ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Bering in Mind

Bering in Mind


A research psychologist's curious look at human behavior
Bering in Mind Home

Not so fast … What’s so “premature” about premature ejaculation?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



It occurred to me recently, under conditions that I leave to your ample and likely sordid imagination (how dare you), that the very concept of “premature ejaculation” in human males is a strange one, at least from an evolutionary theoretical perspective. After all, the function of ejaculation isn’t really a mysterious biological occurrence…it’s an evolved mechanism designed by nature to launch semen, and therefore sperm cells, as far into the dark, labyrinthine abyss of the female reproductive tract as possible. And once one of these skyrocketed male gametes, in a vigorous race against millions of other single-tasked cells, finds and penetrates a fertile ovum, and—miracle of miracles—successful conception occurs, well then natural selection can congratulate itself on a job well done.

So given these basic biological facts, and assuming that ejaculation is not so premature that it occurs prior to intromission and sperm cells find themselves awkwardly outside of a woman’s reproductive tract flopping about like fish out of water, what, exactly, is so “premature” about premature ejaculation? In fact, all else being equal, in the ancestral past, wouldn’t there likely have been some reproductive advantages to ejaculating as quickly as possible during intravaginal intercourse—such as, oh, I don’t know, inseminating as many females as possible in as short a time frame as possible? or allowing our ancestors to focus on other adaptive behaviors aside from sex? or perhaps, under surreptitious mating conditions, doing the deed quickly and expeditiously without causing a big scene?

Like so many things before, it turns out that this insight of mine was actually several decades behind the curve, because in 1984, when, at nine years of age I was still anything but a premature ejaculator, a sociologist from California State University named Lawrence Hong published in the Journal of Sex Research a highly speculative, but very original, paper along these same lines, fittingly titled “Survival of the Fastest: On the Origin of Premature Ejaculation.” In this article, Hong—whose most recent work, so far as I can tell, has been on the global phenomenon of cabaret transgenderism—posited that, during the long course of human evolutionary history, “an expeditious partner who mounted quickly, ejaculated immediately, and dismounted forthwith might [have been] the best for the female.”

The empirical centerpiece of Hong’s arriving at this conclusion is the fact that, on average, human males achieve orgasm by ejaculating around just two minutes after vaginal penetration, whereas it takes the owners of these vaginas, on average, at least twice that long to do the same once a penis is inside of them — if they achieve orgasm at all, that is. This obvious gender mismatch between orgasm latencies can be understood, Hong reasons, only once we acknowledge the fact that sex evolved for reproductive rather than recreational purposes; don’t forget, he reminds us, that sex for sex’s sake is a relatively recent technological innovation enabled by prophylactics and other modern contraceptive inventions.

The author compares the mating habits of human beings to other rapid—and not-so-rapid—ejaculators in the primate family, noting that the faster a primate species is in the coital realm, the less aggressive it is when it comes to mating-related behaviors. He calls this the “slow speed – high aggressiveness hypothesis.” For example, male rhesus macaque monkeys often engage in marathon mounting sessions, where sex with a female can be drawn out for over an hour at a time (including many breaks and therefore non-continuous thrusting). That may sound great, but libidinous anthropomorphizers beware: macaque sex is a chaotic and violent affair, largely because the duration of the act often draws hostile attention from other competitive males. By contrast, primate species whose males evolved to ejaculate rapidly would have largely avoided such internecine violence, or at least minimized it to a considerable degree.

Key to Hong’s analysis therefore is the idea that intravaginal ejaculation latencies in males is heritable—there was initially greater within-population level variation in the male ancestral population, he surmises, but over time, “the ancestry of Homo sapiens became overpopulated with rapid ejaculators.” This is because, according to Hong, young reproductive-aged males who ejaculated faster (i.e., had more sensitive penises) avoided injury, lived longer and therefore had a greater chance of attaining high status and acquiring the most desirable females.

