Also, sex appeal has nothing to do with "reproductive capabilities". Evolution hard wired us to be attracted to certain indicators of reproductive capability regardless of whether or not it actually exists in a given individual. As evolutionary psychologists have shown, sexual attractiveness is remarkably consistent in every culture and throughout all times.
For instance, most men regardless of time or culture, find youth, long hair, small waists, large breasts, lighter hair and lighter eyes to be, on average, more sexually compelling than the opposite because these are, in fact, evolutionary ”markers" or "cues" for fertility. Women likewise find certain well-know physical attributes to be sexy in men, but they also look beyond the physical when measuring a man’s sex appeal—to things like wealth, influence, position, stature, etc.
I never intended to suggest that sex appeal is the only way women can influence the world, just the easiest and most obvious, and one that has been actively denied them by men. Of course there are women who make a tremendous impact on the world regardless of their sexual attractiveness. The more of them the better. But its damn near criminal that men have conned women for centuries into abandoning their greatest source of evolutionary influence—their sex appeal and their ability to choose their mates.
In any event, I think your view of sexuality is too narrow. Men (and women) find all different types of things (ages, body types, etc.) sexy as evidenced by Internet Rule 34: “If it exists, there is porn of it.”