A lifespan perspective on lifelong premature ejaculation: unresolved issues and new insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the numerous studies dealing with lifelong premature ejaculation (LPE), significant issues remain unresolved, including the age of onset relative to sexual debut, its constancy or variation over the lifespan, how it is affected by foreplay, and whether it is altered by different types of partnered sexual activities and/or masturbation. Aim: To describe lifespan changes in PE symptomology in men with LPE. METHOD: Using a retrospective-current analysis, from an online sample of 409 men with PE, 160 identified as specifically having LPE. Data regarding PE symptomology-including lack of ejaculatory control, foreplay time and estimated ejaculation latencies (ELs) at sexual debut and currently, and other sexual characteristics-were collected to better describe and understand PE lifespan patterns in this group of men. OUTCOMES: Foreplay and EL comparisons between sexual debut and the present time, as well as EL comparisons across different types of sexual activities, including masturbation. RESULTS: Men with LPE showed strong consistency in foreplay duration and ELs ever since their sexual debut. 77% indicated no change in their PE, 18.6% reported worsening of their PE, and 2% indicated improvement since sexual debut, with only the frequency of partnered sex showing any association with the above patterns. LPE men showed some variation in ELs across different types of partnered sexual activities, and also in comparison with masturbation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Men with LPE show remarkable consistency in their short ELs with the passage of time and across different sexual activities; however, variation in EL does appear to be mildly-moderately linked to different kinds of sexual stimulation in some LPE men. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study is the first of its kind to adopt a retrospective-current strategy to explore lifespan changes in PE symptomology in men with LPE. Limitations may include reliance on recall of events surrounding men's sexual debut, as well as the use of social media to recruit respondents, which likely results in age, education, and socioeconomic status bias. CONCLUSION: Men with LPE show typically normal foreplay duration, along with estimated ELs of 1-2 min, both of which are consistent over their lifespan. Mild to moderate variation in ELs was associated with specific types of sexual activity, including masturbation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".