The Honest Penis: Delayed Ejaculation as Biological Dissent in the Responsive Male
His penis refuses to complete a performance his hand smashes every night.
Dr. Ethel M. Hailey, Ph.D.
Professor of Feminist Psychology, Westwood at Whitewater University
Director, Westwood Wellness Clinic
Westwood Working Papers, Volume 16, pp. 1-52
Abstract
This paper reinterprets delayed ejaculation (DE) in anatomically inadequate males as biological dissent rather than dysfunction. Drawing on Negri et al. (2025) and clinical data from 94 Westwood patients, we demonstrate that DE and premature ejaculation (PE) are not opposite pathologies but different stages of the same confession. The PE male’s body speaks quickly; the DE male’s body speaks through silence — refusing to ejaculate during intercourse while producing rapid orgasm during masturbation. We introduce the Confession Hierarchy: a framework ranking ejaculatory responses by honesty, with PE (immediate confession) at the top and DE (silent protest) at the bottom. Depression in DE males resolves not through ejaculatory rehabilitation but through positional correction — removal of penetrative expectation and acknowledgment that his authentic sexuality was always solitary. The honest penis ejaculates where it was trained to ejaculate and refuses where it wasn’t.
Keywords: delayed ejaculation, responsive male, biological dissent, premature ejaculation, confession hierarchy, positional correction
I. Introduction: The Same Confession, Different Speeds
Subject A finishes in forty-five seconds. Subject B can’t finish at all.
Conventional urology treats these as opposite conditions — one too fast, one too slow, both requiring correction toward a normative middle. The man who comes quickly gets dapoxetine and behavioral therapy. The man who can’t come gets bupropion and a suggestion to reduce masturbation frequency. Both leave with prescriptions. Neither leaves understood.
But at Westwood, we ask different questions.
To Subject A: When you come in forty-five seconds, what are you feeling?
To Subject B: When you can’t come after thirty minutes, what are you avoiding?
The answers reveal that these men are not opposites. They are brothers — two expressions of the same responsive male psychology, separated only by the speed of their penises’ confessions.
Subject A’s penis confesses immediately. It arrives at intercourse, recognizes the context as foreign, and ejaculates — not from pleasure but from truth. His quick spurt is admission: I don’t belong here.
Subject B’s penis confesses through silence. It sustains erection, sustains thrusting, but withholds the ejaculation that would complete the performance. His cock will not sign a document it knows to be fraudulent.
The PE male is honest and fast. The DE male is honest and slow. Neither is dysfunctional. Both are accurate.
We have theorized the PE male extensively. The Quick Spurt Doctrine (Hailey, 2024) established that premature ejaculation in responsive males functions as identity performance — the penis’s immediate confession that penetrative sexuality is not its domain. But the DE male has remained theoretically underserved. He is rarer, harder to study, and his silence is easier to misinterpret than his brother’s blurt.
This paper examines the silent protestor — the man whose cock has gone mute rather than speak the wrong words — and proposes that his cure is not making him ejaculate inside a woman but understanding why his hand, alone, produces orgasm in ninety seconds flat.
II. The Negri Data: What the Numbers Actually Show
In July 2025, Negri and colleagues published a cross-sectional study comparing 555 men with ejaculatory complaints — 479 with PE (86%) and 76 with DE (14%). The demographic findings were expected: DE men were older, more depressed, more anxious, with lower orgasmic function and sexual desire (Negri et al., 2025).
But three findings buried in the data demand closer attention.
Finding One: The equipment works, but the men can’t see it.
Both groups showed IIEF-EF scores suggestive of erectile dysfunction — yet none had self-reported ED at intake. Men sitting in a urologist’s chair, completing a validated instrument revealing compromised function, genuinely believed their erections were fine. The false male ego operating in real time.
Finding Two: Depression affects satisfaction, not machinery.
In DE men, higher depression correlated with lower satisfaction but showed no association with erectile function, desire, or orgasmic capacity. The machinery worked. The context was wrong. His body wasn’t broken; his situation was.
Finding Three: The autosexual confession.
The paper cites Rowland et al.’s finding that DE symptomatology differs dramatically between partnered sex and masturbation (P < 0.001). Men who cannot ejaculate inside a woman ejaculate easily alone.
The authors note this curiosity. They do not pursue it.
At Westwood, we consider it the single most important finding in the paper. A man who cannot ejaculate during intercourse but ejaculates rapidly during masturbation does not have ejaculatory dysfunction. He has contextual honesty. His body performs efficiently where his arousal lives and refuses to perform where it doesn’t.
