The Balls Paper

A Scientific Analysis Of The Autoblow Balls Beauty Contest’s Data

www.ballspaper.com

Introduction

This work is the second paper in an ongoing effort to uncover public perceptions of genital beauty standards. Here, we examined data collected during the Autoblow 2 Balls Beauty Pageant. 1,006 men from 35 countries submitted a photo of their scrotum to the contest. Over a period of five weeks from November to December 2015, 20,315 people rated the scrotums, using a scale from 1 to 10 stars.

Following the approach of our vulva paper, we narrowed the data set to include 267 pictures and measured and coded morphologic features. Using factors including Space Between Testicles/Total Height Ratio, Total Width/Total Height Ratio and Testicle Similarity, we partitioned the images submitted into six classes of scrotums according to their degree of laxity. Skin complexity was not as significant in scrotum classification as was in vulva classification.

Voters did not find any of the 6 classes to be more visually appealing than another; the data showed that voters found all scrotum styles equally unappealing. All 6 classes of scrotums received average scores ranging from 3.35 to 3.6 out of 10 compared with 4.3 to 5.3 out of 10 for vulvas.

The method of scrotal display also warranted analysis and is presented below, separately.

Methods, Or How We Categorized Balls

Sample

Men submitted photos of their scrotums to an online balls beauty pageant organized by the manufacturer of the Autoblow 2, a robotic masturbation device for men. To enter the contest, men had to be at least 18 years old and submit a picture of their scrotum between November 18th and December 25th, 2015. The contest rules required that all photo entries showed, within the photograph, both the scrotum of the entrant and a piece of paper with the contest name typed or handwritten. We learned from our previous experience in the online vulva beauty pageant that a sexually oriented pose or including features others than the object of the contest could introduce a significant bias in the ratings granted by viewers. Therefore, we requested the entrants to cover their penises.

We narrowed the number of final pictures to 267 to avoid over-dispersion of votes among the 1,006 submissions received and to guarantee enough statistical relevance in our analyses.

Upon submission, each participant was requested to provide their age, their general geographic location, precise up to country level; and optionally a comment about their photo. No other details were recorded about the entrants.

Coding

Following the methodology of our previous vulva paper, we computed ratios of genital morphology dimensions. We displayed each photo on a 15’’ computer screen, and we zoomed into them until the scrotum dimensions presented on Plate 1 were easily measured using a screen ruler. The photos were non-standardized images, and, therefore, the lengths were later transformed into ratios: Space Between Testicles/Total Height, Total Width/Total Height and Testicle Similarity.

Plate 1. An example of the genital dimensions measured on each photo.

In addition to the quantitative measures described above, we recorded the scrotum skin complexity using three levels: smooth (level 1), moderate (level 2) and marked (level 3). We also assigned a degree of laxness (in other words unfilled space, or bagginess) to each photo using a scale from 1 (firmest) to 3 (loosest). Plate 2 shows examples of the three levels of laxness and skin complexity.

Plate 2. Examples of scrotum skin complexity (row A) and laxness (row B). Complexity and laxness decrease from left to right.

All measurements were made by the same person to prevent variability between observers.

Table 1 lists the ratios and coding for each of the 267 pictures in the contest.

Table 1. Data obtained from the photos in the competition.

Ratings

We collected 630,777 ratings from 20,315 unique voters via the contest web page. We delivered a random set of photos, one at a time, to each voter and asked the voter to rate the scrotum depicted on each image on a 1-10 scale. Along with the picture, the man’s pseudonym, his age and general geographical location were displayed. We used MaxMind API to estimate each voter’s location using his or her IP address.

Some voters used only a part of the 1 to 10 scale while others used all of it. To reduce individual biases, we centered each voter’s ratings using their mean and standard deviation. This allowed us to reflect the preferences of voters on the same scale.

Data analysis

Analysis of the data was performed using the R statistical software (version 3.2.2).

