Talk:Premature ejaculation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] SiobhanHanse; removal of LULU links

Dear SiobhanHansa.

You deleted the giannivenice link. Yet, there is extensive new information on medical references published on Giannis homepage. These new medical references of 2008 can be checked by everyone. Yes, in addition, the self-published book is mentioned, too. I think it's only fair, since Giannivenice's is a real author of advice books. I, thus, indeed challenge the removal of his lulu links. Lulu is a real publishing house. Everyone can check these books. Often, there are extensive previews. LULU indeed is transparent! He who wants to know, can inform himself. Referencing, doesn't mean peer review! Referencing means, that the source is open and accessible. That is the fact with lulu books. Why should a lulu book be different from a random house book. In my opinion, there is none. So, please, don't delete lulu links. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianna 61 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to add encyclopedic information citing those medical references directly to the article. However the link itself - which is to self published information by someone who is not a well respected authority on the subject and which advertises a book for sale, is not appropriate.
Lulu books are not the same as books from more traditional publishing houses like Random House because anyone can publish anything making them far less reliable. However even a Random House book is only appropriate if it is actually representative of significant expert opinion (for example a link to a Random House book about some college woman's experiences with men with PE would likely be inappropriate as well). -- SiobhanHansa 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear SiobhanHansa

You seem to overestimate random house. Often there is just one person who likes a book. OR not. Why should that be any better than a lulu link? Also at lulu, there is one guy who publishes, or not.

Also. Who are you to judge if someone is an expert. I tell you, most experts are just farts that had the luck to be appointed to an institution. That is why they are experts. Often their advice is rubbish.

I think transparency is the key word. Yet, that is exactly why I really start to dislike Wikipedia. Wikipedia is ABSOLUTELY INTRANSPARENT. You are a e.g. a guy, for me out of the blue, who judges other peoples entries. You decide what to put in, and what not. You delete entries at the touch of your fingertip. You have an enormous "self-established" power. You stay in the shade just like a grey eminence in a Foucault control scheme.

Wiki is not really a place where everyone can put in his knowledge. It's just like any other social system. Some people do the work, others sit in their chairs and judge the work.

Oh, how I start to hate Wikipedia.

Bye Gianna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianna 61 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gianna, I'm sorry you've found this difficult. It seem you are trying to use Wikipedia for a purpose that it is not intended for and that can lead to disappointment. We use sources that experts in the field consider reliable - experts in the field gain their appointments because they are judged to be better than others by people in a position to do so. It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty much the only way we've found to keep the quality of information reasonably high. -- SiobhanHansa 23:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links to books

It should be fine to give external links to books. In the case of Gianni V. it is a personal story from an affected. GV reports his private story and published the book by lulu.com. There is no obligation to buy, on the contrary. There is a 20 page free preview of the book (about 1/3 of the story) for people to check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianna 61 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not fine to add links to self published books when they aren't already recognized as reliable and respected sources. And personal stories are rarely encyclopedic unless there is a verifiable significance for the particular story. So I really don't think the link is appropriate.
(Note: We also specifically ask people not to add links to sites they are connected with directly to articles without first gaining a consensus for inclusion on the article's talk page - See our external links guidelines. I'm assuming from your user name that this applies in this case.) -- SiobhanHansa 15:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy righted text

I reverted the insertion of yoinked copyrighted text, and added an external link to the apparent source. -- Infrogmation 22:24, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed more copyrighted text ("Inability to constantly control the ejaculatory reflex...") from the Armenian Medical Network. -- Kslays 18:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SSRI

The article makes it sound as if SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) reduce prematue ejaculation through reducing anxiety. I am not at all an expert, but my impression was that SSRIs just make orgasm more difficult as a "side effect", i.e. not by way of reducing anxiety. Can anyone who knows the facts confirm? -- Bayle Shanks

SSRI's will reduce anxiety, that is for sure. They will also make it harder for both man and women to get aroused, and, once aroused, they will make it harder, or even impossible in some cases, to achieve an orgasm. So there is probably some of both of these effects.

[edit] heterocentric?

I think this article should be changed, at the moment it implies that only straight men have ejaculatory problems. this could just be remedied by simply changing the language from female to just partner.