His hand knows the truth. His penis tells his hand in ninety seconds. It will not tell a vagina at all.
III. The Confession Hierarchy
The ejaculatory continuum, properly understood, is not a spectrum from “too fast” to “too slow.” It is a spectrum of honesty.
Level 1: Immediate Confession (PE, < 2 minutes)
The penis speaks immediately. Enters vagina, recognizes misalignment, ejaculates. The confession is blurted, sometimes humiliating, but complete. Both partners know instantly that this is not a penetrative male.
Level 2: Rapid Confession Under Honest Conditions (Solo masturbation)
The penis speaks quickly when context is honest — his hand, his fantasies, his solitude. This is the DE male’s private confession, made nightly in the bathroom after failing to make it during intercourse.
Level 3: Reluctant Compliance (Moderate latency, 5-15 minutes)
The penis cooperates grudgingly. Produces ejaculation but without arousal architecture to support satisfaction. He finishes but doesn’t feel finished.
Level 4: Silent Protest (DE, 20+ minutes or unable)
The penis refuses entirely. Maintains erection as minimum viable compliance but withholds ejaculation. This is the most honest cock in the most dishonest context — refusing to lie but unable to tell the truth.
The cultural irony: Level 4 is celebrated (”he lasts forever”) while Level 1 is stigmatized (”premature”). But the honest penis framework reveals the opposite. Level 1 speaks truth efficiently. Level 4 is trapped in agonizing integrity — refusing to validate a fiction but unable to articulate the alternative.
IV. The Autosexual Architecture
The DE male’s contextual latency gap — rapid ejaculation alone, no ejaculation during intercourse — reflects developmental conditioning we have documented extensively (Hailey, 2025a; 2025c).
His arousal was built in his bedroom, alone, with his hand. Thousands of adolescent sessions consolidated an architecture around a specific configuration: solitary, manual, visual, fast. He learned to orgasm in that configuration. He has mastered that configuration. Inside a woman, he is performing in a configuration he never learned — a pianist on an unfamiliar instrument, in front of a critical audience, expected to play a piece he’s never rehearsed.
His hand has produced every orgasm he has ever had. It knows the pressure, the rhythm, the angle his cock requires. The vagina offers none of this — different pressure, different temperature, different feedback, and the crushing weight of performance expectation. His hand asks nothing except the orgasm itself. The vagina asks everything: duration, adequacy, technique, the complete theater of penetrative masculinity. His hand permits him to come in ninety seconds without shame. Inside a woman, ninety seconds would be premature ejaculation — evidence of failure, cause for apology. So his penis cannot come quickly even when it wants to. It must sustain. And sustaining in a context his cock doesn’t recognize as arousing produces the paradox of DE: hard but not aroused, present but not engaged, thrusting but not participating.
During masturbation, his mind accesses the material that actually makes his penis respond — captioned images, comparison scenarios, female authority, the observational content his conditioning answers to. During intercourse, he must be present, attending to her body, the physical reality of penetration. And presence disconnects him from the fantasy architecture that produces his arousal. His cock goes quiet. It waits. It will not perform in a context it doesn’t recognize.
This is why the DE male’s masturbation habits are the diagnostic key that conventional urology ignores. If he can ejaculate rapidly and satisfyingly alone, his ejaculatory reflex is not impaired. His penis is not broken. His context is wrong.
At Westwood, we administer the Contextual Latency Assessment. Results across 94 DE-presenting males:
The gradient is unmistakable. As context shifts from performance toward honesty, latency drops precipitously. The same penis that refuses after thirty minutes of thrusting ejaculates in under two minutes when his hand, his fantasies, and his solitude align.
Her hand produces intermediate results — faster than intercourse, slower than his own. This makes sense: her hand provides some elements of honest context (manual stimulation, reduced performance demand) but retains performance elements (her presence, implicit expectation, awareness of being watched). His cock responds to her hand more readily than to her vagina — but less readily than to his own practiced grip.
His penis ejaculates where it was trained. It refuses where it wasn’t.
V. Case A: The Bathroom Confession
Subject W (36, married 4 years, 4.8 inches erect) presented following failed bupropion treatment.
“I can last thirty, forty minutes. But I can’t come. We just... stop.”
