Thinking About Sex vs. Actually Doing It
People put an awful lot of effort into having sex. Other than hunger, thirst, and seeking shelter, it is perhaps the strongest urge that humans have. It’s no wonder that young men spend time in the gym and buy fancy sports cars; equally, it’s no wonder that young women spend hours in front of the mirror and buy lots of clothing. We have a strong biological impulse to get laid, and these are the most widespread ideas we have to accomplish that.
Setting all those countless hours of grooming and flaunting aside, how much time do we spendthinking about sex? And how does that compare to the time we spend actually having sex?
It is an oft-repeated myth that men think about sex every seven seconds. Two studies reported in BBC Future came to radically different — and far more realistic — conclusions. The first suggested that college-aged men think about sex 19 times per day, while college-aged women think about it 10 times per day; the second suggested that adults thought about sex merely once per day. The latter study was designed in such a way that the result is almost certainly an underestimate. So, let’s pick 10 times per day as the average.
How long does a sexual thought last? There is almost certainly no (reliable) data on that. We will have to estimate. A sexual thought could be as fleeting as a momentary feeling of lust after seeing an attractive person, or it could be an elaborate mental fantasy. Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that the average thought lasts 10 seconds. On average, then, we spend about 100 seconds per day thinking about sex.
How much time do we spend actually having sex? First, we need to figure out how often we have sex. The numbers, from the Kinsey Institute, vary greatly. In general, the younger and married have more sex than the older and unmarried. Contrary to popular belief, single people aren’t getting much action, while married couples (particularly newlyweds) are knocking boots quite often. Since the statistics vary so much, it is probably easiest to restrict our analysis to college students, who get most of the attention from psychologists, anyway.
Though worried parents lament the college “hook-up” culture, Live Science reports just under 60% of college students have sex at least once per week. That means 40% have sex less often than once per week, and some may not be having sex at all. Again, we will have to estimate. Let’s say that the average college student has sex once every 10 days.
Finally, we need to know how long the average whoopee session lasts. As it turns out, not long. Dr. Harry Fisch says that the average encounter is 7.3 minutes (438 seconds).
Now, we can do the math.
In the span of 10 days, the average college-aged student will think about sex for 1,000 seconds, but will only have sex once. That session, on average, will last 438 seconds. Excluding the countless hours of behaviors (grooming, shopping, etc.) that prepare us for sex — not to mention watching porn, which consumes a considerable portion of the average college-aged male’s time — this back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that young adults spend roughly twice as much time thinking about sex as actually having sex. If those other behaviors were factored in, then the ratio could be as high as 50 or even 100 to 1!
Just imagine if an equivalent effort was put into studying!
Found at Real Clear Science.
The Temperature at Which Global Warming Freezes
The sky over New York City was a falling sheet of white. Trails of footprints, work boots, paw prints, sneakers and bird claws, told their own story of how the residents of city were getting through the blizzard to their daily errands. Shoppers lugged home milk as if cows were going extinct. Miniature snowmen decorated mailboxes and garbage trucks towing orange plows clattered down empty streets.
Nowhere in the city was the blizzard more pronounced than in Central Park, designed a century ago to create a miniature forest in the heart of Manhattan. Even the tallest trees, taller than any others in the city, were layered with coats of snow and visibility had vanished into a cloud of whiteness.
And walking along a path in the Ramble, I heard a woman lecturing her children on the dangers of what else, but Global Warming.
There is a madness to walking through a blizzard and discussing Global Warming. A theory according to which we should be sliding toward the tropics, awash in fleeing polar bears and Florida style temperatures, instead of frantically shoveling our driveways.
To believe in Global Warming while stamping the snow off your boots is not a matter of science. It is a matter of faith. The scientist sees what is, while the believer has faith in what he cannot see. The scientist does not see Global Warming in a blizzard.
The Warmist does. To see Global Warming while walking through a blizzard, is itself an act of faith.
Every winter, Global Warming advocates stake their bets on a mild winter. And every winter the snow and ice break their cars and shoes, but never their faith.
Last year the New York Times was predicting the end of snow. This year the New York Times building is snowlogged, but still keeping the faith.
No matter how much slush trails through its lobby, its writers must continue to show people the pernicious effects of people driving to work and using extra shopping bags. Digging out of a snowstorm and their own lies, Global Warming advocates claim that colder winters are actually another effect of global warming. Which may be renamed to Global Temperatures We Don’t Like.
Walking through Central Park, it’s easy to see how perverse the modern day environmentalist has become in his view of the relationship between man and nature.
Central Park was inspired by one of the co-founders of the Republican party, New York Post editor, William Cullen Bryant, and co-created by Republican architect and landscape designer Frederick Olmsted, to harmonize the natural world and the urban one through human industry.
The New York Republicans of the 19th century viewed public parks as part of their civilizing mission.
Central Park was created as part of an ongoing battle with the corrupt Democratic Tammany Hall machine, which wanted segregated slums and downtrodden workers who would rush to them as saviors and vote how they were told.
Bryant and Olmsted saw parks as a way to improve human health, inspire public citizenship and build a strong republic.
Central Park’s beauty is both natural and artificial. Modern environmentalists often mistake it for a preserved space, but its natural beauty was the work of human craftsmanship. The original site was a mess of swamps. The sort of place that the EPA fights tooth and nail to protect for the environment. Had Central Park remained a mass of swamps, the city and the country would have been worse for it.
Instead of preserving the wetlands, Central Park’s planners dredged them. They created a place of great natural beauty by taking what was best in the natural world and matching it to human use, instead of blindly worshiping at the pagan altar of “Mother Nature”. They built a lake so that visitors could row boats. They set up rambling paths between woodlands of trees that they planted. A meadow rose along with sheep and a shepherd. Everything was natural and artificial.
Finish reading this HERE.
Then go and read this: Imaginary “blizzard of the century” fizzles