but do not change
the content of the paraphilia.[50] They are typically combined with cognitive behavioral
therapy for best effect.[51] Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are especially used with
exhibitionists, non-offending pedophiles, and compulsive masturbators.[51] They are proposed
to work by reducing sexual arousal, compulsivity, and depressive symptoms.[51] However,
supporting evidence for SSRIs is limited.[51]

Antiandrogens are used in more severe cases.[51] Similar to physical castration, they work by
reducing androgen levels, and have thus been described as chemical castration.[51] The
antiandrogen cyproterone acetate has been shown to substantially reduce sexual fantasies and
offending behaviors.[51] Medroxyprogesterone acetate and gonadotropin-releasing hormone
agonists (such as leuprolide acetate) have also been used to lower sex drive.[51] Due to the side
effects, the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry recommends that
hormonal treatments only be used when there is a serious risk of sexual violence, or when
other methods have failed.[50] Surgical castration has largely been abandoned because these
pharmacological alternatives are similarly effective and less invasive. [52]

Epidemiology

Research has shown that paraphilias are rarely observed in women.[53][54] However, there have
been some studies on females with paraphilias.[55] Sexual masochism has been found to be the
most commonly observed paraphilia in women, with approximately 1 in 20 cases of sexual
masochism being female.[35][54]

Many acknowledge the scarcity of research on female paraphilias.[56] The majority of

paraphilia studies are conducted on people who have been convicted of sex crimes.[57] Since
the number of male convicted sex offenders far exceeds the number of female convicted sex
offenders, research on paraphilic behavior in women is consequently lacking.[57] Some
researchers argue that an underrepresentation exists concerning pedophilia in females. [58] Due
to the low number of women in studies on pedophilia, most studies are based from
"exclusively male samples".[58] This likely underrepresentation may also be attributable to a
"societal tendency to dismiss the negative impact of sexual relationships between young boys
and adult women".[58] Michele Elliott has done extensive research on child sexual abuse
committed by females, publishing the book Female Sexual Abuse of Children: The Last
Taboo in an attempt to challenge the gender-biased discourse surrounding sex crimes.[59] John
Hunsley states that physiological limitations in the study of female sexuality must also be
acknowledged when considering research on paraphilias. He states that while a man's sexual
arousal can be directly measured from his erection (see penile plethysmograph), a woman's
sexual arousal cannot be measured as clearly (see vaginal photoplethysmograph), and
therefore research concerning female sexuality is rarely as conclusive as research on men. [56]

Legal issues

In the United States, following a series of landmark cases in the Supreme Court of the United
States, persons diagnosed with paraphilias, particularly pedophilia (Kansas v. Hendricks,
1997) and exhibitionism (Kansas v. Crane, 2002), with a history of anti-social behavior and
related criminal history, can be held indefinitely in civil confinement under various state
legislation generically known as sexually violent predator laws[60][61] and the federal Adam
Walsh Act (United States v. Comstock, 2010).[62][63]

Polyamory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Polyamorous" redirects here. For the Breaking Benjamin song, see Polyamorous (song).

For the use and analysis of a triad relationship in sociology, see Triad (sociology). For the
reality TV show, see Polyamory: Married & Dating.

Supporters of polyamory at a Gay Pride march in Madrid

Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice
of, or desire for, intimate relationships where individuals may have more than one partner,
with the knowledge and consent of all partners.[1] It has been described as "consensual,
ethical, and responsible non-monogamy".[2][3][4]

The term "polyamorous" can refer to the nature of a person's relationships at some point in
time or to a philosophy. Although sometimes misperceived as a relationship orientation (much
like gender or sexual orientation) it is not, the orientation that draws people toward the
practice of polyamory is non-monogamy. Non-monogamy has many forms of practice,
perhaps the most common being cheating, other commonly recognised non-monogamous
practice include; swinging, open relationships and polygamy. Polyamory is sometimes used in
a broader sense, as an umbrella term that covers various forms of multiple relationships, or
forms of sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive. Polyamorous
arrangements are varied, reflecting the choices and philosophies of the individuals involved,
though there is disagreement on how broadly the concept of polyamory applies. The
cornerstone for polyamorous practice is honest and mutually respectful dealings within a
network of multiple, emotionally meaningful, romantic, relationships. An emphasis on ethics,
honesty, and transparency all around is widely regarded as the crucial defining characteristic.
As of July 2009, it was estimated that more than 500,000 polyamorous relationships existed in
the United States.[5]

People who identify as polyamorous typically reject the view that sexual and relational
exclusivity are necessary for deep, committed, long-term loving relationships. Those who are
open to, or emotionally suited for, polyamory may embark on a polyamorous relationship
when single or already in a monogamous or open relationship. Sex is not necessarily a
primary focus in polyamorous relationships, which commonly consist of people seeking to
build long-term relationships with more than one person on mutually agreeable grounds, with
sex as only one aspect of their relationships. In practice, polyamorous relationships are highly
varied and individualized according to those participating. For many, such relationships are
ideally built upon values of trust, loyalty, the negotiation of boundaries, and compersion, as
well as overcoming jealousy, possessiveness, and the rejection of restrictive cultural
standards.[6]

Terminology

Main article: Terminology within polyamory

The word polyamorous came to prominence in an article by Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart,

"A Bouquet of Lovers", published in May 1990 in Green Egg Magazine, where it appeared as
"poly-amorous".[7] In May 1992, Jennifer L. Wesp created the Usenet newsgroup
alt.polyamory,[8] and the Oxford English Dictionary cites the proposal to create that group as
the first verified appearance of the word.[7] The words "polyamory, -ous, and -ist" were added
to the OED in 2006.[9] In 1999, Zell-Ravenheart was asked by the editor of the OED to
provide a definition of the term, and had provided it as The practice, state or ability of having
more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and
consent of all partners involved.[10] Polyamory is a less specific term than polygamy, the
practice or condition of having more than one spouse.

No single definition of "polyamory" has universal acceptance. Most definitions of polyamory

center on the concepts provided by Ravenheart's definition.[citation needed] Areas of difference arise
regarding the degree of commitment, such as in the practice of casual sexual activities, and
whether it represents a viewpoint or a relational status quo (whether a person without current
partners can be considered "polyamorous").[citation needed] Polyamorous relationships can be open
in which the committed partners agree to permit romantic or sexual relationships with other
people, or closed, in which the participants do not engage in relationships outside of the
defined set of committed partners. The practices of engaging in closed polyamorous
relationships is sometimes called polyfidelity.

The terms primary (or primary relationship(s)) and secondary (or secondary relationship(s))
may be used to indicate a hierarchy of different relationships or the place of each relationship
in a person's life. Thus, a person may refer to a live-in partner as their primary partner, and a
lover whom they only see once a week as their secondary partner, in order to differentiate to
the listener who is whom. While such labels can be used as a tool to manage multiple
relationships, some[who?] believe that such a hierarchy is unfair, as all the involved partners
deserve equal standing and consideration. Another model, sometimes referred to as an
intimate network, includes relationships that are of varying significance to the people
involved, but are not explicitly labeled as "primary" or "secondary". Within this model, a
hierarchy may be fluid and vague, or nonexistent.[citation needed]

Forms

Main article: Non-monogamy

If non-monogamous relationships practice; ethics, honesty, transparency and mutual respect

then they can also be considered polyamorous. Forms of non-monogamy and therefore
potentially polyamory include:

 Polyfidelity, which involves multiple romantic relationships with sexual contact

restricted to only specific partners in the group (which may include all members of
that group) (e.g. group marriage).
 Solo Polyamory, in which one polyamorous person, usually living alone,
communicates ethically, to the people they date, their polyamorous lifestyle.
 Hierarchical Polyamory, which distinguish between "primary" and "secondary"
relationships (e.g. many open marriages). In 1906 H.G. Wells presented a defense of
this sort of polyamory in a utopian novel titled In the Days of the Comet.
 Triads, Three people romantically involved. (Often an established couple dating a
third.)
 Quads, Often relationships between a couple and another couple (Quad).
 Polygamy (polygyny and polyandry), in which one person marries several spouses
(who may or may not be married to, or have romantic relationships with, one another).
  Group relationships, sometimes referred to as tribes, and group marriage, in which all
consider themselves associated to one another, popularized to some extent by Robert
A. Heinlein (in novels such as Stranger in a Strange Land, Time Enough for Love,
Friday, and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress). Also works by Robert Rimmer, and
Starhawk in her books The Fifth Sacred Thing (1993) and Walking to Mercury (1997).
A domestic partnership consisting of four people who are all married to each other
features in Vonda N. McIntyre's Starfarers series.
 Networks of interconnecting relationships, where a particular person may have
relationships of varying degrees of importance with various people.
 Mono/poly relationships, where one partner is monogamous but agrees to the other
having outside relationships.
 "Geometric" configurations, which are described by the number of people involved
and their relationship connections. Examples include "triads" and "quads", along with
"V" (or "Vee") and "N" geometries. (See: Terminology within polyamory.)
 Open relationships/open marriages, where participants may have sexual liaisons with
others not within their core group of partners. Some open relationships may be open
only sexually, while exclusive emotionally.
 Swinging[dubious – discuss]: Traditionally there has been a cultural divide between the
polyamorous and swinger communities, the former emphasizing the emotional aspects
of plural relationships and the latter emphasizing the sexual activities of non-
monogamy[citation needed]. It is possible for a person with polyamorous relationships to also
engage in traditional Swinging and other open relationships. Those in polyamorous
relationships who take part in casual sex often see it as separate from the emotional
bonds they share with their polyamorous partners. However it is also possible for
swingers to develop deep emotional attachments with those they have sex with, and
thereby find themselves in polyamory. Such swingers in their new polyamorous
relationships may or may not choose to continue swinging with others. Finally, both
swingers and polyamorous people can engage in secret infidelities, but this is no better
accepted by either communities than in monogamy.

Cultural diversity

"Polygamy" is more often used to refer to codified forms of multiple marriage (especially
those with a traditional/religious basis), while "modern polyamory" or "egalitarian
polyamory" implies a relationship defined by negotiation between its members, rather than by
cultural norms. Egalitarian polyamory is culturally rooted in such concepts as choice and
individuality, rather than in religious traditions.

Egalitarian polyamory is more closely associated with values, subcultures and ideologies that
favor individual freedoms and equality in sexual matters – most notably, those reflected by
sexual freedom advocacy groups such as Woodhull Freedom Foundation & Federation,
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and American Civil Liberties Union.[11] However,
polygamy advocacy groups and activists and egalitarian polyamory advocacy groups and
activists can and do work together cooperatively. In addition, the two sub-communities have
many common issues (poly parenting, dealing with jealousy, legal and social discrimination,
etc.), the discussion and resolution of which are of equal interest to both sub-communities,
regardless of any cultural differences that may exist. Moreover, there is considerable cultural
diversity within both sub-communities. For example, egalitarian polyamory and BDSM often
face similar challenges (e.g. negotiating the ground rules for unconventional relationships, or
the question of coming out to family and friends), and the cross-pollination of ideas takes
place between the two.[12]

Polyamory and religion

See also: Fornication, Polygamy § Contemporary religious attitudes to polygamy, and

Polyandry § Religious attitudes

The Oneida Community in the 1800s in New York (a Christian religious commune) believed
strongly in a system of free love known as complex marriage,[13] where any member was free
to have sex with any other who consented.[14] Possessiveness and exclusive relationships were
frowned upon.[15] Unlike 20th century social movements such as the Sexual Revolution of the
1960s, the Oneidans did not seek consequence-free sex for pleasure, but believed that,
because the natural outcome of intercourse was pregnancy, raising children should be a
communal responsibility. Women over the age of 40 were to act as sexual "mentors" to
adolescent boys, as these relationships had minimal chance of conceiving. Furthermore, these
women became religious role models for the young men. Likewise, older men often
introduced young women to sex. Noyes often used his own judgment in determining the
partnerships that would form, and would often encourage relationships between the non-
devout and the devout in the community, in the hopes that the attitudes and behaviors of the
devout would influence the non-devout.[16] In 1993, the archives of the community were made
available to scholars for the first time. Contained within the archives was the journal of Tirzah
Miller,[17] Noyes' niece, who wrote extensively about her romantic and sexual relations with
other members of Oneida.

Most of mainstream Christianity does not accept polyamory; however, some people do
consider themselves Christian and polyamorous.[18]

Kerista was a new religion that was started in New York City in 1956 by John Peltz "Bro Jud"
Presmont; throughout much of its history, Kerista was centered on the ideals of polyfidelity
and creation of intentional communities.

Most of mainstream Judaism does not accept polyamory; however, some people do consider
themselves Jewish and polyamorous.[19] One rabbi who does accept polyamory is Sharon
Kleinbaum, the senior rabbi at Congregation Beit Simchat Torah in New York, who has said
that polyamory is a choice that does not preclude a Jewishly observant, socially conscious
life.[19] Some polyamorous Jews also point to biblical patriarchs having multiple wives and
concubines as evidence that polyamorous relationships can be sacred in Judaism.[20] There is
an email list dedicated to polyamorous Jews, called AhavaRaba, which roughly translates to
"big love" in Hebrew,[21] and whose name echoes God's "great" or "abounding" love
mentioned in the Ahava rabbah prayer.[22]

LaVeyan Satanism is critical of Abrahamic sexual mores, considering them narrow, restrictive
and hypocritical. Satanists are pluralists, accepting polyamorists, bisexuals, lesbians, gays,
BDSM, transgender people, and asexuals. Sex is viewed as an indulgence, but one that should
only be freely entered into with consent. The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth only give two
instructions regarding sex: "Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating
signal" and "Do not harm little children," though the latter is much broader and encompasses
physical and other abuse. This has always been consistent part of CoS policy since its
inception in 1966, as Peter H. Gillmore wrote in an essay supporting same sex marriage:
Finally, since certain people try to suggest that our attitude on sexuality is "anything goes"
despite our stated base principle of "responsibility to the responsible", we must reiterate
another fundamental dictate: The Church of Satan's philosophy strictly forbids sexual activity
with children as well as with non-human animals.

— Magister Peter H. Gilmore[23]

Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, founded in 2001, has engaged in ongoing
education and advocacy for greater understanding and acceptance of polyamory within the
Unitarian Universalist Association.[24] At the 2014 General Assembly, two UUPA members
moved to include the category of "family and relationship structures" in the UUA's
nondiscrimination rule, along with other amendments; the package of proposed amendments
was ratified by the GA delegates.[25] While this has encouraged UUPA's membership, the
UUA itself has yet to take specific action towards assuring greater awareness and inclusion of
polyamorous people.

Islam does not accommodate / approve of any such relations. If needed male can marry 4
women at a time given that he take cares for them at the same level, love them with same
passion, as he will be questioned on the day of judgment if he wronged or misbalanced among
his wives.

Marriage implications

Start of polyamory contingent at San Francisco Pride 2004

In most countries, it is legal for three or more people to form and share a sexual relationship
(subject sometimes to laws against homosexuality, and/or adultery if two of the three are
married). About 25% of countries recognize marriages between a man and more than one
woman[citation needed], although with only minor exceptions no Western countries permit marriage
among more than two people, nor do the majority of countries give legal protection (e.g., of
rights relating to children) to non-married partners. Individuals involved in polyamorous
relationships are generally considered by the law to be no different from people who live
together, or "date", under other circumstances.

In many jurisdictions where same-sex couples can access civil unions or registered
partnerships, these are often intended as parallel institutions to that of heterosexual
monogamous marriage. Accordingly, they include parallel entitlements, obligations, and
limitations. Among the latter, as in the case of the New Zealand Civil Union Act 2005, there
are parallel prohibitions on civil unions with more than one partner, which is considered
bigamy, or dual marriage/civil union hybrids with more than one person. Both are banned
under Sections 205–206 of the Crimes Act 1961. In jurisdictions where same-sex marriage
proper exists, bigamous same-sex marriages fall under the same set of legal prohibitions as
bigamous heterosexual marriages. As yet, there is no case law applicable to these issues. [26]

Bigamy is the act of marrying one person while already being married to another, and is
legally prohibited in most countries in which monogamy is the cultural norm. Some bigamy
statutes are broad enough to potentially encompass polyamorous relationships involving
cohabitation, even if none of the participants claim marriage to more than one partner.
Having multiple non-marital partners, even if married to one, is legal in most U.S.
jurisdictions; at most it constitutes grounds for divorce if the spouse is non-consenting, or
feels that the interest in a further partner has destabilized the marriage. In jurisdictions where
civil unions or registered partnerships are recognized, the same principle applies to divorce in
those contexts. There are exceptions to this: in North Carolina, a spouse can sue a third party
for causing "loss of affection" in or "criminal conversation" (adultery) with their spouse,[27]
and more than twenty states in the US have laws against adultery[28] although they are
infrequently enforced. Some states were prompted to review their laws criminalizing
consensual sexual activity in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
Some[citation needed] social conservatives hold that the reading of Justice Kennedy's opinion in
Lawrence is that states may not constitutionally burden any private, consensual sexual activity
between adults. Such a reading would throw laws against fornication, adultery, and even adult
incest into question.

At present, the extension to multiple-partner relationships of laws that use a criterion similar
to that adopted in the UK, i.e., "married or living together as married" remains largely
untested. That is, it is not known whether these laws could treat some trios or larger groups as
common-law marriages.

If marriage is intended, most countries provide for both a religious marriage and a civil
ceremony (sometimes combined). These recognize and formalize the relationship. Few
Western countries give either religious or legal recognition – or permission – to marriages
with three or more partners. While a recent case in the Netherlands was commonly read as
demonstrating that Dutch law permitted multiple-partner civil unions,[29] this belief is
mistaken. The relationship in question was a samenlevingscontract, or "cohabitation
contract", and not a registered partnership or marriage.[30][31] The Netherlands' law concerning
registered partnerships provides that:

1. A person may be involved in one only registered partnership with one other person
whether of the same or of opposite sex at any one time.
2. Persons who enter into a registered partnership may not at the same time be married.

When a relationship ends, non-consensual infidelity ("cheating") is often grounds for an

unfavorable divorce settlement, and infidelity generally could easily be seized upon as a
prejudicial issue by an antagonistic partner.

A detailed legal theory of polyamorous marriage is being developed. The "dyadic networks"
model[32] calls for the revision of existing laws against bigamy to permit married persons to
enter into additional marriages, provided that they have first given legal notice to their
existing marital partner(s). And some legal scholars believe that the US constitutional rights
of Due Process and Equal Protection fully support marriage rights for polyamorous families.
[33]

Media coverage

During a PinkNews question and answer session in May 2015, polyamory rights activist and
author Redfern Jon Barrett questioned Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party of England
and Wales, about her party's stance towards polyamorous marriage rights. Bennett responded
by saying that her party is "open" to discussion on the idea of civil partnership or marriages
between three people.[34] Bennett's announcement aroused media controversy on the topic and
led to major international news outlets covering her answer.[35][36] A follow-up article written
by Barrett was published by PinkNews on May 4, 2015 further exploring the topic.[37]

As a practice

Separate from polyamory as a philosophical basis for relationship, are the practical ways in
which people who live polyamorously arrange their lives and handle certain issues, as
compared to those of a generally more socially acceptable monogamous arrangement.

Values

Main article: Values within polyamory

 Fidelity and loyalty: Many polyamorists define fidelity not as sexual exclusivity, but
as faithfulness to the promises and agreements made about a relationship. A secret
sexual relationship that violates those accords would be seen as a breach of fidelity.
Polyamorists generally base definitions of commitment on considerations other than
sexual exclusivity, e.g. "trust and honesty" or "growing old together".[38]
 Communication and negotiation: Because there is no "standard model" for
polyamorous relationships, and reliance upon common expectations may not be
realistic, polyamorists often advocate explicitly negotiating with all involved to
establish the terms of their relationships, and often emphasize that this should be an
ongoing process of honest communication and respect. Polyamorists will usually take
a pragmatic approach to their relationships; many accept that sometimes they and their
partners will make mistakes and fail to live up to these ideals, and that communication
is important for repairing any breaches.[39][40]
 Trust, honesty, dignity, and respect: Most polyamorists emphasize respect, trust,
and honesty for all partners.[39][40] Ideally, a partner's partners are accepted as part of
that person's life rather than merely tolerated, and usually a relationship that requires
deception or a "don't ask don't tell" policy is seen as a less than ideal model.
 Boundaries and agreements: Poly relationships often involve negotiating
agreements, and establishing specific boundaries, or "ground rules"; such agreements
vary widely and may change over time, but could include, for example: consultation
about new relationships; devising schedules that work for everyone; limits on physical
displays of affection in public or among mixed company; and budgeting the amount of
money a partner can spend on additional partners.
 Gender equality: Many polyamorists do not believe in different relationship "rules"
based on gender, a point of contrast with some forms of religious non-monogamy,
which are often patriarchically based. Commonly, however, couples first expanding an
existing monogamous relationship into a polyamorous one, may adhere to gender-
specific boundaries until all parties are comfortable with the new dynamic, such as
when a wife agrees not to engage sexually with another male at her husband's request,
but may be allowed to have romantic and sexual relationships with women. Such
terms and boundaries are negotiable, and such asymmetric degrees of freedom among
the partners (who need not be of different genders) are more often due to individual
differences and needs, and are usually understood to be temporary and within a
negotiated time frame until further opening up of the relationship becomes practicable
or easier for the parties to handle emotionally.
 Non-possessiveness: Many polyamorists view excessive restrictions on other deep
relationships as less than desirable, as such restrictions can be used to replace trust
 with a framework of ownership and control. It is usually preferred or encouraged that
a polyamorist strive to view their partners' other significant others (often referred to as
OSOs) in terms of the gain to their partners' lives rather than a threat to their own (see
compersion). Therefore, jealousy and possessiveness are generally viewed not so
much as something to avoid or structure the relationships around, but as responses that
should be explored, understood, and resolved within each individual, with compersion
as a goal.

Sharing of domestic burden

Benefits of a polyamorous relationship can include the following:[41]

 The ability of parties to discuss issues with multiple partners has the potential to add
mediation and stabilization to a relationship, and to reduce polarization of viewpoints.
 Emotional support and structure provided by other committed adults within the family
unit.
 A wider range of experience, skills, resources, and perspectives that multiple adults
bring to a family dynamic.
 The ability to share chores and child supervision, reducing domestic and child rearing
pressure upon adults' time without needing to pay for outside child caregivers.
 Greatly reduced per capita cost of living.
 Increased financial stability; the loss of one income is not the entirety of the family
income (if only one parent works), or half the family income (if both parents work),
but may be far less.
 Support for companion-like marriages, which can be satisfying even if no longer
sexually vital, since romantic needs are met elsewhere. This acts to preserve existing
relationships.[42]
 More emotional, intellectual and sexual needs are met as part of the understanding that
one person cannot provide all. Conversely, polyamory offers release from the
expectation that one must meet all of a primary partner's needs.

Specific issues affecting polyamorous relationships

The skills and attitudes needed to manage polyamorous relationships add challenges that are
not often found in the traditional "dating-and-marriage" model of long-term relationships.
Polyamory may require a more fluid and flexible approach to love relationship, and yet
operate on a complex system of boundaries or rules. Additionally, participants in a
polyamorous relationship may not have, nor expect their partners to have, preconceptions as
to the duration of the relationship, in contrast to monogamous marriages where a lifelong
union is generally the goal. However, polyamorous relationships can and do last many years.

Polyamorists cite the human tendency towards jealousy and possessiveness as major hurdles
in polyamory, and also as personal limitations to overcome:[6]

Posessiveness [sic] can be a major stumbling block, and often it prevents what could be a
successful polyamourous relationship from forming. When people are viewed, even
inadvertently, as posessions [sic], they become a commodity, a valuable one at that. Just as
most people are reluctant to let go of what little money that they have, people are also
reluctant to "share" their beloved. After all, what if zie finds someone else who is more
attractive/intelligent/well-liked/successful/etc.. than zie, and decides to abandon the
relationship in favor of the new lover? These sorts of inferiority complexes must be resolved,
completely, before a polyamourous [sic] relationship can be truly successful.[43]

An editorial article on the polyamory website Polyamoryonline.org proposed in 2006 the

following issues as being worthy of specific coverage and attention:[44]

 Helping children cope with "being different".

 "Coming out" as polyamorous (and explaining polyamory) to children.
 Polyamorous parental interactions.
 Polyamory social settings (involving children).
 Legal (parenting) issues.

The author, herself part of a polyamorous relationship with two other adults, comments that:

The kids started realizing that there were three adults in the house that they had to answer to.
Then came the onslaught of trying to 'befriend' a particular adult and get what they wanted
from that one adult. Another big shock when they found that it didn't work and that we all
communicated about wants or needs of any given child. After this was established, we sort of
fell into our patterns of school, practices, just normal life in general. The kids all started
realizing that there were three of us to care for them when they were sick, three of us to get
scolded from, hugs from, tickles from; three of us to feed the small army of mouths and three
of us to trust completely in. After trust was established, they asked more questions. Why do
we have to live together? Why can't I have my own room? ... Why do you guys love each
other? Why do I have to listen to them (non-biological parent)? We answered them as
truthfully as we could and as much as was appropriate for their age. I found that it was more
unnerving for me to think about how to approach a new kid and their parents than it ever was
for the kids.[45]

In a same-sex setting

Gay psychotherapist Michael Shernoff wrote that non-monogamy is "a well-accepted part of
gay subculture", although "often viewed by some therapists as problematic",[46] and that
somewhere between 30%[47] and 67%[48] of men in male couples reported being in a sexually
non-monogamous relationship. According to Eli Coleman & B. R. Simon Rosser (1996),
"although a majority of male couples are not sexually exclusive, they are in fact emotionally
monogamous."[49] Shernoff states that:

One of the biggest differences between male couples and mixed-sex couples is that many, but
by no means all, within the gay community have an easier acceptance of sexual
nonexclusivity than does heterosexual society in general. ... Research confirms that
nonmonogamy in and of itself does not create a problem for male couples when it has been
openly negotiated.[50]

In practice, most discussion of lesbian and gay polyamory occurs primarily within the context
of relationship ethics. It should be noted that there is a broad spectrum of partner numerical
and frequency profiles among lesbians and gay men, so that polyamorous ethical debates may
be undertaken, but most legislative effort is expended on legal recognition of same-sex
couples, whether through civil unions, registered partnerships or same-sex marriage proper.
As yet, there is no movement for lesbian/gay 'polyamorists rights' akin to that for same-sex
marriage or alternative forms of legal relationship recognition.[51]
Celeste West was a lesbian polyamorist known for her authorship of books about lesbian sex
and polyfidelity.[52]

Parenting

Many polyamorists have children, either within the relationship(s) or from previous
relationships. Like other elements of polyamory, the way children are integrated into the
family structure varies widely. Some possibilities are:

 Parents are primarily responsible for their own children (biological, adoptive, or
step-), but other members of the relationship act as an extended family, providing
assistance in child-rearing.
 Adults raise children collectively, all taking equal responsibility for each child
regardless of consanguinity.
 Parents are wholly responsible for their own children, with other members of the
relationship relating to the children as friends of the parents.
 Children treat parents' partners as a form of stepparent or are told to think of them as
aunts and uncles.

The choice of structures is affected by timing: an adult who has been present throughout a
child's life is likely to have a more parental relationship with that child than one who enters a
relationship with people who already have a teenage child. (The issues involved often parallel
those of step-parenting.) The degree of logistical and emotional involvement between the
members of the relationship is also important: a close-knit triad already living under one roof
with shared finances is far more likely to take a collective approach to parenting than would a
larger, loose-knit group with separate living arrangements:

Some poly families are structured so that one parent can be home to care for the children
while two or more other adults work outside the home and earn an income, thus providing a
better standard of living for all concerned. More adult caretakers means more people available
for child care, help with homework, and daily issues such as transportation to extracurricular
activities. Children thrive on love. The more adults they have to love them who are part of the
family, the happier and more well-adjusted they are. There is no evidence that growing up in a
poly family is detrimental to the physical, psychological or moral well being of children. If
parents are happy in their intimate relationships, it helps the family. Happy families are good
for children.[53]

Whether children are fully informed of the nature of their parents' relationship varies,
according to the above considerations and also to whether the parents are "out" to other
adults.[citation needed]

In one possible case indicative of the law related to parenting and polyamory in the United
States, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court in 2006 voted 5–1 that a father in a custody
case had the right to teach his child (age 13) about polygamy (and hence possibly by
implication about other multiple partner relationships), and that this right "trumped" the anti-
bigamy and other laws that might apply and was not deemed inherently harmful to the child.
(Note: this decision was made in the context of religious freedom, but religious freedom
would not apply if there was harm to the child.)[54]

Custody ramifications
Parents involved in polyamorous relationships often keep it a secret because of the risk that it
will be used by an ex-spouse, or other family member, as grounds to deprive them of custody
of and/or access to their children. The fear is that it will be used in family disputes much as
homosexuality has been used in the past.

In 1998, a Tennessee court granted guardianship of a child to her grandmother and step-
grandfather after the child's mother April Divilbiss and partners outed themselves as
polyamorous on MTV. After contesting the decision for two years, Divilbiss eventually
agreed to relinquish her daughter, acknowledging that she was unable to adequately care for
her child and that this, rather than her polyamory, had been the grandparents' real motivation
in seeking custody.[55] The Tennessee case is not necessarily normative for the entirety of the
United States, since family law varies significantly from state to state. US state law is, of
course, not normative for laws of other countries.

Compersion

See also: Mudita

Compersion (or, synonymously, frubble[56][57]) is an empathetic state of happiness and joy

experienced when another individual experiences happiness and joy, and the term is regularly
used by members of the polyamory community in the context of polyamorous relationships. It
is used to describe when a person experiences positive feelings when a lover is enjoying
another relationship.[58][59]

Polyamorous views on jealousy and compersion

The concept of compersive behavior is widespread within the polyamorous community, and
was originally coined by the now defunct Kerista Commune in San Francisco.[60][61][62]

It is common for people within the polyamorous community to state that jealousy comes with
the territory of open romantic relationships.[63] Compersion has often been referred to as "the
opposite of jealousy".[61][64]

In romantic relationships, thoughts and feelings of insecurity, fear, and/or anxiety over
anticipated loss of a partner or of that partner's attention, affection, or time elicit both
compersion and jealousy as natural reactions to perceived complexities of non-monogamy and
are quite extensively covered in polyamorous literature.

Formal definitions

 PolyOz defines compersion as "the positive feelings one gets when a lover is enjoying
another relationship. Sometimes called the opposite or flip side of jealousy." They
comment that compersion can coexist with jealous feelings.[64]
 The Polyamory society defines compersion to be "the feeling of taking joy in the joy
that others you love share among themselves, especially taking joy in the knowledge
that your beloveds are expressing their love for one another".[60]
 The InnKeeper defines compersion as "A feeling of joy when a loved one invests in
and takes pleasure from another romantic or sexual relationship. ... Compersion does
not specifically refer to joy regarding the sexual activity of one's partner, but refers
instead to joy at the relationship with another romantic and/or sexual partner. It's
 analogous to the joy parents feel when their children get married, or to the happiness
felt between best friends when they find a partner."[65]
 From Opening Up, Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio writes that compersion is, in part, "the
ability to turn jealousy's negative feelings into acceptance of, and vicarious enjoyment
for, a lover's joy". (p. 175)

Geographical and cultural differences

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of
the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create
a new article, as appropriate. (January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this
template message)

Social views on polyamory vary by country and culture. In a 2003 article in The Guardian,
Deborah Anapol, an American and founder of the polyamory movement, was quoted as
saying that the United Kingdom was "about 15 years behind America in its acceptance" of
polyamory. A British practitioner of polyamory also quoted in the article expressed the
opposite opinion.[66]

The practice of polyamory is as diverse as the people who practice it, even within one
relationship cluster individuals may have different ideas and practices than the rest of the
group but it can still work if every individual is committed to the key components of trust,
loyalty, mutual respect, honesty and compassion. Even though these key concepts can each be
interpreted differently, as long as they are understood and agreed upon within a poly cluster
and everyone adheres to them, then cluster should work. Every relationship that has these core
values can arguably to be considered polyamorous, therefore as in all romantic relationship,
geographic and cultural differences only impact on external forces such as legal or social
issues but will not stop people practicing polyamory.

