Thanks for the link but that's just drivel. The scenario is designed to eliminate every other factor by creating a situation in which the interactions can only be superficial (as the article points out). If you do a study in which you deprive people of every other factor but attractiveness than sure it's going to make it look like attractiveness is the most important factor.

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.

It is unlikely that your anecdotal stories are better evidence than years&years of studies.

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).

You missed his point. He's saying your study doesn't speak to the question. While his anecdotal evidence might not be accurate but it at least addresses the question at hand.

It's not my study, and it's not a single study, but years of research. The only question I'm addressing here is whether people are attracted to others of the same level of attractiveness, since he requested evidence.

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.