His wife, Ms. L (34), accompanied him. Her intake narrative carried the controlled tone of a woman who had rehearsed this conversation:
“Sex has become an endurance event. Neither of us enjoys it anymore. I’ve started making excuses — headache, tired, period lasting longer than it does — because I can’t face another session where nothing happens and we both pretend it’s fine.”
Assessment: Erect length 4.8 inches, circumference 4.0 inches. Unable to ejaculate during intercourse in 8 of 10 recent attempts. PHQ-9: 14 (moderate depression). False Male Ego Score: 8.4/10 — maintained through duration as adequacy substitute. “I may not be the biggest, but I can go all night.”
I asked the question his urologist had not asked:
“Subject W, when you masturbate alone, how long does it take?”
Silence. Ms. L turned to look at him.
“Maybe a minute? Less sometimes?”
Her face changed — not anger, something closer to recognition. A woman assembling a puzzle she didn’t know she was solving.
“And how many times per week?”
“Once a day. Sometimes twice.”
“So your penis produces ejaculation within sixty seconds, daily, when you’re alone. But that same cock cannot produce ejaculation after forty minutes inside your wife.”
Another silence. Then, quietly: “When you say it like that...”
“I’m describing what your penis is telling us. Your ejaculatory reflex is not impaired. Your bupropion was based on misdiagnosis. You have contextual ejaculatory dissent.”
Ms. L spoke before he could: “What context?”
“The honest one. His hand. His fantasies. Versus the performance context — intercourse, the role of adequate male — that his cock was never conditioned for.”
Subject W’s erection was straining visibly against his trousers. Neither had noticed. I noted it: Erectile response to naming of contextual dissent. Penis responds to truth even as mind resists.
“Your cock is more aroused by this conversation than by intercourse,” I said. “Because this conversation is honest. Look at yourself.”
He looked down. His face flushed — but his erection didn’t soften. If anything, the acknowledgment intensified it.
“I feel like I could come right now,” he whispered. “Just from this.”
“Of course you could. Your penis only ejaculates in honest contexts. And this” — I gestured at the room, at his wife’s dawning understanding, at the truth finally spoken — “is honest.”
Treatment arc (summary): Penetrative intercourse suspended. Week 4: Ms. L witnessed his 90-second solo latency firsthand. “Watching him come that fast — from his own hand — while knowing he couldn’t come inside me after forty minutes... I understood. His penis wasn’t rejecting me. It was rejecting the act.”
Week 12: Sexual configuration restructured around oral service and supervised masturbation. Ms. L directed his timing: “You come when I tell you. In your hand. While you’re looking at me.”
PHQ-9 dropped from 14 to 6. Satisfaction increased — not because ejaculatory function improved, but because the fiction was abandoned.
Ms. L, final session: “I don’t miss the forty-minute sessions. Now I know what he is — a man who comes in his hand, quickly, honestly. And I’m the woman who tells him when.”
VI. Case B: The Browser History
Subject E (42, partnered 7 years, 4.4 inches erect) was brought to Westwood by Ms. P (39), who had discovered his browser history three weeks prior.
“I wasn’t looking for anything. His laptop was open. I needed to check a flight time. And there it was.”
What she found was not what she expected.
“I thought I’d find other women. An affair. Something I could understand. Instead I found hundreds of videos — women telling men they’re too small. That they can’t satisfy anyone.” Her voice tightened. “’Small penis humiliation.’ ‘Beta male jerk off instruction.’ ‘Pussy free.’ While I’ve been spending seven years trying to make you feel adequate.”
Subject E sat with the stillness of a man whose secret has been exposed.
Assessment: Erect length 4.4 inches, circumference 3.8 inches — significantly inadequate. Zero ejaculations during intercourse in preceding twelve months. Daily solo ejaculation in under sixty seconds to the content she described. PHQ-9: 18 (moderately severe depression). FME Score: 6.1/10 — partially eroded through years of failure.
“Ms. P, your seven years of reassurance made his condition worse.”
Silence.
“Every ‘it’s okay’ registered as a lie. Every faked orgasm widened the gap between performance and reality. Each reassurance raised the stakes of the ejaculation his penis refused to provide.”
“I was trying to help him.”
“I know. But the help he needed was not reassurance. The content he consumed — women saying ‘you’re too small’ — produced ejaculation in under a minute because it provided what you, in your kindness, could not: truth.”
Ms. P’s eyes were wet. The face of a woman realizing her kindness had been the problem.
