First off, choice of sex partner is not the same thing as choice of mate, as should be obvious to anyone who has even read about humans. People have sex all the time with other people who they would NEVER want to procreate with. (And of course nonprocreative sex is pretty much the only kind gays and lesbians have.)

Setting that aside, sex-partner-choice is driven primarily by upbringing (including, but not limited to, culture) and an individual's personal history.

Don't get me wrong - there ARE certain characteristics that we are hardwired to find attractive. Clean skin, symmetry of facial features, etc. The problem is that many many people such as yourself fall into the delusion that whatever characteristics they personally find attractive, or whatever most people in their society find attractive, somehow reflects some deeper genetic truth.

It doesn't. Whenever you hear someone bloviating about breast size, for example, that person is 99% of the time talking out of their ass. Breast size does not correlate well (if at all) with milk production, the typical excuse given when some guy is trying to dress his personal opinions up in the guise of science.

What's more, the fact that standards of beauty vary WILDLY across region, society, culture, and class indicates that very few traits actually correspond with any "hardwired" attractiveness. Truly hardwired features are common across all history, across all human societies. 

If reproductive fitness were actually the major determinant of sexual attraction, the most-desirable women would be somewhat muscular, stocky, with what used to be referred to as "child-bearing hips," and a healthy amount of fat tissue. This is so obviously not the case that it's absurd to even suggest.

The explanation which best fits the evidence (a phrase that should have not a little import to you if you're actually a biologist) is that sexual attraction is overwhelmingly determined by environment. Men ARE programmed to find certain features attractive; it's just that it's cultural and social programming, not evolutionary programming.

(P.S. Your animal toys were somehow not dolls?)