Regarding: the hypothesis that 'cute' is nature's way of encourage the parents to attach and nurture offspring.

This drive or urge is fully operable in the species subject to it. Without speaking for any of other species, there is another dimension for homo sapiens, namely the 'sapiens'.  Man is self-aware. Man is also possessed of choice; humans must activate themselves to think and then act, by choice. Yes, the chemical drive is there, but the individual makes the choice to go with the flow, reject it or avoid it.

Some people opt out of parenting. Some become parents, feel the nurturing hormones kick in, and reject them or fight them. Many accept them and bask in the euphoric glow. Some people even chose to not actually become parents, but participate in nurturing children anyway. What's clear is: unlike any other species, the chemical/instinctual programming is merely the baseline, the default. The real story begins when the will comes into play.

Importantly: homo sapiens possess the ability to ignite or allow the flood of endorphins associated with this drive outside of parenting. The spectrum is everything from drive-by girl/guy watching to a jolt from erotic art to one night stand of sex to an extended affair to a long-term relationship to mated permanent commitment, in which couples learn to re-ignite the euphoria when it fades. All of those paths are choices -- whether parenting is sought or not. Homo sapiens is at choice about this phenomena.

The cult of cute - including Poser cute -- can thus be seen as happy participation in love.

::::: Opera :::::