It is because the average man has the body type of just that—a man. These proportions aren’t just unrealistic or unhealthy; they are physically impossible for most people.
I wouldn’t count myself as particularly twinkish, but, copious amounts of body hair that I’m quite fond of aside, this would be far from an impossible look for me to pull off (in structural terms - ymmv whether the style suits me well) - or a number of my friends.
Admittedly, the demure ‘arms-back’ pose minimizes the appearance of broad shoulders.
I just lazily scaled it with aspect ratio unlinked, but I’m not sure an under-10% drop in hip width (which by your own source, would place it at the 50th percentile) is quite the aesthetic difference you’re claiming it is.
Hip size is just the easiest to quantify. Most people just don’t have the combination of thick legs and thin torso. I know many people who have either one but only 1 out of 10s who has both.
His legs are really not that thick. Sit in that pose, your thighs will be on display.
The most egregious bit would be the thin torso, though I’d allow for some idealization considering that this is fundamentally about clothing style; but that, again, even adjusted to a broader proportion does not really fundamentally change the aesthetic.
I would never tell someone to have Google recommend them dubious search results for the rest of their lives, but you could, theoretically, Google femboys and femboy workouts and see a large number of people with body types like this and a range in how they display while maintaining the aesthetic.
Some of it is up to the luck of the draw with genetics - but this is not a fundamentally unrealistic look for most people who are in the rough weight range displayed.
It is because the average man has the body type of just that—a man. These proportions aren’t just unrealistic or unhealthy; they are physically impossible for most people.
what.
I wouldn’t count myself as particularly twinkish, but, copious amounts of body hair that I’m quite fond of aside, this would be far from an impossible look for me to pull off (in structural terms - ymmv whether the style suits me well) - or a number of my friends.
Admittedly, the demure ‘arms-back’ pose minimizes the appearance of broad shoulders.
https://multisite.eos.ncsu.edu/www-ergocenter-ncsu-edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2016/06/Anthropometric-Detailed-Data-Tables.pdf
On page page 26 it states that the average man has the distance between buttocks and shoulder equal to 59.78 cm.
We can use this to measure the hip width.
According to the same source, this would place them between 90th and 95th percentile for hip width.
The waist width is the actual statistic which is ridiculous, but I can’t find data for a minimum value.
I just lazily scaled it with aspect ratio unlinked, but I’m not sure an under-10% drop in hip width (which by your own source, would place it at the 50th percentile) is quite the aesthetic difference you’re claiming it is.
Hip size is just the easiest to quantify. Most people just don’t have the combination of thick legs and thin torso. I know many people who have either one but only 1 out of 10s who has both.
His legs are really not that thick. Sit in that pose, your thighs will be on display.
The most egregious bit would be the thin torso, though I’d allow for some idealization considering that this is fundamentally about clothing style; but that, again, even adjusted to a broader proportion does not really fundamentally change the aesthetic.
I would never tell someone to have Google recommend them dubious search results for the rest of their lives, but you could, theoretically, Google femboys and femboy workouts and see a large number of people with body types like this and a range in how they display while maintaining the aesthetic.
Some of it is up to the luck of the draw with genetics - but this is not a fundamentally unrealistic look for most people who are in the rough weight range displayed.