Hong’s reasoning on these heritability grounds has in fact received very recent support. You may have missed this in your monthly periodical readings, but in a 2009 article from the International Journal of Impotence Research, a team of Finnish psychologists led by Patrick Jern of Åbo Akademi University reports evidence from a large-scale twin study showing that premature ejaculation is determined significantly by genetic factors. So just as Hong surmised in 1984, this is indeed a heritable trait—if you doubt it, go on, have that awkward conversation with your fathers, boys. In fact, since Jern and his colleagues found that delayed ejaculation—the other extreme end of the ejaculation latency continuum—revealed no such genetic contributions, these authors generally agree with Hong, postulating that “premature” ejaculation may be a product of natural selection whereas delayed ejaculation “would be completely maladaptive.” Delayed ejaculators are considerably rarer, with a prevalence rate as low as 0.15% in the male population compared to as high as 30% with premature ejaculators, and their condition is usually owed to lifelong medical conditions or the recent use of antiadrenergics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), neuroepileptics, or other modern-day drugs that, I say blushingly from personal experience, are often associated with anorgasmia as a miserably unfortunate side-effect.

Adding additional credence to the evolutionary model is a separate set of self-report data published by Jern and his colleagues last year in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, in which ejaculation latencies were shown to be significantly shorter when men achieve orgasm through vaginal penetration than when doing so in the course of other activities, such as anal, oral, or manual sex. In fact, in light of these differential ejaculation latencies, the authors argue that the very construct of such male orgasmic “timing” is best carved up by discrete sexual behaviors rather than treated as a more general clinical phenomenon. And they offer several helpful acronyms for these ejaculation latency subtypes, too, such as “OELT” for “oral ejaculation latency time” and, conveniently, “MELT” for “masturbation ejaculation latency time.”

I have the niggling, faraway sense that we’ve left something out of the evolutionary equation regarding the variation in male ejaculation latencies. What, oh what, can that possibly, conceivably be? Ah, right—women’s sexual satisfaction. Oh come now. Actually, Hong didn’t leave female orgasms out of his rather viscous analysis altogether; he just didn’t see it as being central to selective pressures. Presumably, like other theorists of that time writing about the biological reasons for female orgasms (such as Stephen Jay Gould, who thought that female orgasms were much like male nipples, a happy leftover of the human embryological bauplan) he saw women’s sexual pleasure as being a nice, but neither here nor there, feature of human sex that nature had thrown into the mix. And, anyway, writes Hong, for women, as a general rule, “genital sex is better with digital sex”:

 

The tender touch, the passionate caress, the gentle rub, the titillating probe, and all those other infinite maneuvers that humans, as the most sophisticated bipedal primate, are best equipped to do, can be much more satisfying to women than simply a longer time span between intromission and ejaculation.

Hong acknowledges—with great humility and humor, in fact—that his ideas on the evolutionary origins of premature ejaculation in human males are highly speculative. And his ideas were critiqued soundly by University of Louisville psychologist Ray Bixler in his very good 1986 review of Hong’s theory in The Journal of Sex Research. Among many faults that Bixler finds in Hong’s “survival of the fastest” theory, the basic logic just doesn’t mesh with the obvious female pursuit of sexual intercourse. In chimpanzees, for instance—a species for which male ejaculation latencies are measured in seconds, not minutes—it is often females that initiate mating behaviors. And then there’s the “ouch” factor of having a sexually recalcitrant female partner whose dry genitals aren’t terribly inviting. If Hong’s model were correct, says Bixler:

 

There would be little or no proximal cause, other than coercion, for female cooperation—and it should be very clear that she would have to cooperate if voluntary mating were to be speedy! If she were not lubricated he would have “to rasp it in,” a painful experience for the woman, and … “no pleasure” for him either.

