That's a bit of an oversimplification there. Sexual selection often selects for traits that serve no discernable purpose or in many cases even make survival harder. Evolution often or least also rewards a male's capability to reproduce not necessarily his capability to survive.
Paradise birds turn themselves into bright targets carrying arround a lot of useless and hard to maintain weight in form of beautiful crests, tails etc. The idea behind it is basically that you have to be tough sh*t to survive with such an organic baggage on your body but it is paradoxical, you wouldn't need to be that tough if you didn't have all that sh*t on you.
Squids and fish glow in the deep sea. It does sh*t for their survival, actuallly actively decreases their survival rate by evoking the attention of a lot of predators, but it's their only chance of finding a mate and reproduce in the everdark deep sea, so that trait gets passed on.
You can be the toughest, most well adapted specimen ever that subdues all of his competitors if you are unable to find a mate or if females successfully run away from you because you are considered too ugly you won't pass on these genes.
Ok so I will make it more general and clear now. The point is, in evolution, when we talk about 'The survival of the fittest', we dont actually talk about the survival of the organism, but rather the survival of the GENES. The gene is selfish, it will do whatever needed to pass itself on, and survive through the species evolution. So in this sense, the capability to reproduce will be considered a trait that would make the organism be considered 'fitter'. Which means a higher sperm count would be considered 'attractive trait'. Because it increases the chances for the survival of the gene.
A good example for it will be species in which the male is eaten by the female after mating, like praying mantis. In this case, the urge of the male to mate and pass his genes (survival of his genes) is stronger than his urge to live (survival of himself), and therefore a male who get to mate, passes his genes, and die, will be considered 'fitter' then his 'incel' brother who never get to mate and just keep living and die without offsprings.
The glowing of squids and fish - it's the same, as you explained it yourself, this trait has a purpose, which is to mate, so this trait is considered good because of this reason. It's not that female finds it attractive and therefore it exists, but rather it exists because it technically required for increasing mating chances, therefore considered attractive. I hope you see the subtle different in this logic.
The fact it has some minuses doesnt necessarily changes the fact it is positive (organisms which are relatively larger are physically stronger but slower usually)
Of course it has some more complexity to it, but bottom line, in regard to this thread, my point is that the saying
"A male organism has trait X because females are attracted to trait X"
is just wrong. It is a logical failure. why would females be designed to be attracted to a bad trait?
Instead the logic is:
"a trait X of the organism gives him advantage to pass his genes (which means more, and better offsprings), therefore females are attracted to organisms with trait X"
So while you had many valid points, your closing statement is just wrong. 'female running away from you because you ugly' doesnt have a meaning, because what is 'ugly'? it is what our brain is wired to see as ugly, but why would the brain be wired to see a positive trait (=good for genes survival) as ugly? According to evolution theory, it shouldnt be.
So lastly, I will refer to the paradise birds case - I dont have an explanation for it, it does sound like a paradox, I know that there are some exceptional cases that we dont have explanations for (Im sure there are some speculations) but it shouldnt invalidate the general concepts.
