Sorry to veer a little off the main topic, but to address some points made:
We might want to wax noble and say that it's shallow to search for a mate who's physically attractive, but I really believe that physical attractiveness is a large factor in the search for a mate. Now I certainly agree that personality, inner qualities, work ethic, etc. all are important and play a role, however, a lot of times, one will never learn about such unless he's physically attracted to a potential mate in the first place and is moved to get to know him/her.
It seems that a lot (if not most) on this site believe in evolution, and it seems that those who do would agree that physical beauty (including form, color, strength, etc.) are very important in mating. Even among plants like flowers, the "prettiest" often fare better in "mating" in that they more successfully attract pollinators such as bees. In fact, I believe evolutionists say that the reason that nature has produced such brighlty colored "pretty" flowers has to do with survival of the fittest. The "pretty" ones have been more successful in "competing" for mates (actualy pollinators to carry their genetical material to mates) than their less "pretty" counterparts. Are we humans not, according to evolutionists just as much a part of the biosphere and just as much a result of evolution as flowers, peacocks, and bees?