So I am reading my Men's health book and suddenly I ran into the chapter on premature ejaculation (PE). I always thought this was a bunch of baloney, so I read the definitions, and guess what, I was right!

In the following quotes the definitions are from Wikipedia, because they are the same as in the book and easier to quote.

First, let's make a logical assumption: The whole phrase was most likely created by a woman! See later.
Second, the phrase "making love" is a big fucking missnomer, because it is not love what you are making but (yes, you guessed it right again) babies!

So if the object of "having sex" is making babies, as long as the penis is inside the vagina and the ejaculation occures there, there is nothing premature about it!!! But let's have a look at the definitions, mind you nobody agrees on what the correct definition is:

>Premature ejaculation (PE), also known as, rapid ejaculation, rapid climax, premature climax or early ejaculation, is the most common sexual problem in men, affecting 25%-40% of men.

OK, it is not a definition yet, but we have a problem of characterising it as a sexual problem. Now if it occurs in almost half (40%) of the men, could it be that it is actually NORMAL?

>It is characterized by a lack of voluntary control over ejaculation.

Excuse me? Unless you are a pornstar and have to save it for the moneyshot, as long as your penis makes it into the vagina, you are good naturally speaking and forget about voluntarism...

>Masters and Johnson stated that a man suffers from premature ejaculation if he ejaculates before his sex partner achieves orgasm in more than fifty percent of their sexual encounters.

This is the biggest load of crap I ever read as a definition. Mind you an important part of this definition is not your ability to voluntarily control ejaculation, but your partner's ability to fucking achieve it!

>Other sex researchers have defined premature ejaculation as occurring if the man ejaculates within two minutes of penetration;

How they come up with 2 minutes? If you ask women, most of them would be shortchanged with the 2 minutes limit, agreed ladies? Again, originally sex is god's trick to make people making babies, thus as long as the penis is in the strategic area, semen! off you go!!! What is the point in waiting 2 minutes? That is a lots of energy wasted and could be used for gathering food or hunting animals.

>however, a survey by Alfred Kinsey in the 1950s demonstrated that three quarters of men ejaculate within two minutes of penetration in over half of their sexual encounters.

And here we have another mathematical problem!! if 3/4 of men do it, than it is actually the norm and not the exception!! So let's turn it around! If you need more than 2 minutes before you ejaculate, you are freaking slow and you should see a doctor!!

>Today, most sex therapists understand premature ejaculation as occurring when a lack of ejaculatory control interferes with sexual or emotional well-being in one or both partners.

This one is the last and most PC and also totally bullshit definition. let's not waste time with it...

Now there is actually a case of PE, when the ejaculation occurs outside of the female body, before the penis reaches the bombing targetzone. yes, that is actually premature, even by natural standards. The good news is that there are 2 cures for it:

1. Age. Once you age you slow down and I guarantee when you are in your 50s, it won't be a problem anymore.

2. Repeat after a short recovery time. In case you don't want to wait 35 years before making babies, just wait a few minutes (for teenagers recovery time can be close to zero) and repeat.

Now in the very rare case when somebody can't make it into the vagina 3 times in a row (after 2 recovery times) then I could call it natural premature ejaculation, but in a nice PC way, we could also call it overexcitement.

Actually, nature's is happy with fast ejaculation if followed by fast recovery time. After all, the male members of most mammals this way can impregnate the most females. And that would be nature's ultimate goal.

Imagine the bull screwing one female and a dozen other females waiting in line, and the bull looks at his watch and turns towards the rest of the herd:
"Sorry ladies, but this lady still have 90 seconds left until the 2 minutes limit, so I have to hold back for a while longer!" :)

No such thing as "premature mature ejaculation"

Correct. Oh I forgot the best definition, it is only in the book:

>Others say PE is one that occurs in less than 50 thrusts.

I can't decide if we are making here babies or butter???? Also I forgot to explain, why I think the whole phrase was created by a woman. I am not an expert in gay sex, but I assume there is no PE in gay sex. Why? Because the partner's ability to orgasm doesn't depend on how long you are able to stay hard. Anybody gay correct me if I am wrong...

I also bet historically speaking that PE didn't exist let's say 200 years ago. At least I don't remember reading about it in the Bible. (Onan's act was voluntery, thus not PE)

P.S.: For extra credit, the correct phrase when ejaculation takes a long time is: Retarded ejaculation

What if your not making babies but trying to get one another to achieve orgasm? What if the man ejaculates into his condom - rolls over - falls asleep instantly, before the women is anywhere near achieving orgasm, leaving her frustrated and swollen with no relief, she dumps the loser the next day and goes for a man that can please her. Man should care about pleasing woman or else they are going to not get much puntang by property of none of the ladies coming back.

Human sex is not like bull sex the male penis is design to try to scrap out competitor semen hence the constant thrusting action, Bulls and other ungulates have sex lasting less then 30 seconds, this is because they use shear quantity of semen to wash out competitors semen.

Sure it's PE is a PC concept, so is equal rights for women, not owning slaves, not conquering others, etc.

Oh by the way this thread should be cesspooled.

I'm reminded of the old joke: "Know the sound of a satisfied woman? Didn't think so."

What if your not making babies but trying to get one another to achieve orgasm?

Then god would have created men who last longer.... :)

Also you never heard of using hands,tongue, or sextoys? Most women don't climax by vaginal intercurse only anyway...

P.S.: Cesspool? Dude, we are discussing a valid biological missconception!! In case you are female, I understand your displeasure with the topic...

Then god would have created men who last longer.... :)

Also you never heard of using hands,tongue, or sextoys? Most women don't climax by vaginal intercourse only anyway...

P.S.: Cesspool? Dude, we are discussing a valid biological missconception!! In case you are female, I understand your displeasure with the topic...

Most man do last longer :p

A good player knows how to get what he wants and what she wants all at once, its not as effective if you just sitting there rubbing/sucking her off.

This will go to the cesspool, the subject will degenerate fast, it already is.

Thats why premature ejaculation is considered more of a psychological disorder than a physical disorder and is only diagnosable if it causes distress for a man. Meaning that if his partner is frustrated with their sex life than that might be cause for distress. If it does not cause any distress for the man or his relationship then it is not considered premature ejaculation and is not a sexual disorder/dsyfunction. I just finished taking a class on sex therapy.

really?

What was it like cutsie?

Most man do last longer :p

Not according to research, but don't let facts distract you. According to the research 3/4 of men finish under 2 minutes, so where is your most men?

But let me further confuse you:

What if I finish under 30 secs and 20 trusts (thus I have PE by 2 defininitions) but my wife STILL get an orgasm?? (thus by 1 definition I don't have PE)

Confusing, isn't it?? :)

Meaning that if his partner is frustrated with their sex life than that might be cause for distress.

As I pointed out in my above post, the definition is partner-dependent. What if I can go for 2 hours, but my partner needs 3 hours?? Do I have PE???

Of course not. Making a definition when the length of the sex act depends on the partner is just plain silly. My definition is much simpler not to mention more correct....

As I pointed out in my above post, the definition is partner-dependent. What if I can go for 2 hours, but my partner needs 3 hours?? Do I have PE???

Of course not. Making a definition when the length of the sex act depends on the partner is just plain silly. My definition is much simpler not to mention more correct....

Your partner should not take 3 hours if you do it right, if it takes that long for her to achieve orgasm then your either "doing it wrong" or she got a problem.

Any lack is defined by need. What is so unusual about that?

A couple would only go to a therapist for PE is one of them felt the other one was getting off too fast. Its an individual case by case notion, but that does not make it any less an issue.

Your partner should not take 3 hours if you do it right, if it takes that long for her to achieve orgasm then your either "doing it wrong" or she got a problem.

Exactly my point. So instead of male premature ejaculation we could talk about retarded female orgasm (retarded means delayed in this case)...
And it was just an example showing the stupidity of the PC definition

Not to mention if I can still stay hard after ejaculating, then it doesn't matter from the statisfying point of view, when I ejaculated...It only matters from the babymaking point of view, thus my correct definition.

P.S.: It is also funny, that we expect males to be able to control themselves, but no such an expectation for females, like voluntarily achieving orgasm.... :)

Exactly my point. So instead of male premature ejaculation we could talk about retarded female orgasm (retarded means delayed in this case)...
And it was just an example showing the stupidity of the PC definition

Not to mention if I can still stay hard after ejaculating, then it doesn't matter from the statisfying point of view, when I ejaculated...It only matters from the babymaking point of view, thus my correct definition.

P.S.: It is also funny, that we expect males to be able to control themselves, but no such an expectation for females, like voluntarily achieving orgasm.... :)

Babymaking is not the objective of most sex, I could make the argument that sex exist only to spread diseases and that we were created by the god of Chlamydia for clamydia and nothing more, the use of protection throws a wrench in both arguments. True sex functions to reproduce, achieve this by making it pleasurable, human can circumnavigated the troublesome reproduction problem (and disease spreading problem) to get to the sweet honey of pleasure without consequences.

I don't think it's fair to call this an unreasonable PC definition, many man would like to ejaculate after long passionate meaningful sex of which their partner is fully satisfied and not likely to leave them over the most demeaning of failing of being awful in bed, assuming the partner can achieve orgasm and in a reasonable amount of time and the only problem being the man is cuming to quickly then these man would express their problem as premature ejeculation, how else should they express it?

I don't think it is comfortable pumping on after ejaculation, it designed that way to prevent a man from plunging out his own semen. Although some man can achieve the art of multiple ejaculations make the mythical result of multiple orgasms in man a reality.

Babymaking is not the objective of most sex,

Nowadays not. But OK, I will indulge you. If not than why are we worrying about "premature" ejaculation? As I already mentioned, the pleasure-making doesn't have to stop after ejaculation, so what's the degrading phrasing??

then these man would express their problem as premature ejeculation, how else should they express it?

