It's quite popular nowadays to talk about Sexual Market Value (SMV) while discussing the relationships between men and women. For those unfamiliar with it, it basically rates women on scale 1-10, with ten being the highest and divides men into categories like alpha, beta, gamma etc.
There is certainly some truth attached to this theory. I guess we all can agree that a healthy fit 18 year old girl will be attractive to most men, while overweight 50 year old not so much. We also know just from observations that there are men who all girls appear to flock to, and passive-agressive losers unable to form healthy relationships. It's also true that traditional marriage contract had a financial aspect to it.
The problems do arise, however, when we are trying to reduce human beings with their complex emotions, to simple economical units. Life is much more complicated than an equation and people aren't entirely rational creatures, either. Moreover, a woman isn't just a sum of legs and breasts. She also possesses a personality which can be pleasant or otherwise. Further, the theory of absolute SMV rests on the assumption (not at all traditional) that all women are basically social equals and only get distinguished by the degree of beauty and youth they possess, which is entirely untrue since there is also such a thing as social/class distinctions.
A young waitress can be much prettier than a 30 year old PhD feminist, but a man from "a good family" will be more inclined to marry his social equal, though not always, of course.
So my next point is, that while I do believe SMV exists it's relative, not absolute. Take the example of an 18 year old vs a 50 year old. While in absolute terms, the younger woman will have much higher SMV, most men of certain age will have very little chance with her and they know it, too! But for a 60 year old widower, a 50 old lady may be a very good companion and just exactly what he needs.
I'd also like to point out that from a Christian point of view, we should be a bit more charitable to those less fortunate. It can be dangerous when we start dividing people into groups based solely on their utility/ worldly achievements. I've seen men saying that women after certain age should die already since nobody wants them, or that all childless unmarried women are totally useless. Of course, we can apply the same criteria to men and come to the conclusion that for instance, a handicapped man who doesn't work has totally no SMV and should die, already. The same will be true for older people of both sexes.
Yet, guess what? I've known a lady all my life who chose not to get married because she has a inheritable disease and wouldn't want her children to have it. She's worked all her life, she helped her family, she's a good Christian. I object to the idea that her life has no value.
I also knew a lady disfigured by cancer whose husband died when she was in her late 60s. Her SMV was probably close to zero, but then what happened? She found a slightly older widower, also suffering from cancer and not in the possession of an ideal body, either, but they are happy together. They support each other in their old days.
Treating people as commodities who only exists that you can profit from them isn't something which we should aspire to. It's a merchant logic, not Western and not Christian.