Philosophical aspects

As with many non-traditional life choices, there is considerable active discussion about
philosophical approaches to polyamory.

In 1929, Marriage and Morals, written by the philosopher, mathematician, and Nobel Prize
winner Bertrand Russell, offered a strong precedent to the philosophy of polyamory. At the
time of publication, Russell's questioning of the contemporary notions of morality regarding
sex and marriage prompted vigorous protests and denunciations, but several intellectuals, led
by John Dewey, spoke out against this treatment.[67][68]

In Echlin's article in The Guardian, six reasons for choosing polyamory are identified: a drive
towards female independence and equality driven by feminism; disillusionment with
monogamy; a yearning for community; honesty and realism in respect of relational nature of
human beings; human nature; and individual non-matching of the traditional monogamous
stereotype. Jim Fleckenstein, director of the Institute for 21st-Century Relationships, is quoted
as stating that the polyamory movement has been driven not only by science fiction, but also
by feminism: "Increased financial independence means that women can build relationships
the way they want to." The disillusionment with monogamy is said to be "because of
widespread cheating and divorce". The longing for community is associated with a felt need
for the richness of "complex and deep relationships through extended networks" in response
to the replacement and fragmentation of the extended family by nuclear families. "For many",
Echlin writes, "it is a hankering for community ... we have become increasingly alienated,
partly because of the 20th century's replacement of the extended family with the nuclear
family. As a result, many of us are striving to create complex and deep relationships through
extended networks of multiple lovers and extended families ... Polys agree that some people
are monogamous by nature. But some of us are not, and more and more are refusing to be
shoehorned into monogamy."[66]

Others speak of creating an "honest responsible and socially acceptable" version of non-
monogamy – "since so many people are already non-monogamous, why not develop a non-
monogamy that is honest, responsible and socially acceptable? ... It seems weird that having
affairs is OK but being upfront about it is rocking the boat."[69]

A sixth reason, a couple's response to a failure of monogamy, by reaching a consensus to

accept the additional relationship, is identified by other authors.[70]

Research

Research into polyamory has been limited. A comprehensive government study of sexual
attitudes, behaviors and relationships in Finland in 1992 (age 18–75, around 50% female and
male) found that around 200 out of 2250 (8.9%) respondents "agreed or strongly agreed" with
the statement "I could maintain several sexual relationships at the same time" and 8.2%
indicated a relationship type "that best suits" at the present stage of life would involve
multiple partners. By contrast, when asked about other relationships at the same time as a
steady relationship, around 17% stated they had had other partners while in a steady
relationship (50% no, 17% yes, 33% refused to answer). [1] (PDF)

British artist Connie Rose was the first to create a film about polyamory consisting of
interviews around the world including polamory's leading academics, authors and sex experts,
including Dossie Easton (coauthor of The Ethical Slut) and Christopher Ryan (coauthor of Sex
at Dawn). Rose's film Questioning Monogamy was exhibited in London 2011 as an eight-foot
installation for 12 people to lie in with ten screens.

The article, What Psychology Professionals Should Know About Polyamory, based on a paper
presented at the 8th Annual Diversity Conference in March 1999 in Albany, New York, states
the following:

While openly polyamorous relationships are relatively rare (Rubin, 1982), there are
indications that private polyamorous arrangements within relationships are actually quite
common. Blumstein and Schwartz (1983, cited in Rubin & Adams, 1986) noted that of 3,574
married couples in their sample, 15–28% had an understanding that allows nonmonogamy
under some circumstances. The percentages are higher among cohabitating couples (28%),
lesbian couples (29%) and gay male couples (65%) (p. 312).[71]

A study by Moors et al. examined "consensual non-monogamy" or CNM (which includes

polyamory) in the context of attachment in adults, particularly with regards to anxiety
(insecurity about a partner's availability) and avoidance (discomfort with closeness). The first
sample was of exclusively monogamous individuals that were not told the nature of what was
being studied, and found that those with high attachment avoidance tended to view CNM
more positively as well as being more willing to engage in it (but had not actually engaged in
it). The authors theorized this was "because these relationships promote distance from their
partners and support their accepting attitudes toward uncommitted and casual sex."
Individuals with high attachment anxiety tended to view CNM negatively, but no correlation
was found regarding willingness to engage in it. The second sample was a targeted
recruitment of individuals currently engaged in CNM relationships. This sample showed low
levels of attachment avoidance, and no correlation related to attachment anxiety. The lack of
correlation with anxiety in either sample with regards to willingness or actual engagement
suggested it may have little impact on the matter. The large disparity in attachment avoidance
between those willing to engage in CNM and those that actually engage in it could not be
fully explained within the context of the study, but the authors offer several hypotheses. The
study also had a few limitations, including that all subjects were heterosexual, the data was
anonymous self-report and the second sample may have suffered from social desirability bias
due to its targeted recruitment.[72]

In a clinical setting

There is little research at present into the specific needs and requirements for handling
polyamory in a clinical context. A notable paper in this regard is Working with polyamorous
clients in the clinical setting (Davidson, 2002),[73] which addresses the following areas of
inquiry:

1. Why is it important that we talk about alternatives to monogamy now?

2. How can therapists prepare to work with people who are exploring polyamory?
3. What basic understandings about polyamory are needed?
4. What key issues do therapists need to watch for in the course of working with
polyamorous clients?

Its conclusions, summarized, were that "Sweeping changes are occurring in the sexual and
relational landscape" (including "dissatisfaction with limitations of serial monogamy, i.e.
exchanging one partner for another in the hope of a better outcome"); that clinicians need to
start by "recognizing the array of possibilities that 'polyamory' encompasses" and "examine
our culturally-based assumption that 'only monogamy is acceptable'" and how this bias
impacts on the practice of therapy; the need for self-education about polyamory, basic
understandings about the "rewards of the poly lifestyle" and the common social and
relationship challenges faced by those involved, and the "shadow side" of polyamory, the
potential existing for coercion, strong emotions in opposition, and/or jealousy.

The paper also states that the configurations a therapist would be "most likely to see in
practice" are individuals involved in primary-plus arrangements, monogamous couples
wishing to explore non-monogamy for the first time, and "poly singles".

A manual for psychotherapists who deal with polyamorous clients was published in
September 2009 by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom titled What Psychotherapists
Should Know About Polyamory.[74]

The decision to explore polyamory

Morin (1999) states that a couple has a very good chance of adjusting to nonexclusivity if at
least some of the following conditions exist:[75]
  Both partners want their relationship to remain primary.
 The couple has an established reservoir of good will.
 There is a minimum of lingering resentments from past hurts and betrayals.
 The partners are not polarized over monogamy/non-monogamy.
 The partners are feeling similarly powerful and autonomous.

Green & Mitchell (2002) state that direct discussion of the following issues can provide the
basis for honest and important conversations:[75]

 Openness versus secrecy

 Volition and equality versus coercion and inequality
 Clarity and specificity of agreements versus confusion/vagueness
 Honoring keeping agreements versus violating them
 How each partner views non-monogamy.

According to Shernoff,[76] if the matter is discussed with a third party, such as a therapist, the
task of the therapist is to:

Engage couples in conversations that let them decide for themselves whether sexual
exclusivity or nonexclusivity is functional or dysfunctional for the relationship.

Criticisms

Division of love

In The Ethical Slut, Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy (writing as 'Catherine Liszt') described an
argument against polyamory that posits that when one's love is divided among multiple
partners, the love is lessened. They referred to this as a "starvation economy" argument,
because it treats love as a scarce commodity (like food or other resources) that can be given to
one person only by taking it away from another. This is sometimes called a "Malthusian
argument", after Malthus' writings on finite resources.

Easton and Hardy reject the idea that dividing love among multiple partners automatically
lessens it. A commonly invoked argument uses an analogy with a parent who has two children
—the parent does not love either of them any less because of the existence of the other. [77]
Robert Heinlein expressed this in saying "The more you love, the more you can love -- and
the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had
time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just."[78]

Perceived failure rates and relationship satisfaction

Polyamorous relationships are often criticised as "not lasting". For example, Stanley Kurtz
takes this as axiomatic when he says "... legally recognized polyamory [would] be
unstable ..."[79] Those opposed to polyamory argue it leads to decreased relationship quality in
the long run.[80][81][82]

The complex nature of polyamory presents difficulties in structuring research into the stability
of polyamorous relationships. For instance, polyamorists may be reluctant to disclose their
relationship status due to potential negative consequences, and researchers may be unfamiliar
with the full range of polyamorous behaviours, leading to poorly framed questions that give
misleading results.[83]

Symbols

The infinity heart

A number of symbols have been created to represent polyamory. These include a parrot, since
"Polly" is a common name for these birds,[84][85][86] and the infinity heart. The infinity heart
symbol is increasingly being produced on pins, T-shirts, bumper stickers and other media.[87]
[88]

Sociosexual orientation (or sociosexuality) is the individual difference in the willingness to

engage in sexual activity outside of a committed relationship. Individuals with a more
restricted sociosexual orientation are less willing to engage in casual sex; they prefer greater
love, commitment and emotional closeness before having sex with romantic partners.
Individuals who have a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation are more willing to have
casual sex and are more comfortable engaging in sex without love, commitment or closeness.
[1]

Measurement

Main article: Sociosexual Orientation Inventory

The revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) was designed to measure

sociosexuality, with high SOI scores corresponding to an unrestricted orientation and low SOI
scores denoting a more restricted orientation. The SOI-R also allows for the separate
assessment of three facets of sociosexuality: behavior, attitude and desire.[2]

Gender differences and sexual orientation

Men tend to have higher SOI scores and be more unrestricted than women across a variety of
cultures.[3][4] However, there is more variability in scores within each gender than between
men and women, indicating that although the average man is less restricted than the average
woman, individuals may vary in sociosexual orientation regardless of gender.[5]

Bisexual women are significantly less restricted in their sociosexual attitudes than both
lesbian and heterosexual women. Bisexual women are also the most unrestricted in
sociosexual behavior, followed by lesbians and then, heterosexual women.[4] Gay and bisexual
men are similar to heterosexual men in sociosexual attitudes, in that they express relatively
unrestricted attitudes relative to women. However, gay men are the most unrestricted in
sociosexual behavior, followed by bisexual men and then, heterosexual men. This may be
because gay men have more potential mating partners who prefer short-term, casual sexual
encounters.[4]

Unrestricted sociosexuality is associated with early life experiences with sex, more frequent
sexual activity and a greater number of lifetime sex partners. Unrestricted men tend to have
greater rape myth acceptance, past sexual aggression and more conservative attitudes about
women than restricted men. Unrestricted women tend to have more sexual fantasies involving
dominance and lower levels of sexual conservatism than restricted women.[6]

Individual differences

Individuals who are sociosexually unrestricted tend to score higher on openness to experience,
[7]
and be more extraverted,[8] less agreeable,[8] lower on honesty-humility,[9] more erotophilic,
[10]
more impulsive,[11] more likely to take risks,[11] more likely to have an avoidant attachment
style,[12] less likely to have a secure attachment style,[13] and score higher on the Dark Triad
traits (i.e. narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy).[14][15] Higher masculinity[16] and
eveningness[17] in women is related to unrestricted sociosexuality. High self-monitoring is also
associated with unrestricted sociosexuality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. [18]

Individuals with an intrinsic religious orientation (i.e., religion as an end) tend to be

sociosexually restricted, while those with an extrinsic religious orientation (i.e., religion as a
mean to achieve non-religious goals) tend to be unrestricted.[19]

Mating tendencies

Motives

Unrestricted women are more motivated to engage in casual sex than restricted women as
they perceive more benefits associated with short-term mating. These include sexual benefits
(e.g., experiencing the novelty of a new partner), resource benefits (e.g., receiving expensive
gifts) and the improvement of their seduction skills. Sociosexuality is not associated with
short-term benefits for men.[20]

When viewing attractive female models, unrestricted men are more interested in the models’
physical attractiveness, while restricted men show more interest in the social traits presumably
possessed by attractive females. Unrestricted women report more interest in attractive male
models’ popularity and are less interested in their willingness to commit, compared to
restricted women.[21]

Mate preferences

Men and women with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation view short-term mates with
greater sexual experience as more desirable, whereas restricted women perceive partners’
sexual inexperience as desirable.[22][23] Unrestricted individuals place more importance on
partners’ physical attractiveness and sex appeal, while restricted individuals place more
weight on characteristics indicative of good personal and parenting qualities (e.g., kind,
responsible, faithful).[24]

Individuals are able to accurately assess the sociosexual orientation of computer-generated

and real faces, with unrestricted sociosexuality being associated with greater attractiveness in
female faces and greater masculinity in male faces. Women tend to prefer male faces
associated with restricted sociosexuality, while men prefer unrestricted female faces, both for
short-term and long-term partners.[25][26]

Relationship interactions

Unrestricted women report engaging in more social interactions with men on a daily basis
than restricted women. However, unrestricted individuals rate their interactions with their best
friends (non-romantic) as lower in quality (i.e., as less pleasant and satisfying) than restricted
individuals.[27] Unrestricted individuals are also more likely to view cheating or infidelity as
acceptable under certain conditions (e.g., when involved in a bad relationship), and report
engaging in more cheating than restricted individuals.[28] The relationship between sociosexual
orientation and infidelity is mediated by commitment, meaning unrestricted individuals may
cheat because they are less committed to their partner than restricted individuals. [29]

Hormones

Individuals who are partnered typically have lower testosterone levels than individuals who
are single. However, this was found to apply solely to individuals possessing a restricted
sociosexual orientation. Partnered, unrestricted men and women’s testosterone levels are more
similar to the levels of single men and women.[30]

Culture

In regions that suffer from a high prevalence of infectious diseases, both men and women
report lower levels of sociosexuality, as the costs of an incautious lifestyle (i.e., being
unrestricted) may outweigh the benefits.[31]

Implications

Possessing an unrestricted sociosexual orientation seems to increase the likelihood of having a

son by 12-19% in American samples.[32] This may be explained by the generalized Trivers-
Willard hypothesis, which states that parents who possess any heritable trait that increases
males’ reproductive success above females’ will have more sons, and will have more
daughters if they possess traits that increase females’ reproductive success above males’. [33]
Since unrestricted sociosexuality increases the reproductive fitness of sons more than
daughters (as males have the potential to have more offspring through casual sex),
unrestricted parents have a higher-than-expected offspring sex ratio (more sons).

Relevant theories

Parental investment theory

According to the parental investment theory, the gender that invests more in offspring tends to
be more discriminating and more sociosexually restricted (usually women, due to pregnancy,
childbirth and lactation).[34] In a year, a woman can only have one child (with the exception of
twins), regardless of the number of partners she has had, whereas a man can potentially have
as many children as the number of women with whom he has slept. Thus, women should be
more selective and restricted in order to have children with partners possessing good genes
and resources, who can provide for potential offspring. Men, however, may increase their
reproductive fitness by being unrestricted and having many children with many women. Thus,
since men do not need to invest as much physically (no pregnancy), they tend to have a more
unrestricted sociosexual orientation.

Sex ratio theory

Operational sex ratio is the number of sexually competing males versus the number of
sexually competing females in the local mating pool.[3] High sex ratios indicate that there are
more men than women available, while low sex ratios imply more women than men are
sexually available. High sex ratios (more men) are associated with lower SOI scores (more
restricted sociosexual orientation), as men must satisfy women’s preference for long-term
monogamous relationships if they are to effectively compete for the limited number of
women. Low sex ratios (more women) are correlated with more unrestricted sociosexuality,
as men can afford to demand more casual sex if they are relatively scarce and in demand. [35]

Strategic pluralism theory

Strategic pluralism suggests that women evolved to evaluate men on two dimensions: their
potential to be a good provider for offspring and their degree of genetic quality. The local
environment should have influenced which mate characteristics were preferred by women. In
demanding environments where biparental care was critical to infant survival, women should
have valued good parenting qualities more, leading men to adopt a more restricted
sociosexual orientation and invest more in their offspring to help ensure their children
survive. In disease-prevalent environments, good genes that would help offspring resist
pathogens should have been prioritized by women, leading healthy men to be more
sociosexually unrestricted in order to pass on their genes to many offspring.[5]

Social structural theory

According to social structural theory, the division of labor and social expectations lead to
gender differences in sociosexuality. In cultures with more traditional gender roles (where
women have less freedom than men), gender differences in sociosexual orientation are larger.
In these societies, where women have less access to power and money than men, it is
expected that women should be more sexually restricted and only have sexual relations with
men in the context of a committed relationship, whereas men may be sexually unrestricted if
they wish. In more egalitarian societies, where men and women have equal access to power
and money, the gender difference in sociosexuality is less pronounced, as individuals may
take on the social role of the other gender.[36]

Promiscuity is the practice of having casual sex frequently with different partners or being
indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.[1] The term can carry a moral judgement if
viewed in the context of a mainstream social ideal for sexual activity to occur only within
exclusive committed relationships. A common example of behavior viewed as promiscuous
within the social ideals of many cultures is a one-night stand and (as seen in a 2014 survey[2])
is often the way researchers define a society's promiscuity levels at any given time.
What sexual behavior is considered promiscuous varies between cultures, as does the
prevalence of promiscuity, with different standards often being applied to different genders
and civil status. Feminists have traditionally argued a significant double standard exists
between how men and women are judged for promiscuity. Historically, stereotypes of the
promiscuous woman have tended to be negative, such as "the slut" or "the harlot", while male
stereotypes have been more varied, some expressing approval, such as "the stud" or "the
player", while others imply societal deviance, such as "the womanizer" or "the philanderer".
A scientific study published in 2005 found that promiscuous men and women are judged
equally harshly.[3] However, later studies show evidence for a double standard.[4][5][6]

Promiscuity is common in many animal species.[7] Some species have promiscuous mating
systems, ranging from polyandry and polygyny to mating systems with no stable relationships
where mating between two individuals is a one-time event. Many species form stable pair
bonds, but still mate with other individuals outside the pair. In biology, incidents of
promiscuity in species that form pair bonds are usually called extra-pair copulations.

Humans

Accurately assessing people's sexual behavior is difficult, since strong social and personal
motivations occur, depending on social sanctions and taboos, for either minimizing or
exaggerating reported sexual activity.

American experiments in 1978 and 1982 found the great majority of men were willing to have
sex with women they did not know, of average attractiveness, who propositioned them. No
woman, by contrast, agreed to such propositions from men of average attractiveness. While
men were in general comfortable with the requests, regardless of their willingness ("Why do
we have to wait until tonight?", "[I'm sorry], I'm married"), women responded with shock and
disgust ("You've got to be kidding", "What is wrong with you? Leave me alone").[8]

The number of sexual partners people have had in their lifetimes varies widely within a
population. A 2007 nationwide survey in the United States found the median number of
female sexual partners reported by men was seven and the median number of male partners
reported by women was four. The men possibly exaggerated their reported number of
partners, women reported a number lower than the actual number, or a minority of women
had a sufficiently larger number than most other women to create a mean significantly higher
than the median, or all of the above (see Pareto principle). About 29% of men and 9% of
women reported to have had more than 15 sexual partners in their lifetimes.[9] Studies of the
spread of sexually transmitted diseases consistently demonstrate a small percentage of the
studied population has more partners than the average man or woman, and a smaller number
of people have fewer than the statistical average. An important question in the epidemiology
of sexually transmitted infections is whether or not these groups copulate mostly at random
(with sexual partners from throughout a population) or within their social groups (assortative
mixing).

A 2006 systematic review (analyzing data from 59 countries worldwide) found no association
between regional sexual behavior tendencies, such as number of sexual partners, and sexual-
health status. Much more predictive of sexual-health status are socioeconomic factors like
poverty and mobility.[10] Other studies have suggested that people with multiple casual sex
partners are more likely to be diagnosed with sexually transmitted infections.[11]
Severe and impulsive promiscuity, along with a compulsive urge to engage in illicit sex with
attached individuals is a common symptom of borderline personality disorder, histrionic
personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder but most promiscuous individuals do
not have these disorders.[12]

Global studies

In 2008, a U.S. university study of international promiscuity found that Finns have had the
largest number of sex partners in the industrialized world, and British people have the largest
number among big western industrial nations. The study measured one-night stands, attitudes
to casual sex, and number of sexual partners.[13][14][15] Within Britain, in 2014 a nationwide
survey named Liverpool the most promiscuous city in the UK.[16]

Britain's position on the international index "may be linked to increasing social acceptance of
promiscuity among women as well as men". Britain’s ranking was "ascribed to factors such as
the decline of religious scruples about extramarital sex, the growth of equal pay and equal
rights for women and a highly sexualised popular culture".[13][14][15]

The top-10-ranking OECD nations with a population over 10 million on the study's
promiscuity index, in descending order, were the United Kingdom, Germany, the
Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Australia, the United States, France, Turkey, Mexico, and
Canada.[13][14][15]

A nonscientific survey conducted in 2007 by condom-maker Durex measured promiscuity by

a total number of sexual partners. The survey found Austrian men had the highest number of
sex partners of males globally with 29.3 sexual partners on average. New Zealand women had
the highest number of sex partners for females in the world with an average of 20.4 sexual
partners. In all of the countries surveyed, except New Zealand, men reported more sexual
partners than women.[17]

One review found the people from developed Western countries had more sex partners than
people from developing countries in general, while the rate of STIs was higher in developing
countries.[10]

According to the 2005 Global Sex Survey by Durex, people have had on average nine sexual
partners, the most in Turkey (14.5) and Australia (13.3), and the least in India (3) and China
(3.1).[18]

Male promiscuity

"Womanizer" redirects here. For other uses, see Womanizer (disambiguation).

A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a
lifetime, found 20% of heterosexual men had only one partner, 55% had two to 20 partners,
and 25% had more than 20 partners.[19] More recent studies have reported similar numbers.[20]

A 1989 study found a very high number of partners (over 100) to be present though rare
among homosexual males.[21] General Social Survey data indicates that the distribution of
partner numbers among men who have sex exclusively with men and men who have sex
exclusively with women is similar, but that differences appear in the proportion of those with
very high number of partners, which is larger among gay men, but that in any case makes up a
small minority for both groups.[22] OkCupid discovered a similar pattern in the data collected
from its vast number of users, published in 2010: the median number of self-reported lifetime
sexual partners for both gay and straight men was six; however, a small minority of gay men
(2%) were having a disproportionate share of all self-reported gay sex (23%).[23] According to
updated OkCupid data published in 2014, gay male users self-reported a lower median of
lifetime sex partners than straight male users: four for gay men and five for straight men. [24] A
2007 study reported that two large population surveys found "the majority of gay men had
similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women."[25][26]

The words 'womanizer', 'playboy', 'stud', 'player', 'ladies' man', 'lady killer', and 'rake' may be
used in reference to a man who has romantic affairs or sexual relations, or both, with women,
and who will not be monogamous. The names of real and fictional seducers have become
eponymous for such promiscuous men. The most famous are Lord Byron, John F. Kennedy,
Wilt Chamberlain, Howard Hughes, and the historical Giacomo Casanova (1725–98).[27]
Others include Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Steve McQueen. Famous
fictional seducers include Don Juan, who first appeared in the 17th century, the fictional
Vicomte de Valmont from Choderlos de Laclos's 18th-century novel Les Liaisons
Dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons), and Lothario from Nicholas Rowe's 1703 play The Fair
Penitent. Tony Soprano, James Bond, Chuck Bass, James T. Kirk, Tony Stark, Glenn
Quagmire, Bruce Wayne, Charlie Harper, Sam Malone, Joey Tribbiani, Popeye Doyle,
Donald Draper, Hank Moody, Fonzie, Barney Stinson and Drake Parker are fictional
characters who can be considered womanizers.

During the English Restoration period (1660–88), the term 'rake' was used glamorously: the
Restoration rake is a carefree, witty, sexually irresistible aristocrat typified by Charles II's
courtiers, the Earl of Rochester and the Earl of Dorset, who combined riotous living with
intellectual pursuits and patronage of the arts. The Restoration rake is celebrated in the
Restoration comedy of the 1660s and the 1670s. After the reign of Charles II, and especially
after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the rake was perceived negatively and became the butt
of moralistic tales in which his typical fate was debtor's prison, permanent venereal disease,
and, in the case of William Hogarth's A Rake's Progress, syphilis-induced insanity and
internment in Bedlam.

Female promiscuity

Empress Catherine II is remembered in popular culture for her sexual promiscuity.

In 1994, a study in the United States found almost all married heterosexual women reported
having sexual contact only with their husbands, and unmarried women almost always reported
having no more than one sexual partner in the past three months. Lesbians who had a long-
term partner reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women.[21] More recent
research, however, contradicts the assertion that heterosexual women are largely
monogamous. A 2002 study estimated that 45% to 55% of married heterosexual women
engage in sexual relationships outside of their marriage.[28] While the estimates for
heterosexual males in the same study were greater (50–60%), the data indicate a significant
portion of married heterosexual women have or have had sexual partners other than their
spouse, as well.[28]
Since at least 1450, the word 'slut' has been used, often pejoratively, to describe a sexually
promiscuous woman.[29] In and before the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, terms like
"strumpet" and "whore" were used to describe women deemed promiscuous, as seen, for
example, in John Webster's 1612 play The White Devil.

It has been found that women are much more likely to sexually fantasize about and be
attracted to extra-pair men during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle than the luteal
phase. Whereas attraction to the primary partner does not change depending on the menstrual
cycle.[30]

Religious views

Main article: Fornication

Evolution

Evolutionary psychologists propose that a conditional human tendency for promiscuity is

inherited from hunter-gatherer ancestors. Promiscuity increases the likelihood of having
children, thus "evolutionary" fitness. According to them, female promiscuity is advantageous
in that it allows females to choose fathers for their children who have better genes than their
mates, to ensure better care for their offspring, have more children, and as a form of fertility
insurance.[31] Male promiscuity was likely advantageous because it allowed males to father
more children.

Promiscuity and infidelity are partly conditioned by genes in both human and non-human
animals.[32][33][34]

Primitive promiscuity

Primitive promiscuity (or original promiscuity) was the (largely discredited) 19th-century
hypothesis that humans originally lived in a state of promiscuity or "hetaerism" prior to the
advent of society as we understand it.[35][36][37][38][39]

Other animals

Further information: Animal sexual behaviour and Extra-pair copulation

Many animal species, such as bonobos[40] and chimpanzees, are promiscuous as a rule; they do
not form pair bonds. Although social monogamy occurs in about 90% of avian species and
about 3% of mammalian species, an estimated 90% of socially monogamous species exhibit
individual promiscuity in the form of extra-pair copulations (copulation outside the pair
bond).[7][41][42]

In the animal world, some species, including birds such as swans and fish such as
Neolamprologus pulcher, once believed monogamous, are now known to engage in extra-pair
copulations. One example of extra-pair fertilization (EPF) in birds is the black-throated blue
warblers. Though it is a socially monogamous species, both males and females engage in
EPF.[43]
Polygamy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Polygamy in animals, see behaviour § Polygamy and polygyny. For Polygamy in plants,
see Plant reproductive morphology.

This article is missing information about Polygamy in history. Please expand the
article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page.
(December 2015)

Polygamy is legal

Polygamy is only legal for Muslims

Polygamy is illegal, but practice is not criminalised

Polygamy is illegal and practice criminalised

Legal status unknown

 In Eritrea, India, Philippines, Singapore and Sri Lanka polygamy is only legal for
Muslims.
 In Nigeria and South Africa, polygamous marriages under customary law and for
Muslims are legally recognised.
 In Mauritius, polygamous unions have no legal recognition. Muslim men may,
however, "marry" up to four women, but they do not have the legal status of wives.

Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία, polygamia, "state of marriage to many spouses")[1][2]
[3][4]
involves marriage with more than one spouse. When a man is married to more than one
wife at a time, it is called polygyny. When a woman is married to more than one husband at a
time, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be
called a group marriage. In contrast, monogamy is marriage consisting of only two parties.
Like "monogamy", the term "polygamy" is often used in a de facto sense, applied regardless
of whether the relationship is recognized by the state.[n 1] In sociobiology and zoology,
researchers use polygamy in a broad sense to mean any form of multiple mating.
Polygamy is widely accepted among different societies worldwide. According to the
Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional
polygyny, 186 were monogamous and 4 had polyandry.[5]

Forms

Polygamy exists in three specific forms:

polygyny
wherein a man has multiple simultaneous wives;
polyandry
wherein a woman has multiple simultaneous husbands; and
group marriage
wherein the family unit consists of multiple husbands and multiple wives.

Polygamy is also common among some animals, such as the common fruit-fly, Drosophila
melanogaster.

Polygyny

Main article: Polygyny

Incidence

Main article: Legal status of polygamy

Prince Manga Bell and favorite wives

Polygyny is the practice wherein a man has more than one wife at the same time. The vast
majority of polygamous marriages are polygynous. Polygyny is legally accepted in many
Muslim majority countries and some countries with a sizeable Muslim minority; it is also
accepted in some secular countries in varying degrees.

Anthropologist Jack Goody's comparative study of marriage around the world utilizing the
Ethnographic Atlas demonstrated an historical correlation between the practice of extensive
shifting horticulture and polygamy in the majority of sub-Saharan African societies.[6]
Drawing on the work of Ester Boserup, Goody notes that the sexual division of labour varies
between the male-dominated intensive plough-agriculture common in Eurasia and the
extensive shifting horticulture found in sub-Saharan Africa. In some of the sparsely populated
regions where shifting cultivation takes place in Africa, women do much of the work. This
favours polygamous marriages in which men sought to monopolize the production of women
"who are valued both as workers and as child bearers". Goody however, observes that the
correlation is imperfect and varied. He also discusses more male-dominated though relatively
extensive farming systems such as those that exist in much of West Africa, in particular the
West African savannah, where polygyny is desired more for the creation of sons, whose labor
is valued.[7][8]

Anthropologists Douglas R. White and Michael L. Burton discuss and support Jack Goody's
observation regarding African male farming systems in "Causes of Polygyny: Ecology,
Economy, Kinship, and Warfare"[9] where these authors note: "Goody (1973) argues against
the female contributions hypothesis. He notes Dorjahn's (1959) comparison of East and West
Africa, showing higher female agricultural contributions in East Africa and higher polygyny
rates in West Africa, especially in the West African savannah, where one finds especially high
male agricultural contributions. Goody says, "The reasons behind polygyny are sexual and
reproductive rather than economic and productive" (1973:189), arguing that men marry
polygynously to maximize their fertility and to obtain large households containing many
young dependent males."[10]

Types

Polygynous marriages can be distinguished between sororal polygyny, in which the co-wives
are sisters, and non-sororal, where the co-wives are not related. For men, the benefits of
polygyny are that it allows them to have more children, may provide them with more
productive workers (where workers are family), and allows them to establish politically useful
ties with a greater number of kin groups.[11] Senior wives can benefit as well when their work
load is lightened by the addition of junior wives to the family. Wives', especially senior
wives', status in the community can be increased by the addition of other wives, who add to
the family's prosperity or are a sign of conspicuous consumption (much like a large house,
domestic help, or expensive vacations would be in suburban America). For such reasons,
senior wives sometimes work hard or contribute from their own resources to enable their
husbands to accumulate the bride price for a second wife.[12]

Polygyny may also result from the practice of levirate marriage. In such cases, the deceased
man's heir may inherit his assets and wife; or, more usually, his brothers may marry the
widow. This provides support for the widow and her children (usually also members of the
brothers' kin group) and maintains the tie between the husband and wives' kin groups. The
sororate is like the levirate, in that a widower must marry the sister of his dead wife. The
wife's family, in other words, must provide a replacement for her thus maintaining the ties
between them. Both levirate and sororate may result in a man having multiple wives. [11]

In monogamous societies, wealthy and powerful men established enduring relationships with,
and established separate household for, multiple female partners, aside from their legitimate
wives; a practice that was accepted in Imperial China up until the Qing Dynasty. This is a
form of de facto polygyny that is referred to as concubinage.[13]

Household organization
Marriage is the moment at which a new household is formed, but different arrangements may
occur depending upon the type of marriage and some polygamous marriages do not result in
the formation of a single household. In many polygynous marriages the husband's wives may
live in separate households often at a great distance [citation needed]. They can thus be described as a
"series of linked nuclear families with a 'father' in common".[14]

Polyandry

Incidence

Main article: Polyandry

Polyandry is the practice wherein a woman has more than one husband at the same time.
Polyandry is much less popular than polygyny and is illegal in virtually every state in the
world. It occurs only in remote communities.

Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources, as it

is believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival.[15] It is a rare form of
marriage that exists not only among poor families, but also the elite.[16] For example, in the
Himalayan Mountains polyandry is related to the scarcity of land; the marriage of all brothers
in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided. If every
brother married separately and had children, family land would be split into unsustainable
small plots. In Europe, this was prevented through the social practice of impartible inheritance
(the disinheriting of most siblings, many of whom went on to become celibate monks and
priests).[17]

Types

Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among nomadic Tibetans in Nepal, parts of
China and part of northern India, in which two or more brothers are married to the same wife.
It is most common in societies marked by high male mortality. It is associated with partible
paternity, the cultural belief that a child can have more than one father.[18]

Non-fraternal polyandry occurs when the wives' husbands are unrelated, as among the Nayar
tribe of India. It happens sparsely among tribes in separate worldwide locations. In this case, a
woman undergoes a ritual marriage before puberty, and he is acknowledged as the father of
all her children. She, however, may never cohabit with him, taking multiple lovers instead;
these men must acknowledge the paternity of their children (and hence demonstrate that no
caste prohibitions have been breeched) by paying the midwife. The women remain in their
maternal home, living with their brothers, and property is passed matrilineally.[19] A similar
form of matrilineal, de facto polyandry can be found in the institution of walking marriage
among the Mosuo tribe of China.

Serial monogamy

Serial monogamy refers to remarriage after death of a spouse from a monogamous marriage
or divorce, i.e. multiple marriages but only one legal spouse at a time (a series of
monogamous relationships).[20]
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.[11] As such,
they are similar to the household formations created through divorce and serial monogamy.

Many societies considered monogamous allow divorce without partner consent. In many
Western countries divorce rates roughly approach 50%. Those who remarry do so on average
3 times. Divorce and remarriage can thus result in serial monogamy. Serial monogamy creates
a new kind of relative, the "ex-". The "ex-wife", for example, can remain an active part of her
"ex-husband's" life, as they may be tied together by legally or informally mandated economic
support, that can last for years, including by alimony, child support, and joint custody. Bob
Simpson notes that in the British case, it creates an "extended family", that is, a number of
households tied together in this way, including mobile children, noting that Britons may have
ex-wives or ex-brothers-in-law, but not an ex-child. According to him, these "unclear
families" do not fit the mould of the monogamous nuclear family.[21]

Group marriage

Main article: Group marriage

Group marriage is a marriage wherein the family unit consists of more than two partners, any
of whom share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage.[22] Group
marriage is a form of non-monogamy and polyamory.

Contemporary religious attitudes to polygamy

Hinduism

The Rig Veda mentions that during the Vedic period, a man could have more than one wife.[23]
The practice is attested in epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata. The Dharmashastras permit
a man to marry women of lower castes provided that the first wife was of equal caste. Despite
its existence, it was most usually practiced by men of higher castes and higher status.
Common people were only allowed a second marriage if the first wife could not bear a son.[24]

According to Vishnu Smriti, the number of wives is linked to the caste system:

Now a Brāhmaṇa may take four wives in the direct order of the (four) castes;
A Kshatriya, three;.
A Vaishya, two
A Shudra, one only[25]

This linkage of the number of permitted wives to the caste system is also supported by
Baudhayana Dharmasutra and Paraskara Grihyasutra.[26][27]

The Apastamba Dharmasutra and Manusmriti allow a second wife if the first one is unable to
discharge her religious duties or is unable to bear a son.[26]

For a Brahmana, only one wife could rank as the chief consort who performed the religious
rites (dharma-patni) along with the husband. The chief consort had to be of an equal caste. If
a man married several women from the same caste, then eldest wife is the chief consort. [28]
Hindu kings commonly had more than one wife and are regularly attributed four wives by the
scriptures. They were: Mahisi who was the chief consort, Parivrkti who had no son, Vaivata
who is considered the favorite wife and the Palagali who was the daughter of the last of the
court officials.[23]

The other practice though not well documented is polyandry, where a woman marries more
than one man. Draupadi in the epic Mahabharat had five husbands: the Pandavas.

Traditional Hindu law allowed polygamy if the first wife could not bear a son.[29]

The Hindu Marriage Act was enacted in 1955 by the Indian Parliament and made polygamy
illegal for everyone in India except for Muslims. Prior to 1955, polygamy was permitted for
Hindus. Marriage laws in India are dependent upon the religion of the parties in question.[30]

Buddhism

In Buddhism, marriage is not a sacrament. It is purely a secular affair and the monks do not
participate in it, though in some sects priests and monks do marry. Hence it receives no
religious sanction.[31] Forms of marriage consequently vary from country to country. It is said
in the Parabhava Sutta that "a man who is not satisfied with one woman and seeks out other
women is on the path to decline". Other fragments in the Buddhist scripture can be found that
seem to treat polygamy unfavorably, leading some authors to conclude that Buddhism
generally does not approve of it[32] or alternatively that it is a tolerated, but subordinate marital
model.[33]

Until 2010, polygyny was legally recognized in Thailand. In Myanmar, polygyny was also
frequent. In Sri Lanka, polyandry was practiced (though not widespread) until recent[when?]
times.[31] When the Buddhist texts were translated into Chinese, the concubines of others were
added to the list of inappropriate partners. Polyandry in Tibet as well was common
traditionally,[clarification needed] as was polygyny, and having several wives or husbands was never
regarded as having sex with inappropriate partners.[34] Tibet is home to the largest and most
flourishing polyandrous community in the world today. [citation needed] Most typically, fraternal
polyandry is practiced, but sometimes father and son have a common wife, which is a unique
family structure in the world. Other forms of marriage are also present, like group marriage
and monogamous marriage.[11] Polyandry (especially fraternal polyandry) is also common
among Buddhists in Bhutan, Ladakh, and other parts of the Indian subcontinent.

Celtic traditions

Some pre-Christian Celtic pagans were known to practice polygamy, although the Celtic
peoples wavered between it, monogamy and polyandry depending on the time period and
area.[35] In some areas this continued even after Christianisation began, for instance the
Brehon Laws of Gaelic Ireland explicitly allowed for polygamy,[36][37] especially amongst the
noble class.[38] Some modern Celtic pagan religions accept the practice of polygamy to
varying degrees,[39] though how widespread the practice is within these religions is unknown.

Judaism

See also: Pilegesh

The Torah contains a few specific regulations that apply to polygamy,[40] such as Exodus
21:10: "If he take another wife for himself; her food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage,
shall he not diminish".[41] Deut 21:15–17, states that a man must award the inheritance due to
a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son's mother and
likes another wife more;[42] and Deut 17:17 states that the king shall not have too many wives.
[43]

The Torah may distinguish concubines and "sub-standard" wives with the prefix "to" (e.g., lit.
"took to wives").[44] Despite these nuances to the biblical perspective on polygamy, many
important figures had more than one wife, such as in the instances of Esau (Gen 26:34; 28:6-
9),[41] Jacob (Gen 29:15-28),[41] Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1-8),[41] David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2
Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-16),[41] and Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3).[41]

Multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or
female infertility[45] like in the practice of levirate marriage, wherein a man was required to
marry and support his deceased brother's widow, as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5–10.
Despite its prevalence in the Hebrew Bible, scholars do not believe that polygyny was
commonly practiced in the biblical era because it required a significant amount of wealth. [46]
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".[47]

The monogamy of the Roman Empire was the cause of two explanatory notes in the writings
of Josephus describing how the polygamous marriages of Herod the Great were permitted
under Jewish custom.[48]

The Rabbinical era that began with the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem in 70
CE saw a continuation of some degree of legal acceptance for polygamy. In the Babylonian
Talmud (BT), Kiddushin 7a, its states, "Raba said: [If a man declares,] 'Be thou betrothed to
half of me,' she is betrothed: 'half of thee be betrothed to me,' she is not betrothed."[49] The BT
during a discussion of Levirate marriage in Yevamot 65a appears to repeat the precedent
found in Exodus 21:10: "Raba said: a man may marry wives in addition to the first wife;
provided only that he possesses the means to maintain them".[50] The Jewish Codices began a
process of restricting polygamy in Judaism.

Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah maintained that polygamous unions were permissible
from a legal point of view, which was contrary to his personal opinion. The Mishneh Torah,
while maintaining the right to multiple spouses, and the requirement to provide fully for each
as indicated in previously cited sources, went further: "He may not, however, compel his
wives to live in the same courtyard. Instead, each one is entitled to her own household".[51]

The Shulchan Aruch, builds on all of the previous works by adding further nuances: "...but in
any event, our sages have advised well not to marry more than four wives, in order that he can
meet their conjugal needs at least once a month. And in a place where it is customary to marry
only one wife, he is not permitted to take another wife on top of his present wife."[52] As can
be seen, while the tradition of the Rabbinic period began with providing legal definition for
the practice of polygamy (although this does not indicate the frequency with which polygamy
in fact occurred) that corresponded to precedents in the tanakh, by the time of the Codices the
Rabbis had greatly reduced or eliminated sanction of the practice.
Most notable in the Rabbinic period on the issue of polygamy, though more specifically for
Ashkenazi Jews, was the synod of Rabbeinu Gershom. About 1000 CE he called a synod
which decided the following particulars: (1) prohibition of polygamy; (2) necessity of
obtaining the consent of both parties to a divorce; (3) modification of the rules concerning
those who became apostates under compulsion; (4) prohibition against opening
correspondence addressed to another.[citation needed]

In the modern day, polygamy is almost nonexistent in Rabbinic Judaism.[53] Ashkenazi Jews
have continued to follow Rabbenu Gershom's ban since the 11th century.[54] Some Mizrahi
Jewish communities (particularly Yemenite Jews and Persian Jews) discontinued polygyny
more recently, after they immigrated to countries where it was forbidden or illegal. Israel
prohibits polygamy by law.[55][56] In practice, however, the law is loosely enforced, primarily
to avoid interference with Bedouin culture, where polygyny is practiced.[57] Pre-existing
polygynous unions among Jews from Arab countries (or other countries where the practice
was not prohibited by their tradition and was not illegal) are not subject to this Israeli law. But
Mizrahi Jews are not permitted to enter into new polygamous marriages in Israel. However
polygamy may still occur in non-European Jewish communities that exist in countries where
it is not forbidden, such as Jewish communities in Yemen and the Arab world.

Among Karaite Jews, who do not adhere to Rabbinic interpretations of the Torah, polygamy
is almost non-existent today. Like other Jews, Karaites interpret Leviticus 18:18 to mean that
a man can only take a second wife if his first wife gives her consent (Keter Torah on
Leviticus, pp. 96–97) and Karaites interpret Exodus 21:10 to mean that a man can only take a
second wife if he is capable of maintaining the same level of marital duties due to his first
wife; the marital duties are 1) food, 2) clothing, and 3) sexual gratification. Because of these
two biblical limitations and because most countries outlaw it, polygamy is considered highly
impractical, and there are only a few known cases of it among Karaite Jews today.

Israel has made polygamy illegal.[58][59] Provisions were instituted to allow for existing
polygamous families immigrating from countries where the practice was legal. Furthermore,
former chief rabbi Ovadia Yosef[60] has come out in favor of legalizing polygamy and the
practice of pilegesh (concubine) by the Israeli government.

Tzvi Zohar, a professor from the Bar-Ilan University, recently suggested that based on the
opinions of leading halachic authorities, the concept of concubines may serve as a practical
Halachic justification for premarital or non-marital cohabitation.[61][62]

Christianity

Main article: Polygamy in Christianity

Polygamy is not forbidden in the Old Testament. Although the New Testament is largely
silent on polygamy, some point to Jesus's repetition of the earlier scriptures, noting that a man
and a wife "shall become one flesh".[63] However, some look to Paul's writings to the
Corinthians: "Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with
her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh.'" Supporters of polygamy claim this
indicates that the term refers to a physical, rather than spiritual,[clarification needed] union.[64]

Most Christian theologians argue that in Matthew 19:3-9 and referring to Genesis 2:24 Jesus
explicitly states a man should have only one wife:
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And
said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they
twain shall be one flesh?

The Bible states in the New Testament that polygamy should not be practiced by certain
church leaders. 1 Timothy states that certain Church leaders should have but one wife: "A
bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior,
given to hospitality, apt to teach" (chapter 3, verse 2; see also verse 12 regarding deacons
having only one wife). Similar counsel is repeated in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus.[65]

Periodically, Christian reform movements that have aimed at rebuilding Christian doctrine
based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) have at least temporarily accepted polygyny as a
Biblical practice. For example, during the Protestant Reformation, in a document referred to
simply as "Der Beichtrat" (or "The Confessional Advice" ),[66] Martin Luther granted the
Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of
adultery and fornication",[67] a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to
be done in secret, however, to avoid public scandal.[68] Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to
the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry
several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse
prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")[69]

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were
killed during the Thirty Years' War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit
any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any
monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to
marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their
wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."[70][71][72][73][74][75]

In Sub-Saharan Africa, there has often been a tension between the Christian insistence on
monogamy and traditional polygamy. In some instances in recent times there have been
moves for accommodation; in other instances, churches have resisted such moves strongly.
African Independent Churches have sometimes referred to those parts of the Old Testament
that describe polygamy in defending the practice.

Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church condemns polygamy; the Catechism of the Catholic Church lists
it in paragraph 2387 under the head "Other offenses against the dignity of marriage" and
states that it "is not in accord with the moral law." Also in paragraph 1645 under the head
"The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love" states "The unity of marriage, distinctly
recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to
husband and wife in mutual and unreserved affection. Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love
which is undivided and exclusive."

Saint Augustine saw a conflict with Old Testament polygamy. He refrained from judging the
patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the ongoing acceptability of polygyny. On
the contrary, he argued that the polygamy of the Fathers, which was tolerated by the Creator
because of fertility, was a diversion from His original plan for human marriage. Augustine
wrote: That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with
one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first
union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself.[76]

Augustine taught that the reason patriarchs had many wives was not because of fornication,
but because they wanted more children. He supported his premise by showing that their
marriages, in which husband was the head, were arranged according to the rules of good
management: those who are in command (quae principantur) in their society were always
singular, while subordinates (subiecta) were multiple. He gave two examples of such
relationships: dominus-servus - master-servant (in older translation: slave) and God-soul. The
Bible often equates worshiping multiple gods, i.e. idolatry to fornication.[77] Augustine relates
to that: On this account there is no True God of souls, save One: but one soul by means of
many false gods may commit fornication, but not be made fruitful.[78]

As tribal populations grew, fertility was no longer a valid justification of polygamy: it "was
lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily
pronounce (utrum et nunc fas sit, non temere dixerim). For there is not now necessity of
begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in
order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly
not lawful."[79]

Augustine saw marriage as a non-sacrament-friendly covenant between one man and one
woman, which may not be broken. It was the Creator who established monogamy: Therefore,
the first natural bond of human society is man and wife.[80] Such marriage was confirmed by
the Saviour in the Gospel of Matthew (Mat 19:9) and by His presence at the wedding in Cana
(John 2:2).[81] In the Church—the City of God—marriage is a sacrament and may not and
cannot be dissolved as long as the spouses live: But a marriage once for all entered upon in
the City of our God, where, even from the first union of the two, the man and the woman,
marriage bears a certain sacramental character, can in no way be dissolved but by the death
of one of them..[82] In chapter 7, Augustine pointed out that the Roman Empire forbad
polygamy, even if the reason of fertility would support it: For it is in a man's power to put
away a wife that is barren, and marry one of whom to have children. And yet it is not allowed;
and now indeed in our times, and after the usage of Rome (nostris quidem iam temporibus ac
more Romano), neither to marry in addition, so as to have more than one wife living. Further
on he notices that the Church's attitude goes much further than the secular law regarding
monogamy: It forbids remarrying, considering such to be a form of fornication: And yet, save
in the City of our God, in His Holy Mount, the case is not such with the wife. But, that the
laws of the Gentiles are otherwise, who is there that knows not .[83]

In modern times a minority of Roman Catholic theologians have argued that polygamy,
though not ideal, can be a legitimate form of Christian marriage in certain regions, in
particular Africa.[84][85] The Roman Catholic Church teaches in its Catechism that

"polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. [Conjugal] communion is radically
contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God that was revealed
from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women
who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and
exclusive."[86]

The illegality of polygamy in certain areas creates, according to certain Bible passages,
additional arguments against it. Paul the Apostle writes "submit to the authorities, not only
because of possible punishment but also because of conscience" (Romans 13:5), for "the
authorities that exist have been established by God." (Romans 13:1) St Peter concurs when he
says to "submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men:
whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish
those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." (1 Peter 2:13,14) Pro-polygamists
argue that, as long as polygamists currently do not obtain legal marriage licenses nor seek
"common law marriage status" for additional spouses, no enforced laws are being broken any
more than when monogamous couples similarly co-habitate without a marriage license.[87]

Latter Day Saint Movement

Main article: Mormonism and polygamy

See also: List of Latter Day Saint practitioners of plural marriage

The history of Mormonism and polygamy (specifically polygyny) began with Joseph Smith,
who stated he received a revelation on 17 July 1831 that "plural marriage" should be practiced
by some Mormon men who were specifically commanded to do so. This was later published
in the Doctrine and Covenants by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS
Church).[88] Despite Smith's revelation, the 1835 edition of the 101st Section of the Doctrine
and Covenants, written after the doctrine of plural marriage began to be practiced, publicly
condemned polygamy. This scripture was used by John Taylor in 1850 to quash Mormon
polygamy rumors in Liverpool, England.[89] Polygamy was made illegal in the state of
Illinois[90] during the 1839–44 Nauvoo era when several top Mormon leaders, including Smith,
[91][92]
Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball took multiple wives. Mormon elders who
publicly taught that all men were commanded to enter plural marriage were subject to harsh
discipline.[93] On 7 June 1844 the Nauvoo Expositor criticized Smith for plural marriage.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)

After Joseph Smith was killed by a mob on 27 June 1844, the main body of Latter Day Saints
left Nauvoo and followed Brigham Young to Utah where the practice of plural marriage
continued.[94] In 1852, Brigham Young, the second president of the LDS Church, publicly
acknowledged the practice of plural marriage through a sermon he gave. Additional sermons
by top Mormon leaders on the virtues of polygamy followed.[95]:128 Controversy followed
when polygamy became a social cause, writers began to publish works condemning
polygamy. The key plank of the Republican Party's 1856 platform was "to prohibit in the
territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery".[96] In 1862, Congress issued
the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in all
US territories. The LDS Church believed that their religiously based practice of plural
marriage was protected by the United States Constitution,[97] however, the unanimous 1878
Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States declared that polygamy was not protected
by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that "laws are made for the
government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and
opinions, they may with practices."[98]

Increasingly harsh anti-polygamy legislation in the US led some Mormons to emigrate to

Canada and Mexico. In 1890, LDS Church president Wilford Woodruff issued a public
declaration (the Manifesto) announcing that the LDS Church had discontinued new plural
marriages. Anti-Mormon sentiment waned, as did opposition to statehood for Utah. The
Smoot Hearings in 1904, which documented that the LDS Church was still practicing
polygamy spurred the LDS Church to issue a Second Manifesto again claiming that it had
ceased performing new plural marriages. By 1910 the LDS Church excommunicated those
who entered into, or performed, new plural marriages. Even so, many plural husbands and
wives continued to cohabit until their deaths in the 1940s and 1950s.[99]

Enforcement of the 1890 Manifesto caused various splinter groups to leave the LDS Church
in order to continue the practice of plural marriage.[100] Polygamy among these groups persists
today in Utah and neighboring states as well as in the spin-off colonies. Polygamist churches
of Mormon origin are often referred to as "Mormon fundamentalist" even though they are not
a part of the LDS Church. Such fundamentalists often use a purported 1886 revelation to John
Taylor as the basis for their authority to continue the practice of plural marriage.[101] The Salt
Lake Tribune stated in 2005 there were as many as 37,000 fundamentalists with less than half
of them living in polygamous households.[102]

On 13 December 2013, US Federal Judge Clark Waddoups ruled in Brown v. Buhman that the
portions of Utah's anti-polygamy laws which prohibit multiple cohabitation were
unconstitutional, but also allowed Utah to maintain its ban on multiple marriage licenses. [103]
[104][105][106]
Unlawful cohabitation, where prosecutors did not need to prove that a marriage
ceremony had taken place (only that a couple had lived together), had been the primary tool
used to prosecute polygamy in Utah since the 1882 Edmunds Act.[99]

Mormon fundamentalism

The Council of Friends (also known as the Woolley Group and the Priesthood Council)[107]
[108]
was one of the original expressions of Mormon fundamentalism, having its origins in the
teachings of Lorin C. Woolley, a dairy farmer excommunicated from the LDS Church in
1924. Several Mormon fundamentalist groups claim lineage through the Council of Friends,
including but not limited to, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
(FLDS Church), the Apostolic United Brethren, the Centennial Park group, the Latter Day
Church of Christ, and the Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.

Community of Christ

The Community of Christ, known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints (RLDS Church) prior to 2001, has never sanctioned polygamy since its foundation in
1860. Joseph Smith III, the first Prophet-President of the RLDS Church following the
Reorganized of the church, was an ardent opponent of the practice of plural marriage
throughout his life. For most of his career, Smith denied that his father had been involved in
the practice and insisted that it had originated with Brigham Young. Smith served many
missions to the western United States where he met with and interviewed associates and
women claiming to be widows of his father, who attempted to present him with evidence to
the contrary. Smith typically responded to such accusations by saying that he was "not
positive nor sure that [his father] was innocent",[109] and that if, indeed, the elder Smith had
been involved, it was still a false practice. However, many members of the Community of
Christ, and some of the groups that were formerly associated with it are not convinced that
Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage, and feel that the evidence that he did is flawed. [110][111]

Islam
Main article: Polygyny in Islam

Under Islamic marital jurisprudence, Muslim men are allowed to practice polygyny, that is,
they can have more than one wife at the same time, up to a total of four. Polyandry, the
practice of a woman having more than one husband, is not permitted.

Based on verse 30:21 of Quran the ideal relationship is the comfort that a couple find in each
other's embrace:

And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye
may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts):
verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.

— Qur'an, Sura 30 (Ar-Rum), Ayah 21[112]

The polygyny that is allowed in the Koran is for special situations, however it advises
monogamy if a man fears he can't deal justly with them. This is based on verse 4:3 of Quran
which says:

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your
choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them),
then only one, or one that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you
from doing injustice.

— Qur'an, Sura 4 (An-Nisa), Ayah 3[113]

There are strict requirements to marrying more than one woman, as the man must treat them
equally financially and in terms of support given to each wife, according to Islamic law.

Muslim women aren't allowed to marry more than one husband at once. However, in the case
of a divorce or their husbands' death they can remarry after the completion of Iddah, as
divorce is legal in Islamic law. A non-Muslim woman who flees from her non-Muslim
husband and accepts Islam can remarry without divorce from her previous husband, as her
marriage with non-Muslim husband is Islamically dissolved on her fleeing.[citation needed] A non-
Muslim woman captured during war by Muslims, can also remarry, as her marriage with her
non-Muslim husband is Islamically dissolved at capture by Muslim
soldiers.Template:Citation neefed This permission is given to such women in verse 4:24 of
Quran. The verse also emphasizes on transparency, mutual agreement and financial
compensation as prerequisites for matrimonial relationship as opposed to prostitution; it says:

Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:
Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful,
provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust,
seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if,
after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is
All-knowing, All-wise.

— Qur'an, Sura 4 (An-Nisa), Ayah 24[114]

Muhammad was monogamously married to Khadija, his first wife, for 25 years, until she
died. After her death, he married multiple women, mostly widows,[115] for social and political
reasons.[116] He had a total of nine wives, but not all at the same time, depending on the
sources in his lifetime. The Qur'an does not give preference in marrying more than one wife.
One reason cited for polygyny is that it allows a man to give financial protection to multiple
women, who might otherwise not have any support (e.g. widows).[117] However, the wife can
set a condition, in the marriage contract, that the husband cannot marry another woman during
their marriage. In such a case, the husband cannot marry another woman as long as he is
married to his wife.[118] According to traditional Islamic law, each of those wives keeps their
property and assets separate; and are paid mahar and maintenance separately by their
husband. Usually the wives have little to no contact with each other and lead separate,
individual lives in their own houses, and sometimes in different cities, though they all share
the same husband.

In most Muslim-majority countries, polygyny is legal with Kuwait being the only one where
no restrictions are imposed on it. The practice is illegal in Muslim-majority Turkey, Tunisia,
Albania, Kosovo and Central Asian countries.[119][120][121][122]

Countries that allow polygyny typically also require a man to obtain permission from his
previous wives before marrying another, and require the man to prove that he can financially
support multiple wives. In Malaysia and Morocco, a man must justify taking an additional
wife at a court hearing before he is allowed to do so.[123] In Sudan, the government encouraged
polygyny in 2001 to increase the population.[124]

Legalization

See also: Legal status of polygamy

International law

In 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Committee reported that polygamy violates the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), citing concerns that the lack of
"equality of treatment with regard to the right to marry" meant that polygamy, restricted to
polygyny in practice, violates the dignity of women and should be outlawed.[125] Specifically,
the reports to UN Committees have noted violations of the ICCPR due to these inequalities [126]
and reports to the General Assembly of the UN have recommended it be outlawed. [127][128]
Many Muslim states are not signatories of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), including Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Malaysia, Brunei,
Oman, and South Sudan; therefore the UN treaty doesn't apply to these countries.[129]

United Kingdom

Bigamy is illegal in the United Kingdom, unlike polygamy, which is not mentioned as a
criminal offence in the United Kingdom.[130][not in citation given] In a written answer to the House of
Commons, In Great Britain, polygamy is only recognised as valid in law in circumstances
where the marriage ceremony has been performed in a country whose laws permit polygamy
and the parties to the marriage were domiciled there at the time. In addition, immigration
rules have generally prevented the formation of polygamous households in this country since
1988.[131]
The 2010 Government in the UK decided that Universal Credit (UC), which replaces means-
tested benefits and tax credits for working-age people and will not be completely introduced
until 2021, will not recognise polygamous marriages. A House of Commons Briefing Paper
states Treating second and subsequent partners in polygamous relationships as separate
claimants could in some situations mean that polygamous households receive more under
Universal Credit than they do under the current rules for means-tested benefits and tax
credits. This is because, as explained above, the amounts which may be paid in respect of
additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. There is
currently no official statistics data on cohabiting polygamous couples who have arranged
marriage in religious ceremonies.[132]

United States

Polygamy is currently illegal in the United States. On 13 December 2013, a federal judge,
spurred by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups,[133] struck down the parts of
Utah's bigamy law that criminalized cohabitation, while also acknowledging that the state
may still enforce bans on having multiple marriage licenses.[134]

Individualist feminism and advocates such as Wendy McElroy and journalist Jillian Keenan
support the freedom for adults to voluntarily enter polygamous marriages.[135][136]

Authors such as Alyssa Rower and Samantha Slark argue that there is a case for legalizing
polygamy on the basis of regulation and monitoring of the practice, legally protecting the
polygamous partners and allowing them to join mainstream society instead of forcing them to
hide from it when any public situation arises.[137][138]

In an October 2004 op-ed for USA Today, George Washington University law professor
Jonathan Turley "argued that, as a simple matter of equal treatment under law, polygamy
ought to be legal. Acknowledging that underage girls are sometimes coerced into polygamous
marriages, Turley replied that banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than
banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse."[139]

Stanley Kurtz, a Conservative fellow at the Hudson Institute rejects the decriminalization and
legalization of polygamy. He stated: "Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is
indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But
that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided
Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which
freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and
ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is
that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family."[140]

In January 2015, Pastor Neil Patrick Carrick of Detroit, Michigan brought a case (Carrick v.
Snyder) against the State of Michigan that the state's ban of polygamy violates the Free
Exercise and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[141][142]

Polyandry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Polygamy is legal

Legal status unknown

Polygamy is only legal for Muslims

Polygamy is illegal, but practice is not criminalised

Polygamy is illegal and practice criminalised

 In Eritrea, India, Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka polygamy is only legal for
Muslims.
 In Nigeria and South Africa, polygamous marriages under customary law and for
Muslims are legally recognised.
 In Mauritius, polygamous unions have no legal recognition. Muslim men may,
however, "marry" up to four women, but they do not have the legal status of wives.

This article is about polyandrous marriage practices. For polyandrous animal mating, see
polyandry in nature.

Polyandry (/ˈpɒliˌændri, ˌpɒliˈæn-/; from Greek: πολυ- poly-, "many" and ἀνήρ anēr, "man")
involves marriage that includes more than two partners and can fall under the broader
category of polyamory.[1][2] More specifically, it is a form of polygamy, where a woman takes
two or more husbands at the same time. Polyandry is contrasted with polygyny, involving one
male and two or more females. If a marriage involves a plural number of "husbands and
wives" participants of each gender, then it can be called polyamory,[3] group or conjoint
marriage.[2] In its broadest use, polyandry refers to sexual relations with multiple males within
or without marriage.

Of the 1,231 societies listed in the 1980 Ethnographic Atlas, 186 were found to be
monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had
polyandry.[4] Polyandry is less rare than this figure which listed only those examples found in
the Himalayan mountains (28 societies). More recent studies have found more than 50 other
societies practicing polyandry.[5]

Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among Tibetans in Nepal, parts of China and
part of northern India, in which two or more brothers are married to the same wife, with the
wife having equal "sexual access" to them.[6] It is associated with partible paternity, the
cultural belief that a child can have more than one father.[5]
Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources. It is
believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival.[6][7] It is a rare form of
marriage that exists not only among peasant families but also among the elite families. [8] For
example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land. The
marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and
undivided. If every brother married separately and had children, family land would be split
into unsustainable small plots. In contrast, very poor persons not owning land were less likely
to practice polyandry in Buddhist Ladakh and Zanskar.[6] In Europe, the splitting up of land
was prevented through the social practice of impartible inheritance. For example, disinheriting
most siblings where many of whom then became celibate monks and priests.[9]

Polyandrous mating systems are also a common phenomenon in the animal kingdom.

