Sex times

I can't believe the New England states are ranking so low.
After all what else is there to do here when we're snowed in?

 

Those numbers sound low to me unless you are just counting penetration.
No clue what this "sex" thing is personally now (must be one of those odd French words like "vacation" that has no translation in English) but 30-40 minutes sounds more reasonable from what I recall many moons ago.

 

Arts and Crafts?

 

@Fremen ~Really?

 

I thought this was appropriate:

 

I absolutely agree with you, I was just being a wiseass.

 

I can't believe I did this but I did so I'm gonna spill the beans.
We had some sexyfuntime last night. We have digital clocks on both night stands so I took some quick mental notes. I was able to glance over my wife's shoulder without getting caught watching the clock.
We both had to be up early for work today so this was not going to be a long, time-unlimited session.
From "first contact" touch together the act went on for 28 minutes.
That included 8 minutes of the old in-n-out.
And it seemed like a pretty typical session for us.

Anyone else want to share a data point?

 

I reviewed a video we made last year thinking it would be easy to add up the "sex time". The video is nearly 30 minutes long with much foreplay and goofing around for the camera. The actual in-n-out times break down as follows:

Doggy style 2:25
Missionary 3:10
Me on top 4:16 (ending with his climax)

So that's close to 10 minutes which beats the New England states average by about 7 minutes.
So I'm thinking the state ranking numbers are too low even if they are measuring only in-n-out times.

Any more number crunchers out there? Should The TFP commission a rigorous scientific study?

 

More data are definitely required. Each study must be conducted in triplicate (or more, if desired). We need lots of data points if we're gonna be able to rely on the results.
--- merged: Feb 24, 2014 at 9:30 PM ---

...and I'm a scientist, so you can trust what I say...

 

You should probably locate a good statistician, @snowy. While I appreciate basic research, my career has mostly been focused on practical applications.

If anyone needs me, I'll be in the field....generating data.....hot, sweaty, jungle data.....

 

Well, anyone could put forth any time they'd like, if there's no proof. So, ya know the old saying, pics... Yeah, I'll go one step further and say video.

 

Technically correct, @Katia. On the other hand, be careful what you wish for....

Some people are like Monet or Nureyev in bed; others perhaps more closely like Bob Ross or maybe this guy...



In short, don't start something you're not prepared to finish...


--- merged: Feb 25, 2014 4:03 AM ---

Absolutely correct, @rogue49. I think we should aim for a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed publication (or is that pubic-ation??)

This must be done with absolute scientific rigid...er, rigor...you know what I mean.

We'll need to account for differences in size, time zones, time of day, effects of chemical stimulants, with and without toys....it's gonna be a big job.

Nobel fucking prize, my friend........Nobel....fucking.....prize
--- merged: Feb 25, 2014 4:10 AM ---
Eye on the prize...


Remember....

 

That's ok @hamsterball, I'm ready for anything! For science..

 

@scientists ~I don't care how you scientists design the study just get on with it because I want to do it!