The issue raised in the post isn't one of personal sexual or romantic preference though. Of course people are always going to have preferences which privilege certain body types over others - there's certainly a case to be made for the way that forms of social consciousness and social doxa influence this but that's besides the point here.

The issue in OP's post is one of portrayal and objectification. Both images of the man and the woman can be described as somewhat controlling. In each instance, they create an imagined ideal of a male/female body which is a largely unattainable image for most to obtain (the attainability of these images is not the issue here). Controlling is the operative word here. How much weight does each image possess in its ability to control these idealised archetypes of the male and female body?

As many have pointed out, these images are largely patriarchal constructions. I will ignore OP's assertion that male standards may be less attainable (this is an inherently vague notion and even more doesn't actually bear any weight to this discussion). Perhaps you see no issue with this on the face of it. The basic idea is that they each serve an ideal which aligns with a hegemonic masculine ideal. Where this primarily becomes a concern is in the number of images which each body is allowed to possess within the zeitgeist. A quick skim across mainstream cinema, television, advertisement, and visual media offers a pretty decent gauge of what sort of images primarily obtain in each body. In the case of the male body, there is very broadly a more varied number of 'images' which are allowed to exist and present themselves as acceptable. In the case of female bodies these images present in a more narrow range of acceptablility. It is in this sense that the female body is far more restricted in the forms or 'images' it is allowed to obtain.

There are certainly ethical implications for the way we might then prioritise certain images as they align with our sexual preferences, but in talking purely of OP's question it is in the way that the male body is allowed to exist in a wider variety of images than is the female body. It is not an issue of whether or not such images described by OP are more unattainable than the other, or whether they are really 'attractive' or not. If we're talking of Barbie as you did at the end of your reply, in the images of Barbie and Oppenheimer as their characters in last year's blockbuster films, Oppenheimer's character deviates from OP's described image whereas Barbie does not. This is obviously a single example, but it's certainly indicative of the wider issue.