I was somewhat nonplussed by this statement until I read this:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/nonplussed?view=uk

When you come right down to it there are two things you have to realize about women.

1. As hard as it is for Men to comprehend the truth is attractiveness isn't that high on a woman's list. It's not that women don't like an attractive man it's just lower on the list. Here's an example I use to explain it to men. I, as someone who dated a lot of theatre women, like dating professional dancers (for reasons I won't be so crass as to spell out here). But I'll certainly be interested in a beautiful, smart, funny woman who isn't a dancer. Attractiveness to women is like being a dancer to me. It's a plus but not a deal breaker. Hence "average looking bald guy" isn't necessarily a deterrent.

2. Attracting women in general boils down to one simple concept: Stand out from the crowd in a good way. No women wants a guy that seems average to her. So when your sister's gay friend shows a lack of interest in a woman every other man drools over it makes that woman wonder why and gives the guy a sense of mystery to him. Hence he stands out in an appealing way which makes women want to take a shot with him and see why he's different.

Second, most couples in my experience aren't of equal levels of attractiveness (and I'd like to see the research you quote because I don't know how levels of attractiveness could be gauged effectively enough to conduct such research). In fact, I'd say just the opposite in that there is legitimate research that says women are prone to date/marry men older than they are which would mean other traits rank higher than attractiveness (which of course fades as we age).

Beyond that, looking at the extreme, have you ever looked at the husbands of SuperModels?

Like Paulina Porizkova: http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9066/paulinaqv6.jpg

Or Heidi Klum: http://www.clevelandleader.com/files/heidisealbaby.jpg (I love ya Seal but that stuff on your face is weird)

This is all a question of degree. I do think that physical attractiveness does play a very big role in both directions. But clearly women do place a somewhat lower premium on it than men do.

Just to add to the anecdotal useleness, rich men do attract women, but women swoon over Brad Pitt or that twilight star waaaaaay more than they every will over "the donald".

At 46 years old, Brad Pitt is also about twice the age of the women who get the most attention from men. In order to make a fairer comparison, imagine a man who's very handsome, but whose career and overall signals of success are on par with the physical attractiveness of "the donald".

EDIT: Looking at the spouses of supermodels or the super rich is probably unhelpful in gauging the behavior of most of the population.

The question has never been "is attractiveness a factor" but "how big of a factor is it". So a study that artificially boosts the importance of one factor is useless is answering that question

Also, why aren't supermodels relevant? I think they're the most relevant in that their physical beauty makes their choices almost limitless so when they choose an unattractive man it shows how little that aspect means to them.

Supermodels aren't relevant because they lie so far outside the norm, and can't be used to predict the behavior of a typical woman (even a very attractive woman).

Are women more flexible about their partner's attractiveness based on other factors? Maybe, but without any kind of research, it's all conjecture and confirmation bias.

The 'challenge' theory also applies to guys who are married or who have girlfriends --- it is a challenge

If you can hold an actual conversation, then you can also be judged on personality, intelligence, humor, etc.

So if you want to 'fight outside your weight class', keep your tongue inside your mouth.