Ah yes, my friends, contemplate the female posterior. Call it what you will, but there are few things as distracting and potentially overwhelming as a woman's behind. Unlike many other contemporary aesthetics of female beauty, the average man's criteria and appreciation of women's bottoms has changed little in the past fifty years. There are, of course, some contemporary, "thinner" celebrities with well-shaped, behinds (ie. Nicole Kidman, Lara Flynn Boyle), and many American women are hood-winked into believing that there is something undesirable about an ample behind. Overall, however, men still look for the same things back there: roundness, definition, fullness and, perhaps most-importantly, the contrasting differential from the waistline, (the key ingredient of the "hour-glass" look). I would be remiss in my duties not to remind you of using discretion while bottom-spotting, few things are as troublesome to me as the ogling, open-mouthed simpleton. The seasoned "spotter" should be able to take in the subject with aesthetic purity, appreciating the fortuitous serendipity of the moment. I tell you, in my golden days of figure photography: the 1950's, 1960's and even 1970's, there was much more general appreciation, from both genders, for a "full behind". A chap could walk down any street and observe how progressions in fashion enhanced the bottoms of women. Why, the first time I saw a woman in blue jeans, (known back then as "dungarees"), I nearly walked headlong into a lamp post. Verily, the mesmerizing motion of a woman's rear end is more hypnotic than Svengali could ever have been, undulating in a most addictive rhythm. I still hear music when "spotting" out there, sometimes it's a delicate Martin Denny piece, other times it's an all-out, Xavier Cugat samba. Submitted for your approval - an ever-changing sampling of the wonderful past of "behind-shots". If you listen carefully, you too may hear music.