Types

Polygynandry

Main article: Polyandry in India

In the Indian Himalayas, polyandry may be combined with polygyny to produce a system
termed "polygynandry". The system results in less land fragmentation, a diversification of
domestic economic activities, and lower population growth.[10]

Fraternal polyandry

Main article: Polyandry in Tibet

Fraternal polyandry (from the Latin frater—brother), also called adelphic polyandry, is a
form of polyandry in which a woman is married to two or more men who are one another's
brothers. Fraternal polyandry was (and sometimes still is) found in certain areas of Tibet,
Nepal, and Northern India,[11] where polyandry was accepted as a social practice.[6][12] The
Toda people of southern India practice fraternal polyandry, but monogamy has become
prevalent recently.[13] In contemporary Hindu society, polyandrous marriages in agrarian
societies in the Malwa region of Punjab seem to occur to avoid division of farming land.[14]

Fraternal polyandry achieves a similar goal to that of primogeniture in 19th-century England.

Primogeniture dictated that the eldest son inherited the family estate, while younger sons had
to leave home and seek their own employment. Primogeniture maintained family estates intact
over generations by permitting only one heir per generation. Fraternal polyandry also
accomplishes this, but does so by keeping all the brothers together with just one wife so that
there is only one set of heirs per generation.[15] This strategy appears less successful the larger
the fraternal sibling group.[16]

Some forms of polyandry appear to be associated with a perceived need to retain aristocratic
titles or agricultural lands within kin groups, and/or because of the frequent absence, for long
periods, of a man from the household. In Tibet the practice was particularly popular among
the priestly Sakya class.
An extreme gender imbalance has been suggested as a justification for polyandry. For
example, the selective abortion of female fetuses in India has led to a significant margin in sex
ratio and, it has been suggested, results in related men "sharing" a wife.[17]

The female equivalent of fraternal polyandry is sororate marriage.

Partible paternity

Anthropologist Stephen Beckerman points out that at least 20 tribal societies accept that a
child could, and ideally should, have more than one father, referring to it as "partible
paternity."[18] This often results in the shared nurture of a child by multiple fathers in a form of
polyandric relation to the mother, although this is not always the case.[19] One of the most well
known examples is that of Trobriand "virgin birth." The matrilineal Trobriand Islanders
recognize the importance of sex in reproduction but do not believe the male makes a
contribution to the constitution of the child, who therefore remains attached to their mother's
lineage alone. The mother's non-resident husbands are not recognized as fathers, although the
mother's co-resident brothers are, since they are part of the mother's lineage.

Known cases

Polyandry in Tibet was a common practice and continues to a lesser extent today. In Tibet,
polyandry has been outlawed since the Chinese takeover of the area, so it is difficult to
measure the incidence of polyandry in what may have been the world's most polyandrous
society.[20] Polyandry in India still exists among minorities, and also in Bhutan, and the
northern parts of Nepal. Polyandry has been practised in several parts of India, such as
Rajasthan, Ladakh and Zanskar, in the Jaunsar-Bawar region in Uttarakhand, among the Toda
of South India.[6][20]

It also occurs or has occurred in Nigeria, the Nymba,[20] [clarification needed] and some pre-contact
Polynesian societies,[21] though probably only among higher caste women.[22] It is also
encountered in some regions of Yunnan and Sichuan regions of China, among the Mosuo
people in China, and in some sub-Saharan African such as the Maasai people in Kenya and
northern Tanzania[23] and American indigenous communities. The Guanches, the first known
inhabitants of the Canary Islands, practiced polyandry until their disappearance.[24] The Zo'e
tribe in the state of Pará on the Cuminapanema River, Brazil, also practice polyandry.[25]

Africa

 In the Lake Region of Central Africa, "Polygyny ... was uncommon. Polyandry, on the
other hand, was quite common."[26]
 "The Maasai are polyandrous".[27]
 Among the Irigwe of Northern Nigeria, women have traditionally acquired numerous
spouses called "co-husbands."
 Guanches from Gran Canaria practized polyandry before the Spanish conquest.
According to European accounts, during a great famine in 14th or 15th century, girls
were killed after coming to life in order to equilibrate demography. This resulted in a
surplus of males and a shortage of females, which led to the adoption of polyandry,
allowing a woman to marry a maximum of five men.
  In August 2013, two Kenyan men entered into an agreement to marry a woman with
whom they had both been having an affair. Kenyan law does not explicitly forbid
polyandry, although it is not common custom.[28]

Asia

See also: Polyandry in India and Polyandry in Tibet

 In the reign of Urukagina of Lagash, "Dyandry, the marriage of one woman to two
men, is abolished.".[29]
 M. Notovitck mentioned polyandry in Ladakh or Little 'Tibet' in his record of his
journey to Tibet. ("The Unknown life of Jesus Christ" by Virchand Gandhi).
 Polyandry was widely (and to some extent still is) practised in Lahaul-Spiti situated in
isolation in the high Himalayas in India.
 In Arabia (southern) "All the kindred have their property in common ...; all have one
wife" whom they share.[30]
 Among the Hephthalites, "the practice of several husbands to one wife, or polyandry,
was always the rule, which is agreed on by all commentators. That this was plain was
evidenced by the custom among the women of wearing a hat containing a number of
horns, one for each of the subsequent husbands, all of whom were also brothers to the
husband. Indeed, if a husband had no natural brothers, he would adopt another man to
be his brother so that he would be allowed to marry."[31]
 "Polyandry is very widespread among the Sherpas."[32]
 In Bhutan in 1914, polyandry was "the prevailing domestic custom.".[33] Nowadays
polyandry is rare, but still found for instance among the Brokpas of the Merak-Sakten
region.[34]
 "A 1981 survey ... in Muli found 52% of the marriages engaged in monogamy, 32%
practiced polyandry (brothers sharing a wife), and 16% practiced polygyny (sisters
sharing a husband)."[35]
 The Hoa-tun (Hephthalites, White Huns) "living to the north of the Great Wall ...
practiced polyandry."[36]
 Among the Gilyaks of Sakhalein Island "polyandry is also practiced."[37]
 Fraternal polyandry is permitted in Sri Lanka under Kandyan Marriage law, often
described using the euphemism eka-ge-kama (literally "eating in one house").[38]
Associated Polyandry, or polyandry that begins as monogamy, with the second
husband entering the relationship later, is also practiced[39] and it sometimes initiated
by the wife.[40]

Europe

Sepulcral inscription for Allia Potestas, Museo Epigrafico, Terme di Diocleziano, Rome

 Reporting on the mating patterns in ancient Greece specifically Sparta, Plutarch

writes: "Thus if an older man with a young wife should take a liking to one of the
well-bred young men and approve of him, he might well introduce him to her so as to
fill her with noble sperm and then adopt the child as his own. Conversely a respectable
man who admired someone else’s wife noted for her lovely children and her good
sense, might gain the husband’s permission to sleep with her thereby planting in
 fruitful soil, so to speak, and producing fine children who would be linked to fine
ancestors by blood and family."[41]
 "According to Julius Caesar, it was customary among the ancient Britons for brothers,
and sometimes for fathers and sons, to have their wives in common."[42]
 "Polyandry prevailed among the Lacedaemonians according to Polybius."[43] (Polybius
vii.7.732, following Timæus)[44]
 "The matrons of Rome flocked in great crowds to the Senate, begging with tears and
entreaties that one woman should be married to two men."[45]
 The gravestone of Allia Potestas, a woman from Perusia, describes how she lived
peacefully with two lovers, one of whom immortalized her in this famous epigraphic
eulogy, dating (probably) from the second century.[46]

North America

 Aleut people in the 19th century.[47]

 Inuit[48]

Oceania

 Among the Kanak of New Caledonia, "every woman is the property of several
husbands. It is this collection of husbands, having one wife in common, that...live
together in a hut, with their common wife."[49]
 Marquesans had "a society in which households were polyandrous."[50]
 Friedrich Ratzel in The History of Mankind[51] reported in 1896 that in the New
Hebrides there was a kind of convention in cases of widowhood, that two widowers
shall live with one widow.

South America

 "The Bororos ... among them...there are also cases of polyandry."[52]

 "The Tupi-Kawahib also practice fraternal polyandry."[53]
 "...up to 70 percent of Amazonian cultures may have believed in the principle of
multiple paternity"[54]

Religious attitudes

This section improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources
without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help
improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple
points of view. (September 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template
message)

According to inscriptions describing the reforms of the Sumerian king Urukagina of Lagash
(ca. 2300 BC), the former custom of polyandry in his country was abolished, on pain of the
woman taking multiple husbands being stoned with rocks upon which her crime is written.[55]

Hinduism
Draupadi with her five husbands - the Pandavas. The central figure is Yudhishthira; the two to
his left are Bhima and Arjuna . Nakula and Sahadeva, the twins, are to his right. Their wife, at
far right, is Draupadi. Deogarh, Dasavatar temple.

Polyandrous relations are disapproved of in most expressions of Hinduism.[56] There is at least

one reference to polyandry in the ancient Hindu epic Mahabharata. Draupadi married the five
Pandava brothers, as this is what she chose in a previous life. This ancient text remains largely
neutral to the concept of polyandry, accepting this as her way of life.[57] However, in the same
epic, when questioned by Kunti to give an example of polyandry, Yudhishthira cites Gautam-
clan Jatila (married to seven Saptarishis) and Hiranyaksha's sister Pracheti (married to ten
brothers), thereby implying a more open attitude toward polyandry in Vedic society.[58]

Judaism

The Hebrew Bible contains no examples of women married to more than one man,[59][60] but its
description of adultery clearly implies that polyandry is unacceptable[61][62] and the practice is
unknown in Jewish tradition.[63][64] In addition, the children from other than the first husband
are considered illegitimate, unless he has already divorced her or died (i.e., a mamzer),[65]
being a product of an adulterous relationship.

Christianity

Current-day mainstream Christianity strongly advocates monogamous marriage, and the New
Testament explicitly forbids polyandry. (Romans 7:2-3).

Latter-Day Saints

Prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young have a historical record of polygynous marriages
and seems to be a controversial topic when discussed as to being why they entered into those
types of marriages.[66]

Islam

Islam prohibits polyandry for free women, but the Quran states that men are allowed to marry
women who are already married, if they own them.[67] Nikah Ijtimah was a pagan tradition of
polyandry in older Arab which was condemned and eradicated by Islam.[68]

Polyandry in Biology

Main article: Polyandry in nature

Polyandrous behavior is quite widespread in the animal kingdom. It is prominent in many

species of insects and fish (for example pipefish; see Polyandry in fish). It is also found in
other animals such as birds (for example dunnocks), whales, and in some mammals such as
house mouse.

Among the whales, polyandrous behavior has been noted among the Bowhead,[69] Harbour
Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),[70] and humpback whales.[71]
Among the relevant insect species are the honeybees, the red flour beetle, the species of spider
Stegodyphus lineatus, the crickets Gryllus bimaculatus, and Drosophila pseudoobscura.

Polyandry also occurs in some primates such as marmosets, and in the marsupial genus'
Antechinus.

Non-monogamy is a type of interpersonal relationship in which sexual exclusivity is not held

as the primary fundamental premise of the relationship. Individuals may form multiple and
simultaneous sexual or romantic bonds.[1] This can be contrasted with its opposite,
monogamy, and yet may arise from the same psychology.[2] The term has been criticized as it
may imply that monogamy is the norm and that other ways of relating are deviations.

Types of non-monogamy

Many non-monogamous terms are flexible in definition, because they are based on criteria
such as "relationship" or "love" that are themselves variably defined. In addition, usage
creates distinctions beyond the raw definitions of the words. Thus, even though some
relationships might technically be considered both polygamous and polyamorous, "polygamy"
usually signifies a codified form of multiple marriage, based on established religious
teachings, while "polyamory" is based on the preferences of the participants rather than social
custom or established precedent.

Forms of non-monogamy include:

 casual relationship a physical and emotional relationship between two unmarried

people who may have a sexual relationship
 cuckoldry, where a person has sex with another individual without the consent of their
partner
 group marriage (also termed polygynandry), in which several people form a single
family unit, with all considered to be married to one another
 group sex and orgies involving more than two participants at the same time
 Line families, a form of group marriage intended to outlive its original members by
ongoing addition of new spouses
 ménage à trois, a sexual (or sometimes domestic) arrangement involving three people
 open relationship (incl. open marriage), in which one or both members of a committed
(or married) couple may become sexually active with other partners
 polyamory, in which participants have multiple romantic partners
 Poly families, similar to group marriage, but some members may not consider
themselves married to all other members
 polyfidelity, in which participants have multiple partners but restrict sexual activity to
within a certain group
 polygamy, in which one person in a relationship has married multiple partners

 polyandry, in which women have multiple husbands

 polygyny, in which men have multiple wives
 plural marriage, a form of polygyny associated with the Latter Day Saint
movement in the 19th-century and with present-day splinter groups from that
faith. It is also associated with an evangelical splinter group which advocates
Christian Plural Marriage
  relationship anarchy, in which participants are not bound by set rules
 swinging, similar to open relationships, but commonly conducted as an organized
social activity

Open marriage typically refers to a marriage in which the partners agree that each may
engage in extramarital sexual relationships, without this being regarded as infidelity. There
are many different styles of open marriage (such as swinging and polyamory), each with the
partners having varying levels of input on their spouse's activities.

History of the term

The origins of the term remain obscure. Researchers in the 1960s used the term "open
marriage" to describe individual freedom in choosing marriage partners.[1][2] A "closed
marriage" said individuals had to marry someone based on social conventions and
proscriptions; "open marriage" meant individuals could choose to marry someone based on
personal preferences.[citation needed]

Nena O'Neill and George O'Neill changed the meaning of the term with the 1972 publication
of their book Open Marriage, which sold over 1.5 million copies. The O'Neills conceived
open marriage as one in which each partner has room for personal growth and can develop
outside friendships. Most chapters in the book dealt with non-controversial approaches to
revitalizing marriage in areas of trust, role flexibility, communication, identity, and equality.
Chapter 16, entitled "Love Without Jealousy", devoted 20 pages to the proposition that an
open marriage could include some forms of sexuality with other partners. These concepts
entered the cultural consciousness and the term "open marriage" became a synonym for
sexually non-monogamous marriage—much to the regret of the O'Neills.

In her 1977 book, The Marriage Premise, Nena O'Neill advocated sexual fidelity in the
chapter with that same name. That year, she told the New York Times, "The whole area of
extramarital sex is touchy. I don't think we ever saw it as a concept for the majority, and
certainly it has not proved to be."[3] However, by then, the use of the term "open marriage" to
mean sexually non-monogamous marriage was in widespread use.

George O'Neill died in 1980; Nena died in 2006.[4]

Today, with many committed couples not seeking formal marriage, the term is frequently
generalized to "open relationship" or "responsible non-monogamy".[citation needed]

Relationship maintenance

Main article: Open marriage relationship

The impact of open marriage on relationships varies across couples. Some couples report high
levels of marital satisfaction and have long-lasting open marriages.[citation needed] Other couples
drop out of the open marriage lifestyle and return to sexual monogamy. These couples may
continue to believe open marriage is a valid way of life, just not for them. Still, other couples
experience serious problems and claim open marriage contributed to their divorces. [citation needed]

Ground rules
Couples involved in open marriages or relationships typically adopt a set of ground rules to
guide their activities.[citation needed] Ground rules in relationships allow partners to coordinate their
behaviors, so they achieve shared goals with fewer conflicts. Some ground rules are universal
in the sense that they apply to virtually all relationships in a particular culture. Other ground
rules apply to particular kinds of relationships, such as friendships or marriages. Still other
ground rules are designed to manage romantic rivalry and jealousy. The ground rules adopted
by sexually monogamous couples tend to prevent behaviors that are viewed as acts of
infidelity. The ground rules adopted by sexually open couples tend to prohibit behaviors that
provoke jealousy or sexual health concerns. Partners may change the ground rules of their
relationships over time. One example of a changing ground rule includes where a married
couple decides to separate. Without divorcing, they are still legally married. However, they
may choose to continue cohabitation.[citation needed]

Open marriage styles

Main article: Open marriage styles

Couples in open marriages may prefer different kinds of extramarital relationships. Couples
who prefer extramarital relationships emphasizing love and emotional involvement have a
polyamorous style of open marriage. Couples who prefer extramarital relationships
emphasizing sexual gratification and recreational friendships have a Swinging style of open
marriage. These distinctions may depend on psychological factors such as sociosexuality and
may contribute to the formation of separate Polyamory and Swinging communities. Despite
their distinctions, however, all open marriages share common issues: the lack of social
acceptance, the need to maintain the health of their relationship and avoid neglect, and the
need to manage jealous rivalry.

Many open couples maintain rules forbidding emotional attachment, extramarital children,
extramarital sex in the marital bed, extramarital sex with those known to both partners, or
extramarital sex requiring use of barrier contraception.[citation needed]

Some open marriages are one-sided. Some situations giving rise to this are where the libidos
of partners differ greatly, or illness renders one partner incapable of, or no longer desiring,
sex. The couple may remain together while one partner seeks out sexual gratification as
he/she sees fit. The difference between these situations and a cheating situation is that both
partners in the marriage are aware of, and agree to the arrangement.[citation needed]

Jealousy issues

Main article: Open marriage jealousy

Couples in open marriage may expose themselves to situations that could provoke jealousy.
Most couples in open marriages report experiencing jealousy at some point during their
marriage.[citation needed] Ground rules are one way to help manage jealousy in open relationships.
However, ground rules may not be sufficient.[citation needed] Couples in open marriages may
benefit from a general understanding of jealousy and how to cope with it.[citation needed]

Open marriage acceptance

Main article: Open marriage acceptance

Surveys show large majorities of people disapprove of extramarital sexual activity.[citation needed]
A few studies show people specifically disapprove of open marriages.[citation needed] Critics have
put forward moral, medical, and psychological objections to open marriages.[citation needed] The
lack of social acceptance places pressure on couples to hide their open marriages from family,
friends, and colleagues. This may limit their social support network.[citation needed]

Many of those disapproving with open marriage speak up against it because of "religious and
moral reasons" making these groups differ from those agreeing.[5] Those that have admitted to
an open marriage or any "informal arrangement", "probably is 4% to 9% in U.S. adults".[6]
The term of open marriage isn't really something just "invented". Now we are starting to see a
different form of monogamy that is "open to variety of lovers" and shares "feelings", "needs",
and "desires".[7] This sexual practice isn't new, we have been seeing these styles of openness
in the 1960 through the 70s with the sexual openness of "swingers".

Legal issues

The practice of extramarital sex is often illegal in jurisdictions where adultery is illegal,
regardless of whether the partner(s) has given their consent.[citation needed] Open marriage is not
the same thing as polygamy, where sexual relationships are not necessarily contemplated, but
rather one can have more than one simultaneous spouse, which is said to protect individual
and marital property rights.[citation needed]

Incidence of open marriage

Main article: Open marriage incidence

The incidence of open marriage is the frequency with which open marriage occurs. Several
definitional issues complicate attempts to determine the incidence of open marriage. People
sometimes claim to have open marriages when their spouses would not agree. Couples may
agree to allow extramarital sex but never actually engage in extramarital sex. Some
researchers define open marriages in narrow terms. Despite these difficulties, researchers have
estimated that between 1.7 percent and 6 percent of married people are involved in open
marriages.[citation needed] The incidence of open marriage has remained relatively stable over the
last two generations.[citation needed]

Bigamy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Bigotry.

Elkanah and his two wives

In cultures that practice marital monogamy, bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with
one person while still legally married to another.[1] Bigamy is a crime in most western
countries, and when it occurs in this context often neither the first nor second spouse is aware
of the other.[2][3] In countries that have bigamy laws, consent from a prior spouse makes no
difference to the legality of the second marriage, which is usually considered void.
Contents

 1 History of anti-bigamy laws

 2 Legal situation
o 2.1 By country
 3 References

History of anti-bigamy laws

Before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, Diocletian and
Maximilian passed strict anti-polygamy laws in 285 AD that mandated monogamy as the only
form of legal marital relationship, as had traditionally been the case in classical Greece and
Rome.[citation needed] In 393, the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I issued an imperial edict to
extend the ban on polygamy to Jewish communities. In 1000, Rabbi Gershom ben Judah ruled
polygamy inadmissible within Ashkenazi Jewish communities, living in a Christian
environment.

According to feminist historian Sarah McDougall, the Christian European insistence on

monogamy and its enforcement arose as a consequence of 16th Century Islamic incursions
into Central Europe and the advent of European colonialism within the Americas, Africa and
Asia, which exposed European Christians to cultures that practised polygamy. As a
consequence, nominal Christian male bigamists were subjected to unprecedented harsh
punishments, such as execution, galley servitude, exile, and prolonged imprisonment.
McDougall argues that female bigamists were not as harshly punished due to women's
perceived absence of moral agency.[4]

Legal situation

Main article: Legal status of polygamy

Most western countries do not recognize polygamous marriages, and consider bigamy a
crime. Several countries also prohibit people from living a polygamous lifestyle. This is the
case in some states of the United States where the criminalization of a polygamous lifestyle
originated as anti-Mormon laws, although they are rarely enforced.[5]

In diplomatic law, consular spouses from polygamous countries are sometimes exempt from a
general prohibition on polygamy in host countries. In some such countries, only one spouse of
a polygamous diplomat may be accredited, however.[6]

By country

 Australia: Illegal. Up to 5 years imprisonment.[7]

 Belgium: Illegal. 5 to 10 years imprisonment.[8]
 Brazil: Illegal. 2 to 6 years imprisonment.[9]
 Canada: Illegal under the Criminal Code, sect 290.[10]
 China: Illegal. Up to 2 years of imprisonment, and up to 3 years for bigamy with
soldiers. (but tolerated for some minorities, such as Tibetans, in some rural areas in the
South West) .
 Hong Kong, China: Illegal. Up to 7 years of imprisonment.
 Colombia Illegal with exceptions (such as religion). Although bigamy no longer exists
as a lone figure in the Colombian judicial code marrying someone new without
dissolving an earlier marriage may yield to other felonies such as civil status forgery
or suppression of information.[11]
 Egypt: Legal if first wife consents
 Eritrea: Illegal. Up to 5 years imprisonment.
 All the 27 countries of the European Union (see special note for the United Kingdom):
Illegal.
 Iceland: Illegal according to the Icelandic Act on Marriage No. 31/1993, Art. 11.[12]
 Ghana: Illegal. Up to six months imprisonment.
 Republic of Ireland: Bigamy is a statutory offence. It is committed by a person who,
being married to another person, goes through a ceremony capable of producing a
valid marriage with a third person. The offence is created by section 57 of the
Offences against the Person Act 1861.[13] This section replaces section 26 of the Act 10
Geo. 4 c. 34 for the Republic of Ireland.[14]
 Israel: Illegal. Up to 5 years imprisonment.[15]
 Iran: Legal with consent of first wife, rarely practiced.
 India: Legal only for Muslims but very rarely practiced. Up to 10 years of
imprisonment for others but sill practiced in some communities.
 Italy: Illegal. Offenders can be sentenced from one up to five years imprisonment.
 Libya: Legal with conditions.
 Malaysia: Illegal for non-Muslims under federal jurisdiction. Under section 494 of
Chapter XX of the Penal Code, non-Muslim offenders found guilty of bigamy or
polygamy shall be punished up to 7 years of imprisonment. Bigamy or polygamy is
legal only for Muslims with restrictions under state jurisdiction, rarely practiced. [16]
 Maldives: Permitted for anyone.
 Malta: Illegal under the Marriage Act of 1975, section 6.
 Netherlands: Illegal. Up to 6 years imprisonment. If the new partner is aware of the
bigamy he or she can be imprisoned for a maximum of 4 years.
 New Zealand: Illegal under section 205 of the Crimes Act 1961. Up to 7 years
imprisonment, or up to 2 years imprisonment if the judge is satisfied the second
spouse was aware their marriage would be void.
 Morocco: Permitted for Muslims, restrictions apply.
 Pakistan: Polygamy in Pakistan is permitted with restrictions.
 Philippines: Legal for Muslims. Others face six to twelve years imprisonment and
legal dissolution of marriage.
 Romania: Illegal under section 273 of the Civil Code.
 Saudi Arabia: Bigamy or Polygamy is legal.
 South Africa: Legal under the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, 1998 for
customary marriages. Under civil law marriages (regulated by the Marriage Act), any
marriage in addition to an already existing one is invalid (but not criminalized).
 Somalia: Polygamy is legal at marriage courts; long-standing tradition.
 Thailand: Prior to October 1, 1935, polygamy in Thailand could be freely practiced
and recognised under civil law. Since its abolition, it is still practiced and widely
accepted in Thailand, though no longer recognised, as the law states "A man or a
woman cannot marry each other while one of them has a spouse."
 Tunisia: Illegal. Up to 5 years imprisonment
 Turkey: Illegal. Up to 5 years imprisonment
 United Kingdom: Illegal, although marriages performed abroad may be recognised for
some legal purposes (see Polygamy in the United Kingdom).
 In the United Kingdom a person guilty of bigamy is liable, on conviction on
indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years,[17] or on summary
conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not
exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both.[18]

 United States: Illegal in every state. Penalty up to 5 years. (but see Polygamy in North
America)
 Uzbekistan: Illegal.

Group marriage (a form of polyamory) is a marriage-like arrangement between more than

two people. Usually consisting of three to seven adults, all partners live together, share
finances, children, and household responsibilities.

Classification

Depending on the sexual orientation and activity of the members, all adults in the family may
be sexual partners. For instance, if all members are heterosexual, all the women may have
sexual relationships with all the men. If the members are bisexual, they may have sexual
relationships with the women as well as the men.

Group marriage implies a strong commitment to be faithful - by only having sex within the
group and staying together long term. Family members may be open to taking on new
partners, but only if all members of the family agree to accept the new person as a partner.
The new person then moves into the household and becomes an equal member of the family.

Currently,[when?] the most common form of group marriage is a triad of two women and one
man, or two men and one woman.[1] However, there have recently been a number of
polyfidelitous families formed by two heterosexual couples who become a four-some and live
together as a family.

Line marriage is a form of group marriage found in fiction in which the family unit
continues to add new spouses of both sexes over time so that the marriage does not end.[2]

Legal aspects

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (September 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template
message)
See also: Legal status of polygamy

"Group marriage" can more informally describe a polyamorous relationship ("… our little
group marriage") when no claim to being married in formal legal terms is made.

In most countries, it is legal for three or more people to form and share a sexual relationship
(subject sometimes to laws against homosexuality). However, no Western countries permit
marriage among more than two people. Nor do they give strong and equal legal protection
(e.g., of rights relating to children) to non-married partners – the legal regime is not
comparable to that applied to married couples. Individuals involved in polyamorous
relationships are considered by the law to be no different from people who live together, or
"date", under other circumstances.

For a map with the legal status of group marriage in a particular country see Legal status of
polygamy.

Non-European cultures

 Among the Ancient Hawaiians, the relationship of punalua involved "the fact that two
or more brothers with their wives, or two or more sisters with their husbands, were
inclined to possess each other in common".[3]
 In some parts of Melanesia, there are "sexual relations between a group of men formed
by the husband's brothers and a group of women formed by the wife's sisters".[4]
 Friedrich Ratzel in The History of Mankind reported in 1896 that in Hawaii a kind of
incipient polyandry arose by the addition to the marriage establishment of a cicisbeo,
known as Punalua.[5]
 Women of Nair community, a caste in Kerala, India used to practice polyandry.[6]
 Toda people, who live on the isolated Nilgiri plateau of Southern India practiced
adelphic polyandry for centuries, but no longer do so. Adelphic polyandry occurs
when brothers share the same wife or wives. Such arrangements have been common in
Himalayan tribes until recently.[7]

The following instances are cited in Thomas 1906.[8]

 In North America there is "group marriage as existing among the Omahas … adelphic
polygyny."
 Among the Dieri of Australia exist forms of spouse-sharing known as pirrauru, in two
categories "according as the man has or has not a tippa-malku wife. In the first case it
is, taken in combination with the tippa-malku marriage, a case of bilateral dissimilar
adelphic (M. and F.) polygamy. In the latter case it is dissimilar adelphic (tribal)
polyandry". The pirrauru "relation arises through the exchange by brothers of their
wives".
 Among the Kurnandaburi of Australia, "a group of men who are own or tribal brothers
are united … in group marriage".
 Among the Wakelbura of Australia, there is "adelphic polyandry."
 Among the Kurnai of Australia, "unmarried men have access to their brothers' wives."

In modern U.S. practices

Group marriage occasionally occurred in communal societies founded in the 19th and 20th
centuries.

An exceptionally long-lived example was the Oneida Community founded by John Humphrey
Noyes in 1848. Noyes taught that he and his followers, which reached 200 in number, had
undergone sanctification; that is, it was impossible for them to sin, and that for the sanctified,
marriage (along with private property) was abolished as an expression of jealousy and
exclusiveness. The Oneida commune lived together as a single large group and shared
parental responsibilities. Any given male-female combination in the group was free to have
sex, usually upon the man's asking the woman, and this was the common practice for many
years. In effect it functioned as a large group marriage until about 1879-1881. Nor did the
Oneida Community self-destruct as happens with many communes. Noyes heard a New York
warrant was out for his arrest, perhaps for adultery, though apparently not for anyone else in
the group, and he fled to Canada, not many miles away. He lived there the rest of his life.
After some period without his leadership and acting at Noyes' suggestion, the group
disbanded. Several dozen pairs of them quickly married in traditional fashion after
disbanding. They and others nearby then created the Oneida Silver company that for many
decades was a famous US company name in flatware and related items.

The Kerista Commune practiced group marriage in San Francisco from 1971 to 1991.

It is difficult to estimate the number of people who actually practice group marriage in
modern societies, as this form of marriage is not officially recognized or permitted in any
jurisdiction in the U.S., and de jure illegal in many. It is also not always visible when people
sharing a residence consider themselves privately as a group marriage.

Portrayal in science fiction and popular culture

This article contains embedded lists that may be better presented using prose. You
can help by converting the list or lists to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available.
(September 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Interest in, and practice of, nonmonogamy is well known in modern science fiction fandom .
[citation needed]
Group marriage has been a theme in a number of works of science fiction —
especially the later novels of Robert A. Heinlein, such as Stranger in a Strange Land, Friday,
Time Enough for Love, and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Stranger in a Strange Land
describes a communal group much like the Oneida Society. A domestic partnership consisting
of four people who are all married to each other features in Vonda N. McIntyre's Starfarers
series.