OK, I will coin phrases:

--Insufficient love-making technic
--Lazy lover's syndrome
--Selfish sexasshole
--Retarded female orgasm
etc.etc.

Those are describing the situation way more correctly than calling it PE.

What people should realize that by design the male and female orgasm work differently. Calling this difference with a stupid and incorrect medical term doesn't help the case...

If men stayed hard after premature ejaculation, nobody would care.

1. For babymaking purposes, it would still be premature.
2. I see you don't seem to believe that men can stay hard after ejaculation. Do you care to make a poll about it?

2. I see you don't seem to believe that men can stay hard after ejaculation. Do you care to make a poll about it?

They can sometimes. Not all the time but sometimes.

As I pointed out in my above post, the definition is partner-dependent. What if I can go for 2 hours, but my partner needs 3 hours?? Do I have PE???

Of course not. Making a definition when the length of the sex act depends on the partner is just plain silly. My definition is much simpler not to mention more correct....

What do you mean more correct? My definition is the definition. I pulled it right out of the DSM-IV. If there is no psychological distress it is not premature ejaculation. So if it doesn't bother a man or his partner if he always climaxes before they actually have intercourse then there is no problem. All sexual disorders are psychological, if their is a medical compontent then they are no longer sexual disorders. Like erectile dysfunction caused by nerve damage.

Syzygizz and cutsie are both right. It only applies in the "sex for pleasure" sense. If you're trying for children it's usually non issue.

I think that the numbers are too high, though, on the percentages. There are many creative ways around the problem (some have been mentioned) and only someone with zero imagination wouldn't figure it out. And who wants to have sex with that guy anyway?
I think it's correct to say that a womans ability to reach climax is the real issue because she's not getting off and she's unhappy.
My advice, give her a dildo and have her call you away from the ball game when she's ready (unless it's in overtime).

What do you mean more correct? My definition is the definition. I pulled it right out of the DSM-IV.

This is the same DSM-IV that before 1973 called being gay a mental disorder.
Mind you I am arguing logically and semantically against the "established" definition, that it simply doesn't make sense. What if it does causes problems in the relationship, but not because of the male being FAST but the female being SLOW???

If there is no psychological distress it is not premature ejaculation.

My problem with this definition is 2-fold:

1. The determining factor is not the ejaculating person, but the ejaculatee...
2. It is not a scientic definition but a couple-dependent, meaning for each couple the definition is different....

My definition is the correct: penis in vagina, ejaculation is NOT premature. End of story... One simple, physical, objective, easy to determine characteristic. See?

It is like saying smoking causes distress only if other people object to it...

All sexual disorders are psychological,

Except limp dick....

Nowadays not. But OK, I will indulge you. If not than why are we worrying about "premature" ejaculation? As I already mentioned, the pleasure-making doesn't have to stop after ejaculation, so what's the degrading phrasing??

OK, I will coin phrases:

--Insufficient love-making technic
--Lazy lover's syndrome
--Selfish sexasshole
--Retarded female orgasm
etc.etc.

Those are describing the situation way more correctly than calling it PE.

What people should realize that by design the male and female orgasm work differently. Calling this difference with a stupid and incorrect medical term doesn't help the case...

You think "premature" ejaculation" is a degrading phrase over "Insufficient love-making technic", "Lazy lover's syndrome", "Selfish sexasshole", and "Retarded female orgasm"? I would think that is the nicest of terms, can you imagine a guys saying "yep I'm a Selfish sexasshole"? I can imagine a guy saying "Retarded female orgasm" even if his partner can reach climax in 5min flat but its a year to long for him, always blaming others for your own inadequates.

Many guys would like to ejaculate and then roll over and sleep, hence the "premature" if they do so before they finished the women off.

clusteringflux,

I don't think it is the women fault if she can reach climax and quickly, if the guy is unreasonably quick its his fault, and sex toys have their limits, nothing beat a high quality snuggle. Once a women experiences that she going to have a high bar for you the measure up to.

You think "premature" ejaculation" is a degrading phrase over "Insufficient love-making technic", "Lazy lover's syndrome", "Selfish sexasshole", and "Retarded female orgasm"? I would think that is the nicest of terms, can you imagine a guys saying "yep I'm a Selfish sexasshole"? I can imagine a guy saying "Retarded female orgasm" even if his partner can reach climax in 5min flat but its a year to long for him, always blaming others for your own inadequates.

Many guys would like to ejaculate and then roll over and sleep, hence the "premature" if they do so before they finished the women off.

clusteringflux,

I don't think it is the women fault if she can reach climax and quickly, if the guy is unreasonably quick its his fault, and sex toys have their limits, nothing beat a high quality snuggle. Once a women experiences that she going to have a high bar for you the measure up to.

It goes back to the reason you're having sex. Period. If it's to make her climax, who cares if you ejaculate once or ten times in the process? You're not going to pass out before the job is done. Again, what's the motivation?

By the way I missed an argument earlier. One could say that the object of lovemaking is this or that, depending on the situation, but we can agree that the object of ejaculation (and that is the issue here) is making babies. So the definition of PE should be dependent on if the object of babymaking can be achieved or not and not on the partner's pleasure....

Here is another good example of the sexist nature of the current definition:

Jon married but he also has a mistress. His average ejaculation time (ET) is 5 minutes. For his wife to achieve orgasm, he need to keep it up to 10 minutes, but his mistress can have an orgasm just under 3 minutes.

So obviously, Jon has a PE with his wife but not with his mistress, although his ET hasn't changed, only his partner. Now that is what I call bullshit!!!
But if we use my and correct definition, Jon is just doing fine...

I agree. It's a bogus term unless it means you can't even get your pants off first.

always blaming others for your own inadequates.

Excuse me, but it is the females, who are blaming their slow orgasms on the guys. Try to catch up ladies! His orgasm is his problem her orgasm is hers. :)

Now, here is a better name I came up with:

-- Sexual incompatibility syndrome

This could be used in couple's counselling and not blaming either party...

Here's a question. What's the percentage of couples that climax together every time they have sex?

I'd say it's great when it happens but hardly something to be considered normal. Is that anyone's 'fault'?

In case no one has mentioned it yet, a woman's orgasm helps her get pregnant, so lasting longer and bringing her to orgasm shortly after you do IS an evolutionary benefit.

I have found that, personally, after 6-12th time it takes longer.

Excuse me, but it is the females, who are blaming their slow orgasms on the guys. Try to catch up ladies! His orgasm is his problem her orgasm is hers. :)

Now, here is a better name I came up with:

-- Sexual incompatibility syndrome

This could be used in couple's counselling and not blaming either party...

You would call 5min slow? If a guy takes 30 seconds is it unreasonable to say that he is going to be blaming almost all women for "their" problem of not achieving orgasm before he does? That like blaming a child for not being able defend them selves against a fully grow adult: "its your fault for being small!".

"Sexual incompatibility syndrome" sounds like a new ways of saying your gay: "Sorry ladies I've got sexual incompatibility syndrome (SIS)".

clusteringflux,

I'm not asking for simultaneous climax (which is a thing of wonder!) but simply that everyone gets their cake in a excellent creamy icing manner. Both partners should discuss before hand and even during copulation on how to optimize it, even so it is the guys higher concern to please the women, not the women's concern to please the guy as most man can get what they want with ease. What the womens concern? well how the joke go:

HOW TO IMPRESS A WOMEN:
COMPLIMENT HER, RESPECT HER,HONOUR HER, CUDDLE HER, KISS HER, CARESS HER, LOVE HER, STROKE HER,TEASE HER, COMFORT HER, PROTECT HER, HUG HER, HOLD HER, SPEND MONEY ON HER, WINE AND DINE HER, BUY THINGS FOR HER, LISTEN TO HER, CARE FOR HER, STAND BY HER,SUPPORT HER,HOLD HER,GO TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH FOR HER,

HOW TO IMPRESS A MAN:

show up naked, bring food.

In case no one has mentioned it yet, a woman's orgasm helps her get pregnant, so lasting longer and bringing her to orgasm shortly after you do IS an evolutionary benefit.

So does having multiple partners. :)

You would call 5min slow?

It was an example. I could have made it whatever minutes, that wasn't the point for fuck's sake...

By the way going back to One raven's point, in nature, if the female is still in heat after one bull finished her, there will be another bull to have his way, and this will continue as long as the female is statisfied (and most likely impregnated)

The whole point of this thread is that there is a too high expectation for men, which also against nature. It is perfectly normal to come fast, as long as the penis is in the right location, because that is how it was INTENDED!!!

I looked up a Youtube video on PE, and the doctor mentioned that PE is the #1 dysfunction for males! My hairy ass!!!

I could say and would be right that retarded female orgasm is the #1 female sexual dysfunction because they need so much time to come!!! Here is my philosophical question:

Instead of trying to slow guys down, why don't we just try to speed ladies up???

clusteringflux,

I'm not asking for simultaneous climax (which is a thing of wonder!) but simply that everyone gets their cake in a excellent creamy icing manner. Both partners should discuss before hand and even during copulation on how to optimize it, even so it is the guys higher concern to please the women, not the women's concern to please the guy as most man can get what they want with ease. What the womens concern? well how the joke go:

HOW TO IMPRESS A WOMEN:
COMPLIMENT HER, RESPECT HER,HONOUR HER, CUDDLE HER, KISS HER, CARESS HER, LOVE HER, STROKE HER,TEASE HER, COMFORT HER, PROTECT HER, HUG HER, HOLD HER, SPEND MONEY ON HER, WINE AND DINE HER, BUY THINGS FOR HER, LISTEN TO HER, CARE FOR HER, STAND BY HER,SUPPORT HER,HOLD HER,GO TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH FOR HER,

HOW TO IMPRESS A MAN:

show up naked, bring food.


I agree. You and Syzy are talking about different things, though.

I think you know that.

I actually came up with a cure for PE. It is simple and very effective:

More sex. Or a quick blowjob before the main act. For some reasons this suggestion never made it to the medical journals...

