Reply to comment

The research in evolutionary psychology goes a little deeper into it than power. The psychology of attractiveness is generally a direct result of the biology of the sexes. Women are the ones who get pregnant and bear children. This means that having a child is a huge investment for them, and they have a limited number of years of fertility, finite number of eggs, and can only (generally) bear one child at a time. They benefit (in the evolutionary sense of reproductive success) by being choosy -- looking for a man who has the best indicators for both healthy genes and can acquire resources (wealth, status) to ensure the child will survive, grow up healthy, and reproduce. Thus looks are only a small component. Wealth and status indicators (confidence, talent) are indeed important for good reasons to women.

Since reproductive success drives which genes get passed on, sexual selection is also important. So, as some have pointed out, women also rely on other women to approve of who is attractive because that means any son he has will also be generally attractive to women, which exaggerates that feature until it begins to hinder reproductive success. (The peakcock's tail is the standard example.)

Men don't have the same evolutionary pressures. They can have hundreds of children by many different women with little to no investment, at least until the last few decades. They don't need to get a woman with great genes or one who can acquire resources. If they impregnate a woman with poor genes and the child has little hope of successful reproduction, it only cost them the few minutes they invested. They can impregnate another woman the next night. Men are therefore much less choosy.

Of course there is some risk and costs of impregnating women, particularly health risks from sexual diseases (which is also a factor in the other direction). All other things being equal, men's reproductive success is maximized by mating with women who appear to be healthy, young (better chance of child survival), don't have other children (so they can focus on raising this child), and fertile (signs such as flushness and walking gait give such indicators). Or simply put, young, healthy, and clean skin.

That is the "is" side of why we find different things attractive. It's not an "ought". These attractions will probably change in coming centuries. Reproductive control is now in the hands of women so they can be less choosy. Child maintenance laws and genetic testing mean men make huge investments (and risks) when they have children now. Men have to be more choosy.

It'll be interesting to see what happens, but unfortunately evolution occurs over generations so I don't expect attractors to change much in my lifetime.