No such a thing as premature ejaculation!

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Syzygys, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    For nearly 6000 years, there were few PEs, until it was found, that treatment of PE could be very profitable?

    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?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Human population is beautiful, for it allows so many more people to experience life.

    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Pronatalist,

    What is natural is not always desirable, nature is not always or even often the right thing, Know your fallacies

    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.
     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    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.
    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.
    You're certainly giving a linguist plenty of material to comment on.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.
    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!
    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.
    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.
    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."
    The same linguistic fallacy. No one said that something has to be exceptional to be a problem.
    Using cattle as a metaphor for human sex is just the sort of thing that makes a man not very attractive to women.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2008
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Fraggle Rocker,

    Thank you, he has yet to listen to me about his outdated fallacy thick reasoning I hope he listens to you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Not everything "natural" is desirable, but human natural increase is quite desirable.

    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.
     
  11. s0meguy Worship me or suffer eternally Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,635
    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.
     
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    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.
     
  13. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    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....

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



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

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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!
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2008
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    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.

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

    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.

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

    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 equivalent of the child cover it ears, it signals that I have won.
     
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    As humans increase our control over our environment, we have seized the right to redefine goals. There are a great many people who cannot have children, and for them the primary goal of sex cannot be to have children. Furthermore if you look at the entire population of the West, including those who can have children, I'm sure you'll find that more than half of their acts of intercourse are performed with great care to avoid having children. Therefore, from the standpoint of Homo sapiens, as opposed to the standpoint of nature (who can't even type), the primary goal of sex is something other than having children. Most people would agree that the goal is pleasure, even if a certain demographic of women would admit that it's only for their males' pleasure since their males are too inconsiderate to care about theirs. Present company, hopefully, excepted.
    Not a very good analogy. Although most people snack for pleasure, most of the food that most people eat has the primary purpose of nutrition and pleasure is secondary. This is simply not true with intercourse. Most of the copulation that most people do, at least in our culture, has the primary purpose of pleasure and reproduction is not only secondary but often deliberately avoided. Only bulimics make a deliberate effort to avoid the nutritional results of eating.
    Again, a poor analogy and now you're starting to come off as disingenuous for choosing examples like this. The primary goal of racing is to win and everyone accepts the risk of death while doing their best to mitigate it. Anyone who races with his primary goal to avoid all risk will never make it into serious competition. This is in stark contrast to intercourse, which, as I have asserted, is more often than not performed with the primary purpose of pleasure and with reproduction deliberately avoided.
    Okay. But premature ejaculation is normal. Without attention and deliberate effort, almost all men will reach climax long before their partners in almost all cases.
    You presented a number of definitions and nobody argued with you. What we are arguing about is your attitude. Since obviously the majority of posters agree with me that the primary purpose of sex is pleasure, it stands to reason that each party should care about the other party achieving pleasure. To dismiss premature ejaculation (by any name) as normal and therefore to close off all discussion with one's female partner is to be uncaring.
    Because "premature" implies that the condition can be delayed and "retarded" implies that it can be accelerated. It is indeed quite possible to delay a male orgasm but it's a challenge to accelerate a female orgasm, especially in the usual context of the only stimulation coming from the act of intercourse itself. It generally requires substantial stimulation by other means prior to intercourse.

    Furthermore, it is more of a "problem" for the male to climax first than it is for the female, because most men can't retain an erection for very long after climaxing and therefore can't continue the action long enough to bring their partner to orgasm. If the female climaxes first she can almost always continue, sometimes to the point of having an additional orgasm.
    Au contraire. When they occur more or less simultaneously it greatly enhances the pleasure for both parties.
     
  16. Alison72 Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    I think it's quite normal and natural for ejaculation to occur quickly. Depends on their state of arousal when penetration occurs of course. But I asked one man who was always very quick, what he felt. And he told me that once he is inside he feels an overwhelming drive to achieve completion as soon as possible, and the thing is he WANTS to do that too.
     
  17. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    I think the whole problem with the 'premature ejaculation' concept is that it's used to humiliate men and make them feel like impotent freaks, all so that they purchase some overpriced 'wonder drug' which is spammed on the internet, television, radios and billboards.

    If a woman can't reach orgasm in time, why can't the man just use a strap-on?
     
  18. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    PE is still a bogus term because it suggests that it is less than normal/natural for a man to reach orgasm before a woman durring intercourse.
    It makes it sound as if only a man that can hold out as long as his chosen partner(however capable) is a "mature ejaculator".
    Hogwash.

    Just because I enjoy apples in January doesn't mean I can call my apple tree a "premature apple producer" because it bares fruit in October. It's supposed to.


    Fuuny thing is, if a woman has a huge orgasm and is all tuckered out, yet the man hasn't had one, the man is STILL regarded as the one with some kind of problem.
    Men simply cannot win this one.
    Much of this thinking has to do with men guaging their manhood upon their performance in bed.....and women knowing it.
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    If the women has the orgasm first it does not matter as the women can keep on fucking, if a man falls short its usually over. Just because something is normal does not mean it right.
     
  20. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    That's because she's lieing to you, stubby.




    .
    I'd like to see a link to back up that statement.
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    "she" lied to sexologist too then? It a known fact that women generally don't have refractory periods and that many can achieve multiple orgasms, unlike men who virtual all have refractory periods and can't even dream of multiple orgasms. These means the men is limited and the women usually isn't so to make all things go square the goal is primarily to get the women off and then the man can finish up and role over and sleep (leaving the women annoyed but at least technically satisfied.)

    A Link? your kidding, its a fallacy to equate normality with righteousness, for example death, war and hate are all normal.
     
  22. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    Yes I was kidding, yet death, war and hate are all natural and "right" in their own repects. Your independence is from someone going through a war.
    Should we call it "premature slavery aversion" just because you don't have a taste for war? I think not.
     
  23. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    I think that there is a real occurrence in which the term would fit better. That would be the "leaking" of semen that happens periodically before the man has an orgasm.This to me is the real "premature ejaculate" and can get you in quite a bit of trouble when applying the "pull and pray" method of birth control.

    In fact, that's what I always thought the term was refering to.
     

Share This Page