…when did I become the guy the internet asks about this kind of $#!t?  I am seriously questioning the life choices that have brought me to this point.

You know, I have absolutely no idea.  Should probably start with reference to this: http://pokemaniacal.tumblr.com/post/74976019208/your-latest-answer-especially-by-your-last-sentence
Anyway… well, Attract is limited by gender, but not by reproductive compatibility, which suggests that it is capable of affecting Pokémon, who, under normal circumstances, would never find the user… well, ‘attractive’ (since, in most individuals of most species, attractiveness is based on a subjective judgement of suitability as a mate).  That being the case, it’s not immediately obvious how the technique actually works, though it seems like it must primarily involve emotional manipulation and romantic infatuation rather than straightforward sexual attraction or arousal (which in any case could get… problematic… if a smaller and physically weaker Pokémon used Attract on a much more powerful one… let’s not think about that for too long).  Pokémon in the anime under the effects of Attract tend to be portrayed as highly irrational and motivated primarily by a desire to please the user of the technique and win his or her approval and admiration, irrespective of how courtship actually works in the target’s species.  All the move’s flavour implies a romantic dimension to the effect, but it seems like a fairly superficial one.  I suppose what it seems to do is cause the target to see the user as a perfect specimen of the opposite gender, so exquisite that normal courtship behaviour seems utterly futile in the presence of such a paragon, causing the target to resort to uncharacteristic and generally ineffectual attempts to win the user’s affection through ingratiating flattery and self-abasement.

As for what it would do to a human… I suppose it depends largely on what you understand Pokémon ‘gender’ to mean, which is something I’ve tried very hard in the past to make as complicated as possible.  If Pokémon ‘gender’ and human ‘gender’ work on basically the same principles, then I suppose it could bring about the same irrational desire to win that Pokémon’s admiration.  If the human is a trainer, they might become obsessed with convincing the Pokémon to join their team.  If, on the other hand, Pokémon gender is something completely alien to us, as I suggested in that tract of rambling nonsense, it could very easily do nothing whatsoever.

If you’re wondering whether it would evoke… inappropriate thoughts… well, I think that’s probably best left to writers of a certain kind of fan fiction, don’t you?

You know, I actually have a pet idea about this that I’ve been nursing for a while.

The first Pokéballs were made from Apricorns, yeah?  This is apparently a traditional art that goes back several generations, maybe centuries.  Certainly mass-produced Pokéballs are relatively recent – they’ve come about only in Drayden’s lifetime – and reliant on advanced technology (which is unlikely ever to be explained).  So what makes the first Pokéballs work?  ’Mysterious energy’ seems like it would be the default cop-out answer.  The thing is… an Apricorn is a berry.  And we already know a way to draw out the ‘mysterious energy’ of a berry: the Natural Gift attack.    There’s no data in the game for what happens when you use Natural Gift with an Apricorn, but it stands to reason that it would do something – given what we know about Apricorns, could that something be dematerialising a Pokémon temporarily?  Of course, berries aren’t particularly robust – imagine trying to hold a Pokémon in swirly-energy-thingy form inside a great big acorn.  Unless they’ve been specially prepared and reinforced by a craftsman like Kurt, they probably wear out very quickly and have to be replaced every few weeks.  So yeah, not by Pokémon necessarily, but I think the first Pokéballs were almost certainly created by a co-operative effort.

I’m not quite sure what you’re asking, but basically this all hinges on what is apparently one of my more controversial beliefs – namely that Pokémon choose to be captured.  Here’s the short version.  We know that you need to weaken a Pokémon to catch it, but also that if you actually knock it out, you can’t catch it – it needs to be conscious (which to me suggests that we’re looking for consent).  We see in the anime that there is a tendency to portray battles with wild Pokémon as a process of earning their respect, and this becomes more pronounced as the series progresses.  We know that Team Rocket and other villains capture Pokémon both traditionally, using Pokéballs, and with a variety of other contrivances (nets, pits, machines, etc) – the latter is regarded as a heinous crime, even when their targets are wild; the former is apparently totally fine.  We know that Pokémon can actually leave their Pokéballs without being ordered.  We know that villains use cages to restrain Pokémon, which would be an expensive and illogical waste of space if Pokéballs were capable of doing the same job.  Honestly it seems to me like the creators have actually built in a lot of reasons for us to think that Pokémon have a choice in all this.

Also, just putting it out there, Stockholm Syndrome isn’t magic.  It doesn’t automatically happen to everyone who experiences a kidnapping or hostage situation.  I don’t think you can realistically build an entire civilisation on it, especially when the ‘captives’ are vastly more powerful, physically, than the ‘captors’ and in many cases at least as intelligent.