Hubby has PE? Suck him off before going to the movies and when you come home, he will be lasting and all loving. Or if not at least he won't mind the chickmovie...

So does having multiple partners. :)

It was an example. I could have made it whatever minutes, that wasn't the point for fuck's sake...

By the way going back to One raven's point, in nature, if the female is still in heat after one bull finished her, there will be another bull to have his way, and this will continue as long as the female is statisfied (and most likely impregnated)

The whole point of this thread is that there is a too high expectation for men, which also against nature. It is perfectly normal to come fast, as long as the penis is in the right location, because that is how it was INTENDED!!!

I looked up a Youtube video on PE, and the doctor mentioned that PE is the #1 dysfunction for males! My hairy ass!!!

I could say and would be right that retarded female orgasm is the #1 female sexual dysfunction because they need so much time to come!!!

It also against intention or nature for humans to live to old age, to not be riddled with parasites, to have a more then adequate diet, to not kill each other, etc. What was intended was for us to live short painful lives as nothing more then talking animals, living off nature, but then we had to fuck it all up by making agriculture, by artificially selecting crops and livestock to benefit us and not nature! The we started mining and building things over what was natural! Then we committed the worst crimes against nature, we made laws and morality in which we could not do the natural things of killing other non-related people but had to respect them and treat them an equals, and even treat the female gender as an equal, dam it women were intended for making babies and collect roots, nothing more! OH THE HORROR,T-H-E H-O-R-R-O-R!, HOW WE HAVE FORSAKEN NATURE! WE MUST GO BACK TO WHAT WAS INTENDED!!! :m: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature)

Many women don't need a lot of time to cum, but if you pair them with a premature ejeculator it's the women's fault?

So does having multiple partners. :)



It was an example. I could have made it whatever minutes, that wasn't the point for fuck's sake...

By the way going back to One raven's point, in nature, if the female is still in heat after one bull finished her, there will be another bull to have his way, and this will continue as long as the female is statisfied (and most likely impregnated)

The whole point of this thread is that there is a too high expectation for men, which also against nature. It is perfectly normal to come fast, as long as the penis is in the right location, because that is how it was INTENDED!!!

I looked up a Youtube video on PE, and the doctor mentioned that PE is the #1 dysfunction for males! My hairy ass!!!

I could say and would be right that retarded female orgasm is the #1 female sexual dysfunction because they need so much time to come!!! Here is my philosophical question:

Instead of trying to slow guys down, why don't we just try to speed ladies up???

orgasm disorder in women is the one of the most common sexual disorders in women. Premature ejactulation is easy to fix... femal orgasm disorder is not. That is why in order to be diagnosed you have to see a therapist who uses their descretion. If your situation is more focused on the man climaxing too soon then it's premature ejactulation if its more so focused on the woman who probably doesn't climax at all then it is female orgasm disorder or possibly several other underlying sexual problems. Like all psychological disorders it is a case by case basis. And according to the NHLS the average amount of time that men prefer to engaged in intercourse is 2-5 minutes. The average amount of time for women was also 2-5 minutes. Everything else are just myths and stereotypes. I don't know if that's true or not though I didn't go around timing people myself.

So I take no new arguments against mine. That's what I thought. Established definition is thrown out the window as bullshit....

P.S.: Thread is still not cesspooled. :)

So I take no new arguments against mine. That's what I thought. Established definition is thrown out the window as bullshit....

P.S.: Thread is still not cesspooled. :)

Your have to disprove counter arguments yet you declare victory?

It will be in the cesspool eventually.

Actually, you NEVER showed any decent argument... No good definition,no good deffence of established definition, no nothing..

Actually, you NEVER showed any decent argument... No good definition,no good deffence of established definition, no nothing..

You position is based on your opinion on what is a "decent argument" lets look over what has happend so far:
1. You state that PE does not exist, and imply that is it term used for misandry
2. I argue that it is an appropriate term for specific situations,
3. You fail to deny those situation exist, you come up with alternative terms for PE
4. I explain those are not valid alternatives and are either impractical or do not fit the situation.
5. You declare victory.

Your logic is lacking.

2. I argue that it is an appropriate term for specific situations,


Didn't I point out the morbidness of such a definition? You could never do anything with my questions and examples...

And from a more personal less scientific standpoint. Even a guy climaxes in my hand only a minute or so into things that might be a little to early even from a strictly babymaking standpoint. Because then i would have to fertilize myself.

Didn't I point out the morbidness of such a definition? You could never do anything with my questions and examples...


You could never do anything with my questions and examples...

I've read this thread. From what I can gather some guy who's shit in bed wants to lay blame on women, yet again, for their own shortcomings. Sex isn't about procreation alone. If a man ejaculates in a donkey too quickly does that mean it's nature's way of making little donkey/human hybrids more effectively and quickly? This is a load of twisted, bad data that functions to propagate misinformation and is not particularly well researched.

I, personally, would rather have sex over too quickly than have to suffer the agony of him gyrating away for hours hoping it'll happen any minute now.

I've read this thread.

Unfortunatelly, you didn't get it. It is women who blame their lack of orgasm on guys, when they act, well, naturally. They have retarded female orgasm, which is actually also natural and only retarded from the males' POV, nevertheless some try to classify it as premature, although for the objective
of ejaculation the female orgasm is IRRELEVANT.

It is a simple missconcept based on not understanding nature. Since there is no PE in gay sex, there is also no PE in donkey sex. Quite simple.... :)

The only time when we can actually talk about PE is when the penis doesn't make it to the vagina before shoting the load, but that could be bad timig or too much excitement or foreplay. The obvious cure is retry.

For the mathematically challenged, you can not call something an illness or not the norm when it exists for the majority. Most men finish fast, get used to it, that is how they were programed. End of story....

Let's see if you ladies get this:

I read one time that one of the reasons to explain why guys get sleepy after sex is that it leaves the woman free to go out and mate again. So, suppose there's a bunch of prehistoric humans hanging around and a female is ready to mate. Well, she strolls up to a group of guys and mates with the first one who she finds fit. They finish, and the male falls asleep. The other males, being aroused by the preformance, each mate with the female.

This ensures that every female will be mated multiple times, giving higher and higher probabilities of conception.

See, that is how NATURE works. As the female stays horny, she keeps copulating with multiple males (each finishing fast) and the season ends when finally she got enough load of sperm, thus higher chance of impregnation... I know this doesn't sound as romantic as "hold me for a while afterward", but such is life. Watch sometimes dogs and cats in heat....

Syzygys,

You fail to believe it possible for man to train them self to extend the time before ejaculation, or to try to appease women. You also keep using appeal to nature fallacies, just because something is some way does not make it right or unchangeable, it's natural to oppress women, by your stance you agree with that. Most of all many men can last longer then 5 min, they are better then you, "End of story".

The sexual practices of each animal are different, if humans were like dogs and cats we would have testicles 3 times larger as testicle size is directly proportional to how polygamous the female of the species is. Although we don't have balls as small as harem gorillas, we don't have balls as big swinging chimpanzees.

Oh, boy, or should I say oh girl!


You fail to believe it possible for man to train them self to extend the time before ejaculation, or to try to appease women.

I don't. I have no problem with either, but this thread is not about that.
This thread is calling a natural act abnormal just because it doesn't fit certain expectation.

You also keep using appeal to nature fallacies,

First, there is no such a logical fallacy as appealing to nature. There is appealing to authority though.

Second, appealing to nature is perfectly NATURAL, when we are talking about BIOLOGY.

Most of all many men can last longer then 5 min,

For fuck's sake, don't get hung up on that 5 mins! See this is a perfect example that you don't understand analogies and examples. In my example of Jon having a wife and misstress, the 5 mins part was IRRELEVANT! What was relevant that the same guy with the same ejaculation time can have PE or not depending on the wife's and mistress' orgasm time.

Your obvious not understanding of this simple example questions the value of debating you further...

The sexual practices of each animal are different, if humans were like dogs and cats we would have testicles 3 times larger as testicle size is directly proportional to how polygamous the female of the species is.

OK, so you are questioning my analogy to animals. Guess what? Humans are polygamous by NATURE. Actually both males and females. Just because our legal system prefer monogamous relationships, that doesn't change human nature and preference.

You ladies FAILED in this thread:

Biological failure: Not understanding how humans work.

Semantically: The whole issue comes down to definition. When the definition is wrong, the phrase doesn't apply.

Mathematically: When the majority of a group acts the same way, that is the standard, the AVERAGE and not the abnormal. If 3/4 of men comes fast, that is normal. :)

Logically: Can't make a decent logical argument.

I should call this an EPIC failure....

P.S.: According to your definition, when making love to a woman who physically can't have an orgasm or nymphomanic, 99% of males have PE, which is clearly bullshit....The definition of PE has to do with LOCATION and not with the ability to please woman.

P.S.S.: I could make you climax 100 times without taking my pants of or even having an erection. Really....

Aww, cute.

I've read this thread. From what I can gather some guy who's shit in bed wants to lay blame on women, yet again, for their own shortcomings.

You're wrong. this thread is about making up another term for "shit in bed" when it's not needed.

Syzygys,

Murder is natural act, people naturally kill each other, it keeps population down, should I not call it abnormal or wrong?

No appeal to nature? You don't push on hyperlinks do you?

We don't call man that can perform for the long haul PE if their partners don't reach climax, in those cases we DO see the problem as on the partners side not the mans, you seem to think that every time a man finishes before a women its called PE?

Humans are serial monogamous, not often polygamous, why do we not have the 1to10 sex ratio of polygamous seals? Why don't we just drop are babies when the next breeding season hits like polygamous animals do? Your argument is based and assumptions not evidence, worst of all it try to use biology to dictate social standards, that not only foolish but dangerous.

You failed to distinguish between egalitarianism and feminism and then erroneously assume your opponent must be female.
You failed to listen to anyone else's argument and simply declare victory
You failed to understand the usage of a definition.
You failed to make a logical argument, as it based on fallacies.

