Agreed.
Qualifying a prospective mate by looks, for example, is evolutionary shorthand for genetic quality and health.
What appears beautiful to us is that which reflects performance, so it is not superficial.
Humans are bidpedal: hence buttock muscles and structure are very important.
And hence the sexual interest of both sexes in buttocks.
Broad shoulders in a man help him to wield weapons, hence a woman's attraction for broad shoulders.
Long legs in a woman help her to flee danger.
Hence the attraction for long legs.
However our inborn conceptions of beauty can be modified by other inborn tendencies and by experience.
One such inborn tendency is to want what others want, as such a mate would likely generate offspring that would be wanted in turn, thereby helping to pass your genes along.
An example of choice modified by experience would be the association of a certain physical appearance with a painful memory.
Despite what subversives tell us, men and women are different, and so men and women place different emphasis on looks and other things.
For example, a woman's interest in a man may not have to do with his genetic contribution, as she may be interested in him primarily as a protector and provider for her existing offspring or of those she hopes to have by the handsome milkman or married millionaire boyfriend--
And so she will be less interested in her husband's looks and more interested in his wallet and/or social standing.
This all gets complex, and so I'll leave futher discussion for another day.
Exactly what I was thinking the other afternoon in the subway. "Boy, if me and her are ever walking in the woods and a bear pops out from behind a tree, that girl is going to run FAST. Smack my broad weapon-bearing shoulders if I don't get her number...."
Agreed. Please see my post 1185.
Furthermore, please bear in mind possibility is not proof.