Background The ejaculation latency (ELT) criterion for men with premature ejaculation (PE), including its 2 major subtypes of lifelong and acquired, relies heavily on expert opinion, yet such information represents only one source of data for this determination; furthermore, information regarding ELTs for PE within specific subgroups of men (eg, gay, bisexual) has been lacking. Aim To obtain data regarding men's lived experiences and expectations regarding typical ejaculation, ideal ejaculation, and PE and (for men) self-reported ejaculatory latencies during partnered sex across a variety a groups, including men vs women (ie, sexual partners of men), men with and without PE, and straight vs gay/bisexual men. Methods We recruited 1,065 men and sexual partners of men, asking them to estimate typical ejaculation, ideal ejaculation, and PE and (for men) self-latencies through an online survey posted on social media. Demographics, sexual identity, and sexual response data were also collected. Results Typical and self-reported ELTs were closely aligned with those reported in the literature, with ideal ELTs generally longer than typical ELTs. Median PE ELTs were consistently estimated around 1.5 min, with nearly all subgroups—men vs women; straight vs gay; PE and non-PE men—showing alignment on this criterion. Men with lifelong PE did not differ from men with acquired PE in either their PE ELT estimation or their self-reported ELT. Clinical Implications The data support the idea of extending the latency cutoff for establishing a PE diagnosis beyond the current 1-minute threshold. Strengths & Limitations A large sample size drawn from a multinational population powered the study, whereas the use of social media for recruitment and lack of inclusion of lesbian and asexual individuals may have missed relevant data from some who have had sexual experience with men. Conclusion Straight and nonstraight men do not differ in their ELT estimations. In addition, the use of different ELT criteria for lifelong vs acquired PE may be unnecessary.

“Ejaculatory control” and “bother/distress” are key criteria for diagnosing men with premature ejaculation (PE), yet compared with ejaculatory latency (EL), these constructs have received only minimal attention. In addition, they have not been characterized in men having different sexual orientations or subtypes of PE. This study aimed to characterize relationships among ejaculatory control, bother/distress, and EL; to assess differences across men having different sexual orientations, PE status, and PE subtypes (i.e., lifelong vs. acquired); and to determine the importance of ejaculatory control to men’s sexual partners. In total, 1071 men and sexual partners of men rated their ejaculatory control and bother/distress and estimated their EL; these measures were compared across sexual orientation, PE status, PE subtype, and male and female partners of men. Results revealed a monotonic though slightly curvilinear relationship between ejaculatory control and bother/distress. These PE criteria differed significantly between PE and non-PE men, to a lesser extent between gay and straight men, and not at all between men having lifelong vs. acquired PE. Female and male partners of men affirmed the importance of ejaculatory control during partnered sex, indicating lack of control as a potential reason for ending a relationship.

Criteria for premature ejaculation (PE) were established using Western‐based samples, yet these criteria are applied worldwide for its diagnosis. This study (a) determined whether men from various world regions differ/agree on their views of ejaculation latency (ELT) and their perceptions of ejaculatory control and bother/distress, the three criteria for PE, and (b) compared PE and non‐PE men across worldwide regions on these measures. 1,065 participants were recruited via social media to respond to a survey about men's typical, ideal and PE ELTs, about their own ELT, and about perceptions of ejaculatory control and bother/distress related to PE. Responses from men from four worldwide regions were compared to a reference group of North American/European men, and PE men were compared with non‐PE men across three world regions. Results showed that most world region groups showed similarity in ELT estimations. The Sub‐Saharan group focused more heavily on the importance of ejaculatory control. Both ELT and ejaculatory control differed between PE and non‐PE groups in all regions assessed. In conclusion, perceived ELTs and ejaculatory control show substantial consistency across world regions despite geo‐cultural variations and traditions. Such findings argue for the universality of the concepts of ELT, control and bother/distress related to PE.

Background Criteria for delayed ejaculation (DE) rely on a long ejaculation latency (EL) time, lack of control/advancement regarding ejaculation, and associated bother/distress; yet, few studies have investigated these criteria in men who indicate the desire to ejaculate sooner during partnered sex. Aim To help standardize criteria for DE by better understanding characteristics of men who desire to ejaculate sooner during partnered sex in terms of their EL, reported ejaculatory control, and level of bother/distress, as well as their perceptions of typical and ideal ELs for men in general and of ELs for men with premature ejaculation (PE). Methods A total of 572 men recruited through social media responded to an online survey regarding their EL, as well as typical, ideal, and PE ELs of men in general. They also rated (i) their ability to control and/or advance ejaculation and (ii) their level of associated bother/distress. 4 comparison groups were then established: men with probable DE (with [DE1] and without [DE2] ejaculatory control issues), a reference group with no ejaculatory disorders, and men who identified as having PE. Outcomes To demonstrate differences in EL, ejaculatory control, and bother/distress between men with delayed ejaculation and the control and PE reference groups. Results ELs for men with probable DE were twice as long as those with no ejaculatory disorders. When probable DE men were further subdivided into DE2 and DE1, differences were greater for the DE2 group. DE2 men also differed significantly from the reference group on ejaculatory control/advancement but not on bother/distress. Both DE and reference groups differed from the PE group. Clinical Implications Using both EL and ejaculatory control are useful in distinguishing men with delayed ejaculation from men without delayed ejaculation. Strengths & Limitations A sizable sample drawn from a multinational population powered the study, whereas the use of social media for recruitment limited the generalizability of findings. Conclusion Both EL and ejaculatory control differentiate men with probable DE from a control reference group having no ejaculatory disorders. Differences in bother/distress did not emerge as significant. Implications for diagnosing men with DE are presented.