P.S: I specifically stated that the definition does not qualify if the women can't achieve orgasm.

P.S.S: Really? Some gay sex trick? tempting from a purely pleasure point of view , but I'm a 0 on the kinsay scale.

There can be premature ejaculation in gay couples. What part of its psychological do you not get? It is not an illness, there is no medical compontent. It is only diagnosable if it causes distress. Like maybe your partner doesn't mind the fact that you always climax first, but if it bothers you because you want your sack sessions to last longer then its still premature ejaculation regardless of what your partner thinks. It has to bother the person ejaculating nothing/no one else matters. If it doesn't bother you then you don't have premature ejaculation.

There can be premature ejaculation in gay couples. What part of its psychological do you not get? It is not an illness, there is no medical compontent. It is only diagnosable if it causes distress. Like maybe your partner doesn't mind the fact that you always climax first, but if it bothers you because you want your sack sessions to last longer then its still premature ejaculation regardless of what your partner thinks. It has to bother the person ejaculating nothing/no one else matters. If it doesn't bother you then you don't have premature ejaculation.

Sure it's a psychological conditions, but how does that make it an invalid term?

You're wrong. this thread is about making up another term for "shit in bed" when it's not needed.

Aha! :)

You expressed exactly the same feeling what the idiot who coined the term PE felt. I don't have a problem if you call guys shit in bed (supposed you acknowledge that plenty of women are just as bad) but please don't create artifical "sexual problems" for men when it doesn't exist....

Sure it's a psychological conditions, but how does that make it an invalid term?

Its not an invalid term. Perhaps premature is the wrong word to use, but it is what it is. It does exist.

Murder is natural act, people naturally kill each other, it keeps population down, should I not call it abnormal or wrong?

Correct, why murder is abnormal? We can start another thread on that one... I don't have a problem with murder, I do have a problem with murdering the wrong person. :)

We don't call man that can perform for the long haul PE if their partners don't reach climax,

The problem is, who is to decide?? Who is going to decide that 20 minutes performance is fine, but 15 mins is insufficient? That's why I call that definition is plain bullshit, because it is completely subjective.

On the other hand even a kid can decide if the penis made it into the vagina or not....

you seem to think that every time a man finishes before a women its called PE?

I don't but again, who is to decide what performance is acceptable or average and what isn't??

Humans are serial monogamous, not often polygamous,

I beg to differ knowing history and human nature. You can look at cheating as polygamy. But this is a sideissue really...

Your argument is based and assumptions not evidence,

In the history of mankind we have been polygamous longer than monogamous. There you have it, the evidence.

You failed to distinguish between egalitarianism and feminism and then erroneously assume your opponent must be female.

My opponent's gender has no bearing on the matter.

You failed to listen to anyone else's argument and simply declare victory

Because I tend to recognize a logical argument and I haven't founbd any.

You failed to understand the usage of a definition.

I understand the usage and I don't agree with it, thus this thread.

You failed to make a logical argument, as it based on fallacies.

Really? How about this: The definition of premajurity of male ejaculation shouldn't be based on the female's ability to orgasm, because the 2 have nothing to do with each other...(or very little)

And before you start to argue against this, most females achieve clitoral orgasm, thus there is no need for a hard penis, and even without a hard penis a female can be brought to climax. There you have it.

I specifically stated that the definition does not qualify if the women can't achieve orgasm.

And that is the problem again, that the definition is female-dependent...As compared to MY definition, which is LOCATION-dependent.

There can be premature ejaculation in gay couples.

Depends on the definition. Is a hard dick needed to climax for the partner? I doubt, thus no PE...

By the way I don't get what's wrong with MY definition? Isn't that clearer, more objective then the bullshit definition? Penis in place, mature, penis not in place, premature. End of story.

Now physiologically I would only talk about PE if the man (most likely older or having some kind of bad physical condition) has a very quick erection time and an almost immediate ejaculation. Let's say between getting hard and ejaculating the time is only 20 seconds. AND he wouldn't be able to recover in a relative short period. In this case I would acknowledge that he does have PE, but this is very rare and certainly not 25-40% among men...

Although I still could make the argument that if that very short period of time is still sufficient for him to put it in, than it isn't premature... :)

Hey, I just thought of something! There is such a thing as FEMALE PE!!! Isn't life wonderful???

Joan is a very naughty girl and she can climax incredibly easily. Her boyfriend is Jim, who is a bit slower than most men, when it comes to climax. So after starting screwing, Joan gets her orgasm almost right away. The problem is, that after 1 orgasm, she doesn't like to be touched or fucked. Thus poor Jim is left there with his hard dick, because Joan has premature ejaculation!!!

See how silly it sounds when we are judging Joan based on Jim's expectation??? It is not premature, they are just DIFFERENT!!!

Syzygys,

Most women don't experience a refractory period or ejaculate, like men do, if a women experiences a refractory period it would not be PE, but something else.

Most definitions are subjective, get use to it. "penis goes into the vagina" does not describe all the circumstances and variety of situation people have during intercourse, has the use of more phrase then just that.

Cheating is not polygamy, if it was almost every animal would be polygamous. Cheating is simply cheating, through out all of human history humans have been tribal with extensive support from both parents in raising the child, usually matriarchal with the male leaving after reaching "adulathood" and entering anther tribe usually for life once partnering, this has been the usually social set up since the dawn of man until the development on sedentary agriculture.

If your opponents gender has nothing to do with it don't call 'em "ladies".

The definition of PE should be if a man and his partner see a problem in which a man achieves orgasm in a unreasonably short amount of time. A location depended definition does not provide coverage for what PE describes now, you have to describe that with a new term, and so far the terms you give I don't think anyone would want to use.

Most women don't experience a refractory period or ejaculate, like men do,

Quite a few women do, but it is really beside the point. I could have called it premature orgasm. It still has the same connoctations...

Most definitions are subjective, get use to it.

My hairy ass is subjective, not definitions. Most definitions agree, if you compare different dictionaries. Since they couldn't agree on the definition of PE that shows the bullshitness of it.

"penis goes into the vagina" does not describe all the circumstances and variety of situation people have during intercourse,

Which is not the issue. Babymaking is. But you made my point. If penis in the vagina isn't that important for the female's climax, why do we make it part of the definition when the dick goes limp???

Cheating is not polygamy,

It is, period. Sexual relationship with multiple partners, according to definition.Not legally but by nature, that is polygamous. But it is a sideissue really.


The definition of PE should be if a man and his partner see a problem in which a man achieves orgasm in a unreasonably short amount of time.

What is unreasonable? That was my example about, in the case of Jon, the time was fine with the mistess, but too short with the wife.

Anyway, since I said everything there was to be said, as a closing argument:

The idiot who came up with the phrase premature ejaculation didn't know shit about statistics and human nature. I understand what he was trying to describe but gave an incredibly sexist, degrading and naturally untrue name to the event when a couple has different climaxing time.

Because that is what PE is: difference in climaxing time. That's how they should have called it: slight sexual incompetence, based on climaxtime.

Of course it is based on the romantic (but unrealistic) notion that couples should climax together. Well, since most people are different mathematically speaking chances are that there WILL be a difference. Now how a couple cope with it? That is the question.

Nevertheless giving this incredibly stupid name to the otherwise quite natural occurance for decades newspapers and psychologists made men feel inadequate, when they behaved, well, naturally.

As I said before, there is actually a rare case of PE from babymaking point of view, where a decent and objective definition can be given, but if that happens to a youngster, repeat action cures it (and seriously a youngster shouldn't be making babies). I seriously doubt it happens for older man, or if so must be very rare.

There you have it your honour. I rest my case.

PE is dead! Long live retarded female orgasm! :)

Syzygys,

Sure premature orgasm sounds fine, it would qualify for that.

if you call cheating polygamy then very few animals are monogamous. Cheating is a different behavior in which the female gets impregnated by another male then the male she is with and thus gets the male she is with to raise children that are not hers, the male alternative is also more complex but does not involve staying with his secret lover. Polygamy is where a male has more then one female (or vice versa) in which they all live together in a social group for extended periods.

Babymaking is not the issue, people usually have sex for fun, not for making babies, yes babymaking is the function of sex but people get around that easily to get the pleasurable result. Since pleasure is the issue if the male and female do not think that it is working as they want it to because the male keeps finishing off to quickly and the female is perfectly functional orgasmically then PE best defines their problem.

You can't live life by strict definitions, there is always exceptions and nuances to everything.

Unreasonable is for a the couple and/or a consoling sexologist to decide per individual couples.

Every time you use the word "natural" you are invalidating your argument, your running on the erroneous premise that natural is good and unchangeable.

This is not a court that defines words and phrases.

Don't you get it? The more bogus ailments they can define, the most costly treatments that are needed, and the more they can rip us off for unnaturally "medicating" sex.

If the medical/drug industry had their way, they would half of Americans prescribed onto some drug, or so I heard somewhere.

But seriously, there could be some sort of possible ailment there. As quite a lot of stuff must synchronize about right, for the sex act to be most effective (conceiving babies) or meaningful (procreative and enjoyable). I suspect that a "premature" ejaculation may sometimes be somewhat less satisfying, and a smaller amount of semen may ooze or flow out, but when it doesn't come too fast, the sexual tension may build up more, resulting in a larger load of semen being more forcefully shot out. Now higher amounts of semen expulsion, combined with "shooting" into the vagina, that may help make a pregnancy more likely. But I am not so sure there is enough difference to warrant costly medicalized treatment, when merely slowing down a bit, relaxing, and letting it come more naturally, may work as well?

Futhermore, I do not believe that humans should use any means of "birth control." So is always the most forceful ejaculations the most desirable all the time? Especially with advancing age? Maybe a baby every 2 or 3 years is enough, and not a baby every 15 months? If a larger proportion of the world's "huge" population was mating naturally without the burden of awkward "birth control," maybe not everybody would necessarily want to maximize semen expulsions, so "premature ejaculation" may not always be such a big deal? Especially if they don't have a lot of time, and want just a "quickie" before work?

