I'd put it in a simpler format if my brain were working correctly. I'm running on dry at the moment as I stupidly pulled an all nighter so I'm just generally trusting whatever I ramble from and to with this as I already know that whatever I say on the subject is decidedly right. There's much less ambiguity and confusion on the topic of what constitutes a healthy relationship versus what creates attraction. Mainly because, in my opinion, besides the genetic qualifiers everything we're attracted to is socially learned (which is the reason society's definition of an attractive person has change so drastically from culture to culture and in such incredibly short periods of time). It's also the reason I disagree with things like looks being an important selector, I don't think socially learned selectors are anywhere near our priority in terms of what attracts us to others, it only makes sense that what is rooted in our biology is likely to take precedent over what we learn socially. Don't get me wrong on that, we certainly have physical genetic selectors in our biology (such as the waist ratios being testable as attractive regardless of size or weight) but I feel that it's likely that we also evolved a complex set of social selectors as part of our genetics too, those able to select the best mates would obviously have better chances of surviving and pass on that ability to better select and so on. I recently watched something on breeding domestic foxes or something that showed that absolutely drastic genetic traits can be changed within just a few generations of selected changes. It makes sense then that those first learned genetic social selectors could expand into a very wide variety of possibilities based on geographical necessity or in fact social necessity when ridiculous sexuality and inhibitive laws are enforced upon people. Mix that up with the huge amount of inter geographic breeding that occurred when we became massively explorative(it is a word shut up dictionary) and travel became easier. This would create a huge melting pot of worldwide differences and genetic social selectors that are potentially different for everyone while having an underpinning of universal genetic selectors. This would explain the ridiculousness of claiming there's an arbitrary method towards attracting everyone but also explain why there are various things that can be generalised as things that are (almost) universals.

That's my current train of thought that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread anyway. It's still brewing and incomplete right now.

I have now rambled so much I feel like I'm gazing into the mind of Charlie Sheen.

I'll maybe bullet pointy things up tomorrow and neaten the earlier the earlier posts into something written up tomorrow, when my brain is functioning coherently.