 The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress describes line families in detail. The characters argue
that the line family creates economic continuity and parental stability in an
unpredictable, dangerous environment. Manuel's line marriage is said to be over 100
years old. The family is portrayed as economically comfortable because improvements
and investments made by previous spouses compounded, rather than being lost
between generations. Heinlein also makes it a point that this family is racially diverse.
A passing reference to Heinlein's marriage forms is made in David Brin's Infinity's
Shore, where a sapient bottlenose dolphin crewmember is noted as belonging to a "line
marriage, one of the Heinlein forms."
 Group marriages of three partners (called triples) are described as commonplace in the
1966 novel Babel-17 by Samuel R. Delany. The novel's protagonist, a female starship
captain Rydra Wong, once lived in a triple, until one member died and another was put
in stasis for an incurable illness. Other crew members, especially those who worked in
close three-person teams, are noted for this type of relationship.
 Group marriage is advocated in Robert Rimmer's 1968 novel Proposition 31, the story
of two middle-class, suburban California couples who turn to a polyamorous
relationship to deal with their multiple infidelities as an alternative to divorce. The
novel is written as a case study by a psychologist supporting a fictional ballot initiative
"Proposition 31" that would amend the California Constitution to permit polyamory
relationships. In the book, the solution to the couples' problems with adultery and the
impregnation of one of the couple's wives by the other couple's husband is to commit
 to a group marriage to raise their five children in a home compound in which the
husbands rotate among the wives. The book is a plea to pass this proposed proposition
to offer an alternative to divorce.
 Line marriage is also commonly practiced in Joe Haldeman's 1981 novel Worlds.
Haldeman describes how individual families joined forces to avoid inheritance taxes.
 Group marriage is a central plot element in Donald Kingsbury's 1982 novel Courtship
Rite. A six-partner group marriage (three male, three female) is considered the ideal
norm in the alien society described in the novel; the main characters are in a five-
partner group marriage, and much of the dramatic tension hinges on there being more
than one candidate for the sixth position.
 Group marriage is briefly addressed in the 1989 Star Trek novel Star Trek: The Lost
Years, by J.M. Dillard. A minor character, Lt. Nguyen, enters into a group marriage,
and this is portrayed as a relatively normal occurrence. Additionally, in Star Trek:
Enterprise, the alien Dr. Phlox comes from a world where such relationships are the
norm.
 William H. Keith, Jr., under his pseudonym Ian Douglas, describes line marriages as
the norm, with large family clans extending through many generations, in his Heritage
Trilogy, and its two sequels Legacy Trilogy and Inheritance Trilogy. These three
trilogies are about the US Marine Corps battling aliens over a period of a thousand
years.
 In the television series Caprica, the character Sister Clarice is a participant in a group
marriage.
 Several short stories by Ursula K. Le Guin take place on the planet O, where a four-
person marriage, called a sedoretu, is common. The sedoretu consists of both a man
and a woman from each of two moieties; since it considered incest to have sex with
someone of the same moiety, each participant in the marriage has a sexual relationship
with only two out of the three other participants.
 Science fiction writer Poul Anderson, in his novel Three Worlds to Conquer, depicts
an alien species (on Jupiter) for whom a kind of group marriage is a fundamental
biological imperative. A female of that species can only conceive by mating with two
different males within a few hours of each other; thus, every individual has a mother
and two fathers, and every family is composed of a female and two males.
 In the The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan, the main protagonist (Rand al'Thor)
ends up becoming involved with three women; one of whom is an Aiel, where such
relationships are accepted. Also, among the Green Ajah of the Aes Sedai, it is
common for a Sister to have two or more, usually up to four, Warders.
 In Isaac Asimov's novel The Gods Themselves, the other-dimensional beings enter into
a three-way relationship between Rationals ("lefts"), Emotionals ("mids"), and
Parentals ("rights"). This comes out of their nature, rather than out of any social
construct; without such a three-way pairing, they do not reproduce.

Polygynandry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polygynandry is a reproductive strategy that occurs when two or more males have an
exclusive sexual relationship with two or more females. The numbers of males and females
need not be equal. In vertebrate species studied so far, the number of males usually is lower
than the number of females in their breeding groups. Some animals follow this behavior
regularly, others resort to it in uncharacteristic circumstances.
Polygynandrous groups often will contain related males. The advantage of this form of sexual
behavior is greater genetic diversity, less need for males to compete with each other, and
greater protection for, and nurturing of, the young.[1]

Polygynandry also may occur in mating systems that typically are polygynous, when a
population becomes too large for males to maintain exclusive harems successfully.[2]

Species

Bicknell thrush

The Bicknell thrush is known to be a bird species that practices polygynandry.[3] As many as
four males may attend one female and her offspring. The strategy is considered a distinct
advantage for the welfare of the young birds of this species, who receive nutritious meals
from attentive males who have mated with their mothers. They raise their young on sub-alpine
mountaintops in New England and eastern Canada and winter in the Dominican Republic,
Haiti, and a small portion on the Island of Cuba. The New England habitats are threatened
with rising temperatures via global warming and their typical winter habitats are suffering
deforestation.

Dunnock

The dunnock is known for multiple mating systems, including monogamy, polyandry,
polygyny, and polygynandry. In monogamy and polygynandry, neither sex is able to have an
advantage over the other in terms of reproductive success.

Sexual addiction, also known as sex addiction, is a state characterized by compulsive

participation or engagement in sexual activity, particularly sexual intercourse, despite
negative consequences.[5] Proponents of a diagnostic model for sexual addiction, as defined
here, consider it to be one of several sex-related disorders within an umbrella concept known
as hypersexual disorder.[6] In clinical diagnostics, the term sexual dependence may also refer
to a conceptual model that is used to assess people who report being unable to control their
sexual urges, behaviors, or thoughts. Related models of pathological sexual behavior include
hypersexuality, erotomania, nymphomania, satyriasis, Don Juanism (or Don Juanitaism), and
paraphilia-related disorders.[7][8][9]

Clinicians, such as psychiatrists, sociologists, sexologists, and other specialists, have differing
opinions on the classification and clinical diagnosis of sexual addiction. As a result, "sexual
addiction" does not exist as a clinical entity in either the DSM or ICD medical classifications
of diseases and medical disorders.

Neuroscientists, pharmacologists, molecular biologists, and other researchers in related fields

have identified a transcriptional and epigenetic model of drug and behavioral (including
sexual) addiction pathophysiology. Diagnostic models, which use the pharmacological model
of addiction (this model associates addiction with drug-related concepts, particularly physical
dependence, drug withdrawal, and drug tolerance[10]), do not currently include diagnostic
criteria to identify sexual addictions in a clinical setting. In the alternative reward-
reinforcement model of addiction, which uses neuropsychological concepts to characterize
addictions, sexual addictions are identifiable and well-characterized.[11][12] In this model,
addictive drugs are characterized as those which are both reinforcing and rewarding (i.e.,
activates neural pathways associated with reward perception).[10] Addictive behaviors (those
which can induce a compulsive state) are similarly identified and characterized by their
rewarding and reinforcing properties.

Mechanisms

Current research on sexual addiction within the context of the reward-reinforcement model
indicates that it is well-characterized as an addiction[11][12] and that it develops through the
same biomolecular mechanisms that induce drug addictions.[11][13] Specifically, sexual activity
is an intrinsic reward that has been shown to act as a positive reinforcer, strongly activate the
reward system, and induce the accumulation of ΔFosB in part of the striatum (specifically, the
nucleus accumbens).[11][12][13] Chronic and excessive activation of certain pathways within the
reward system and the accumulation of ΔFosB in a specific group of neurons within the
nucleus accumbens has been directly implicated in the development of the compulsive
behavior that characterizes addiction.[12][14][15][16]

In humans, a dopamine dysregulation syndrome, characterized by drug-induced compulsive

engagement in sexual activity or gambling, has also been observed in some individuals taking
dopaminergic medications.[11] Current experimental models of addiction to natural rewards
and drug reward demonstrate common alterations in gene expression in the mesocorticolimbic
projection.[11][17] ΔFosB is the most significant gene transcription factor involved in addiction,
since its viral or genetic overexpression in the nucleus accumbens is necessary and sufficient
for most of the neural adaptations and plasticity that occur;[17] it has been implicated in
addictions to alcohol, cannabinoids, cocaine, nicotine, opioids, phenylcyclidine, and
substituted amphetamines.[11][17][18] ΔJunD is the transcription factor which directly opposes
ΔFosB.[17] Increases in nucleus accumbens ΔJunD expression can reduce or, with a large
increase, even block most of the neural alterations seen in chronic drug abuse (i.e., the
alterations mediated by ΔFosB).[17]

ΔFosB also plays an important role in regulating behavioral responses to natural rewards,
such as palatable food, sex, and exercise.[12][17] Natural rewards, like drugs of abuse, induce
ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens, and chronic acquisition of these rewards can result in a
similar pathological addictive state.[11][12] Thus, ΔFosB is also the key transcription factor
involved in addictions to natural rewards as well,[11][13] and sex addictions in particular, since
ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens is critical for the reinforcing effects of sexual reward. [12]
Research on the interaction between natural and drug rewards suggests that psychostimulants
and sexual reward possess cross-sensitization effects and act on common biomolecular
mechanisms of addiction-related neuroplasticity which are mediated through ΔFosB.[11][13]

Diagnosis

DSM

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) publishes and periodically updates the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a widely recognized
compendium of mental health diagnostics.[10]

The version published in 1987 (DSM-III-R), referred to "distress about a pattern of repeated
sexual conquests or other forms of nonparaphilic sexual addiction, involving a succession of
people who exist only as things to be used."[19] The reference to sexual addiction was
subsequently removed.[20] The DSM-IV-TR, published in 2000 (DSM-IV-TR), did not include
sexual addiction as a mental disorder.[21] The DSM-IV-TR included a miscellaneous diagnosis
called sexual disorders not otherwise specified, stating: "distress about a pattern of repeated
sexual relationships involving a succession of lovers who are experienced by the individual
only as things to be used." (Other examples include: compulsive fixation on an unattainable
partner, compulsive masturbation, compulsive love relationships, and compulsive sexuality in
a relationship.)[21]

Some authors suggested that sexual addiction should be re-introduced into the DSM system;
[22]
however, sexual addiction was rejected for inclusion in the DSM-5, which was published
in 2013.[23] Darrel Regier, vice-chair of the DSM-5 task force, said that "[A]lthough
'hypersexuality' is a proposed new addition...[the phenomenon] was not at the point where we
were ready to call it an addiction." The proposed diagnosis does not make the cut as an
official diagnosis due to a lack of research into diagnostic criteria for compulsive sexual
behavior, according to the APA.[24][25]

Borderline personality disorder

Main article: Borderline personality disorder

The APA uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to define and
classify mental illnesses and in the DSM-IV version of the document, it lists borderline
personality disorder (BPD) as an Axis II – Cluster B personality disorder with the code
301.83. The DSM-5 dropped the multiaxial system, but BPD still retains the same numerical
code of 301.83.[24] The World Health Organization (WHO) produces the International
Classification of Diseases (ICD) and lists BPD under the name "Emotionally unstable
personality disorder". The latest version of the document (ICD-10) lists the disorder in
Chapter X which is reserved for "Disorders of adult personality and behaviour" and has the
code F60.3.[26] The Chinese Society of Psychiatry uses the Chinese Classification of Mental
Disorders (CCMD), which is in its third edition (CCMD-3) and has a diagnosis of
"Nonorganic sexual dysfunction" (numerical code 52.9), of which sexual promiscuity may be
a symptom. Personality disorders, Habit and impulse disorders, Psychosexual disorders in
the CCMD-3 fall in Chapter 6 and under code 6.60 are listed the personality disorders. The
CCMD-3 lists "impulsive personality disorder" (numerical code 60.4),[27] which is equivalent
to what the DSM refers to as "borderline personality disorder" and what the ICD-10 refers to
as "emotionally unstable personality disorder". All three classification manuals and
documents list sexual promiscuity as a prevalent and problematic symptom for patients with
this particular pathology. Hypersexuality along with high-risk sexual behaviour, seductive
behaviour, and promiscuity are an often due to the marked impulsivity common to this group
of patients. Individuals with borderline personality disorder (emotionally unstable personality
disorder or impulsive personality disorder) not only are prone to promiscuity, but in many
cases, co-morbid paraphilias and fetishistic behaviour are commonly associated with their
sexual behaviours. Common paraphilic compulsions among individuals with this diagnosis
include urolagnia ("golden showers"), sadomasochism, voyeurism, autassassinophilia,
partialism, and in some cases paraphilic drives may be more extreme and dangerous – such as
erotophonophilia, necrophilia, biastophilia, pedophilia, and anthropophagy. Both males and
females with this personality disorder often have a strong desire and compulsion to get
involved in illicit sex, affairs, and relationships with married or otherwise pre-attached
individuals. Consequently, individuals with borderline personality disorder often experience
love and sexuality in perverse and violent qualities which they cannot integrate with the
tender, intimate side of relationships.[28][29]

ICD

The World Health Organization produces the International Classification of Diseases (ICD),
which is not limited to mental disorders. The most recent version of that document, ICD-10,
includes "excessive sexual drive" as a diagnosis (code F52.8), subdividing it into satyriasis
(for males) and nymphomania (for females).[30]

CCMD

The Chinese Society of Psychiatry produces the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders
(CCMD), which is currently in its third edition – the CCMD-3 and Chapter 5 of the document
lists "Physiological disorders related to psychological factors" and under code 52 are
disorders that are "Nonorganic sexual dysfuction," and within that category are listed a
number of disorders, one of which is "other or unspecified sexual dysfunction" (numerical
code 52.9).[31] This is roughly equivalent to the ICD-10 diagnosis of "other sexual dysfunction
not due to a substance or known physiological condition" (specifier excessive sexual drive)
(F52.8) and "unspecified sexual dysfunction not due to a substance or known physiological
condition" (F52.9).[32]

Diagnostic criteria

Several mental health providers have proposed various, but similar, criteria for diagnosing
sexual addiction, including Patrick Carnes,[33] and Aviel Goodman.[34] Dr. Carnes authored the
first clinical book about sex addiction in 1983 based on his own empirical research. His
diagnostic model is still largely utilized by the thousands of certified sex addiction therapists
(CSATs) trained by the organization he founded.[35] No diagnostic proposal for sex addiction
has been adopted into any official government diagnostic manual, however.

During the update of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual to version 5 (DSM-5), the APA
rejected two independent proposals for inclusion.[citation needed]

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) of the WHO, however, does include an
entry for "excessive sexual drive."[36] and another entry – applying to children and
adolescants – "excessive masturbation"[37]

In 2011, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), the largest medical consensus
of physicians dedicated to treating and preventing addiction,[38] redefined addiction as a
chronic brain disorder[39] which for the first time broadened the definition of addiction from
substances to include addictive behaviors and reward-seeking, such as gambling and sex.[40]

Treatment

This section needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily
on primary sources. Please review the contents of the section and add the
appropriate references if you can. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be
challenged and removed. (June 2015)
Behavioral therapy

Cognitive behavioral therapy is a common form of behavioral treatment for addictions and
maladaptive behaviors in general.[medical citation needed] Dialectical behavior therapy has been shown
to improve treatment outcomes as well. Certified Sex Addiction Therapists (CSAT) – a group
of sexual addiction therapists certified by the International Institute for Trauma and Addiction
Professionals – offer specialized behavioral therapy designed specifically for sexual addiction.
[35][41]
However, this group is controversial including training that pathologizes other common
sexual behaviors and is known to viciously threaten those who attempt any dialogue around
their failure to use treatments supported by science.

There currently is no empirically-supported treatment (randomized controlled clinical trial)

for this problem, but many therapists continue to charge to provide untested treatments.

Twelve-step programs

Involvement in twelve-step programs for sex addiction can also serve as an adjunct therapy to
supplement clinical treatment. Self-help groups exist in most of the developed world. Such
programs include Sexaholics Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous, Sex and Love Addicts
Anonymous, Celebrate Recovery, and others.

Medications

See also: Behavioral addiction § Treatment

This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (September 2016)

Epidemiology

According to a systematic review from 2014, prevalence rates of sexual addiction and related
sexual disorders ranges from 3% to 6%.[6]

History

Sex addiction as a term first emerged in the mid-1970s when various members of Alcoholics
Anonymous sought to apply the principles of 12-steps toward sexual recovery from serial
infidelity and other unmanageable compulsive sex behaviors that were similar to the
powerlessness and un-manageability they experienced with alcoholism.[42] Multiple 12-step
style self-help groups now exist for people who identify as sex addicts, including Sex Addicts
Anonymous, Sexaholics Anonymous, Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous, and Sexual
Compulsives Anonymous.

Society and culture

Controversy

The controversy surrounding sexual addiction is centered around its identification, through a
diagnostic model, in a clinical setting. As noted in current medical literature reviews,
compulsive sexual behavior has been observed in humans;[11][12] drug-induced compulsive
sexual behavior has also been noted clinically in some individuals taking dopaminergic drugs.
[11]
Moreover, current medical research involving neuropsychological models has identified
sexual addictions (i.e., the compulsive engagement in sexual behavior despite negative
consequences) as a true form of addiction (i.e., it possesses all the necessary characteristics to
classify it as one) in animal models.[11][12] Since current diagnostic models use drug-related
concepts as diagnostic criteria for addictions,[10] these are ill-suited for modelling compulsive
behaviors in a clinical setting.[11] Consequently, diagnostic classification systems, such as the
DSM, do not include sexual addiction as a diagnosis because there is currently "insufficient
peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to
identify these behaviors as mental disorders".[24] A 2014 systematic review on sexual
addiction indicated that the "lack of empirical evidence on sexual addiction is the result of the
disease's complete absence from versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders."[6]

There have been debates regarding the definition and existence of sexual addictions for
decades, as the issue was covered in a 1994 journal article.[43][44] According to a 2014
systematic review, sexual addiction (including excessive masturbation and pornography
addiction) is a diagnosable behavioral addiction with estimable prevalence rates.[6] The Mayo
Clinic considers sexual addiction to be a form of obsessive compulsive disorder and refer to it
as sexual compulsivity (note that by definition, an addiction is a compulsion toward rewarding
stimuli).[45] A paper dating back to 1988 and a journal comment letter published in 2006
asserted that sex addiction is itself a myth, a by-product of cultural and other influences. [46][47]
The 1988 paper argued that the condition is instead a way of projecting social stigma onto
patients.[46]

In a non-academic opinion report from 2003, Marty Klein, stated that "the concept of sex
addiction provides an excellent example of a model that is both sex-negative and politically
disastrous."[48]:8 Klein singled out a number of features that he considered crucial limitations
of the sex addiction model[48]:8 and stated that the diagnostic criteria for sexual addiction are
easy to find on the internet.[48]:9 Drawing on the Sexual Addiction Screening Test, he stated
that "the sexual addiction diagnostic criteria make problems of nonproblematic experiences,
and as a result pathologize a majority of people."[48]:10

Popular culture

See also: Category:Sexual addiction in fiction

Sexual addiction has been the main theme in films such as 2001 film Diary of a Sex Addict,
2005 film I Am a Sex Addict, 2006 film Black Snake Moan, 2008 film Confessions of a Porn
Addict, 2011 film Shame, 2012 film Thanks for Sharing, and others.

Sperm competition is a term used to refer to the competitive process between spermatozoa of
two or more different males to fertilize the same egg[1] during sexual reproduction.
Competition can occur when females have multiple potential mating partners. Greater choice
and variety of mates increases a female's chance to produce more viable offspring.[2]
However, multiple mates for a female means an individual male has decreased chances of
producing offspring. Sperm competition is an evolutionary pressure on males, and has led to
the development of adaptations to increase males' chance of reproductive success.[3] Sperm
competition results in a sexual conflict of interest between males and females.[2] Males have
evolved several defensive tactics including: mate-guarding, mating plugs, and releasing toxic
seminal substances to reduce female re-mating tendencies to cope with sperm competition. [4]
Offensive tactics of sperm competition involve direct interference by one male on the
reproductive success of another male, for instance by physically removing another male's
sperm prior to mating with a female.[5] For an example, see Gryllus bimaculatus.

Sperm competition is often compared to having tickets in a raffle; a male has a better chance
of winning (i.e. fathering offspring) the more tickets he has (i.e. the more sperm he
inseminates a female with). However, sperm are not free to produce,[6] and as such males are
predicted to produce sperm of a size and number that will maximize their success in sperm
competition. By making many spermatozoa, males can buy more "raffle tickets", and it is
thought that selection for numerous sperm has contributed to the evolution of anisogamy with
very small sperm (because of the energy trade-off between sperm size and number).[7]
Alternatively, a male may evolve faster sperm to enable his sperm to reach and fertilize the
female's ovum first. Dozens of adaptations have been documented in males that help them
succeed in sperm competition.

Defensive adaptations

Mate-guarding is a defensive behavioral trait that occurs in response to sperm competition;

males try to prevent other males from approaching the female (and/or vice versa) thus
preventing their mate from engaging in further copulations.[2] Precopulatory and
postcopulatory mate-guarding occurs in birds, lizards, insects and primates. Mate-guarding
also exists in the fish species Neolamprologus pulcher, as some males try to "sneak" matings
with females in the territory of other males. In these instances the males guard their female by
keeping them in close enough proximity so that if an opponent male shows up in his territory
he will be able to fight off the rival male which will prevent the female from engaging in
extra-pair copulation with the rival male.[8]

Organisms with polygynous mating systems are controlled by one dominant male. In this type
of mating system, the male is able to mate with more than one female in a community. [9] The
dominant males will reign over the community until another suitor steps up and overthrows
him.[9] The current dominant male will defend his title as the dominant male and he will also
be defending the females he mates with and the offspring he sires. The elephant seal falls into
this category since he can participate in bloody violent matches in order to protect his
community and defend his title as the alpha male.[10] If the alpha male is somehow overthrown
by the new comer, his children will most likely be killed and the new alpha male will start
over with the females in the group so that his lineage can be passed on.[11]

Strategic mate-guarding occurs when the male only guards the female during her fertile
periods. This strategy can be more effective because it may allow the male to engage in both
extra-pair paternity and within-pair paternity.[12] This is also because it is energetically
efficient for the male to guard his mate at this time. There is a lot of energy that is expended
when a male is guarding his mate. For instance, in polygynous mate- guarding systems, the
energetic costs of males is defending their title as alpha male of their community. [10] Fighting
is very costly in regards to the amount of energy used to guard their mate. These bouts can
happen more than once which takes a toll on the physical well- being of the male. Another
cost of mate- guarding in this type of mating system is the potential increase of the spread of
disease.[13] If one male has an STD he can pass that to the females that he’s copulating with
potentially resulting in a depletion of the harem. This would be an energetic cost towards both
genders for the reason that instead of using the energy for reproduction, they are redirecting it
towards ridding themselves of this illness. Some females also benefit from polygyny because
extra pair copulations in females increase the genetic diversity with the community of that
species.[14] This occurs because the male is not able to watch over all of the females and some
will become promiscuous. Eventually, the male will not have the proper nutrition which
makes the male unable to produce sperm.[15] For instance, male amphipods will deplete their
reserves of glycogen and triglycerides only to have it replenished after the male is done
guarding that mate.[16] Also, if the amount of energy intake does not equal the energy
expended, then this could be potentially fatal to the male. Males may even have to travel long
distances during the breeding season in order to find a female which absolutely drain their
energy supply. Studies were conducted to compare the cost of foraging of fish that migrate
and animals that are residential. The studies concluded that fish that were residential had
fuller stomachs containing higher quality of prey compared to their migrant counterparts [17]
With all of these energy costs that go along with guarding a mate, timing is crucial so that the
male can use the minimal amount of energy. This is why it is more efficient for males to
choose a mate during their fertile periods.[12] Also, males will be more likely to guard their
mate when there is a high density of males in the proximity[2] Sometimes organisms put in all
this time and planning into courting a mate in order to copulate and she may not even be
interested. There is a risk of cuckholdry of some sort since a rival male can successfully court
the female that the male originally courting her could not do.[18]

However, there are benefits that are associated with mate- guarding. In a mating- guarding
system, both parties, male and female, are able to directly and indirectly benefit from this. For
instance, females can indirectly benefit from being protected by a mate.[19] The females can
appreciate a decrease in predation and harassment from other males while being able to
observe her male counterpart.[19] This will allow her to recognize particular traits that she finds
ideal so that she’ll be able to find another male that emulates those qualities. In polygynous
relationships, the dominant male of the community benefits because he has the best
fertilization success.[11] Communities can include 30 up to 100 females and, compared to the
other males, will greatly increase his chances of mating success.[10]

Males who have successfully courted a potential mate will attempt to keep them out of sight
of other males before copulation. One way organisms accomplish this is to move the female
to a new location. Certain butterflies, after enticing the female, will pick her up and fly her
away from the vicinity of potential males.[20] In other insects, the males will release a
pheromone in order to make their mate unattractive to other males or the pheromone masks
her scent completely.[20] Certain crickets will participate in a loud courtship until the female
accepts his gesture and then it suddenly becomes silent.[21] Some insects, prior to mating, will
assume tandem positions to their mate or position themselves in a way to prevent other males
from attempting to mate with that female.[20] The male checkerspot butterfly has developed a
clever method in order to attract and guard a mate. He will situate himself near an area that
possesses valuable resources that the female needs. He will then drive away any males that
come near and this will greatly increase his chances of copulation with any female that comes
to that area.[22]

In post- copulatory mate- guarding males are trying to prevent other males from mating with
the female that they have mated with already. For example, male millipedes in Costa Rica will
ride on the back of their mate letting the other males know that she’s taken.[23] Japanese
beetles will assume a tandem position to the female after copulation.[24] This can last up to
several hours allowing him to ward off any rival males giving his sperm a high chance to
fertilize that female’s egg. These, and other, types of methods have the male playing defense
by protecting his mate. Elephant seals are known to engage in bloody battles in order to retain
their title has dominant male so that they are able to mate with all the females in their
community.[10]

Copulatory plugs are frequently observed in insects, reptiles, some mammals, and spiders.[2]
Copulatory plugs are inserted immediately after a male copulates with a female, which reduce
the possibility of fertilization by subsequent copulations from another male, by physically
blocking the transfer of sperm.[2] The Indian mealmoth (Plodia interpunctella) are restricted in
engaging in further mating activities because the spermatacore serves as a copulatory plug
immediately after copulation.[3] Bumblebee mating plugs, in addition to providing a physical
barrier to further copulations, contain linoleic acid, which reduces re-mating tendencies of
females.[25]

Similarly, Drosophila melanogaster males release toxic seminal fluids, known as ACPs
(accessory gland proteins), from their accessory glands to impede the female from
participating in future copulations.[26] These substances act as an anti-aphrodisiac causing a
dejection of subsequent copulations, and also stimulate ovulation and oogenesis.[5] Seminal
proteins can have a strong influence on reproduction, sufficient to manipulate female behavior
and physiology.[27]

Another strategy, known as sperm partitioning, occurs when males conserve their limited
supply of sperm by reducing the quantity of sperm ejected.[2] In Drosophila, ejaculation
amount during sequential copulations is reduced; this results in half filled female sperm
reserves following a single copulatory event, but allows the male to mate with a larger
number of females without exhausting his supply of sperm.[2] To facilitate sperm partitioning,
some males have developed complex ways to store and deliver their sperm.[28] In the blue
headed wrasse, Thalassoma bifasciatum, the sperm duct is sectioned into several small
chambers that are surrounded by a muscle that allows the male to regulate how much sperm is
released in one copulatory event.[29]

A strategy common among insects is for males to participate in prolonged copulations. By

engaging in prolonged copulations a male has an increased opportunity to place more sperm
within the female's reproductive tract and prevent the female from copulating with other
males.[30]

It has been found that some male mollies (Poecilia) have developed deceptive social cues to
combat sperm competition. Focal males will direct sexual attention toward typically non-
preferred females when an audience of other males is present. This encourages the males that
are watching to attempt to mate with the non-preferred female. This is done in an attempt to
decrease mating attempts with the female that the focal male prefers, hence decreasing sperm
competition.[31]

Offensive adaptations

Offensive adaptation behavior differs from defensive behavior because it involves an attempt
to ruin the chances of another male's opportunity in succeeding in copulation by engaging in
an act that tries to terminate the fertilization success of the previous male. [5] This offensive
behavior is facilitated by the presence of certain traits, which are called armaments. [32] An
example of an armament are antlers. Further, the presence of an offensive trait sometimes
serves as a status signal. The mere display of an armament can suffice to drive away the
competition without engaging in a fight, hence saving energy.[32] A male on the offensive side
of mate-guarding may terminate the guarding male's chances at a successful insemination by
brawling with the guarding male to gain access to the female.[2] In Drosophila, males release
seminal fluids that contain additional toxins like pheromones and modified enzymes that are
secreted by their accessory glands intended to destroy the sperm that have already made their
way into the female's reproductive tract from a recent copulation.[5] Based on the "last male
precedence" idea, some males can remove sperm from previous males by ejaculating new
sperm into the female; hindering successful insemination opportunities of the previous male.
[33]

Mate choice

The "good sperm hypothesis" is very common in polyandrous mating systems.[34] The "good
sperm hypothesis" suggests that a male's genetic makeup will determine the level of his
competitiveness in sperm competition.[34] When a male has "good sperm" he is able to father
more viable offspring than males that do not have the "good sperm" genes.[34] Females may
select males that have these superior "good sperm" genes because it means that their offspring
will be more viable and will inherit the "good sperm" genes which will increase their fitness
levels when their sperm competes.[35]

Studies show that there is more to determining the competitiveness of the sperm in sperm
competition in addition to a male’s genetic makeup. A male’s dietary intake will also affect
sperm competition. An adequate diet consisting of increased amounts of diet and sometimes
more specific ratio in certain species will optimize sperm number and fertility. Amounts of
protein and carbohydrate intake were tested for its effects on sperm production and quality in
adult fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Studies showed these flies need to constantly ingest
carbohydrates and water to survive, but protein is also required to attain sexual maturity.[36] In
addition, The Mediterranean fruit fly, male diet has been shown to affect male mating success,
copula duration, sperm transfer, and male participation in leks.[37] These all require a good diet
with nutrients for proper gamete production as well as energy for activities, which includes
participation in leks.

In addition, protein and carbohydrate amounts were shown to have an effect on sperm
production and fertility in the speckled cockroach. Holidic diets were used which allowed for
specific protein and carbohydrate measurements to be taken, giving it credibility. A direct
correlation was seen in sperm number and overall of food intake. More specifically, optimal
sperm production was measured at a 1:2 protein to carbohydrate ratio. Sperm fertility was best
at a similar protein to carbohydrate ratio of 1:2. This close alignment largely factors in
determining male fertility in Nauphoeta cinerea.[38] Surprisingly, sperm viability was not
affected by any change in diet or diet ratios. It’s hypothesized that sperm viability is more
affected by the genetic makeup, like in the "good sperm hypothesis". These ratios and results
are not consistent with many other species and even conflict with some. It seems there can’t
be any conclusions on what type of diet is needed to positively influence sperm competition
but rather understand that different diets do play a role in determining sperm competition in
mate choice.

