What works for premature ejaculation?

[BearWithMe]

This claim is simply not true. There are animals masturbating and there are species like the bonobo which use intercourse in a way that clearly fits your characterization and lasts on average 13 seconds.

Are you rationalizing your poor sexual performance right now?

 

[Atman]

Are you rationalizing your poor sexual performance right now?

No, I simply try to push back against a recent trend in society which pathologizes healthy male behaviour.
And in contrast to you, I was able to give actual arguments for my position.

 

[BearWithMe]

No, I simply try to push back against a recent trend in society which pathologizes healthy male behaviour.
And in contrast to you, I was able to give actual arguments for my position.

What does your partner think about that

 

[youngsinatra]

I am researching the methylation cycle at the moment and I am wondering if undermethylation could be a causative part in the PE condition?
Undermethylation is associated with high histamines and low serotonin which would make the perfect recipe for ejaculating quickly.

Through my experiments to fix my past histamine intolerance, I actually made myself histapenic/overmethylated over the span of a few months and I was able to have sex really long. Before that I couldn‘t even perform 30s. Now I have different problems with that and I need to find balance there, because overmethylation really mess with mental states.
But maybe you can find value in exploring this area.

 

[TheBeard]

What does that "hacking" even mean? They figured out it was pleasurable to have sex and did so more often then they needed to reproduce? You mean like all other animals do too?
Or are you suggesting that women started selecting men for longer intercourses to implement a new "vitality" sign? This makes also no sense, since women had next to no say in terms of mate selection for most of human history. In addition to that there was no contraception, so at the very first time when she could detect "long" or "short" intercourse, it would already be too late for mate selection.


"Humans are soooo different from animals, therefore opposite laws apply." Very convincing.


"Humans are soooo different from animals, therefore opposite laws apply." Again.

Where does that magic number come from? Who defines the "optimal duration"? And please don't tell me survey studies which are known to be soaked with bias towards the current Zeitgeist.

Why would you think that? From Ray's work I would expect the opposite. It's like with reaction times or the Achilles tendon reflex or that children can go fast to sleep as well as stay up fast. Literally every principle he talks about I can think of points in the opposite direction.

So all animals around the globe are constantly under heavy fear without a tiny break? Even domestic animals like dogs and horses?

I like how you think

 

[mariantos]

Or are you suggesting that women started selecting men for longer intercourses to implement a new "vitality" sign? This makes also no sense, since women had next to no say in terms of mate selection for most of human history.

I'm sorry, but you're so wrong.
Do you have any idea how many wars were started by women, obviously through men? You seriously underestimate the female sex. Women have had and have more than one word to say, regardless of the situation in which they were or are.

 

[Jerkboy]

Relaxation. Simple as that.

Premature ejaculation is evolutionary tool to prevent us from being eaten by tiger while f***g.

When you feel fear, you will either lose your erection or prematurely ejaculate, so you can focus on protecting your life ASAP.

Exactly. It is stress hormones. People with high metabolisms tend to also have higher stress hormones. When I was hypothyroid I could last forever. Hypothyroid people have no stress hormones. That is why they are fatigued. Too much stress hormones will also cause fatigue through serotonin. Your body has no fuel to burn so it has to slow the metabolism. It is a different type of fatigue.

That is where Ray Peat is wrong. High metabolism means more stress hormones. Which yes if they go too high by not eating enough or specific food that helps lower them, you will run into problems. Lowering them to nothing you will also feel like ***t.

 

[Atman]

I'm sorry, but you're so wrong.
Do you have any idea how many wars were started by women, obviously through men? You seriously underestimate the female sex. Women have had and have more than one word to say, regardless of the situation in which they were or are.

What have wars which were supposedly fought over women have to do with what I have said?

 

[Eberhardt]

What have wars which were supposedly fought over women have to do with what I have said?

