and now a really worthy application of mathematics

This is so gross. Scientists one creepy psychology professor has come up with a formula for “the perfect female bottom”:

The magical figures are (S+C) x (B+F)/T = V. Though the equation looks rather complicated, it is, according to the scientist, simple.

It assesses shape, bounce, firmness and symmetry – all factors that add up to the bottom line.

S is the overall shape or droopiness of the bottom, C represents how spherical the buttocks are, B measures muscular wobble or bounce, while F records the firmness.

God this is disgusting. First, thanks for wasting everyone’s time. I love how social science and the humanities get criticized for doing irrelevant research on “irrelevant” things like porn and reality TV when all these studies on what men find attractive are deemed perfectly relevant.

Second, although this assessment is based on 2000 women’s self-evaluation (BTW, self-reporting is usually deemed suspect in social science) of their butts, the equation basically seems to come up with what kind of ass the psychologist thinks is worth wanking off over. Get this:

“The perfect female derriere has firmness to the touch and a resilience that prevents undue wobble or bounce, yet looks soft with flawless skin,” Dr Holmes said.

“Slender thighs and a hip-to-waist ratio of 0.7 will frame the perfect bum, well perfectly.”

Ugh! Talk about male gaze. Of course nobody is doing studies on what kind of men’s asses women find attractive. You know why? Because it’s stupid, and because, as usual, men’s assessment of women’s body parts is considered completely legitimate. This kind of work is unbelievably objectifying, encourages viewing women as a collection of parts, insults mathematicians doing interesting and intellectually engaging work, and is discouraging to women working in similar academic disciplines.

This research better not be funded.