Style classification

We used the ratios, laxness degree, and skin complexity to partition the photos into different classes of scrotal style. For that, we applied a K-Prototypes clustering analysis (Huang, 1998) to the coded data using the pclus function in the clue package.

We treated the ratios as numerical features and the skin complexity and scrotum laxness as ordinal features. We computed dissimilarity using Euclidean distance for numerical features and L1-norm for ordinal features. Our consensus function calculated the mean value for continuous features and the mode for ordinal features. To select the number of clusters, we started with two groups and inspected the results. If the resulting groups were not homogeneous to the eye, we increased the number of clusters.

Results

First we present the styles found, then we examine how men displayed their scrotums, and finally we analyze how voters perceived scrotum styles.

Scrotum Styles

The final number of clusters was 6. Table 2 shows the ratios and coding values for each scrotum prototype and Plate 3 illustrates one example of each style. We named the scrotum prototypes as Classes 1 to 6, where Class 1 represents the least laxity, and class 6 represents the maximum laxity.

Class 1 members display a tight scrotum where the testicles are held close to the body and are not individually visible. In Class 6, the shape of the testicles can be clearly observed and the distance from the penis is the longest among all classes. Class 2 to 5 are somewhere between those extremes. The scrotum width to height ratio also shows a gradient. Starting with Class 1, the scrotum is wider than taller, but as the class number increases, the proportions change and the scrotum becomes more tall than wide. Finally, the left testicle looks more similar to the right testicle in the lower class categories. These three features, in varying degrees, contribute to the scrotum’s degree of laxity.

Skin complexity is not a strong class-defining feature. Only Class 4 is different from all the others because of the complexity of skin creases. It should be noted that skin folds can be present or missing depending on the state of the scrotum. Wrinkles and/or creases may appear when the scrotum shrinks (during a cold shower), and disappear when the scrotum is in a relaxed state (for example during a hot shower). Depending on temperature factors, skin complexity shifts and may even affect scrotum class.

Table 2. Scrotum prototypes resulting from cluster analysis, percentage of entrants in each class and average rating for each class.

Plate 3. Examples of each style class.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of ages for each style. The contest received submissions from a broad range of ages. We found no relationship between scrotum class and age.

Figure 1. Age distribution for each scrotum style.

Figure 2 displays the number of the entrants per country and Table 3 lists this information in more detail. Clicking on the map provides further details about the distribution of styles within each country. Entrants were spread around the world. Particularly prevalent is the participation of the United States, Taiwan, United Kingdom and Canada. Only the United States and Taiwan showed a representation of every style. The Balls Contest, with submissions from 35 countries, was more international than The Vulva Contest, which received submissions from only 21 countries.

Figure 2. Geographic distribution of men participating in the contest. Click on each country for a detailed distribution of styles in the country.

Table 3. Number of entrants per country.

Entrants’ Comments

Accompanying their photos, entrants had the chance to submit a comment. We found a high degree of self love exhibited amongst the comments. Considering the demonstrated public perception that all scrota were equally unappealing, many men shared in a belief that something was extraordinarily beautiful about their own scrotums. Here are some examples:

“I’ve always thought that despite my dick being nothing to write home about, my balls were an under-appreciated part of my anatomy until now. The potatoes far outweigh the steak and I’m just glad they’re getting their due.”
“I have met and shown thousands of people my balls and never had anyone have bigger ones. As far as I know they’re the largest natural pair. Have been to the doctor numerous times and had tests done. Totally natural. Even was suspended from high school for” (the guy reached the submission length, but we are sure that he had a lot more to say about his balls).
“These are my balls, there are many like them, but this pair is mine. My balls are my best friends. They are my life. I must master them as I must master my life.”
“A long time ago.. in a galaxy far far away… lived the fiercest pair of danglers the galaxy had ever seen… The pairs name was… Jaba The Sack.”
“I hope you like my pics. My balls are naturally unusually large. I’m straight and my girlfriend loves them.”
“They are nicer when hanging but I live in Canada and it was really cold on the day of the picture. Tight as a drum!”
“The best is here. :)”
“I am from China, and I think my ball is unique because it looks like an orange together!”
“I am a mature gentleman close to the 40’s, single with no commitments, and what makes them special is that my testicles have moles that may be considered very sexy, besides that I have very sexy moles in both ears.”
“My balls say to you”HELLO“”
“I pray that my balls will bring comfort to a lone woman on a cold rainy evening.”
“Balls of Art”

