Oh yeah, remember that box office failure that no one talked about? Magic Mike? I hope Channing Tatum's ego has recovered.

How do you know that? What makes you say that? Does it even matter why they're put into movies?

As far as I understand it the image posted does not claim that these bodies are put into movies for women. Personally I would argue that unrealistic bodies are put there for both genders, but perhaps more so for the opposite sex. However, looking at the posted image neutrally and without reading anything into it that's not there, to the main idea behind the image is to point out the fact that not not only women but also men are depicted unrealistically more often than not. Or at the very least statistically above average.

Ok, so I'm confused about what's being implied here. Is it that media makers don't care about making things sexually appealing to straight women? If there's profit in it, why wouldn't they?

Seems to me that women in general tend to base less of their attraction on visual or physical cues than men do. But what I don't understand is why there's an air of moral superiority around the ways that women judge attractiveness and a condemnation of the way that men judge attractiveness. Non-physical traits might be a better basis for a relationship, but we're not talking about a relationship. We're talking about fictional media.

If women responded to sex appeal in the same way that men do, I see no reason why media makers wouldn't include it. In fact, I would argue in media targeted primarily at women, they do tend to portray men with both physical and non-physical traits that appeal to women. But the fact that superhero physiques might be included mainly to appeal to men in no way counters the argument that it can lead to body-image issues.