FWIW Crompsin, my Lady brought this thread up in conversation last night. She was surprised that there had been no comments on the validity of your purported study, and was offended and appalled at the weakness and lack of rigour in what reads as a scientific endeavor. I replied that it was an all-in-fun bit of fluff thread which may or may not bring up some interesting points, but was not a serious take on the scientific method. She replied that it is all good to have fun, but if you are going to structure your thread around science, you ought to make
some effort/gesture to accomodate science.
Where are your controls, she asks. Where is the data on clothed GoH vs topless/nude GoH vis-a-vis total satisfaction? What measures/values/quantifiable results demonstrate any credibility, dependability, or confirmability? What are the benchmarks, the repeatable phenomenon, the goals that allow repeatability of results and reliable forecasting of outcome?
She ended her riff by suggesting that you will never get head from a scientist if this is the sloppy methodology you demonstrate - that there must be some accountability here.
I never thought that there would be a reason for you to revisit the structure of your study until my Lady opened my eyes. The very real possibility exists that there are men out there who could be deprived of Scientific Method based improvement in the head they may get. Simply because these men are not willing to give science it's due
Now, I tell you from first hand experience that when a thoroughbred decides to go for improvement, repeatable results and refinement of various techniques which are all dedicated to outcome, there is no substitute for guided experience coupled with applied sensual intelligence.
My .02 cents.