Copious Pre-Ejaculation: Small Glands--Major Headaches

Division of Andrology, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA.
Journal of Andrology (Impact Factor: 2.47). 12/2006; 28(3):374-5. DOI: 10.2164/jandrol.107.002576
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Note: Postings to Androlog have been lightly edited before publication. Pre-ejaculate is a clear mucoid fluid produced by accessory sex glands and expressed on sexual stimula- tion into the urethra. The organs that produce this fluid are Cowper glands, the glands of Littre, and possibly the glands of Morgagni. Pre-ejaculate volume may range in normal men from a few drops to more than 5 mL. Pre- ejaculate functions naturally as a chemical neutralizer to the urine's residual acidity in the urethra and thus provides the basic pH of the semen, allowing for safe passage of sperm (Chughtai et al, 2005). Investigators have accumulated a significant body of knowledge about the chemical composition of pre- ejaculate and have compared sex gland secretions for different age groups. An abundance of researchers have studied the presence of human immunodeficiency (HIV) and other sexually transmitted diseases in the pre- ejaculate fluid. Reports in the literature also have discussed the presence or absence of sperm in the pre- ejaculate and whether or not it is safe to practice withdrawal (coitus interruptus) as a means of contracep- tion. However, a relative paucity of research exists describing normal amounts of pre-ejaculate and the possible social-sexual consequences that excessive fluid might render. The majority of reports describing exces- sive pre-ejaculate include anecdotal evidence, personal communications, and speculation based on knowledge of the physiology of the reproductive system. Yet excessive pre-ejaculate is a documented fact, and several experts in the field recently discussed this problem.

1 Follower
59 Reads
  • Journal of Andrology 28(5):635. DOI:10.2164/jandrol.107.003434 · 2.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Withdrawal is one of the oldest contraception methods and it is still used. Yet, little is known about the prevalence and correlates of withdrawal, especially among African-American adolescents. Objective: To investigate how widespread the practice of withdrawal is in a sample of sexually active African American adolescents. Furthermore, analyses seek to identify the demographic sexual risk behavior correlates of withdrawal. In doing so we attempt to update and extend previous research on withdrawal use in the US. Method: Cross-sectional study of 300 sexually active African American adolescent (age 13-18) in four U.S. cities. The questionnaire assessed social demographic variables, recent sexual behavior including withdrawal, condom use and lifetime sexual partners. Logistic regression was used to examine correlates of withdrawal use. (For the conference we will also have comparable baseline data from a sample of 300 sexually active African American enrolled in a prevention program and they will be included in the analyses). Result: Of the respondents who had had vaginal intercourse in the last 3 months, 55% reported having used withdrawal as a protection method. Findings indicate that withdrawal is often used in combination with condom use. Among those who reported having used a condom at every sexual intercourse in the last 3 months, 74% also reported having used withdrawal in the same period. Except from lifetime sexual partners, none of the predictor variables (age, gender, city, condom use) were significantly correlated with withdrawal use. Conclusion: Withdrawal is a widespread practice among sexually active African American teens. Withdrawal is often used in combination with condom use. Implications: For young people who choose to be sexually active, health care providers and schools should promote correct and consistent condom use as an important protection against STDs and discuss with young people the risk of contracting STDs through the use of withdrawal.
    National STD Prevention Conference 2008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 03/2008
  • Source
    Sexually transmitted diseases 05/2009; 36(4):218-20. DOI:10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181901c8f · 2.84 Impact Factor


59 Reads