Evolutionary consequences

One evolutionary response to sperm competition is the variety in penis morphology of many
species.[39] For example, the shape of the human penis may have been selectively shaped by
sperm competition.[40] The human penis may have been selected to displace seminal fluids
implanted in the female reproductive tract by a rival male.[40] Specifically, the shape of the
coronal ridge may promote displacement of seminal fluid from a previous mating [41] via
thrusting action during sexual intercourse.[40] A 2003 study by Gordon G. Gallup and
colleagues concluded that one evolutionary purpose of the thrusting motion characteristic of
intense intercourse is for the penis to “upsuck” another man’s semen before depositing its
own.[42]

Evolution to increase ejaculate volume in the presence of sperm competition has a

consequence on testis size. Large testes can produce more sperm required for larger
ejaculates, and can be found across the animal kingdom when sperm competition occurs.[43]
Males with larger testes have been documented to achieve higher reproductive success rates
than males with smaller testes in male yellow pine chipmunks.[43] In chichlid fish, it has been
found that increased sperm competition can lead to evolved larger sperm numbers, sperm cell
sizes, and sperm swimming speeds.[44]

In some insects and spiders, for instance Nephila fenestrate, the male copulatory organ breaks
off or tears off at the end of copulation and remains within the female to serve as a copulatory
plug.[45] This broken genitalia is believed to be an evolutionary response to sperm competition.
[45]
This damage to the male genitalia means that these males can only mate once. [46]

Female choice for males with competitive sperm

Female factors can influence the result of sperm competition through a process known as
"sperm choice".[47] Proteins present in the female reproductive tract or on the surface of the
ovum may influence which sperm succeeds in fertilizing the egg.[47] During sperm choice
females are able to discriminate and differentially use the sperm from different males. One
instance where this is known to occur is inbreeding; females will preferentially use the sperm
from a more distantly related male than a close relative.[47]

Post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance

Inbreeding ordinarily has negative fitness consequences (inbreeding depression), and as a

result species have evolved mechanisms to avoid inbreeding. Inbreeding depression is
considered to be due largely to the expression of homozygous deleterious recessive mutations.
[48]
Outcrossing between unrelated individuals ordinarily leads to the masking of deleterious
recessive mutations in progeny.[49]

Numerous inbreeding avoidance mechanisms operating prior to mating have been described.
However, inbreeding avoidance mechanisms that operate subsequent to copulation are less
well known. In guppies, a post-copulatory mechanism of inbreeding avoidance occurs based
on competition between sperm of rival males for achieving fertilization.[50] In competitions
between sperm from an unrelated male and from a full sibling male, a significant bias in
paternity towards the unrelated male was observed.[50]

In vitro fertilization experiments in the mouse, provided evidence of sperm selection at the
gametic level.[51] When sperm of sibling and non-sibling males were mixed, a fertilization bias
towards the sperm of the non-sibling males was observed. The results were interpreted as egg-
driven sperm selection against related sperm.
Female fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) were mated with males of four different degrees
of genetic relatedness in competition experiments.[52] Sperm competitive ability was
negatively correlated with relatedness.

Female crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus) appear to use post-copulatory mechanisms to avoid

producing inbred offspring. When mated to both a sibling and an unrelated male, females bias
paternity towards the unrelated male.[53]

Empirical support

Scanning electron microscopic image of immature parasperm lancet (infertile sperm morph)
of Fusitriton oregonensis showing the tail brush still present, which later develops into part of
the body of the parasperm. It is produced when sperm competition occurs.

It has been found that because of female choice (see sexual selection), morphology of sperm
in many species occurs in many variations to accommodate or combat (see sexual conflict)
the morphology and physiology of the female reproductive tract.[54][55][56] However, it is
difficult to understand the interplay between female and male reproductive shape and
structure that occurs within the female reproductive tract after mating that allows for the
competition of sperm. Polyandrous females mate with many male partners.[57] Females of
many species of arthropod, mollusk and other phyla have a specialized sperm-storage organ
called the spermatheca in which the sperm of different males sometimes compete for
increased reproductive success.[55] Species of crickets, specifically Gryllus bimaculatus, are
known to exhibit polyandrous sexual selection. Males will invest more in ejaculation when
competitors are in the immediate environment of the female.

Evidence exists that illustrates the ability of genetically similar spermatozoa to cooperate so
as to ensure the survival of their counterparts thereby ensuring the implementation of their
genotypes towards fertilization. Cooperation confers a competitive advantage by several
means, some of these include incapacitation of other competing sperm and aggregation of
genetically similar spermatozoa into structures that promote effective navigation of the female
reproductive tract and hence improve fertilization ability. Such characteristics lead to
morphological adaptations that suit the purposes of cooperative methods during competition.
For example, spermatozoa possessed by the wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) possess an
apical hook which is used to attach to other spermatozoa to form mobile trains that enhance
motility through the female reproductive tract.[58] Spermatozoa that fail to incorporate
themselves into mobile trains are less likely to engage in fertilization. Other evidence suggests
no link between sperm competition and sperm hook morphology.[59]

Selection to produce more sperm can also select for the evolution of larger testes.
Relationships across species between the frequency of multiple mating by females and male
testis size are well documented across many groups of animals. For example, among primates,
female gorillas are relatively monogamous, so gorillas have smaller testes than humans,
which in turn have smaller testes than the highly promiscuous bonobos.[60] Male chimpanzees
that live in a structured multi-male, multi-female community, have large testicles to produce
more sperm, therefore giving him better odds to fertilize the female. Whereas the community
of gorillas consist of one alpha male and two or three females, when the female gorillas are
ready to mate, normally only the alpha male is their partner.
Regarding sexual dimorphism among primates, humans falls into an intermediate group with
moderate sex differences in body size but relatively large testes. This is a typical pattern of
primates where several males and females live together in a group and the male faces an
intermediate amount of challenges from other males compared to exclusive polygyny and
monogamy but frequent sperm competition.[61]

Other means of sperm competition could include improving the sperm itself or its packaging
materials (spermatophore).[62]

The male black-winged damselfly provides a striking example of an adaptation to sperm

competition. Female black-winged damselflies are known to mate with several males over the
span of only a few hours and therefore possess a receptacle known as a spermatheca which
stores the sperm. During the process of mating the male damselfly will pump his abdomen up
and down using his specially adapted penis which acts as a scrub brush to remove the sperm
of another male. This method proves quite successful and the male damselfly has been known
to remove 90-100 percent of the competing sperm.[63]

Male dunnocks (Prunella modularis) peck at the female's cloaca, removing sperm of previous
mates.

A similar strategy has been observed in the dunnock, a small bird. Before mating with the
polyandrous female, the male dunnock pecks at the female's cloaca in order to peck out the
sperm of the previous male suitor.[64]

A notion emerged in 1996 that in some species, including humans, a significant fraction of
sperm specialize in a manner such that they cannot fertilize the egg but instead have the
primary effect of stopping the sperm from other males from reaching the egg, e.g. by killing
them with enzymes or by blocking their access. This type of sperm specialization became
known popularly as "kamikaze sperm" or "killer sperm", but most follow-up studies to this
popularized notion have failed to confirm the initial papers on the matter. [65][66] While there is
also currently little evidence of killer sperm in any non-human animals[67] certain snails have
an infertile sperm morph ("parasperm") that contains lysozymes, leading to speculation that
they might be able to degrade a rivals' sperm.[68]

Sperm competition has led to other adaptations such as larger ejaculates, prolonged
copulation, deposition of a copulatory plug to prevent the female re-mating, or the application
of pheromones that reduce the female's attractiveness. The adaptation of sperm traits, such as
length, viability and velocity might be constrained by the influence of cytoplasmic DNA (e.g.
mitochondrial DNA);[69] mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother only and it is
thought that this could represent a constraint in the evolution of sperm.

Swinging (sexual practice)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Swinging, also known as wife swapping or partner swapping, is a non-monogamous

behavior in which both singles and partners in a committed relationship engage in sexual
activities with others as a recreational or social activity.[1]
The phenomenon of swinging, or at least its wider discussion and practice, is regarded by
some as arising from the freer attitudes to sexual activity after the sexual revolution of the
1960s, the invention and availability of the contraceptive pill and the emergence of treatments
for many of the sexually transmitted diseases that were known at that time.

The swinger community sometimes refers to itself as "the lifestyle", or as "the alternative
lifestyle".[2]

Reasons for swinging

People may choose a swinging lifestyle for a variety of reasons. Many cite the increased
quality, quantity, and frequency of sex. Some people may engage in swinging to add variety
into their otherwise conventional sex lives or due to their curiosity. Some couples see
swinging as a healthy outlet and means to strengthen their relationship. Others regard such
activities as merely a social and recreational interaction with others. [1][3]

International Swinger community's Flag, created by Ted Williams and Emilio Designs
Graphic Design Enaver. Red rings represent the passion and unbreakable bond between the
couple, the yellow background represents the light and fire of desire, the blue color of the
vastness of the sky

Modern swinging

Swinging can take place in a number of contexts, ranging from spontaneous sexual activity
involving partner swapping at an informal gathering of friends to planned regular social
meetings to "hooking up" with like-minded people at a sex club (also known as a swinger
club, not to be confused with a strip club). Different clubs offer varied facilities and
atmospheres, and often hold "theme" nights.[4]

Swinging is also known to take place in semi-public venues such as hotels, resorts, or cruise
ships, or often in private homes.[5] Furthermore, many websites that cater to swinging couples
now exist, some boasting hundreds of thousands of members.[5]

Prevalence

According to 2005 estimates by the Kinsey Institute and others, swingers account for two to
four percent of married couples with numbers in excess of 4 million people in North America.
[6]
As of 2011, some experts believe that there are as many as 15 million Americans swinging
on a regular basis.[7]

Research on swinging has been conducted in the United States since the late 1960s. One 2000
study, based on an Internet questionnaire addressed to visitors of swinger-related sites, found
swingers are happier in their relationships than the norm.[1]

60% said that swinging improved their relationship; 1.7% said swinging made their
relationship less happy. Approximately 50% of those who rated their relationship "very
happy" before becoming swingers maintained their relationship had become happier. 90% of
those with less happy relationships said swinging improved them.
Almost 70% of swingers claimed no problem with jealousy; approximately 25% admitted "I
have difficulty controlling jealousy when swinging" as "somewhat true", while 6% said this
was "yes, very much" true. Swingers rate themselves happier ("very happy": 59% of swingers
compared to 32% of non-swingers) and their lives more "exciting" (76% of swingers
compared to 54% of non-swingers) than non-swingers, by significantly large margins. There
was no significant difference between responses of men and women, although more males
(70%) than females completed the survey. This study, which only polled self-identified
swingers, is of limited use to a broader application to the rest of society (external validity)
owing to self-selected sampling.

John Stossel produced an investigative news report into the swinging lifestyle. Stossel's report
in 2005 cited Terry Gould's research, which concluded that "couples swing in order to not
cheat on their partners". When Stossel asked swinging couples whether they worry their
spouse will "find they like someone else better," one male replied, "People in the swinging
community swing for a reason. They don't swing to go out and find a new wife;" a woman
asserted, "It makes women more confident – that they are the ones in charge." Stossel
interviewed 12 marriage counselors. According to Stossel, "not one of them said don't do it,"
though some said "getting sexual thrills outside of marriage can threaten a marriage".
Nevertheless, swingers whom Stossel interviewed claimed "their marriages are stronger
because they don't have affairs and they don't lie to each other."[6]

According to economic studies on swinging,[8] the information and communications

technology revolution, together with improvements in medicine, has been effective in
reducing some of the costs of swinging and hence in increasing the number of swingers.

Objections

See also: Sexual norm and Casual sex

Religious and moral objections

See also: Religion and sexuality

Some people object to swinging on moral or philosophical grounds. Most religious

communities and moralists regard swinging as adultery, not withstanding that it is with the
knowledge, consent or encouragement of one spouse to the other. Some argue that strict
monogamy is the ideal form for marital relationships and that sexual relations should only
take place between marriage partners or, perhaps, between partners in a committed
monogamous relationship.[citation needed]

Health issues

Swingers are exposed to the same types of risks as people who engage in casual sex, with the
main concerns being the risk of pregnancy and of contracting a sexually transmitted infection
(STI). Some swingers engage in unprotected sex, a practice known as barebacking, while
others follow safe sex practices and will not engage with others who do not also practice safe
sex. Swingers may reduce the risk of STI by exchanging STI test results and serosorting.
Proponents of swinging argue that safe sex is accepted within the swinging community and
the risk of sexual disease is the same for them as for the general population – and that some
populations of sexually non-monogamous people have clearly lower rates of STIs than the
general population.[9] Opponents are also concerned about the risk of pregnancy and STIs such
as HIV, arguing that even protected sex is risky given that some STIs may be spread
regardless of the use of condoms, such as Herpes and HPV.

A Dutch study that compared the medical records of self-reported swingers to that of the
general population found that STI prevalence was highest in young people, homosexual men,
and swingers.[10] However, this study has been criticized as not being representative of
swinger populations as a whole: its data was formulated solely on patients receiving treatment
at an STI clinic. In addition, according to the conclusions of the report, the STI rates of
swingers were in fact nearly identical to those of non-swinging straight couples, and
concluded that the safest demographic for STI infection were female prostitutes. According to
the Dutch study, "the combined rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea were just over 10% among
straight people, 14% among gay men, just under 5% in female prostitutes, and 10.4% among
swingers."[11]

Consent issues

Some[12] have criticized the swinger culture for being too passive on issues of consent, an
issue which has become more prevelent in recent years, including the passage of California's
Affirmative Consent[13] law.

Responses to objections

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (October 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Many couples enter swinging while in secure relationships, providing added motivation to
avoid excessive health risks. Though some sexual affairs outside relationships may be in "the
heat of the moment" without regard to consequences, swingers maintain that sex among
swingers is often more frank and deliberative and therefore more honest than unfaithful.[citation
needed]

Many swinging clubs in the US and UK do not have alcohol licenses and have a "bring your
own beverage" (BYOB) policy. Also, it is not uncommon for experienced swingers to remain
sober to preclude any sexual performance problems. This counter-argument suggests that such
swingers take a safer approach to sexual health than comparable non-monogamous singles
(who ostensibly have impaired judgment from becoming inebriated).

Condoms are often highly encouraged and readily available at many swinging clubs and
parties. In addition, many swingers rely on frequent STI testing to ensure their safety.[citation
needed]
A small portion focus on massage and other activities unlikely to transmit STIs;[citation
needed]
However, most participants acknowledge they are accepting the same risks that any
person does who is sexually active outside of a strictly monogamous relationship.

Although there is a risk of pregnancy, they are the same as monogamous sex and can be
minimized. Solutions include a tubal ligation (female sterilization), vasectomy (male
sterilization), or having a group entirely made of menopausal women. Other solutions include
using condoms or the pill. Proper use of a condom with an effective birth control method
minimises the risk of pregnancy and transmission of STIs.[14]
Some believe sexual attraction is part of human nature and should be openly enjoyed by a
committed or married couple. Some swingers cite divorce data in the US, claiming the lack of
quality of sex and spousal infidelity are significant factors in divorce. One study showed 37%
of husbands and 29% of wives admit at least one extramarital affair (Reinisch, 1990), and
divorce rates for first marriages approached 60%.

Swinging in Western society

It may not be possible to trace a precise history of swinging since the modern concept is so
closely related to basic human sexuality and relationships, and they vary significantly across
time and cultures. The modern concept of "swinging" is a recent Western phenomenon with
no counterpart or meaning in many other cultures and civilizations in history in which
monogamous relationships was the norm or which had religious or social prohibitions against
such sexual practices.

16th century

The "community of women" was practiced by several radical Anabaptist sects including the
Batenburgers and the Munsterites.

A formal arrangement was signed by John Dee, his wife Lynae, his scryer, Edward Kelley
and Kelley's wife Joanna on 22 April 1587, whereby conjugal relations would be shared
between the men and their spouses. This arrangement arose following seances which
apparently resulted in spirits guiding Dee and Kelley towards this course of action. The
arrangement ended badly and destroyed Dee's working relationship with Kelley.[15]

18th century

It has been claimed that two related 18th-century messianic Jewish sects—the Frankists,
followers of Jacob Frank, and the Dönmeh, followers of Shabbetai Zvi—held an annual
springtime Lamb Festival, which consisted of a celebratory dinner that included a ritualized
exchange of spouses.[16][17]

19th century

One of the criticisms of communism was the allegation that communists practice and
propagandize the "community of women". In The Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels suggest that this allegation is an example of hypocrisy and psychological
projection by "bourgeois" critics of communism, who "not content with having wives and
daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the
greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives."[18]

20th century

According to Terry Gould's The Lifestyle: a look at the erotic rites of swingers,[19] swinging
began among American Air Force pilots and their wives during World War II before pilots
left for overseas duty. The mortality rate of pilots was so high, as Gould reports, that a close
bond arose between pilot families that implied that pilot husbands would care for all the wives
as their own – emotionally and sexually – if the husbands were lost.[20] Though the origins of
swinging are contested, it is assumed American swinging was practiced in some American
military communities in the 1950s. By the time the Korean War ended, swinging had spread
from the military to the suburbs. The media dubbed the phenomenon wife-swapping.[21]

Later in the 1960s in the heyday of the Free Love movement, the activities associated with
swinging became more widespread in a variety of social classes and age levels.[22] In the
1970s, sometimes referred to as the "The Swinging 70's", swinging activities became more
prevalent, but were still considered "alternative" or "fringe" because of their association with
non-mainstream groups such as communes.[23]

Swinging activities had another surge in interest and participation in the late 1990s due to the
rise of the Internet.

Partner swapping in traditional societies

Arabia

Wife-lending is a practice in Pre-Islamic Arabia whereby husbands allow their wives to live
with "men of distinction" to produce noble offspring. The husband, who abstained while his
wife lived with the other man, would then be socially considered the father of the child. [24]

Africa

Temporary spouse-trading is practiced as an element of ritual initiation into the Lemba secret
society in the French Congo through "wife exchange:"[25] "you shall lay with the priestess-
wife of your Lemba Father and he shall lay with your wife too."[26][27]

New Guinea

Among the Orya of northern Irian Jaya, the agama toŋkat (Indonesian for 'walking-stick') cult
"encouraged men to trade wives, i.e., to have sexual relations with each other's wives. This
trading of sexual favours ... was only between pairs of families, ... adherents are now very
secretive concerning cult activities and teachings."[28] In this 'walking-stick' cult "the walking
stick ... dute is the term men use to refer to the husband of the woman who becomes his
sexual partner."[29] Furthermore, "There have been other similar movements ... near Jayapura.
These are popularly called Towel Religion (agama handuk) and The Simpson Religion
(agama simpson)."[30]

Among the Mimika of southern Irian Jaya, temporary spouse-trading is said to have been
originated by a woman who had returned from the world of the dead: "The wife says to her
husband, '... tonight I will sleep in the house of the headman ..., and ... his wife, will sleep in
your house. Because I have been dead ..., tonight I am going to do for the first time what
people have been looking forward to (for so long). I am going to institute the papisj, wife
exchange.'"[31]

Inuit and Aleut

Inuit wife trading has often been reported and commented on.[32] Temporary "wife-lending ...
was apparently more common among the Aleuts than Eskimos". Several motivations for
temporary spouse-trading among the Inuit have been suggested:
  at the instigation of an aŋekok (shaman), as a magical rite to achieve better weather for
hunting-expeditions
 as a regular feature of the annual "Bladder Festival"
 for a man visiting unaccompanied by his wife, under the promise that he will in the
future make his own wife sexually available to his host whenever the host will himself
come visiting his erstwhile guest.[33]

Among the Inuit, a very specialized and socially-circumscribed form of wife-sharing was
practiced. When hunters were away, they would often stumble into the tribal lands of other
tribes, and be subject to death for the offense. But, when they could show a "relationship" by
virtue of a man, father or grandfather who had sex with their wife, mother or other female
relatives, the wandering hunter was then regarded as family. The Inuit had[when?] specific
terminology and language describing the complex relationships that emerged from this
practice of wife sharing. A man called another man "aipak," or "other me," if the man had sex
with his wife. Thus, in their conception, this other man having sex with one's wife was just
"another me."[34]

Indigenous peoples in South America

Among the Araweté (Asurini) in the state of Pará, Brazil, "spouse-swapping" is practiced.[35]

Among the Bari tribe of Venezuela, when a woman becomes pregnant, the women often take
other male lovers. These additional lovers then take on the role of secondary or tertiary fathers
to the child. If the primary father should die, the other men then have a social obligation to
support these children. Research has shown that children with such "extra" fathers have
improved life outcomes, in this economically and resource-poor area of the jungle.[34]

In popular culture

Film

 The Savage Innocents (1960) is a drama adapted from the novel Top of the World by
Swiss writer Hans Rüesch in which an Inuit offers his wife to a priest.
 Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969) is an American comedy classic that captures the
sexual revolution of the late 1960s in the United States. It was nominated for four
Academy Awards; Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Best Actress in a Supporting
Role, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Screenplay.
 Score (1974) is an American film by director Radley Metzger that explored bisexual
swinging relationships, and was based on an off-Broadway stage play that featured
Sylvester Stallone in a brief role.
 Eating Raoul (1982) is a comic send-up of swinging stereotypes.
 Raising Arizona (1987). Glen mentions that he and his wife, Dot, "are swingers. As in,
to swing."
 The Fourth Protocol (1987) shows a brief clip of four American women and an
American airman naked in a room. The swinger overtones were very implicit.
 The Rapture (1992). Mimi Rogers's character Sharon pursues an active swinging
lifestyle with her 'partner', played by Patrick Bauchau.
 The Blood Oranges (1997), two western couples, one with children, come together in
the fictional Mediterranean village of Ilyria. The film was adapted from the 1970
novel by John Hawkes.
  The Ice Storm (1997) by director Ang Lee features a cheating husband, played by
Kevin Kline, and his long suffering wife, played by Joan Allen, who attend a "key
party" during a nasty ice storm.
 Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000). During a flash back scene
explaining where babies come from, a tiny baby Grinch floats down from the sky and
is stuck in a tree during a snowstorm. In the window of the Who house he is stuck by
he can see adult Whos picking keys out of a bowl for a "Key Party", a type of
swinging activity.
 Zebra Lounge (2001) talks about swinging and its effects on the lives of a married
couple with kids who seek some sexual adventures.
 The Sex Monster (1999) is a comedy about a couple who begin a ménage à trois with
another woman.
 The Lifestyle (1999) is an American documentary about swinging.
 Swingers (2002) is a Dutch film that tells the story of a thirty-something couple and
their first experiments with the swinging lifestyle.
 Mixed Doubles (2006) is an Indian film that follows the general plot of a middle-class
Bombay husband persuading his wife to swing.
 American Swing (2008) is an American documentary about swinging at Plato's Retreat
in New York City during the 1970s.
 Brüno (2009) involves the protagonist being involved in a swingers' meeting in one
segment.
 Swinging with the Finkels (2010) features Mandy Moore and Martin Freeman as a
suburban married couple looking to improve their sex lives through swinging.
 Dos más dos (2012) is an Argentine comedy film featuring Adrián Suar, Julieta Díaz,
Carla Peterson and Juan Minujín, two swinging couples.

Literature

 In John Irving's 1974 novel The 158-Pound Marriage, two New England college
professors and their wives enter a ménage à quatre with disastrous consequences.
 In John Updike's 1981 novel Rabbit Is Rich, Rabbit Angstrom and his wife engage in a
wife-swapping session with another couple while they're all on holiday in the
Caribbean.

Television

 In a 1972 episode of All in the Family, Edith befriends a couple (played by Vincent
Gardenia and Rue McLanahan) whose names she finds in a "friendship" magazine and
invites them over for coffee, not realizing that they are swingers expecting to swap
spouses with her and Archie for the night.
 In 1995 episode of Martin, "Swing Thing" The Paynes’ are invited to attend a
Christmas party, given by some influential people who may be able to help Martin in
his career. But little does Martin realize that at the party, the guests are swapping more
than Christmas gifts, and Martin may have both his hands full.
 Touch And Go, a 1998 BBC Two drama, focused on a young couple, played by Martin
Clunes and Zara Turner visiting a swinging club in order to reinvigorate their
marriage.
 In the Fox sitcom That '70s Show, the episode "The Good Son" (1999) featured Red
and Kitty inadvertently attending a swingers' party.
  The episode "The Good Couple" (2000) of the series Yes, Dear featured two of the
main characters, Greg and Kim, inadvertently becoming social with a swinging
couple.
 The short-lived 2003 series Keen Eddie featured a character Monty Pippin who, along
with a female friend, pretended to be married in order to gain access to a swingers'
club for recreational sex.
 In a 2003 episode[which?] on the first season of the Fox series The OC, Sandy and
Kirsten Cohen are tricked into attending a swingers' party on New Year's Eve.
 In a 2004 episode of American crime drama CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, "Swap
Meet", a woman is found dead in the fountain of a gated community after visiting a
neighborhood swingers party.
 An episode[which?] of the 2006 BBC television programme Life on Mars featured the
main characters infiltrating a swingers' club.
 In a 2006 episode[which?] the second season of Sugar Rush (TV series) Stella and Nathan
both experiment in the swinger lifestyle, ending in a visit to a club in Brighton.
 In Journeyman, the eighth episode "Winterland" (2007) shows Dan Vasser traveling
back to 1973 along with Livia and finding themselves in a swinging party.
 In the 2007 ITV series Benidorm, main characters Jacqueline and Donald are often
seen reflecting on their sexual experiences much to the shock of their fellow guests,
with their hobby beginning in the 60s and carrying on to the present day.
 2008 CBS series Swingtown is a period piece which deals with social and sexual
changes of the 1970s, including swinging.
 A 2010 episode (118) of the series Criminal Minds featured an episode with a serial
killer who met his victims in swing clubs and acted out because his wife got pregnant.
 In the 2010 series The Hard Times of RJ Berger, RJ's parents are apparently swingers.
 In the episode "Swingers" (S02E02)[36] of his Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends series
(1998), the BBC2 interviewer and documentary maker Louis Theroux investigated an
American Swingers group.
 A 2008 episode of the series Close to Home (Episode 4 of season 1) features main
prosecutor Annabeth Chase handling a case related to the swinging lifestyle craved by
the murderer's husband.
 A 2011 episode[which?] of the series Law and Order: SVU features characters Elliot
Stabler and Olivia Benson going undercover at a swinging club.
 A 2011 episode[which?] of the series Body of Proof features character Dana Delany
investigating a homicide in a neighborhood in which all neighbors are in the lifestyle.
 A 2013 American cable television reality television series on Discovery Fit & Health
"Secret Sex Lives: Swingers"[37] follows several Atlanta couples involved in the
swinging lifestyle.
 In the 2015 3rd season of Hard_(TV_series), Sophie opens a swinger club under Roy's
restaurant, as her own business venture, and gains much success.

Sexual orientation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Sexual preference" redirects here. For the book, see Sexual Preference (book).

Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination

of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or
more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality,
homosexuality, and bisexuality,[1][2] while asexuality (the lack of sexual attraction to others) is
sometimes identified as the fourth category.[3][4]

These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity and terminology.[1]
For example, people may use other labels, such as pansexual or polysexual,[5] or none at all.[1]
According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation "also refers to a
person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a
community of others who share those attractions".[1][6] Androphilia and gynephilia are terms
used in behavioral science to describe sexual orientation as an alternative to a gender binary
conceptualization. Androphilia describes sexual attraction to masculinity; gynephilia
describes the sexual attraction to femininity.[7] The term sexual preference largely overlaps
with sexual orientation, but is generally distinguished in psychological research.[8] A person
who identifies as bisexual, for example, may sexually prefer one sex over the other.[9] Sexual
preference may also suggest a degree of voluntary choice,[8][10][11] whereas the scientific
consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice.[12][13][14]

Scientists do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation, but they believe that it is caused
by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.[12][14][15] They
favor biologically-based theories,[12] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine
environment, both, or the inclusion of genetic and social factors.[16][17] There is no substantive
evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes
to sexual orientation.[16] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual
orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to
exclusive attraction to the same sex.[1]

Sexual orientation is reported primarily within biology and psychology (including sexology),
but it is also a subject area in anthropology, history (including social constructionism), and
law,[18] and there are other explanations that relate to sexual orientation and culture.

Definitions and distinguishing from sexual identity and behavior

General

See also: Sexual identity, Human sexual activity, and Situational sexual behavior

Sexual orientation is traditionally defined as including heterosexuality, bisexuality, and

homosexuality, while asexuality is considered the fourth category of sexual orientation by
some researchers and has been defined as the absence of a traditional sexual orientation. An
asexual has little to no sexual attraction to people.[4][19] It may be considered a lack of a sexual
orientation,[20] and there is significant debate over whether or not it is a sexual orientation.[3][4]

Most definitions of sexual orientation include a psychological component, such as the

direction of an individual's erotic desires, or a behavioral component, which focuses on the
sex of the individual's sexual partner/s. Some people prefer simply to follow an individual's
self-definition or identity. Scientific and professional understanding is that "the core
attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle
childhood and early adolescence".[1] Sexual orientation differs from sexual identity in that it
encompasses relationships with others, while sexual identity is a concept of self.
The American Psychological Association states that "[s]exual orientation refers to an
enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both
sexes" and that "[t]his range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various
cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe
people who express these attractions. In the United States, the most frequent labels are
lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people
(men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or
none at all". They additionally state that sexual orientation "is distinct from other components
of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic
characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense
of being male or female), and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and
masculine behavior)".[1] According to psychologists, sexual orientation also refers to a
person’s choice of sexual partners, who may be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual.[21][22][23]

Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are
distinguished, with sexual identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves,
behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and orientation referring
to "fantasies, attachments and longings."[24] Individuals may or may not express their sexual
orientation in their behaviors.[1] People who have a homosexual sexual orientation that does
not align with their sexual identity are sometimes referred to as 'closeted'. The term may,
however, reflect a certain cultural context and particular stage of transition in societies which
are gradually dealing with integrating sexual minorities. In studies related to sexual
orientation, when dealing with the degree to which a person's sexual attractions, behaviors
and identity match, scientists usually use the terms concordance or discordance. Thus, a
woman who is attracted to other women, but calls herself heterosexual and only has sexual
relations with men, can be said to experience discordance between her sexual orientation
(homosexual or lesbian) and her sexual identity and behaviors (heterosexual).[25]

Sexual identity may also be used to describe a person's perception of his or her own sex, rather
than sexual orientation. The term sexual preference has a similar meaning to sexual
orientation, and the two terms are often used interchangeably, but sexual preference suggests
a degree of voluntary choice.[8] The term has been a listed by the American Psychological
Association's Committee on Gay and Lesbian Concerns as a wording that advances a
"heterosexual bias".[8]

Androphilia, gynephilia and other terms

Main article: Androphilia and gynephilia

Androphilia and gynephilia (or gynecophilia) are terms used in behavioral science to describe
sexual attraction, as an alternative to a homosexual and heterosexual conceptualization. They
are used for identifying a subject's object of attraction without attributing a sex assignment or
gender identity to the subject. Related terms such as pansexual and polysexual do not make
any such assignations to the subject.[5][26] People may also use terms such as queer,
pansensual, polyfidelitous, ambisexual, or personalized identities such as byke or biphilic.[5]

Same gender loving (SGL) is considered to be more than a different term for gay; it
introduces the concept of love into the discussion. SGL also acknowledges relationships
between people of like identities; for example, third gender individuals who may be oriented
toward each other, and expands the discussion of sexuality beyond the original man/woman
gender duality. The complexity of transgender orientation is also more completely understood
within this perspective.[27]

Using androphilia and gynephilia can avoid confusion and offense when describing people in
non-western cultures, as well as when describing intersex and transgender people. Psychiatrist
Anil Aggrawal explains that androphilia, along with gynephilia, "is needed to overcome
immense difficulties in characterizing the sexual orientation of trans men and trans women.
For instance, it is difficult to decide whether a trans man erotically attracted to males is a
heterosexual female or a homosexual male; or a trans woman erotically attracted to females is
a heterosexual male or a lesbian female. Any attempt to classify them may not only cause
confusion but arouse offense among the affected subjects. In such cases, while defining sexual
attraction, it is best to focus on the object of their attraction rather than on the sex or gender of
the subject."[28] Sexologist Milton Diamond writes, "The terms heterosexual, homosexual, and
bisexual are better used as adjectives, not nouns, and are better applied to behaviors, not
people. This usage is particularly advantageous when discussing the partners of transsexual or
intersexed individuals. These newer terms also do not carry the social weight of the former
ones."[29]

Some researchers advocate use of the terminology to avoid bias inherent in Western
conceptualizations of human sexuality. Writing about the Samoan fa'afafine demographic,
sociologist Johanna Schmidt writes that in cultures where a third gender is recognized, a term
like "homosexual transsexual" does not align with cultural categories.[30]

Some researchers, such as Bruce Bagemihl, have criticized the labels "heterosexual" and
"homosexual" as confusing and degrading. Bagemihl writes, "...the point of reference for
'heterosexual' or 'homosexual' orientation in this nomenclature is solely the individual's
genetic sex prior to reassignment (see for example, Blanchard et al. 1987, Coleman and
Bockting, 1988, Blanchard, 1989). These labels thereby ignore the individual's personal sense
of gender identity taking precedence over biological sex, rather than the other way around."
Bagemihl goes on to take issue with the way this terminology makes it easy to claim
transsexuals are really homosexual males seeking to escape from stigma.[31]

Gender, transgender, cisgender, and conformance

The earliest writers on sexual orientation usually understood it to be intrinsically linked to the
subject's own sex. For example, it was thought that a typical female-bodied person who is
attracted to female-bodied persons would have masculine attributes, and vice versa.[32] This
understanding was shared by most of the significant theorists of sexual orientation from the
mid nineteenth to early twentieth century, such as Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Richard von Krafft-
Ebing, Magnus Hirschfeld, Havelock Ellis, Carl Jung, and Sigmund Freud, as well as many
gender-variant homosexual people themselves. However, this understanding of homosexuality
as sexual inversion was disputed at the time, and, through the second half of the twentieth
century, gender identity came to be increasingly seen as a phenomenon distinct from sexual
orientation. Transgender and cisgender people may be attracted to men, women, or both,
although the prevalence of different sexual orientations is quite different in these two
populations. An individual homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual person may be masculine,
feminine, or androgynous, and in addition, many members and supporters of lesbian and gay
communities now see the "gender-conforming heterosexual" and the "gender-nonconforming
homosexual" as negative stereotypes. Nevertheless, studies by J. Michael Bailey and Kenneth
Zucker found a majority of the gay men and lesbians sampled reporting various degrees of
gender-nonconformity during their childhood years.[33]

Transgender people today identify with the sexual orientation that corresponds with their
gender; meaning that a trans woman who is solely attracted to women would often identify as
a lesbian. A trans man solely attracted to women would be a straight man.