Did you all understand what I am trying to say? I am not saying to make any effort to "space" or "limit" childbearing, but after I have had my 8th child, maybe I might not exactly be "trying" for another baby, but rather just letting more babies happen if they happen.

Don't younger guys have more problem with "premature" ejaculation? Older guys may have problem, just getting it to pop off at all?

... My definition is the correct: penis in vagina, ejaculation is NOT premature. End of story... One simple, physical, objective, easy to determine characteristic. See? ....

Yeah, I had kind of pictured it that way. Like the poor guy who spills his load, before he can even get it into his mate.

Get it into the vagina, it's not "premature," just maybe "poor timing."

As the old song goes, "I like a man with a slow hand. I like a man with an easy touch ... spend some time ... not come and go in a heaving rush." Did I get the lyrics about right?

Good speakers try to use clear terms in which your meaning, my meaning, and dictionary meaning, agree well.

... Most definitions are subjective, get use to it. "penis goes into the vagina" does not describe all the circumstances and variety of situation people have during intercourse, has the use of more phrase then just that. ...

I don't like "subjective" definitions. They erode the usefulness of the term, by making its definition, sloppy, vague, confusing.

Here's an example of what's wrong with the medically vague or "subjective" definition. Let's say that the medical rip-off industry, defines "premature ejaculation" to be the natural release of semen, in less than 4 hours of sexual intercourse. Then wouldn't something like 99.99% of people, have the "ailment?" Very few people would have the "stamina" to last that long, but maybe they can sell us some shoddy experimental pills, to fix that? IT'S AN ARBITRARY DEFINITION isn't it? Penis in vagina, seems to meet the procreative goal of sex, and it's a more objective and easily measurable standard, not based on vague, fuzzy-wuzzy standards.

And what if some couples are pretty much happy, with a 4 minute session of "love-making?" Anything "wrong" with that then?

By the "medical" definition, quite many animals may have PE. As for animals, sex seems more about the procreation and too utilitarian, and not so much about "love-making" and bonding. Animals are too much "Wham! Bam! Thank-you Maam."

Oh, I found some doosy definitions for "premature ejaculation," at urbandictionary.com

"Producing the juice before you put it in the caboose"

Something not quite right here? Let me reword it. "Pruducing the pearl jam before you put it in the Maam."

"when a guy(mainly justin mundt) cums before he can get it in"

"To jettison your bombs before the misson has been completed"

Looks like we are right, by some of these submitted definitions.

I never understood what 'premature ejaculation' was such a big deal. Why not just use a strap on if you shoot too early?

Something is wrong with the world today if I have to agree with Pronatalist... :)

Don't you get it? The more bogus ailments they can define, the most costly treatments that are needed, and the more they can rip us off for unnaturally "medicating" sex.

If the medical/drug industry had their way, they would half of Americans prescribed onto some drug, or so I heard somewhere.

But seriously, there could be some sort of possible ailment there. As quite a lot of stuff must synchronize about right, for the sex act to be most effective (conceiving babies) or meaningful (procreative and enjoyable). I suspect that a "premature" ejaculation may sometimes be somewhat less satisfying, and a smaller amount of semen may ooze or flow out, but when it doesn't come too fast, the sexual tension may build up more, resulting in a larger load of semen being more forcefully shot out. Now higher amounts of semen expulsion, combined with "shooting" into the vagina, that may help make a pregnancy more likely. But I am not so sure there is enough difference to warrant costly medicalized treatment, when merely slowing down a bit, relaxing, and letting it come more naturally, may work as well?

Futhermore, I do not believe that humans should use any means of "birth control." So is always the most forceful ejaculations the most desirable all the time? Especially with advancing age? Maybe a baby every 2 or 3 years is enough, and not a baby every 15 months? If a larger proportion of the world's "huge" population was mating naturally without the burden of awkward "birth control," maybe not everybody would necessarily want to maximize semen expulsions, so "premature ejaculation" may not always be such a big deal? Especially if they don't have a lot of time, and want just a "quickie" before work?

Did you all understand what I am trying to say? I am not saying to make any effort to "space" or "limit" childbearing, but after I have had my 8th child, maybe I might not exactly be "trying" for another baby, but rather just letting more babies happen if they happen.

Don't younger guys have more problem with "premature" ejaculation? Older guys may have problem, just getting it to pop off at all?

There is no drug for premature ejaculation. And as I said before if climaxing early doesn't bother you then its not premature ejaculation. A woman's orgasm increases the chance of pregnancy, but is not needed. Just as a man's orgasm greatly increases the chances of pregnancy, but is not needed. Why are you guys so hopped up about this? It isn't a big deal no matter which way you slice it. It isn't sexist it just is what it is. If a female partner is climaxing early there is also a sexual disorder diagnosis and again it is easily treated. I just think research has gone to far looking for answers that don't really exist because they vary from person to person. All the 40% of men who had or have a current premature ejaculation problem is just the number of men who aren't satisfied with their sex lives. I don't think the actual diagnosed number is that high though because most peeople don't go to a therapist for a problem like premature ejaculation.

There is no drug for premature ejaculation.

Your ignorance is showing. Actually, quite a few medications have as a sideeffect, delayed orgasm. Zoloft is one of them, for example.

All the 40% of men who had or have a current premature ejaculation problem is just the number of men who aren't satisfied with their sex lives.

They are VERY statisfied. Comes from the ejaculation part. It is the women whining about not being statisfied who are not statisfied. :)

Your ignorance is showing. Actually, quite a few medications have as a sideeffect, delayed orgasm. Zoloft is one of them, for example.

They are VERY statisfied. Comes from the ejaculation part. It is the women whining about not being statisfied who are not statisfied. :)

Yeah, but there is no drug government approved for the treatment of PE.

Many man achieve satisfaction by knowing that their partner is satisfied. A man that only cares for his own satisfaction is likely to live a very lonely life, either that or he can live in a masognistic country and enjoy the benefits of having wives (plural) that are nothing but glorified slaves.

2 minutes...?

I'm a girl and I doubt I could delay orgasming for 2 minutes, let alone a man...O.O

Babymaking is not the objective of most sex, I could make the argument that sex exists only to spread diseases and that we were created by the god of Chlamydia for chlamydia and nothing more, the use of protection throws a wrench in both arguments. .

Hahahahahahaha :D:D:D That was an excellent quote. I'm gonna write that one on my wall, along with my morbid poetry, Yevgeny Yevtushenko quotes and Visceral Bleeding lyrics.

2 minutes...?

I'm a girl and I doubt I could delay orgasming for 2 minutes, let alone a man...

You are our girl! :)

So here is a lady without retarded female orgasm syndrome, formerly known as premature ejaculation...

You are our girl! :)

So here is a lady without retarded female orgasm syndrome, formerly known as premature ejaculation...

Call it what you want but few are going to recognize what your talking about.

Every change starts slow. Hey, when the DSM called being gay a mental illness few people understood what the fuck they were talking about....Now we understand they were full of shit...

Just like people who decided to call PE a normal male human behavior...

Every change starts slow. Hey, when the DSM called being gay a mental illness few people understood what the fuck they were talking about....Now we understand they were full of shit...

Just like people who decided to call PE a normal male human behavior...

Change has usually been progressive not regressive. PE was "normal male human behavior" back in the day and age when men did not care what their women wanted.

So much TV advertising, tells us that we must look perfect, buy lots of stuff and keep up with the Jones, and of course, sex must always be "perfect." If not, buy some trendy new ED magic pills.

I rather detest how these "in your face" advertisers, think that they can just define whatever abreviations they want, even those already taken. So what does Erectile Disfunction have to do with -ed past tense, anyway?

I'm not so convinced of all this glamourization of "perfection," for a price, but of course. Why can't sex be sometimes somewhat "less than perfect?" There is more to life, than sex, isn't there?

I see so many TV ads for whatever latest magical pills, to supposedly treat whatever ails us. And then they rattle off some list of side effects, like it's no big deal if your penis falls off, you go blind, your baby comes out with only 1 arm, it gives you headaches, or whatever those arcane "unimportant" side effects are. I find myself detesting, "I'm not a contraceptive user, so why would side effects be acceptable to me? Why would I use it, if it has side effects?"

So much TV advertising, tells us that we must look perfect, buy lots of stuff and keep up with the Jones, and of course, sex must always be "perfect." If not, buy some trendy new ED magic pills.

I rather detest how these "in your face" advertisers, think that they can just define whatever abreviations they want, even those already taken. So what does Erectile Disfunction have to do with -ed past tense, anyway?

I'm not so convinced of all this glamourization of "perfection," for a price, but of course. Why can't sex be sometimes somewhat "less than perfect?" There is more to life, than sex, isn't there?

I see so many TV ads for whatever latest magical pills, to supposedly treat whatever ails us. And then they rattle off some list of side effects, like it's no big deal if your penis falls off, you go blind, your baby comes out with only 1 arm, it gives you headaches, or whatever those arcane "unimportant" side effects are. I find myself detesting, "I'm not a contraceptive user, so why would side effects be acceptable to me? Why would I use it, if it has side effects?"

What does this thread have to do with media advertising? Not asking for perfection during sex, just for both sides to be happy. Sometimes the affect is more important then the side effects, preventing pregnancy is often worth the risk in blood pressure. Last time I look the side effects of a condom were trivial.

At least, possible pregnancy, is a very "good" and natural forward effect.

What does this thread have to do with media advertising? Not asking for perfection during sex, just for both sides to be happy. Sometimes the affect is more important then the side effects, preventing pregnancy is often worth the risk in blood pressure. Last time I look the side effects of a condom were trivial.

Dulling of sensation, is hardly "trivial."

Preventing the blessings of children, is hardly trivial.

