Good piece, good points, however, why not just admit the truth, looks do matter to you, and they matter a lot, to everyone, including you. I get the impulse to try and be the better woman and say that they do not at all or they do not matter a lot, but I have a very hard time believing you. The reasons are fairly simple. 1. We are essentially hard wired as animals to seek out what we find physically attractive in a mate. Unless you are blind, how that other animal looks will be a primary driver of these decisions. Those impulses can be fought, but only to a very limited extent. Looks matter because of biology. 2. Primarily because of (1) but probably also because of other factors as well, looks have become the most important indicator of status in our society. They are the primary indicator of success/attractiveness/desirability/health/goodness, or any other term with positive associations you can dream up. This is true no matter how any one individual defines those terms. Even if one were able to completely subjugate the biological impulse to seek out the attractive, they would find it just as difficult to fight the overwhelming power of our societal cues.
The combination of the two factors makes resistance essentially impossible and that is why looks matter to everyone (except perhaps the blind). Better to just admit that fact from the get go and then proceed with the rest of the article. In my opinion the only way around this “problem”, if you believe it is one, is to redefine what “good looks” means in a society wide sense. If one could use all the power of (2.) to fight against (1.) it might be possible to defeat it. However, at the moment, and for as far back in human history as you care to go, they have been mutually reinforcing.
In a very narrow sense your statement that looks do not matter (or do not matter very much) to you could be viewed as true. This would be the case if what you meant by that statement was actually “the looks that the majority of our society think are good I do not, and therefore they do not matter to me or matter much less to me.” In this case looks would still matter to you but your definition of what constitutes “good looks” would be different from how the majority of our society defines them. Many people use this argument to try and support the position that looks do not matter to them or matter a great deal less. I still believe in the vast majority of cases they are telling a falsehood, but it is a defensible position. There is no defense of the position that “looks do not matter to me” (unless you are blind). The other approach you could of course take is based on the relative amount of value you give looks compared to other criteria, and contrast that with how much value the rest of society gives them. This is essentially the tack you take in the article. I would argue that looks are given a very high or the highest value in terms of date/mate selection by the vast majority of society. In the article you suggest a much lower value by saying “looks wouldn’t even crack the top ten”. I do not mean to impugn your honesty or your good intentions, and I would even go so far as to say you may actually believe this, but I still do not. If an experiment could be devised to test your (let’s call it a hypothesis for argument's sake) that looks would not even crack your top ten, I am fairly certain your hypothesis would fail. The power of (1.) and (2.) mean that “good looks” simply cannot be so easily relegated to the lower rungs of one’s mate selection criteria.
On the other hand, I do tend to overanalyze the shit out of everything and am wrong at least 50% of the time….maybe 40%….20%…..fine, 10% of the time I am wrong but I will go no lower. lol!