WP:BB. Or: {{sofixit}}. JFW | T@lk 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Okay, changed! just wanted to see if anyone had some objections first :D

Explain this to me: Women need vaginal stimulation to climax which can take time, whereas with two men having sex the "catcher" is not going to climax by having a penis in his bum. So trying to include gay sex in here is moot. I'm changing it back because I don't think it's normal for a man having a penis in his bum to orgasm due to having a penis in his bum.
On top of that, I think peoople get the picture without having to list every type of sex out there. If you include sexual positions that deviate from functional sex that can produce offspring (i.e. inserting the penis into a non-functional cavity such as an anus) then you also have to list mouth, boobs, hand, chicken, cow, sheep, etc... People get the picture when you list the normal method and if they want to translate that to other types of sex then that is their business. JettaMann 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
JettaMann I agree with your point, bravo for putting the PC monster back in its cage. But in fact it is possible for a male "receiver" to orgasm (by internal stimulation of the prostate.) Even some women can climax anally, go figure the human body is an amazing contraption. You may want to read up on a few homosexual articles, if you can stomach it :) --Jquarry 12:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, women don't necessarily need vaginal stimulation to climax; we need clitoral stimulation. 70% of women do not reach orgasm from plain old vaginal intercourse, so Master and Johnsons' definition (man climaxes before woman more than 50% of the time) does not make a whole lot of sense to me. Rosemary Amey 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should incorporate this information into the article considering it is relevent? I'm pretty sure it'd be safe to point out the obvious flaw in this research provided citation. Duroes 08:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Premature ejaculation is not a matter of being unable to cause a partner to climax (although both your point about men not reaching orgasm from anal penetration and your point about women needing vaginal stimulation are misinformed). The issue with premature ejaculation is of an emotional nature. If an individual feels sexually unsatisfactory due to early ejaculation and suffers psychological distress because of it then they suffer from premature ejaculation reguardless of whether they are having sex with a woman, man, hand, chicken, cow, sheep, etc. changing "woman" and "female" to "partner" does not explicity denote any orifice. Neither is it a move for political correctness. All the change serves to do is make the article encompass a broader spectrum of the various conditions under which premature ejaculation might occur by removing impertinent details. kwertykwert 08:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SSRIs

SSRIs do alleviate PE, but this is not to do with increasing the level of seratonin in the synapse. If that were the case, more straightforward seratonin boosters (such as l-tryptophan or 5-htp) would also alleviate PE, which they do not - at least, not to anywhere near the same extent. A better explanation is the fact that SSRIs block re-uptake of seratonin - the male orgasm involves a huge re-uptake of seratonin (this is what creates the "whooshing" sensation as a man goes past the point of no return), and by blocking this, SSRIs prevent uncontrolled ejaculation. This also explains why many men taking SSRIs have to concentrate quite hard in order to orgasm at all (and thus override the drug effect), and why some men on SSRIs cannot orgasm at all. This would also explain why St John's Wort (which does block re-uptake) is more effective for PE than 5-htp / l-tryptophan.

I'd add this myself, but I don't have a citation to hand, so it could be considered original research - the role of seratonin re-uptake in male orgasm, the effect of SSRIs on seratonin re-uptake, and the efficacy of SSRIs in treating PE are all common knowledge, but I've yet to read a detailed, peer-reviewed scientific article connecting the three. Then again, I've certainly never read one which makes the case that SSRIs achieve this effect by increasing seratonin in the synapse! Perhaps someone could dig up citations for the three points made above, and present the idea that way. It's certainly a more scientifically credible idea than the one currently in the article MrBronson 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Remark on top of page about anxiety: Studies have shown the link to seratonin re-uptake. But PE is more complex. For those men were PE is linked to seratonin, SSRI's will work, already in (very) low dosis. These men will benefit from anti-anxiety medication or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as sertraline or paroxetine. But the causes of PE can also be very different then seratonin linked. On SSRI's, look at http://prematureejaculation.sohosted.com/non-fda-medication.php So... PE can also be anxiety linked, stress, physical,... For instance, patients with prostatitis may report changes in ejaculatory latency, with a trend toward earlier ejaculation, difficulty maintaining an erection, or both. Although typically a transient phenomenon, opioid withdrawal has also been associated with PE Premaposts 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Drugs specifically targeted to treat premature ejaculation