Sexual orientation sees greater intricacy when non-binary understandings of both sex (male,
female, or intersex) and gender (man, woman, transgender, third gender, etc. are considered.
Sociologist Paula Rodriguez Rust (2000) argues for a more multifaceted definition of sexual
orientation:

...Most alternative models of sexuality... define sexual orientation in terms of dichotomous

biological sex or gender... Most theorists would not eliminate the reference to sex or gender,
but instead advocate incorporating more complex nonbinary concepts of sex or gender, more
complex relationships between sex, gender, and sexuality, and/or additional nongendered
dimensions into models of sexuality.

— Paula C. Rodriguez Rust[34]

Relationships outside of orientation

Gay and lesbian people can have sexual relationships with someone of the opposite sex for a
variety of reasons, including the desire for a perceived traditional family and concerns of
discrimination and religious ostracism.[35][36][37][38][39] While some LGBT people hide their
respective orientations from their spouses, others develop positive gay and lesbian identities
while maintaining successful heterosexual marriages.[40][41][42] Coming out of the closet to
oneself, a spouse of the opposite sex, and children can present challenges that are not faced by
gay and lesbian people who are not married to people of the opposite sex or do not have
children.

Fluidity

Main article: Sexual fluidity

General aspects

Often, sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity are not distinguished, which can
impact accurately assessing sexual identity and whether or not sexual orientation is able to
change; sexual orientation identity can change throughout an individual's life, and may or may
not align with biological sex, sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation.[9][25][43] While the
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and American Psychiatric Association state that
sexual orientation is innate, continuous or fixed throughout their lives for some people, but is
fluid or changes over time for others,[44][45] the American Psychological Association
distinguishes between sexual orientation (an innate attraction) and sexual orientation identity
(which may change at any point in a person's life).[46]

Some research suggests that "[f]or some [people] the focus of sexual interest will shift at
various points through the life span..."[47] "There... [was, as of 1995,] essentially no research
on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span... It [was]... still an
unanswered question whether... [the] measure [of 'the complex components of sexual
orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one point in time'] will
predict future behavior or orientation. Certainly, it is... not a good predictor of past behavior
and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians
(i.e., denial of homosexual interests and heterosexual experimentation prior to the coming-out
process)."[48][49][50][51] Some studies report that "[a number of] lesbian women, and some
heterosexual women as well, perceive choice as an important element in their sexual
orientations."[52]

Born bisexual, then monosexualizing

Main article: Innate bisexuality

Innate bisexuality is an idea introduced by Sigmund Freud. According to this theory, all
humans are born bisexual in a very broad sense of the term, that of incorporating general
aspects of both sexes. In Freud's view, this was true anatomically and therefore also
psychologically, with sexual attraction to both sexes being one part of this psychological
bisexuality. Freud believed that in the course of sexual development the masculine side would
normally become dominant in men and the feminine side in women, but that as adults
everyone still has desires derived from both the masculine and the feminine sides of their
natures. Freud did not claim that everyone is bisexual in the sense of feeling the same level of
sexual attraction to both genders.[53]

Causes

The exact causes for the development of a particular sexual orientation have yet to be
established. To date, a lot of research has been conducted to determine the influence of
genetics, hormonal action, development dynamics, social and cultural influences—which has
led many to think that biology and environment factors play a complex role in forming it. It
was once thought that homosexuality was the result of faulty psychological development,
resulting from childhood experiences and troubled relationships, including childhood sexual
abuse. It has been found that this was based on prejudice and misinformation.[1][2]

Biology

Main article: Biology and sexual orientation

Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of
sexual orientation, including genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. No single
controlling cause has been identified, and research is continuing in this area.[54]

Though researchers generally believe that sexual orientation is not determined by any one
factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[12][14][15] with
biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine
environment,[14][16] they favor biological models for the cause.[12] They believe that sexual
orientation is not a choice,[12][13][14] and some of them believe that it is established at
conception.[55] That is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or
asexual. While current scientific investigation usually seeks to find biological explanations for
the adoption of a particular sexual orientation,[12] there are yet no replicated scientific studies
supporting any specific biological etiology for sexual orientation.[1][12] However, scientific
studies have found a number of statistical biological differences between gay people and
heterosexuals, which may result from the same underlying cause as sexual orientation itself.

Genetic factors

Genes may be related to the development of sexual orientation. At one time, studies of twins
appeared to point to a major genetic component, but problems in experimental design of the
available studies have made their interpretation difficult, and one recent study appears to
exclude genes as a major factor.[54]

Hormones

Main article: Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation

The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role
in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges
later in the adult. Fetal hormones may be seen as either the primary influence upon adult
sexual orientation or as a co-factor interacting with genes or environmental and social
conditions.[56]

As female fetuses have two X chromosomes and male ones a XY pair, the chromosome Y is
the responsible for producing male differentiation on the defect female development. The
differentiation process is driven by androgen hormones, mainly testosterone and
dihydrotestosterone (DHT). The newly formed testicles in the fetus are responsible for the
secretion of androgens, that will cooperate in driving the sexual differentiation of the
developing fetus, included its brain. This results in sexual differences between males and
females.[57] This fact has led some scientists to test in various ways the result of modifying
androgen exposure levels in mammals during fetus and early life.[58]

Birth order

Main article: Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation

Recent studies found an increased chance of homosexuality in men whose mothers previously
carried to term many male children. This effect is nullified if the man is left-handed. [59]

Known as the fraternal birth order (FBO) effect, this theory has been backed up by strong
evidence of its prenatal origin, although no evidence thus far has linked it to an exact prenatal
mechanism. However, research suggests that this may be of immunological origin, caused by
a maternal immune reaction against a substance crucial to male fetal development during
pregnancy, which becomes increasingly likely after every male gestation. As a result of this
immune effect, alterations in later-born males' prenatal development have been thought to
occur. This process, known as the maternal immunization hypothesis (MIH), would begin
when cells from a male fetus enter the mother's circulation during pregnancy or while giving
birth. These Y-linked proteins would not be recognized in the mother's immune system
because she is female, causing her to develop antibodies which would travel through the
placental barrier into the fetal compartment. From here, the anti-male bodies would then cross
the blood/brain barrier (BBB) of the developing fetal brain, altering sex-dimorphic brain
structures relative to sexual orientation, causing the exposed son to be more attracted to men
over women.[60]

Environmental factors

Main article: Environment and sexual orientation

There is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that early childhood experiences,
parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation; however,
studies do find that aspects of sexuality expression have an experiential basis and that parental
attitudes towards a particular sexual orientation may affect how children of the parents
experiment with behaviors related to a certain sexual orientation.[1][12][16][61][62]

Influences: professional organizations' statements

The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2004 stated:[12]

The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the
current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is not a
choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. A variety of
theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation
probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and
environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by
experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the
variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting,
sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge
suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the
National Association of Social Workers in 2006 stated:[6]

Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to
become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – including possible biological, psychological,
or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates
that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the
vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be
heterosexual.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2007 stated:[16]

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no

substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood
experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or
homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature,
determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.
Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.

The American Psychiatric Association stated:[2]

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality
was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological
development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation
and prejudice.

A legal brief dated September 26, 2007, and presented on behalf of the American
Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric
Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social
Workers, California Chapter, stated:[6]

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social,
and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists
to conclude that sexual orientation – heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality – is
determined by any particular factor or factors. The evaluation of amici is that, although some
of this research may be promising in facilitating greater understanding of the development of
sexual orientation, it does not permit a conclusion based in sound science at the present time
as to the cause or causes of sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.

Efforts to change sexual orientation

Main articles: Sexual orientation change efforts and Conversion therapy

Sexual orientation change efforts are methods that aim to change a same-sex sexual
orientation.[46] They may include behavioral techniques, cognitive behavioral techniques,
"reparative therapy", psychoanalytic techniques, medical approaches, and religious and
spiritual approaches.[63]

No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual
orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession
and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the
American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American
Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA,[6][64] the Royal
College of Psychiatrists,[65] and the Australian Psychological Society.[66]

In 2009, the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic

Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal
literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded:

Efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of
harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates. Even though the research
and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and
behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual
orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends
to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual
orientation. Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those
who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the
facilitation of clients' active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development,
without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.[67]
In 2012, the Pan American Health Organization (the North and South American branch of the
World Health Organization) released a statement cautioning against services that purport to
"cure" people with non-heterosexual sexual orientations as they lack medical justification and
represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people, and noted that the
global scientific and professional consensus is that homosexuality is a normal and natural
variation of human sexuality and cannot be regarded as a pathological condition. The Pan
American Health Organization further called on governments, academic institutions,
professional associations and the media to expose these practices and to promote respect for
diversity. The World Health Organization affiliate further noted that gay minors have
sometimes been forced to attend these "therapies" involuntarily, being deprived of their
liberty and sometimes kept in isolation for several months, and that these findings were
reported by several United Nations bodies. Additionally, the Pan American Health
Organization recommended that such malpractices be denounced and subject to sanctions and
penalties under national legislation, as they constitute a violation of the ethical principles of
health care and violate human rights that are protected by international and regional
agreements.[68]

The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which
describes itself as a "professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who
struggle with unwanted homosexuality," disagrees with the mainstream mental health
community's position on conversion therapy, both on its effectiveness and by describing
sexual orientation not as a binary immutable quality, or as a disease, but as a continuum of
intensities of sexual attractions and emotional affect.[69][70][71][72] The American Psychological
Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions
espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which
prejudice and discrimination can flourish.[65][73]

Changes in social norms

The modern consensus is that the sexual revolution in 1960s America was typified by a
dramatic shift in traditional values related to sex, and sexuality. Sex became more socially
acceptable outside the strict boundaries of heterosexual marriage. In 1969, Blue Movie,
directed by Andy Warhol, was the first adult erotic film depicting explicit sex to receive wide
theatrical release in the United States.[5][6][7] The film was a seminal film in the Golden Age of
Porn and helped inaugurate the "porno chic",[8][9] phenomenon in modern American culture.
During this time, porn was being publicly discussed by celebrities, and taken seriously by
critics. According to Warhol, Blue Movie was a major influence in the making of Last Tango
in Paris, an internationally controversial erotic drama film, starring Marlon Brando, and
released a few years after Blue Movie was made.[6] In 1970, Mona, the second adult erotic
film, after Blue Movie, depicting explicit sex that received a wide theatrical release in the
United States, was shown. Following mentions by Johnny Carson on his popular TV show,
and Bob Hope on TV as well,[9] the adult film Deep Throat achieved major box office success,
despite being rudimentary by mainstream standards. In 1973, the far-more-accomplished, but
still low budget adult film, The Devil in Miss Jones, was the seventh most successful film of
the year, and was well received by major media, including a favorable review by film critic
Roger Ebert.[10] Shortly thereafter, other adult films followed, continuing the Golden Age of
Porn begun with Blue Movie. Later, in 1976, The Opening of Misty Beethoven, based on the
play Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw (and its derivative, My Fair Lady), and directed by
Radley Metzger, was released theatrically and is considered, by award-winning author Toni
Bentley, the "crown jewel" of the Golden Age of Porn.[11][12]
Studies have shown that, between 1965 and 1974, the number of women that had sexual
intercourse prior to marriage showed a marked increase.[13] The social and political climate of
the 1960s was unique; one in which traditional values were often challenged loudly by a vocal
minority.

The various areas of society clamoring for change included the Civil Rights movement, (see
SCLC and SNCC) the 'New Left', and women, with various women's rights organizations
appearing in the latter years of the decade in particular. This climate of change led many,
particularly the young, to challenge social norms.

With the success that the Civil Rights movement was having, others who wanted change
knew that the time was ripe for them to bring it about. The combination of liberal
government, general economic prosperity, and the ever present threat of nuclear annihilation
marked the 1960s apart from any decade that had come before it, and while conservatism was
by no means dead, liberalism enjoyed a widespread revival, which helped to facilitate the
climate in which the 'sexual revolution' took place. Indeed, Lyndon B. Johnson was the first
acting president to endorse birth control, a hugely important factor in the change of American
sexual attitudes in the 1960s.

The Pill

"The pill" provided many women a more affordable way to avoid pregnancy. Before the pill
was introduced many women did not look for long term jobs. Previously, the typical woman
would jump out of the job market when she got impregnated and would reenter it when her
child was of school attending age.[14] Abortion was illegal and there were too many health
risks involved in most illegal abortions. There was a visible trend in the increasing age of
women at first marriage in the decades between 1930 and 1970 after contraception was
provided to non-married females.[14] As part of the woman's quiet sexual revolution, pills gave
women control over their future.[15] In a way, the ability to pursue higher education without
the thought of pregnancy, gave women more equality in educational attainment. Since women
could have a choice to use birth control to finish their education, a higher percentage
graduated from school and college ultimately gaining professional careers.[14]

This was due in part to fears over illegitimate pregnancy and childbirth, and social
(particularly religious) qualms about contraception, which was often seen to be 'messy' and
unchristian. Modernization and secularization helped to change these attitudes, and the first
oral contraception was developed in 1951 partly due to Women's Rights campaigner Margaret
Sanger who raised $150,000 to fund its development.[16]

While the Pill eventually came to be seen as a symbol of the Sexual revolution, its origins
stem less from issues of women's sexual liberation and more from 1960s political agendas. In
the early 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson instituted his social reform policy, The Great
Society, which aimed to eliminate poverty and racial injustice.

During this time, the Pill was endorsed and distributed by doctors as a form of population
control to counter the fear of over population which coincided with President Johnson's goal
to eliminate poverty.[17] By 1960, the Food and Drug Administration had licensed the drug.
'The Pill', as it came to be known, was extraordinarily popular, and despite worries over
possible side effects, by 1962, an estimated 1,187,000 women were using it.[18]
The pill divorced contraception from the act of intercourse itself, making it more socially
acceptable, and easier to tolerate for many detractors than other types of contraception (which
had been around for years).

Heralded as a technological marvel, the pill was a trusted product of science in an

increasingly technological age, and was heralded as one of man's 'triumphs' over nature. It
was often said that with the invention of the pill, the women who took it had immediately
been given a new freedom—the freedom to use their bodies as they saw fit, without having to
worry about the burden of unwanted pregnancy.

It was also not the case that the pill went completely unopposed. The Pill became an
extremely controversial subject as Americans struggled with their thoughts on sexual
morality, controlling population growth and women's control of their reproductive rights.
Even by 1965, birth control was illegal in some US states, including Connecticut and New
York.

Campaigns by people like Estelle Griswold went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court,
where on June 7, 1965, it was ruled that under the First Amendment, it was not the business of
the government to dictate the usage of contraception by married couples. Unmarried women
who requested gynecological exams and oral contraceptives were often denied or lectured on
sexual morality. Those women who were denied access to the Pill often had to visit several
doctors before one would prescribe it to them.[19] In 1972, a further ruling in Baird extended
that right to unmarried couples.

Some women's rights movements also heralded the pill as a method of granting women sexual
liberation, and saw the popularity of the drug as just one signifier of the increasing desire for
equality (sexual or otherwise) among American women. The pill and the sexual revolution
was therefore an important part of the drive for sexual equality in the 1960s.

As a consequence, the pill and the sexual freedom it provided to women are frequently
blamed for what many believe are regressions in quality of life. Since the sexual revolution,
out-of-wedlock births, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and divorce have all
risen considerably. Since the 60s, marriage has declined by a third and divorce has doubled.
During the 1960s there were only four big STDs, now there are twenty-four. Since the sexual
revolution, children living in single-parent families has tripled.[20]

Feminist criticism

Despite claims that the pill and sexual revolution were positive for women in America, some
feminist writers have criticized the changes that occurred. Some books published which
promised sexual freedom and liberation were not wholly positive for women, for instance
Alex Comfort's The Joy of Sex, which advised women "don't get yourself raped."[21]

Lesbian feminism advocated full dismissal of heterosexual relationships, claiming that

lesbianism was the only solution to male oppression.[22]

The Women's Movement

Feminist movements combined with important literature such as Betty Friedan's Feminine
Mystique helped change peoples concepts of the woman’s role in relation to sex. In The
Feminine Mystique, Friedan tackles the issue of the domestic role of women in 1960s
America and the feeling of dissatisfaction with it. Friedan believed that women should not
conform to this popularized view of the feminine, (The Housewife) and that they should
participate in, if not enjoy the act of sex.[23] The book itself was very popular on college
campuses, among the young and is synonymous with the counter-culture ethic. Its importance
to 1960s feminism and the sexual revolution lies in that it created a new wave of thinking in
regards to the domestic and sexual role of women in society

Gay Rights and the "undocumented" sexual revolution

Even in a time of unprecedented societal change, and burgeoning liberal views and policies,
homosexuality was still widely publicly reviled, and more often than not was seen as a
malaise or mental illness, instead of a legitimate sexual orientation. Indeed, throughout the
1950s and 1960s the overriding opinion of the medical establishment was that homosexuality
was a developmental maladjustment.[24] Though doctors were supposed to act as objective
scientists their conclusions undoubtedly reflected the biases of their cultural settings, which
resulted in prejudices against homosexual behavior being cloaked in the language of medical
authority and unproven claims being accepted by the majority of society as fact.[25]
Essentially, labeling homosexuality as a psychological condition prevented this group from
being able to make demands for social and legal rights as well as cultural representation.

Homosexuals were often characterized as predatory deviants who were dangerous to the rest
of society. For example, the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, between 1956 and
1965, sought out these so-called 'deviants' within the public system, with the particular focus
upon teachers.[26] The persecution of gay teachers was driven by the popular belief that
homosexuals did untold damage when around vulnerable young people as naive adolescents
were considered easy prey to recruitment into homosexuality by perverse teachers attempting
to unnaturally reproduce.[27] In addition, male homosexuals were often seen as inherently more
dangerous (particularly to children) than lesbians, due to stereotypes and societal prejudices.

Many modern commentators on the gay sexual revolution[citation needed] in 1960s America allege
that this area of the decade has been severely under emphasised, lacking the attention that
they feel it deserves. During this time there was a large oppression of gay people, men in
particular. While America was moving forward in the sexual revolution there was still
sodomy law in place not allowing gay men to have sex. One of the biggest laws that were
placed was the anti-sodomy law. In the 1960 every state had anti-sodomy laws, making it
punishable for up to 10 years in prison for engaging in anal sex. It took many years before
these laws to change making sodomy legal, Illinois being the first state. While it cannot be
said that the 'gay revolution' had as much impact as some others during the decade (the
movement only really began to gain significant momentum and more public support during
the 1970s), it is important to consider the part that the gay liberation crowd had to play in the
overarching 'sexual revolution'. In 1971, what was considered the first gay porno movie was
released. The porno movie was called Boys in the Sand with this movie the gay community
was launched into the sexual revolution and the porn industry. The biggest breakthrough for
gay men was after the sexual revolution in 2003 when Lawrence v Texas made it legal in all
50 states to have anal sex. after this the porn industry never had to make stag films nor did
they have to be censor their material in states that has anti-sodomy laws.

Indeed, in an age of sexual revolution and urban chaos many spontaneous acts of defiance
occurred as homosexuals found creative ways to resist heteronormative social codes
throughout the 1960s. Frank Kameny's Mattachine Society chapter, in Washington DC,
campaigned openly for gay rights by confronting various federal agencies about their
discriminatory policies in 1962 and 1963.[28] While by 1968 there were only fifteen gay and
lesbian organizations in the United States, and the increase in numbers was considerably
slow-paced, the appearance of a more militant approach to loosening the grip of prevailing
norms contributed to widening the gay subculture to previously isolated homosexuals.
Furthermore, the homophile movement had already set about undermining the dominant
psychiatric view of homosexuality.

The Stonewall riots, 1969

The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations by members of the
gay (LGBT) community[note 1] against a police raid that took place in the early morning
hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn, located in the Greenwich Village neighborhood
of Manhattan, New York City. They are widely considered to constitute the single most
important event leading to the gay liberation movement and the modern fight for LGBT rights
in the United States.

Another important element of the 'gay sexual revolution' is how the sex/gender system that
was in place throughout the 1960s allowed forms of domination to continue to oppress
minority groups, such as homosexuals. The Mattachine leaders emphasized how homosexual
oppression was a socially determined pattern and held that strict definitions of gender
behavior led men and women to unquestioningly accept social roles that equated 'male,
masculine, man only with husband and father' and that equated 'female, feminine, women
only with wife and mother'.[29] These early homosexual emancipationists saw homosexual
women and men as victims of a 'language and culture that did not admit the existence of a
homosexual minority'.[29] Ultimately, the way in which the homophile movement understood
the roots of its ostracism and oppression reveals how the homosexual crowd fought for an
expansion of rights based on similar theories that drove some heterosexual women to reject
American society’s traditional ideologies of sexual norms.

The Stonewall riots of 1969 marked an increase in both public awareness of gay rights
campaigners, and also in the willingness of homosexuals across America to campaign for the
rights they believed that they were due. However, it would be misleading to conclude that
resistance to homosexual oppression began with 'Stonewall'. As David Allyn has argued
numerous acts of small-scale resistance are required for political movements to take shape and
the years preceding 'Stonewall' played a role in creating the gay liberation movement. [30]
Arguably, the Stonewall riots have come to resemble the pivotal moment in gay rights history
largely because they are characterized by a great unrecorded oral history, which has allowed
for myths to be used to fill in the gaps in the story, and precisely for this reason, enabled many
members of the gay community to locate their lives and struggles within this narrative. [31]
Stonewall veteran Jim Fouratt has been identified as stating: "If you have a choice between a
myth or a fact, you go with the myth."[31] While the Stonewall riots were certainly a turning
point in terms of precipitating an unparalleled surge of activism and organizing for gay rights,
it was not the first example of rebellion against homophobia and intolerance. Moreover, gay
life after 'Stonewall' was just as varied and complex as it was before. In the era following
'Stonewall' there was still a variety of approaches taken by homosexuals to propagate their
message, which included not only the confrontational approach of 'Stonewall' but equally an
attempt at assimilation into the broader community.
Timeline of reproductive rights legislation, a chronological list of laws and legal decisions
affecting human reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are a sub-set of human rights[1]
pertaining to issues of reproduction and reproductive health.[2] These rights may include some
or all of the following: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to birth control, the right to
access quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make
reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence.[3] Reproductive rights
may also include the right to receive education about contraception and sexually transmitted
infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization, abortion, and contraception, and protection
from gender-based practices such as female genital cutting (FGC) and male genital mutilation
(MGM).[1][2][3][4]

17th century to 19th century

 End of 16th century - Sir Edward Coke formulates the "born alive rule", in common
law, which holds that various criminal laws, such as homicide and assault, apply only
to a child that is "born alive".
 1765 – Post-quickening abortion is no longer considered homicide in England, but
William Blackstone confirms the "born alive rule" and calls it "a very heinous
misdemeanor".[5][6]
 1778 – In Sweden, the first Infanticide Act granted mothers the right and the means
for an anonymous birth.
 1793 – In France, Article 326 of the Code Civil legalized both anonymous and
confidential births.
 1803 – United Kingdom enacts Lord Ellenborough's Act, making abortion after
quickening a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion
before quickening.[7][8]
 1842 – The Shogunate in Japan bans induced abortion in Edo. The law does not affect
the rest of the country.[9]
 1856 – In Sweden, an amendment to the 1778 Infanticide Act restricts the right to give
birth anonymously to a mere confidential birth.
 1861 – The Parliament of the United Kingdom passes the Offences against the Person
Act 1861 which outlaws abortion.
 1869 – Pope Pius IX declared that abortion under any circumstance was gravely
immoral (mortal sin), and, that anyone who participated in an abortion in any material
way had by virtue of that act excommunicated themselves (latae sententiae) from the
Church.[10]
 1869 - The Parliament of Canada unifies criminal law in all provinces, banning
abortion.[10]
 1873 – The passage of the Comstock Act in the United States makes it illegal to send
any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through the mail, including
contraceptive devices and information on contraception or abortion and how to obtain
them. (see also advertisement of abortion services).[11]
 1820–1900 – Primarily through the efforts of physicians in the American Medical
Association and legislators, most abortions in the U.S. were outlawed.[12]
 1850–1920 – During the fight for women's suffrage in the U.S., some notable first-
wave feminists, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Mary Wollstonecraft, opposed
abortion.[13]

1910s to 1960s
 1918 - In the United States, Margaret Sanger was charged under the New York law
against disseminating contraceptive information. On appeal, her conviction was
reversed on the grounds that contraceptive devices could legally be promoted for the
cure and prevention of disease.[14]
 1920 – Lenin legalized all abortions in the Soviet Union.[15]
 1931– Mexico as first country in the world legalized abortion in case of rape.[16]
 1932– Poland as first country in Europe outside Soviet Union legalized abortion in
cases of rape and threat to maternal health.[17]
 1935 – Iceland became the first Western country to legalize therapeutic abortion under
limited circumstances.[18]
 1935 – Nazi Germany amended its eugenics law, to promote abortion for women who
have hereditary disorders.[19] The law allowed abortion if a woman gave her
permission, and if the fetus was not yet viable,[20][21][22] and for purposes of so-called
racial hygiene.[23][24]
 1936 – Joseph Stalin reversed most parts of Lenin's legalization of abortion in the
Soviet Union to increase population growth.[25]
 1936 – A US federal appeals court ruled in United States v. One Package of Japanese
Pessaries that the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing
contraception to their patients.[14]
 1936 – Heinrich Himmler, Chief of the SS, creates the "Reich Central Office for the
Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion". Himmler, inspired by bureaucrats of the
Race and Settlement Main Office, hoped to reverse a decline in the "Aryan" birthrate
which he attributed to homosexuality among men and abortions among healthy Aryan
women,[26] which were not allowed under the 1935 law, but nevertheless practiced.
Reich Secretary Martin Bormann however refused to implement law in this respect,
which would revert the 1935 law.
 1938 – In Britain, Dr. Aleck Bourne aborted the pregnancy of a young girl who had
been raped by soldiers. Bourne was acquitted after turning himself in to authorities.
The legal precedent of allowing abortion in order to avoid mental or physical damage
was picked up by other countries in the Commonwealth of Nations.
 1938 – Abortion legalized on a limited basis in Sweden.
 1948 – The Eugenic Protection Act in Japan expanded the circumstances in which
abortion is allowed.[9]
 1955 - Abortion legalized again in the Soviet Union.[25]
 1959– The American Law Institute (ALI) drafts a model state abortion law to make
legal abortions accessible.
 1965 – The U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut struck down one of the
remaining Comstock laws, the state bans on contraception.
 1966 – The Ceauşescu regime in Romania, in an attempt to boost the country's
population, Decree 770 banned all abortion and contraception, except in very limited
cases.[27]
 1966 – Mississippi reformed its abortion law and became the first U.S. state to allow
abortion in cases of rape.
 1967 – The Abortion Act (effective 1968) legalized abortion in the United Kingdom
(except in Northern Ireland). In the U.S., California, Colorado, and North Carolina
reformed their abortion laws based on the 1962 American Law Institute (ALI) Model
Penal Code (MPC)
 1968 – Georgia and Maryland reformed their abortion laws based on the ALI MPC.
 1968– President Lyndon Johnson’s Committee on The Status of Women releases a
report calling for a repeal of all abortion laws.
  1969 – Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, New Mexico and Oregon, and reformed their
abortion laws based on the ALI MPC.
 1969– Canada passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69, which began to
allow abortion for selective reasons.
 1969 – The ruling in the Victorian case of R v Davidson defined for the first time
which abortions are lawful in Australia.[citation needed]