Plate 4 shows the photos submitted by each of these men.

Plate 4. Photos submitted by the entrants who submitted the comments listed above.

We regret to inform these men that their scores ranged between a 2.99 and a 3.5. The average score received by a man who left a positive comment about his scrotum was a 3.28. This score was approximately the average score received by all contestants.

How men photographed their scrotums

Often, men presented their scrotums in creative fashions. In addition to measuring scrotal dimensions, we took note about the way men displayed their testicles, including the environment, and any other unusual features that we could observe in the photos. We did not restrict our study to the photos that were approved for the contest, and we extended our research to all the photos that were submitted but were not included in the contest for statistical reasons.

For each photo we answered these questions:

Can we see some hair? (yes|no)
Do they look like the environment is cold? (yes|no)
Do the testicles look full? (yes|no)
Does the man display his scrotum within an elaborate scene? (yes|no)
Do we suspect that the man has an erection? (yes|no)
Does the scrotum display any decoration (tattoo, piercing, for example)? (yes|no)

Then, for each question, we computed the proportion of photos in which the answer was yes, the average rating of the photos in which the answer was yes, and the average rating of the photos in which the answer was no. Table 4 shows these results. The data shows that shaved scrotums as well as scrotums not showing signs of shrinkage or tightening from a cold environment received higher ratings. The physiological status of the scrotum also mattered: men who had an erection (hiding the majority of it in the photo) and who displayed very full scrotums scored higher. Photos showing tattoos, piercings or other types of scrotal decorations received lower ratings. Men who expended the effort to portray their scrotums in a creative manner (see Plate 5 for some examples) were rewarded with higher ratings.

Table 4. Percentage of photos in which the answer to special features questions listed above was yes; and the average rating of photos in which the answer was positive/negative.

Plate 5. Scrotums displayed within decorative scenes.

There were 3 styles related to the display of scrotums: wearing pants and pulling the scrotum out of the zipper, wearing just underwear; and being naked. Table 5 shows the proportion of each style both in the approved and unapproved photos and the average rating for each display style. Photos in which the display included pants with only the scrotum visible obtained higher ratings, on average.

Table 5. Dressing styles. Percentage of photos in which the entrant shows his scrotum coming out of his pants zipper, his underwear, or whether the entrant was fully naked. We also list the average rating of photos depicting each display style.

Finally, when it was possible, we took note of each picture’s background. Table 6 lists the different background types that we found and the average rating of the photos displaying each background type. We can see that many entrants chose a bedroom in which to photograph their scrotums. We found that the photos showing a garage in the background were rated lower on average. Unrated background types appeared only on the set of unapproved submissions.

Table 6. Where did the entrants take their photos? This table shows the proportion of photos by background type and the average rating of photos displaying each background type. Unrated background types appeared only on the set of unapproved submissions.

Public scrotum style preferences

On average, each voter rated 31 photos, and each photo received 2,362 votes. The winner received an average rating of 6.4, and only eight entrants obtained an average score above 5. In contrast, the winner of the vulva contest obtained an average rating of 7.7 and 95 entrants received a score equal or higher than 5. Table 2 shows that all the scrotum styles obtained, on average, low and similar scores. In contrast, vulva styles received average scores from 4.3 to 5.3. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the ratings as they were received (before rescaling). We can see that voters predominantly voted “1” and few scrotums received any votes on the higher end of the scale.