I try not to meddle in discussions but seriously?! I think your reading of his message says it all. He said by women and you just made that into "over women" . Very impressed by the regard you have for females. Its no wonder u think its no problem that they sont get sexual satisfaction due to short sex. Btw u should look up the duration of pigs orgasms

 

[mariantos]

What have wars which were supposedly fought over women have to do with what I have said?

Please be kind and read carefully the quote I brought to the forefront in the previous post.
You made a written statement in which you mentioned that women had almost no say in the selection of partners for most of human history, and I offered you a counter-argument through the example presented. You don't seem to be unable to read your own writing, or to make a simple correlation, but you still wanted to pretend you didn't understand.

 

[Eberhardt]

I might add to that that it probably not true that they did choose in a more direct manner as well. The level of equallity in mate- selection in a speicies is largely observable in sexual dimorphism, meaning the smaller one sex is compared to the other, the less the smaller sex has to say. Humans are showing a low level of sexual dimorpism with males beeing only a bit larger and only statistically so. Meaning it is only slightly male dominated partner choice in our past :)

Please be kind and read carefully the quote I brought to the forefront in the previous post.
You made a written statement in which you mentioned that women had almost no say in the selection of partners for most of human history, and I offered you a counter-argument through the example presented. You don't seem to be unable to read your own writing, or to make a simple correlation, but you still wanted to pretend you didn't understand.

 

[Atman]

I try not to meddle in discussions but seriously?! I think your reading of his message says it all. He said by women and you just made that into "over women" . Very impressed by the regard you have for females. Its no wonder u think its no problem that they sont get sexual satisfaction due to short sex. Btw u should look up the duration of pigs orgasms

Yes, I missread that, but that does still not make an argument for how the average woman was supposed to be able to select for longer intercourse.

I will also repeat my initial question regarding the total arbitary framing of the phenomenon: Who defines the optimal duration of sex?
If the man ejaculates before the woman has an orgasm, has the man a premature ejaculation or has the woman a delayed orgasm? Once you decouple the act of intercourse from its biological function, the interpretation has no meaningful reference.

Please be kind and read carefully the quote I brought to the forefront in the previous post.
You made a written statement in which you mentioned that women had almost no say in the selection of partners for most of human history, and I offered you a counter-argument through the example presented. You don't seem to be unable to read your own writing, or to make a simple correlation, but you still wanted to pretend you didn't understand.

I said: "Or are you suggesting that women started selecting men for longer intercourses to implement a new "vitality" sign? This makes also no sense, since women had next to no say in terms of mate selection for most of human history. In addition to that there was no contraception, so at the very first time when she could detect "long" or "short" intercourse, it would already be too late for mate selection."
Explain to me how some aristocratic women starting wars makes my statement invalid. Where am I not seeing a simple correlation? It seems like you just got triggered by the "women had almost no say" part while ignoring what argument I was trying to refute.

The level of equallity in mate- selection in a speicies is largely observable in sexual dimorphism, meaning the smaller one sex is compared to the other, the less the smaller sex has to say. Humans are showing a low level of sexual dimorpism with males beeing only a bit larger and only statistically so. Meaning it is only slightly male dominated partner choice in our past :)

You are ignoring the most defining human organ and its functions. Sexual dimorphism is not just visual appearance of body parts. I would go so far as to make the bold claim and say that humans are among the species with the highest degree of sexual differentiation. Of course that would be next to impossible to quantify. But I guess you would just take out a ruler, measure ratios of body parts and call me disproven.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Since SSRIs are the substance with best published data and also anecdotes behind it, but no established MOA one could try 2 feasible mimicry.

Either when it is SSRIs Allopreg-increase effect you could nie try Idealabs new product

Or maybe higher dose Methylene Blue.
It both decreases Prolactin but also temporarily increases serotonin if that’s the mechanism of SSRIs

 

[Eberhardt]

Yes, I missread that, but that does still not make an argument for how the average woman was supposed to be able to select for longer intercourse.

I will also repeat my initial question regarding the total arbitary framing of the phenomenon: Who defines the optimal duration of sex?
If the man ejaculates before the woman has an orgasm, has the man a premature ejaculation or has the woman a delayed orgasm? Once you decouple the act of intercourse from its biological function, the interpretation has no meaningful reference.

