From: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 … t_arc.html

Few men were even represented, but the images of women in caves tell a different story.

"Female images dominate and are nude, almost every one full-figured above and below," said Guthrie. "Unlike the other animals, the sculpted, engraved and painted human females and female parts are sometimes done schematically, distilling and inflating the primary and secondary sex characters."

(emphasis mine)

Sounds like a certain section of this industry to me...not the "art" photographer but those shots you sometimes see in glam photography and porn.  It seems to me to parallel; how glamtographers, like the cave painters who proceeded them, choose to focus on women and distill and inflate the primary and secondary sex characteristics of them.

Just an idea, an extension of the article if you will.

Anyway, it's another reason for me not to like glam photography... It's the only type of modern art that hasn't even evolved past cave paintings...some would say the photographers that shoot in that style haven't either.

Well. . . either that or the female form is the one true and lasting symbol of beauty. but then again maybe even in 10,000 B.C. sex sells.
I, for one, am not ready to devine any man's purpose but as you infer you have that capability. If I were you I wouldn't let it out lest you end up in a government lab somewhere.