Disappointingly, this is more or less where the evolutionary thinking stops. Apparently no other theorist—at least, no experimentally inclined evolutionary theorist—has picked up Hong’s lead in trying to tease apart competing adaptationist arguments regarding male ejaculation latencies. Pieces of the puzzle are floating about out there, I suspect, such as the Finnish research showing that vaginal sex leads to faster ejaculations compared to other sexual behaviors; but Hong’s article was before its time—premature itself, in light of today’s more informed evolutionary biology, which is now poised to construct a more nuanced empirical model about this evolutionary legacy that is behind so many of us being fast finishers.

Another big piece of the puzzle can probably be traced to our species’ specially evolved social cognitive abilities, which enabled us—possibly only tens of thousands of years ago, just a splinter of a splinter’s time in the long course of our primate history—to experience empathy with our sexual partners during intercourse. A male concerned about bringing his female reproductive partner pleasure during sex, and thus deliberately prolonging the act of coitus to delay his own orgasm for her sake, couldn’t possibly have been selected for in an ancestral species that more than likely saw others’ bodies as pieces of mindless meat.

The subject may not appeal to everyone, of course, but given the unpleasant stigma attached to premature ejaculation, I really do believe that an evolutionary approach to the “problem” can greatly inform clinical treatments, a (not surprisingly) high-grossing therapeutic area of which there is no shortage of work being done. But in any event, Hong’s seminal Reagan-era ideas should give us all pause in labeling any particular intravaginal ejaculation “premature”—Mother Nature, arguably the only lover that really matters, after all, may very well have had a thing for our one-minute ancestors.

Image credit: iStockphoto

About The Author: Want more Bering in Mind? Follow Jesse on Twitter @JesseBering, visit www.jessebering.com, or friend Jesse on Facebook. Jesse’s first book, The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life (W. W. Norton), will be published February 7, 2011 (already available as "The God Instinct" in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth).





Rights & Permissions

Comments 29 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Lightfiend 3:11 pm 11/15/2010

    Is it at all reasonable to suspect that other animals experience empathy with their sexual partners?

    Anyway, very interesting insight. I have pondered myself how premature ejaculation can be evolutionarily beneficial.

    - Steven

    http://www.theemotionmachine.com

    Link to this
  2. 2. skemmis 3:22 pm 11/15/2010

    There have been a host of theories about sperm displacement, including the possibility that males who have longer coitus are more likely to displace rival sperm. Check out Gordan Gallup’s work (i.e. http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep021223.pdf), it’s a whole lot of fun.

    Link to this
  3. 3. charles_tow 3:27 pm 11/15/2010

    Erm, yeah, your obviously not a regular reader. pretty sure Jesse Bering is familiar with Gordon Gallup’s work. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus

    Link to this
  4. 4. charles_tow 3:34 pm 11/15/2010

    Erm, yeah, your obviously not a regular reader of Jesse Bering. pretty sure he is familiar with Gordon Gallup’s work. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus

    Link to this
  5. 5. setzerknight 4:17 pm 11/15/2010

    As I mentioned before on twitter, Schopenhauer emphasizes the role played by rationality in denying evolutionary tendencies. We see premature ejaculation as something bad due our rational construction of sex as a monogamic activity only. Following Schopenhauer’s idea of negation of the Will, depreciating early-starters is actually very good. While giving attention to pleasure and foreplay we kinda disctract from the reproductive aspect of sex.

    The thing is: has the modern gameplay of sexuality changed so much that premature ejaculation became a bad thing to evolution? Maybe yes, since one in that condition is most unlikely to copulate frequently, thus more unlikely to spreading his seed. This is purely speculation, though, I need to ponder on the subject.

    This article actually made me think what’s the morality of anal sex to Arthur Schopenhauer. Kudos, Mr. Bering.

    Link to this
  6. 6. eyespot 4:37 pm 11/15/2010

    I believe vaginal sex leads to faster ejaculations because this is what women want–seriously, are they really all kinds of women out there wanting to make coitus a longer affair when there are way more interesting options?

