I have a pet theory about all this implant stuff. I think it's easier to explain the desire for women to have / to be a woman who has larger boobs than it is to explain the desire, say , for no pubic hair. Of course the vicious cycle of what is in the media therefore what is considered "normal" also has a lot to answer for, but see what you think of my theory...
I am relatively modest chested, except when I was bf my son when i was a good 2 sizes larger and my boobs were more of an "implant" shape (until i stopped feeding when they went all saggy but that's how it works). If you are a hetrosexual male of breeding age looking for a mate, you tend to be attracted to signs of fertility - i.e. healthy skin / hair (indicating no disease, well fed), a good waist-hip ratio (indicating not currently pg and correlated with higher fertility rates) etc. Well, a woman who is bf an older child has proved she is fertile. She is presumably able to produce milk for a child as she is bf currently. And she is less likely to be currently pg than the average neolithic woman about town. She is probably still fertile if she has a young infant in toe. And if she is behaving in a provocative way (i.e. she is waving her boobs in your face, Jordan style) then maybe her baby's father has been eaten by sabretooth tigres / fallen off a cliff / died of the plague and she's available for breeding?
Can you feel your caveman genes crying out "good bet" yet?
Similarly I think the start of the craze for removing leg hair is about higher oestrogen and lower testoesterone (or is it androgen?) and displaying more feminine body hair patterns - which then gets completely exaggerated when no body hair becomes percieved as "normal".
Absolutely cannot justify the trend to removing pubic hair on these grounds though - how does that work?! Mmh she is not yet past puberty, and will be so inexperienced our offspring will likely die. yeah great bet.
Just a theory anyway - what do you think?