I said: "Or are you suggesting that women started selecting men for longer intercourses to implement a new "vitality" sign? This makes also no sense, since women had next to no say in terms of mate selection for most of human history. In addition to that there was no contraception, so at the very first time when she could detect "long" or "short" intercourse, it would already be too late for mate selection."
Explain to me how some aristocratic women starting wars makes my statement invalid. Where am I not seeing a simple correlation? It seems like you just got triggered by the "women had almost no say" part while ignoring what argument I was trying to refute.

You are ignoring the most defining human organ and its functions. Sexual dimorphism is not just visual appearance of body parts. I would go so far as to make the bold claim and say that humans are among the species with the highest degree of sexual differentiation. Of course that would be next to impossible to quantify. But I guess you would just take out a ruler, measure ratios of body parts and call me disproven.

I am not sure we will achieve anything but since you were respectful and gave arguments I will try to reply in a more strictly argumentative manner, The way a woman would select for longer intercourse is staying with a male that satisfy her sexual. I would belive since we are very social animals compared to most other species combines with a very sophisticated social hierarchy (disregarding any discussion of the hierachical or not nature of "natural" humans), we also value bonding a lot. I think its safe to say from a human point of view that bonding is just as important procreation for humans. In such a situation which can be speculated to be influenced by mans very care-needing ofspring compared to other species, making single mothers (in nature I mean like living all by yourself in the jungle) quite useless. All this would be some factors making the social connection aspect of sex influencal. IF and only IF longer intercourse is natural it would also be a marker of health. And it would make couples more stable potentially thus favouring the survivia of offspring.

Who defines optimal? that depends on the definition of optimal. Optimal for what? From a health perspective that would be any length that is an indication of good health which doesnt really make us able to decide if that would be long or short. But from a bonding perspective it is reasonable to think that mutual sexual satisfaction is more optimal. After all their most be areason for the orgasmic reflex's precense in woman and very few biologist now belive it is a residue in females from male orgasm. Also sexual duration varies a lot between species. Pigs as I mentioned can have 40 min orgasms.

I belive though you are right in the fact that just as many men have a bit premature ejaculation equally many women has a delayed one. That is not even very controversial as the magazines abounds with orgasmtips for women, On the other hand women also seems more naturally equipped for multiple orgasms- wether that is due to multipel partners in a row or with one partner.

I think the warmaking part is a sidetrack though and it is more a queston of what I percive as an underestimation of women but not so relevant to the subject of sex. It is also worth noting that the whole modern civilization thing is quite abnormal during human history . Most of the time we where hunter-gatherers and in the societies that has been studied the last 200 years of hunter-gatherers the women definatly have a strong say in most of them. Of course there are extreme examples like the Achee in southamerica where women being kidnapped and raped is the most common way of getting a partner, but in general this is not the pattern. Rather the relative equality in such societies between sexes are rather famous in anthropology, withou romanticizing that kind of society from my side. And even further back it has surfaced that among neanderthals f.ex women where as involved in big game hunting as men an it seems the men was more moving around while the women had charge of family (though that is uncertain but based on the patterns of genetic spreading surfacing the last years). All in all again it seems like women had a lot to say about this, Also we must alllow for the fact that women might not have been faithful to one partner even if she "Officially" was with him and these other partneres would also lead to offspring without contraception presumably BUT it is not so easy that the first time a woman has sex she automatically becomes pregnant. ANd also thath situation is most relevant for the first child of a father with a woman not the following one's But more importantly even if we dont know exactly when at least for many hundred thousands years women have unlike other primates have "hidden ovulation" making it unlikely that the first intercourse would make her pregnant. Statistically asuming she always got pregnant on the first ovulation due to phantastic health, it would be 14 days of sex on average before it happend on ovulation. That would live plenty of time ,

I think labeling it as triggerd by your statement is just away to try to gain power in the discussion by attaching me with the label of over-sensitivty, but I will readily admit that I found your attitude towards women in general provocative. I do not see that as a weekness but a sane reaction. But as I said since you basically respond with tact I answer with arguments even though I am not enamoured by your attitude. I excpect no applause for this just clarifying.