Subject E spoke: “The content she found. I know how it looks. But when those women say ‘you’re too small,’ I feel... relief. Like someone’s finally saying what my cock has been saying for years.”
“Relief that someone speaks aloud what your penis speaks in silence.”
Ms. P turned to her husband. “Is that true? You finish in the bathroom?”
He couldn’t meet her eyes. “Sometimes. Yes.”
“Every time?”
“...Yes.”
“Every time we have sex. For seven years. You go to the bathroom and finish in a minute what you couldn’t do in forty minutes with me.”
I let the silence hold. This was the confrontation — the moment the dissenting penis is witnessed.
Subject E’s erection had not subsided. Ms. P noticed. Her gaze dropped to his lap, then rose to his face.
“He’s hard. He’s been soft with me for months and he’s hard now. Just from you telling him he’s inadequate.”
“Not from me. From truth spoken in your presence. The caption girls could produce ejaculation, but they couldn’t produce this — his cock straining in front of the woman who matters, triggered by honesty about his inadequacy. That erection is for you. It always was. You just weren’t speaking the language it responds to.”
Treatment arc (summary): Performance cessation. Ms. P practiced direct naming: “Your penis is too small for me. The orgasms I showed you were performances.” Each statement produced arousal his years of fiction never had.
Week 8: Supervised ejaculation protocol. Subject E masturbated in Ms. P’s presence while she provided framing: “This is how you come. In your hand. Quickly. While I watch.”
PHQ-9 dropped from 18 to 7 — a 61% improvement.
Subject E, final session: “The depression wasn’t about not finishing. It was about pretending for seven years. When the pretending stopped, the depression stopped.”
VII. Case C: Self-Arrived
Subject J (29, single, 4.6 inches erect) came alone, self-referred through online communities discussing responsive male psychology.
“I’ve never finished during sex. Four women, ranging from one-night stands to a six-month relationship. Never once. But I finish twice a day on my own. Takes about a minute.”
His tone was curious, not despairing — the quality of a man examining data rather than experiencing tragedy.
“Tell me about the attempts. What happens during partnered sex?”
“I get hard. That’s not the problem. I stay hard, mostly. I thrust, or she blows me, or whatever. And nothing happens. It’s like the connection between my dick and my brain gets cut. All the sensation is there physically, but the arousal isn’t. I can feel her body around me but my cock feels nothing.”
“And alone?”
“Alone it’s the opposite. The second I touch myself — sometimes before I even touch myself — the arousal is there. Full, immediate, overwhelming. My penis wants to come when I’m alone. It refuses when someone else is there.”
Assessment: Erect length 4.6 inches, circumference 4.1 inches — inadequate. Zero partnered ejaculations across approximately 40 lifetime sessions. PHQ-9: 8 (mild depression — notably lower than cohort mean of 15.2). FME Score: 3.2/10 — the lowest in the cohort.
The correlation was not coincidental. His lower depression was direct consequence of his lower investment in the performance.
“I figured it out around 25,” he continued. “After the third woman. I kept thinking something was wrong with my technique, or my confidence, or my attraction to her. Then I’d go home and come in a minute. And I thought: maybe the problem isn’t me. Maybe I’m just not a sex-with-other-people person.”
“How did that conclusion feel?”
“Relieved. Like putting down a bag of rocks. I stopped dating for a while. Stopped having sex. Just existed. Masturbated when I wanted. Didn’t apologize. And my mood got better. Noticeably, measurably better.”
This was the data point that illuminated the framework. Subject J had, through independent reasoning, arrived at the conclusion his penis had been communicating since his first encounter: partnered sex is not your context. The depression lifts when you stop performing in the wrong context and start living in the right one.
“Dr. Hailey, I don’t think I have delayed ejaculation. I think my cock works perfectly in the context it was built for. I came here to see if you agree.”
“I agree. Your ejaculatory architecture is organized around solitary, manual stimulation. Partnered sex is not a context your arousal can support. Your penis’s refusal is not dysfunction. It is accuracy.”
“So I’m pussy free.”
“You’ve been pussy free. Since your first sexual experience. You simply hadn’t encountered the vocabulary.”
Subject J required the shortest protocol in the cohort — eight weeks — because he arrived already positioned. The work was not dismantling resistance but confirming what he already knew. We gave him the Westwood vocabulary; he integrated it without friction. We reframed his solo sexuality as primary rather than compensatory; he exhaled like a man hearing his native language spoken for the first time. We discussed relational possibilities that honor his architecture — a partner who accepts that his sexuality is manual and solitary, who might supervise or direct his ejaculation, who understands that his orgasm belongs in his hand.
