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.
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.
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.
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.
Analysis of the data was performed using the R statistical software (version 3.2.2).
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.
First we present the styles found, then we examine how men displayed their scrotums, and finally we analyze how voters perceived 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.
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.