![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerNow, admittedly, this comes from Julie seeing a Daily Mail headline*. But they were amazed enough at a woman for watching 400 HOURS of porn that they capitalised it like that.
This was over 7 years. So I did 30 seconds of maths, and that's 65 minutes of porn per week. Or 16 minutes four times per week.
Which seems, to be honest, an entirely reasonable amount of porn for anyone to be watching. Certainly not a level which should have people worrying about porn addiction.
They then go on to say that she sometimes masturbated between five and six times per day. Which would be, say, 38 times per week. That's 2,000 times per year. Or 14,000 times over the whole seven years. Which means that she was watching about 1.7 seconds each time. Which, frankly, doesn't seem like enough to get someone turned on, even if it's _really_ good porn.
I'm going to assume that the journalist is really rubbish at maths. Seems like the safest assumption.
*Don't ask.
This was over 7 years. So I did 30 seconds of maths, and that's 65 minutes of porn per week. Or 16 minutes four times per week.
Which seems, to be honest, an entirely reasonable amount of porn for anyone to be watching. Certainly not a level which should have people worrying about porn addiction.
They then go on to say that she sometimes masturbated between five and six times per day. Which would be, say, 38 times per week. That's 2,000 times per year. Or 14,000 times over the whole seven years. Which means that she was watching about 1.7 seconds each time. Which, frankly, doesn't seem like enough to get someone turned on, even if it's _really_ good porn.
I'm going to assume that the journalist is really rubbish at maths. Seems like the safest assumption.
*Don't ask.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-08 07:02 pm (UTC)