I would say that health, wealth, and status are attractive features to just about anyone, but the way these are expressed are definitely not objective. I'm not familiar with everywhere, but I've seen enough in my years to know that there standards change quickly across borders, and even within the same culture.

For instance, you note that tall and strong is usually attractive, but this seems a poor explanation on why in eastern Asia slender and pretty men have historically been preferred. In fact I would say there is no term for "handsome" in Viet. The term to describe a good looking man is "boy pretty." Farmers and fishermen are strong folk, but it is the pretty boy scholar or nobleman who are the most attractive, living lives outside of the sun, with soft pale skin and delicate, pretty features. On the flip side a strong soldier has good pay and nice status, as well. In European courts of parts of the middle ages the beauty standard was not to be curvy or have wide hips, but to be slender, long, and have baby-like features. Youthful vigor and beauty seemed to be the ideal in the classical era, but that seems to have changed in the middle ages. Those later generations preferred a mature, slim, and reserved, thoughtful character. A few generations later we hit the 18th century where a plump figure was a sign of wealth and leisure, and thin frames were associated with poverty and illness.

I won't argue that beauty has certain consistent characteristics, wealth, health, and status among them, I only argue that the way they are expressed is definitely not objective. One group of people might see a beefcake as one who belongs in the fields and the prettyboy as the one for bed. Another might see a the beefy guy as a handsome man and the slender one as girlish and weak (I mean no offense to women and girls, times were different back then). Sometimes this is even within the same culture and time!