Even supposedly natural or Catholic-tolerated rhythm, artificially prolongs periods of high fertility, by attempting to interfere with the body's natural fertility cycle.

And some people are alergic to latex condoms, or so I have heard. And many people seem to have issues with finding condoms that fit well.

So I would say that condoms have way too much side effects, although maybe they don't rank as bad as some of the other contraceptive potions and poisons.

Worth the risk in blood pressure? Surely that's not the only side effect of some of those other nasty experimental "family banning" methods? High blood pressure can lead to stroke. That's very serious! Stroke can impair body function and soon lead to death.

Welcoming the natural flow of human life to flow naturally, unhindered, is far more natural and elegant, and advocates the precious and sacred value of each and every person. And many people probably aren't near as fertile as they think, so their families may not necessary grow all that much faster, even with the beautiful natural elegance of the "no method" method of "family planning." Besides, I don't even like the fraudulent terms. Shouldn't family planning mean planning for families to naturally grow?

At least, possible pregnancy, is a very "good" and natural forward effect.



Dulling of sensation, is hardly "trivial."

Preventing the blessings of children, is hardly trivial.

Even supposedly natural or Catholic-tolerated rhythm, artificially prolongs periods of high fertility, by attempting to interfere with the body's natural fertility cycle.

And some people are alergic to latex condoms, or so I have heard. And many people seem to have issues with finding condoms that fit well.

So I would say that condoms have way too much side effects, although maybe they don't rank as bad as some of the other contraceptive potions and poisons.

Worth the risk in blood pressure? Surely that's not the only side effect of some of those other nasty experimental "family banning" methods? High blood pressure can lead to stroke. That's very serious! Stroke can impair body function and soon lead to death.

Welcoming the natural flow of human life to flow naturally, unhindered, is far more natural and elegant, and advocates the precious and sacred value of each and every person. And many people probably aren't near as fertile as they think, so their families may not necessary grow all that much faster, even with the beautiful natural elegance of the "no method" method of "family planning." Besides, I don't even like the fraudulent terms. Shouldn't family planning mean planning for families to naturally grow?

Permanent dulling of sensation? Plastic condoms last long and have no allergic reaction potential. Preventing the horrors of a child is hardly trivial yes indead, that is the goal not the side effect, that is the primary affect.

Everything is going to have a side effects if you look hard enough, even drinking water. Point is you got to weigh the desired affect with the chances of undesired side effects. For example many women are aware of the chance of high blood pressure, strock and heart attack while taking the progesteron-estrogen pill, yet the risk of a child overrides and they take it anyways.

If human society flowed naturally people would be reduced to tribilism were population growth in naturally controlled by people killing each other, where we all live rough painful and short lives, such is the natural way. For us to all live happy, luxurious, long lives we need to control population though more advanced means, such empowerment of women, birth control, and family planning.

um, well isnt it more or less just a natural lube so that the penis head doesn't get "rug burns" for lack of a better word.

What does contraception have to do with premature ejactulation? I think they have very little effect on one another. The risks of contraception are way better than having a baby, at least for me.

um, well isnt it more or less just a natural lube so that the penis head doesn't get "rug burns" for lack of a better word.

It is the women's job to produce the lubricant ;) semen is for insemination only.

If human populations flowed with people more naturally, people would treat one another BETTER.

Permanent dulling of sensation? Plastic condoms last long and have no allergic reaction potential. Preventing the horrors of a child is hardly trivial yes indead, that is the goal not the side effect, that is the primary affect.

Everything is going to have a side effects if you look hard enough, even drinking water. Point is you got to weigh the desired affect with the chances of undesired side effects. For example many women are aware of the chance of high blood pressure, strock and heart attack while taking the progesteron-estrogen pill, yet the risk of a child overrides and they take it anyways.

If human society flowed naturally people would be reduced to tribilism were population growth in naturally controlled by people killing each other, where we all live rough painful and short lives, such is the natural way. For us to all live happy, luxurious, long lives we need to control population though more advanced means, such empowerment of women, birth control, and family planning.

I'm not talking about minor or imaginary side-effects, but the rather noticable ones, of experimental shoddy contraceptives. People deliberately downplay those, due to some bizarre obsession with "reproductive rights." And yet some have made the news, and certain contraceptives had to be banned, due to liability, lawsuits and such. Which ones? IUDs maybe? Even "the pill" has been reduced in homonal dosage?

Human society did flow more naturally with people, for most all of history, until very recently, and throughout much of the world, it's been very beneficial, helping much to build civilization, dominate the land and have it be ruled less by dangerous animals, and to get electricity and other modern standards more widely spread throughout the world.

Supposedly high population density let to violence in Rwanda. Not so, and according to some TV program I watch, there is much reconcilation now in Rwanda. They don't speak of their separate tribes anymore, but as they are all much the same. And still they are dense and continuing to grow.

No, I don't believe the Malthusian gloom-and-doom. Tribalism occurs where populations really haven't grown so much, because as humanity more "flows" with people, families and tribes would more quickly "merge" and grow together, and some distinctions would fade, or spread culturally among various peoples and not just through family and tribe. I am much against corporate-dominated political-power-mad forms of "globalism," but I much welcome the natural "globalism" of the nations naturally populating themselves into each other, towards somewhat some possible form of global population arcology. Cities now are a mild form of population arcology, designed actually to more comfortable and safely hold huge numbers of people within a somewhat confined space.

Also, people haven't very well thought things through. As people have babies, the numbers of women of childbearing age may naturally rise just a short generation later, which doesn't bode towards population "control" but rather natural population growth. Why resist what must be? As there gets to be all the more birth canal holes populating denser, from which babies may emerge, we should be more pronatalist, encourage people to pair up and marry and reproduce, so that we might more readily ADAPT to our natural increase, for the greater good of the many.

In the poorer developing countries, which are becoming more wealthy and advanced BTW, where people are more pronatalist, mothers openly breastfeed in public. I think that should be allowed of course, because it's pro-life, they say breastfeeding is best, and as there perhaps gets to be so many people around, people in most every room, there's not always some nursing mothers room everywhere, like they have in some Churches where there's always a lot of babies around. People eat in public, and society should be deliberately more fond of people having their precious darling babies, even if in some respects, it does seem to be getting a bit "crowded."

What does contraception have to do with premature ejactulation? I think they have very little effect on one another.

Hon, have you actually followed this thread, you would know that EVERYTHING. It all depends on the DEFINITION... That was the whole point of this thread, now go back and read it again from the beginning...

If human populations flowed with people more naturally, people would treat one another BETTER.

That an assumption, that runs contrary to the evidence. Human population has flown naturally for eons, only now when and where it does not do we have the highest standards of living ever! Look at all the countries with the highest standards of living and you will usually see low population growth. Human society has entered a new era, as the standard of living increases people start having less and less children, this is because strife induced regression to animalistic desires of survival, one of which being to reproduce as fast as you can. The reasoning for children under strife is to produce a labor force that will work for you and help to sustain you. In 1st world countries people want to have children simply for the love, this desire is no where near as strong as the 3rd world countries desire to survive and prosper, 1st world countries already prospered!

I have nothing against interbreeding, I'm against overpopulation though.

Also as poor countries become more advance their rate of population growth usually drops, not increases!

The brief history of God, time and premature ejaculation

In the beginning there was only God. He was alone and bored. There was no change either, thus he invented time. Then he created Earth, and populated it with humans.
For 6000 years humans copulated and populated happily. Then in the 1950 some dumbfuck who missed his biology class was under the impression that males and females should orgasm at the same time, came up with a phrase to describe the timedifference between male and female orgasm. He could have been very well a She, because h/se based the phrase's definition on the female's climax. Thus the term premature ejaculation was born and for the next 5 decades it gave feeling of inferiority to millions of man.

Then in 2008 a mythbuster came along and explained it to the ignorant, just how stupid that phrase was, incorrectly and wrongly describing an act that is quite natural. He renamed premature ejaculation and after that it was called female retarded orgasm syndrome, or FROS. After that millions of men kicked their shrinks in their groins and happily enjoyed their orgasms where it was intended to be, in the vagina.

....and God smiled at his children and the world kept turning. The end....

There's one flaw in your argument Syz. What would a woman be doing going to a biology class in the 50s?

Syzygys,

There is a god? For the last 6000 years and long before women lived in oppression, man got what they wanted and a women's needs and wants were irrelevant in some cases incomprehensible, then as you call them "dumbfucks" came about and change it all, suddenly women's needs and desires had near equivalent value to men and men needed to try to compromise and negotiate their needs and desires, suddenly things like screwing for 2min and rolling over was not enough, with a little practices and work on the men's part they could find away to stratify both them selves and their female partner.

Now your saying ignore that, return to unsatisfactory sex for the women, basically and literally fuck them, return to patriarchy?

If a woman says its premature, its premature.

If a woman says its premature, its premature.

To put it another way, if she does not...then it is not, even if the man feels guilty....it all depends on her mood....

I am sure there was a reason why God made man and woman climax at different times. Actually that was already explained earlier in this thread. Quite natural, just look at the animals...

If a woman says its premature, its premature.

If a man says, it is retarded, it is retarded. Works both ways...

The CORRECT name for the event would be : climaxtime difference*. That is not gender specific, but describes the situation from the COUPLE's point of view, instead of the man's or woman's POV. It is also very natural.

Kind of funny how stupidity can stay in tradition for so long and people, (even seemingly intelligent posters) have a hard time to realize the truth...

*There are other sexual incompatibilities such as:

- dicksize difference (small dick-big pussy or big dick-small pussy)
- lubrication differences
- sensitivity differences
etc,etc,

There are so many variations of personal preferences in sex, that when a couple gets everything the same, that is the mathematically improbable.

Hon, have you actually followed this thread, you would know that EVERYTHING. It all depends on the DEFINITION... That was the whole point of this thread, now go back and read it again from the beginning...

I don't get what the definition of contraception and definition of premature ejaculation have in common, but if you say so then okay.

