Do you have, in your model of male attraction, a distinction between romantic attraction and sexual attraction? I’ve commented on it before, but briefly, I think romantic attraction is a long-term pair-bonding thing, and sexual attraction is about short-term mating opportunity.
Both can inspire strong emotions… But I think, for romantic attraction, there are several extra things going on, or at least are significantly stronger. There tends to be less substitutability, whereas for short-term mating, it’s a lot easier to see a second woman and think “Eh, she’ll do.” It tends to depend more on background information about her that makes her admirable (e.g. imagine that you know she’s a very kind person, then imagine you know she’s a cold heartless bitch behind her smile), while sexual attraction seems to be more about the way she looks right now (though background information about her sexual openness or willingness is relevant). I guess there can be obsessive thinking in both cases, but… It just seems more plausible that one can get really deep into Romeo-style romantic fantasy that intensifies the feelings, whereas with sexual fantasy, one can simply masturbate and then you quickly get out of that particular loop.
Therefore, I suspect the ceiling is higher for romantic than for sexual attraction. Helen of Troy I’m sure appealed to both, but I imagine the main effect came from the romantic.
I’ll also note that the “superstimulus” picture has her whole body, while the “underwhelming” pictures are of the face and a few inches below. In my model, the latter mostly appeals to just the romantic interest; and, if we’re trying to evaluate it as just a picture isolated from anything else we know about her, then, well, that does subtract away almost everything.
Do you have, in your model of male attraction, a distinction between romantic attraction and sexual attraction? I’ve commented on it before, but briefly, I think romantic attraction is a long-term pair-bonding thing, and sexual attraction is about short-term mating opportunity.
Both can inspire strong emotions… But I think, for romantic attraction, there are several extra things going on, or at least are significantly stronger. There tends to be less substitutability, whereas for short-term mating, it’s a lot easier to see a second woman and think “Eh, she’ll do.” It tends to depend more on background information about her that makes her admirable (e.g. imagine that you know she’s a very kind person, then imagine you know she’s a cold heartless bitch behind her smile), while sexual attraction seems to be more about the way she looks right now (though background information about her sexual openness or willingness is relevant). I guess there can be obsessive thinking in both cases, but… It just seems more plausible that one can get really deep into Romeo-style romantic fantasy that intensifies the feelings, whereas with sexual fantasy, one can simply masturbate and then you quickly get out of that particular loop.
Therefore, I suspect the ceiling is higher for romantic than for sexual attraction. Helen of Troy I’m sure appealed to both, but I imagine the main effect came from the romantic.
I’ll also note that the “superstimulus” picture has her whole body, while the “underwhelming” pictures are of the face and a few inches below. In my model, the latter mostly appeals to just the romantic interest; and, if we’re trying to evaluate it as just a picture isolated from anything else we know about her, then, well, that does subtract away almost everything.