I'm going to buck the trend of reassuring responses and say that for men, yes, looks are the most important component to sexual attraction. Individual preferences vary, of course, but in general, we judge a woman's attractiveness by how she looks first and foremost. Not that other factors aren't important; they're just not as important.
(Before dozens of guys jump in saying that this doesn't apply to them and is therefore untrue, I'd like to point out that exceptions to a rule do not invalidate the rule. If I state that, in general, Chinese people are shorter than Danish people, pointing out that Yao Ming is 7'6" does not invalidate the fact that on average, Danes are taller.)
For women, looks are less important, though they still play a part. A man's attractiveness to a woman derives from his social status; not just in a financial sense, nor in an upper-class vs. lower-class sense, though those both do play a role; instead, it's more in terms of a man's confidence and force of personality in social situations, and the amount that other people admire him and defer to him, which basically equate to fame and power. (Again, I'm speaking in generalities. This is not true for every single woman; if you don't feel this way, it's perfectly valid to do so.)
To illustrate the point, let's look at the groupie phenomenon. It's well known that if you are a successful male rock star, you essentially have your pick of attractive women -- regardless of what you look like. Lemmy Killmeister, the lead singer of Motorhead, is a very unattractive guy with three prominent, almost disfiguring moles (or warts) on his face, and yet he's probably touched more vaginas than your average gynecologist. He's certainly not getting these hundreds of women because of his stunning good looks. This isn't to say that a handsome rock star will do worse than an ugly one, but it plays a much smaller role than fame and status.
On the other hand, there really isn't an equivalent phenomenon of male groupies for female pop stars. Sure, there are millions of guys out there who would like to sleep with Christina Aguilera, but that's because she's physically attractive, not because she's famous; if she were just some girl in a club, she could still essentially have her pick of the men in the place, strictly because of her looks. (Note: If you personally don't think she's attractive, that doesn't change the fact that most men do). Yes, she wouldn't have the same number of men desiring her as she does being famous, but that's simply because of exposure; so many more men are aware of her and her attractiveness than they would be of a random hot girl in a club somewhere.
Meanwhile, Aretha Franklin, while an amazing singer and performer, frankly isn't that physically attractive, so you don't see very many men who would want to sleep with her even though she's a superstar with nearly unlimited talent. Sure, there might be a few, but it's not going to be a large number, especially among younger men with their higher sex drives. But Mick Jagger, by contrast, a male rock star in her age range who's looking pretty rough these days, can command the attention of any number of female models in their 20s by essentially snapping his fingers.
Sorry for rambling, and I hope this post doesn't upset anyone. I'm just offering my honest opinion based on what I've read and observed about human nature, male and female.
