1. if the archetypal hot guy is imagined as tall, broad shouldered and toned in build. His 'league' are probably beautiful women with long legs, a slim waist, wide hips and big boobs. I get this.
  2. but now take a short petite woman, with a otherwise symmetrical face, but short legs and small boobs. She will also be seen as very attractive by many men (and women) -- a guy of average height and non-muscly slim build, will probably be seen as 'meh' by most women.
  3. again a short girl with thick thighs and big baby eyes who is on the chunky side will be considered attractive if not even a preference for many guys, but her brother who could look similar will prob be a 'meh' or unattractive in the eyes of women.

inb4 "what looks good in women doesn't look good in men"

Precisely why I choose a short petite woman as a example attractive without possessing exaggerated sexually dimorphic traits was to show the double standard here. For women there is a variance of appeal; from thin to thick, petite or stacked, their height isn't a deal breaker... for men there is little variance of how they can look to 'pass the bare minimum' when it comes to physical appearance. Everything seems to be steered toward tall, fit or muscly without anything in between at all.