On the question of dimorphism I am not bringing out a ruler I am bringing out a question - in what way are you implying that humans have a high level of sexual dimorphism. At least this is a very contrary stand to most biologist so I would like to hear what you think about this. Both structurally and size-wise the human brain have a low level of sexual dimorhism compared to species that is defined as high in sexual dimorphsim, by the same scientific milieu that states that human dimorphism is low. And since low dimorphism means more equality sexually, I need to have a good reason for you why the generally accepted view here is wrong.

Finally I would say maybe optimal should be viewed from a pragmatic standpoint. That which contributes most to the species survival . And if bonding is important for that and duration increases bonding then optimal would be the most bonding with the fewest side effects- disregarding if long or short duration is a sign of health. I am tempted to say though that those with good vital signs and a long life, maybe also less affected by modern social standards would be a good place to start. And they tend not to come after two minutes. (I here forgeo all discussion of the pleasurability for men in long or short sexual acts) There has been research on this in tribes and it seems like the average there is not so different from the west - just fewer outliers. . between 9 mintues and 1 hour depending of time of day , age and so on. I am sure some have 2 minute sex as well but it seems more like a refelction of western duration but with fewer complications and generally more ease though the ease is more discussable as it is more a question of truthfull reporting and expectations then the timing as they have actually timed it with watches or other measurements.

I appreciate that it is worth discussing how the standards are set though I dont agree with the arguments and not at all with the attitude. I hope some of this clarifies some main points leading to my conclusions about the subject

 

[Atman]

I am not sure we will achieve anything but since you were respectful and gave arguments I will try to reply in a more strictly argumentative manner, The way a woman would select for longer intercourse is staying with a male that satisfy her sexual. I would belive since we are very social animals compared to most other species combines with a very sophisticated social hierarchy (disregarding any discussion of the hierachical or not nature of "natural" humans), we also value bonding a lot. I think its safe to say from a human point of view that bonding is just as important procreation for humans. In such a situation which can be speculated to be influenced by mans very care-needing ofspring compared to other species, making single mothers (in nature I mean like living all by yourself in the jungle) quite useless. All this would be some factors making the social connection aspect of sex influencal. IF and only IF longer intercourse is natural it would also be a marker of health. And it would make couples more stable potentially thus favouring the survivia of offspring.

Who defines optimal? that depends on the definition of optimal. Optimal for what? From a health perspective that would be any length that is an indication of good health which doesnt really make us able to decide if that would be long or short. But from a bonding perspective it is reasonable to think that mutual sexual satisfaction is more optimal. After all their most be areason for the orgasmic reflex's precense in woman and very few biologist now belive it is a residue in females from male orgasm. Also sexual duration varies a lot between species. Pigs as I mentioned can have 40 min orgasms.

I belive though you are right in the fact that just as many men have a bit premature ejaculation equally many women has a delayed one. That is not even very controversial as the magazines abounds with orgasmtips for women, On the other hand women also seems more naturally equipped for multiple orgasms- wether that is due to multipel partners in a row or with one partner.

