龙腾网首页 -> 国外新鲜事 -> 正文 Tips:使用 ← → 键即可快速浏览其他文章
2019-05-22 yzy86 8376 0 0  

People tend to feel strongly about mattersof sexual morality, such as premarital sex or gay marriage.


Some sources of these differences areobvious. Religion, media portrayals and parents and peers are big social forcesthat shape attitudes about sex.


But could something as innocuous as the waywe look spark these different outlooks, too? In a recently published article, Istudied this question.


Beauty and opportunity


Compared with the rest of us, mostbeautiful people lead charmed lives.


Studies show that pretty people tend to getfavorable treatment. They secure better jobs and earn higher salaries. Othersare friendlier toward them. With this extra money and social support, they’rebetter equipped to fend off any consequences of their actions. For instance,the better-looking can get more benefit of the doubt from juries.


Their lives are most charmed, though, inmatters of sex and romance. While many benefits of beauty are small – aslightly higher salary offer here, a better performance uation there – theromantic benefits are larger and more consistent. Good-looking people onaverage have more sexual opportunities and partners.


Could this create a sense, among attractivepeople, that anything goes when it comes to sex? Could it make them lessinclined to value sexual purity? And might sexually experienced people belittlethe moral costs of sex in order to feel better about their own past conduct?


If so, we would expect good-looking peopleto be the most tolerant ones where sex is concerned. They would have lessrestrictive views on issues like premarital sex, abortion or gay marriage.


A link to conservatism?


But you could also argue the opposite.


Higher salaries and greater success in thejob market might pull good-looking people toward more conservative views whenit comes to taxes or economic justice.


Since conservatives, on average, dislikesexual freedom more than liberals do, identifying with conservatives foreconomic reasons – or simply moving in conservative social circles – might makethe beautiful less, not more, tolerant where sex is concerned. Along theselines, studies have found that good looks are associated with conservatismamong politicians.


Attractiveness could then plausiblyassociate with higher or lower standards for what sexual activities are morallyacceptable. Or the two arguments could cancel each other out, as one study ofcollege students suggested.


Digging into the surveys


To further explore this issue, I turned totwo large, prominent surveys of Americans’ views: the General Social Surveyfrom 2016 and the American National Election Studies from 1972.


Both surveys were administeredface-to-face. And, unusually, both studies asked the person administering thesurvey to uate the respondent’s looks on a one-to-five scale. (Therespondent doesn’t see the score. The study’s designers weren’t that heedlessof social awkwardness.)


This measure of beauty isn’t rigorous. Butit does resemble quick personal judgments made in everyday life. Moreover, thedecades-long gap between the studies gives some sense of whether effectspersist across a generation’s worth of cultural change.


The surveys also asked about legal andmoral standards relevant to sex, such as how restrictive abortion laws shouldbe, whether gay marriage should be legal and about the acceptability ofpremarital, extramarital and gay sex.


In both studies, the better-looking seemmore relaxed about sexual morality. For instance, in the data from 2016, 51percent of those whose looks were rated above average said a woman who wants anabortion for any reason should legally be allowed to have one. Only 42 percentof those with below-average looks said the same. This nine-point differenceincreases to 15 points when accounting for factors like age, education,political ideology and religiosity.


This pattern repeated for almost allquestions. The one exception was a question that asked when adultery wasmorally acceptable. Almost all respondents said “never” to that, washing outdifferences between the more and less attractive.


Are morals opportunistic?


If past experience is what makes beautifulpeople more tolerant toward issues like abortion and gay marriage, we would notexpect them to be notably more tolerant about matters in which looks don’tapply. This proves to be true. Good-looking respondents in these surveys aren’tdetectably more open, for example, to a legal right to die or to acceptingcivil disobedience.

These results are consistent with otherfindings showing that getting away with violating norms can make you morecasual about those norms in the future. Whether in white-collar crime or policeviolence or international human-rights violations, those who pull off onequestionable action often become more willing to justify doing the same, orperhaps even a little more, in the future.


The same could be said for sex. If you’vehave a lot of sexual experiences in the past, it may color your attitudestoward the vast range of sexual possibilities – even those that don’t directlyapply to your own sexuality or personal experience.



1、There have been otherstudies and reports written about we humans predilection to deference towardsattractive people.     One that springsto mind is a bank robbery where the robbers dressed in smart suits, ties andpolished shoes.    As they emerged fromthe bank guns ablaze the snipers who were tasked with neutralising themhesitated because they were “smartly dressed and looked like bankers”.    Very heavily armed bankers (the worstkind).


2、It is an interestingarticle. As a somewhat beautiful person I can tell you that there is privilegeinvolved, yes.I did want to say, though, with all due respect - I did not likethe term “dislike sexual freedom” which strikes me as a very manipulative wayof saying what we all know to mean “sexually conservative”. I just had to signin and chime in about this. I can’t stand this type of language because it isdishonest, and it is a misuse of the word ‘freedom’.


3、I agree that on theface of it physically attractive people initially get treated with deferenceand can get away with more than a physically unattractive person.        But society is still predicated onability for success.     Not physicalfeatures      Unless you include filmstardom or modelling.


In the long term competence or the lackthereof becomes their making or undoing.


I’m in my 60th year and am short 168cm andnot particularly photogenic.
So I have had plenty of time andopportunity to observe and reflect on the treatment of others in relation tomyself and without being too immodest I have noticed that height especially isa trait that is commonly seen as desirable in both leadership and matchmaking.


But and this is a big BUT, if the ‘chosenone’ is not competent they will fail and suffer greater distress than myself.
Why?   Well,l because they have become conditioned to the expectation ofpreferential treatment without effort.