The results show that voters did not feel any particular scrotum class was more attractive than another; in fact they found all scrota to be nearly equally unattractive.

Figure 3. Distribution of ratings.

Although our voters perceived all the styles as equally unappealing on average, we will examine the distribution of style preferences in more detail because a closer look revealed interesting patterns.

Figure 4 shows the geographical distribution of visitors evaluating the pictures while Table 7 and Table 8 display the data in more detail. Clicking on each country will display the ranking order of scrotum styles in that country. As we found in the Vulva Paper, Western nations led the participation in voting, with the United States at the top. But the Balls Contest data showed that Taiwan was among the top countries sending the most voters to the contest. The capital of Taiwan, Taipei, sent the most votes to the Balls Contest of any city on Earth.

Many countries preferred Class 3 scrotums over the others, frequently followed by scrotums of Class 1 and 6. Those 3 classes, 1,3 and 6 also show the highest scores among the 6 classes overall, although by only a very slim margin (Table 2). A closer inspection shows some variability, with other Classes occupying the first positions in their national rankings. For example, Colombians preferred Class 5, Class 4 is at the top in France and China, and people in Thailand were fans of Class 2.

Figure 4 also shows style rankings for those cities with at least 100 voters. Most cities preferred Class 1 closely followed by Class 3. Some cities voted in agreement with their nations preferred rankings, but voters in cities including London, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles had preferences other than the most popular national level scrotum class.

Figure 4. Geographic distribution of voters by country. Cities with more than 100 voters are shown. Clicking on any country or city reveals a national or local ranking of scrotum styles.

Table 7. Number of voters per country and favorite style in the country.

Table 8. Number of voters per city with more than 100 voters and favorite style in the city.

To get a global ranking of scrotum styles, we selected those voters (n=6,068) who voted on at least one photo belonging to each style and computed their average rating for each group. Figure 5 shows the percentage of voters who preferred one style over the others. In general, we can see that voters favored classes showing more laxity (Class 3, 5, 6) and that folds and creases were not found to be appealing (Class 4). As expected from the rankings that we observed at the country and local levels, Class 3 scrotums were preferred over the others more often. However, Class 1 is not among the top 3 styles. A closer inspection of the data reveals that Class 1 scrotums were rated the highest in many countries with few voters. Therefore, although the number of countries preferring Class 1 was higher, their contribution to the total number of votes favoring that class was relatively small.

Figure 5. Global style preferences.

When we examined whether the day of the week, the entrants age or a sense of nationalism played a significant role in the ratings; some results were opposite to what we found in the vulva paper regarding the same questions. In the Vulva Paper, we found that those factors had no influence on the scores given to the vulvas. But in the Balls Contest, the data showed that people who voted on Monday or during the morning submitted lower ratings on average. Balls Contest ratings during the weekend were slightly higher. As in the vulva paper, entrants’ age did not play a major role in voters decisions. But in this contest, we found a slight preference for people of one country to give higher scores to their own country’s scrotums; on average, people voted 0.35 points higher on scrotums of their own nation, compared with foreign scrotums.

Initially, we suspected that the intense participation by the Taiwanese was responsible for this change, but data analysis showed that this was not the case. In fact the Taiwanese voters were quite fair, not allowing their country’s oversized participation to influence their ratings (only .17 higher). Other countries though did vote significantly higher on their nation’s scrotums. The most extreme case was Hungary. Hungarian voters rated, on average, Hungarian scrotums 5.25 points higher than foreign scrotums. The United States, the country with the most voters and entrants (and therefore the most statistically reliable estimation), also rated their own scrotums significantly higher, by 0.25 points on average.

Meet The Winners

The contest winner is a Class 3 scrotum: smooth and wider than longer, particularly because Brandon is holding it in his hand. Rob’s scrotum, in the second position, is the prototype of Class 5: smooth, protruding testicles with high Total Width/Total Height Ratio. Finally, and in the third place, Big Ben shows an example of Class 4 scrotum: some creases, medium laxity. Plate 6 shows the winner’s photos.

