No such a thing as premature ejaculation!

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is the women's job to produce the lubricant

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

semen is for insemination only.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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."

 

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...

 

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

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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:

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

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.

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???

 

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....