betrippin wrote:
By bits in general I mean tiddies regardless of the size, hips regardless of how swingin' or big they are, and asses regardless of how juicy/firm/fit they are
Ah. That's a trickier question. Well, as you're hopefully aware, the image of sexuality has changed drastically over the course of human history. Take a look at Ruben's paintings for example. From ancient carvings found, we can determine that the ideal woman in the prehistoric era was fat, with wide thighs and breasts. This would be the most fertile partner, as the wide thighs ease childbirth and the large breasts mean more nutrition for the children. The overall fatness was a sign of good health as well, since nutrition was scarce, and the males did most the hunting and foraging, so females didn't need their mobility.
Over the course of history, the factor that determined children's' health has deviated more and more from pure physical fertility of the female to social status. This is of course an infinitely complex abstract concept that's heavily influenced by, and in one might say created by, culture. We could reason that the introduction of concepts like grace and elegance have led to a reduction of the preferred amount of fat in a female.
It's because of this dependency of personal culture that the concept beauty nowadays is so difficult to define, abstract and subjective, which makes it hard to find explanations for trends in preferences. I would say that the preference to look at the booty and tiddies of a female is still a remainder of those ancient times when those traits where most important, even though the actual preferred 'modifiers' (ie. size) are personal now.
I hope this makes sense, as it's now 6.30AM.