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.