    Seriously men and researchers…fast is fine…except maybe if you are a porn star I guess.

    I’m sorry dear, not tonight, I’m afraid my genitals are recalcitrant this evening… lololol…

    Link to this
  7. 7. silvrhairdevil 5:14 pm 11/15/2010

    “…be traced to our species’ specially evolved social cognitive abilities, which enabled us–possibly only tens of thousands of years ago ~~~ to experience empathy with our sexual partners…”

    “Hong reasons, only once we acknowledge the fact that sex evolved for reproductive rather than recreational purposes ~~~ sex for sex’s sake is a relatively recent technological innovation…”

    Hi Jesse – interesting topic. I disagree with one of the premises, though.

    The clitoris is a one-trick pony; it has no purpose outside of pleasure.

    Unlikely the clitoris evolved only in the past few tens of thousands of years.

    Recreational sex has been around a lot longer than Mr Hong suggests.

    I’ve seen studies indicating that the alpha males, the Wham/Bam guys, were often cuckolded by the subservient males who knew how to please the ladies, and by doing so, impregnated more of them.

    Didn’t you do a column about how the head of a penis is designed to scoop out the previous depositor’s semen?

    It’s not who laughs first – it’s who laughs last.

    Link to this
  8. 8. Elio Campitelli 9:25 pm 11/15/2010

    Hehe, you said "seminal".

    Ejem….

    Interesting article, sr.

    Link to this
  9. 9. dudeinhammock 11:21 pm 11/15/2010

    As always, a fun read. But I, too, disagree with several of your assumptions:
    – Sex partners were considered a mindless lump of meat until tens of thousands of years ago? Hardly. When do you think our ancestors would have passed the red dot test. Since chimps and bonobos both pass it, we’re talking at least 5mya. As you know, bonobos clearly know they’re having sex with another being.
    – Sex evolved for "reproductive rather than recreational purposes"? False dichotomy. In our species, clearly it evolved for both. Look at the ratio of sex acts per birth in Homo sapiens vs. in other species. We’re way out ahead at over 1000/1. Were those other 999 shots in the dark just misfires with no adaptive purpose at all? Hell, if you really believe that sex is for reproduction RATHER THAN recreation, homosexuality becomes a big problem (again). Accept that for human beings, sex is primarily about establishing and maintaining social bonds and, poof!, it’s no longer an issue.

    Link to this
  10. 10. vagnry 3:49 pm 11/16/2010

    I believe, that the lack of a human female oestrus, or rather, that the woman is willing (in principle) to have sex at any time, disproves the theory.

    The wham, bam, next mam, guy, is probably unlikely to have sex with the woman more than once (rape excepted) and the chance of his catching her in her fertile period is maybe 1/7, while the slower guy has a better chance of several lays, and accordingly of fathering a child.

    Again, the non-obvious oestrus is probably due to the fact, that a single mother’s chance og succesfully rearing her child is much lower than the chances of both parents together.

    But then again, there are more ways to skin a cat, and for some men, several quick lays and no child rearing afterwards might well be highest on the list, so probably, there is room for the quick and the slow (not quite dead though)

    Link to this
  11. 11. solspot 6:41 pm 11/16/2010

    This is a topic for ADULT readers. If a science teacher referred young students to the SciAm website, and parents found their children reading this material, the teacher would be fired. Don’t even try to tell me that’s not true because you know that’s what school boards do! Are you trying to get the good science teachers fired and replaced by evolution-denying young-earth teachers? This blog might just accomplish that. It’s just barely disguised from a PlayBoy article, with a transparent veneer of "scientific study" references to fake a coverup of this verbal voyeurism.

    At a time when young readers should be encouraged to go to SciAm for scientifically reliable information, and when young readers should subscribe to Scientific American for quality science, you are chasing teachers and parents away from this site. I know I won’t be recommending the SciAm website to any student under college age, and I’ll make sure I warn my fellow science teachers about the possible repercussions of this blog. What could SciAm online editors be thinking by allow this opinion laden, pseudo-scientific psycho-babble on this site??

