## Tuesday, March 20, 2007

### Equations UPDATED

I wasn't sure whether this would get any curious readers wondering. Probably not.

Believe it or not, these equations are said to calculate how attractive women's and men's behinds are.

(S+C) x (B+F)/T - V

The calculation above is supposed to be for women. It represents: shape, circularity of buttocks, "bounce factor," firmness, texture of skin, and vertical ratio. The below calculation is for men representing: shape, muscularity, leanness, firmness, texture of skin, and overall symmetry.

(S+M) x (L+F)/T - O

Science is crazy. Can attraction be calculated? Some scientists, including David Holmes who developed these calculations, would imply it can. I've also heard that the symmetry of people's faces correlates with their "attractiveness". Hmmm, I say. Hmmm. I don't want to be anti-science but, c'mon... Then again, I haven't tried the equations. Maybe I should find out more.

#### 1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I saw a TV documentary on this subject and apparently it is true that having s symmetrical face is deemed attractive. They showed Denzel Washington as an example of an extremely symmetrical face (Female Denzel fan: Oh Denzel, you're so symmetrical!). But these things are subconscious obviously - it's not that you consciously think of people having symmetrical faces and think: Wow, that's attractive, what symmetry! It's apparently that their faces seem trustworthy cause they are the same all over or something... However, if your face looks like a Picasso painting, you will seem untrustworthy cause your face doesn't add up on both sides - you're illogical, assymetrical, obviously a crook!

Some guy also claimed to have found a certain "formula" for beauty as far as the shape of the face and ratios between your features etc. Apparently every universally acknowledged "beautiful person" fit into this mold. Also, suspiciously, it fit in well with the caucasian features meaning that most black, asian etc people who were deemed beautiful looked fairly cuacasian in features.

Is this bullshit? I don't know, but it was nonetheless quite fascinating...

/Phil