Andrew Sullivan on women

On why Tom Ford is clothed, surrounded by a nude Keira Knightly and Scarlett Johansson, on the cover of Vanity Fair:

Men and women are biologically wired to be attracted to different aspects of the people they lust after. Women, for some reason still opaque to me, are sexually attracted to a man's soul, his character, his style. Men want to see titties, as Dave Chapelle would say.

Would that this were the case for many "Daily Dish"-reading men, but it is not. I've argued this before, and seems I must once again: straight women like good-looking men. And when these good-looking men take their clothes off, this is a good thing. Sexism in this context is the force that makes it unacceptable for women to voice such shallow concerns, or more specifically, that which makes it somewhat reasonable still for women to put aside concern over male appearance and focus instead on male earning potential, or to put it more delicately, "character." Those of both sexes and all orientations can be attracted to minds as well as bodies, and will find that some attractions are more to one than to the other, but the best are to both.

But on a far more basic level, if Sullivan's claim were really true, if women were really just attracted to soul, character, and style, why would women have any sexual orientation whatsoever? Why wouldn't a woman be as good as a man for all of us, assuming this woman was interesting, intelligent, and so on, since it seems we don't care about the body itself? Clearly what's under the clothes is of interest. I honestly can't believe this needs to be pointed out.