Search Results: leg muscles

I don't want to appear like I'm too full of myself but I'm being as objective as possible.
I'm 5'11 (180cm), with athletic proportional body, though currently not extremely fit, meaning my muscles aren't so toned and may be a bit of belly fat (when I say little I mean it :D ), But I still do have nicely shaped legs and arms and chest, it's not like it's ugly or bad, not even average, it's definitely above average but also not very muscular or extremely nicely shaped, let's say, few levels below that, but still looking overall quite good. Also good looking face, I've heard compliments before, cute, hot, sexy etc.

So been dating this girl for a week we had few times very hot sex etc. and then we started talking about some topics and I don't know how and why I came up with this but I asked her if I'm sexually attractive for her?
Her answer - "A bit. Not that much.
After another 5 min of talking she is basically telling me that in order to find me sexually attractive, I need to have perfectly toned body (toned muscles, more biceps, triceps etc) and have to be one head taller than my current height of 5'11. Then and only then she will find me sexually attractive and hot. At my current state she does not find me hot nor sexually attractive, but she thinks I'm a good person (oh so generous, wow 10x :D )

And I started thinking, is it really those two things that makes a person looks so amazingly sexually attractive, isn't it a combination of behavior, appearance (which I do have) , how you carry yourself, how you talk to a girl etc.
So somehow she (my current girl) ignores all of these things and pin points that I need perfectly toned body and more height to become sexually attractive, otherwise I'm not sexually attractive. Which to me sounds harsh af! And also shallow af! What do you guys think?
Is her point of view way too narrow, simplistic and shallow or unless guys have perfectly toned body and lots of height they can't be sexually attractive?