Booty Calls - an analytical treatment

So, you go on a Booty Call.

How was it?

Immediately, there are a few things that you mull over in your mind, as far as an answer… because “It was good,” or “eh,” might be accurate enough summations, but niether convey –anything- at all about how the booty call actually was.

In the interest of anthropological precision, let’s talk about this a bit. I've done a bit of work with Tammy on the subject. Discussion work, I mean. Not any sort of applied research. Not with her.

Anyway.

First… by “Booty Call”, I mean a prearranged rendezvous specifically for sex and specifically –not- for emotional development or maintenance, with someone you’re not currently in a relationship with. You can certainly do this with more then one person… but let’s keep things simple. I am not talking about a Nooner or a quickie.

Pre-arrangement is a necessary part of our definition because we’re looking to exclude spontaneous one-night stands or Penthouse Letters sex from out discussion… as in:

“Dear Penthouse Letters: I never used to like curry, and I never used to believe those stories in your magazine were true... until the other night, down at the Pakistani laundramat…”

For the purposes of our discussion, these highpoints of final exam season are not Booty Calls.

Further assume that you ( or whomever ) –want- to have the Booty Call, and are physically and emotionally capable of it. You don’t have a migraine, you’re not bleeding from the eyes, and you have no unsightly rash. Your name is not Sarah Connor, and other Sarah Connors have not been dying mysteriously all day in your city. All lights are green.

So.

Because just saying “eh,” or “It was –great-“ does not do it justice… you have to break it down. Maybe not when you’re talking about it, but for our purposes here, it’s necessary to break it down. What makes a 9 or 10 a 9 or 10? What makes a 2 a 2? Let’s take a look.

After a bit of discussion, these seem to be the factors that could be assigned some number ( 1-10 ) to give us some quanitification of the Booty Call:

Wow-ness
This is the “spark” associated with it. Maybe it’s the newness, or the taboo-ness, suddenness… something that spices it up.

Novelty
How unique or atypical is the experience? “I’ve never done it on a cassegrain telescope before…” If you get booty calls all the time, they get boring. So I’ve heard, anyway… I wouldn’t know : )

Technical skill
Does the other person here know what they are doing? There is not necessary a psotive correlation here; maybe you –like- inexperienced partners.

Comfort of the when and where
Baby crying in the next room? The elevator suddenly start to move, again? These things matter.

Basic savoir fare
Or maybe the quality of the non-sex but intimate interactions. Our definition doesn’t allow for emotional bonding time… but maybe before and more likely after, there’s usually a bit of decompression time. It might only be for a few moments… but if the person is exactly what we expect ( witty, cool and sufficiently involved yet detached ) or a blathering idiot ( not all that other stuff ), it matters. An awareness of empathy, refractory periods, and an awareness of the other person’s schedule all come under this.

Amount of pleasure
different then wow-ness. How good did it feel? How many times didja didja?

Body appeal
amIhotornot?

Anticipation
After discussion, it was determined that part of the thrill and yummy goodness associated with a booty call is the anticipation; the “I’m gonna go over there and get some” –ness. Again, we are assuming some planning, so this would be part of the experience.

So, enjoyment can be rated as sort of an amalgam of all these other scores, taken together.

A B C … N = Y ( for yummy-ness ).

Let's do a couple things... let's get the average of all our factors, so we keep the number we're working with between 1 and 10. Also, Let’s abbreviate this average of all our factors into one letter, that we know is a sum ( that is, number added together ) our equation then looks like this:

first:

( A B C … N ) / number of factors = F

and:

F = Y ( or Yummy-ness )

or just:

F = Y

But the yummy-ness of booty calls is not a linear dynamic; that is to say, different things ( such as wow-ness ) can contribute more weight, depending on the mix of other factors. The raw amount of pleasure might push one booty call up to a 9, whereas some other time, it might not be that important, so all other things being equal, “pleasure” is not as important, so the overall score would go down. So to speak.

So mood matters. Suppose you’re not in the mood for chatter this time, but as usual, he keeps blathering on and on. So this experience, with all other things being equal, is less yummy. We can represent this quantitatively.

Since mood is something that modifies the whole summation of factors, and when mood is at it’s best, everything else can be “normally” yummy, our equation now looks like this:

F / M = Y

Where again F is the sum of all the factors, divided by the number of factors in our list,

M is our mood ( a number between .01 and 1.0)

And Y is the Yummy-ness score, which falls between 0 and 10.

Open Questions

We’re still working on this, of course. Are there other factors we haven’t taken into account? Are there clear cases of booty call yummy-ness that break our hypothesized model? Let me know. I’ll refine as I think about it, and receive peer review.

: )