    Link to this
  12. 12. Andira 10:28 pm 11/16/2010

    There are very practical arguments pro a quickly made ejaculation. Early humans did not have bedrooms in which they could securely indulge themselves for hours. Sex has two functions, procreation and psychological bonding. In the animal kingdom it is only procreation. So either premature ejaculation is a functional thing of olde in humans too, or a remnant of the old days when we were animals just needing a quick fix. After all, orgasm is a bonus. What nature wants is for us to put it there!

    Link to this
  13. 13. Andira 10:34 pm 11/16/2010

    We may also define it as a disease, or a handicap. A tip of value is that quite a lot of antidepressant substances have as a side effect a reduction of sensation, which in higher doses causes problems with orgasm and ejaculation. I happen to know that using these substances in small doses you can find a balance so that you can go on for hours on end. The problem is that when one desires a real orgasm, it may not come. I recommend 10-20 mg of Tofranil (imipramine) daily for trials. Not more.

    Link to this
  14. 14. royniles 6:08 pm 11/17/2010

    "A male concerned about bringing his female reproductive partner pleasure during sex, and thus deliberately prolonging the act of coitus to delay his own orgasm for her sake, couldn’t possibly have been selected for in an ancestral species that more than likely saw others’ bodies as pieces of mindless meat."
    As someone earlier pointed out, this is one area where you were glaringly wrong.
    Further, the cultural context of any action exerts some control over its duration. If the culture tells us that the female would prefer to thank us rather than have us merely wham bam and thank her, then we do have the ability, conferred by evolution for a probable variety of reasons, to slow things down a bit. (Other primates show different cultural adaptations as well, by the way. Read Frans De Waal.)

    Link to this
  15. 15. cping500 2:47 am 11/18/2010

    Surely all men nowadays over 10 know how to do the relevant exercises, and indeed also what to do ensure they shoot the target or is the playground grapevine not working. And were there not some cave paintings or sharmans to help neolithic beginners

    Intercourse is pre programmed but sexual practices require learning (or training)(i e genetics + culture)

    Link to this
  16. 16. pelican64 12:32 pm 11/18/2010

    "…and–miracle of miracles–successful conception occurs,…"

    Seriously? Let’s keep it real, okay. No miracle; put a match to gunpowder, you get and explosion; a spark to gasoline you get combustion, sperm and a healthy ovum and you get a birth-eventually. Birds do it,bees do it, even educated fleas do it….

    Link to this
  17. 17. BobNSF 6:26 pm 11/18/2010

    "ejaculation latencies were shown to be significantly shorter when men achieve orgasm through vaginal penetration than when doing so in the course of other activities, such as anal, oral, or manual sex"

    Considering that most heterosexuals see those activities more as build-up leading to the grand finale than as sex acts unto themselves, this result strikes me as pretty meaningless.

    Link to this
  18. 18. figleaf 7:48 pm 11/20/2010

    What BobNSF said. Making the assumption that men don’t "need" foreplay doesn’t mean we actually don’t a) have it or b) need it. I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, anticipation counts. And humans, men and women, have probably been able to anticipate even longer than we’ve been able to recognizably cogitate.

    Also I’d still call bluff on the assertion that the only functions of sex are reproduction and psychological. In humans, and it would seem other cultures it fills a social function — not just bonding, for instance but also status signaling.

    And then, at least for men, there are all those "stale sperm" theories that create substantial pressure for sexual activity even when it’s not strictly reproductive or psychological. And when there’s a surplus of something in nature it tends to become available for other uses…

    And then (I’ve got a lot of "thens") there’s the point that the young men most likely to "benefit" from premature ejaculation in your scenarios are also likely to benefit from very short refractory periods. And since until maybe 10,000 years ago most humans barely made it into their 40s, they probably spent most of their reproductive years able to resume sex fairly quickly after an initial ejaculation or even subsequent ones.