I think the warmaking part is a sidetrack though and it is more a queston of what I percive as an underestimation of women but not so relevant to the subject of sex. It is also worth noting that the whole modern civilization thing is quite abnormal during human history . Most of the time we where hunter-gatherers and in the societies that has been studied the last 200 years of hunter-gatherers the women definatly have a strong say in most of them. Of course there are extreme examples like the Achee in southamerica where women being kidnapped and raped is the most common way of getting a partner, but in general this is not the pattern. Rather the relative equality in such societies between sexes are rather famous in anthropology, withou romanticizing that kind of society from my side. And even further back it has surfaced that among neanderthals f.ex women where as involved in big game hunting as men an it seems the men was more moving around while the women had charge of family (though that is uncertain but based on the patterns of genetic spreading surfacing the last years). All in all again it seems like women had a lot to say about this, Also we must alllow for the fact that women might not have been faithful to one partner even if she "Officially" was with him and these other partneres would also lead to offspring without contraception presumably BUT it is not so easy that the first time a woman has sex she automatically becomes pregnant. ANd also thath situation is most relevant for the first child of a father with a woman not the following one's But more importantly even if we dont know exactly when at least for many hundred thousands years women have unlike other primates have "hidden ovulation" making it unlikely that the first intercourse would make her pregnant. Statistically asuming she always got pregnant on the first ovulation due to phantastic health, it would be 14 days of sex on average before it happend on ovulation. That would live plenty of time ,

I think labeling it as triggerd by your statement is just away to try to gain power in the discussion by attaching me with the label of over-sensitivty, but I will readily admit that I found your attitude towards women in general provocative. I do not see that as a weekness but a sane reaction. But as I said since you basically respond with tact I answer with arguments even though I am not enamoured by your attitude. I excpect no applause for this just clarifying.

On the question of dimorphism I am not bringing out a ruler I am bringing out a question - in what way are you implying that humans have a high level of sexual dimorphism. At least this is a very contrary stand to most biologist so I would like to hear what you think about this. Both structurally and size-wise the human brain have a low level of sexual dimorhism compared to species that is defined as high in sexual dimorphsim, by the same scientific milieu that states that human dimorphism is low. And since low dimorphism means more equality sexually, I need to have a good reason for you why the generally accepted view here is wrong.

Finally I would say maybe optimal should be viewed from a pragmatic standpoint. That which contributes most to the species survival . And if bonding is important for that and duration increases bonding then optimal would be the most bonding with the fewest side effects- disregarding if long or short duration is a sign of health. I am tempted to say though that those with good vital signs and a long life, maybe also less affected by modern social standards would be a good place to start. And they tend not to come after two minutes. (I here forgeo all discussion of the pleasurability for men in long or short sexual acts) There has been research on this in tribes and it seems like the average there is not so different from the west - just fewer outliers. . between 9 mintues and 1 hour depending of time of day , age and so on. I am sure some have 2 minute sex as well but it seems more like a refelction of western duration but with fewer complications and generally more ease though the ease is more discussable as it is more a question of truthfull reporting and expectations then the timing as they have actually timed it with watches or other measurements.

I appreciate that it is worth discussing how the standards are set though I dont agree with the arguments and not at all with the attitude. I hope some of this clarifies some main points leading to my conclusions about the subject

I respect that you put in the time and wrote that long answer, but I don't have the time to address every statement of yours.
I think that if you have to rely on shaky extrapolations of anthopological studies about neanderthals, historical exceptions and conclusions from overly general statements like "bonding is important in humans, therefore long intercourses" to defend your stance, it speaks volumes about the likelihood of that hypothesis.
Instead if you just take the most simple facts and observations which can be made by everyone in the present day without resorting to bringing up some highly specialized and questionable fringe science, it makes complete sense that males tend to orgasm quicker than females and that this is no pathological state of things.
And even if you assume that there is some validity to it, why would it then be framed almost exclusively from a male perspective? That alone makes it likely to be a politcally loaded narrative from our (sex-crazed) popculture, which has little to do with the search for truth.

I will add just one more line of thought which I didn't bring up before and which can be derived from commonplace observations:
Sexual arousal is highly psychological in nature and phyical stimulation is only one factor for an orgasm. In particular, the sexual arousal rises more quickly the more attractive the sexual partner is perceived by the other. This is true for both men and women. Assuming that perceived attractiveness strongly correlates with health/vitality, which should not be far-fetched, it follows that more healthy sexual partners tend to reach climax quicker and that quick orgasms are a sign of health. This is confirmed in a hilarious manner by one of the common first line of defense measures taken by men who "suffer" from "PE", in which they try to think about an unattractive partner during intercourse to reduce their level of arousal and to thereby prolong the time until climax.

