This is pretty much it. As women age preference moves from bad boy to powerful man. There's a lot of game theory as well, which includes looks, resources and physique. As a woman ages she will settle for a nice guy because her fertility options are running out fast.
If she can choose between a good looking nice guy vs an ugly nice guy she'll choose the good looking nice guy. If it's between a good looking nice guy and an ugly bad boy it's a toss up. But during ovulation there's always a preference for more masculine, powerful, dominating alphas. If she settles for an alpha then when she's not ovulating she will want a nice guy. It's why women are so hard to figure out for most men, because we've been taught monogamy is the default state. It's not.
As men age their sexual power grows, as long as they don't get obese. A 40 year old man with wealth and a good physique has the same sexual power as a 20 year old woman. If he maintains his physique and wealth, he could maintain his sexual value till his 50s.
A woman's sexual peak is in her 20s. A man's fertility starts to decline in his 40s but he can theoretically have kids till he dies. It's why you see far more old Western men with young Asian wives than old Western women with young African husbands.
That's too simplistic and generalized to really be applicable to humans. Or any species, really. A lot of what you said is really based on social constructs, not anything biologically innate. What is considered "ugly" and "attractive" vary by era, culture and individual. Same for what is considered "masculine" or "feminine". Even your example of old white guys with young East Asian women is based on classist, racist stereotypes.
Monogamy isn't necessarily the "default", but humans do have a tendency to form pair bonds. Human children also require a lot of resources, both material and in terms of time, to raise and care for so a woman who sleeps with the most seemingly "dominate" man for purely superficial reasons, who then will leave her and then literally go jump on some other woman and knock her up in turn, is at a disadvantage when it comes to the children they may have together.
Look at Donald Trump, who has been married multiple times, has children from multiple women and is a known philanderer. In terms of human society, that's actually maladaptive and unfavorable for the children's psychological well-being, despite having relative material wealth. Children simply do the best in environments where both parents are committed to their rearing and provide a stable home environment. Polygamy is actually correlated with numerous social ills, such as oppression of women, overpopulation, high violent crime rates, social breakdown and chaos, child neglect and abuse, etc. Monogamy, at least in terms of people being free to form pair bonds with each other and to raise children together, is shown to have much better outcomes than for a male to hoard women in a harem or whatever.
Also, the traits of men like Trump, who are often held to be "alpha males", are actually counterproductive to them being good fathers, husbands and providers. They often are highly narcissistic, non-cooperative, irresponsible and inclined towards violence and recklessness.
For most of human history, we lived in small clan groups that were based on cooperation and not dominance and submission. The clans had to work together to survive. There wasn't one or a few males dominating everything. Couples would have children together and they were raised by them, along with the rest of the clan, which was their extended family.
The "alpha male" concept doesn't even exist in wild wolves, which is where the concept was erroneously inferred from. Wolves in the wild live as a family unit, with both parents raising the pups. When the pups are old enough, they're to go off and form their own family unit. Among primates, the situation is complicated, because different primate species follow different reproductive strategies.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_myth_of_the_alpha_male
