> One aspect of sexual selection is that a disadvantageous trait needn't kill to cause differential outcomes in reproduction. If a deficiency results lower hunting success, diminished fighting prowess, loss of mental acuity etc. the individual will be disfavored in mate selection.

That makes sense, and it also supports my claim that skin cancer would likely not be a trait selected against, right? It's something that usually happens later in life and that would not be involved during mate selection.

> so I wouldn't call it artificial selection - artificial selection applied to humans is also known as eugenics.

Thanks for that distinction. If this attraction is happening naturally and unspoken, it's fair to include it as a part of natural selection. However, I do think some of it is cultural, is spoken, and goes beyond natural attraction. A common example might be the preference for lighter skin in mates that we unfortunately find in several cultures. Maybe we should start calling it eugenics instead of softening it to artificial selection.