On the sexual dimorphism point, I will have to agree that in the established way of quantification, humans have a low sexual dimorphism compared to many other species. But I think this perspective in which they quantify can be seen as arbitrary since it focuses on the physical appearance and ratios of organs. When it comes to the brain this might be missleading given our current level of understanding of how the brain works. When you look at how fundamentally different women and men perceive the world and act within it, it sounds shortsighted to call it low sexual dimorphism just because we can't point the finger to a specific brain region which should have to explain the observed differences in behavior.

 

[Eberhardt]

I respect that you put in the time and wrote that long answer, but I don't have the time to address every statement of yours.
I think that if you have to rely on shaky extrapolations of anthopological studies about neanderthals, historical exceptions and conclusions from overly general statements like "bonding is important in humans, therefore long intercourses" to defend your stance, it speaks volumes about the likelihood of that hypothesis.
Instead if you just take the most simple facts and observations which can be made by everyone in the present day without resorting to bringing up some highly specialized and questionable fringe science, it makes complete sense that males tend to orgasm quicker than females and that this is no pathological state of things.
And even if you assume that there is some validity to it, why would it then be framed almost exclusively from a male perspective? That alone makes it likely to be a politcally loaded narrative from our (sex-crazed) popculture, which has little to do with the search for truth.

I will add just one more line of thought which I didn't bring up before and which can be derived from commonplace observations:
Sexual arousal is highly psychological in nature and phyical stimulation is only one factor for an orgasm. In particular, the sexual arousal rises more quickly the more attractive the sexual partner is perceived by the other. This is true for both men and women. Assuming that perceived attractiveness strongly correlates with health/vitality, which should not be far-fetched, it follows that more healthy sexual partners tend to reach climax quicker and that quick orgasms are a sign of health. This is confirmed in a hilarious manner by one of the common first line of defense measures taken by men who "suffer" from "PE", in which they try to think about an unattractive partner during intercourse to reduce their level of arousal and to thereby prolong the time until climax.

On the sexual dimorphism point, I will have to agree that in the established way of quantification, humans have a low sexual dimorphism compared to many other species. But I think this perspective in which they quantify can be seen as arbitrary since it focuses on the physical appearance and ratios of organs. When it comes to the brain this might be missleading given our current level of understanding of how the brain works. When you look at how fundamentally different women and men perceive the world and act within it, it sounds shortsighted to call it low sexual dimorphism just because we can't point the finger to a specific brain region which should have to explain the observed differences in behavior.

I appreciate the long answer. I also can not argue detailedly for all of it, but mainly I think I can not make you find my arguments convincing. We can look at facts but the interpretation and how convincing they feel to you is a matter of personal judgement :) I think in the complete opposite way of you, maybe in the same way you say about everyday observabl facts. Generalized and observalbe facts like bonding is important is crucial to evaluating human sexuallity. To view human sexuallity detached from human social behaviour when we clearly dont have sex only to procrate sound futile. And even the hidden ovulaton tells us that we dont have sex only for procreation. I am not saying you say we do. But to me its hard to find an arguemtn for how bonding then would not be important. And wether one belives man to be very monogamous or not we at least surely bond more then say cats. That you find brining in other branches of science suspect I find to be just fault reasoning. If we are agreeing that the field of human sexuality is a politically laden one, then surely brining in other branches of science is not a weakness in argumentation but a strenght so one can see if the agree. And to call anthropology a fringe science is just plainly flase. Probably more researchers work on that then many of the highly specialized fields discussed on this forum. And if one is scientifical the burden of proof should not be on size of field but on wether the sciense is proparly performed and reliable. I think that using a stopwatch is pretty measruable and not up for that much debate, as say an interview where people are asked about their habits which is indeed notoriously unreliable.

