ok, i've been thinking *pauses for expressions of shock and surprise*
it's probably not an original idea, but bear with me. The trend these days is for women to be slender ("boyish") and relatively small - but big breasted. However, if you look at porn stars, magazines etc, the lauded woman is hairless - certainly compared to porn mags from the 70s and earlier. Breasts and body hair - particularly pubic hair - are both secondary sexual characteristics.
If you look at classical nudes, pubic hair is generally left out; this isn't due to a fashion but because pubic hair was seen as "sexual" - and women were not presented as sexual beings. Come the 70s and the second wave, and women were sexual beings - and we've got a lot more hair and people are starting to accept that women enjoy - and have a right to enjoy - sex. But then comes the backlash.
off comes the pubes. ok. but now let's look at our porn again (although I'm generally talking about magazine porn). You've got no hair, so the genitalia are now more exposed - but further to that, they're bubblegum pink! Now go look at a cunt - particularly one during arousal, and it's not bubblegum pink. Yes, she might be sexy, but she shows no sign (other than a few gurns) of sexual arousal - she is no longer a sexual being.
Add to that the fascination with big breasts (which, by sheer necessity sometimes are artificial) and the "ideal woman" is not only asexual - while definitely female and sexy in appearance, she's not in herself a sexual being; she's not there to enjoy herself, but to be enjoyed - but fake. Effectively, a sleek, shiny, user-pleasing machine.