I think the defintion of premature ejaculation is a pretty good one. Compared with other sexual disorders/dysfunctions it really isn't that big of a deal. Orgasm disorders in women are just as common if not more so than premature ejaculation in men. I think its more so a problem with being in sync than anything else. Doesn't always happen, but you shouldn't be out of sync so often you are not satisfied with your own performance.

I don't get what the definition of contraception and definition of premature ejaculation have in common, but if you say so then okay.

Since the main/original object of sex is conception, the ONLY time ejaculation is premature when it happens outside the vagina, so conception is not possible. End of story. It was already explained several times.

I think the defintion of premature ejaculation is a pretty good one.

MINE is. The rest (by the way there were like 5 different ones, so which one) is rubbish.

Compared with other sexual disorders/dysfunctions it really isn't that big of a deal.

I agree, because:

1. It is not a disorder, but natural the way how you define it.
2. Repeat action is most of the time possible.

Orgasm disorders in women are just as common if not more so than premature ejaculation in men.

I agree again, actually, I could argue it is MORE common, thus it should be called FROS.

I think its more so a problem with being in sync than anything else.

See? WE agree again! That's why what they call PE is really just a climaxtime difference...

I am glad we came to a conclusion...

Well since Syzygys refuses to reply then I think I can declare victory.

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w7/Pikachelsea/MySpace%20crap/Victory.jpg

Well since Syzygys refuses to reply...

But ALL your questions were already answered! The only reason I wrote that little Bible, just to summarize for newcomers. I can answer it again, but what are the chances that:

1. You will understand the response?
2. Even if you understand it, you would acknowledge that I am right?

I have been right since post #1, it is pretty obvious. But I tell you what, I might even indulge you for the last time.

But ALL your questions were already answered! The only reason I wrote that little Bible, just to summarize for newcomers. I can answer it again, but what are the chances that:

1. You will understand the response?
2. Even if you understand it, you would acknowledge that I am right?

I have been right since post #1, it is pretty obvious. But I tell you what, I might even indulge you for the last time.

You never answered that what your saying is patriarchal and misogynic, nor have you answered that sex is not used for only for reproduction, in fact is primarily used for entertainment. In fact you have simply ignored me and not responded to my arguments.

Its not a matter of right, its a matter of wrong: I can occasionally admit I was wrong, but can you admit it your wrong? I seriously doubt it, you seem to believe the your world view must be correct, how ignorant: the truth is no ones worldview is correct.

As a present, to show my good intention, encore:


There is a god?

No, but if there was, he made the way how people orgasm, which is, differently...

For the last 6000 years ...bla-bla-bla...

I don't have a problem with female equality, if they don't try it in the disadvantage of males. Let me explain what this thread is about for the last time:

There are 2 events:

1. Women left unstatisfied, due to natural differences in climaxtime.
2. Ejaculation happens outside of vagina, thus conception is impossible.(this happens to be the true although rare case of PE)

Now that dumbfuck in the 50s, connected these 2 events. Since women liberation had been going on, nobody dared to show the problem of that these 2 events are NOT necesserily connected. Actually, since most women don't climax in their vaginas, it is IRRELEVANT if a hard dick is in it or not!

So the above mentioned dumbfuck by making his or her mistake of connecting 2 unconnected events made men feel inferior and send them to the shrink. Of course a quick statistical study would have shown that MOST men climax before the women, thus it was a timing issue (and natural, since most men do it this way) and not a psychological one.

Now your saying ignore that, return to unsatisfactory sex for the women, basically and literally fuck them, return to patriarchy?

Oh boy, when did I say that? All I said is let's call things what they are.

If the penis is ejaculating OUTSIDE of the vagina, that is the correct definition of PE and if the orgasms of the 2 partners happen at different times let's call it correctly climaxtime differences or whatever.

Fucking clear now???

...nor have you answered that sex is not used for only for reproduction, in fact is primarily used for entertainment.

It is the intended purpose what is important. Here, I am going to use an analogy, eating:

The primary object of eating is to replenish the body for survival. It can also be used for entertainment, enjoyment, pleasure, but again, that is not the intended object of eating. So when you determine what is sufficient eating, you don't make a definition on the subjective will of people (be it a 400 pounds glutton or a 80 pounds anorexic), but you scienticly determine how much energy needed for survival.

For conception all you need is to ejaculate inside the vagina, female climax is not needed. End of story...

And me sexist? What is more sexist to label something incorrectly premature when the event has really very little to do with female orgasm in most cases? I bet women didn't like my "female retarded orgasm syndrome" label, and that was my point with it.

Now really I have been trying to explain the same thing for 3-4 days, and I really don't see any improvement, so I will be ignoring your posts....

Syzygys,

Of course they orgasm differently, that does not mean that one should get all the pleasure and the other should just be left unsatisfied does it?

Its not disadvantaging males to try to satisfy women, its a win-win really. I don't know where you got the idea of how PE was defined, but the definition we have been using does not defined it by ejecuation happening in or out of any orifice, but rather on the rate of unsastification with the timing.

lets test your definition of PE though: if a man gets a blowjob is that PE? If a man has anal sex is that PE? or if a man has sex with something other then a women (which does not even have a vagina) it would all count as PE? Heck a man could have anal sex and the women achieves orgasm before the man and it would still be PE by your definition!

The primary function of sex is irrelevant (said this for the googleith time), it not like eating, people usually eat for its primary function (energy), people don't usually have sex for its primary function (reproduction).

3-4 days for a internet argument is an infinitely insignificantly time, its all a matter of who can last longer :p

For nearly 6000 years, there were few PEs, until it was found, that treatment of PE could be very profitable?

The brief history of God, time and premature ejaculation

In the beginning there was only God. He was alone and bored. There was no change either, thus he invented time. Then he created Earth, and populated it with humans.
For 6000 years humans copulated and populated happily. Then in the 1950 some dumbfuck who missed his biology class was under the impression that males and females should orgasm at the same time, came up with a phrase to describe the timedifference between male and female orgasm. He could have been very well a She, because h/se based the phrase's definition on the female's climax. Thus the term premature ejaculation was born and for the next 5 decades it gave feeling of inferiority to millions of man.

Then in 2008 a mythbuster came along and explained it to the ignorant, just how stupid that phrase was, incorrectly and wrongly describing an act that is quite natural. He renamed premature ejaculation and after that it was called female retarded orgasm syndrome, or FROS. After that millions of men kicked their shrinks in their groins and happily enjoyed their orgasms where it was intended to be, in the vagina.

....and God smiled at his children and the world kept turning. The end....

I was just wondering. What if the male and the female humans, mistime their orgasms by just 5 or 10 seconds? Surely that would be close enough to not be PE? (What if they are off, by just a few nanoseconds?) Or is it another one of those conspiracies, in which the term is defined, so that everything is evidence of it? Sort of like "global warming." I read the amusing claim in the new book, "Climate Confusion," that (according to the media and environmentalists apparently) all weather and all natural disasters, are now evidence of global warming. Apparently, before "global warming," there were no natural disasters?

Human population is beautiful, for it allows so many more people to experience life.

That an assumption, that runs contrary to the evidence. Human population has flown naturally for eons, only now when and where it does not do we have the highest standards of living ever! Look at all the countries with the highest standards of living and you will usually see low population growth. Human society has entered a new era, as the standard of living increases people start having less and less children, this is because strife induced regression to animalistic desires of survival, one of which being to reproduce as fast as you can. The reasoning for children under strife is to produce a labor force that will work for you and help to sustain you. In 1st world countries people want to have children simply for the love, this desire is no where near as strong as the 3rd world countries desire to survive and prosper, 1st world countries already prospered!

I have nothing against interbreeding, I'm against overpopulation though.

Also as poor countries become more advance their rate of population growth usually drops, not increases!

Poor people may seem to have little to do, but to make babies and more babies. But as people gain wealth, and hopefully wisdom also, they find there is much to do other than make babies, but rather than letting materialism and greed distract them, still may embrace the loving act of making as many babies as ever, and loving and raising and providing for their possibly many children, well.

People, who may for "religious" or other practical reasons, choose to deliberately have many children if or as they can, in developed countries, quite often also have a "modern" enhanced "quality of living." It is not at all necessary to unnatural suppress the natural flow of human life, to have a high standard of living. You can't very well have "quality of life," without "sanctity of human life," "right to life," which naturally leads to "quantity of life" as well.

It's no so much about some "animalistic" desire for people to reproduce as fast as they can, but embracing the sacred and precious value of each and every human life, and relaxing and welcoming the natural flow of human life unhindered. The natural remedy for powerful human reproductive urges, is pregnancy. The natural remedy for pregnancy is childbirth. It's natural and elegant to just welcome the babies to push out, and not bother with awkward, anti-life, unnatural "birth control." For babies to emerge from the womb, should be seen as natural and as to be expected, as for our blood to flow through our arteries and veins. It's all the proper natural processes of human life.

Pronatalist,

What is natural is not always desirable, nature is not always or even often the right thing, Know your fallacies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html)

What natural is for humans to populate until they reach a resource limit, at which point due to scarcity of resource the value of human life to become a moot point as people kill each other. If you want humans to value life its best to keep their basic needs fed, materialist needs like food, water, shelter.

