Wikipedia

Arranged marriages are traditional in South Asian society and continue to account for an overwhelming majority of marriages in the Indian subcontinent. Despite the fact that romantic love is "wholly celebrated" in both Indian mass media (such as Bollywood) and folklore, and the arranged marriage tradition lacks any official legal recognition or support, the institution has proved to be "surprisingly robust" in adapting to changed social circumstances and has defied predictions of decline as India modernized.

India has over 1,3 billion people, which suggests to me that appearance might not be the fundamental distinguishing factor you claim.

Well, though of course there are other culturally imposed modifications on human behaviour, the objective biological evidence I referred to would seem to indicate that the premier underlying factor motivating partner selection historically has been physical appearance.(And of course a dominant gene has removed the possibility of discriminating on the basis of hair colour in that society you mention! But seriously - I bet most young unmarried Indian people dream above all about a beautiful partner being selected for them!)

Well, though of course there are other culturally imposed modifications on human behaviour, the objective biological evidence I referred to would seem to indicate that the premier underlying factor motivating partner selection historically has been physical appearance. — Robert Lockhart

Appearance, at one level, gives evidence of biological health (here strictly in the sense of carnality). Everyone is a bit shallow in one sense and I presume it deals with this issue of biological health represented by image. A body sans mind is, however, a dead, decomposing carcass. So biological health is also partly dependent upon (not so much the presence of an aware consciousness, but) the very character of the consciousness of the given body. Character is, to some, the defining factor as regards attraction, here greatly overriding most all ideals of the healthy body image (which, btw, changes with cultures and the passing of generations). This is where a person’s beauty is no longer superficially judged based on image.

It’s a complex relation between physical health and character. Made even more complex by the wide variety of people who deem what is attractive to them. Plenty will deem big boobs and fat wallets as the epitome of attractiveness—and these people will often label these attributes beautiful.

Character, furthermore, is often partly represented by the attire worn. Some find very, very short (i.e., easy access) miniskirts to be beautiful; others find elegant attire to be as beautify and sexually attractive as things can get. Neither has to do with biological health but which the character of the individual who so dresses. This aspect of character, nevertheless, being yet conveyed via image.

What some deem to the the most important aspects of character—such as honesty, compassion, and the like—will almost never (if ever) be portrayable via appearance. Some, whose attractions for partners are at all times literally superficial, may give lipservise to these traits but will not actually be attracted to them, i.e. will not find any honest beauty in them. Yet it can well be argued that these non-representational aspects of a person are most in tune with the non-phenomenal truths of the aesthetic.

To each their own, no?

But I agree that it becomes a problem when—due to the advertising pressures of the marketplace—the overall populace becomes solely fixated on image … and thereby loses touch with the beauties of character. Some, given perspectives such as those aforementioned, can argue that it is a global degeneration of what supposedly makes humans human: our humanity (and if this latter term here needs defining, it’s likely not worth the hassle … as I currently believe you’d agree)