Secondly you make a connection between short intercourse and easy arousel. That is proovably false. Premature ejaculation (wherever you draw the line for how quick would be premature) is not correspondant with level of arousel, but the ability to contain that level of arousel. A person can be hardly interested at all and still come after 30 seconds. The fact that thinking about less attractive people reportedly can work, just means that it lowers the arousel level. Say you have a bucket that can only hold 2 liters of water then keeping it at 1 liter would stop it from spilling. Another person with a 10litre bucket could though easily contain 5 liters. This is also broadly accepted in sciense that these two does not go together. I AM though absolutly agreeing that we have a politically loadad and hypersexuallized popculture. though I find some parts of the world to be much more affected by this then others. Presumably you are living in a more "Infected" area - though that is not ment to devalue your point of view or opinions as it does not affect wether something is true about human sexuallity. I think this is exactly the reason that using everything from history to anthropology to cast some light of it is usefull as it gives us another angle. I could surely have posted lots of hype reserach on human sexuallit that says you are wrong. But the methods are often doubtfull and the bias is strong, and also you wrote that you dont think much of it. Which is fine but makes it even more usefull to use other lines of arguemt. And about the reason for making comparison to neanderthals - human sexuality is a quite old phenomenon and when we can assume that much of human sexual behaviour was shaped in premodern times it makes sense to look at the times where our present traits was probably formed. though I do not find this to be the bearing argument for my position.

Also that the fact of delayed female orgasm is there we dont need to discuss because I already agreed to this. And the examples I gave from social-anthropology and non western societies also shows this. In the cases where we have more reliable info on this matter the problem of a big difference in performence time in men and women is much less pronounced. Also we can see that women with surplus estrogen tend to come either very easily or delayed- Probably in the same way as in men wher both the inability to come and the unsatisfactory short performence seems to happen for mainly the same reasons.

I appreciate that we can agree on the dimorhpism thing. I agree that brain arrangement and thinking pattern should be taken into consideration. I am though astounded that you find the differences to be so large. I find them to be miniscule. Most of the huge differences seem largely culture induced. Now I must be very quick to say I do indeed claim there is real and biological differences in the psyche of women and men, but to say they are of such a magnitude to me sounds absurd. I base this on the lack of neurological proof, as the brain the recent decade has been very thoroughly mapped physically even if we dont understand too well how it works. If the differences is as big as you percive them to be, I find it hard to explain why the differences showing on scans are so comparatively small. Also behavioural analyzis finds so little conclusive in this respect that I find it highly implausible that what you say is right, even if ulitmatly none of us can prove this. I have only tried now to clarify my position and dont necessarily except you to jump ship - but I at least want to point out that the argumentation is not faulty. Actually I find your argumentation also to hold water moslty, argumentatively (allowing for some correction I ment was in place about fringe and what can be deduced from what.), I just find your conclusions from the same facts to be highly unlikely. In the end that is not something that can be discussed - either one finds something convincing or not. I also assume personal experience to be important here and obiously mine and yours are very different. I have continiously through my life the opposite experience, and rather find men and women to be in most resepect more like each other.

Thus the best we can do here is go through the arguements which is what I've tried to do here, and conclude that though I had some arguments to some of what you say, mainly we just disagree on the convinciveness and perception of this. I guess to be fair, as you indicated I took an issue you with your stance origianlly, this is what I mainly have an issue with. That you to me seem to percive women in a way I find very unpleasent. Possibly the same applies in reverse but I dont want to assume things on your part :)

 

[mariantos]

@Eberhardt

I agree with you. Certainly women perceive things differently from men, it may be due to the emotional side that is more developed, while men have a tendency towards rationality, but I do not think there is such a big difference. If their perception of things or the world in general had been so distinct, then coexistence would have been quite difficult from the beginning.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Error - Cookies Turned Off

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

 

[rayban]

i never understand the problem with premature ejaculation.

after you ejaculate just go on and go for the second one, it takes a little longer so you have more fun. you girlfriend would love it.

The problem is it's embarrasing. Also in real PE cases you cum fast even if you go for a 9999th round, you just cum fast period so that's not even a solution.

