Clavicle width is sort of misunderstood.
Most idiots think it means a guy will be stronger.
Not at all.
Moving the shoulders too far from the center of gravity actually reduces potential force output.
Look at the hardest hitting boxers. Almost all of them had narrow clavicles.
The reason clavicle width was ever sexually selected for was because broader shoulders give the illusion of more shoulder development. It's basically a genetic form of peacocking, even though from a functional standpoint having the shoulder socket overly far away from your torso isn't a good thing.
Not to mention babies with wider shoulders are very maldaptive for females to give birth too.
Yes clavicles wider is still better cosmetically even today, but height & face matter more.
The only study to demonstrate V-tapers being attractive had some major flaws:
1). Face was ruled out, the face factor was not varied at all to he factored against V taper
2). Weather the shoulder width was coming from muscle developmemt OR collar bones was NOT independently isolated
3). Absolute shoulder width vs. Hip shoulder ratio was not isolated
4). All of the examples were within normal variations. This model is still within the normal variation.
5). Because all the figures were withing common variations, no extremes were tested to find the point if diminished or negative returns. Meaning that if this huys shoulders got say 1" wider on each side, that might be the most that would benefit him, and beyond that might even make him look weird and disproportionate - it hasn't been properly evaluated yet.
6). In the study most of the V taper rejects were shaped like pear body fatties who had hips (at sillouette) wider than their shoulders, so pretty much ANY V taper looked far superior like a healthy man always looks better than an obese man.
So, while V taper matters more than height and penis size, we don't know if collarbone length itself is even the main matter at hand.