Is anyone here sufficiently knowledgeable to help with merging Drugs specifically targeted to treat premature ejaculation into this article? Drugs specificially... is basicly a spam container. / edgarde 04:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Role of the Foreskin

I would not be surprised if men who are natural have more control over their ejaculation time. I'm circumcised and it feels like I have no control. I'm doing foreskin restoration and have grown a tiny bit of skin. I feel like I have more control when the tiny bit of skin rubs across the glans rather than direct contact. I would like to have this mentioned in this article that foreskin restoration may help men who have trouble. This would also help end male genital mutilation whereby infant males have their genitals cut without their consent (impossible since they are infants).

see this paragraph:

"Premature ejaculation. Lakshmanan & Prakash (1980) report that the foreskin impinges against the corona glandis during coitus.15 The foreskin, therefore, tends to protect the corona glandis from direct stimulation by the vagina of the female partner during coitus. The corona is the most highly innervated part of the glans penis.19 Zwang argues that removal of the foreskin allows direct stimulation of the corona glandis and this may cause premature ejaculation in some males.32 O'Hara & O'Hara (1999) report more premature ejaculation in circumcised male partners.41 The presence of the foreskin, therefore, may make it easier to avoid premature ejaculation, while its absence would make it more difficult to avoid premature ejaculation. Masood et al. report that circumcision is more likely to worsen premature ejaculation than improve it.64 The Australian Study of Health and Relationships found that "26% of circumcised men but 22% of uncircumcised men reported reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year."65 Kim & Pang (2006) reported decreased ejaculation latency time in circumcised men but the decrease was not considered statistically significant.66

Inability to ejaculate or delayed ejaculation. While some circumcised males may suffer from a tendency toward premature ejaculation, others find that they have great difficulty in ejaculating.50 The nerves in the foreskin and ridged band are stimulated by stretching,18 57 amongst other movements. If those nerves are not present, Money (1983) argues that excision of these stretch receptors by circumcision may make ejaculation take longer.18. Some circumcised males may have to resort to prolonged and aggressive thrusting to achieve orgasm.40 49 Shen et al. (2004) reported that 32.6 percent of the men in his study reported prolonged intercourse after circumcision.59 Senkul et al. (2004) reported an appreciable increase in ejaculatory latency time (time to ejaculate).60 Thorvaldsen & Meyhoff (2005) reported that circumcised males have more difficulty with ejaculation and orgasm.63 Kim & Pang (2006) reported that circumcised men have more difficulty with masturbation.66" http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ areseepee 10 September 2007

[edit] A disorder?

In the greater scheme of things, perhaps it was highly advantageous to the species in some way for primitive man to efficiently be able to ejaculate. Only when it is placed in the context of a sexual relationship does it seem to turn into a disorder. -Rolypolyman 14:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I see it exactly as rolypolyman. Early ejaculation makes perfect sense in an evolutionary way. If 40% of men have it, then one could also say, that a big nose is a defect, or brown hair. We should not simplye repeat that PE is a medical disorder. It is simply a nuisance in a relationship. It is more social than medical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannivenice (talk • contribs) 11:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Even evolutionarily, couldn't you still make the argument that a man who suffers from PE is less likely to enjoy or have as much sex (especially when in a relationship situation, due to the depression the situation creates) as a man who does not suffer from PE? Thus, PE can easily get in the way of reproductive function, and it is then properly termed a disorder. How many jokes (in American culture) are out there involving a lack of desire for sleeping with someone with PE? Insensitive though they may be, there certainly seem to be lots of them (especially on sit-coms), showing PE directly prohibiting reproductive opportunities. Even if you want to relegate it to the realm of social disorder, it's still a social disorder with reproductive repercussions. 64.89.151.114 (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] culture-bound

this is culture-bound, not a real illness. No animal has voluntary control over ejaculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.151 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

New definition by IISM(International Society for Sexual Medicine) mentioning time limit is to be announced this Saturday. [1] It can be included in lead section. Xzoiecxokws (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)