For Realz?: Supermodel Self-Delusion

The tension between what we as humans instinctually judge "attractive" and what we are conditioned to judge "attractive" makes for never-ending table-conversation, doesn't it?
A walk through museums and art galleries reveals, for example, a nearly universal preference for the "classical" build -- neither too slender nor too massive, both genders. Those female and male body types seem to be the instinctual, biological preference -- if the only criteria for a partner was physical appearance, most women below size and four and above size sixteen, and men built like scarecrows or Sumo wrestlers, would be mateless, as unfair as that may be. Similarly for physical symmetry -- the more nearly-symmetrical a body or face is, the more attractive humans, universally, judge it. Hetero relations providing for the continuation of the species is typical, and biology directs us to choose partners displaying traits better-conducive to survival.

Conditioned judging is more interesting, though. Consider body-shaving...how do you as a woman react when you see a woman with never-shaved underarm or leg hair? Those are natural states, yet most 21st century North American women find that sight disturbing, at the least. Same with pubic shaving -- it's only in the past decade or so that it's become "normal", and unshaved natural genitals are considered "unattractive" -- check out some old erotica to see what was "normal" thirty years ago before. Beyond biological prompts, our criteria for "attractive" becomes societally and situationally conditioned. You watch enough Hollywood and TV without deliberately reminding yourself that it's all illusion, you end up being conditioned to use what is actually an arbitrary appearance as your yardstick for "attractiveness."