    All that said I do agree that historically there probably a reproductive advantage to quick ejaculation, especially in young men. I’m not sure I buy the idea that it would be all that recent a development though.

    I also don’t really buy the phallocentric notion that all women’s orgasms must be delivered through intercourse in order for women to be sexually satisfied — with or without orgasms. (Both men and women, and their intimates, have lots of other ways to make orgasms happen.)

    I’m also not sure about comparisons with rhesus monkeys. I thought they, like a lot of other primates, are pretty diurnal. Humans, in all combinations and locations, meanwhile, have a great deal of sex at night.

    And there’s still the part where most humans can easily have sex several times a day but only need to do it *for reproduction* every two years or so.

    Fun post, and lots to think about. The data seems both reliable and very interesting but I’m not so sure about the conclusions.

    figleaf

    Link to this
  19. 19. cdavie5 11:50 am 11/22/2010

    Here’s a thought: Maybe there’s an equilibrium between wastefully-lengthy intercourse, and ejaculation so prompt that the woman must move on to another partner to find satisfaction. Sure, if you’re fast, you have time to do other things (like, say, other people), but your sexually-frustrated lovers are more likely to go gather some alternative DNA.

    Link to this
  20. 20. lovescience 1:14 am 11/26/2010

    Hong’s article was written well before recent research on the female orgasm. There is increasing evidence that it is a tool for women to decrease or increase the uptake of sperm and the likelihood of conception, among other functions. The increased frequency of female orgasm in evolutionarily advantageous situations points to that.

    @solspot: This is a BLOG about scientific topics, not a science journal. If there is one thing needed in this culture, it is less prudish fear of backlash and/or litigation and more teaching children how to think critically about the content to which they are exposed. Furthermore, these articles are hardly pseudoscience or voyeurism. Evolutionary theory necessitates frank discussion of topics relevant to sexual selection.

    Link to this
  21. 21. elenasakman 11:13 am 12/3/2010

    I think talking of human sex one should spend more time analizing other animal’s sex strategies and behaviour. For example lions have also complicated relationships and very interesting approach to sex (lions spend LOTS of time doing it – ever wondered why that developed?)))

    PS empathy statement = you dont have a dog i guess)))

    Link to this
  22. 22. markcant 1:48 am 12/20/2010

    I doubt that our parents, or our parents’ parents, worried a hell of a lot about the female orgasm. A woman’s pudendal plumbing is constructed in such a way as to insure the lack of an orgasm if no outside stimulation is applied. I think people like Hugh Hefner are mostly responsible for the idea that women should enjoy sex; before the Sexual Revolution, I can’t help but think it was mostly a matter of duty on the part of the woman. I’m not waxing nostalgic for those days by any means, but it’s true there was a lot less pressure on men to perform back then. You just rolled her over, had your way with her, and went into the den to watch football.

    Also, who in the hell came up with the word "perform" in reference to sex? What is it, a puppet show? OK, I guess it can be, but it shouldn’t. Let’s have a little respect for the penis, OK? He’s not going to perform if he doesn’t want to, and that is pretty much that. Which reminds me of a poem I once wrote, but I’ll have to put it in another post because I’m running out of room.

    Link to this
  23. 23. markcant 1:55 am 12/20/2010

    Phallus in the Palace

    There’s a phallus in the palace,
    In the palace of my jeans-
    And my phallus bears a callus
    From the places he has been.

    Sometimes quiet and reflective,
    Yet at others strong and firm,
    He’s the reason I’m protective
    Of the lair of my white worm.

    But he wakes me up at midnight
    (The presumptuous little bone)
    Just to tell me he was dreaming
    About porking Sharon Stone.

    Then he sulks and broods till sunup
    As I lay awake in bed
    Calling down the hordes of evil
    On his hairless little head.