In my experience i've tried edging, nofap, kegels... it doesn't work. Drugs wise I tried priligy (dapoxetine) and it may give you like 30 extra seconds before involuntary kegels approach where you must stop to not cum (doesn't work with a girl only practicing)

What had a noticeable improvement for me was a topical spray which contains lidocaine and prilocaine. The problem is this spray gives me red spots on the glans which is a nono because you cannot show up with something that may look like an STD, and it stings and caused me shedding of the skin so I dropped it. Unfortunately because this at least gave me 2 minutes without the insane urge to cum.

I have found a cream that has the same numbing compounds so im going to try this cream, and hope that what was causing the redness was not the lidocaine and prilocaine but something on the spray's vehicle. If this doesn't work then im out of ideas.

 

[rayban]

How do you come to that conclusion?? Isnt it gigh prolactin??

I have PE and I've tested normal and high prolactin at times:

Biochemical:

Fasting glycemia: 89 mg/100ml. Range: 70 - 115
Vitamin D (25-OH): 20.2 ng/ml. Range: 30-1 - 100
Vitamin D (1,25): 27 pg/ml. Range: 25 - 66 (in range but low)
Quantiative albumin: 4.2 g/100ml. Range: 3.80 - 5.10

Hormones:

IGF-1: 149 ng/ml. Range: 100.00 - 591.00
Estradiol (E2): 39 pgr/ml. Range in men: < 55
FSH: 2.36 mUI/ml. Range in men: 1 - 12
LH: 3.2 mUI/ml. Range in men: 1 - 7
Prolactin: 40.1 ngr/ml. Range: 2.50 - 16
Progesterone: <0.2 ng/ml. Range in men: 0.1 - 0.6
Total Tetosterone: 4.9 ng/ml. Range in men: 1.60 - 8.50
Free Testosterone: 11.2 pg/ml. Range: 6.60 - 42.50
DHT: 0.27. Range: 0.25 - 0.99
Dehidropiandrosterone: 13.9 ng/ml. Range: 1.40 - 13.50
Delta 4-Androstendione: 5.16 ng/ml. Range: 0.4 - 3.7
SHBG: 28.7 nmol/L. Range: 10.00 - 57.00
ACTH: 68.3 pgr/ml. Range: 7.00 - 63
Fasting cortisol (morning): 301.4 ng/ml. Range: 70.00 - 250
G.H: 1.97 mcg/l. Range: 0.00 - 5.00
Fasting insulin: 5.4 mcUI/ml. Range: 6 - 25

Fractionated Catecholamines:

Adrenalin: 49 pgr/ml. Range: 20 - 85
Noradrenalin: 434 pgr/ml. Range 0 - 420
Dopamin: 25 pgr/ml. Range 10 - 94
3α-Androstanediol glucuronide 7.1 ng/ml. Range: 3.50 - 22
IGFBP-3: (Insuling growing factor binding): 3.35 mcg/ml. Range: 0.9 - 4.7

Thyroids section:

PTH-i: 50.2 pgr/ml. Range: 18.5 - 88
Thyroglobulin: <1 ng/ml. Range: 1.9 - 59.9
Total T3: 1.02 ng/ml. Range: 0.65 - 1.6
Free T3: 6.1 pmol/L. Range 4 - 8.30
Reverse T3: 0.15 ng/ml. Range: 0.10 - 0.35
Total T4: 6.6 mcg/100ml. Range: 4.70 - 9.70
Free T4: 10.2 pg/ml. Range: 9 - 19.50
TSH: 4.17. mcUI/ml. Range: 0.25 - 5

Inmunology:

Antibodies anti-receptor of TSH (TSI): 0.82 mUI/ml. Range: 0.00 - 1.75
Antimicrosomal Antibody (TPO): 75.6 UI/ml. 0 - 12 UI/ml
Antibodies anti-thyroglobulin (TGL): 88.5 UI/ml. Range: 0 - 18

Whenever I've asked how to lower my prolactin I get unclear convoluted answers so I don't know what to do.