Plate 6. Photos submitted by the three winners. (1) Brandon (1st Place), (2) Rob (2nd Place) and (3) Big Ben (3rd Place).

Analysis of the contest visitors

As in our vulva paper, our primary concern was to learn about genital styles and their popularity. However, again, our Google Analytics data collected during the balls contest offered some interesting information.

407,643 people from 185 countries visited the contest web page. Figure 6 shows the evolution of the number of visits during the contest. 4.98% of those visitors became active voters in our contest. The contest was widely written about online; more than 50 websites had published an article featuring the contest including Vice, Mic, Cosmopolitan, Huffingtonpost and Maxim among others. In Figure 6, we have highlighted the dates of publication of some featured articles that had a significant impact on the popularity of the contest around the world. Three days after the contest began, several major Taiwanese websites wrote about the contest.

Figure 6. Evolution of the number of visitors during the competition. Vertical lines mark the date of publication of some featured articles about the contest.

The contest’s impact was worldwide, with a few exceptions. For example, no one from North Korea, Madagascar, nor from several African countries visited the contest’s web page. As in our vulva paper, most visitors came from North America and European nations. Nevertheless, Taiwanese people demonstrated an exceptional interest in our contest again, as they were the second ranked country in visitors and the third ranked country by population percentage to visit the contest webpage.

Some visitors spent a considerable amount of time on our website. Our more than 20 fans in Lebanon – who visited the vulva contest for 12 minutes on average, this time only dedicated about 11 minutes to visit 23 pages on average. Nevertheless, in both contests, those 20 people in Lebanon spent the most time on the websites. Very close to the Lebanese were our 721 visitors from Hungary, who were just a few seconds behind. On the other end of the spectrum, the only people who visited us from Kosovo, Armenia, Rwanda, Cuba, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Belize, Suriname, Liberia, United Republic of Tanzania or Moldova left quickly; within a second.

Figure 7. Geographic distribution of unique visitors to the web contest.

Table 9. Per country: number of visitors, the percentage of the population in the country that visited the competition, number of pages viewed per visitor and the average time a visitor stayed on the contest website.

We observed a variety of behavior regarding returning visitors. The data showed that while most people only visited once, others returned multiple times. Some people found the balls contest even more compelling than the vulva contest because, as we can see in Table 10, 89 visitors came back to the Balls Contest more than 200 times. In comparison, only 17 people visited the vulva contest more than 100 times.

Table 10. Number of visits per visitor

On the technological side, Table 11 lists the browsers that our visitors used to access the contest page. When we compared these results with the same data in the vulva paper, we found that Chrome users remained in the majority. However, Internet Explorer and Safari users switched places in the second and fourth positions. One explanation could be that Safari users were more interested in vulvas and that IE users were more interested in scrotums. Firefox users kept their third position.

Table 11. Browsers used to visit the page.

Discussion & Final Remarks

This work is the second paper in an ongoing effort to uncover public perceptions of genital beauty standards. Like its predecessor the Vulva Paper, the Balls Paper analyzed the data obtained in the corresponding beauty contest. The vulva contest attracted more visitors and voters than the balls contest, but the later was more international, had more submissions, and its voters and visitors were more engaged on the website.

The high number of “1” ratings received across all submitted scrotums was remarkable and, on average, voters found all scrotum styles, statistically speaking, equally unappealing. In comparison, vulvas obtained much higher scores and the Vulva Contest contest found a statistically significant preferred style.

The company that commissioned this paper had hoped that the results would show that there is such a thing as an attractive scrotum. They hoped that the scrotum, given its biological importance, would be deemed by the public in at least some of its manifestations, to be beautiful. But the data showed what many people might have claimed was obvious: there is nothing attractive about a scrotum, no matter what it looks like.