Canadian and American Sex Therapists' Perceptions of Normal and Abnormal Ejaculatory Latencies: How Long Should Intercourse Last?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lay public perceptions about how long intercourse should last are discrepant from objective data on ejaculatory latencies. This may be problematic as the subjective interpretation of latency is a factor related to perceived distress with length of intercourse. AIM: Quantify the opinion of expert sex therapists as to what are "adequate,""desirable,""too short," and "too long" intravaginal ejaculatory latencies. Method. A random sample of members of the Society for Sex Therapy and Research in the United States and Canada was surveyed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Intravaginal ejaculatory latency, in minutes, for four different conditions: coitus that lasts an amount of time that is "adequate,""desirable,""too short," and "too long." Results. The interquartile range for the sex therapists' opinions regarding an "adequate" length for ejaculatory latency was from 3 to 7 minutes; "desirable" from 7 to 13 minutes; "too short" from 1 to 2 minutes; "too long" from 10 to 30 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Therapists' beliefs about ejaculatory latencies were consistent with objective data on ejaculatory latency and were not affected by therapist demographic characteristics such as sex or experience. These results suggest that the average sex therapist believes that intercourse that lasts 3 to 13 minutes is normative and not prima facie worthy of clinical concern. Dissemination to the public of these results may change lay expectations for intravaginal ejaculatory latency and prevent distress. These results may also be beneficial to couples in treatment for sexual problems by normalizing expectations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".