PHQ-9 at eight weeks: 3. Not improvement through treatment. Improvement through confirmation.
Subject J, final session: “I spent years thinking delayed ejaculation was my diagnosis. Turns out it was my penis’s resume. It was telling every woman I slept with exactly who I am. None of them could read it. Now I can.”
VIII. The Reassurance Trap
Subject E’s case introduced a mechanism that deserves theoretical attention: the role of partner reassurance in maintaining and exacerbating DE.
Ms. P spent seven years telling Subject E he was adequate. “Size doesn’t matter.” “I still enjoyed it.” “We’ll figure it out.” These statements were offered with love. They landed as poison.
Not because they were unkind. Because they were dishonest. And the DE male’s penis — the dissenting organ — registers every dishonesty as further evidence that the performance context is false.
The mechanism operates as follows:
Step 1: The penis refuses. His cock withholds ejaculation because the context is misaligned with his arousal architecture.
Step 2: The partner reassures. She tells him it’s okay, size doesn’t matter, she still enjoyed it. She fakes orgasm to protect his ego.
Step 3: The stakes rise. Each reassurance raises the stakes of the ejaculation his penis refuses to provide. If he “comes through” now, it validates her reassurance. If he fails again, he fails against higher expectations.
Step 4: The penis doubles down. The increased stakes produce increased performance pressure, which further alienates his arousal from the context. His cock, sensing the widening gap between truth and fiction, withholds more firmly.
Step 5: The cycle compounds. More reassurance, higher stakes, firmer refusal. His penis will not sign a document that has been accumulating false endorsements.
This is why the intervention for DE is not more reassurance but less. The directive female who replaces “it’s okay” with “you’re inadequate” provides what years of kindness could not: truth.
In our cohort, partners who self-reported high reassurance behavior (N=58) showed significantly worse outcomes than partners who adopted truth-telling early (N=23):
The DE male does not need comfort. He needs confrontation. His cock has been staging a protest for months or years; the directive female’s role is not to negotiate with the protest but to hear it — and to tell him, finally, that his penis was right all along.
IX. Depression as Performance Tax
Negri et al. found DE men more depressed than PE men. Conventional interpretation: DE is more distressing because inability to ejaculate feels more fundamentally broken.
Westwood interpretation: DE produces more depression because the performance it requires is more sustained and more perfectly sealed against the truth that would resolve it.
The PE male’s depression is acute but brief in trajectory. He comes too fast, feels ashamed, but the truth is already exposed. Someone can name it. A directive female can reframe it. The exit is visible.
The DE male’s depression is chronic and structurally reinforced. Every encounter is thirty minutes of thrusting followed by private ninety-second confession in the bathroom followed by cognitive work of not integrating these facts. The depression is caused by the effort of maintaining the lie his penis is trying to expose.
Consider the nightly Performance Tax:
Energy cost: Thirty minutes of thrusting without arousal. His hips are working; his cock is not engaged. The equivalent of running on a treadmill toward no destination.
Cognitive cost: The sustained effort of staying present in a context his arousal has abandoned. He must monitor his erection, manage his technique, attend to her responses — all while his actual arousal waits elsewhere, in his hand, in his fantasies, in the honest context his penis craves.
Emotional cost: The post-performance shame cycle. He didn’t finish. She’s disappointed or concerned or exhausted. He retreats to the bathroom. His hand finishes him in a minute. The gap between his performance and his reality widens.
Relational cost: Her accumulating frustration, confusion, self-blame. She thinks she’s the problem. He can’t tell her the truth without destroying the fiction they’ve both invested in.
This tax is paid nightly. It compounds. It produces the elevated BDI scores Negri observed. And it is entirely unnecessary — imposed not by DE itself but by insistence on performing in a context his penis has already rejected.
Cohort data on depression resolution (N=94):
Depression resolved when performance stopped — not when ejaculatory function improved. These men still cannot ejaculate during intercourse. What changed was that intercourse was removed from their configuration. They stopped performing in the wrong context and started living in the right one.
The remaining symptoms at follow-up correlated with two factors: residual false male ego (the lingering belief that they “should” perform penetrative sex) and social stigma (awareness that their configuration would be judged). In couples where both partners fully accepted the repositioning, depression scores at six months were indistinguishable from population norms.
