Bottom Ranking

Posted over 2 years ago

Artist:
- PLAY
ZZ Top
Album:
- PLAY
- QUEUE
Fandango!
Track:
- PLAY
Tush

Well, well, another "unconventional" equation caught my eye today as I was reading news on the web. This one comes in two varieties, corresponding to two kinds of . . . let's say . . . specimen:The first is: ((S + C) x (B + F)/T) - V = ?where S = Overall Shape (“including tendency to droop”), C = Circularity, B = Bounce Factor (resilience to wobbling), F = Firmness (with perfect being “like a comfy bed”), T = Skin Texture and V = Vertical Ratio (the goal: “on the top-heavy side of symmetrical”). For unfortunate reasons which you'll be able to figure out when you find out what the equations are supposed to measure, the second isn't stated explicitly. But as far as I can tell, it should be this: ((S + M) x (L + F)/T) - O = ?where M = Muscularity, L = Leanness, and O = Overall Symmetry.Each variable gets a value on the scale of 1-4 or 1-5, which is in some cases a reverse scale, depending on the variable, yielding a total score of 0-80. But what does the score stand for? What are these equations supposed to measure?[P.S. Upon double-checking, I found a number of other versions of the equation on the web. The one above checks out to 0 with the "worst" values for the variables and to 80 with the "best" values. The others don't. I have my doubts whether it's otherwise accurate.]

Comments (6)

Add To My Trusted Moggers

Anna says Sex performance ranking?

Permalink posted 12/10/2006
Add To My Trusted Moggers

thecandymanlives says fake boobs

Permalink posted 12/10/2006
Add To My Trusted Moggers

1234chainsaw says Sorry to disappoint, but the topic of the equation is more, shall we say, aesthetic.

Permalink posted 12/10/2006
Add To My Trusted Moggers

ScheisseMinelli says how much junk you got in yo badunkadunk

Permalink posted 12/10/2006
Add To My Trusted Moggers

Mallory says Interesting way of putting it Mr. Minelli

Permalink posted 12/11/2006
Add To My Trusted Moggers

1234chainsaw says Minelli got closest, but no cigar even there. The formula (which I've seen referred to as "bum factor," "bootyliciousness index," and "assquation") is supposed to describe the ideal buttocks, female in the first case, male in the second case. It was developed by the psychologist David Holmes of Manchester Metropolitan University, apparently not entirely on a whim. You can see how to pick the numerical values that you plug into the equation e.g. here. Nit-picking time, though, with entire seriousness: The formula does seem to make having even an acceptable ass awfully difficult. I'd say I myself get an average ranking on muscularity, and although otherwise I do pretty well (except for lacking that chiseled look), that drags my score to the neighborhood of 40, which comes with the injunction "Exercise! Diet! Hope!" Well, fuck that. This conceals a deeper issue that's related to the sexism discussion that's been going on in MOGOS in the past few days. The formula and the scheme for assigning values to variables were derived from the results of getting 2,000 British women to rate their own bottoms. Might it be that the formula is as merciless as it is because the subjects have been made overly critical of their own bums, or to have high standards on an attractive bum, by the imagery and skewed body ideals with which Hollywood and other mass media bombard them? With different, more forgiving data, the bum factor might be different.

Permalink posted 12/11/2006