The 'soft sciences' (sociology, psychology) attempt to use scientific, quantifiable methodology to investigate humans & their behaviour. However, they are dealing with matter (people & how they act) which does not lend itself readily to scientific observation - it's not like we can cut a brain open & prove that someone did something for reasons x,y,z. Whereas the hard sciences are provable, e.g. what goes into an atom, gravity etc.
Using scientific methodology, it is the accepted method that to assert a hypothesis as factual theory, then not only does it have to be proved, but it also has to be proved that it cannot be dis-proved.
e.g. If I put forward the idea that people with blue eyes like pink clothes, I could carry out a survey using water-tight scientific methods which backs that up. If someone else comes along with an equally rigorous survey which proves otherwise, then my survey & its findings are discounted.
So, if you assert that people like big breasts, manly chests etc, because biology makes them want that, then it doesn't matter how many examples you can come up with to back that up. As soon as anyone can come up with a legitimate example of people NOT finding big breasts attractive, then the theory has been dis-proved and is no longer taken into account.
There are a huge number of examples that show there is NO ONE TYPE which is universally seen as attractive. Therefore, it cannot be something that humans are born with, like their DNA, it can only be the society they grow up in (unless you can think of another factor). So then you have to look at the society you live in to understand why/how this has come about.
Our society is predominantly patriarchal, so that is what you have to investigate.
(Sits back & waits to start the debate on whether it really is a patriarchy, after all look at Maggie Thatcher, or even for people to think patriarchy is natural/right/best)
Yank shimmering mossy green - not too bright, but will bring out the hazel in your eyes.