Similarities and differences between men with self-reported lifelong and acquired difficulty reaching ejaculation.

Men with delayed ejaculation are often categorized into lifelong and acquired subtypes, yet little is known about similarities and differences between these groups. In this study, we examined whether delayed ejaculation subtypes differed on various demographic, diagnostic, relationship, and sexual activity/satisfaction variables. We drew 140 men reporting moderately-severe to severe difficulty reaching ejaculation during partnered sex (occurring during ≥75% of sexual events) from a convenience sample of over 3000 respondents obtained through an opt-in, multinational, online survey. Respondents were further classified as having lifelong or acquired delayed ejaculation based on self-report. A series of alpha-adjusted analyses of covariance were then made between subtypes on subsets of variables. In addition, the extent to which two potential confounding variables, age and erectile function, might have been responsible for subtype differences was explored. Results indicated that compared with men with acquired delayed ejaculation, men with lifelong delayed ejaculation were younger (28.6 vs 44.7 years, η2p = 0.30, P < 0.001), reported greater delayed ejaculation symptomology (4.31 vs 3.98, P < 0.01, η2p = 0.02), were less likely to attribute their problem to a medical issue or medication (1.7% vs 12.2%, P < 0.05), and more likely to masturbate for anxiety/distress reduction than for pleasure. In contrast, delayed ejaculation subtype differences related to masturbation frequency, pornography use during masturbation, and condom use disappeared when age and erectile functioning differences were statistically controlled. Overall, lifelong and acquired delayed ejaculation subtypes showed more similarities than differences. Findings worthy of clinical note were the lower level of endorsement of medical issues/medication by the lifelong subtype, their higher level of delayed ejaculation symptomology, and-despite a high level of anxiety/distress reported by both groups-their particular vulnerability to anxiety/distress as indicated by their strong motive to masturbate for anxiety/distress reduction (44.3% vs 19.6%, P < 0.05). Other differences between delayed ejaculation subtypes were better explained by group differences in age and erectile function than by subtype membership per se.

Characteristics of men who report symptoms of delayed ejaculation: providing support for empirically derived diagnostic criteria.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the demographic, sexual, and relationship characteristics of men with symptoms of delayed ejaculation (DE). AIM: To identify differences between men with and without DE symptomology to validate face-valid diagnostic criteria and to identify various functional correlates of DE. METHODS: A total of 2679 men meeting inclusion criteria were partitioned into groups with and without DE symptomology on the basis of their self-reported "difficulty reaching ejaculation/orgasm during partnered sex." Men were then compared on a broad array of demographic and relationship variables, as well as sexual response variables assessed during partnered sex and masturbation. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included the identified differences between men with and without DE symptomology. RESULTS: Men with DE-whether having comorbid erectile dysfunction or not-differed from men without DE on 5 face-valid variables related to previously proposed diagnostic criteria for DE, including ones related to ejaculation latency (P < .001); self-efficacy related to reaching ejaculation, as assessed by the percentage of episodes reaching ejaculation during partnered sex (P < .001); and negative consequences of the impairment, including "bother/distress" and (lack of) "orgasmic pleasure/sexual satisfaction" (P < .001). All such differences were associated with medium to large effect sizes. In addition, men showed differences on a number of functional correlates of DE, including anxiety, relationship satisfaction, frequency of partnered sex and masturbation, and level of symptomology during partnered sex vs masturbation (P < .001). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Face-valid criteria for the diagnosis of DE were statistically verified, and functional correlates of DE relevant to guiding and focusing treatment were identified. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: In this first comprehensive analysis of its kind, we have demonstrated widespread differences on sexual and relationship variables relevant to the diagnosis of DE and to its functional correlates between men with and without DE symptomology during partnered sex. Limitations include participant recruitment through social media, which likely biased the sample; the use of estimated rather than clocked ejaculation latencies; and the fact that differences between men with acquired and lifelong DE were not investigated. CONCLUSION: This well-powered multinational study provides strong empirical support for several face-valid measures for the diagnosis of DE, with a number of explanatory and control covariates that may help shed light on the lived experiences of men with DE and suggest focus areas for treatment. Whether or not the DE men had comorbid erectile dysfunction had little impact on the differences with men having normal ejaculatory functioning.