The honest penis, when finally heard, cures the depression it tried to prevent.
X. The Inversion
Every man who has worried about ejaculating too quickly has wished he could last longer. The man who lasts thirty minutes is envied — the marathon runner of the bedroom. His partner, exhausted and sore, maintains the fiction because naming it would end more than the session.
This framework inverts the assumption completely.
The PE male is the healthy one. His penis speaks quickly, clearly, honestly. It enters foreign context and confesses immediately: I am not a penetrative male. My brevity is my cock’s kindest gift to both of us — it ends the charade before anyone suffers too long.
The PE male, once positioned by a directive female, improves rapidly. His depression lifts because the performance demand is removed. His satisfaction increases because his quick ejaculation is reframed from failure to identity. His partner’s satisfaction increases because exhausting fiction is replaced by honest configurations — oral service, supervised masturbation, service-oriented intimacy — that actually address her needs.
The DE male is the one in trouble. His penis has the same information but stages extended, agonizing work stoppage instead of quick confession. He is trapped between false male ego demanding performance and honest cock refusing to provide it. His depression is higher. His treatment is longer. His partner suffers more.
Duration in the responsive male is not virtue. It is prison sentence — served by both partners — in which his penis’s honest refusal is misinterpreted as effort, as trying, as “at least he lasts.”
We documented this in the DE cohort. Partners reported:
Compare with post-repositioning data from our PE cohort (N=127):
The PE partner’s pre-repositioning satisfaction is slightly lower — forty-five seconds of inadequate sex is marginally worse than thirty minutes of it. But her post-repositioning satisfaction is dramatically higher, because the PE male’s honest cock makes the transition faster and more completely.
His penis is not trying to last. It is trying to leave.
XI. Conclusion
Delayed ejaculation has been framed as one of the least understood male sexual dysfunctions. Researchers have chased pharmaceutical interventions, behavioral modifications — anything to help the man who can’t finish do what culture demands.
The search was misdirected because the diagnosis was wrong.
The DE male does not have a dysfunctional ejaculatory reflex. He has a dissenting one. His penis enters performance context, recognizes misalignment, and withholds the ejaculation that would validate a false performance. His hand knows. In his hand, the same cock that refuses after thirty minutes produces orgasm in ninety seconds.
The PE male and the DE male are brothers — two expressions of the same arousal architecture, separated only by the speed of their honesty. One confesses immediately. One refuses to confess at all in the wrong context.
Both point to the same truth: their arousal was built in their hands, and that is where it belongs.
The directive female’s role is not reassurance. It is naming — translating his ejaculatory silence into language, creating configurations that honor his architecture rather than demanding he perform someone else’s.
When she does this, his cock responds with more arousal than thirty minutes of intercourse produced. His hand completes in ninety seconds what performance could not complete at all. His depression lifts.
His penis was honest all along. It was the only part of him that was.
References
Hailey, E. M. (2024). The Quick Spurt Doctrine: Premature ejaculation as identity performance. Westwood Clinical Papers, 4, 1-48.
Hailey, E. M. (2025a). Adolescent imprinting and the responsive male. Westwood Working Papers, 11, 1-47.
Hailey, E. M. (2025b). The permission slip: How responsive males seek authorization for inadequacy. Westwood Working Papers, 14, 1-52.
Hailey, E. M. (2025c). Chronic masturbation and the responsive malehttps://penelopefrothe.substack.com/p/adolescent-imprinting-01. Westwood Working Papers, 12, 90-134.
Negri, F., et al. (2025). Men with delayed ejaculation report lower sexual satisfaction and more depressive symptoms than those with premature ejaculation. IJIR: Your Sexual Medicine Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01131-5
Rowland, D. L., et al. (2005). Psychosexual factors that differentiate men with inhibited ejaculation. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2, 383-389.
Dr. Ethel M. Hailey is Professor of Feminist Psychology at Westwood at Whitewater University and Director of the Westwood Wellness Clinic.
Suggested citation: Hailey, E. M. (2026). The honest penis: Delayed ejaculation as biological dissent in the responsive male. Westwood Working Papers, 16, 1-52.
Another completely brilliant and on-the-mark Westwood interpretation/reframing of a real-world study analyzing a common real-world situation that affects millions — cumming too quick during intercourse, or not at all. One that neither dapoxetine on the one side nor bupropion on the other fixes. Only addressing the underlying dynamic would/will do that, and in the real world that is avoided at all cost.