Through the Looking Glass..

I am wondering whether it is possible for me to explain/allude to a theory here without it being automatically interpreted that the content matches with my personal opinion!
I seriously hope so, because in the following paragraphs I'm going to explain about two theories I've recently come across, and find them fairly interesting to give them a thought. But infact, I'm reserving my own opinion over these, and please treat the following as NOT IMHO. That said, I'd love your opinion, if any, on the same. A good discussion whets my appetite!

The first one is the GAZE theory. Follow the link to know more, but anyway, the conventional version of this theory deals with the 'male gaze', which as the name suggests deal with the men gazing at the female body- sexually or otherwise, and there are feminist version as well! I'm not going into the 'social politics' and psychology of sexual gratification that goes behind this( Wikipedia and this link(minus the 'illustrative' pics) have fairly interesting information to offer). I was thinking on another aspect, which was highlighted recently by one of my teachers in her class, which is that the whole psychology of 'male gaze' seeps throught women and women look at themselves through the male gaze!! If you've heard this for the first time, read on, because it's interesting.
What I'm trying to narrate is that because men look at women in a certain way, and there are certain definitions and perceptions of "desirability" of a women vis-a-vis thow she looks, women themselves( Freudian inferiority psychology?) look at their own bodies and apparel from that point of view, so as to be deemed "desirable" and acceptable!! That is why something like a James Bond movie, so obviously intended for a male audience with all the action, sex and women, also caters to a female audience at an invisible, sarcastic level. This is not to suggest that a woman would derive pleasure out of staring at a nude female, but there's a psychology working at another level. I hope u understand, for I don't wish to elaborate!
Interestingly, a converse theory of this is also doing the rounds, but the abovementioned links would give u a fair idea.
Anyway, please remember none of the above is my personal view or comment on the topic, and the same's true for what follows.

The second theory deals with the importance of looks! Though I already wrote a post on a similar topic once, that was my perspective largely, and this is not. It's interesting still, because, to be very brief, what this theory suggests is that the conventional/ancient/forever-present funda about 'looks' being an important criterion to judge a person was, at lst in THOSE times, justified, because it is said that the perceived beauty of a person(men AND women, though more for women perhaps) is directly proportional to the fertility of the individual! And since it was desirable to have a life partner who will be great at procreation, looks became THE criterion!
The interesting view is if u think about today's times and discuss the applicability. I don't think anyone would prefer a women who can theoretically bear 8 children vis-a-vis someone who can bear 5 or 6, because who can afford that many children anyway! Secondly, is the continuation of a generation still that decisive an issue? And thirdly, IF this theory is true(I have serious doubts but still...) shouldn't we actually ask the Family Planning Commission to take up a programme which glamourises marrying the ugly!!!!!!
Unless it hurts the cosmetic industry too much..............
:P