There is also the possible point that Tinder, for instance, isn't an app to create "meaningful" social relationships, only hook ups.
I get that the "market" framing is not very endearing, for a lot of people, and maybe not very healthy. But I don't think it's wrong. Worrying about your position in the labour market also isn't particularly healthy or endearing, but I don't think it's wrong. How are you supposed to ununderstand what you've understood?
This "worry" as you purport it to be can only exist in a system that makes it so. The worry of >tfw no gf is not comparable to the fear of losing one's job and health insurance, and the utter lack of opportunity to bounce back, meaning a job is a matter of survival. But since a lot of people on HN don't experience this latter situation, it's easy to see dating as a market where goods and services should be easy to get. The market analogy breaks down in more than just this aspect.
So, it's not wrong per se, sure, you can say that, but it's deeply, even inherently, flawed in my book.
I don't understand you ending rhetorical question.
Take a statement like "Not many people want to date Steve, so it's likely Steve will have to work harder to find a partner". Is that incorrect? If it isn't, how would you suggest I go about not believing it?
Edit: I don't agree with your second paragraph's suggestion that relationships aren't important (relationships and jobs, or the lack of them, can both have huge impacts on people's lives), but why does that matter here? There are markets for both important things (eg. jobs) and unimportant things (eg. baseball cards). There are also markets for things that are easy to get and things that are difficult to get. Those considerations aren't what makes something a market / not a market.
Sorry I re-edited the edit quite heavily after writing the first version.
> It's not like people are putting dollar values on their dating prospects, from what I've seen.
People (women) are putting dollar values on their dating prospects, from what I've seen, and I don't blame them, it is important. Sure it's not everything, but love is hardly a mystical force completely detached from economy.
People from all perspectives regularly do this, but it's only considered seedy when it's used to point out a way men are disadvantaged.
No one is owed a partner who contributes equal work in the household; no one is owed a partner who cares about their sexual pleasure; no one is owed a partner who performs certain types of emotional labor. But we consider these things as Important Issues (which they are!) because they disproportionately disadvantage women. But there's nothing wrong with doing the same on the other side of the divide.