1970s to present

 1970 – Hawaii, New York, Alaska and Washington repealed their abortion laws and
allowed abortion on demand; South Carolina and Virginia reformed their abortion
laws based on the ALI Model Penal Code.[citation needed]
 1970 – Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 Pub.L. 91–
572, which established the Public Health Service Title X program, providing family
planning services for those in need.[28][29]
 1971– The Indian Parliament under the Prime Ministership of Indira Gandhi, passes
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 (MTP Act 1971). India thus becomes one
of the earliest nations to pass this Act. The Act gains importance, considering India
had traditionally been a very conservative country in these matters. Most notably there
was no similar Act in several US states around the same time.[30]
 1972 – Florida reformed its abortion law based on the ALI MPC.
 1972 - The U.S. Supreme Court, in Eisenstadt v. Baird extends Griswold v.
Connecticut birth control rights to unmarried couples.
 1973 – The U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, declared all the individual state bans
on abortion during the first trimester to be unconstitutional, allowed states to regulate
but not proscribe abortion during the second trimester, and allowed states to proscribe
abortion during the third trimester unless abortion is in the best interest of the woman's
physical or mental health. The Court legalized abortion in all trimesters when a
woman's doctor believes the abortion is necessary for her physical or mental health
and held that only a "compelling state interest" justified regulations limiting the
individual right to privacy.
 1973 - Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the United States
Supreme Court overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's
decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-
known case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Doe v. Bolton challenged Georgia's
much more liberal abortion statute.
 1973–1980 – France (1975), West Germany (1976), New Zealand (1977), Italy
(1978), and the Netherlands (1980) legalized abortion in limited circumstances.
(France : no elective -for non-medical reasons- abortion allowed after 10–12 weeks
gestation)
 1976–1977– Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois sponsors the Hyde Amendment,
which passes, allows states to prohibit the use of Medicaid funding for abortions.
 1978 - US Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed, prohibiting employment
discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.[31]
 1979 – The People's Republic of China enacted a one-child policy, to alleviate social,
economic, and environmental problems in China,[32] encouraging many couples to
have at most one child, and in some cases imposing penalties for violating the policy.
 1979 – Ireland, Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979 allowed sale of contraceptives,
upon presentation of a prescription.
 1983 – Ireland, by popular referendum, added an amendment to its Constitution
recognizing "the right to life of the unborn." Abortion is still illegal in Ireland, except
as urgent medical procedures to save a woman's life.
 1985 – Ireland, Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1985 allowed sale of
condoms and spermicides to people over 18 without having to present a prescription.
 1985 - United Kingdom, Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 made female
genital mutilation a crime throughout the UK. The Act was replaced by the Female
Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation
(Scotland) Act 2005 respectively, both of which extend the legislation to cover acts
committed by UK nationals outside of the UK's borders.
 1988 – France legalized the "abortion pill" mifepristone (RU-486).
 1988 – In R. v. Morgentaler, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion
regulation which allowed abortions in some circumstances but required approval of a
committee of doctors for violating a woman's constitutional "security of person";
Canadian law has not regulated abortion ever since.
 1989– Webster v. Reproductive Health Services reinforces the state's right to prevent
all publicly funded facilities from providing or assisting with abortion services.
 1990 – The Abortion Act in the UK was amended so that abortion is legal only up to
24 weeks, rather than 28, except in unusual cases.
 1992– In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court overturned the trimester
framework in Roe v. Wade, making it legal for states to proscribe abortion after the
point of fetal viability, excepting instances that would risk the woman's health.
 1993 – Ireland Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1992 allowed sale of
contraceptives without prescription.
 1993 – Poland banned abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, severe congenital
disorders, or threat to the life of the pregnant woman.
 1994– Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is passed by the United States
Congress to forbid the use of force or obstruction to prevent someone from providing
or receiving reproductive health services.
 1997 – In South Africa, the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1996 comes
into effect, allowing abortion on demand. The Abortion and Sterilization Act, 1975,
which only allowed abortions in very limited circumstances, is repealed.
 1998 – In Christian Lawyers Association and Others v Minister of Health and Others,
the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court of South Africa upholds the
Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act, holding that the Constitution of South
Africa does not forbid abortions.[33]
 1999 – In the United States, Congress passed a ban on intact dilation and extraction,
which President Bill Clinton vetoed.
 2000 – Mifepristone (RU-486) approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a
Nebraska state law that banned intact dilation and extraction.
 2003 – The U.S. enacted the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and President George W.
Bush signed it into law. After the law was challenged in three appeals courts, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that it was constitutional because, unlike the earlier Nebraska
state law, it was not vague or overly broad. The court also held that banning the
procedure did not constitute an "undue burden," even without a health exception. (see
also: Gonzales v. Carhart)
 2005 – The U.S. Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (implemented in January 2007)
prevented college health centers and many health care providers from participating in
 the drug pricing discount program, which formerly allowed contraceptives to be sold
to students and women of low income in the United States at low cost.
 2007 – The Parliament of Portugal voted to legalize abortion during the first ten weeks
of pregnancy. This followed a referendum that, while revealing that a majority of
Portuguese voters favored legalization of early-stage abortions, failed due to low voter
turnout.[34] The second referendum passed, however, and President Cavaco Silva
signed the measure into effect in April, 2007.[35][36]
 2007 – The government of Mexico City legalizes abortion during the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy, and offers free abortions. On August 28, 2008, the Mexican Supreme
Court upholds the law.[37]
 2007 – The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
[38]

 2008– The Australian state of Victoria passes a bill which decriminalizes abortion,
making it legally accessible to women in the first 24 weeks of the pregnancy.[39]
 2009 – In Spain a bill decriminalizes abortion, making it legally accessible to women
in the first 14 weeks of the pregnancy.[40]
 2010 - In Chile, came into force the Morning After Pill Law, which set the rules on
information, advice and services relating to fertility regulation, allowing the free
distribution of the pill in all country public clinics.[41]
 2011 - The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services established the policy,
effective 2012, that all private insurance plans are required to provide contraceptive
coverage to women without a co-pay or deductible.[42][43]
 2012 – In the Philippines, the Congress of the Philippines passed the Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 which guarantees universal access to
contraception, fertility control and maternal care. The bill also mandates the teaching
of sexual education in schools.[44][45]
 2012 – Uruguay legalizes abortion in the first trimester, making it legally accessible to
women.[46]
 2014 - Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[47][48] by
the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be
exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of
furthering the law's interest. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit
corporation's claim of religious belief,[49] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a]
The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of
religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a
regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their
female employees, by a 5-4 vote.[50] The court said that the mandate was not the least
restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative
was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later,
effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for
any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[51]

 2016 - Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on
whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the
contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-
 church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees.
Churches are already exempt under those regulations.[52] On May 16, 2016, the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in Zubik v. Burwell that vacated the
decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the case "to the respective
United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits" for
reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental
briefs".[53] Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed
where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include
coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties
should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in
practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues".[54] The Supreme Court expressed "no
view on the merits of the cases."[55] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomeyer, joined
by Justice Ginsburg noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those
instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's
actions in this case.[56]
 2016 - Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United
States Supreme Court case decided on June 27, 2016, when the Court ruled 5-3 that
Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an
undue burden for women seeking an abortion. It has been called the most significant
abortion rights case before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in
1992.[57]

In the twentieth century, creatures called heterosexuals Jonathan Ned Katz is a

emerged from the dark shadows of the nineteenth-century writer and historian. He
medical world to become common types acknowledged in is the editor of Gay
the bright light of the modern day. American History
(1976), the Gay/Lesbian
Heterosexuality began this century defensively, as the Almanac (1994), and
publicly unsanctioned private practice of the respectable The Invention of
middle class, and as the publicly put-clown pleasure- Heterosexuality (1995).
affirming practice of urban working-class youths,
southern blacks, and Greenwich Village bohemians. But
by the end of the 1920s, heterosexuality had triumphed as
dominant, sanctified culture.' In the first quarter of the twentieth century the heterosexual
came out, a public, self-affirming debut the homosexual would duplicate near the
century's end.

The discourse on heterosexuality had a protracted coming out, not completed in

American popular culture until the 1920s. Only slowly was heterosexuality established as
a stable sign of normal sex. The association of heterosexuality with perversion continued
as well into the twentieth century. . . .

In the first years of the twentieth century heterosexual and homosexual were still obscure
medical terms, not yet standard English. In the first 1901 edition of the "H" volume of
the comprehensive Oxford English Dictionary, heterosexual and homosexual had not yet
made it.

Neither had heterosexuality yet attained the status of normal. In 1901, Dorland's Medical
Dictionary, published in Philadelphia, continued to define "Heterosexuality" as
"Abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex."" Dorland's heterosexuality, a
new "appetite," was clearly identified with an "opposite sex" hunger. But that craving
was still aberrant. Dorland's calling heterosexuality "abnormal or perverted" is, according
to the Oxford English Dictionary's first Supplement (1933), a "misapplied" definition.
But contrary to the OED, Dorland's is a perfectly legitimate understanding of
heterosexuality according to a procreative norm.

The twentieth century witnessed the decreasing legitimacy of that procreative imperative,
and the increasing public acceptance of a new hetero pleasure principle. Gradually,
heterosexuality came to refer to a normal other-sex sensuality free of any essential tie to
procreation. But only in the mid- 1960s would heteroeroticism be distinguished
completely from reproduction, and male-female pleasure sex justified for itself. ...

Between 1877 and 1920 Americans were embarked on The Search for Order,
documented in historian Robert H. Wiebe's book of that title. Though Wiebe doesn't
mention it, this hunt for regularity gave rise in the arena of sex to the new standard model
heterosexuality. This paralleled early-twentieth-century moves to standardize railroad
track widths, time zones, business and manufacturing procedures (discussed by Wiebe),
as well as to test and regularize intelligence and femininity and masculinity....

In 1923, "heterosexuality" made its debut in Merriam Webster's authoritative New

International Dictionary. "Homosexuality" had, surprisingly, made its debut fourteen
years earlier, in 1909, defined as a medical term meaning "morbid sexual passion for one
of the same sex." The advertising of a diseased homosexuality preceded the publicizing
of a sick heterosexuality. For in 1923 Webster's defined "heterosexuality" as a "Med."
term meaning "morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex." Only in 1934 does
"heterosexuality" first appear in Webster's hefty Second Edition Unabridged defined in
what is still the dominant modern mode. There, heterosexuality is finally a
"manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality."
Heterosexuality had finally attained the status of norm.

In the same 1934 Webster's"homosexuality" had changed as well. It's simply "eroticism
for one of the same sex." Both terms' medical origins are no longer cited. Heterosexuality
and homosexuality had settled into standard American.

In 1924, in The New York Times, heterosexuality first became a love that dared to speak
its name. On September 7 of that year the word "hetero-sexual" made its first known
appearance in The New York Times Book Review significantly, in a comment on
Sigmund Freud. There, in a long, turgid review of Freud's Group Psychology and the
Analysis of the Ego one Mary Keyt Isham spoke of "repressed hetero-sexuality" and
"hetero-sexual love". . . .

By December 1940, when the risque musical "Pal Joey" opened on Broadway, a tune
titled "Zip" satirized the striptease artist Gypsy Rose Lee, by way of a character who,
unzipping, sang of her dislike for a deep-voiced woman or high-pitched man and
proclaimed her heterosexuality. That lyric registered the emergence in popular culture of
a heterosexual identity.

By 1941, the glossary of a book about "sex variants" said that "straight" is being
employed by homosexuals as meaning not homosexual. To go straight is to cease
homosexual practices and to indulge--usually to reindulge--in heterosexuality.

The "not homosexual," a new creature, defined by what he or she isn't, had emerged
among the cast of erotic characters on the twentieth-century stage. Here, "straight" is a
condition toward which one may venture or not, depending on one's "practices" (feeling
is not the issue). Now, the sex variants are doing the defining--categorizing is a game that
two preferences can play.

The "cult of domesticity" following World War II--the re-association of women with the
home, motherhood, and child care, men with fatherhood and wage-work outside the
home--was an era in which the predominance of the hetero norm went almost
unchallenged. In the late 1940s and the 1950s, conservative mental-health professionals
reasserted the old link between heterosexuality and procreation. In opposition, sex-
liberals strove to expand the heterosexual ideal to include within the boundaries of the
normal a wider-than-ever range of gender ideals and nonprocreative, premarital, and
extramarital behavior. But that sex-liberal reform actually helped to secure the
dominance of the heterosexual idea, as we shall see when we get to Kinsey. . . .

This sex scientist [Kinsey] popularized the idea of a "continuum" of activity and feeling
between hetero and homo poles:

Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-
holes. The living world is a continuum.
His recasting of the hetero/homo polarity did suggest that there are degrees of
heterosexual and homosexual behavior and emotion. But that famous continuum also
emphatically reaffirmed the idea of a sexuality divided between the hetero and homo.

Kinsey's "heterosexual-homosexual rating scale," from zero to six, sounded precise,

quantitative, and scientific, fixing the het/homo binary in the public mind with new
certainty. His science-dressed, influential sex-liberalism thus upheld the hetero/homo
division, giving it new life and legitimacy.

Kinsey also explicitly contested the idea of an absolute either/or antithesis between
hetero and homo persons. Stressing the variations between exclusive heterosexual and
exclusive homosexual behavior and feeling, he denied that human beings "represent two
discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual." The world's population, he ordered,
"is not to be divided into sheep and goats." (That revealing Biblical metaphor positions
heterosexuals as sheep, coupled with conformity, and homosexuals as goats, linked with
licentiousness).

The hetero/homo division of persons is not nature's doing, Kinsey stresses, but society's.
As sex-liberal reformer, he challenged the social and historical division of people into
heterosexuals and homosexuals because he saw this person-labeling used to denigrate
homosexuals. Motivated by a reformist impulse, he rejected the social reality and
profound subjective force of a historically constructed tradition which, since the early
twentieth century in the U.S., had cut the sexual population in two--and helped to
establish the social and personal reality of a heterosexual and homosexual identity. . . .

Between the 1890s and the 1960s the terms heterosexual and homosexual moved into
American popular culture, constructing in time a sexual solid citizen and a perverted
unstable alien, a sensual insider and a lascivious outlaw, a hetero center and a homo
margin, a hetero majority and a homo minority. The new, strict boundaries made the new
gendered, erotic world less polymorphous. The term heterosexual manufactured a new
sex-differentiated ideal of the erotically correct, a norm that worked to affirm the
superiority of men over women and heterosexuals over homosexuals. Feminists
questioned those gender and pleasure hierarchies.

Human bonding

Human bonding is the process of development of a close, interpersonal relationship. It

most commonly takes place between family members or friends,[1] but can also develop
among groups, such as sporting teams and whenever people spend time together.
Bonding is a mutual, interactive process, and is different from simple liking.

Bonding typically refers to the process of attachment that develops between romantic
partners, close friends, or parents and children. This bond is characterized by emotions
such as affection and trust. Any two people who spend time together may form a bond.
Male bonding refers to the establishment of relationships between men through shared
activities that often exclude females. The term female bonding refers to the formation of
close personal relationships between women.[2]

Early views

In the 4th century BC, the Greek philosopher Plato argued that love directs the bonds of
human society. In his Symposium, Eryximachus, one of the narrators in the dialog, states
that love goes far beyond simple attraction to human beauty. He states that it occurs
throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, as well as throughout the universe. Love
directs everything that occurs, in the realm of the gods as well as that of humans (186a–
b).

Eryximachus reasons that when various opposing elements such as wet and dry are
"animated by the proper species of Love, they are in harmony with one another ... But
when the sort of Love that is crude and impulsive controls the seasons, he brings death
and destruction" (188a). Because it is love that guides the relations between these sets of
opposites throughout existence, in every case it is the higher form of love that brings
harmony and cleaves toward the good, whereas the impulsive vulgar love creates
disharmony.

Plato concludes that the highest form of love is the greatest. When love "is directed, in
temperance and justice, towards the good, whether in heaven or on earth: happiness and
good fortune, the bonds of human society, concord with the gods above—all these are
among his gifts" (188d).

In the 1660s, the Dutch philosopher Spinoza wrote, in his Ethics of Human Bondage or
the Strength of the Emotions, that the term bondage relates to the human infirmity in
moderating and checking the emotions. That is, according to Spinoza, "when a man is
prey to his emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the mercy of fortune."

In 1809 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, in his classic novella Elective Affinities, wrote of
the "marriage tie," and by analogy shows how strong marriage unions are similar in
character to that by which the particles of quicksilver find a unity together through the
process of chemical affinity. Humans in passionate relationships, according to Goethe,
are analogous to reactive substances in a chemical equation.

Pair bonding

Main article: Pair bond

The term pair bond originated in 1940 in reference to mated pairs of birds; referring to a
monogamous or relatively monogamous relationship. Whilst some form of monogamy
may characterize around 90% of bird species, in mammals long-term pairing (beyond the
brief duration of copulation itself) is rare, at around 3% (see animal monogamy). The
incidence of monogamy in primate species is similarly low in contrast with polygyny
(one male mating with two or more females), the most common pattern.[3] However,
regardless of mating patterns, primate life is typically characterized by long-lasting social
relationships (whether sexual, care-giving, coalitionary or otherwise) formed in the
context of living in durable social groups,[3] and any such durable relationship (whether
exclusive or not) is characterized by some degree of bonding. Similarly, whilst the
'naturalness' of monogamy in humans is debated,[4] durable monogamous or polygamous
relationships will typically be accompanied by affectional or emotional bonding (see next
section).

Limerent bond

Main article: Limerence

According to limerence theory, posited in 1979 by psychologist Dorothy Tennov, a

certain percentage of couples may go through what is called a limerent reaction, in which
one or both of the pair may experience a state of passion mixed with continuous intrusive
thinking, fear of rejection, and hope. Hence, with all human romantic relationships, one
of three varieties of bonds may form, defined over a set duration of time, in relation to
the experience or non-experience of limerence:

1. Affectional bond: define relationships in which neither partner is limerent.

2. Limerent–Nonlimerent bond: define relationships in which one partner is
limerent.
3. Limerent–Limerent bond: define relationships in which both partners are
limerent.

The constitution of these bonds may vary over the course of the relationship, in ways that
may either increase or decrease the intensity of the limerence. A characteristic of this
delineation made by Tennov, is that based on her research and interviews with over 500
people, all human bonded relationships can be divided into three varieties being defined
by the amount of limerence or non-limerence each partner contributes to the relationship.

Parental bonding

Attachment

Main articles: Affectional bond and Attachment theory

Parental bonds often help children form their identity

In 1958, British developmental psychologist John Bowlby published the paper "the
Nature of the Child's Tie to his Mother," in which the precursory concepts of "attachment
theory" were developed. This included the development of the concept of the affectional
bond, sometimes referred to as the emotional bond, which is based on the universal
tendency for humans to attach, i.e. to seek closeness to another person and to feel secure
when that person is present. Attachment theory has some of its origins in the observation
of and experiments with animals, but is also based on observations of children who had
missed typical experiences of adult care. Much of the early research on attachment in
humans was done by John Bowlby and his associates. Bowlby proposed that babies have
an inbuilt need from birth to make emotional attachments, i.e. bonds, because this
increases the chances of survival by ensuring that they receive the care they need.[5][6][7]
Bowlby did not describe mutuality in attachment. He stated that attachment by mother
was a pathological inversion and described only behaviors of the infant. Many
developmental specialists elaborated Bowlby's ethological observations. However,
neither Bowlby's proximity seeking (not possible for human infants prior to walking) nor
subsequent descriptions of caregiver–infant mutuality with emotional availability and
synchrony with emotional modulation include the enduring motivation of attachment into
adult life. The enduring motivation is the desire to control a pleasantly surprising
transformation that is the route of belief in effectiveness by humans.[citation needed]
This motivation accounts for curiosity and intellectual growth of language, mathematics
and logic, all of which have an emotional base of security.[8]

Maternal bonding

Main article: Maternal bond

A mother breast feeding—a process that facilitates mother–infant bonding.

Of all human bonds, the maternal bond (mother–infant relationship) is one of the
strongest. The maternal bond begins to develop during pregnancy; following pregnancy,
the production of oxytocin during lactation increases parasympathetic activity, thus
reducing anxiety and theoretically fostering bonding. It is generally understood that
maternal oxytocin circulation can predispose some mammals to show caregiving
behavior in response to young of their species.

Breastfeeding has been reported to foster the early post-partum maternal bond, via touch,
response, and mutual gazing.[9] Extensive claims for the effect of breastfeeding were
made in the 1930s by Margaret Ribble, a champion of "infant rights,"[10] but were
challenged by others.[11] The claimed effect is not universal, and bottle-feeding mothers
are generally appropriately concerned with their babies. It is difficult to determine the
extent of causality due to a number of confounding variables, such as the varied reasons
families choose different feeding methods. Many believe that early bonding ideally
increases response and sensitivity to the child's needs, bolstering the quality of the
mother–baby relationship—however, many exceptions can be found of highly successful
mother–baby bonds, even though early breastfeeding did not occur, such as with
premature infants who may lack the necessary sucking strength to be successfully
breastfed.

Research following Bowlby's observations (above) created some concern about whether
adoptive parents have missed some crucial period for the child's development. However,
research on The Mental and Social Life of Babies suggested that the "parent-infant
system," rather than a bond between biologically related individuals, is an evolved fit
between innate behavior patterns of all human infants and equally evolved responses of
human adults to those infant behaviors. Thus nature "ensures some initial flexibility with
respect to the particular adults who take on the parental role."[12]

Paternal bonding

Father playing with his daughter—an activity that tends to strengthen the father–child
bond.
Main article: Paternal bond

In contrast to the maternal bond, paternal bonds tend to vary over the span of a child's
development in terms of both strength and stability. In fact, many children now grow up
in fatherless households and do not experience a paternal bond at all. In general, paternal
bonding is more dominant later in a child's life after language develops. Fathers may be
more influential in play interactions as opposed to nurturance interactions. Father–child
bonds also tend to develop with respect to topics such as political views or money,
whereas mother–child bonds tend to develop in relation to topics such as religious views
or general outlooks on life.[13]

In 2003, a researcher from Northwestern University in Illinois found that progesterone, a

hormone more usually associated with pregnancy and maternal bonding, may also
control the way men react towards their children. Specifically, they found that a lack of
progesterone reduced aggressive behavior in male mice and stimulated them to act in a
fatherly way towards their offspring.[14]

Human–animal bonding

Main articles: Pet and Anthrozoology

A child bonding with a cat. Human to animal contact is known to reduce the
physiological characteristics of stress.
The human–animal bond can occur between people and domestic or wild animals; be it a
cat as a pet or birds outside one's window. The phrase “Human-Animal Bond” also
known as HAB began to emerge as terminology in the late 1970s and early 1980s.[15]
Research into the nature and merit of the human–animal bond began in the late 18th
century when, in York, England, the Society of Friends established The Retreat to
provide humane treatment for the mentally ill. By having patients care for the many farm
animals on the estate, society officials theorized that the combination of animal contact
plus productive work would facilitate the patients' rehabilitation. In the 1870s in Paris, a
French surgeon had patients with neurological disorders ride horses. The patients were
found to have improved their motor control and balance and were less likely to suffer
bouts of depression.[16]

During the 1820-1870s America's Victorian middle class used the human-animal bond to
aid in children's socialization. This was an entirely gendered process, as parents and
society believed only boys had an innate tendency towards violence and needed to be
socialized towards kindness and empathy through companion animals.[17] Over time pet
keeping to socialize children became more gender neutral, but even into the 1980s and
90s there remained a belief that boys especially benefited from pet keeping due to the
fact that it was one of only ways they could practice nurturing given the limiting gender
norms.[18]

An example of the Human-Animal Bond can be seen during World War I on the Western
Front with horses. The use of this animal was widespread as over 24,000 horses and
mules were used in the Canadian Expeditionary Force in World War I.[19] The horse
connection can be seen as horses were used to pull wagons for their drivers, as individual
transport mounts for officers, and patients for veterinarians. When researching the
human-animal bond there is a danger of anthropomorphism and projections of human
qualities.

In the 19th century, in Bielefeld, Germany, epileptic patients were given the prescription
to spend time each day taking care of cats and dogs. The contact with the animals was
found to reduce the occurrence of seizures. As early as the 1920s people were starting to
utilize the human-animal bond not just for healing, but also granting independence
through service animals. In 1929 The Seeing Eye Inc. school formed to train guide dogs
for the blind in the United States, inspired by dogs being trained to guide WWI veterans
in Europe.[20] Furthermore, the idea is that the human-animal bond can provide health
benefits to humans as the animals "appeal to fundamental human needs for
companionship, comfort, and security..."[19] In 1980, a team of scientists at the University
of Pennsylvania found that human to animal contact was found to reduce the
physiological characteristics of stress; specifically, lowered levels of blood pressure,
heart rate, respiratory rate, anxiety, and tension were all found to correlate positively with
human–pet bonding.[16]

In some cases, despite its benefits, the human-animal bond can be used for harmful
purposes. The 1990s saw an increase in social and scientific awareness of the use of
companion animals as a tool for domestic violence.[21] A 1997 study found that 80% of
shelters reported women staying with them had experienced their abuser threatening or
harming companion animals as a form of abuse.[21]
A study in 2003, by the U.S. Department of Defense, based on human-animal bonding
determined that there was an improvement and enrichment of life when animals were
closely involved with humans.[19] The study tested blood levels and noticed a rise in
Oxytocin in humans and animals which participated; Oxytocin has the ability to lower
stress, heart rate, and fear levels in humans and animals.[19]

Historically, animals were domesticated for functional use; for example, dogs for herding
and tracking, and cats for killing mice or rats. Today, in Western societies, their function
is primarily bonding. For example, current studies show that 60–80% of dogs sleep with
their owners at night in the bedroom, either in or on the bed.[22] Moreover, in the past the
majority of cats were kept outside (barn cats) whereas today most cats are kept indoors
(housecats) and considered part of the family. Currently, in the US, for example, 1.2
billion animals are kept as pets, primarily for bonding purposes.[22] In addition, as of 1995
there were over 30 research institutions looking into the potential benefits of the human–
animal bond.[16]

Neurobiology

There is evidence in a variety of species that the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin are
involved in the bonding process, and in other forms of prosocial and reproductive
behavior. Both chemicals facilitate pair bonding and maternal behavior in experiments on
laboratory animals. In humans, there is evidence that oxytocin and vasopressin are
released during labor and breastfeeding, and that these events are associated with
maternal bonding. According to one model, social isolation leads to stress, which is
associated with activity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the release of
cortisol. Positive social interaction is associated with increased oxytocin. This leads to
bonding, which is also associated with higher levels of oxytocin and vasopressin, and
reduced stress and stress-related hormones.[23]

Oxytocin is associated with higher levels of trust in laboratory studies on humans. It has
been called the "cuddle chemical" for its role in facilitating trust and attachment. [24] In the
reward centers of the limbic system, the neurotransmitter dopamine may interact with
oxytocin and further increase the likelihood of bonding. One team of researchers has
argued that oxytocin only plays a secondary role in affiliation, and that endogenous
opiates play the central role. According to this model, affiliation is a function of the brain
systems underlying reward and memory formation.[25]

Because the vast majority of this research has been done on animals—and the majority of
that on rodents—these findings must be taken with caution when applied to humans. One
of the few studies that looked at the influence of hormones on human bonding compared
participants who had recently fallen in love with a control group. There were no
differences for most of the hormones measured, including LH, estradiol, progesterone,
DHEAS, and androstenedione. Testosterone and FSH were lower in men who had
recently fallen in love, and there was also a difference in blood cortisol for both sexes,
with higher levels in the group that was in love. These differences disappeared after 12–
28 months and may reflect the temporary stress and arousal of a new relationship.[26]

Prolactin
Main article: Prolactin

Prolactin is a peptide hormone primarily produced in the anterior pituitary gland.[27]

Prolactin affects reproduction and lactation in humans and other non-human mammals. It
is also thought to mediate the formation of social bonds between mothers and their
infants, much like the hormone oxytocin.[28] In addition to prolactin’s role in the
formation of social bonds, it is thought to be involved in romantic attachment, especially
in its early stages. Prolactin may also act to mediate well-being and the positive effects of
close relationships on one's health. To do so, it alters an individual's neuroendocrine
system to increase the probability of forming a strong social bond without requiring long
gestation periods; this may enable bonding between mother and child in cases of
adoption.[29]

Prolactin can also influence both maternal and paternal behavior. The administration of
prolactin to female rats initiates maternal behavior, and in bird and fish fathers, it can
increase paternal behavior, whereas antagonists to prolactin decrease paternal behavior.
[30]
In human studies, fathers with higher prolactin concentrations are more alert and
nurturing towards their infants. In a different study where fathers and infants were
observed over a six-months period after the child was born, the researchers found that
fathers with higher prolactin levels were more likely to facilitate play with their infant.
Moreover, following the birth of the child, prolactin promotes bonding between the
father and the newborn.

Prolactin levels can also increase during socially stressful situations in humans. This has
been seen by administering the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST), and then measuring
blood serum prolactin concentrations. The TSST is a widely accepted stress test in which
the research subject undergoes a mock job interview and then a mental arithmetic task in
front of a three-person committee. This test is proven to simulate social psychological
stress.[31] After the administration of this test, significantly higher prolactin levels can be
observed in the serum. There is a large variation in the amount prolactin levels increase
in different individuals, however the effect is not significantly different between men and
women[32]

Weak ties

Main article: Interpersonal ties

In 1962, while a freshman history major at Harvard, Mark Granovetter became enamored
of the concepts underlying the classic chemistry lecture in which "weak" hydrogen bonds
hold huge numbers of water molecules together, which themselves are held together by
"strong" covalent bonds. This model was the stimulus behind his famous 1973 paper The
Strength of Weak Ties, which is now considered a classic paper in sociology.

Weak social bonds are believed to be responsible for the majority of the embeddedness
and structure of social networks in society as well as the transmission of information
through these networks. Specifically, more novel information flows to individuals
through weak than through strong ties. Because our close friends tend to move in the
same circles that we do, the information they receive overlaps considerably with what we
already know. Acquaintances, by contrast, know people that we do not, and thus receive
more novel information.[33]

Debonding and loss

In 1953, sociologist Diane Vaughan proposed an uncoupling theory. It states that during
the dynamics of relationship breakup, there exists a "turning point," only noted in
hindsight, followed by a transition period in which one partner unconsciously knows the
relationship is going to end, but holds on to it for an extended period, sometimes for a
number of years.[34]

When a person to which one has become bonded is lost, a grief response may occur.
Grief is the process of accepting the loss and adjusting to the changed situation. Grief
may take longer than the initial development of the bond. The grief process varies with
culture.

The seven-year itch is a psychological term that suggests that happiness in a relationship
declines after around year seven of a marriage.[1] The phrase originated as a name for
irritating and contagious skin complaints of a long duration. Examples of reference may
have included STD outbreaks that are known to significantly decrease in frequency after
seven years, or mites that live under the skin (scabies) and cause severe itching that is
hard to get rid of. Later on in the 19th and early 20th centuries it was viewed as an
expression of imagined appropriate punishment for antisocial behavior, or as a simile for
a situation with little hope in relief.[2]

The phrase was first used to describe an inclination to become unfaithful after seven
years of marriage in the play The Seven Year Itch by George Axelrod, and gained
popularity following the 1955 film adaptation starring Marilyn Monroe and Tom Ewell.

The phrase has since expanded to indicate cycles of dissatisfaction not only in
interpersonal relationships but in any situation such as working a full-time job or buying
a house, where a decrease in happiness and satisfaction is often seen over long periods of
time.

Contents

Divorce rates

The seven-year itch can be analyzed quantitatively. Divorce rates show a trend in couples
that, on average, divorce around seven years. Statistics show that there is a low risk of
separation during the first months of marriage. After the "honeymoon" months, divorce
rates start to increase. Most married couples experience a gradual decline in the quality
of their marriage; in recent years around the fourth year of marriage. Around the seventh
year, tensions rise to a point that couples either divorce or adapt to their partner.[3]
In samples taken from the National Center for Health Statistics, there proves to be an
average median duration of marriage across time. In 1922 the median duration of
marriage that ended in divorce was 6.6.[4] In 1974 the median duration was 7.5. In 1990
the median duration was 7.2. While these can fluctuate from year to year, the averages
stay relatively close to the seven year mark.[5]

Media influences

The modern usage of the phrase gained popularity following the 1955 movie of the same
name starring Marilyn Monroe. In the film, a man sends his family off on vacation for
the summer while he stays back to work. He begins to fantasize about women that he
previously had feelings for, when his new neighbor (Marilyn Monroe) moves in and he
decides to try and seduce her. Things go awry and he ends up not going through with it,
but he believes that his wife will somehow know that he is trying to be unfaithful.[6]

Whilst the term was originally used for unfavourable conditions of a long duration, the
movie helped to popularize its usage to refer to the decrease of romantic feelings between
married couples over time. The phrase has become so popular that some couples use it as
an indicator of the lifespan of their marriage, a famous example being a Bavarian
politician Gabriele Pauli, who has been divorced twice. She suggests after seven years
marriage should end, with the couple required to resay their vows if they wish to
continue for another seven years.[7]