Personality and Sexual Relations
Personality and Sexual Relations
复制标题
性格与性关系
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1986
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Gangestad
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Snyder;J. Simpson;S. Gangestad
本研究旨在探讨自我监控倾向与性关系取向之间的关系。对行为和态度调查数据的因素分析显示，自我监控程度高的人倾向于建立一种不受限制的性关系取向（比如他们可能会与心理上不一定亲近的人发生性关系），而自我监控程度低的人倾向于建立一种受限制的性关系取向（比如他们只会与心理上亲近的伴侣发生性关系）。在行为层面上，自我监控水平高的人比自我监控水平低的人表明，他们在前一年有更多不同的性伴侣，可以预见自己在未来5年内与更多不同的性伴侣发生性关系，并且更有可能只与某人发生一次性关系。在态度层面上，自我监控水平相对较低的人表示，他们更不愿意与他们没有承诺的人发生性关系，他们会更不舒服，也不太可能享受与不同伴侣的随意性行为。可能的起源和影响，这些对比的方向进行了讨论。古往今来，这一直是一个沉思，辩论和个人陈述的问题：鉴于人性，爱的作用是什么，亲密关系，在同意的伴侣之间的性关系中的承诺？爱和承诺是性关系的必要先决条件吗？如果伴侣之间没有心理上的亲密，性体验是空洞和毫无意义的吗？或者，对于那些虽然彼此吸引，但心理上并不亲近的伴侣来说，性是一种舒适、愉快甚至丰富的体验吗？如果一个样本的文学，学术，或对这个问题所作的个人陈述，一个很可能会发现明显的分歧。比较和对比，例如，伯特兰·罗素的观点，“文明的人不能完全满足他们的性本能没有爱”（1929年），和艾德丽安·里奇，“我会称之为爱，如果爱/没有花这么多年/但欲望也是一颗宝石”（1966年）。事实上，至少在西方文化中，性关系的取向可能存在可靠和实质性的差异。有些人相信至少对他们自己来说性关系不需要局限于他们和他们的伴侣在心理上接近的关系。例如，他们可能会声称，如果他们被某人吸引，他们会感到舒适和自在地与那个人发生性关系，即使他们并不了解他或她。这样的人可以说
This investigation examined the links between self-monitoring propensities and orientations toward sexual relations. A factor analysis of behavioral and attitudinal survey data revealed that high selfmonitoring individuals tend to establish an unrestricted orientation toward sexual relations (such that they may engage in sex with others to whom they are not necessarily psychologically close), whereas low self-monitoring individuals tend to establish a restricted orientation (such that they will engage in sex only with partners to whom they are psychologically close). At the behavioral level, high relative to low self-monitoring individuals indicated that they had a larger number of different sexual partners within the preceding year, could foresee themselves having sex with a larger number of different partners within the next 5 years, and were more likely to have engaged in sex with someone on only one occasion. At an attitudinal level, low relative to high self-monitoring individuals indicated that they would be more reluctant to have sex with someone to whom they were not committed, and that they would be more uncomfortable with, and less likely to enjoy engaging in, casual sex with different partners. Possible origins and implications of these contrasting orientations are discussed. Throughout the ages, it has been a matter for contemplation, debate, and personal statement: Given human nature, what is the role of love, closeness, and commitment in sexual relations between consenting partners? Are love and commitment necessary prerequisites for sexual relations? Is the sexual experience empty and meaningless without psychological closeness between the partners? Or can sex be a comfortable, enjoyable, and even enriching experience for partners who, although attracted to each other, are not psychologically close? If one samples literary, academic, or personal statements made on this issue, one is likely to find pronounced disagreement. Compare and contrast, for instance, the views of Bertrand Russell, "Civilized people cannot fully satisfy their sexual instinct without love" (1929), and Adrienne Rich, "I'd call it love if love/ didn't take so many years/ but lust too is a jewel" (1966). Indeed, at least within Western cultures, there may be reliable and substantive differences in orientations toward sexual relations. Some people believe that—at least for themselves—sexual relations need not be restricted to relationships in which they and their partners are psychologically close. They may claim, for instance, that if they were attracted to someone, they would feel comfortable and at ease engaging in sex with that person, even if they did not know him or her well. Such people may be said to