This chapter presents comparative data from hunting and gathering societies that argues against provisioning by males as a cause of pair bonding. Provisioning as paternal investment should vary with vulnerability of offspring and effectiveness of male care, and with male estimates of paternity. For instance, if male provisioning was important, and men stayed in a marriage because of the cost to their children from desertion, women with more small children should be less likely to get divorced. Pair bonding as a solution to male contests draws attention to the social nature of marriage more forcefully than paternal provisioning has done. Ideas about the evolution of human pair bonding have centered around the role of men as provisioners of wife and children. The many findings in the literature that cast doubt on the equally long assumed importance of paternal care in avian pair bonding.