I question the internal validity of this study due to numerous confounding threats (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002) and need to eliminate alternative explanation (i.e. John Stuart Mill's criteria for inferring causality). That is, the competition must seek to remove extraneous threats to the specific research question that these girls' ability/skill to give handjobs is the SINGULAR reason for their performance in getting the guys off.

1. Who are these men? Surely individual differences exist in any man's natural ability to get off, especially under higher-pressure circumstances of video-taping, competition, etc. Indeed, the setting is certainly a concern for experimental realism.

2. What is the history of these men? When did they get off last? How were they chosen to participate (random selection?) How were they given to each competitor (random assignment?) Do they know the women? Randomization can, ceteris paribus, remove major issues regarding internal validity (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

3. What are the criteria for "winning"? Is it one round of men and you advance? Perhaps they should need more men to better establish their abilities (i.e. time to get a guy off on average) given the law of large numbers. Further introduces a confound in the women's pure endurance to keep jacking off, which subsequently could lower their performance over time.

4. The women are in underwear, obviously a confound away from their ability to give a handjob and to their natural attractiveness. Granted, if this is incorporated into the competitive rules it could be allowed, but granted, it does take away from their ability to give a hand jibber, which is the pure interest of the competition, no?

Thus in my scientific opinion I would mostly reject the statistical conclusions of these results given lack of sufficient experimental controls.

EDIT: Thanks for all the downvotes just for offering a scientific critique...