    Then I get up in the morning -
    Soon I’m leaving with a sigh
    But arriving at the office
    There’s a twinkle in his eye.

    For there’s Heather in her mini
    And Anita in her heels
    And I start to understand
    Just how the little bastard feels.

    When we get home late that evening
    And he’s really in a funk
    He gets lots of my attention
    Since he has a lot of spunk.

    Yes, to keep my phallus happy
    Is a neverending chore
    Since no matter how depleted
    In an hour he wants more.

    But we’ve been through thick and thin
    And now we both can understand
    That the truest test of friendship
    Is to give a pal a hand.

    Link to this
  24. 24. cphoenix 2:18 pm 01/11/2011

    Fascinating, about the macaques. Some species (e.g. kakapo) have reproductive strategies that seem designed to limit population (perhaps to avoid disease epidemics). This seems to be such a case.

    I wonder whether early ejaculation might be an indication that early humans, in effect, rejected this strategy and tried to have as many offspring as possible?

    Once we developed enough intelligence to implement effective sanitary taboos, we might have switched to warfare (raids, murder) rather than disease as a primary limiter of population. In warfare, it seems useful to have as many kids as possible.

    Also, we might have developed cooking around the same time, which could have enabled a substantial increase in population density – increasing the pressure for effective sanitary taboos, and by the way also selecting for people who would follow taboos and cooking recipes religiously (and I mean that literally).

    So if you want to look for a point in time where rapid ejaculation became beneficial, you might look at the time we developed cooking.

    Link to this
  25. 25. miss d 10:18 am 01/29/2011

    let me see- in the two articles i have read by mr bering so far women have bee compared to leftover half-eaten pizza detritus and our genitals are a dark labrynthine abyss. and mr savage in the savage love column refers to them as canned hams dropped from a great hieght. it is indeed an uncomfortable thing to discover that gay men seem to feel as much contempt for the dreaded vagina dentata and Evil Pussy as thousands of years of patriarchal rule has taught everybody straight to feel.
    im just sayin’.

    Link to this
  26. 26. confidencemagnet 11:05 pm 07/10/2011

    Women act like you break the law when you come fast. Some men have the opposite problem that it takes them hours to come. You gotta give women what they want by controlling your ejaculatory juice and not get too excited or you will come easily.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/59662800/Be-the-Man-That-Women-Want

    Link to this
  27. 27. spectator52 7:07 am 05/5/2012

    A very interesting blog indeed! You mentioned the fact that a few drugs (antiadrenergics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, neuroepileptics, or other modern-day drugs) often have side effects of anorgasmia. By “anorgasmia”, you literally mean “inability to experience sexual orgasm” and not just “lack of libido”?

    Link to this
  28. 28. vyatra 1:42 pm 12/15/2012

    I recently encountered this site: http://treatprematureejaculationnow.com/. They provide a free book (actually even more). I can honestly tell you that this advice has saved my marriage and it has led to the best sex we’ve ever had.
    I was struggling with my performance in bed. More specifically, with my inability to last long enough for my wife making me feel anxious about sex.
    After a while I improved my performance twice. Then I noticed that I wasn’t anxious or worried about ejaculating quickly any more. Now I can last in bed as long as I want. That’s why I’d like to share this information with many men as I can.

    Link to this
  29. 29. Ramon van Buuren 5:55 pm 06/20/2013

    Hey there i am Ramon. I am Dutch. It is great to see that u write about PE.I love the discussion. I think we can conclude that Premature Ejaculatie is a damn desease. I struggled with it for years. I lot of things i read overhere are thru. But the fact is that it is not that easy to get rid of PE. It is great to see Vyatra is telling he want to share the info with many men as he can. Great job! The Dutch replacement for the site he recommends is http://www.Vroegtijdigeejaculatievoorkomen.net

    I will be back! Nice to meet u by the way !

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article



This function is currently unavailable

X