Draupadi, heroine of an ancient Sanskrit epic, had 5 husbandsBob King

Western Civilisation is built upon a Christian edifice, and although religious belief has declined, our society is still profoundly tied to that system of ethics. With the drive towards greater liberalisation eroding so many religious dogmas that do not fit with modern society, most evident in the normalisation of homosexuality and widening acceptance of abortion, we must ask: why is there still a cultural obsession around monogamy?

Even if our animal instincts pull us towards polygamy, our developed psyches opt for monogamy: we cannot underestimate its psychological significance. This boils down to a simple psychological maxim which struck me in Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamazov: the more something is available, the less it is valued; this rule applies to everything, from economics to the psychology of monogamy. Ivan proclaims that Christ’s love would not suffice, as it is directed towards everyone. The exclusivity of having one person, who you love and who loves you back, is a far more comforting and special love than Christ could ever provide. If your partner was emotionally and psychologically invested in someone else, would that not detract from your relationship?

But you don’t have to go back to Dostoyevsky’s Russia to see this. Just look at Spike Jonze’s film Her from last year. The same questions are asked as we watch Theodore, the film’s protagonist, fall in love with an operating system with artificial intelligence. Joaquin Phoenix’s character is distraught when he finds out that ‘Samantha’ is ‘involved’ with over 8,000 other people like himself. ‘Samantha’ argues that this does not change the intrinsic nature of her relationship with Theodore, and while this may be true, whether it is a man in love with a computer or a struggling Christian, the rival sources of investment and trust would destabilise even the most emotionally aloof.

Religion did not always condemn polygamy. In fact, two of the three forefathers of the three main monotheistic religions all had multiple wives – Abraham had Sarah and Hagar and Jacob not only had two wives, Leah and Rachel, but also had children by their handmaidens Bilhah and Zilpah. In spite of this, polygamy was never really part of Christianity and was eventually weeded out of Judaism, also having declined under Islamic law (Muslim men are allowed to practice polygyny with up to four women but polyandry is not permitted). One of the reasons given by Rabbi Gershon, the man who altered the Jewish perspective on polygamy, is that polygyny was a source of jealousy and conflict between wives. It seems there is a consensus between your modern man, married to an operating system with artificial intelligence, and a Rabbi around 1000 years ago. The psyche of human beings hasn’t changed so much after all.

The situation is different today, but we should not mistake it for contradicting our cultural obsession with monogamy. The sexual revolution which occurred in Britain over the past half a century has revolutionised the traditional male-female relationship. There is more sexual promiscuity, marriage is no longer required for sexual relations and sexual relations are not limited to heterosexuals. However, although people may be sexually polygamous, this is distinct from being both physically and emotionally polygamous – it is rare to find someone who is dating two people at once with both partners aware of it. Sexual polygamy only presses the point further; our ability to move on from sexual monogamy highlights our inability to move on emotional monogamy.

The Office for National Statistics published in December 2012 that an estimated 42 per cent of marriages in England and Wales end in divorce. When considering these statistics – alongside the debauchery of British youth and the technological revelation that is Tinder – it is clear that attitudes have changed. Yet this only serves to accentuate the remarkable survival of monogamy: the fact is that if people are getting divorced, they are also still getting married, and sexual promiscuity in no way indicates that people are have stopped being interested in dreams of monogamy, especially in the long-term.

Most people enjoy their flirtation with lasciviousness, but never as anything more than that. People still believe in monogamy – whether it’s marriage or an alternative manifestation of mutual commitment, their ultimate goal is still the same: ‘one love’. We only have to look only as far as the political ruckus surrounding same-sex marriage to understand this; civil partnerships already existed, but there is something about marriage aside from the religious aspect that makes it an important symbol of our social devotion to monogamy. If it were no longer important to society, the political debate would have been far less intense.

The evidence is most prominent in our cultural artefacts. One only needs to scroll down the UK Top 40 to see that even supposedly irreverent pop stars are obsessed with the idea of monogamous love, with Clean Bandit’s ‘Real Love’ and Phillip George’s ‘Wish You Were Mine’. Your more polygamous rappers are being outstripped by the Ed Sheerans of the world who promise ‘“And, darling, I will be loving you ‘til we’re 70.” And you can always guarantee that there will be a saccharine romantic comedy at the cinema. It’s the same recycled and formulaic love story over and over, and yet people will still cough up the cash to see the latest adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel. Even on the rare occasion when romantic cinema eludes you, almost all other genres perpetuate the monogamous ideal; four out of five of this year’s BAFTA nominations for ‘Best Film’ contain this theme, be it teenage heartbreak in Boyhood or the romantic antics of a bellboy and a pastry chef in The Grand Budapest Hotel. Even if it is peripheral, it is always there.

Reflecting back on my own childhood, it is easy to see how my generation’s perceptions have been moulded. Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Lady and the Tramp – Disney alone could be identified as the root of my own ideas on monogamy, and they certainly aren’t changing. The internet generation will have a more diverse cultural exposure than 90s kids, but even if their attention span is shortening to a YouTube-appropriate length, Disney’s new shorts are here to ensure the next generation’s dedication to the ideal of monogamy with Paperman and The Blue Umbrella. Yes, even Umbrellas can love one another, and more importantly, resist the urge to make sweet umbrella love to more than one parasol. Even movies like Frozen, lauded for their empowerment of women, have at their foundations the trope of romantic monogamy. The altered gender balance and the refreshing focus on sisterly love aside, a Disney film is just incomplete without a monogamous, heterosexual romance, as fulfilled by Anna and Kristoff.

This all amounts to something of an obsession, and in spite of the embedded roots of monogamy in our society, it remains a difficult phenomenon to explain. Is culture and media responding to our demands? Or is it our cultural landscape that shapes our perceptions and sustains this obsession? It is difficult to tell what came first, but it is obvious that the two are sustaining each other. Monogamy is now deeply entrenched in our society and a cycle has been established. The fact is we are constantly buying into the nonpareil of monogamy, and cultural production responds to this obsession, making our society’s love for monogamy a rival to some of the greatest romances out there.

With Valentine’s Day just two weeks away, forget Cindies and that one night stand and find someone special. There is no point in fighting it: monogamy is here to stay.