So I am reading my Men's health book and suddenly I ran into the chapter on premature ejaculation (PE).You asked me to look at this thread because you wondered if it would have gone better on the Linguistics board. So insted of reading all six steamy pages I'll just comment on the O.P., and try to keep my remarks in a linguistic vein.First, let's make a logical assumption: The whole phrase was most likely created by a woman!A reasonable assumption. In the monotheized West with its pathetic one-dimensional model of the human spirit, sex was relegated to the "evil" end of that model and was a taboo subject. It's only the last two or three generations (of Americans anyway) who could talk about it with any seriousness and it would naturally have been women who made the first comments about premature ejaculation, since most men had only a vague understanding of female sexuality and would not have even understood the context of the complaint.Second, the phrase "making love" is a big fucking misnomer, because it is not love that you are making but (yes, you guessed it right again) babies!You're certainly giving a linguist plenty of material to comment on. :) Your analysis is precisely those same two or three generations out of date. Improved contraception and, later, availability of abortion freed humanity from the tyranny of biology (in the West anyway) just at the time when modern medicine made it not only unnecessary but downright bad citizenship to have large numbers of children. People were suddenly free to consider sex as anything but procreative. "Making love" was already a euphemism for hugging and kissing between lovers, so extending it to intercourse at the beginning of the Sexual Revolution was no stretch of the language.So if the object of "having sex" is making babies. . . .But it's not, in the majority of instances. I have a vasectomy and before that my girlfriends and first wife used prescription contraceptives, so in all the thousands of times (hehe) I've had sex since 1963, with all the hundreds of partners (hehe) NEVER was the objective to have babies. In fact NOT having babies was always a primary goal of the activity!"Premature ejaculation (PE), also known as, rapid ejaculation, rapid climax, premature climax or early ejaculation, is the most common sexual problem in men, affecting 25%-40% of men." OK, it is not a definition yet, but we have a problem of characterising it as a sexual problem. Now if it occurs in almost half (40%) of the men, could it be that it is actually NORMAL?Again you're in desperate need of linguistic assistance. "Normal" and "problem" are not mutually exclusive. High blood pressure is common enough to be considered normal. Does that mean it's not a problem? There have been periods in the history of civilization when war was the "normal" state of affairs."It is characterized by a lack of voluntary control over ejaculation." Excuse me? Unless you are a pornstar and have to save it for the moneyshot, as long as your penis makes it into the vagina, you are good naturally speaking and forget about voluntarism.This sounds like a man of my grandfather's generation talking, except I don't think men talked about such things 100 years ago. There are all kinds of things a man can do to delay climax and it's hardly unpleasurable for either party to have the activity last a few minutes longer. Even more common is performing oral sex first, either to give your partner a head start on an orgasm, or simply to give her one that way first so it's no longer an issue."Masters and Johnson stated that a man suffers from premature ejaculation if he ejaculates before his sex partner achieves orgasm in more than fifty percent of their sexual encounters." This is the biggest load of crap I ever read as a definition. Mind you an important part of this definition is not your ability to voluntarily control ejaculation, but your partner's ability to fucking achieve it!Of course there are a significant number of women (some of them tell me it's a whole lot more than we think) who simply can't get off from standard coitis and we have other fun things to do with them. But for most women it does happen, after five minutes or more, and it's impossible for them to "speed it up." You've got three choices: 1. "Slow it down" yourself so you can stay in there long enough to get them to it; 2. Do a lot of one of those other "fun things" first so they're nine-tenths of the way there when you start; 3. Don't give a damn and let her decide what to do about the real "problem," which is the one named "you.""Other sex researchers have defined premature ejaculation as occurring if the man ejaculates within two minutes of penetration. . . . however, a survey by Alfred Kinsey in the 1950s demonstrated that three quarters of men ejaculate within two minutes of penetration in over half of their sexual encounters." And here we have another mathematical problem!! if 3/4 of men do it, than it is actually the norm and not the exception!The same linguistic fallacy. No one said that something has to be exceptional to be a problem.Imagine the bull screwing one female and a dozen other females waiting in line, and the bull looks at his watch and turns towards the rest of the herd: "Sorry ladies, but this lady still has 90 seconds left until the 2 minute limit, so I have to hold back for a while longer!"Using cattle as a metaphor for human sex is just the sort of thing that makes a man not very attractive to women. ;)

I won't say much about your clinical knowledge of sex beyond, "Geeze dude, I hope you're being sarcastic and are not a representative sample of modern American manhood." But as far as language goes, you've made quite a few errors.

The point is: Because of advances in technology and other aspects of civilization, women now expect intercourse to be enjoyable, rather than merely a means of increasing family size or of subserviently making their men happy. Anything that interferes with that is perceived as a problem, no matter how common or "normal" it may be.

Fraggle Rocker,

Thank you, he has yet to listen to me about his outdated fallacy thick reasoning I hope he listens to you. :)

Not everything "natural" is desirable, but human natural increase is quite desirable.

Pronatalist,

What is natural is not always desirable, nature is not always or even often the right thing, Know your fallacies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html)

What natural is for humans to populate until they reach a resource limit, at which point due to scarcity of resource the value of human life to become a moot point as people kill each other. If you want humans to value life its best to keep their basic needs fed, materialist needs like food, water, shelter.

There is some Utilitarian Principle thing that says that often the best thing to do is that which most benefits the most people. Whether meaning to or not, it urges population growth so that all the more people can be around to benefit from whatever. Any "optimum" or "ideal" population size then, if humans can even define such a thing, wouldn't be small and pidly, but more on the order of being or becoming "nearly as large as possible."

Thus, it makes proper and natural sense to point out the beauty in natural human population growth, as it allows all the more people to live. Welcome the natural flow of human life to flow naturally unhindered. Encourage more people to marry young and not bother to unnaturally "space" their babies, but welcome their bodies to push out babies at their full natural level of fecundity, and as more people reach childbearing age, urge them to marry if ready and begin reproducing as well.

There's way too much emphasis on supposedly "limited" resources, and not enough on development, jobs, benefitting people, and human dignity. Faith and technology can push for needed adaptations to better support more people, especially with a more moral pronatalist cultural mindset.

HOW TO IMPRESS A WOMEN:
COMPLIMENT HER, RESPECT HER,HONOUR HER, CUDDLE HER, KISS HER, CARESS HER, LOVE HER, STROKE HER,TEASE HER, COMFORT HER, PROTECT HER, HUG HER, HOLD HER, SPEND MONEY ON HER, WINE AND DINE HER, BUY THINGS FOR HER, LISTEN TO HER, CARE FOR HER, STAND BY HER,SUPPORT HER,HOLD HER,GO TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH FOR HER,


That sounds more like the politically correct version, or the version that women use to control men. buy things for her.... yeah right.

Real version: bang her brains out caveman style!

You could also impress a man with most of the stuff you just described: he'll keep you around just to use you.

Pronatalist,

Happiness and quality of life is more desirable. Hard work rather than faith can keep technology above natural limits that would kill us off like bacteria on a petri dish, but all that technology leads to a new problem, why have more people if in 100 years they will be jobless and outmoded anyways?


s0meguy,

That was a joke.

Improved contraception

That is rather irrelevant when we discuss the PRIMARY goal of sex. Analogy: eating. Primary goal is survival and replenishment of the body, just because we can make a hedonism out of eating that doesn't change the primary goal....

In fact NOT having babies was always a primary goal of the activity!

It is like saying carracing's primary goal is not dying... :)

"Normal" and "problem" are not mutually exclusive.

Not but in most cases problems are not normal as in body functions.

High blood pressure is common enough to be considered normal.

This is a fallacy. It really comes down to definition. Just because we might adjust our standard, that doesn't mean it becamse suddenly normal to have high bloodpressure.The word you wanted to use was COMMON. :)

But as far as language goes, you've made quite a few errors.


I am disappointed. All this talk and you haven't really addressed the subject. For example starting with a definition would have been nice. :)

So tell me, why do we call it PE instead of retarded female orgasm? After all we are NAMING it from the female's side....

P.S.: I am really done with this thread, all my arguments were presented and NOT refuted, if one is too lazy to read it, that is not my fault and I will be too lazy to respond.

P.S.S.: One point I haven't made is this: Since the name mentions ejaculation, the definition should be based on the primary goal of ejaculation and not sex. If women are concerned with their orgasm, my "retarded female orgams' is a much better title....The goal of ejaculation is not to statisfy women but to make babies, orgasm is just a sideeffect....Here is the kicker: Male ejaculation and female orgasm have nothing to do with each other!

That is rather irrelevant when we discuss the PRIMARY goal of sex. Analogy: eating. Primary goal is survival and replenishment of the body, just because we can make a hedonism out of eating that doesn't change the primary goal....

We already went over this eating is not a proper analog to sex: you don't need sex to stay alive, eating is primary used to stay alive, sex is primarily used for entertainment.


It is like saying carracing's primary goal is not dying... :)

I would think the race car drivers might disargee, they would rather stay alive over all other things.


Not but in most cases problems are not normal as in body functions.

Aging is a problem so universal it makes life a 100% lethal sexually transmitted disease, and yet it is completely normal. I would say most problems are normal body function as most illness that kill people these days are due to aging: you designed to break down, just as a car is designed to break down to force you to buy a new one.


This is a fallacy. It really comes down to definition. Just because we might adjust our standard, that doesn't mean it becamse suddenly normal to have high bloodpressure.The word you wanted to use was COMMON. :)

Then PE is common, but not normal, excellent the thread is now over.


I am disappointed. All this talk and you haven't really addressed the subject. For example starting with a definition would have been nice. :)

So tell me, why do we call it PE instead of retarded female orgasm? After all we are NAMING it from the female's side....

P.S.: I am really done with this thread, all my arguments were presented and NOT refuted, if one is too lazy to read it, that is not my fault and I will be too lazy to respond.

P.S.S.: One point I haven't made is this: Since the name mentions ejaculation, the definition should be based on the primary goal of ejaculation and not sex. If women are concerned with their orgasm, my "retarded female orgams' is a much better title....The goal of ejaculation is not to statisfy women but to make babies, orgasm is just a sideeffect....Here is the kicker: Male ejaculation and female orgasm have nothing to do with each other!

You have failed to counter our arguments against yours, therefor the thread is over, we win, your wrong. When arguing with a child, and the child covers up its ears and starts screaming "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Does that mean the child's argument is right? No it just means the child can't come up with any valid counter arguments and simply denies its failure, you Syzygys have failed and have lost this argument, your ignoring of me and your blatant denial that argument points have been refuted is the equivale